Dave Arquati wrote:

(snip)

I can understand how a bush would *belong* to a Shepherd, but a bush
composed of shepherds?

You could just have a bush named after more than one shepherd. This
would not require any apostrophe unless it were dedicated to shepherds.

Or maybe even "bush" is a verb... dogs bark,
sheep bleat, shepherds bush?

A few years ago an Australian linguist discovered that "bush" is a
preposition. So if your shepherds go bush, now you know where to find
them!

It should be pointed out that some linguists claimed he was wrong, and
"bush" is an adverb. "Shepherds" does also happen to be a verb, but it's
a bit difficult to combine the two, as shepherding is only permitted
near the ball. If a footy player shepherds bush, he's likely to get
pinged by an umpire!

* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

Surely you don't expect him to understand apostrophes?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk