Where did the Quizno apostrophe and plural go?

February 9, 2006 10:50 AM

Why is Quiznos Sub the official name of the sandwich shop and not Quizno's Subs?

The name of "Quiznos Sub" has bugged me for some time, but today I came across the Wikipedia article that mentions they were formerly "Quizno's Subs."

Why on earth would a company do that? What good reason could there be to make the sandwich singular? Why take away the possessive? When did they switch over?

The Quizno's (or should I say Quiznos's?) website offers no illumination.

Thoughts? Theories? Inside information?

posted by Gucky to writing & language (36 comments total)

my guess would be that the logo looks better without an apostrophe ... companies spend thousands of dollars hassling over details like that
posted by pyramid termite at 10:56 AM on February 9, 2006

This is just a guess, but I'd say the original owner was Mr. or Ms. Quizno. Now that it no longer belongs to a Quizno, it is no longer Quizno's, thus the name of the shop is Quiznos.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:02 AM on February 9, 2006

Sometimes it goes the other way, Friendly changed its name to Friendly's because that's what everyone always called it. But I don't know about Quiznos.

(Note also that James Joyce's Finnegans Wake is frequently thought to have a possessive apostrophe (which would make sense), but it doesn't.)
posted by OmieWise at 11:02 AM on February 9, 2006

According to this page they changed it because "Quiznos" is cleaner, and gives them more options for how they use the name. "Quizno's" can only be used in the possessive case, but they could come out with a "Super-Quiznos sandwich", or a "Quiznos-on-Rye" or something.
posted by empath at 11:05 AM on February 9, 2006

It could have been done to internationalize the brand, as (correct me if I'm wrong, linguists) no other language uses an ['s] in that way.

In Canada, businesses often drop the apostrophe to avoid upsetting french sensibilities in Quebec. I'm not sure if it is also done out of consideration for the french language laws there, too.
posted by cardboard at 11:12 AM on February 9, 2006

As for when, according to this information, the change-over started in February of 2003 as part of an all-restaurant renovation. [Using Google cache because the original site is registration-only.]
posted by mdevore at 11:12 AM on February 9, 2006

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it was done purely for aesthetic reasons.

Branding is everything. Quiznos is cleaner -- and it's a name, so it's not like they've lost any useful information.
posted by teece at 11:12 AM on February 9, 2006

It works better as a domain name. And think of the cost savings!
posted by Songdog at 11:19 AM on February 9, 2006

It's all about branding (PDF). Or, in this case, logo-ing, as the Tesser-led redesign rolled out in March 2003 included a new logo along with redesigned stores. Dropping the apostrophe and changing Subs to Sub led to a more eye-pleasing logo and easier marketing - compare old and new:


posted by fochsenhirt at 11:25 AM on February 9, 2006

Why is it Carl's Jr. instead of Carl Jr.'s??
posted by jockc at 11:28 AM on February 9, 2006

There's a chain of bakeries in San Fransico called Specialty's. Their cookies are delicious, but the apostophe enrages me.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:37 AM on February 9, 2006

The apostrophe enrages you, but the misspelling that would result from its absence is OK?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:44 AM on February 9, 2006

Why is it Carl's Jr. instead of Carl Jr.'s??

According to Wikipedia:

Karcher got his start in the food industry by owning several hot dog stands in Los Angeles. In 1945, Karcher started a restaurant in Anaheim, California called Carl's Drive-In Barbeque. In 1956, Karcher opened the first two Carl's Jr's, so named because they were a junior version of his drive-in restaurant
posted by seymour.skinner at 11:46 AM on February 9, 2006

They do it to piss off people who advocate the correct use of apostrophes, and to guide those people to shop elsewhere.
posted by goatdog at 12:01 PM on February 9, 2006

I'll buy the apostrophe, but subs to sub? Why the singular? That seems just, well, stupid.
posted by Gucky at 12:17 PM on February 9, 2006

When you have a modifier, the apostrophe goes on the base noun:

Carl's Jr instead of Carl Jr's
Attorney's General instead of Attorney General's

though this second example seems to be a matter of style that goes both ways if you look at Google results.
posted by GuyZero at 12:32 PM on February 9, 2006

They do it to piss off people who advocate the correct use of apostrophes, and to guide those people to shop elsewhere.

So this panda walks into a Quiznos Subs shop...
posted by GuyZero at 12:34 PM on February 9, 2006

When you have a modifier, the apostrophe goes on the base noun:

Carl's Jr instead of Carl Jr's
Attorney's General instead of Attorney General's

Um... I'm pretty certain that's wrong. It's true when you're talking about a plural (one Attorney General, two Attorneys General; one mother-in-law, two mothers-in-law), but a possessive?

The Attorney's General blue suit
My mother's-in-law cake recipe

That just sounds ridiculous, and is almost impossible to parse.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:40 PM on February 9, 2006

Carl's Jr restaurant = Carl has a mini restaurant.
Carl Jr's restaurant = restaurant belongs to Carl Jr.

Queen Elizabeth II's reign = reign of Queen Elizabeth II
Queen Elizabeth's II reign = Queen Elizabeths second reign.
posted by the jam at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2006

er: Queen Elizabeth's second reign.
posted by the jam at 1:29 PM on February 9, 2006

With compound nouns, possession is shown with the apostrophe+s at the end of the word. I too think that you're confusing plural with possessive, GuyZero.
posted by youarenothere at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2006

FWIW, compound nouns become possessive simply by adding 's to the end of the word. It doesn't work the same way as pluralization does. See here, here, here, etc.
posted by acoutu at 1:32 PM on February 9, 2006

Huh. You could be right and I could be confusing the plural and possessive rules. However, it appears I am not alone, although that doesn't make me any less wrong.
posted by GuyZero at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2006

What about Ruth's Chris Steak House?
posted by staggernation at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2006

I bet it has something do with those dirty Québécois, and their restrictions on store names. "Quiznos sub" works in English or French.
posted by delmoi at 2:01 PM on February 9, 2006

Ruth Fertel purchased the Chris Steak House, so Ruth's Chris makes sense.
Found this interesting story.
posted by SpookyFish at 2:42 PM on February 9, 2006

The apostrophe enrages you, but the misspelling that would result from its absence is OK?

Huh, good point! Clearly my apostrophe rage has blinded me to the spelling catasrophe that would result if they removed the apostrophe.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:52 PM on February 9, 2006

That just sounds ridiculous, and is almost impossible to parse.

As a complete bit of trivia, I'm pretty sure the English genitive was once considered invalid on a group that way, Faint of Butt. It had to stick to the noun, not a group

It was a few hundred years ago, but it fell out of favor for the method used today.

So once upon a time it would have been "the King's nose of England" rather than "the King of England's nose".

"Attorney General's" or "Carl Jr's" wouldn't have generally been considered proper.

/trivia
posted by teece at 3:27 PM on February 9, 2006

So, regarding the AG and the blue suits, since there seems to be some confusion...

Singular = Attorney General
Plural = Attorneys General
Singular Posessive = Attorney General's
Plural Posessive = Attorneys General's

That seems right to me. But then, I've never thought that "Attorneys General" sounded correct anyway. It seems archaic at best. Why don't we call them General Attorneys?
posted by CrayDrygu at 3:29 PM on February 9, 2006

It's French. "Sergeant major" and "court martial" work the same way ("major" and "martial" are the adjectives).
posted by kirkaracha at 4:37 PM on February 9, 2006

DASANI water used to cary the slogan "Treat yourself well. Everyday." This led to an interesting email exchange between a consumer and the Coca-Cola Co., which is documented here. I first read about it years ago in Harpers's magazine and have been drinking beer ever since in protest.
posted by Zendogg at 9:26 PM on February 9, 2006

Lands' End. Go figure.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:36 AM on February 10, 2006

Lands' End is correct. They are describing the End of Lands, not the End of Land.
posted by Dunwitty at 2:26 AM on February 10, 2006

I guess I should say, "can be correct", as I'm not speaking to their intent.
posted by Dunwitty at 2:29 AM on February 10, 2006

You are not correct, Dunwitty. It's a mistake. Lands' End even published an ad to that effect, citing the trouble of changing the copyright. Maybe that's where the apostrophe in Quiznos went.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:03 AM on February 11, 2006

*sigh*

Nobody talks about the sub. Everyone's all hung up on the apostophe when the singularity has come to pass.

It was so much better when it was Quizno's Subs. You'd go in, and they'd make you your own little sub sandwich. The place was overflowing with people eating their own subs, even with that little toasting machine where they ran the subs through. Now, you go in to Quiznos Sub, and all they do is break off a part of this giant stale sub. There's just one, that's it, no choosing what you wanted like in the old days, you have to just hope that the one big singular sub happens to be the way you like it.

As for me, I'll being patronizing a place with plurality.
posted by eschatfische at 10:22 PM on February 16, 2006