Comments on: Where did the Quizno apostrophe and plural go?

Question: Where did the Quizno apostrophe and plural go?

Gucky — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:50:40 -0800

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?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:56:01 -0800

my guess would be that the logo looks better without an apostrophe ... companies spend thousands of dollars hassling over details like that

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:02:12 -0800

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.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:02:18 -0800

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.)

By: empath

empath — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:05:50 -0800

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.

By: cardboard

cardboard — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:12:01 -0800

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.

By: mdevore

mdevore — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:12:04 -0800

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.]

By: teece

teece — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:12:31 -0800

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.

By: Songdog

Songdog — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:19:38 -0800

It works better as a domain name. And think of the cost savings!

By: fochsenhirt

fochsenhirt — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:25:30 -0800

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:

By: jockc

jockc — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:28:42 -0800

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

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:37:24 -0800

There's a chain of bakeries in San Fransico called Specialty's. Their cookies are delicious, but the apostophe enrages me.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:44:49 -0800

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

By: seymour.skinner

seymour.skinner — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:46:38 -0800

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

By: goatdog

goatdog — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:01:37 -0800

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

By: Gucky

Gucky — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:17:55 -0800

I'll buy the apostrophe, but subs to sub? Why the singular? That seems just, well, stupid.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:32:41 -0800

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.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:34:00 -0800

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...

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:40:44 -0800

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.

By: the jam

the jam — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:28:35 -0800

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.

By: the jam

the jam — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:29:22 -0800

er: Queen Elizabeth's second reign.

By: youarenothere

youarenothere — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:30:49 -0800

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.

By: acoutu

acoutu — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:32:33 -0800

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.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:50:33 -0800

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.

By: staggernation

staggernation — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:53:36 -0800

What about Ruth's Chris Steak House?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:01:46 -0800

I bet it has something do with those dirty Québécois, and their restrictions on store names. "Quiznos sub" works in English or French.

By: SpookyFish

SpookyFish — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:42:46 -0800

Ruth Fertel purchased the Chris Steak House, so Ruth's Chris makes sense.
Found this interesting story.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:52:22 -0800

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.

By: teece

teece — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:27:01 -0800

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

By: CrayDrygu

CrayDrygu — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:29:09 -0800

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?

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:37:11 -0800

It's French. "Sergeant major" and "court martial" work the same way ("major" and "martial" are the adjectives).

By: Zendogg

Zendogg — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:26:11 -0800

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.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:36:33 -0800

Lands' End. Go figure.

By: Dunwitty

Dunwitty — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:26:08 -0800

Lands' End is correct. They are describing the End of Lands, not the End of Land.

By: Dunwitty

Dunwitty — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:29:26 -0800

I guess I should say, "can be correct", as I'm not speaking to their intent.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:03:05 -0800

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.

By: eschatfische

eschatfische — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:22:03 -0800

*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.