7 ms·

This is not true. We don't apply this "rule" to any other establishment, e.g. people don't say "I'm going to Burger King's" or "I'm going to Costa's". There's

This is not true. We don't apply this "rule" to any other establishment, e.g. people don't say "I'm going to Burger King's" or "I'm going to Costa's". There's nothing to analyze: "Tesco's" is just wrong. It's not the name of the business.

Affric 2y ago
lol… I am glad for you that you haven’t heard those yet.
iainmerrick 2y ago
people don't say "I'm going to Burger King's" or "I'm going to Costa's" Oh yes they do! There's nothing to analyze: "Tesco's" is just wrong. It’s kind of funny that there are prescriptivists on both sides here, all convinced that they’re right.
- TylerE 2y ago
  In 40 years I have no seen such usage in print
  - iainmerrick 2y ago
    People say it.
    - b112 2y ago
      You may not be wrong that people do say it, I'm sure people say pretty much anything, across this vast planet. Yet people use double negatives, when meaning the negative too. Doesn't make it right.
      - iainmerrick 2y ago
        I think language is defined by real-world usage, not by the logical structure that we theorise underpins it. If so, double negatives actually are right, or at least they can be, if they successfully communicate meaning.
        brianmcc 2y ago
        You're not wrong.
d1sxeyes 2y ago
Costa’s I for sure have heard. Burger King’s I agree though.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
euroderf 2y ago
Interesting observation ! Might it be because Tesco and Costa resemble ordinary names, and therefore easily appear in a possessive form ? Or it might be about imaginary hierarchy. There could only be one actual duly-anointed king of burgers, but if one were to use the definite article to mark this, saying "I am going to the Burger King's", it would imply firstly that the king of burgers does actually exist, and possibly also secondly that he has but one solitary burger outlet. A grammatical construction not quite so jarring when used with (say) "Tesco".
swores 2y ago
Pasting my reply to someone else rather than rewrite the same thinking: I agree it's not consistent, but who ever accused English of being that?! My point isn't that all business names are treated that way, just that the ones that are the reason is grammatical tradition not (for the most part) people who incorrectly think the shop is called "Tesco's" or whatever. (But as others have replied to you, it's also more common than just Tesco, definitely including "Costa's" for lots of people.)

Affric 2y ago

lol… I am glad for you that you haven’t heard those yet.

iainmerrick 2y ago

people don't say "I'm going to Burger King's" or "I'm going to Costa's" Oh yes they do! There's nothing to analyze: "Tesco's" is just wrong. It’s kind of funny that there are prescriptivists on both sides here, all convinced that they’re right.

TylerE 2y ago
In 40 years I have no seen such usage in print
- iainmerrick 2y ago
  People say it.
  - b112 2y ago
    You may not be wrong that people do say it, I'm sure people say pretty much anything, across this vast planet. Yet people use double negatives, when meaning the negative too. Doesn't make it right.
    - iainmerrick 2y ago
      I think language is defined by real-world usage, not by the logical structure that we theorise underpins it. If so, double negatives actually are right, or at least they can be, if they successfully communicate meaning.
      - brianmcc 2y ago
        You're not wrong.

d1sxeyes 2y ago

Costa’s I for sure have heard. Burger King’s I agree though.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

euroderf 2y ago

Interesting observation ! Might it be because Tesco and Costa resemble ordinary names, and therefore easily appear in a possessive form ? Or it might be about imaginary hierarchy. There could only be one actual duly-anointed king of burgers, but if one were to use the definite article to mark this, saying "I am going to the Burger King's", it would imply firstly that the king of burgers does actually exist, and possibly also secondly that he has but one solitary burger outlet. A grammatical construction not quite so jarring when used with (say) "Tesco".

swores 2y ago

Pasting my reply to someone else rather than rewrite the same thinking: I agree it's not consistent, but who ever accused English of being that?! My point isn't that all business names are treated that way, just that the ones that are the reason is grammatical tradition not (for the most part) people who incorrectly think the shop is called "Tesco's" or whatever. (But as others have replied to you, it's also more common than just Tesco, definitely including "Costa's" for lots of people.)