Gateway: initially fine fare, changed to gateway, then somerfield. When they went bust most sold of to other supermarkets, Sainsbury's.
Isn’t that fundamentally a semantic argument?
Fine Fare was acquired by the Dee Corporation who also owned Gateway and every Fine Fare store was rebranded as Gateway, so it is accurate to say that Fine Fare became Gateway.
Yes, it is a matter of semantics.
It all depends what Badsin meant by “changed to”.
In normal English “changed to” does not mean “was taken over by”.
I therefore, reasonably enough – taking the meaning closest to the primary meaning of the word “change” – inferred that Badsin meant there had been a change of name and / or identity (in other words, a metamorphosis), like the change from Gateway to Somerfield. In other words, his meaning seemed to be that the Fine Fare chain was rebranded as Gateway, a name that had hitherto not existed.
This was what “changed to” suggested to me, not least because the term “was taken over by” could easily have been used. The phrase "Gateway: initially fine fare" also implies that Gateway did not even exist before this, and that it was a change of name rather than a takeover.
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that Badsin went on to say (albeit without repeating the expression) that Gateway then “changed to” Somerfield. And that later occurrence was indeed, to all intents and purposes, simply a rebranding of what was by then left of the Gateway estate. Furthermore, Badsin adds that "when they [Somerfield] went bust most sold off to other supermarkets". Tellingly, he is here using a term ("sold off") that tallies with "takeover" rather than with "changed to" – further reinforcing what still seems the logical interpretation of his initial comment.
(I wonder, Badsin, whether a few words of yours have ever been subjected to so much scrutiny? I doubt if any other writer, with the possible exception of James Joyce, has ever been so closely analysed!)
