Something is wrong here…..

Shirley’s Cafe’ by SGMTB, on Flickr

Even I know something is wrong and my grammar is appalling 😉

It’s just about 6″ away from being perfect….

Shirley’s Cafeteria?????

It’s just about 6″ away from being perfect….

Exactly.

Should be above rather than alongside.

I think the 2nd one is standing in as an accent over the letter e

Shirley’s Café would be perfect, but I guess the signwriter either didn’t have a acute or didn’t have space above the e

PS – what neil says – he’s posted while I’ve been looking for the ascii code for é

Am I right in thinking it should be Shirleys’ café?

Being anal??

cafe being a truncation of cafeteria, perhaps the second apostrophe is being used to mark the truncated noun?

Am I right in thinking it should be Shirleys’ café?

No

Cafe’ is technically correct- cafe would usually be considered clipped from cafeteria, which removes the requirement for an apostrophe to denote the contraction, but it’s not incorrect to apply an apostrophe. It’s just atypical, and would be considered bad form.

Why not? It’s the cafe belonging to Shirley surely.

Shirley’s would be short for Shirley is ie. Shirley’s going to the pub.

Unless you’re a professor of English ..in that case I’ll admit defeat. ( the apostrophe in you’re and I’ll replace omitted letters )

Shake’s head and walk’s of in disgust. 😉

Why not? It’s the cafe belonging to Shirley surely.

Shirley’s would be short for Shirley is ie. Shirley’s going to the pub.

Unless you’re a professor of English ..in that case I’ll admit defeat. ( the apostrophe in you’re and I’ll replace omitted letters )

Shirley you can’t be serious?

“Why not? It’s the cafe belonging to Shirley surely.“

Er, yes, hence “Shirley’s”.

“Shirley’s would be short for Shirley is ie. Shirley’s going to the pub.“

Apostrophes are used for both contraction and possession. “Shirley’s going to the Queen’s Head in three hours’ time for a ploughman’s”, for instance.

Not sure I agree with Northwind. It’s almost a convincing argument, but “cafe” is pronounced “kaffay” as in “café”, not “kaffa” as in “cafeteria”. Moreover, the apostrophe is only used on the ends of words where a brief pause is indicated (eg “fish ‘n chips”, “‘scuse me” etc) and that’s not the case here. So I’d expect it to be written “café” or “cafe” (as the Anglicisation of the former) and I’d argue that “cafe'” is flat out wrong. I suspect the intent was to fudge an acute accent.

FWIW, IMO etc.

Also, as a side point, the French often omit apostrophes on capitals anyway 🙂

Here’s one for you. Lloyd’s of London correctly has an apostrophe. How would you express something as belonging to Lloyd’s?

“The chair, owned by Lloyd’s, was black.”

Circumvention is a valid grammatical technique 😉

If you pressed me, I’d use Lloyds’.

Shirley’s would suggest that there are multiple owners of the pub and they’re all called Shirley.

No, Shirleys’ suggests that.

Shirley’s would suggest that there are multiple owners of the pub and they’re all called Shirley.

It’s not a pub, it’s a cafe.

(more spurious ideas)

“Shirley’s Cafe'” could be considered a proper name rather than a possessed noun, could it not? (demonstrated by the fact that Shirley might have retired years ago and passed the cafe on to Kathy, who retained the name as it was so well known) And proper names can do pretty much whatever they want.

Its not a cafe its a café! 😀

It’s Lloyd’s. Edward Lloyd.

I know what it is.

The apostrophe at the start to indicate a quote had to be removed to make room for the burglar alarm.

It used to read:

‘Shirley’s Cafe’

simple. *slaps forehead*

I really don’t understand why this has become Lloyd’s café. Is Lloyd married to Kathy?

😆

27 Post”’s 😯

It’s Lloyd’s. Edward Lloyd.

Yes, but how would you write that something belonged to Lloyd’s (as opposed to belonging to Edward Lloyd – who incidentally Lloyd’s never belonged to)?

Here’s one for you. Lloyd’s of London correctly has an apostrophe. How would you express something as belonging to Lloyd’s?

Lloyd’s of London’s.
Next?

What about Next?Nexts’ ?

and,

Has the guy on the right had a trouser accident?

The argument that it’s to note the missing t e r i a is valid but unlikely I think. It’s just wrong. I think the second apostrophe may have been added for the look of it.

I find it less offensive than North London Dance Studio’s which I see most days on my commute and which always makes me flinch.

Can I ask how many of those that care went to grammar schools?

Shirley’s dead?? Omg.

Don’t think I’ll be taking up the offer on the left!

Yes, but how would you write that something belonged to Lloyd’s (as opposed to belonging to Edward Lloyd – who incidentally Lloyd’s never belonged to)?

Nothing can belong to “Lloyd’s”!