Proper Names - Definition

Yeah Richard, you are the OP. (Original Poster).

OP? Who's the OP? Is that me? What does that stand for then? Old Plodder? Odd Pod? (oPod)

Dominic, #22, quote:-

>In which case, the first clause is incorrect - they don't hate jazz, they just hate some jazz.

No, they hate *most* jazz.

You seem to have forgotten that I stated those cases were rare, and would most probably have still looked better with capitals anyway.

>I think people are amused by your strong desire to uphold one convention (the use of capitals) while at the same time happily ignoring another (correct spelling)

Happily ignoring! Oh I think that's unfair. Where have I stated or implied that I happily ignore spelling? I try my best. I'll have you know I'm using the spell checker now, so there! (Well, I forgot last time). But at least I do try to get it right whereas this decapitalization involves deliberately getting it wrong.

>*Near* the beginning, not *at* the beginning

You seem to be referring to 'iPod' here. Anyway, see below for that. In 'InDesign' there is a capital *at* the beginning of 'In' and *at* the beginning of 'Design'. The two words are then joined. There is then a capital *at* the beginning and *near* the beginning .... wow eh? Now there's no doubt you're dealing with a proper name :)

>As for iPod being two words joined together, if the "i" were a word, then surely it should have been "I"?

The fact that there is a capital 'P' shows that we have a proper name here, so although the 'i' represents a word and should therefore be a capital, there is no desperate need to have another capital so I reckon we can allow some artistic liscence now and do what we like with the 'i'. In fact I actually think it looks better lower case because of the contrast with the capital. A capital 'I' would be lost against the capital 'P'. But if it was written as 'ipod' then that's completely different. There is no indication at all that this is a proper name. In fact, without a capital, it actually *isn't* one.

>Hang on. Your earlier arguments were all about meaning (ie, needing capitals because they denote proper nouns), not aesthetics.

Well, it's all linked isn't it? The whole essence of the written word is denoting meaning visually, aesthetically. And my point is that capitals are part of that aesthetics. If they are not there they obviously cannot convey any meaning, which is exactly my point. No capitals, no proper name, meaning lost.

Interesting to hear the views on the meaning of Apple's 'i'. Right, if I am the OP I'd best check my life jacket.

Nope, it's not water logged yet, but this water's freezing. Brrrrrrrr :)

>Not so sure about "iPod" or "iPhone"...it may just be a carryover from "iMac" due to its popularity and easy identity.

That's what I've always thought. And hasn't Apple trademarked umpteen million combinations of "i" + word for future product development or just to stop others getting in on the act? (Well, maybe not millions, but a couple of dozen anyway.)

>As for the other issues brought up by the OP, I think his lifejacket is getting a bit waterlogged now. Perhaps it is time to swim to the boat.

Richard is obviously entitled to his views and he doesn't need to justify them to anyone unless he's seeking to persuade them to his way of seeing things, but I think it's pretty clear that, at least among this group, the majority don't have any problem with lowercase being used in place of capitals in logos.

Just to chime in here with a comment about the cost of the Olympic logo.

Logotypes, particularly for ventures that are national or international in nature, are not generally priced according to how much they cost to create but rather on how much they are worth. A logo that will be seen by millions, if not billions, has an immense goodwill value, and the creator deserves a commensurate reward.

As for the other issues brought up by the OP, I think his lifejacket is getting a bit waterlogged now. Perhaps it is time to swim to the boat.

Yours
Vern

Heather,

The "i" in iMac originally stood for "Internet", as that model was an early computer model tweaked for ease of Internet connectivity. Not so sure about "iPod" or "iPhone"...it may just be a carryover from "iMac" due to its popularity and easy identity.

Lower case "i" instead of "I" when referring to one's self is generally just laziness.

Neil

i Not quite sure what the 'i' stands for (is it Internet?)

There are varying opinions. Apple likes the "i". iMac, iPod. Some people think "internet" as you suggest. Others think it's more of a play on "personal"... i.e. "my" Pod, "my" Mac, reduced to a reference to self, therefore "i".

>Someone can say "Oh I hate jazz, it's absolutely awfull, but yet, I quite like that certain piece by Nina Simone".

In which case, the first clause is incorrect - they don't hate jazz, they just hate some jazz. So I guess you're saying that you don't like lowercase being used for caps some of the time but at other times you don't mind them. Which makes me wonder why you started this thread at all, why you were so vociferous in your denouncement of the practice in that first post, and why you keep making such statements as "In my opinion the lack of proper capitalization looks aesthetically poor" when in fact you've admitted that, in your opinion, sometimes it "does look good".

>But I'm amazed people seem to think bad spelling more important than the miss use, or rather, lack of capitals.

I think people are amused by your strong desire to uphold one convention (the use of capitals) while at the same time happily ignoring another (correct spelling). You seem so concerned about people not being confused between a ford and a Ford but you don't seem to care that they could equally be confused between miss spell and misspell.

>but at least there is a capital there and also in an acceptable place i.e. at the begining of a word.

*Near* the beginning, not *at* the beginning, I would have said. Needless to say, I think that's a ridiculous rationalisation. Presumably, then, you'd have had no problem with the Olympics logo if it had only spelled the name in question lOndon, then? As for iPod being two words joined together, if the "i" were a word, then surely it should have been "I"? Or does the capitalisation matter only when you don't like how much a design has cost?

>It's all to do with aesthetics, that's the reasoning behind capitals ..... aesthetics.

Hang on. Your earlier arguments were all about meaning (ie, needing capitals because they denote proper nouns), not aesthetics. But you're now confirming what I suspected from the start - you don't really care about avoiding confusion or maintaining grammatical standards, you just don't like the look of lowercase. And that's fine, but it seems to me you're limiting yourself as a designer by refusing to consider the possibilities unconventional capitalisation can offer.

Dominic, #20, quote:-

>(By the bye, I'm assuming you weren't being deliberately ironic with your "You get such badly typed messages on the Internet message boards" statement.)

Ha ha ..... I don't know, ya cheeky thing :) But I'm amazed people seem to think bad spelling more important than the miss use, or rather, lack of capitals. Surely, spelling is a much more difficult thing to master. The proper use of capitalization is by comparison much easier to learn and its miss / lack of use is usually deliberate whereas bad spelling is accidental and requires time to correct.

>Simply because you started off by saying that the use of lowercase instead of capitals "looks absolutely awfull through my designers eyes", that you didn't consider "the ignoring of grammer to such an extent as this to be ... justified by 'artistic liscense'" and that "It is a poor design that does so in my opinion." Pretty black-and-white statements. But then you admit that "every now and again I do see a logo that uses lower case and it does look good". I can't reconcile how something that looks absolutely awful can also look good.

Well, I don't see why I can't have strong views about something and yet there to be certain cases in that area were my views are not so strong. It's like having strong views about a certain type of music, say, jazz. Someone can say "Oh I hate jazz, it's absolutely awfull, but yet, I quite like that certain piece by Nina Simone".

You state about 'InDesign' and 'london' that you "don't see any notable difference between the two". Well the main and very notable difference in my opinion is that 'InDesign' has a capital letter. That gives it some kind of importance and lifts it up above other words, that gives it a proper name look. Whereas 'london' just looks like a normal word of no particular significance.

Now Dominic, here's where I'm going to annoy you even more. Heather, #19, points out:-

>iPod (there's some interesting use of capitalization)

And yes, I agree, there is an interesting use of capitalization, and one which, although at first I did have reservations, I can accept. Again, like 'InDesign' this is a combination of two words. Not quite sure what the 'i' stands for (is it Internet?) but at least there is a capital there and also in an acceptable place i.e. at the begining of a word. You see, as I've already mentioned, proper names are defined by the use of capitalization. As my example in #1 with the word 'ford' shows, you have to have some way of defining a proper name. I don't see it makes any difference whether it is in a sentence or on it's own. Imagine the word 'ford' on it's own on a logo. What would it tell you? Does it refer to a river crossing or a car? Why make such a meaning so dependant on other knowledge of the logo? Is that good practice? In general is it not better that the less the public are confused the better?

>I suggest you actually look at his (Tschichold's) work before accusing him of being "bogged down in theory". In my opinion, his typesetting was always nothing short of excellent.

Well, fair enough, I will. But if he did not use capitals then that's a bit like a pianist being accurate in his rendition of every note of the music except there is no expression. It's a uniform volume throughout.

>Heather does raise an interesting point - you do seem to be coming at this from the perspective of a teacher or proofreader rather than a designer.

Well, notice I am refering to aesthetics, what the word looks like, does the word look like a proper name? Is that not the designer's field? In my opinion the lack of proper capitalization looks aesthetically poor. It's all to do with aesthetics, that's the reasoning behind capitals ..... aesthetics.

>And it could well be argued that the Olympics logo works - it's certainly lodged itself memorably in your mind.

Hee hee, it certainly has. It's up there along with Hitler and Tracy Emin's unmade bed. Both made a big impression on me :( Yuuieks!!!! (Spell checker watch out)

>PS. Where did you get that quote from that you attribute to Tschichold? I found it by googling, but in the reference I found it's not clear at all that he said it.

Yes, you are right. sorry, (hands up) the result of trying to do this at work and rushing. I've found the page, here:-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NQKgLGhFvWAC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=
Tschichold+and+capital+letters&so
urce=web&ots=ptiNyGHVV0&sig=YfRBatpfga7pZgtVVuVBVmnYvDc&hl=en&sa=X&oi
=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA44,M1

(Had to split this up as it was knocking the text of the whole thread hard up to the left, so be carefull copy and pasting it)

Should I have perhaps stated that it was 'their' reasoning for not using capitals instead of 'his' reasoning? Did Tschichold have different reasons for not using capitals? What was his actual decapitalization method? I'm finding it difficult to find.

>Now, let's make sure I click on that old spell checker button.

Never rely on a spell checker alone. It won't pick up things such as "miss spelling", though it should have picked up "Domenic". (By the bye, I'm assuming you weren't being deliberately ironic with your "You get such badly typed messages on the Internet message boards" statement.)

>Blimey! How have I done that then?

Simply because you started off by saying that the use of lowercase instead of capitals "looks absolutely awfull through my designers eyes", that you didn't consider "the ignoring of grammer to such an extent as this to be ... justified by 'artistic liscense'" and that "It is a poor design that does so in my opinion." Pretty black-and-white statements. But then you admit that "every now and again I do see a logo that uses lower case and it does look good". I can't reconcile how something that looks absolutely awful can also look good.

>Yes, but to differing degrees

I don't see any notable difference between the two. You like the look of "InDesign" but you don't like the look of "london". That's fine, but I don't see why you need to try to justify that aesthetic response by arguing that one bends the rules too much and the other doesn't.

>with certain aspects of art I don't think you need to be [so qualified]

Except that this is a typography forum and Tschichold is acknowledged as one of the giants of typography.

>Now there's a perfect example of what I mean; getting too bogged down in theory.

I suggest you actually look at his work before accusing him of being "bogged down in theory". In my opinion, his typesetting was always nothing short of excellent.

Heather does raise an interesting point - you do seem to be coming at this from the perspective of a teacher or proofreader rather than a designer. You're stuck in your correct capitalisation mindset and forgetting about whether the lowercase works. And it could well be argued that the Olympics logo works - it's certainly lodged itself memorably in your mind.

PS. Where did you get that quote from that you attribute to Tschichold? I found it by googling, but in the reference I found it's not clear at all that he said it.

i They are the last ones for whom we should be promoting bad practice.

Ah, but there in lays the rub... do you see yourself as an educator or a salesman? If your aim is to educate the public, that is one thing. If your aim is to sell them an iPod (there's some interesting use of capitalization) it's quite another.

Anyway, there was interesting information in a language/culture/and society class I once took about the definition of a language in decline. Languages prosper as they develop more complexity. The idea of being able to express more and more of the subtle nuances of human emotion into speech and the visible representation of that speech. If words are still being added to the lexicon, you're in good shape. If not, start learning Mandarin.
:)