Proper Names - Definition

>If 'iPod' is breaking the rules as opposed to bending them for artistic license then I can't think what actual bending of the rules would be in this case.

I don't think you can "bend" the rule of capitalisation for proper nouns (and I haven't claimed that you can), because it is a very simple, black-and-white rule (which is why I think the pregnancy analogy is appropriate). Either you observe the rule or you break it. Talk of "bending" just appears to me to be an attempt to have your cake and eat it too (ie, claim the rule as authority when you dislike designs that break it, but ignore the rule when you like designs that break it).

>as I've stated many times, there is a limitation to bending the rules for art's sake, and *that* is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Perhaps you could tell us what those limits are and who set them? Or is it really just a case of what Richard Archer-Jones likes is acceptable and what he doesn't is exceeding the limits? Apart from Heather, the others who have posted in this thread don't seem to share your view of what's acceptable, so if that's all you wanted to discuss, you have your answer - the majority of people who bothered to post disagree with you.

>Well, I haven't meant to actually state or imply it is more one than the other. It's both.

And that's where I find your stance inconsistent to say the least. If the observance of grammatical rules is part of your concern, then I would expect you to condemn "iPod".

>I'm confused here (so, what's new?). Are you inferring that I should consider these postings finished works of art?

Perhaps you should have tried rereading my post, because my meaning was explained quite clearly there: "If you are able to make sure your spelling is correct when you want to, then presumably you didn't want to when writing these posts." But I'll try to state it even more simply for you: 1. You have said that you can ensure correct spelling when you want to (eg, for finished pieces of art). 2. Your posts here contain numerous spelling mistakes. 3. Thus, I inferred that you didn't want to ensure that the spelling was correct in these posts, and I would have thought that that was a deliberate decision.

>With no capital whatsoever it just looks like an ordinary word (which of course it is), no matter what colour the first letter.

I asked that because you said that you were happy with "iPod" and "InDesign" at least in part because "there is still some indication that those words are special". Treating the first letter in a distinct way would also indicate that the words are special.

>Other than that you just have to fall back on context.

Which is precisely why I (and others here) have no problems with the use of lowercase under discussion. Context is always relevant.

>But one thing I do know though, lower case would definitely not work for the first letter then ...... and I think even you would agree with that eh?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. I could imagine someone coming up with a very striking design in which the first letter of the brand is lowercase but the rest is in caps. In fact, I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't already done it.

>I can't see how the spoken word is relevant here.

As before, the answer was in my post, if you'd cared to reread it: "just as they can understand it in a sentence written all in caps or in spoken text (where there are obviously no capitals to emphasise a word)." In other words, context enables people to distinguish between "Ford" and "ford" in spoken text, and context enables people to understand the Olympics and Halfords logos.

PS. Re irony, the comment "Americans don't understand irony" is commonly heard down here too. Mind you, as has been noted, the word itself is commonly misused these days. One of the worst offenders was Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic", which described numerous incidents, none of which (as I recall) was ironic.

Yes, I'd say the poor Brits get a bad wrap over here in the states quite a lot. Such as stereotypes about teeth, snobbery, unemotional "stone" like behavior, tendencies to stick "u"s in places they don't belong, etc. All hog-wash I'm sure (other than the "u"). Besides which, we make up for it by how much we love their accents. I've never quite understood why people get so up-in-arms about stereotypes. A key element of human socio-behavior seems to be defining one's self by what one is not, which done on an individual basis would be rather time consuming and well out of the capabilities of the human brain, therefore grouping of types becomes necessary. i.e. What exactly would a "Conservative" be without the opposite "Liberal" to define it's boundaries as a concept? Digression, sorry.

Back to the proper noun bit. I think Dominic's suggestion about the initial letter being a different color is an interesting one. It would lend an emphasis on the initial letter, which is what capitalization does, and therefore signify something unique about the word. I think I'd accept it. It adheres to to the spirit of the rule while throwing in a bit of cleverness that sets it apart from the norm.

Of course, run two colors on an old AB Dick 9970 with plastic plates that stretch and a T-Head as the second cylinder, aligning several lines of text with spot 2 as each "cap", trying to hit perfect register an a 17 inch plate... my pressman would probably stick a nail in my tire on his way out at the end of the day.
:)

Dave,<br /><br />Your pun is accepted with a smile and a groan. <g><br /><br />As for American sitcoms -- please don't tell me when to laugh! A "live" studio audience that spontaneously laughs at genuine humor is fine. But I actually won't watch "2-1/2 Men" because of its incredibly intrusive laugh-track. I'd rather have cleverly written lines (and actions) that stand on their own. (As a note, I appreciated "M*A*S*H"'s high-quality scripts more after they dropped the laugh-track.)<br /><br />By the way, with respect to the "live" studio audience and "live" performance -- just <i>what</i> is the implied alternative?<br /><br />But we digress! I return us now to our original discussion, "Proper Names -- Definition". <g><br /><br />Neil

More-tea-fication -- the process of making more tea.

Dave

>American laugh-track laden, dumbed-down sitcoms

Ironically, some of these sitcoms would actually be funnier, I think, if the laugh-tracks were toned down. I find myself thinking "Your laugh track is too easily amused" particularly when watching Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory on CBS.

Dave

Hi Niel

Thanks for that. It's just one of those little sayings that we have over here about Americans in general and I've often wondered about it's accuracy as I'm sure I've seen irony used in American comedy. I'm sure you must have sayings over there about us Brits that are generalized but whether they are accurate or not is another thing. When trying to be funny you sometimes have to be careful when dealing with different cultures to your own.

Incidentally the American comedy we get over here I have usually liked very much, a lot of it better than ours. But we all have our good and bad.

Most Americans, Neil, based on what I hear on radio and television, think that "irony" means "coincidence".

"Ironically," you'll hear a commentator say, "the last time so-and-so faced this pitcher, he also hit a home run."

However, I wouldn't agree that irony is sarcasm -- irony is often used to be sarcastic, but they are certainly not the same thing.

Now I have to go to the kitchen and indulge in mortification -- that is, I need to make some more tea -- puns just don't work in print.

Dave

Richard,

I've been following this thread from the sidelines, but felt a need to step up here:
>(If you're American you might not take that last statement in the way it's meant. Here in the UK we have a thing called irony or sarcasm and we understand that Americans in general don't get irony, or don't find it funny. Is that true?)

I was born in The Bronx and brought up American; thus a little familiarity with its society, customs and habits. I have no idea why you would broadly categorize Americans this way.

As for irony being funny, if it is used as a form of criticism, it will be taken as an offense. If as a joke, we take it as such.

If you judge Americans and humor by what you see in today's American laugh-track laden, dumbed-down sitcoms, realize that they cater to the lowest common denominator, and do not necessarily reflect what all Americans want to see on TV.

On the other hand, I do like British humor/humour and wordplay, whether subtle or obvious; as do a good number of other Americans.

Stepping back to my seat, now...

Neil

Richard,

I've been following this thread from the sidelines, but felt a need to step up here:
>(If you're American you might not take that last statement in the way it's meant. Here in the UK we have a thing called irony or sarcasm and we understand that Americans in general don't get irony, or don't find it funny. Is that true?)

I was born in The Bronx and brought up American; thus a little familiarity with its society, customs and habits. I have NO idea why you would categorize Americans this way.

Neil

Hello ..... peek a boo .... I've been on holiday, and a damn fine holiday it was to, although not totally devoid of lower case proper nouns :) Right, let's get my brain back into gear.

>No, the relevant rule is that proper nouns take an initial capital, and this rule is broken, not bent, by both "london" and "iPod".

Well, I don't know what else I can add about this. If 'iPod' is breaking the rules as opposed to bending them for artistic license then I can't think what actual bending of the rules would be in this case. I don't think the 'pregnant' analogy is relevant here because we are discussing art, not science, and as we are both agreed I think, art allows for bending of the rules ..... BUT ..... as I've stated many times, there is a limitation to bending the rules for art's sake, and *that* is what this thread is supposed to be about.

>Except for context, which is hugely relevant. I apparently credit people with more intelligence than you do, because I don't think readers will have any trouble understanding the Olympics or Halfords logo, whereas you seem to think they'll just see gobbledegook.

Well, I don't think they will actually see gobbledegook, I think it actually *is* gobbledegook. I do credit the the viewing public with the intelligence to decipher what is actually meant from the gobbledegook but I just don't think it is good design to create the gobbledegook in the first place. I can't see the point.

>(Or maybe you just think others are less intelligent than you, because you had no trouble understanding these logos.)

Oh yes, there you go .... at last you've got it. One of your few statements that is correct. That's exactly what I think :)

(If you're American you might not take that last statement in the way it's meant. Here in the UK we have a thing called irony or sarcasm and we understand that Americans in general don't get irony, or don't find it funny. Is that true?)

>Thank you - you seem to be admitting here that it is really an aesthetic issue for you, not a grammatical one.

Well, I haven't meant to actually state or imply it is more one than the other. It's both.

>............. and by your earlier claim that "for a finished piece of art work I would make sure the spelling is correct".

I'm confused here (so, what's new?). Are you inferring that I should consider these postings finished works of art?

>So, here's a new question for you: would you have a problem with "london" if they had used a different colour for the lowercase "l" or if they had treated it in a similarly distinct way, while still leaving it lowercase?

Ha ha, good try. Naaa, I'm afraid that still wouldn't work through my eyes. With no capital whatsoever it just looks like an ordinary word (which of course it is), no matter what colour the first letter. However, you do raise an interesting point about what happens when all capitals are used, but I think that is just a special case, such a grammatical ruling obviously only applies when lower case are used. However, there are still ways in which a proper name could be shown if wished, making the first letter slightly bigger, marking the whole word out with inverted commas, or italicizing the word. Other than that you just have to fall back on context. But one thing I do know though, lower case would definitely not work for the first letter then ...... and I think even you would agree with that eh? Such a case does not justify the use of lower case for proper nouns when all other letters are lower case.

I can't see how the spoken word is relevant here.