Proper Names - Definition

>How can a proper name have no capitals?

English grammar demands that a proper noun have an initial capital, not just a capital at the start of a syllable, whether or not that syllable is at the start of the word, and I've never denied that. Both "london" and "iPod" break that rule. But I think that context is relevant here, as is the intelligence of your target market, and I believe that in examples like the Olympics logo people can understand a lowercased word as being a reference to a proper noun, 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). The fact that a word doesn't follow conventional capitalisation doesn't mean that people are unable to understand it.

>The reasons are that you only have to bend the rules slightly for 'iPod' and 'InDesign', ... They bend the rules, and that is the material difference. If they ditched the rules they'd have no capitals at all, e.g. 'london'

No, the relevant rule is that proper nouns take an initial capital, and this rule is broken, not bent, by both "london" and "iPod". It's like that old statement about being pregnant - either you're pregnant or you're not (you can't be a little bit pregnant) - but in this case the question is: Does the word have an initial capital or not? If it doesn't and it's a proper noun, then it has broken the rule for its capitalisation. You originally agreed with this, until you realised that it didn't fit your argument any more: "when I see a word that does not have an initial capital I just do not see a proper name. Through my eyes the two go together, they cannot be separated."

>They break because what you are left with is no indication whatsoever of a proper name.

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

>Please will you comment on that above statement!

Well, I really didn't need to, because I've already addressed all those points in my previous posts. But, because you seem to have missed or misunderstood them, I have.

>How can it ever be discussed without your own personal preferences being the guide?

Thank you - you seem to be admitting here that it is really an aesthetic issue for you, not a grammatical one. And, as I have constantly said, I have no problem with that. I only have a problem with you suggesting that the reason "london" is unacceptable is because it breaks the rule of capitalisation while at the same time being quite happy with "iPod", which also breaks that rule (and it does - there's no doubt over that).

>Where have I stated that I deliberately did not use the spell checker?

You didn't state that and I didn't say that you had. But I admit that I did infer that you hadn't used the spell checker or a dictionary (or hadn't proofread your posts) by the continuing presence of spelling mistakes (such as "Emporer" and "critisise") and by your earlier claim that "for a finished piece of art work I would make sure the spelling is correct". 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. I would have thought that that would have been a deliberate decision, but if you really have been using the spell checker or a dictionary or proofreading your posts, then I apologise for suggesting that this might not have been the case (but I would never hire you as a proofreader or to use a spell checker).

I'm actually not hugely bothered by spelling mistakes in posts unless there's a lot of them or they're particularly egregious (like the use of "wallah" or "walla" for voilà), and I'm certainly not above making them myself (for example, I misspelled "design" in post 7), but I do find it incongruous that one who professes to be concerned about the flouting of one grammatical convention doesn't take more care with their own grammar. Which is another reason why I think grammar was just a convenient hook on which to hang your argument, rather than your real motivation.

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?

Gosh Dominic, I don't know whether it's an illusion but there does seem to be an aggressive manner in your postings. Do my postings come over as aggressive? If so, I'm sorry. Mine should be read in a contemplative manner, preferably leaning back on the chair with a nice glass of wine and some chocky :)

>........but as an attempt to sidestep the whole issue by labelling it a red herring.

Well, shouldn't we be discussing the use of lower case for proper names? Whether I should have used the word 'most' or 'advocate' in those sentences concerned I think is a side issue. Nevertheless I will repeat, I should have used the word 'advocate' in relation to the bad grammar issue but whether I should have used the word 'most' in the other issue I'm still not sure.

Now, let's trim this all down and get back to the main issue. How can a proper name have no capitals? I don't know why you are emphasizing 'my rules' in such a way. Art is a subjective subject is it not? How can it ever be discussed without your own personal preferences being the guide? I am simply stating my views on how to bend the rules for artistic license and how not to, and that I consider the use of lower case for proper names is going too far in bending the rules. I not only state that but I also give my reasons. The reasons are that you only have to bend the rules slightly for 'iPod' and 'InDesign', there is still some indication that those words are special, but for 'london' the rules are bent so far that they break. They break because what you are left with is no indication whatsoever of a proper name.

Put down the wine now, time for me to get aggressive and make a demand. Please will you comment on that above statement! Grrrrrrr.

Right, pick up the wine again.

>The problem is that you are trying to rely on the rules of grammar to condemn what you don't like but you're prepared to ditch those same rules when you do like something.

Well, I don't think 'iPod' and 'InDesign' ditch the rules. They bend the rules, and that is the material difference. If they ditched the rules they'd have no capitals at all, e.g. 'london'.

Of course I bend the rules when I like something, that is what I understand as artistic licence. Remember this is not about following the rules to the letter, this about having boundaries, having a limit to rule bending. It's like a film maker who makes a film about a true event but actually tells lies under the guise of artistic liscence. That is also going too far, because you are breaking the rules, not just bending them.

>Your decision not to use the spell checker or a dictionary or to proofread your posts is deliberate, is it not?

Hey, my turn to get demanding again. Where have I stated that I deliberately did not use the spell checker. Where? Show me or detract that statement!

Sorry Dominic, I hope you're taking this in the light hearted manner it is meant.

Note: I do proof read my posts extensively, but proof reading will not necessarily find spelling mistakes.

>But wait a minute, haven't I already retracted?

Not as I understand the term. How can the statement "I think all this discussion ... tending to imply that you actually *have* used bad grammar as opposed to *advocating* it is really 'red herrings'" be read as a retraction? On the contrary, I read it not as a retraction but as an attempt to sidestep the whole issue by labelling it a red herring.

>Incidentally, I still fail to see the connection between my accidental bad spelling on this forum and the deliberate use of incorrect grammar in a finished work of art.

Your decision not to use the spell checker or a dictionary or to proofread your posts is deliberate, is it not? In any case, I mentioned your misspelling of "farce" to illustrate that context is relevant when considering whether readers may be confused by incorrect grammar.

>You are trying to counter my argument about boundaries i.e. going too far, by stating that I am therefore advocating strictness to the rules.

No, in fact I said the exact opposite. It's obvious that you've completely misunderstood my comments in that regard, so I'll have a go at rephrasing them and I hope you get it this time. You are not advocating that people follow the rules and norms of English grammar, you are advocating that people follow *your* rules. And your rules amount to "what Richard Archer-Jones likes the look of is is fine and what Richard Archer-Jones doesn't like the look of isn't". The problem is that you are trying to rely on the rules of grammar to condemn what you don't like but you're prepared to ditch those same rules when you do like something. And that, to me, is the problem - I don't believe that you can selectively call on grammar to suit your aesthetic preferences. If you really do value grammar, then you should be advocating it even where you personally like the look of transgressions (eg, "iPod"). Either that or be honest and say that the look of the thing is your primary motivation here, not grammar.

>I mean, if there are no boundaries, if anything goes, how do teachers mark pupil's work. How can they critisise?

First off, who said there are no boundaries when it comes to art classes? Secondly, what difference would it make if there were none? Not being an art teacher, I imagine they mark based on such concepts as what the artist's intention was and how well the work communicated that intention, whether the work was original and how any influences were acknowledged, whether the artist demonstrated an awareness of where the work sat in the art spectrum, and what technical skills were demonstrated in constructing the art. I don't see that the teacher's (or Richard Archer-Jones's) personal boundaries should come into it. You seem to be saying that if a work transgresses someone's boundaries, then it cannot be art and should be criticised on that basis alone, and I don't support that proposition. But you should really take such topics to a forum on art criticism.

Oooops, sorry, don't know what happened here. I did something in spell checking and somehow ended up duplicating my above posting here. So I've deleted it and replaced it with this.

Confused???? Yes, so am I :)

Hello again, I'm still here. Sorry I take so long to reply.

Heather, thanks for your attempt at defending me and I'm glad we are still managing to be a source of amusement.

>As I've already asked this twice and you haven't answered, I doubt you'll answer it this time, but where have I deliberately used incorrect grammar? Either show me or retract your statement.

Cripes, steady on old chap! I retract I retract. But wait a minute, haven't I already retracted? I tried to answer first time, and then the second time I retracted in this statement in post 52:-

"I think all this discussion about missing out the word 'most' and tending to imply that you actually *have* used bad grammar as opposed to *advocating* it is really 'red herrings'."

Have I not admitted there that I should have implied you are 'advocating' bad grammar, rather than having actually used it? Incidentally, I still fail to see the connection between my accidental bad spelling on this forum and the deliberate use of incorrect grammar in a finished work of art.

In answer to my question "... don't you think that is being rather pedantic?" you answer:-

>No, especially when the whole discussion is essentially about pedantry.

There you go again. You are trying to counter my argument about boundaries i.e. going too far, by stating that I am therefore advocating strictness to the rules. This thread is not about pedantry, it's about knowing how far to go with rule bending for art's sake. It's about not being caught with your pants down, like the Emporer and his new clothes, and knowing when to follow the fashion and when not to. I presume you do know the story of the Emporer's new clothes made famous by Danny Kay's song. A bit extreme perhaps but sometimes you have to go to the extreme in order to make a point.

My views on 'iPod' and 'InDesign' are bending the rules of course, as I've stated above, this is not about pedantry, but I'm arguing that it is not bending them as far as 'london' by the reasoning that the two former examples still look like proper names, the latter does not. Quite a significant difference I think.

Incidentally, I'd love to know how art teachers teach these days. I mean, if there are no boundaries, if anything goes, how do teachers mark pupil's work. How can they critisise? How can they say anything their pupils do is wrong or bad?

>Well, he did answer it

No, he didn't. In post 36, Richard said that I was "deliberately using incorrect grammar and have no intention of trying to correct [my] ways". In response to my question where had I so deliberately misused grammar, he said in post 42, "Are you not comparing bad spelling with the incorrect use of lower case letters? The latter is deliberate is it not?" If you consider that an answer to my question, then I can only presume that you consider politicians to be answering simple yes-or-no questions when they reply with statements like "That is a complex issue", whereas I consider such responses non-answers. Even if we read the "you" to be "you people", Richard hasn't shown us where any of the posters have deliberately misused grammar.

i where have I deliberately used incorrect grammar?

Well, he did answer it, I'm not going to go back and find it, but what he implied was that when you deliberately leave a proper noun lowercase that is deliberately using incorrect grammar. Since you are taking up the side of the lowercase usage, the "you" in his implication was more of a "you people" than a specific reference. To which you said something about just because you were defending it didn't mean you did it. This may be where the confusion lies.

The middle of the road compromise to this would to rephrase his sentence to say "I find it is worse when people deliberately use incorrect grammar as opposed to misspell by accident."

Yes, and the thread continues to provide amusement.

>Well, don't you think that is being rather pedantic?

No, especially when the whole discussion is essentially about pedantry.

>I mean, when is it appropriate to add the word 'most'? Is that a clear concept?

To me, it's absolutely clear that when someone says "I hate jazz" or "I hate the use of lowercase for caps", they're not saying "I hate most jazz/lowercase" or even "I hate 99 per cent of jazz/lowercase". They are simply saying "I hate jazz/lowercase". If they don't mean they hate all jazz/lowercase, then it is appropriate to add "most" to that statement.

>Remember, 'iPod' was brought up after that quotation of mine about not seeing a proper name if it did not have an initial capital and I stand by my explanation of accepting 'iPod'.

What difference does it make that it was brought up after you made that statement? Either you stand by that original statement or you don't, and the fact that you stand by your acceptance of "iPod" means that you don't stand by it. Just another example of your inconsistency.

>The capital 'P' is close enough to the start of the word I think to make it look like a proper name. I think that shows artistic adaptability within my rules, not inconsistency.

You see, I don't have any problem with you making up "your rules" as you go along or accepting "iPod" while decrying "london". The point is that you are arguing for "your rules", not the rules of standard English capitalisation. As long as you don't claim any greater authority than yourself for your preferences, I have no argument with you. It's when you argue against "london" on the basis of the norms of capitalisation that I take issue, because you're obviously happy to ditch them when you do like the result.

>The main question here is 'How can a proper name have just lower case letters (no capitals whatsoever), even for art's sake?'. No capitals means no proper name does it not?

By the rules of standard English capitalisation, a proper noun should have an initial capital (which rules out "iPod"). But the lack of an initial capital may not, in and of itself, leave the reader unable to understand that the reference is to a proper noun. Just as I'm able to recognise that you meant "farce" when you wrote "farse", most viewers of the Olympics logo would have no trouble reading "london" as a reference to the city. Think of it as a logogram, if you want. (Or do you take issue with logograms too?)

>surely you must have boundaries yourself (other than the non artistic ones you mention) otherwise art just becomes a farse.

The boundary I mentioned (not hurting unwilling participants) was in relation to art. But I have no wish to discuss art.

>If I've missed something you feel I should answer let me know.

As I've already asked this twice and you haven't answered, I doubt you'll answer it this time, but where have I deliberately used incorrect grammar? Either show me or retract your statement.

Goodness, what a lot to answer. Long time no posting eh? I've been on leave and other things. I think I'll have to do an 'eeny meeny miny moe' here .... (oh crumbs, don't say I've got to hunt the Internet now to get that spelling correct!).

>If you had written ""this fashion [of using lowercase] looks absolutely awful most of the time", then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Well, don't you think that is being rather pedantic? I mean, when is it appropriate to add the word 'most'? Is that a clear concept? (As clear as capitals for proper names?). Are you stating it should be added no matter how small the degree? For example, it could be only one piece of jazz, or one lower case proper name liked. As a percentage of all the jazz and lower case proper names disliked that could amount to a liking of about 1% or less. Would it be right in such a case to then add the word 'most' just for that 1%? Is that not a debatable and fairly irrelevant point?

I think all this discussion about missing out the word 'most' and tending to imply that you actually *have* used bad grammar as opposed to *advocating* it is really 'red herrings'. The main question here is 'How can a proper name have just lower case letters (no capitals whatsoever), even for art's sake?'. No capitals means no proper name does it not?

As for your arguments that 'iPod' and 'InDesign' are as bad as 'london' well, you see, you're doing it again, you're trying to counteract my 'boundaries' argument by going all strict on me. Remember, 'iPod' was brought up after that quotation of mine about not seeing a proper name if it did not have an initial capital and I stand by my explanation of accepting 'iPod'. The capital 'P' is close enough to the start of the word I think to make it look like a proper name. I think that shows artistic adaptability within my rules, not inconsistency. Surely you must see that 'iPod' and 'InDesign' still look like proper names as opposed to 'london' which just looks like an ordinary word, no distinguishing features at all, no proper name status, nothing to make it stand out in the crowd, or even stand out on its own.

In answer to my question "Does anything go in the name of art?" you reply:-

>I've not spent a lot of time considering this, but off the top of my head, I'm not bothered by anything that doesn't inflict harm on unwilling participants. Certainly, Tracey Emin's bed I consider art. I assume that, had you been around at the relevant periods, you would have found good company in those who were outraged by Manet's "Le Déjeuner sur L'Herbe" or Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring".

Well, unless you think otherwise after more consideration on the matter, I reckon this says a lot about both our views on this subject. I've got nothing against the avant-garde, in fact I love it, when it's done well. I've spent many a time gazing at some weird things in art galleries, but conversely also writing in the visitors book about some works "If that's art, what isn't?". Interestingly there's been a music festival on here that sometimes has some wonderfully weird choral music that is used in competition pieces to show up the choirs' flexibility and technique and I think it's great. I don't know the Manet piece you mention but I certainly know the Stravinsky and loved that first time, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been one of the ones jeering in the crowd at its' first performance.

However, as I've stated before, I do have boundaries. And surely you must have boundaries yourself (other than the non artistic ones you mention) otherwise art just becomes a farse, like the Turner Prize has become (to the general public) here in the UK. Would you not have told that old Emperor, about his now famous new clothes, "Now come on your Royal H-ness, put something on will ya! You'll catch your death"?

Damn .... I've typed out another long one. I promised I wouldn't do that. Sorry folks.

PS. If I've missed something you feel I should answer let me know.

>I'm lost with this answer.

That's clear. It's hard to know how to phrase this so that you'll understand (perhaps you're being deliberately obtuse), but I'll give it another go. I'm not talking here about "degrees of good" or the actual use of lowercase; I'm simply pointing out that to me you have been inconsistent in your statements. In your first post and through most of your second, you were busy telling us that using lowercase instead of a capital looked awful. You said that it wasn't justified by artistic licence and that it was "poor design". But then you throw in the comment that actually there are cases where you've thought it looked good. To me, that is inconsistent. Whether the text in question would have looked better in uppercase doesn't change the fact that you thought it looked good as it was. Since you brought up your jazz analogy, let's look again at post 27, where you admit that the first clause of the sentence "Oh I hate jazz, it's absolutely awfull" was not true and that the speaker hated only *most* jazz. If you say "I hate jazz", you're not saying "I hate most jazz" - you're saying "I hate jazz". Likewise, the statements "this fashion [of using lowercase] looks absolutely awful" and "every now and again ... it does look good" are mutually exclusive. If you had written ""this fashion [of using lowercase] looks absolutely awful most of the time", then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

>Are you not comparing bad spelling with the incorrect use of lower case letters? The latter is deliberate is it not?

Expressing a view on a practice is not the same as engaging in that practice yourself. This is hardly a subtle point, so I can understand that, if you have trouble grasping it, you would probably also have trouble understanding text that was all in lowercase. Notwithstanding that, I ask you again to show me where I have deliberately used incorrect grammar.

>You seem to be ... stating that if there *are* boundaries then you should not bend or break any grammatical rules whatsoever.

I'm simply observing that, in my opinion, if someone says that it's okay to flout one grammatical convention because they think it looks good, then it's inconsistent, if not hypocritical, of them to argue against another transgression that they don't like the look of on the ground that it's grammatically incorrect.

>Many words are composed of more than one word.

Many words may have been formed by the joining of two words (with or without an intermediate hyphenated stage), but once those words are so joined, they cease to be two individual words and the second word becomes merely a syllable or group of syllables.

>It's okay to use 'i' in 'iPod' because the 'P' is there to indicate a proper name.

You seem to have changed your mind on this recently, because back in post 8, you wrote "But, the way I see things must be different to most other people because when I see a word that does not have an initial capital I just do not see a proper name." You may now think it's okay for a proper noun not to have an initial capital as long as a syllable in the word does, but that is not the grammatically correct way to capitalise a proper noun, and so my answer to the "boundaries" comment also applies here.

>Does anything go in the name of art?

I've not spent a lot of time considering this, but off the top of my head, I'm not bothered by anything that doesn't inflict harm on unwilling participants. Certainly, Tracey Emin's bed I consider art. I assume that, had you been around at the relevant periods, you would have found good company in those who were outraged by Manet's "Le Déjeuner sur L'Herbe" or Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring".

>If the public have to have prior knowledge before understanding the design, is that good?

Plenty of designs depend on the public having prior knowledge or at least the ability to think. Are we to take it that you think that every logo should come with explanatory material? Gosh, we better tell Nike to ditch its "swoosh" logo because it doesn't explain itself. I think that, just as most people are able to use the context to distinguish a Ford from a ford when the text is all in caps (WE DROVE MY FORD ACROSS THE FORD), most people are able to understand logos that use lowercase in place of capitals.

>Have I dissagreed with myself here?

Yes. If the proper capitalisation for a proper noun is an initial capital (which it is) and "the lack of proper capitalization looks aesthetically poor" (which you said), then how can the "i" in "iPod" look "better" lower case?

>I can't get the spell checker to carry on down the text.

Hmmm. Maybe you should learn to spell, then. And, given that I've already pointed out that "liscence" is incorrect in any country, you could have at least started with that word.