Proper Names - Definition

One more "van" comes to mind: Ludwig van Beethoven...who is always listed with the other leading "B" composers, Bach and Brahms.

And I had an Flemish uncle, whose last name began with "van" (lower case). It was rather amusing to sometimes see his name alphabetized under the "V"s, and sometimes under the initial letter of the latter part of his last name, depending upon which listing you looked at. He was always listed under the "V"s in our family address book.

Neil

Well, Mac meaning son of, and the fact that son would become a proper noun when referencing a specific son, Mac would be capitalized for that reason, Mac Arthur, Son of Arthur.
O' means "Descendants of" again would become a proper noun I believe, so it has a reason to be capital. However, "of" cannot be a proper noun, as it's a preposition.
I really have no strong belief one way or the other if van is capitalized. Just pointing out the rules.

Herb - Ah well .... if they want to change 'of' and 'from' to proper names well, so be it. It would look rather peculiar in english though don't you think? As in Heather's example, Richard Of Buren ..... yucky!

It's Dutch, van = of. Not to be confused with von, and signifier of nobility. So, fake name example, Richard van Buren, Richard of Buren. Or if not a proper place, Richard van der Water, Richard of the Water.

Yep, I'm still floating around out here, nodding off every now and again. :)

-Heather

Herb, quote:-

>The vans of the world might not agree.

Ah, but that's not a proper name is it? I presume you mean the German word 'van'. It's like 'ap' in welsh, which I think stands for 'son of'. Can't remember what 'van' means.

Excellent, glad to read you're enjoying our word sparring Dominic. And how are you doing Heather? You're not nodding off are you? Are we still a source of amusement? Don't worry folks, I think we should wind down now, but I just couldn't help this long one. I wanted to answer every point. You must know how it is. I will resist temptation next time and make them short .... promise!

Right Dominic, where have I put my boxing gloves? :)

In answer to my statement "How can the fact that such cases are rare and I still think they'd look better with capitals be anything other than highly relevant?" you typed:-

>Because, regardless of your qualifications, you said they looked good with lowercase.

I'm lost with this answer. There are differing degrees of 'good' are there not? If it would still look better with a capital why not go for a higher degree of 'good'? I think my jazz analogy in message #21 still holds.

>Where have I deliberately used incorrect grammar?

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

>If you're satisfied by the second letter of "iPod" being a capital and the third letter in "InDesign" being a capital (as you have indicated you are), then you don't seem to care too much about where the capital appears.

But they are not just anywhere though are they? They are at the beginning of words that are within a word. Many words are composed of more than one word i.e. bicycle, automobile.

>You like to discard the rules of grammar when they don't suit, don't you? How can a word be started partway through a word?

When that word is the product of two words, see above.

You seem to be trying to counteract my argument that there are boundaries to bending the rules for artistic liscence by stating that if there *are* boundaries then you should not bend or break any grammatical rules whatsoever. Surely you must have boundaries yourself? Does anything go in the name of art? I just don't see how the joining of two words, as in 'In' and 'Design' and leaving the 'D' capital is anywhere near as bad as changing a word from a proper name to an ordinary word. The former may not be grammatically correct but at least it still indicates a proper name. Giving a proper name no capitals at all completely changes the word, and in some cases, as in 'ford' and 'Ford' completely changes the meaning. I think that is too significant a change for artistic liscence to be used as an excuse.

>So, it's okay to use "i" for "I" but not "l" for "London"? That's inconsistent.

Naa it's not. It's okay to use 'i' in 'iPod' because the 'P' is there to indicate a proper name. 'London' is not the product of two words, or representations of a word, so there's only one place for a capital and that is the first letter. If that letter is not a capital then the word is changed from a proper name to an ordinary word.

>Nobody in this thread, including you, had any trouble understanding "london" to be a reference to the city. The meaning was clear, no matter the capitalisation.

I can't see what you mean by that. Do you mean it's alright to use lower case if the public you are designing for already knows the word? Presumably that means you would not use lower case if the public were not familiar with the word. Well, if that is the case then good luck, but I don't see it proves anything about the quality of the design. If the public have to have prior knowledge before understanding the design, is that good?

In answer to my statement "... and though "the lack of proper capitalization looks aesthetically poor", it's okay to use lowercase for a proper noun as long as there is a capital somewhere else in the word that *makes sense* (as in 'iPod')." you answer:-

>That's not what you said in post 27. There you said the lowercase "i" was anything but "aesthetically poor" - "In fact I actually think it looks better lower case because of the contrast with the capital."

Goodness, my brain's hurting now. Have I dissagreed with myself here? I can't see it. The word 'iPod' has a sensibly placed capital, therefore it can be taken as a proper name. How have I dissagreed with myself by stating that I think that in this case the lower case letter looks even better than having two capitals right next to each other? Are you suggesting that the 'i' in 'iPod' makes the word an ordinary word i.e. makes it loose its proper name status? Despite the capital 'P'.

I repeat, my main point here is that a proper name has a capital. If it does not, then I don't see anyway it can be considered a proper name.

>You're not really a designer, are you, Richard? You just got upset about the cost of the Olympic logo and so you tried to generate some criticism of it by picking on the capitalization issue, didn't you?

Well, my job title is Graphic Designer. Perhaps the Olympic logo was the last straw, although it's been some months since that came out so it's taken a long time for me to 'blow', but I had to pick an example, and that one I thought most people would know. As for the cost well, gee whizzo ..... if that's the kind of money you lot are getting I'm working for the wrong company :) But no, this decapitalization has bothered me for years, long before the Olympic logo.

Wheew, that was a long one wasn't it? I'll make 'em shorter from now on. Right, now I've got a good half hours worth sorting out my spelling :)

PS. I can't get the spell checker to carry on down the text. If the words it's chosen are not spelt wrongly, therefore I don't alter them, it won't go any further, so you'll have to forgive any spelling mistakes in the lower half.

It's certainly friendly on my part.

Dominic,

Just wanted to be sure that it's "friendly" sparring. Then, no problem.

Neil

Dominic,

Just want to be sure that it's "friendly" sparring. Then, no problem.

Neil

Why? Richard and I are enjoying ourselves and nobody else is forced to read this thread. You can move on and Richard and I will continue to spar for as long as he wants to.