Proper Names - Definition

Folks,

I think we're just going around in circles. At this point, I'm tempted to say that you each agree to disagree. And let's move on.

Thanks!

Neil

>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?

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

>whereas you are deliberately using incorrect grammar and have no intention of trying to correct your ways.

Where have I deliberately used incorrect grammar?

>I haven't mentioned anything about capitals being allowed *anywhere* within a word.

In post 21, you said that the capital "P" in "iPod" was "in an acceptable place" and in post 27 you stated that the fact that there was a capital 'P' shows that it was a proper name here. 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.

>the 'D' in 'InDesign' [starts a word]. And so does the 'P' in 'iPod'.

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?

>Don't forget, at the time I didn't even know what the 'i' stood for. It could have meant 'I' as in 'me'.

But that's exactly what you've been railing against. You don't mind the lowercase "i" in "iPod" even though you say it could have stood for "I". So, it's okay to use "i" for "I" but not "l" for "London"? That's inconsistent.

>If a word does not have a capital, how can it be considered a proper name?

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.

>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').

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."

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 capitalisation issue, didn't you?

Hello folks. You hoped .. I mean, thought I'd gone away didn't you? With my tail between my legs. But no, I'm back. (Don't get around to dealing with this message board much Friday - Monday).

Glad you're enjoying the discourse Heather. And I liked your, and others, 'Miss Spelling' play with words. Excellent.

Dominic, #29, quote:-

>I haven't forgotten, but I don't see the relevance. No matter that the cases were rare or that you think they might have looked better with caps, you still said they looked good.

Uuh? This is a mighty strange reply. 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?

>Well, even after Herb pointed out the misspelling of "careful" and "awful" you went on to repeat those errors, as well as finding a new way to misspell liscence. your posts continued to have more than the average number of errors we see in this forum, so to me you don't seem overly concerned about your spelling.

OK OK, I give in! I'm a bad speller, I did state that I forgot to use the spell checker once! But heck, I still don't see that the accuracy of my spelling to that extent is really relevant? Is not the point that I agree I should correct my spelling and I am trying (yes I know, very), whereas you are deliberately using incorrect grammar and have no intention of trying to correct your ways.

>No, you were. Reread your post 21 again, especially the sentence "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 beginning of a word."

Ah yes, that's referring to the capital at the beginning of the word 'Pod' (I think!)

>I see you're now claiming that the "i" merely represents a word, whereas before you called it a word.

Oh dear oh dear, now that's getting very picky. Don't forget, at the time I didn't even know what the 'i' stood for. It could have meant 'I' as in 'me'.

>No mind, your attempted justification is just as ridiculous as it was the first time around. Maintaining the presence of a capital anywhere in a word is sufficient to satisfy your desire for correct capitalization shows just how weak your argument is. I say again, according to this viewpoint, you should have no problem with "lOndon" or even "londoN".

I haven't mentioned anything about capitals being allowed *anywhere* within a word. In fact I have been many times quite specific in stating quite the opposite (first stated in second to last paragraph of message #8 ). The 'O' in your 'lOndon' example does not start a word, whereas the 'D' in 'InDesign' does. And so does the 'P' in 'iPod'.

I cannot see how the absence of capitals "can add another level to the design, as well as being purely a visual effect." The only 'other level' and visual effect it conveys to me is the absence of a proper noun.

>So, to sum up, you hate the use of lowercase for proper nouns because it "looks absolutely awfull", except that sometimes it "looks good", and though "the lack of proper capitalization looks aesthetically poor", it's okay to use lowercase for a proper noun as long as there's a capital somewhere else in the word.

No, to sum up I hate the use of lowercase for proper nouns because it "looks absolutely awfull", only *rarely* does it look good, and even then would probably look better with capitals, 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').

I will add to that another summing up. If a word does not have a capital, how can it be considered a proper name? You cannot have one without the other, even in art.

i "Miss Information".



I love it.

Thanks for the info Neil, I think my problem I was actually looking up "iPod" at wiki. Researching the egg instead of the chicken, so to speak. :)

Heather,
>Neil, just out of curiosity, where did you find the definitive answer for the meaning of "i" in "iMac"? I couldn't find any sites that had a single answer for it.

It's my memory of the PR released when the (egg-shaped) iMac debuted. And checking now at wikipedia.org: Apple declared the 'i' in iMac to stand for "Internet".
>Although the whole "misspelling" thing does kind of lend itself to Richard's point:
Miss Spelling, an actress, is said to miss spelling in her grammar classes, where misspelling was common.

A number of years ago, a major department store had a customer information booth near the entrance, presided over by a pretty young thing. The banner over the booth read: "Miss Information".

Neil

>Some sources suggest that license be used for the verb and licence for the noun.

More than suggest. Down here, "licence" is a noun, "license" is a verb. However, "liscense" and "liscence" are just wrong everywhere.

'colour' me American ;) Who knew?

I must say this thread couldn't have come at a better time, we are unfortunately slow (business wise, leaving my mental acuity out of it) and this discourse has been one of my few sources of amusement. Thanks to everyone. :)

No, no, no.

It is license only if you are American, the rest of the world uses licence, which I might point out is the original form of the word.

Some sources suggest that license be used for the verb and licence for the noun, much like practice and practise, and that may well be where the variant arose.

Both are acceptable spellings now though (except in the US, of course)

Yours
Vern

Neil, just out of curiosity, where did you find the definitive answer for the meaning of "i" in "iMac"? I couldn't find any sites that had a single answer for it.

:)
Maybe we should all just agree to disagree about the proper name thing.
I agree with both sides of the spelling debate. Misspellings are just as confusing, if not more so, than improper capitalization. However, especially in online posts, (which are often written off-the-cuff), they are certain to happen some of the time.
For the final record, it's "license" unless you're French, "licence" or speak Latin, "licentia".
Although the whole "misspelling" thing does kind of lend itself to Richard's point:
Miss Spelling, an actress, is said to miss spelling in her grammar classes, where misspelling was common.

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

I haven't forgotten, but I don't see the relevance. No matter that the cases were rare or that you think they might have looked better with caps, you still said they looked good.

>Where have I stated or implied that I happily ignore spelling?

Well, even after Herb pointed out the misspelling of "carefull" and "awfull" you went on to repeat those errors, as well as finding a new way to misspell licence. your posts continued to have more than the average number of errors we see in this forum, so to me you don't seem overly concerned about your spelling.

>You seem to be referring to 'iPod' here.

No, you were. Reread your post 21 again, especially the sentence "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."

>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'.

I see you're now claiming that the "i" merely represents a word, whereas before you called it a word. No mind, your attempted justification is just as ridiculous as it was the first time around. Maintaining the presence of a capital anywhere in a word is sufficient to satisfy your desire for correct capitalisation shows just how weak your argument is. I say again, according to this viewpoint, you should have no problem with "lOndon" or even "londoN".

>If they are not there they obviously cannot convey any meaning

But their absence can add another level to the design, as well as being purely a visual effect.

So, to sum up, you hate the use of lowercase for proper nouns because it "looks absolutely awfull", except that sometimes it "looks good", and though "the lack of proper capitalization looks aesthetically poor", it's okay to use lowercase for a proper noun as long as there's a capital somewhere else in the word.