Proper Names - Definition

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

I would like to mention something about this fashion of giving proper names and titles small initial letters. It looks absolutely awfull through my designers eyes. Is it not true that in the written word a proper name is defined by a capital letter? Otherwise, how would you know if it was a proper name or not? Therefore, does it not follow that if a written word does not have a capital letter it cannot by definition be a proper name?

Therefore, in such cases as that rubbish and ludicrously expensive 2012 London Olympics logo the word 'london' on the logo is actually just gobbledygook because without a capital letter it cannot be a proper name and as far as I know there is no such word as 'london'. The only way it could be a proper name is if the first letter was a capital 'i', but is there such a place as Iondon (pronounced 'Eye-ondon')? And if there is, what Olympics are being held there in 2012?

You have to have some way of defining a proper name otherwise confusion can be the result. Example:-

1. We came across a Ford in the road.
2. We came across a ford in the road.

I consider the ignoring of grammer to such an extent as this to be not justified by 'artistic liscense'. It is a poor design that does so in my opinion.

[Guest]

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.

[Neil_Keller]

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

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>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.

[_Ariel_Walden_]

> 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".

Just because they've succeeding in pulling the rest of us down along with
them doesn't mean that they were right or that those who were outraged were
necessarily wrong.

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

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.

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>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.

[Guest]

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.

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>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.

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

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?

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

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 :)

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>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.

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

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.

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>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?

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

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.

[Neil_Keller]

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

[Neil_Keller]

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

[_Dave_Saunders_]

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

[_Herb_V_B_]

Dave said

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

It would have worked if your name was Mort.

[_Richard_Archer-Jones_]

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.

[_Dave_Saunders_]

>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

[_Dave_Saunders_]

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

Dave

[_Herb_V_B_]

Yes, I saw that ...

.. Mort-Teafication - Teaficating Mort

[Neil_Keller]

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

[Guest]

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.
:)

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>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.