|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/26/07 11:26
In article <fi3li4-ika.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-05-24, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <Xns9939EFE23AF09nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>,
> > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:18:04 GMT dorayme scribed:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns993879DEAB4F8nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>,
> >> > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Please don't so publicly capitalise
> >> >> > my name, it is a small "d".
> >> >>
> >> >> The only reason I did so was because it was part of a title and the
> >> >> first word to boot, so any word would have been therein capitalized.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > This is a bad reason. A name is not a word like the ones everyone
> >> > learns in order to speak.
> >>
> >> Then what word is it like? _Any_ word follows those rules, be it proper
> >> noun or anything else. Xhtml doesn't apply to English grammar.
> >
> > Since a name is not that much like other words,
>
> That _is_ the point. In the English language, names are capitalized.
>
It is _the_ point is _your_ point? But that does not mean it is
the most _relevant_ point. It was said that "The only reason" the
person I am challenging "did so" was "because it was part of a
title and the first word to boot, so any word would have been
therein capitalized." and that is a different point to the point
that in the English language, names are capitalised.
But let me take up this different point of yours. It is simply
false. It is not good enough for you to simply assert it, nor to
give examples that do not challenge your point. A million polite
people in some circumstances do not show that it is wrong for
someone to be impolite in the same circumstances. You have seen
the example given of a trade name by Ed Mullen. It is a fine
example.
> That's why e.e.cummings's business failed: it was under capitalized!
A nice point, but really, Chris F.A. Johnson, this is a serious
matter concerning my name. I have worked long and hard to make it
mud and it is not to be trifled with.
e.e. cumming's business may have failed for a grammatical reason
as well, but in the case of the iPod, you can hardly argue such a
thing at all. And "iPod" is certainly not the end of the examples.
It really is very simple. My name is dorayme and it begins with a
small "d", it is not open to anyone to use a "D" and get it
right. They are welcome to use a "D" if it is meant to
deliberately display a carelessness. But that is a totally
_different_ point. It is open to anyone to call me anything they
like for any number of purposes. But, I make the point again, not
if they want to get it right.
redGirl.gif is a different file from Redgirl.gif in some file
systems and it would be badly wrong to have used an "R" to begin
this very sentence. One reason, and this does not exhaust the
reasons I have in mind, is this: it would turn a perfectly true
sentence into a false one. Do you appreciate how bad a fault this
is to those of us who live to seek the truth? I know that you
would not condone such a thing.
>
> > it is odd to ask what word is it like. Think how the normal rules
> > about capitalisation do not apply with names when they are used
> > within sentences (as contrasted with starting them). They mostly
> > remain capitalised! In other words, names are special, not like most
> > other words like "cat", "some", "you", "it". So your stated
> > objection to treat them like other words for the purpose of starting
> > sentences looks to me like very special pleading.
>
> Words that start a sentence _are_ capitalized, whether they are
> names or not.
>
> > If really pressed to say what a name is like, I suppose I might
> > say, at least, that a good name is like a good work of art,
>
> That is a signature, not merely a name.
A name is a signature in a deeper way than is often realised. A
proper name is not like a definite description; e.g. "The martian
that messes about with html and css and lives in Sydney, calling
itself dorayme" My point is that a proper name is indeed not a
grammatical entity at all, or rather more accurately, it is not
something that has grammatical parts in spite of the appearance.
And if it has no grammatical parts, you cannot go about applying
normal grammatical rules to the parts (of which, of course, it
has - but they are not grammatical ones)
Some names, if not all, are like pictures of real text, not
actual text. It can be confusing to some people because of the
use of ordinary looking letters. "How do you spell that name?" is
a common refrain. But it a mere convenient way of knowing how to
draw and give vocal expression to the label, it is not some
excuse to treat the name as any old concatenation of characters
and apply inappropriate rules to it.
I now sign off, neither grammatically no ungrammatically, but
correctly as
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|