Posted by dorayme on 05/25/07 23:08

In article <Xns993B84FC2CE73nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:05:52 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> 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, 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.
>
> With all due respect to helical celluloid retes, this is twisted logic.

And twisted how? Where is the twist? What part of my above is
wrong?

> Names are simply proper nouns which follow the rules of grammar in much
> the same fashion as other nouns.

In spite of the fact I pointed to? That it is normal for a common
noun to be capitalised when starting a sentence but not when not
whereas a name like "John" remains capitalised.

> They are often capitalized inherantly,
> but _always_ capitalized at the beginning of sentences.

If they are often capitalised inherently, why can't they
sometimes be small-cased inherently?

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]