Capital Letters?? (1 Viewer)

[scampo]

No need to be puritanical here, I agree. On the other hand there are a few posters who would be a lot easier to understand if they learnt some basics. We have one who never uses any punctuation or capitalisation at all, another who capitalises every word and at least one other who invariably puts an apostrophe before the s in every plural. OK, you can still work out what they're getting at, but it doesn't make for fluent communication.

There: I've now upset several members. Apologies to anyone I've offended, but I have a rather low tolerance threshhold because I see so much poor writing in my daily work. I'm seriously considering sending back such gobbledygook with a note saying I have no intention of reading it until it has been translated into English!

You make good points here, Jason (as ever!); but you'll raise a few hackles, sadly. That said, I haven't met anyone yet who would buy a TV with 'Panersonic' on the front, or a car with 'Vokeswagon' on its badge. Yet those same folk will argue their right to spell and punctuate as they wish. As students say to me, "Well, you know what I meant!" or "It was only a first draft...".

Language is uniquely human and the main aspect that separates us from other animals. We should be proud of it and treasure it.

 

[Bluetail]

The italicisation is another thing altogether - all foreign, unnaturalised words are conventionally italicised in English, e.g. per se.

Er, not (according to OUP) if they've been naturalised into English. The Shorter OED actually gives "per se" in roman, but "id est" in italics.

 

[mountain man]

We have one who never uses any punctuation or capitalisation at all, another who capitalises every word and at least one other who invariably puts an apostrophe before the s in every plural.

My favourite is the one that has great trouble spelling the word "Squirrel."

Maybe the next Devonbash/Minsmeet/BBWF could include a brief introduction to spelling, punctuation and grammar.

god doo, eye. NeeD iT ?/

Tony McKinome

 

[birdman]

That said, I haven't met anyone yet who would buy a TV with 'Panersonic' on the front, or a car with 'Vokeswagon' on its badge.

What a brilliant observation! Now I have another comeback for the language-manglers!!!

See your point re individuals, and I reckon we're in agreement - and as agreeing seems de rigueur at the moment, I will also agree about italics!

 

[scampo]

The correct scientific method is definitely to capitalise the genus name and have the species (and subspecies ) in lower case - Buteo buteo. The common name convention has become a little more confused because it is accurate to have Bewick's swan in that we are dealing with a name whereas it should be mute swan because mute is the verb. Having said that, the common use of capitalisation has made writing mute swan look wrong so it is a matter of personal preference. The RSPB follows the proper scientific system (as presumably do the BTO) even if it looks aesthetically wrong. BTW, the rule is reversed with scientific names and it would be wrong to write Cygnus Bewickii, the actual systematic is Cygnus bewickii.

"Mute" is not a verb here - it is an adjective, hence it does not need capitalisation. "Bewickii" is interesting because it is conventional to continue the capitalisation of a word derived from a proper noun when its grammatical function changes, hence "Parisian" or "English". I would say that the need for the name of a species not to have a capital overrides this as the convention arose to allow the genus to be made clear where genus and species share the same name.

 

[scampo]

"Er, not (according to OUP) if they've been naturalised into English..."

I think that's what I said: "all foreign, unnaturalised words are conventionally italicised in English". My example of per se is perhaps now accepted as naturalised and so would no longer need to be italicised.

 

[scampo]

...and as agreeing seems de rigueur at the moment, I will also agree about italics!

Very good! I needed a smile this morning - just got back from a very ill mum-in-law!

 

[scampo]

...

Tony McKinome

You should be a professional comedian, Tony cos yer dun arf mek mi smile! And do I need smiles at the moment.

 

[helenol]

Most amusing, the way these threads evolve....

Keep it up chaps

 

[mountain man]

And do I need smiles at the moment.

Sorry to hear about the bad times. Hope your mother in law gets well soon. I'd crack a joke, but after slagging off Ruffled Feathers all day yesterday, that's too much hypocrisy even for me!

 

[Padraig]

On a slightly different subject-which should probably go in a different thread but, because I dont want to start a new one, I am tagging on here:

What about plural versus singular?

We tend to say- 'I saw three Blackbirds today'- not 'three Blackbird'.

But there is the odd thing of saying 'three Curlew', 'three Shelduck' etc.
Come to think of it, is this tendency confined to waders and waterfowl?

We ceratinly dont say 'three Kestrel' or 'three Eagle'.

Not unless we are very pished indeed-which has been known to happen on occasion, at least in my own persoanl case. Only once or twice of course.

regards,

Padraig. B

 

[Nightranger]

On a slightly different subject-which should probably go in a different thread but, because I dont want to start a new one, I am tagging on here:

What about plural versus singular?

We tend to say- 'I saw three Blackbirds today'- not 'three Blackbird'.

But there is the odd thing of saying 'three Curlew', 'three Shelduck' etc.
Come to think of it, is this tendency confined to waders and waterfowl?

We ceratinly dont say 'three Kestrel' or 'three Eagle'.

Not unless we are very pished indeed-which has been known to happen on occasion, at least in my own persoanl case. Only once or twice of course.

regards,

Padraig. B

I think this is an area that is a matter of personal comfort even though there are recognised conventions. Unfortunately, the English language has so many contradictions as in the plural for goose being geese yet it is never mongeese as the plural for mongoose. It feels really uncomfortable to refer to mongooses or use what is probably a more correct usage and refer to "a pack of mongoose". Yeesh! I am glad I grew up with this language instead of trying to start from new.

 

[scampo]

Obviously bowing to our north American members.
I'm sure Steve wouldn't lay down any rules on grammar, there won't be any rules in the utopian society of the future

Ah we'll have given up using language by then, Andy. It's odd people get flummoxed about these "rules". It's that word "rules" of course that does it. But they're not "rules" at all. Grammar merely describes what provides the least ambiguous alternative - and clarity is all, I reckon.

 

[scampo]

I think this is an area that is a matter of personal comfort even though there are recognised conventions. Unfortunately, the English language has so many contradictions as in the plural for goose being geese yet it is never mongeese as the plural for mongoose. It feels really uncomfortable to refer to mongooses or use what is probably a more correct usage and refer to "a pack of mongoose". Yeesh! I am glad I grew up with this language instead of trying to start from new.

This is an odd thing, for sure and has always intrigued me. It seems that the more familiar birds take the "s", the less familiar not, perhaps. But... not always, e.g. "There are three whimbrel amongst those curlews over there."

 

[scampo]

Sorry to hear about the bad times. Hope your mother in law gets well soon. I'd crack a joke, but after slagging off Ruffled Feathers all day yesterday, that's too much hypocrisy even for me!

Thanks, Tom. It's not likely she will - but she's enjoyed four score years and ten, which is more than I'm likely to manage! Sadly I have a brother sailing in a similar boat. Such is life, eh?

Keep up the humour, do!

 

[scampo]

Thanks for that neat explanation, Steve.

In business at least there does seem to be an increasing trend towards capitalisation of any noun the writer thinks is important and specific, but, as you point out, many people don't know or care about grammar these days.

There's nothing new under the sun, eh, Jason? Such a style was conventional in the eighteenth century and before. I love it when the old writers capitalise nouns such as Avarice and Gluttony - personified deadly sins of course.

In business, though, I think much ignorance rules, too. They spend £100k+ on a new logo and image, then mess up on their spelling, punctuation and grammar.

 

[Edward woodwood]

More smiles Steve....

...and u certainly don't want to buy a Mitsubishi Pajero - if you live in a Spanish speaking country...........

and the japanese named the Toyota Starion after the name for a male horse - kid u not - true, not a cheap jibe at Japanese pronounciation

and an MR2 is not popular in France for obvious reasons - just say it in French!

 

[scampo]

More smiles Steve....

...and u certainly don't want to buy a Mitsubishi Pajero - if you live in a Spanish speaking country...........

and the japanese named the Toyota Starion after the name for a male horse - kid u not - true, not a cheap jibe at Japanese pronounciation

and an MR2 is not popular in France for obvious reasons - just say it in French!

This is great. Yesterday's thread liberated a few from their mind forg'd manacles and today's will add a bit of panache to the English on BF and thanks to a thread of a while back most of us now sign off with a real name. Ah, we're on our way to Utopia!

 

[scampo]

I think this is an area that is a matter of personal comfort even though there are recognised conventions. Unfortunately, the English language has so many contradictions as in the plural for goose being geese yet it is never mongeese as the plural for mongoose. It feels really uncomfortable to refer to mongooses or use what is probably a more correct usage and refer to "a pack of mongoose". Yeesh! I am glad I grew up with this language instead of trying to start from new.

And the plural of a tailor's iron, called a "goose" is "gooses"!

But I think the apparent contradictions of pluralisation are more often down to the origin of the words involved and changes - especially standardisation - of pronunciation.

 

[Bluetail]

This is an odd thing, for sure and has always intrigued me. It seems that the more familiar birds take the "s", the less familiar not, perhaps. But... not always, e.g. "There are three whimbrel amongst those curlews over there."

I must admit to being very inconsistent about this. I'm as likely to refer to "a flock of Curlew" as "a flock of Curlews". I think it's only wildfowl and waders that suffer from this, isn't it?