Well, yes. If someone has decided to go to the trouble of violating the normal conventions, then they clearly prefer their name uncapitalized. If it wasn’t an important distinction to them, they wouldn’t do it.
This is different from a logo. A logo is art and not necessarily how they prefer to be named in print. Same with a signature.
It’s really weird there’s an argument here at all. People here generally do not alter usernames at the beginning of a sentence here. I’ve seen it maybe a handful of times, and the person always comes across as kinda out of touch like someone who begins a sentence with “IPhone.”
How have so many people not noticed? How haven’t you noticed Twitter handles in articles, which are not only left uncapitalized but have the @ sign in front of them?
Cite one that says you can start a sentence with a lower case letter.
From the statement that “style guides differ in many ways”, you cannot proceed directly to the conclusion that they do not agree on any. Logic textbooks differ in hundreds of ways, but they all agree that that is faulty logic.
On the other hand, AP Style (unless it’s changed recently) requires that words like iPad and iPhone and eBay to be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. They suggest IPad, IPhone and EBay. Third-party cite.
Yes, there’s a rule that says that the first word of a sentence is capitalized. There’s also a rule that subsequent words in the sentence are not capitalized. Proper names are certainly an exception to the latter rule. Why should they not then be an exception to the former?
No, you’d definitely avoid that. Best practice, as others have said, is to restructure the sentence.
For instance the question “Who’s that writer you like so much?” should be answered in writing not by “Bell hooks” but rather “Her name is bell hooks.” It’s simple to avoid these problems.
The problem of having her first name capitalized and her last name not. Since her convention is to not capitalize either, but having the sentence start with her first name can force the capitalization of it. However since her last name is the second word, the lowercase usage is allowed.
That’s my understanding as well. e. e. cummings still makes a good example for this thread.
The New York Times now styles the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement as Nafta. But they still style the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as NATO. Why? I don’t know. Third base.
Styles are styles. They are not rules. They change with time and circumstances.
I learned that lesson long ago. The contract for my first book said I had to use Chicago style. So I went out and bought the book. But after I signed the contract they sent me a long list of house exceptions to Chicago style. I put the Manual back on the shelf and never opened it again. I knew what they really cared about.
People here are treating styles like religions, whose rules are to be imposed on everybody in society. Sorry, but when it comes to your styles, I’m an atheist.
No, that’s not a style. That’s a rule that has exceptions. Please provide a cite for a style guide anywhere that does not in general require the first word of a sentence to be capitalized.
With regard to eBay and iPhone, CMOS makes the same exceptions to the general rule. With regard to the other examples, that is a matter of style.
Why do you capitalize all the first words in these sentences?
Most of this is just a semantic argument. But in my opinion, a practice that is followed in 99.999% of all cases, but has a very small number of explicitly defined exceptions, is not a convention or a style but a rule.
There’s a pointless distinction being made here between styles and rules. Once you adopt a style, it’s a style rule, but it’s only a rule to the extent that a publication or entity has voluntarily chosen that style to follow.
However, certain practices are required by every published style guide, like capitalizing the first word of a sentence unless there is a defined exception.
There are people in this thread who argue that this is a “rule” with *no *exceptions.
Which is it? Exceptions or no exceptions?
As Ascenray correctly says, the distinction between rules and styles is in the real world meaningless - unless people try to insist that certain things are rules that must be followed. Little Nemo said “Things like capitalization, punctuation, and spelling are rules.” Not in the least. How can they be rules when the Chicago MoS devotes hundreds of pages to setting down guidelines to instill consistency from the raging chaos of the numerous choices of capitalization, spelling, and punctuation?
Christians interpret the Bible that way. Each denomination has certain liturgical differences from each other. Each sect is therefore a style guide to Christianity. You can say they all believe in certain things, but I’d bet you are wrong except in the most general and ill-defined way. Same with Jews and Muslims and the other old, worldwide religions. Yet each church has a tendency to say that their beliefs are rules they must follow and often say that everybody should follow them. There are no rules. Not even among followers of any particular variation. There are voluntary choices, with uncountable exceptions. When you insist that rules exist that non-members must follow you will get this exact pushback I am giving here.
Laws exist. Styles exist. Beliefs exist. Each can exert sanctions on those who don’t follow them. But they are not blindly followed or equally applied and do not always end in punishment. Often they are blithely ignored. Often they are officially changed. Very often they accrete changes through the weight of individual choices. I made a choice that is different from your choice. You’ve put me on notice. From my point of view you are simply behind the times.
Again, language works this way. It has always worked this way.
Oh, Colibri. See Chicago Manual of Style 6:10.
Do we want to get into the theological dispute of whether abbreviations and capital letters are words?
So what? It’s up to the publisher to decide what’s important. Style is fluid and changing and comes in a wide variety. The New Yorker still uses “coöperate” and that’s fine even though it might be the only modern popular American publication to do so. The Economist uses “-ize” when most of its British readers would use “-ise.”
Now you have to balance between freedom of style choices against actual unintelligability—which used to be an issue with photocopied zines in the '80s and '90s.
You might also have to consider issues of freedom of identity, such as using a person’s preferred gender pronoun.
But a corporation doesn’t have the right to make you assist its marketing by adhering to its style choices for its commercial identity.
An individual might be more justified in being upset if you for example chose a term that has disparaging connotations as your style rule.
But when it comes to mere typography, I don’t agree that such a person has the moral right to dictate your style. Being “a person whose name is spelled with idiosyncratic capitalization” is not an identity, or it’s one that trivializes the very notion of identity. It’s a way to assert control over another person’s expression on trivial grounds on trivial issues.
I didn’t argue that, so I’m not sure why you are asking me. Ask someone who made that statement. I stated that the question of whether to capitalize particular proprietary names was a matter of style. Now you are arguing, for I don’t know what reason, that there is no standard about capitalizing the first word at the beginning of a sentence. That’s absurd.
A rule with certain defined exceptions. This is not a difficult concept.
Again, I am not sure who exactly you are arguing with, and about what, aside from whether the word “rule” can be applied to a convention that applies 99.999% of the time.
The issue isn’t whether A’s, B’s, and C’s are words, but whether they are plurals. Are you claiming they are not?
Your statement here shows both the absurdity of your posts and the spot-on nature of your posts. And yes, I mean both at the same time.
The “proper” use of apostrophes is a matter of style. It is not immutable. Indeed, use of the apostrophe has undergone many stylistic changes over the centuries. To insist that the way things have been for, say, the last 100 years in English text is the way they must be is to assert that “rules” for proper writing style cannot change.
Most properly educated writers of the English language think those who write plurals using apostrophes are “wrong” in their style, and demonstrate a lack of education and/or literacy by doing so. But, for all we know, in another 50 years, that will be the style. After all, writing things like “the '50s” (“the '50’s”) or “TROs” (“TRO’s”) brings the issue up regularly, and there are lots of perfectly well-educated people who insert what I would consider a “wrong” apostrophe in such situations.
So your posts are absurd, because one cannot assert in one breath that insisting upon your own style for handing a use of style is ok, and in the next breath, assert that there is some style situation for which an increasingly common usage is wrong. And your posts are spot on, in highlighting the fact that style changes with time. As you point out, the iPhone, iPad, eBay, etc. are causing a re-think on this “rule.”
