Each of us writes on the Dope with our own individual styles. I’ve posted almost 30,000 times. That’s three million words at least. I use my style on my websites and my blog, hundreds of thousands of words. I use my style whenever I write articles, unless there is a particular style guide to adhere to. But none has ever come up. Perhaps a copyeditor at the publication changes things to fit its style. Fine with me. That’s their right.
Ascenrey and Colibri have posted on the Dope more than 30,000 times each. I assume they are consistent within their styles. I couldn’t say. I also don’t care. You don’t have a number - buy a membership! - but I’m sure you have your stylistic quirks that I also ignore.
Most good writers as I’ve defined them stay within a widely observed set of conventions. Most style changes are at the fringe, rarely encountered. Small letters at the beginnings of sentences are one such. It’s fun to argue about such points, but what must always be remembered is that no overriding right answer exists, so getting hot and bothered is futile.
I actually read and write about intellectual property law and speak to experts, lawyers, and scholars in the field every damn day—you might even say that IP is my field of expertise if that’s the kind of thing that worries you—and every single one of them would write a big fat “F” on this submission.
Trademark law has a very limited field of concern and it certainly has no intent or purpose to mandate style rules. Indeed, common language trumps trademarks, which is why trademark owners worry about genericide, or the loss of trademarks rights due to common usage.
That* is what Apple’s statement is about. It’s not setting rules for the generic public, because it has no right to do so, under trademark law or otherwise. It’s begging the public not to take away it’s trademark rights, because the general public actually has the right to do that if it collectively decides that “I-Phone” is more useful as a generic word than as an indicator of the source of goods or services.
You think academic and scientific style guidance has never changed?
If what I wrote, that they think it “should appear”, was read as saying that they had the legal power to to enforce that it “must appear” a certain way, then I am sorry for the confusion.
No, language does not have “laws” that can be enforced like that. It is more like manners. If a person wishes to be referred to as “they” rather than as “he” or “she”, then in general I will respect that. Such a person cannot stop me from referring to them as the gender they were born as, but I’d be a bit of an ass to. Like that.
bell hooks cannot force someone like Siam Sam, or any of the media, to respect her wishes. To me though ignoring those wishes is being rude. Now sometimes one wishes to be rude. Sometimes being rude is making some kind of point or comment. Rudeness is occasionally justified. But being rude in order to satisfy some pedantic compulsion that the first word of a sentence must be capitalized seems to me to be very silly.
No I do not think that. Why would you think I do?
This is not a case of being proscriptive with “style guidance”, it is being descriptive. Capitalizing the “m” of “mRNA” when it is the first word of the sentence is generally not done and would be seen by most readers as being extremely odd. Likewise for “tRNA” as in this example: “tRNA is involved in the translation of the nucleic acid message into the amino acids of proteins. tRNA itself is an RNA molecule with a conserved inverted L structure.” Descriptively “TRNA …” is not used. Likewise for “miRNA” (microRNA, which serves regulatory functions) “miRNAs in Neurodegeneration” …
I was talking here about the rationale for capitalizing the beginnings of sentences. Whether you do it in specific cases of specialized proper nouns or trademarks is, as I think I was clear in implying, a matter of style, and where the identity of the term is distinctly associated with a lower case initial letter, the conflict is resolved by stylistic preference – mine would be to avoid the conflict altogether by rephrasing. If absolutely necessary, I think the reader is better served by retaining the original lower-case form if it constitutes a unique identity rather than by engaging in orthographic pedantry.
But the reason for capitalizing the start of sentences in general will (hopefully) never change unless we all descend into an illiterate dystopia, because it has a good and valid justification for readability.
This is the sort of dismissive banality that we occasionally hear in defense of posters who seem to have a permanently broken shift key and are incapable of capitalizing anything, or who can’t spell a single damn word correctly, or whose knowledge of the most basic English grammar doesn’t seem to extend beyond the third-grade level. The defense is, “yeah, but I understood what they were saying”. The fact that you can guess the meaning after the exercise of mental gymnastics doesn’t recommend it as preferred or standard usage. Less egregious transgressions lead to lesser or more subtle difficulties, but the same principles apply. The role of any writer is to be a communicator in a benevolent relationship with the reader, not to be an ignorant, inconsiderate asshole who can’t be bothered with the most basic elements of linguistic propriety.
Indeed it has, but this isn’t an example of that, IMHO – or should I say, Imho. In that form it’s neither a word nor an acronym. It’s a kind of pseudo-word that totes around an initial capital letter as a nod to its acronymic heritage, but it’s really nothing at all. Yes, it’s a stylistic choice, but it’s a bad choice. imho.
I don’t care if they know what it abbreviates, there is a preferred style for an acronym – preferred because it resolves ambiguity. There is no ambiguity about what “radar” might mean.
There is lots of arbitrary bullshit that is “easily stated” – like stating that whether an acronym should be spelled out in caps or treated as a regular word depends on how easy it is to pronounce. That is, however, both arbitrary and subjective. If common usage over time elevates it to the status of an actual word, then fine – but it earned that status on its own merits, not because of a rule.
You’re mixing up completely unrelated things. Lots of people don’t know what common acronyms stand for. They’re still acronyms. And “Isis” is absolutely not an acronym, she is the first daughter of Geb in Egyptian mythology, god of the Earth, and Nut, goddess of the Sky, who married her brother Osiris, also not an acronym.
Agreed. And I agree that these things are stylistic choices, and as far as how to use acronyms is concerned, I’m the one who argues against arbitrary rules governing practice. And I say this as more of a prescriptivist in certain other areas than a few of the pundits on this board are willing to abide.
Who is being orthographically pedantic here? I think it’s people who think that they are bound by corporate marketing decisions regarding typography or that it actually has a significant effect on understanding. So long as your publication is consistent and uniform with regard to its choice, it’s a respectable one.
Maybe it does for now. Maybe it won’t in the future. Language is constantly changing. Read the Declaration of Independence. It has been only two-centuries-plus—a blip in humanity’s time on Earth—and several conventions regarding typography, capitalization, spelling, and punctuation have already changed significantly.
Your warning of “illiterate dystopia” has been croaked by every cranky old man ever, but when it comes down to it, the next generation and the one after that and the one after that will keep or dispense with rules as they see fit, and they will continue to get smarter and be better and know more than us and they will find more and better ways to communicate, perhaps eventually dispensing with what we understand as writing altogether.
This or any other message board or forum is a particular community with particular habits and expectations. Today, we have a certain set of expectations. Tomorrow they might be different.
Perhaps if the number of people who fail to employ conventions that I prefer will eventually drive me away out of annoyance—well, why perhaps? If this board has any significant longevity (unlikely, given fast-changing technology, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument), it will almost certainly happen. And I might be cranky about it while it happens too, but they will be perfectly justified in igoring me.
Well, that’s not the new generation’s problem, because the conventions they adopt will be appropriate for them and their culture and their technology and their sophistication. My leaving will not be a loss to them; it will be my loss for failing to keep up with them. I will age and die and be replaced by something better, just like everything and everyone else will eventually be.
It’s not a pseudo-anything. It’s an actual word by itself on its own independently with a commonly understood meaning. It has its origin in an abbreviation or contraction or acronym, but as time goes on that full form will be less and less used and of interest only to historians and pedants like us, just as we use words like karaoke, anime, Pokemon, radar, laser, scuba, or indeed IBM, CBS, NPR, and AARP—the only significant difference is that the latter are spoken as strings of individual letters, so it still makes sense to spell them as such.
There’s nothing all that special about an acronym as opposed to other ways of forming, adopting, absorbing, or creating words, once that word is in regularly used and understood. “Nafta” is a word now. And Nafta is also called the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the one originated from an acronym formed from the other. But half of those bits of information are minutiae when it comes down to what is actually necessary for communication.
And in that sense, “Nafta” works like a word and is understood like a word, so a publication is perfectly justified in making the logical and rational decision to treat it like any other word, whether originating from an acronym or not. And that’s where the trend is going. Right now the Times is holding on to “NATO” for the sake of an exception to their rule, but if the Times lasts a few more years, I fully expect them to abandon “NATO” and “AIDS” for “Nato” and “aids,” because ultimately there’s no good reason to resist that trend.
This is just cranky old man stuff again. We have plenty of homonyms and homophones and homographs in English. We do just fine. “Isis” can be a radical, violent fundamentalist group in one context and it can be a figure in Egyptian mythology in another context, and it can be a 1970s television show featuring a character somewhat based on the mythological character in another context, or it can represent one of dozens of real or fictional organizations or entities that happen to have the letters “I.S.I.S.” as their initials.
We users of the English language aren’t in any way crippled in our communicative ability by such an astounding degree of ambiguity. Human language is full of that kind of stuff, and we make it work just fine.
When it comes down to it, I can say only what I like and what I prefer. And beyond that I can’t make any further claim that it is better than what someone else likes or prefers. And when I publish my own stuff, I’ll choose a style regime that I like, and you choose one that you like, but don’t pretend that yours is somehow more respectable or superior.
And sooner than later, we’ll both be dead, and the people that are around then won’t give two cents for what we liked and why we liked it, and they will be perfectly correct in that attitude.
And, indeed, it is “Isis” in the British press. And New Zealand. And South Africa. Much of the English speaking world gets by just fine rendering it as Isis instead of ISIS.
I can’t tell whether this was just a quip or intended as trenchant sarcasm, but it doesn’t bother me because in my personal style guide they’re E. E. Cummings and K. D. Lang. And Macy’s and E-Trade, not Macys and ETrade.
Right, and in my life, I have probably shaken hands with dozens of people I know solely as Jennifer or James, without ever having learned their other names. Context saved me from the dark, scary forest of unresolvable ambiguity.
(Incidentally, there are people I have met who can’t stand the idea of giving a child a name that they have connected with another person. If ambiguity and identity are so important why don’t we follow that example and tear out our hair over the fact that every single human that has ever lived doesn’t have a unique name? … Maybe that’s Bell Hooks’s real problem. The fact that she has an uncommon name isn’t enough for her. Perhaps, she craves the Olympian heights of complete unambiguousness and uniqueness. I speculate that she be absolutely terrified of death and time.)
So yes. If someone wants to make a pejorative comment about someone then someone can be rude. No law against it.
Her “uncommon name” btw, was not her given one. That was Gloria Jean Watkins. She took on her maternal great-grandmother’s name as her pen name and apparently states that she chose to write it in lower case as a way of distinguishing it from that great-grandmother. Of course it may just have been a trite gimmick. No idea. Never read any of her writing and have no desire to but people reportedly do react to her strongly as a matter of politics. In any case the lower case name is part of the product of her work. Same with e e cummings.
Intentionally ignoring how someone wishes to be referred to is not against the law. Lots of people went out of their way to refer to our last president as Barry Obama. In general doing such is a means of intentional disrespect.
Look since you probably are expected to know your topic when you are writing about “bitcoin”, you might always write it as bitcoin, or “bitcoin”, or some such, without the capital.
But I guess its not a capital offence to put a capital,ironically, but only because they will commute the death penalty to life in prison. or something.
What the Chicago Manual of Style actually says about this (8.4):
“Unconventional spellings strongly preferred by the bearer of the name or pen name (e.g., bell hooks) should usually be respected in appropriate contexts (library catalogs generally capitalize all such names). E. E. Cummings can be safely capitalized; it was one of his publishers, not he himself, who lowercased his name. Most editors will draw the line at beginning a sentence with a lowercased name and choose either to rewrite or to capitalize the first letter for the occasion.”
If you uphold such an absurd rule then logically you must uphold the rule that nothing is capitalized if it doesn’t start a sentence. E.g., “I shopped at ebay today.”
You cannot force one side of this without forcing the other. Either position in a sentence doesn’t matter or it does. Pick one.
Once again, tell it to the AP and all the newspapers around the US who do, in fact, use that spelling when starting a sentence. It’s a perfectly valid style, and perhaps, judging by the volume of English text American newspapers and wire agencies adhering to AP Style produce, the most usual way to write eBay in the English language when starting a sentence. Hell, our “paper of record” does it that way. Even if it isn’t, it’s hardly some tiny minority of English copy that follows this style.
Are you under the impression that there is a rule that words that do not begin a sentence are never capitalized?
Shouldn’t that be “alright”?
FWIW, Ascenray, I found a number of your posts in this thread very enlightening. So much so that I am now disabused of the notion that someone’s preferred formatting of their own name must be respected in all contexts.
