Re: Proper Names - Definition

How can a proper name have no capitals?




English grammar demands that a proper noun have an initial capital, not just a capital at the start of a syllable, whether or not that syllable is at the start of the word, and I've never denied that. Both "london" and "iPod" break that rule. But I think that context is relevant here, as is the intelligence of your target market, and I believe that in examples like the Olympics logo people can understand a lowercased word as being a reference to a proper noun, just as they can understand it in a sentence written all in caps or in spoken text (where there are obviously no capitals to emphasise a word). The fact that a word doesn't follow conventional capitalisation doesn't mean that people are unable to understand it.

The reasons are that you only have to bend the rules slightly for 'iPod'
and 'InDesign', ... They bend the rules, and that is the material difference.
If they ditched the rules they'd have no capitals at all, e.g. 'london'




No, the relevant rule is that proper nouns take an initial capital, and this rule is broken, not bent, by both "london" and "iPod". It's like that old statement about being pregnant - either you're pregnant or you're not (you can't be a little bit pregnant) - but in this case the question is: Does the word have an initial capital or not? If it doesn't and it's a proper noun, then it has broken the rule for its capitalisation. You originally agreed with this, until you realised that it didn't fit your argument any more: "when I see a word that does not have an initial capital I just do not see a proper name. Through my eyes the two go together, they cannot be separated."

They break because what you are left with is no indication whatsoever
of a proper name.




Except for context, which is hugely relevant. I apparently credit people with more intelligence than you do, because I don't think readers will have any trouble understanding the Olympics or Halfords logo, whereas you seem to think they'll just see gobbledegook. (Or maybe you just think others are less intelligent than you, because you had no trouble understanding these logos.)

Please will you comment on that above statement!




Well, I really didn't need to, because I've already addressed all those points in my previous posts. But, because you seem to have missed or misunderstood them, I have.

How can it ever be discussed without your own personal preferences being
the guide?




Thank you - you seem to be admitting here that it is really an aesthetic issue for you, not a grammatical one. And, as I have constantly said, I have no problem with that. I only have a problem with you suggesting that the reason "london" is unacceptable is because it breaks the rule of capitalisation while at the same time being quite happy with "iPod", which also breaks that rule (and it does - there's no doubt over that).

Where have I stated that I deliberately did not use the spell checker?




You didn't state that and I didn't say that you had. And, if you reread the relevant part of my post, you'll see that it was a question to you, not a statement of fact. But I admit that I did infer that you hadn't used the spell checker or a dictionary (or hadn't proofread your posts) by the continuing presence of spelling mistakes (such as "Emporer" and "critisise") and by your earlier claim that "for a finished piece of art work I would make sure the spelling is correct". If you are able to make sure your spelling is correct when you want to, then presumably you didn't want to when writing these posts. I would have thought that that would have been a deliberate decision, but if you really have been using the spell checker or a dictionary or proofreading your posts, then I apologise for suggesting that this might not have been the case (but I would never hire you as a proofreader).

I'm actually not hugely bothered by spelling mistakes in posts unless there's a lot of them or they're particularly egregious (like the use of "wallah" or "walla" for voilà), and I'm certainly not above making them myself (for example, I misspelled "design" in post 7), but I do find it incongruous that one who professes to be concerned about the flouting of one grammatical convention doesn't take more care with their own grammar. Which is another reason why I think grammar was just a convenient hook on which to hang your argument, rather than your real motivation.

So, here's a new question for you: would you have a problem with "london" if they had used a different colour for the lowercase "l" or if they had treated it in a similarly distinct way, while still leaving it lowercase?