Re: Proper Names - Definition

Gosh, there's got to be a limit to the amount of postings a thread can take. One of these days the host is going to step in with "Stop! Stop! I can't take anymore! This thread's about to blow!"

Meanwhile .....

I don't think you can "bend" the rule of capitalization for proper nouns
(and I haven't claimed that you can), because it is a very simple, black-and-white
rule (which is why I think the pregnancy analogy is appropriate).




This is a very strange statement for an artist to make. Most rules are black and white in nature are they not? I thought you agreed with artistic license and the bending of rules for such a cause. Pray do tell, are there no rules you think can be 'bent' for art's sake? Or is it a case of you consider you cannot bend the rules (or perhaps this one specifically) at all? They are either broken or not, and artistic license therefore involves breaking rules, not bending them?

Perhaps you could tell us what those limits are and who set them? Or is
it really just a case of what Richard Archer-Jones likes is acceptable
and what he doesn't is exceeding the limits?




But art is subjective is it not? Of course those limits are Richard Archer-Jones's limits. I have given my limits, and my reasons, based on aesthetics and grammar.

1. You have said that you can ensure correct spelling when you want to
(eg, for finished pieces of art). 2. Your posts here contain numerous
spelling mistakes. 3. Thus, I inferred that you didn't want to ensure
that the spelling was correct in these posts, and I would have thought
that that was a deliberate decision.




Well, I've been using the spell checker everytime (forgot once) since you pointed it out to me. If there are still spelling mistakes then it is going to take me even longer to answer your posts than it already does. From your analysis the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow that I don't want to correct my spelling. It could be that I want to but just haven't got the time (it takes me long enough as it is). It seems to me we are getting back into doggy ground again here, like the 'most' argument.

Treating the first letter in a distinct way would also indicate that the
words are special.




Well, personally, repeat, personally I don't think it would. There's still no capitals involved, and as far as I recall it's only capitals that can indicate a proper name. It's like dying our queen's (God bless her) hair gold instead of giving her a crown. She'd certainly look distinctive, poor thing, and people might consider her special (or nuts), but I don't think she would consider that much compensation for a crown. What d'ya think Heather?

You see, give a word a coloured first (lower case) letter and I think people would just wonder "Why's that first letter a different colour?". I don't think they would conclude "Ah, that must be a special word, it must be a proper noun".

Which is precisely why I (and others here) have no problems with the use
of lowercase under discussion. Context is always relevant.




Yes, but what's the point? What's the point in making the viewer rely on context and not using one of the few means of expression that the written language has over the spoken word?

You are right, the spoken word has no way of indicating a proper name and yet we seem to get along alright with that deficiency. Sometimes confusion can occur and I'm sure some jokes rely on such confusion, but how does that affect the written word? They are two different methods of communication and speech can convey many things that the written word cannot, but in this
case the written word has the advantage. Why ignore that advantage?

Heck, I'm not doing a very good job of keep my posts short am I? Sorry folks, I just can't help myself.