On Capitalization

[cnorman18]

A small matter that has bothered me for some time, not as a theist but as a grammarian, is the rather studied and deliberate manner in which some on this board refuse to spell the word "God" with a capital letter when it refers to the God of Christianity or Judaism.

When referring to multiple gods, e.g. the Greek gods, or to unspecified "gods" in general, the uncapitalized form is perfectly proper; but when referring, as is most commonly the case here, to the Judeo-Christian God, it ought to be spelled properly, as "God," because it is in effect a proper name. That practice does not indicate belief or even respect; that is simply the way it's spelled.

Muslims do not typically use that term, preferring "Allah," and I do not notice anyone refusing to capitalize that. Again, that's simply the way it's spelled. No one assumes it means you believe in Allah when you trouble to spell it right.

Refusing to capitalize the word strikes me as petty and more than a little childish, nothing more than a calculated bit of provocation and disrespect. And it's silly. After all, you don't even see the most irrational and wrongheaded of fundamentalists and YECs referring to "charles darwin."

The word is "God." Spell it properly. No one's going to mistake you for a Baptist.

Debate question is obvious. Someone's going to try to defend this bit of petty nonsense.

(For the record, "rabbi" is not capitalized, except when used as a personal title: "my rabbi," as opposed to "Rabbi Stein." "Jew" and "Jewish," on the other hand, are always capitalized, in any form or context, but "synagogue" is not.)

I once taught English as well as mathematics. You don't have to respect God, but you ought to respect the language.

[McCulloch]

"Y'all"--absolutely.

(Quite a useful word, actually, "y'all." There is no other word in English that clearly denotes the plural "you," now that "ye" is extinct.)

There is a first nations language which has 5 versions of the first person plural pronoun (we and us in English).

1. you and [strike]me[/strike]
2. some other person and me
3. more than one other person and me
4. you, me and some other person
5. you, me and more than one other person

You and me placed in a sentence is incorrect useage of a pronoun. If you wrote:

"You and me are going to the store", it would be incorrect. "You and I are going to the store" is the correct pronoun to use.

I should have made the distinction between the subjective and the objective. You and I are going to the store uses the pronouns in the subjective. They would like you and me to convert to Christianity is the correct usage in the objective case. The real easy test to see if you have it right is to remove the you and and see if it is still correct. They would like me to convert to Christianity is correct They would like I to convert to Christianity is not. Therefore They would like you and me to convert to Christianity is correct and They would like you and I to convert to Christianity is not.

so my original post should have looked more like:

[mcol]Subject (we) [mcol]Object (us) [row]you and I[col]you and me[row]some other person and I[col]some other person and me[row]more than one other person and I[col]more than one other person and me[row]you, I and some other person[col]you, me and some other person[row]you, I and more than one other person[col]you, me and more than one other person

[Confused]

"Y'all"--absolutely.

(Quite a useful word, actually, "y'all." There is no other word in English that clearly denotes the plural "you," now that "ye" is extinct.)

There is a first nations language which has 5 versions of the first person plural pronoun (we and us in English).

1. you and [strike]me[/strike]
2. some other person and me
3. more than one other person and me
4. you, me and some other person
5. you, me and more than one other person

You and me placed in a sentence is incorrect useage of a pronoun. If you wrote:

"You and me are going to the store", it would be incorrect. "You and I are going to the store" is the correct pronoun to use.

I should have made the distinction between the subjective and the objective. You and I are going to the store uses the pronouns in the subjective. They would like you and me to convert to Christianity is the correct usage in the objective case. The real easy test to see if you have it right is to remove the you and and see if it is still correct. They would like me to convert to Christianity is correct They would like I to convert to Christianity is not. Therefore They would like you and me to convert to Christianity is correct and They would like you and I to convert to Christianity is not.

so my original post should have looked more like:

[mcol]Subject (we) [mcol]Object (us) [row]you and I[col]you and me[row]some other person and I[col]some other person and me[row]more than one other person and I[col]more than one other person and me[row]you, I and some other person[col]you, me and some other person[row]you, I and more than one other person[col]you, me and more than one other person

Now my head is spinning. Since I can't intelligently make out a single understanding of what is stated here, I will have to take your word for it. If or when the meds wear off and my head isn't hazed over, then I will try to figure it out. I trust you won't let me forget?

[beankitty]

"God" with a capital letter when it refers to the God of Christianity or Judaism.

So if I say "God" then I am referring to the Judaeo-Christian deity? I don't know about that. We use the word "God" in my religion and "the Father", and we are referring to Zeus...

When referring to multiple gods, e.g. the Greek gods, or to unspecified "gods" in general, the uncapitalized form is perfectly proper; but when referring, as is most commonly the case here, to the Judeo-Christian God, it ought to be spelled properly, as "God," because it is in effect a proper name. That practice does not indicate belief or even respect; that is simply the way it's spelled.

Well if you are gonna be so picky then you ought to know the spelling stays the same whether it be god or God!

Muslims do not typically use that term, preferring "Allah," and I do not notice anyone refusing to capitalize that. Again, that's simply the way it's spelled. No one assumes it means you believe in Allah when you trouble to spell it right.

Once again, Allah is a name, but God can't be a name because which one are we talking about?!

I once taught English as well as mathematics. You don't have to respect God, but you ought to respect the language.

Good luck with that. Nobody respects the English language anymore... just a select few. Nobody KNOWS proper grammar anymore... Open up a dictionary and see for yourself.

[McCulloch]

Once again, Allah is a name, but God can't be a name because which one are we talking about?!

I have been told by Arab Christians that Allah is not a name. It is simply the Arabic word for god. This can easily be verified by looking at any Arabic translation of the Bible.

The point is that monotheists don't need to have a name for their god. When there is only one of something, it does not need a name to distinguish it from others of its kind, does it.

The rules of English grammar are such that you capitalize any common noun that you are using as if it were a proper noun. "My mother wants me to grow up." "I'm going to write to Mother and tell her about my new job." "They pray to their god every Sunday." "In response to their prayers, God's answer is always indistinguishable from silence." It has nothing to do with respect. It is simply the convention of our language.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think its just a debate tactic some folks use. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. For some it is a matter of taking away the 'power' that capitalizing can give. Just like some like to refer to 'Darwinists', without ever saying 'Newtonists' or 'Pasteurists'. It's all part of debate and we use the tools we use.

Some are just unable to get the whole grammer and spelling thing down regardless. I've long since given up trying to figure out when the apostrophe gets used, and where, and just wing it.

[cnorman18]

Since my friend McCulloch has dealt with your other remarks, I think I'll speak to this one:

I once taught English as well as mathematics. You don't have to respect God, but you ought to respect the language.

Good luck with that. Nobody respects the English language anymore... just a select few. Nobody KNOWS proper grammar anymore... Open up a dictionary and see for yourself.

Well, "nobody" is inaccurate. There are several here, including myself, who continue to respect the language. Not everybody writes everything as if it were a text message.

And it isn't just here. If you want to get a book published, it had better be written in standard English. Most major magazines are still grammatically correct, though some bonehead errors are growing more common (using "everyday" as an adverb instead of as an adjective, for instance).

I have never thought that it was the appropriate response, when confronted with coarseness and barbarity, to shrug and become a part of it.

[beankitty]

I have been told by Arab Christians that Allah is not a name. It is simply the Arabic word for god. This can easily be verified by looking at any Arabic translation of the Bible.

But most people, especially living in predominately English-speaking countries, will see Allah as a name, even though as you said it is translated to God.

The point is that monotheists don't need to have a name for their god. When there is only one of something, it does not need a name to distinguish it from others of its kind, does it.

So-called monotheists with their Holy Trinity... I don't know, I think they do need a name. Especially nowadays with the New Age movement in America, a huge chunk of people will respond "yes" to the "Do you believe in God" question, but they aren't referring to the Judaeo-Christian one. It gets very confusing.

The rules of English grammar are such that you capitalize any common noun that you are using as if it were a proper noun. "My mother wants me to grow up." "I'm going to write to Mother and tell her about my new job." "They pray to their god every Sunday." "In response to their prayers, God's answer is always indistinguishable from silence." It has nothing to do with respect. It is simply the convention of our language.

It DOES have to do with respect - try asking people if they care about English. I'll bet you most of them say they don't give a damn.

[beankitty]

Well, "nobody" is inaccurate. There are several here, including myself, who continue to respect the language. Not everybody writes everything as if it were a text message.

I assumed it was obvious that saying "nobody" would mean the majority of people. Obviously, if "nobody" did, this topic would not exist now would it?

And it isn't just here. If you want to get a book published, it had better be written in standard English. Most major magazines are still grammatically correct, though some bonehead errors are growing more common (using "everyday" as an adverb instead of as an adjective, for instance).

English is altered by the masses, and "rules" are changed. For example, "cool" is not slang anymore, the Dictionary has been changed.

I have never thought that it was the appropriate response, when confronted with coarseness and barbarity, to shrug and become a part of it.

The LEAST I want to do is conform. To imply that I "shrug" and follow along is not right. My English used to be great, now it isn't, and not by choice. It's conditioning - if you spend your life around those who do not speak properly, you will begin to speak that way too. This is a very simple concept. It's just like teachers in the public school system. When getting credentialed, they have to take tons of classes and pass hard tests. After working in the system for a decade and more, those with a masters in English now use words like "ain't", "good" when it should be "well", etc.. that's just how it is...

[Zzyzx]

.

It's conditioning - if you spend your life around those who do not speak properly, you will begin to speak that way too. This is a very simple concept. It's just like teachers in the public school system. When getting credentialed, they have to take tons of classes and pass hard tests. After working in the system for a decade and more, those with a masters in English now use words like "ain't", "good" when it should be "well", etc.. that's just how it is...

An observation: When I was teaching college classes long ago, many public school teachers took summer or evening classes to fulfill ongoing education requirements of their contracts. Many of those who had been teaching one grade level for some time SPOKE a lot like their students. It was quite often possible to guess pretty accurately the grade level some taught just from their manner of speaking.

[cnorman18]

Well, "nobody" is inaccurate. There are several here, including myself, who continue to respect the language. Not everybody writes everything as if it were a text message.

I assumed it was obvious that saying "nobody" would mean the majority of people. Obviously, if "nobody" did, this topic would not exist now would it?

And it isn't just here. If you want to get a book published, it had better be written in standard English. Most major magazines are still grammatically correct, though some bonehead errors are growing more common (using "everyday" as an adverb instead of as an adjective, for instance).

English is altered by the masses, and "rules" are changed. For example, "cool" is not slang anymore, the Dictionary has been changed.

I have never thought that it was the appropriate response, when confronted with coarseness and barbarity, to shrug and become a part of it.

The LEAST I want to do is conform. To imply that I "shrug" and follow along is not right. My English used to be great, now it isn't, and not by choice. It's conditioning - if you spend your life around those who do not speak properly, you will begin to speak that way too. This is a very simple concept. It's just like teachers in the public school system. When getting credentialed, they have to take tons of classes and pass hard tests. After working in the system for a decade and more, those with a masters in English now use words like "ain't", "good" when it should be "well", etc.. that's just how it is...

That does happen, but it isn't inevitable. I was a public middle-school teacher for 23 years, and somehow retained the ability to use the subjunctive case. The slang expressions in my own speech generally come from my own youth in the 60s.

Far out, huh?