Language desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

Urdu, anyone?

The following word was added to the Quetta article by a new user as an Urdu spelling of the city's name. I haven't the faintest idea if it's correct or not, but a Google search turned up very few hits, which made me a bit suspicious. Can anybody translate? پښتونخو --Fullobeans (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says Pashtunkhwa, which is an odd addition, since that's not where Quetta is. However there is a Pakhtun-khwa Milli Awami Party which is based in Quetta (or Balochistan generally). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quetta is at least in the Pashto-speaking part of Balochistan; nevertheless, I removed it. —An gr 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. --Fullobeans (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic writing

In a lot of old English (not Old English) writing, more words are capitalized than we would now. What's the rule for this? Is it just all nouns, or what? 99.245.92.47 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that around the late 17th century / early 18th century (when English was most prone to capitalization) there was a lot of leeway in usage (as opposed to modern standard German, where there are rules of correctness requiring nouns to be capitalized). AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, prior to the great dictionary writers, such as Noah Webster, all english spelling was non-standard, as there was no standard. People spelled fonetikly and capitalization was used for any number of Purposes, including Emphasis. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while there was a certain amount of freedom of usage before the second half of the 18th century (when the idea of one single correct form of writing began to take hold), the situation was not merely chaotic and anarchic -- there were definite parameters which the great majority of educated writers and published books stayed within. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pff. Those old-time guys were so dumb; why didn't they just bold their text before printing? Matt Deres (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a lot of italicizing of proper names during that general time period (not really for emphasis, just to mark them as names). AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indeed capitalisation is still used to this end by marketing. Or even deliberate non-capitalisation such as apple with their iPod and iMacs (and all their other 'i' stuff). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about in the Victorian era, ie mid-late 19th century? 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization practice at that time was essentially the same as it is now. Deor (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original text of Gulliver's Travels (18th century) capitalises all of the nouns, like in German. Steewi (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand Jane Austen regularly writes street names with the generic part hyphenated and not capitalised, as 'Milsom-street' and 'Camden-place'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Victorian times and well into the 20th century, newspaper headlines were typically capitalized like book titles. Today they are usually capitalized like Wikipedia article titles, i.e. only the first word is capitalized unless it would always be capitalized. Also, things like seasons, species of animals, chess pieces, and playing cards that are sort of on the boundary between common and proper nouns were more likely to be capitalized then than now. --Anonymous, 02:02 UTC, March 12, 2009.

american people vs. American people vs. American People

Which of the following is the most appropriate to use in the following sentence: The piece of legislation was created with the general welfare of the ___ in mind. Is it "american people", "American people", or "American People"? Yakeyglee (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second one: "the American people". Deor (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper name adjectives are always capitalized in English, so the first is "right out". AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitilisation

I'm used to Christian texts capitalising God (and pronouns, etc.) but in this letter, Edward VIII's Abdication, he capitalises 'Me' and 'My' in a similar way. Is this because he was the monarch? Or some other reason, like when thy capitalise words like 'The Company' having defined them in legal documents? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "the royal we" (not to be confused with "the Royal Wee"). BrainyBabe (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other thing, there is a common practice that works like this. Say X is a common noun, but is used in forming titles of people or companies and within that context it is part of a proper name and is capitalized. Then you shorten the full name to the word X, but you still mean to refer to that specific person or thing. In that case you capitalize X.

For example, in the US, "the president" is elected for a four-year term (generic usage, thus a common noun), but "the President" had to respond to the Pearl Harbor attack (specifically Franklin Roosevelt). Similarly, organizations like big companies and universities often refer to themselves the same way as "the Company" or "the University".

There is a second reason that may be used in a legal document, which is to emphasize that a short word is being used that was defined to stand for something else. "In this document references to the Company refer to Dewey Cheatham & Howe Co. Inc.", it may say. Then the capitalized Company serves to remind you of that.

--Anonymous, 02:12 UTC, March 12, 2009.

The problem is, he doesn't say 'We'. In fact, quite the opposite: he tries to prevent a poor view of his family by using 'Me' and 'My' repeatedly; it's sort of the Royal we without the nosism. I was aware of the uses of capitalisation in legal texts etc., so I suppose it's because he's the monarch that he capitalises 'Me' then? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read transcripts (and, apparently, listen to) "Historic speeches and broadcasts" by the Queen, from her 1940 address as a young girl during wartime, to the Sydney Opera House speech of 2000, at this handy website, courtesy Buckingham Palace. None of the few I looked at captalised any of the self-references (except of course "I", which Richard Halliburton called the vertical pronoun). I suppose it is possible that the contemporary transcripts might have capitalised more widely, and that was altered later, but it seems unlikely. Happy reading! BrainyBabe (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a libertarian, I've encountered cranks who write "Me" and "My" to assert the sovereignty of the individual. —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that all personal pronouns (Me, My, I) were once capitalized in English but this changed over time. "I" is the only capitizalized word to survive. --Ephilei (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]