English Grammar, Spelling and Vocabulary

[MJE]

For example, when we refer to the American government, we capitalize Cabinet to differentiate it from the place where you store your bits and pieces. A prevailing media standard set by The Associated Press is to capitalize Founding Fathers for the men who were instrumental in founding the United States;

     I don't really think those are exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Those examples you cite are arguably proper nouns, or abbreviations of proper nouns, and thus properly capitalized.

... and Army, Navy and Air Force when they refer to the U.S. branches but not those in other countries (the logic is that those are short for the full names of the branches whereas in other countries they might not be and thus are used more generally; it has nothing to do with notions of superiority).

     But why aren't the references to armed forces of other countries short for whatever full names they use? I don't quite get this one.
     I certainly do agree that words like "Army" or "Navy" can be either capitalized or not, and agree that the determining factor is whether, in that context, they are a generic reference, or are short for the proper noun naming a particular armed force. But I would see this as entirely dependent on the context of the reference, and not relating to the country in question.

Advertisements frequently randomly capitalize words and it drives me batty. I suppose it's to highlight the most important words -- "come to the Sale Tomorow!!" but it looks stupid and is bad grammar.

     Yes, that is a lot closer to the kind of thing I was thinking of. (I've usually seen it with nouns, but sometimes other parts of speech too, such as adjectives or verbs.)
     Descriptions of family members or relatives are often wrongly capitalized, as in "I am visiting my Father tomorrow". Wrong - it should be "father": the reference is generic there, even if it is referring to one particular father. But if you change it just a tiny bit, then the capital letter is correct, and even required: "I am visiting Father tomorrow". Here it is a name, which is a proper noun, and it's just as wrong here *not* to capitalize it.

But I think people pick up on that and it trickles down to everyday writing.

     I don't seem to have that problem. Things don't trickle down to me, no matter how common they are, if I am aware they are wrong or illogical or unclear.

So someone writing about her cousin reasons the cousin is important to the story and therefore should be capitalized. (I've got nothing on bears and penguins :) )

     I guess that may *explain* it, if not argue that it's correct. The importance of a noun (which may be subjective anyway in some cases) has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a proper noun or not - with the exception that in highly unusual cases you *may* (especially in poetry) capitalize a noun to stress it or give it an extra dimension. But that's a highly specialized effect, and not really related to the kind of capitalization we're talking about here.

The rules aren't consistent, which doesn't help. You don't capitalize president or queen when they stand alone, only when they appear in front of a name as a title -- but that doesn't apply to British nobility. So the sentence "In London, President Barack Obama met with the queen and the Duchess of Cambridge" is correct according to Associated Press style although it looks wonky to have some titles capitalized and some not.

     I don't know who Associated Press are, or what their authority in such things is; but I disagree with this. In that sentence, I would certainly capitalize "queen". And yes, I would capitalize it even standing alone, if it appeared to be short for the name of the person, consisting of their name preceded by the title.
     There is room for variation, because often a word can be parsed either as (short for) a proper noun or as a generic noun, and make about equal sense either way. "The Queen" in this example is a case in point: it can be seen as either generic (even though clearly referring to a specific queen), or as short for "Queen Elizabeth II", which is undoubtedly a proper noun. But I would in such cases go by the feel of it, and maybe tradition, and, looked at like this, "Queen" by far wins out (in my opinion) over "queen". But I would refer to "queens of England".
     Similarly, I would probably write "presidents of the U.S.", or "the president", if it was referring to the office in general, or to unspecified or hypothetical holders of that office; but I would write "the President" if it was referring to Obama (for instance) - even if Obama was not named at all in the passage. It may be generic in that case; but to me it reads better as being short for "President Obama".
     (I've occasionally seen variants such as (not beginning a sentence) "The Queen" - capital "T", capital "Q". Not correct: "the" is not capitalized, unless it starts the sentence.)

Regards, Michael.

[mynameisdumbnuts]

I don't know who Associated Press are, or what their authority in such things is; but I disagree with this.

The Associated Press is a worldwide news media company; if you ever read news stories online, odds are you've read AP stories, especially if they're about American news. AP publishes a handbook that is used by media companies all around the United States if not the world. Other media companies have their own handbooks (called stylebooks), but a lot of print publications go with AP.

In that sentence, I would certainly capitalize "queen". And yes, I would capitalize it even standing alone, if it appeared to be short for the name of the person, consisting of their name preceded by the title

Queen should not be capitalized when it stands alone because it is a title, not a name nor short for the name of a person. The queen's name does not actually include the word queen, it's just one of her many titles. If you were actually using it as a short for her full moniker of Queen Elizabeth II, you would say, "Queen ordered the pork chops"; but because it's normally preceded by a definite article, you lower case it: "The [person who has the title of] queen ordered the pork chops."

But why aren't the references to armed forces of other countries short for whatever full names they use? I don't quite get this one.

Probably because it's too much hassle to look up the name of every foreign military branch to check on whether it includes the word army. It works when referring to the British Army but not, say, the French, which is properly called Armee de Terre.

Descriptions of family members or relatives are often wrongly capitalized, as in "I am visiting my Father tomorrow". Wrong - it should be "father": the reference is generic there, even if it is referring to one particular father. But if you change it just a tiny bit, then the capital letter is correct, and even required: "I am visiting Father tomorrow". Here it is a name, which is a proper noun, and it's just as wrong here *not* to capitalize it.

In the case of "I am visiting Father tomorrow," I can see why you would capitalize it, but I wouldn't and I disagree with your logic that here father is a name and therefore a proper noun. Father is a title -- a very common one at that -- and therefore not a proper noun. If your dad's name is Bob, it does not suddenly temporarily switch to father even if you refer to him as such. Referring back to Associated Press style, "uppercase only when the noun substitutes for a name as a term of address." Thus, you would write, "Hi, Father!" but not "I wanted to go to the cinema, but father said I may not."

[Fiona1986]

On researching online, it seems Michael is quite correct, in that that if you can replace 'mother' or 'father' with their name then you should capitalise it, if not, don't.

ie, 'My mother is a great cook' or 'Mother is a great cook'
"I am visiting my father tomorrow" or "I am visiting Father tomorrow"

Though I would probably capitalise it when talking about my Mum, as to me, that IS her name not just a title. I never call her anything else.

I would also capitalise queen when referring to a particular queen.
"I read about the Queen in the paper today"
"I did not watch the Queen's speech on Christmas Day"

I know that doesn't follow the rules above, you can't say "the Queen Elizabeth II" (well you can but only if you're talking about a ship). I just think that if you're using a title to refer to an individual it is respectful, and looks better if you give them a capital letter. Just like you would in 'The President [of America] is due to give a speech".

[Anita Bensoussane]

I do the same as Michael and Fiona when it comes to capitalising the Queen/the King/the President (referring to a particular queen/king/president) and Mother/my mother (or Father/my father).

"I did not watch the Queen's speech on Christmas day"

Personally I would also capitalise "Day" when referring to a particular day which already includes some capitalised words, e.g. Christmas Day; Enid Blyton Day.

[Fiona1986]

"I did not watch the Queen's speech on Christmas day"

Personally I would also capitalise "Day" when referring to a particular day which already includes some capitalised words, e.g. Christmas Day; Enid Blyton Day.

Oops, that was a typo!

[Anita Bensoussane]

Ah - that explains it. Sorry for not realising!

[70s-child]

Actually within the US, there is no one consistent style used by the entire country. For instance the federal govt. has its own style guide, and then there is the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), published by the University of Chicago, and generally called the 'Oracle of Style'. The entire academia swears by the CMS for theses and dissertations; and the CMS generally forms the basis for most other style guides. So as per the CMS you wouldn't capitalize president in 'president of the United States', but you would capitalize president in President Barack Obama. Likewise with the queen of England vs. Queen Elizabeth. However, the federal govt. requires that you capitalize everything, so it is President of the United States, the Queen of England, and of course President Obama, and Queen Elizabeth. So it varies a lot by institution. Incidentally as per the government's style guide, it should be the Federal Government, while the CMS will lowercase both words. Added to this mess is the fact that American academic journals have their own little quirks, especially with regard to referencing style. So you have Harvard style referencing, APA style referencing, AER style referencing and so on. I am sure in Britain too (and other countries for that matter) there will be these variations depending on who is publishing the document - the academia, the government, the media, or someone else.

For the purposes of this forum, I think this whole thing is an overkill. And if Tony or Anita start insisting that we refer to some style manual before posting, I will take that as a hint to quit.

So the sentence "In London, President Barack Obama met with the queen and the Duchess of Cambridge" is correct according to Associated Press style although it looks wonky to have some titles capitalized and some not.

So the D in Duchess is capped in the AP style guide, but not the Q of Queen? That's interesting. The CMS would lowercase the D and Q; though it would be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge in the CMS. The feds in contrast would simply cap everything.

[Daisy]

Oh my goodness, I didn't know it was so complicated! Do we have a standard English guide in this country I wonder?
As far as expressing ourselves on this forum, I think the standard is pretty high.

[Anita Bensoussane]

Do we have a standard English guide in this country I wonder?

I don't think so - not for all the fiddly little differences in usage. Publishers generally develop their own "house style" which their writers are required to follow.

[Moonraker]

I don't mind at all about the minor mistakes in grammar, but am fed up to the back teeth with the way (mainly younger) people talk. On a recent bus journey, the two girls sat behind me were talking non-stop. I started to count the number of times they said 'like'. Would you believe it, they got to 250 in less than 15 minutes. I was at screaming point by then. What is happening to our spoken language? Everyone now seems to say Haitch and I've also noticed more and more people pronounce think as fink, I hear mischievous as mis-chievious and calibre as cal - iber. It makes a misplaced capital letter seem a joy to behold!

[Anita Bensoussane]

I'm wondering whether the word "film" might become obsolete within the next few decades. Twice in town the other week I overheard people (obviously English from their accents) talking about films they'd seen/hoped to see, and they referred to them as "movies". A few days after that my son and I were outside the cinema when again I heard someone with an English accent enquiring about a "movie".

[poddys]

In the UK we think of most rules as applying to the whole, but in the USA many laws are at State level, not National level, which gets very confusing.

Even the rules regarding whether you can use a radar detector in your car are not only by State but by County, so you can be doing a long road trip and legally use your radar detector for much of the journey, but risk being caught if you use it in the wrong parts.

[Moonraker]

I'm wondering whether the word "film" might become obsolete within the next few decades...and they referred to them as "movies".

Sky doesn't help calling their film channels Sky Movies! I will always call them films. We used to call them 'pictures' - as in, "I am going to the pictures" (instead of cinema), or, "There's a picture I want to see..."

[Anita Bensoussane]

We used to call them 'pictures' - as in, "I am going to the pictures" (instead of cinema), or, "There's a picture I want to see..."

Yes, we always said "going to the pictures" in the 70s and 80s too. I've just asked my children whether they ever hear anyone talking about "going to the pictures" and they looked at me as though I'm from another planet. They also think it's hilarious if I refer to fizzy drinks as "pop".

[Eddie Muir]

I'm wondering whether the word "film" might become obsolete within the next few decades...and they referred to them as "movies".

Sky doesn't help calling their film channels Sky Movies! I will always call them films. We used to call them 'pictures' - as in, "I am going to the pictures" (instead of cinema), or, "There's a picture I want to see..."

I will always call them films too, and I still say "going to the pictures". I also still say "railway stations" despite the irritating modern habit of calling them "train stations"!