Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sirus]

I Fail To See How This Method Of Capitalization Impairs Literacy.

I Find It Harder To Read Than Proper Typing. You Should Only Capitalise Names, 'I', And After A Full-Stop (Or Period)

Technically, You Should Capitalize All Proper Nouns, Though Admittedly Most If Not All Of Them Are Names.

[lorb]

In german you capitalize _all_ nouns, not just proper ones. I don't think it hinders readability.

[Fenrir]

Emoticons in software documentation.

[Skyrunner]

Code: [Select]

~~big chunk of code~~

//So, just to mention I had a heck of a time writing this ^^ I really really hate arrays :P Don't you? o_O

~~more code~~
^That documentation? Or more like the manual?

[Starver]

Possesiveness on its / it's is a bit less of a problem to me since it goes against the common rules of English.

Except, the way I see it, it is part of a regular set of irregularity.  Hence why I'm also tempted to push for "When wearing ones crown..." to join the same set.  Consider it as an equivalent of the 'C-exception' part of "I before E, except after C".  (Except that there are actually quite a lot of words that break the rule, exception-class or otherwise. )

Spoiler: In a similar vein when it comes to exceptions (click to show/hide)

It is a "recognised exception" that while something that belongs to Jones is "Jones's" and an object that Chris owns is Chris's, when it comes to Biblical names it is "Jesus' cross", "Moses' staff".  Although that makes me shudder when I try and type it in without 'mistakenly' putting "Jesus's cross" or "Moses's staff".

I'm pretty much presuming that this particular irregularity comes from the earliest English writings[1].  For similar reasons, look at the irregular verbs in all languages that have them (those that are not artificial, and have had not had massive reforms put forward by some historic ruler or government) and it's the common words.  "To be."  I am, you are, he is, I was, they were, etc.  c.f. (not respectively)
From my appallingly rusty French...  Je suis, il est, ils sont, nous sommes
From my never-that-great German... Ich bin, Du bist, Es ist, Wir sind;
Some probably misremembered Italian fragments... io sono, voi site, noi siamo
Spanish snippets, probably wrong... Yo soy, Nosotros somos, ustedes son, usted es
I tried looking up Japanese, but what little knowledge I already possess does not extend to understanding what I found.

[1] Which will have been largely ecclesiastical in nature or otherwise biblically inspired, being written with the loose (or disputed) sense of rules that was the attitude of the time, but meant that once the grammatical standards started to be set in concrete there was an obvious need to take account for this whole swathe of non-standardisation.  In the "Biblical names" case, then probably driven by a "You can't change the Word Of God!" attitude.  Albeit that this had been (mis-)translated several different times before it was eventually set down in English calligraphy or even early print.  However, that's just my impression.

Although should this also cover "this's" and "that's" (belonging to this thing and that thing, not "this/that is" contracted)?  Those words seem to sit well within the he/she/it/us/them/me/you(/one) grouping of special possessives.  And, what's more, rather than "add an 's'", maybe they should have been words like "their" (not "they's" except without the apostrophe) rather than "its" ("it's" without).  Actually, there are remnants of such possible forms in some English dialects... "thisn", perhaps, although that's often written "this'n", but with the apostrophe not being a possessive or a contraction but an artefact of speech.



Oh, and as I appear to have derailed on apostrophes, here's something doubtless controversial (because some respected Stylebooks say "yes, always", some respected Stylebooks say "no, never", and others go "yes/no, but do whatever you think works in context)...  No apostrophes for pluralising Initialisms, please.  Many people work at PCs, installing software from CDs or DVDs, writing their CVs and such, with nary a need for apostrophes to distinguish those letters from the PCS (possibly the Public and Commercial Services union), CDS (Cockpit Display System), DVDS (Digital Video Distribution System) or CVS (Concurrent Versions System), and still letting them work on employment notes left on the PC's hard drive or readable from any given CD's or DVD's surface (or, indeed, all their CDs' and DVDs' data, if they have a collection) while improving their CV's layout.

But then I don't write ICBM as I.C.B.M. (which is the way I was always told to use initialisms) and I use too many TLAs (or ETLAs, or VETLAs), FYI, IYSWIM.  So YMMV, HTH, HAND.  And, there I shall end because I'm going AFK.   BRB!

[Johuotar]

People hating things I like.

Laughed when posting this.
EDIT:Nt really a habit actually, I need to go to sleep before I post something even dumber 

[Fenrir]

Code: [Select]

~~big chunk of code~~

//So, just to mention I had a heck of a time writing this ^^ I really really hate arrays :P Don't you? o_O

~~more code~~
^That documentation? Or more like the manual?

Manuals and official wikis.

[Skyrunner]

@Starver

I agree with your apostrophes and contractions part.

I really cringe a bit whenever I see things like PC's, or CD's, or ICBM's...

[Pnx]

DF memes, general 4 chan terms used elsewhere on the net, people not letting other people like or dislike what they like or dislike and general stuff like that.

Most annoying for me though is internet elitism. Be it indie elitism, console elitism, old game elitism, any of that shit.

Personally I try to be elitist about things not many other people are elitist about.

I also dislike the DF memes, they were funny five years ago, but I've just seen them so many times that they're really kinda irritating these days... It's why I generally stopped frequenting DF general discussion.

[Flying Dice]

@Starver:

To my knowledge, regarding possessives ending in an 's', either "s's" or "s'" (e.g. "Smithers's car" or "Smithers' car") are acceptable in modern English, so long as you are internally consistent.

[Starver]

Oh, ok then, responding to the Ninja sub-thread that's arisen about capitalising the starts of words:

As I understand it (or, as it were, "AIUI"), when we read, we don't read each letter.  We look at the shape of a word, generally looking at it further if it doesn't quite pass the brain's own sanity-test while scanning the text.  Hence some of the "switch letters not at at the start or end of the word" tricks not only working to the knowing, but sometimes inadvertent examples creeping in under the radar of original author and later proofreaders.

Capital letters at the start of a sentence are a pausing point, anyway, but capital letters are also expected in other places.  Proper names, "I" and all German nouns are something that we are taught to expect, and it looks strange to me to see "And so i talked to paul" as doubtless a German would upon reading "klinik für psychiatrie und psychotherapie" without all words (but the "für" and "und") capitalised.

When You See Each And Every Word Pre-capitalised Then It Breaks The Easy Pattern-Matching Process (Or Makes The Brain Think The Sentence Is Being Reset Each Time, Perhaps).  This Therefore May Read Awkwardly To Otherwise Fluent Readers Who Are Not Used To Such Things.  Warning Signs May Well Be Written In This Manner In Order To Make An Impact On The Reader!

OF COURSE, WRITING IN ALLCAPS IS EVEN MORE PATTERN-BREAKING (AND OFTEN LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING...  OR, TO FANS OF TERRY PRATCHETT, THE VOICE OF DEATH HIMESELF).  BUT I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF FORUMS WHERE THE SOFTWARE TAKES ALLCAPS POSTS AND 'DOWNCONVERTS' IT INTO MERELY INITIALCAPS.  LESS ANNOYING, BUT WHERE IT HAS BEEN DONE AS A TITLE HEADING OF SOME KIND IT STILL RETAINS SOME IMPACT, AS IF 'BOLDED')

of course, there's the possibility (one which i would normally never do) that the author of something online eschews capitals altogether.  this generally means that regular words, throughout the sentences, match the expected patterns of the reader, but does tend to play havoc with the first-person possessive, a clear indication of new sentences, proper names, and popular acronyms (e.g.: fyi, brb, iyswim) for people who aren't used to the lower-case forms (who may have similar problems with the upper-case forms that others would naturally use).  exclude punctuation altogether and i can guarantee you it could be confusing to extend the example further

(After the ")." there could have been anything from one to three separate sentences, although I've taken pity on you and not intentionally made anything where the sense changes too much when you do insert commas, full-stops, semi-colons or whatever into there. )

[Starver]

@Starver:

To my knowledge, regarding possessives ending in an 's', either "s's" or "s'" (e.g. "Smithers's car" or "Smithers' car") are acceptable in modern English, so long as you are internally consistent.

Let's just say that I would always pronounce "Smithersez car", "Jonesez van", although the former is quite a bit unwieldy, I know.  And I know this is another point of contention between some Styleguides, but I think that as far as I am concerned I would write with "'s" on the end of "Smithers" or "Jones".

To me, seeing "That's Smithers' car" indicates more a car belonging to a number of people of the Smither family.  Or, perhaps a company called "Smithers", given the attitude that I think Waterstones (neé "Waterstone's") has recently succumbed to that a business name can drop the apostrophe, or whatever it is they have for a long time done for the likes of W.H.Smiths, Woolworths, Debenhams, MacDonalds, etc.

But that's standards for you.  So many different ones to choose from.



(You do not of course mean that you'd write "a gas' molecules" instead of "a gas's molecules", although it does definitely apply to the plurals, so "each gasses' molecules".)

[Flying Dice]

@Starver:

To my knowledge, regarding possessives ending in an 's', either "s's" or "s'" (e.g. "Smithers's car" or "Smithers' car") are acceptable in modern English, so long as you are internally consistent.

Let's just say that I would always pronounce "Smithersez car", "Jonesez van", although the former is quite a bit unwieldy, I know.  And I know this is another point of contention between some Styleguides, but I think that as far as I am concerned I would write with "'s" on the end of "Smithers" or "Jones".

To me, seeing "That's Smithers' car" indicates more a car belonging to a number of people of the Smither family.  Or, perhaps a company called "Smithers", given the attitude that I think Waterstones (neé "Waterstone's") has recently succumbed to that a business name can drop the apostrophe, or whatever it is they have for a long time done for the likes of W.H.Smiths, Woolworths, Debenhams, MacDonalds, etc.

But that's standards for you.  So many different ones to choose from.



(You do not of course mean that you'd write "a gas' molecules" instead of "a gas's molecules", although it does definitely apply to the plurals, so "each gasses' molecules".)

Personally, I agree with you in that it is clearer to reserve "s'" for plural possessives, but it isn't incorrect(AFAIK) to use it for singular possessives. Again, though, it can lack clarity. Hence why I try to avoid it in my writing. I generally use the forms and standards that most effectively convey the meaning I intend.

As for the latter, of course not, as we have the "es" construct for that reason. I believe the only place where I've seen the "s'" singular possessive used is for proper nouns. So in short, the "s'" singular possessive is of borderline acceptablility, and isn't the clearest way to convey meaning. A perfect example of a feature of the language that you'd wish the "popular usage" people would target, instead of reasonable, useful things.

[Blargityblarg]

I Fail To See How This Method Of Capitalization Impairs Literacy.

I Find It Harder To Read Than Proper Typing. You Should Only Capitalise Names, 'I', And After A Full-Stop (Or Period)

Technically, You Should Capitalize All Proper Nouns, Though Admittedly Most If Not All Of Them Are Names.

My Biggest Beef With This Is That I Automatically Work Out What The Acronym Is

(MBBWTITIAWOWTAI)

[Derekristow]

I Automatically Read It As Someone Enunciating Their Words Very Carefully, Thinking About Everything As They Say It.

Homestuck really numbs you to text weirdness like that though.  One of the characters types specifically like that in fact.