I mean the first letter of the word "Diamond".
"Diamond" or "Time" should normally not be capitalized. In this case, it's to place emphasis on certain words in the text. An artistic choice, if you like.
If you ever study German, you will find that all nouns are capitalized in German. Something like this:
Various Languages have different Rules for their Grammar, and these Rules can sometimes seem strange to People whose native Language is different from the one being learned. Languages also change over Time, and the Grammar Rules and Conventions of the Past may differ from those customary today.
English is a Germanic language and has a strong common heritage with German, and if you go back in time you may find things that are even more similar to German than they are today (English has tended to simplify things as people have become more relaxed and informal in the use of language).
As others have said, English nouns were often capitalized in the past for emphasis, as a matter of style. Today we only capitalize proper nouns like English. (However, in French, for example, the word english would not be capitalized. Different language, different rules.)
This is written as though it's a couple of hundred years old - thee, thou, and thy are obsolete words. In those days, it was more common to capitalize words in a sentence to emphasize them.
The normal rule is that the first word in a sentence, a name - including things like day of the week, month, country, etc., or a person's initials are capitalized. Since we're talking about English, I'm sure there are a long list of exceptions to those rules.
Sometimes a name becomes an ordinary word over time. One example that comes to mind is laser. It's an acronym, which is normally capitalized. It was first used in 1959 and was written as LASER. LED has almost reached the point where it's written as led.
Ed
This is a poem, and with poetry, the rules of grammar go out the window.
In interest of possibly continuing this thread past it's possible use, I wish to start a conversation.
I believe that within the English language, having effectively two alphabets for capitalization is wholly inefficient, and that capital/lowercase letters have absolutely no real practical use within the English language, and that we would be better off without them.
The written language, American English, has changed somewhat from the days of Ben Franklin.
It's always interesting when this happens under your nose...for me, it happened with my native Italian language:
I was taught in primary school that days of the week and months needed a capital letter(
Lunedì,
Ottobre) but the correct way, approved by the "Accademia della Crusca", is with lower case nowadays.
Be aware also that many of the rules of grammar are different in different versions of English (e.g., American vs. British). Unfortunately, a lot of websites that give advice on the correct use of English fail to understand this. To some, I've already committed a big crime in a previous sentence.
The example you show is a poor example of modern usage. Because of three factors:
- Archaic While the image might be a modern reproduction, it shows the style used >200 years ago in America. It is not an example of modern spelling, capitalization, or usage.
- Poetry As others have observed, poets break "normal" rules for purposes of emphasis, etc.
- Artistic This is also an "art piece" where typography, layout, use of "dingbats", etc. are used for visual decoration.
English is a very flexible and dynamic language. While it started out in England, it has spread to become a global common standard. While English is only #3 in native speakers (behind Mandarin and Spanish), it is #1 in total speakers (native + second language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakersYet even to this day are are significant differences between what I call "BrEnglish" (British English) and "AmEnglish" (American English) And there are further variations across other countries (primarily parts of the former British Empire, like Australia, India, etc.)
In this and other global forums where I post, I frequently identify (and "translate") BrEnglish vs. AmEnglish. For example "shield" (AmEnglish), "screen" (BrEnglish), or "ground" (AmEnglish) vs. "earth" (BrEnglish)
English is a very flexible and dynamic language. While it started out in England, it has spread to become a global common standard. While English is only #3 in native speakers (behind Mandarin and Spanish), it is #1 in total speakers (native + second language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
Yet even to this day are are significant differences between what I call "BrEnglish" (British English) and "AmEnglish" (American English) And there are further variations across other countries (primarily parts of the former British Empire, like Australia, India, etc.)
In this and other global forums where I post, I frequently identify (and "translate") BrEnglish vs. AmEnglish. For example "shield" (AmEnglish), "screen" (BrEnglish), or "ground" (AmEnglish) vs. "earth" (BrEnglish)
So people from Spain speak Spanish Spanish or as you'd call it SpSpanish, from Portugal, Portugese Portugese (PoPortugese?), from France French French (FrFrench?)
British people generally speak English (especially the English). Feel free to qualify anybody else's English dialect.
And for the OP: [HELP] Learning Engilsh, why
is the initials capitalized?
Should be: [HELP] Learning Engilsh, why
are the initials capitalized?
as intitials is plural. English is a very forgiving language which is why we all knew what you meant.
So people from Spain speak Spanish Spanish or as you'd call it SpSpanish, ....
And people in Mexico speak MxSpanish and people in Brazil speak BrPortugese, etc. etc.
The example you show is a poor example of modern usage. Because of three factors:
- Archaic While the image might be a modern reproduction, it shows the style used >200 years ago in America. It is not an example of modern spelling, capitalization, or usage.[/b]
And back then, I'd expect there were far fewer differences between US and British English.
Yet even to this day are are significant differences between what I call "BrEnglish" (British English) and "AmEnglish" (American English) And there are further variations across other countries (primarily parts of the former British Empire, like Australia, India, etc.)
In this and other global forums where I post, I frequently identify (and "translate") BrEnglish vs. AmEnglish. For example "shield" (AmEnglish), "screen" (BrEnglish), or "ground" (AmEnglish) vs. "earth" (BrEnglish)
Yes, I think it's vital to be aware of these differences when communicating on an international forum.
Here's an interesting thought: if there were no communication between US, Australia and the UK, how long would it take for the different dialects of English to diverge enough to the point where: a speaker of one dialect, can't understand a speaker of another?
Here's an interesting thought: if there were no communication between US, Australia and the UK, how long would it take for the different dialects of English to diverge enough to the point where: a speaker of one dialect, can't understand a speaker of another?
I suspect that would happen surprisingly quickly, perhaps even with different regions of the same country. I could see the language morphing almost beyond recognition within just a few generations in isolation.
Bottom line is use what you think best conveys the thought. The rules form a framework to keep us all on the same page. People used to think dictionaries were some form of authority when it came to language. At least that is what I was taught. "Ain't ain't in the dictionary so don't use ain't." The dictionary people will tell you they are more historian. That is why they add words constantly. Don't be surprised if "U r?" becomes acceptable in forms outside Twitter and phone messaging soon. It makes too much sense not to.
Don't be surprised if "U r?" becomes acceptable in forms outside Twitter and phone messaging soon.
Uhg, I hope not! I see it in emails at work even and it always makes me cringe. Using text speak in professional emails makes a person sound like they're 12 and makes it hard for me to take them seriously. When you have a full keyboard in front of you there's no excuse for juvenile shortcuts.
Don't be surprised if "U r?" becomes acceptable in forms outside Twitter and phone messaging soon.
Uhg, I hope not! I see it in emails at work even and it always makes me cringe. Using text speak in professional emails makes a person sound like they're 12 and makes it hard for me to take them seriously. When you have a full keyboard in front of you there's no excuse for juvenile shortcuts.
My son is 37 and his cell phone is now his main method of net connection. As an engineer you should embrace the steam lining.
English is like Microsoft Windows.
A total mess under the covers but more people use it than the alternatives.
Don't be surprised if "U r?" becomes acceptable in forms outside Twitter and phone messaging soon.
Uhg, I hope not! I see it in emails at work even and it always makes me cringe. Using text speak in professional emails makes a person sound like they're 12 and makes it hard for me to take them seriously. When you have a full keyboard in front of you there's no excuse for juvenile shortcuts.
My son is 37 and his cell phone is now his main method of net connection. As an engineer you should embrace the steam lining.
I'm only a couple years older than he is. I refuse to use text speak, even on my cell phone. Actually unless one is typing text messages on an antique flip phone there is almost no reason to use such shorthand even on a phone these days. With a modern smartphone you have a querty virtual keyboard and all sorts of predictive assistance. Doing so is just lazy and makes me assume the person doing it is lazy.
Don't be surprised if "U r?" becomes acceptable in forms outside Twitter and phone messaging soon.
Uhg, I hope not! I see it in emails at work even and it always makes me cringe. Using text speak in professional emails makes a person sound like they're 12 and makes it hard for me to take them seriously. When you have a full keyboard in front of you there's no excuse for juvenile shortcuts.
My son is 37 and his cell phone is now his main method of net connection. As an engineer you should embrace the steam lining.
I'm only a couple years older than he is. I refuse to use text speak, even on my cell phone. Actually unless one is typing text messages on an antique flip phone there is almost no reason to use such shorthand even on a phone these days. With a modern smartphone you have a querty virtual keyboard and all sorts of predictive assistance. Doing so is just lazy and makes me assume the person doing it is lazy.
Thankfully I'm lazy. Otherwise I'd be writing this out longhand and posting it to you.
Nothing would be accomplished by posting it to me the old fashioned way, we have technology that makes it trivial to rapidly communicate using something resembling proper English with no need for shortcuts, using that technology is an improvement for all involved. Typing in text speak may provide a very slight time savings to the sender, but it burdens the recipient with the task of decoding it back into English. I know lots of people for whom English is not even their native language who write more intelligibly than a lot of teens and 20 somethings.
British people generally speak English (especially the English). Feel free to qualify anybody else's English dialect.
So which version of English spoken in the United Kingdom gets identified as the unqualified English? Is it Cockney, or BBC, or one of the several other variants that you manage to pack into relatively small island? The upstairs folk or the downstairs? And which year did you freeze it? Certainly not at the time of the Canterbury Tales, or even when your famous playwright was doing his thing.
I am sorry that you were so successful in propagating your language that you no longer fully own it, but the reality is that it is a world language, with many more native speakers outside the island kingdom than within. Perhaps since this forum is based in Australia that version of English should be unqualified here, with all of us from other countries and regions adding an identifier to show our local variant.
British people generally speak English (especially the English). Feel free to qualify anybody else's English dialect.
So which version of English spoken in the United Kingdom gets identified as the unqualified English? Is it Cockney, or BBC, or one of the several other variants that you manage to pack into relatively small island? The upstairs folk or the downstairs? And which year did you freeze it? Certainly not at the time of the Canterbury Tales, or even when your famous playwright was doing his thing.
I am sorry that you were so successful in propagating your language that you no longer fully own it, but the reality is that it is a world language, with many more native speakers outside the island kingdom than within. Perhaps since this forum is based in Australia that version of English should be unqualified here, with all of us from other countries and regions adding an identifier to show our local variant.
Yes I don't know why many Brits feel they own English, as if their version of it is somehow sacred. It's true there are many variants of it and it's changed a lot too. There's certainly less variation than there used to be, as transport and communication have improved, which I imagine is true with many languages. Go back 100 years and you'll find the accent varied more dramatically, over shorter distances, than it does today.
