Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use...

How many copper coins fit inside a cubic foot?

Sauna: Wood does not feel so hot

80-bit collision resistence because of 80-bit x87 registers?

representations with centralizer stable under conjugate transpose

Is opening a file faster than reading variable content?

STM32 PWM problem

Arizona laws regarding ownership of ground glassware for chemistry usage

Face Value of SOFR futures

Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?

Reading source code and extracting json from a url

How to scroll to next div using Javascript?

Relation between roots and coefficients - manipulation of identities

Does the kobold player race feature, Pack Tactics, give ranged attacks advantage?

The Late Queen Gives in to Remorse - Reverse Hangman

Which was the first story to feature space elevators?

Why do some musicians make such weird faces when they play?

How can I portray body horror and still be sensitive to people with disabilities?

Where can I educate myself on D&D universe lore, specifically on vampires and supernatural monsters?

Is there a way to pause a running process on Linux systems and resume later?

Was Opportunity's last message to Earth "My battery is low and it's getting dark"?

Why don't reads from /dev/zero count as I/O?

Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract

Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism?

Need to override the core file in magento 2



Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?


Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?Adjective with proper nounYoga (proper-case) or yoga (lowercase)?Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?Adjective of proper noun containing “and”Connotations of “quixotic”Proper adjective for “used” ticketCapitalization of plural noun given proper adjective and common adjectiveWhy isn't “Secretary of State” (a proper noun) being capitalized?Would “communists” be considered a proper noun?Proper name as an adjective













22















Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    interesting question!

    – only_pro
    18 hours ago











  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago






  • 5





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    16 hours ago











  • I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    3 hours ago


















22















Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    interesting question!

    – only_pro
    18 hours ago











  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago






  • 5





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    16 hours ago











  • I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    3 hours ago
















22












22








22


2






Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?










share|improve this question
















Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?







adjectives capitalization proper-nouns






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 16 hours ago









sumelic

48.9k8116220




48.9k8116220










asked 18 hours ago









Jesse WilliamsJesse Williams

1,018411




1,018411








  • 2





    interesting question!

    – only_pro
    18 hours ago











  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago






  • 5





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    16 hours ago











  • I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    3 hours ago
















  • 2





    interesting question!

    – only_pro
    18 hours ago











  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago






  • 5





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    16 hours ago











  • I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    3 hours ago










2




2





interesting question!

– only_pro
18 hours ago





interesting question!

– only_pro
18 hours ago













@only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

– Jesse Williams
18 hours ago





@only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

– Jesse Williams
18 hours ago




5




5





Because English!

– Hot Licks
17 hours ago





Because English!

– Hot Licks
17 hours ago




3




3





Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

– Davo
16 hours ago





Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

– Davo
16 hours ago













I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

– Viktor Mellgren
3 hours ago







I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

– Viktor Mellgren
3 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















20














In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, and x did not yield an example (for some reason I failed to notice quixotic):




arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






share|improve this answer





















  • 4





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    13 hours ago











  • A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago













  • @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    8 hours ago











  • @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago



















13














As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






share|improve this answer


























  • that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    18 hours ago






  • 1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    15 hours ago





















0














Salads can tell us something:




  • Caesar


  • Cobb


  • Waldorf


  • Greek



Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486432%2fwhy-is-quixotic-not-quixotic-a-proper-adjective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    20














    In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, and x did not yield an example (for some reason I failed to notice quixotic):




    arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




    Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



    I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



    Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




    There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




    Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 4





      Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

      – Hot Licks
      13 hours ago











    • A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago













    • @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

      – Sven Yargs
      8 hours ago











    • @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago
















    20














    In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, and x did not yield an example (for some reason I failed to notice quixotic):




    arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




    Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



    I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



    Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




    There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




    Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 4





      Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

      – Hot Licks
      13 hours ago











    • A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago













    • @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

      – Sven Yargs
      8 hours ago











    • @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago














    20












    20








    20







    In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, and x did not yield an example (for some reason I failed to notice quixotic):




    arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




    Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



    I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



    Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




    There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




    Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






    share|improve this answer















    In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, and x did not yield an example (for some reason I failed to notice quixotic):




    arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




    Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



    I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



    Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




    There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




    Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 10 hours ago

























    answered 14 hours ago









    Sven YargsSven Yargs

    113k19243503




    113k19243503








    • 4





      Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

      – Hot Licks
      13 hours ago











    • A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago













    • @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

      – Sven Yargs
      8 hours ago











    • @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago














    • 4





      Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

      – Hot Licks
      13 hours ago











    • A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago













    • @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

      – Sven Yargs
      8 hours ago











    • @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

      – Davislor
      8 hours ago








    4




    4





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    13 hours ago





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    13 hours ago













    A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago





    A 60-watt bulb? Alas, neither Xerxes nor Xenophon nor Deng Xiaoping seem to have inspired this. And when people think of a Xanadu, they think of Coleridge’s poem and remember it’s a real place.

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago




    1




    1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago







    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago















    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    8 hours ago





    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    8 hours ago













    @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago





    @SvenYargs I very occasionally see Doylist and Watsonian uncapitalized, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is, out-of-universe versus in-universe explanations of some aspect of a work of fiction: Respectively, “Why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle write that?” versus “Why would Dr. Watson have written that to his literary agent?”

    – Davislor
    8 hours ago













    13














    As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



    However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



    So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



    On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



    So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






    share|improve this answer


























    • that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

      – Jesse Williams
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      18 hours ago






    • 1





      William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

      – Michael Harvey
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

      – Hot Licks
      17 hours ago






    • 1





      I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

      – DJClayworth
      15 hours ago


















    13














    As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



    However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



    So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



    On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



    So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






    share|improve this answer


























    • that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

      – Jesse Williams
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      18 hours ago






    • 1





      William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

      – Michael Harvey
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

      – Hot Licks
      17 hours ago






    • 1





      I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

      – DJClayworth
      15 hours ago
















    13












    13








    13







    As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



    However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



    So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



    On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



    So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






    share|improve this answer















    As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



    However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



    So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



    On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



    So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 15 hours ago

























    answered 18 hours ago









    DJClayworthDJClayworth

    10.9k12335




    10.9k12335













    • that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

      – Jesse Williams
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      18 hours ago






    • 1





      William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

      – Michael Harvey
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

      – Hot Licks
      17 hours ago






    • 1





      I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

      – DJClayworth
      15 hours ago





















    • that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

      – Jesse Williams
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      18 hours ago






    • 1





      William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

      – Michael Harvey
      18 hours ago






    • 3





      A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

      – Hot Licks
      17 hours ago






    • 1





      I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

      – DJClayworth
      15 hours ago



















    that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago





    that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what of biblical, which is ostensibly 'associated with the Bible', but still not commonly capitalized. Interestingly, I actually do capitalize Biblical, as rarely as I write the word. I'm fairly certain that I generally capitalize Draconian as well. But Quixotic just sort of felt wrong. It's a fickle thing, English...

    – Jesse Williams
    18 hours ago




    3




    3





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    18 hours ago





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    18 hours ago




    1




    1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    18 hours ago





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    18 hours ago




    3




    3





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    17 hours ago




    1




    1





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    15 hours ago







    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    15 hours ago













    0














    Salads can tell us something:




    • Caesar


    • Cobb


    • Waldorf


    • Greek



    Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



    BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



    On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



    But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






    share|improve this answer




























      0














      Salads can tell us something:




      • Caesar


      • Cobb


      • Waldorf


      • Greek



      Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



      BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



      On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



      But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






      share|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0







        Salads can tell us something:




        • Caesar


        • Cobb


        • Waldorf


        • Greek



        Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



        BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



        On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



        But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






        share|improve this answer













        Salads can tell us something:




        • Caesar


        • Cobb


        • Waldorf


        • Greek



        Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



        BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



        On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



        But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        Global CharmGlobal Charm

        2,7282413




        2,7282413






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486432%2fwhy-is-quixotic-not-quixotic-a-proper-adjective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Щит и меч (фильм) Содержание Названия серий | Сюжет |...

            is 'sed' thread safeWhat should someone know about using Python scripts in the shell?Nexenta bash script uses...

            Meter-Bus Содержание Параметры шины | Стандартизация |...