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
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
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
adjectives capitalization proper-nouns
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what ofbiblical
, 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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what ofbiblical
, 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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what ofbiblical
, 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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
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 ofbiblical
, 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
|
show 2 more comments
that's an interesting observation, and I would agree, but then what ofbiblical
, 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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 6 hours ago
Global CharmGlobal Charm
2,7282413
2,7282413
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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