Webster's Dictionary
When to Capitalize Words: French v french
May 2, 2007
Add new comment
by Jay Hodges
At the dog park last weekend, a car pulled in with the sticker “I love my French poodle” on the back bumper. My dog Otis stopped midsniff as the pom-pom-sporting poodle darted from the car to the nearest patch of grass. Otis wanted to say hello, but not being able to bark a word of French, he was just too intimidated. No matter how much I tried to convince Otis that the poodle probably wasn’t French as in from France French, he wouldn’t budge. Who would have thought a lousy bumper sticker could have such an effect on a dog’s self-esteem?
My interpretation of the line was different from Otis’s. I assumed the creator of the sticker had erroneously thought that “French poodle” is a breed and had capitalized the initial letter of the term as is the commonly accepted spelling for the names of breeds that can be traced to specific geographic locations (e.g., Rhodesian ridgeback, Norwegian elkhound, and Chihuahua).
But if capitalizing the first letter of the word to identify the geographic origin of something is common practice, then why, you may ask, not capitalize the F in “french toast,” the B in “brie,” or the initial I in “india ink”? If Webster’s is your source for capitalization and spelling, then you probably already capitalize these initial letters. But watch out, Webster’s can be vague. For example, the main entry for “scotch” (as in the whiskey distilled in Scotland) is “Scotch,” with a capital S. However, “often not capitalized” precedes the definition. Another example of this sort of fuzziness is the term “french fry,” which appears with lowercase Fs, but is followed by the usage note “often capitalized first F.” Hmmm. Though Webster’s will let you know how the word “scotch” commonly appears, and that the first F in “french fry” may or may not be capitalized, the dictionary reflects the vernacular instead of hard-and-fast rules that determine usage.
At Greenleaf, we refer to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) first, Webster’s second. CMS states that words derived from personal names are usually capitalized: Jean-Paul Sartre wrote the play No Exit. “Hell is other people” is a Sartrean concept. CMS refines usage with the following rule of thumb: “personal, national, or geographic names, and names derived from such names, are often lowercased when used with a nonliteral meaning.” So instead of adding “French bread” to your shopping list when you want a baguette, write “french bread,” lest you end up trying to decide between a croissant and un petit pan in the imported bread section of your bakery. The same holds true for “french braid,” “french toast,” “french dressing,” and “french doors.” (My how we’ve been influenced by the French.)
So, following the CMS’s guidelines for capitalizing words derived from proper nouns, wouldn’t it seem logical that the proper spelling of the dog breeds listed above appear with a lowercase letter? One would think so. But CMS recommends consulting a dictionary for the proper spelling of domestic animal breeds. You try explaining that to your dog.
Tags:
Common v. Correct
May 17, 2006
by Lari Bishop
Decided May 17, 2006
Cases before the court:
Bring v. Take
Like v. Such as
Over v. More than/Greater than
Big Bad Book Blog delivered the opinion. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary occasionally dissenting. Chicago Manual of Style occasionally dissenting.
Common usage has invaded the domain of correct usage. The two parties constantly battle for dominance in the written language. Over time, correct usage eventually accepts certain elements of common usage, blurring the lines for writers and editors. And of course, multiple parties take sides in the dispute—editors, linguists, publishers of dictionaries and style manuals. In the end, the true victim is the writer. How is the writer to determine when common usage is acceptable?
It is the opinion of this blog that it is always better to be more specific than less specific when writing. That rule, as well as solid knowledge of the exact meanings of words, should guide writers and editors. Of course, there are always exceptions, instances when common usage, though not correct, is more appropriate. Dialogue is a good example, as is use of slang to make a point or set a tone. And since the tone and writing style of most blogs is very casual, you will no doubt find some examples of common usage here, too.
Keep in mind that it is possible to be correct and specific without sounding pompous or stiff. Following are a few cases that can easily be decided by the writer and will generally not change the tone of a sentence.
bring v. take: People often use bring when take is more correct. For example, “Don’t forget to bring the book with you on your trip.” The difference between bring and take is all about location. When you are asking someone to deliver something to your current location, you should use bring: “Please bring me a glass of water.” When you are asking someone to carry something to another location, you should use take: “Don’t forget to take the book with you on your trip.”
like v. such as: Like is used in so many different ways in our language; it’s not surprising that it rapidly takes the place of a variety of other words and phrases. However, it is important to keep in mind that like really means similar to. In writing, it’s best to use like when similar to could be used instead. If a better replacement phrase is such as, use such as. For example, “Sheila enjoys period films, such as Sense and Sensibility” (meaning Sheila enjoys Sense and Sensibility and other period films), and “I often go to family dining restaurants like Denny’s, but I never go to Denny’s.” When speaking, you might say “films like Sense and Sensibility” (meaning Sheila enjoys films similar to Sense and Sensibility, but not Sense and Sensibility) and it wouldn’t sound strange or incorrect. But when you write, you should try to be more specific.
over v. more than/greater than: This is a classic example of being specific and a classic example of common usage becoming correct usage. Merriam Webster’s and Chicago Manual of Style will tell you that it is just fine to write, “He makes over thirty thousand dollars a year.” But don’t be surprised if your editor changes that “over” to “more than.” For a long time, it was not correct to use over (a term for direction or placement) when you meant more than or greater than, and more than is still more specific.
In the case of Common v. Correct, the Big Bad Book Blog awards the defendant the point of specificity, but acknowledges the plaintiff’s right to assert itself within the language. It is not our intent to deny the natural evolution of acceptable usage. However, it is best for a writer to err on the side of specificity.
It is so ordered.
Tags:
