Oh my Gods! Should I capitalize That?

[MonDie]

There is an older thread on this subject. Although I appreciate the posts of LimbicLoser, I doubted that I would spark fresh discussion by posting there, ahead of LimbicLoser's series of posts.

---

 

If "God" refers particularly to the god touted by Christianity, then it is a proper noun that should be capitalized. However, dictionary.com says "God" refers to "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." This definition gives the word a less focused sense, but it still seems to grant the word proper noun status for two reasons:

• there can only be one supreme being because "supreme" is a superlative.
• its use of the word "the" implies that God is the only "creator and ruler of the universe".

However, this looser sense encompasses multiple referents (e.g. Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, etc.). This makes it possible to pluralize "God", as shown.

• Jews and Vaishnavas worship the Gods Yahweh and Vishnu, respectively.

That capital G "God" doesn't look correct in that sentence. However, I could find myself in a similar bind with other proper nouns. "Yoshi" is a proper noun because it refers to a particular videogame character, but I might pluralize the word if I saw two Yoshis on the television screen. In another example: although Benjamin Franklin refers to one person, he could be in two places at once if he could time travel. Of course, "Yoshi" and "God" are words that might only refer to abstract things, whereas "Benjamin Franklin" refers to a concrete thing. This is a distinction touched upon by LimbicLoser.

 

As touched on above (and this may come up a number of times to ascertain having the readership more fully grasp the importance of the matter) naming words (nouns) are created, composed, or thought up to refer to a concept, or an idea (abstract-like), or, to refer to some thing, place, or person (concrete-like). They never come barren of such.

 

What do you think about capitalizing "God" when it has the looser sense?
I think we shouldn't capitalize a word with such a loose sense, but I'm willing to change my position. I have capitalized the looser sense "God" before, but I'm reconsidering.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[lightburst]

Wouldn't you say that the 'looser' sense is also open to the possibility that you could have more than one 'God'?

 

Though gramatically, I think capitalizing doesn't just necessarily mean singularily in number but singularity in idea. But I know nothing about grammar except that I can use it so

[John Cuthber]

It doesn't need to be a proper noun before He takes a capital letter.

It's just one of the weird laws of English that Gods get capitals.

[MonDie]

Wouldn't you say that the 'looser' sense is also open to the possibility that you could have more than one 'God'?

No, the definition says this being is the most superior, the only creator. The presence of another God would demote both beings to god status.

Though gramatically, I think capitalizing doesn't just necessarily mean singularily in number but singularity in idea. But I know nothing about grammar except that I can use it so

You might have a point. For example, "The Simpsons" refers to multiple characters, each of which could be considered a Simpson. However, the sense of "Simspons" doesn't exclude the possibility of multiple Simpsons, whereas the sense of "God" does, and does so quite explicitly.

 

---

It doesn't need to be a proper noun before He takes a capital letter.

It's just one of the weird laws of English that Gods get capitals.

I would like to contest that law. I don't like it when "God" can mean two different things. Communication is easier when phrases like "one god" imply that no other gods have entered the picture.

 

Compare:

• The Christian God is God. No, I'm not saying that their ideas about God are accurate. I'm simply stating the name given to their conception of God, God. Monodeists also believe in God, but they usually don't name it God.
• The Christian god is God. [snip] Monodeists also believe in one god, but they usually don't name it God.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

"I don't like it when "God" can mean two different things."

Good luck with English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym

 

But the point is that this is just a meaningless convention like calling ships "she".

[MonDie]

"I don't like it when "God" can mean two different things."

Good luck with English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym

 

Homonyms are inevitable, but we should prevent their appearance where they'll become problematic. If every word was a homonym to every other word, we wouldn't have language at all.

 

But the point is that this is just a meaningless convention like calling ships "she".

 

If it's a superficial convention, then it's one we should avoid.

If it's based on fundamental rules of grammar, I will follow the rules.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

"If every word was a homonym to every other word, we wouldn't have language at all."

Next time someone asks me to illustrate the"thin end of the wedge" logical fallacy, I will cite that.

 

"If it's a superficial convention, then it's one we should avoid." why?

Just because it offends you ?

I rather like it. I think it adds interest to the language.

"If it's based on fundamental rules of grammar, I will follow the rules."

I don't think there are any "fundamental" rules. I suspect it's all just as arbitrary as calling ships "she" and Gods " Gods.".

 

Do you have any evidence which suggests otherwise?

[MonDie]

"If every word was a homonym to every other word, we wouldn't have language at all."

Next time someone asks me to illustrate the"thin end of the wedge" logical fallacy, I will cite that.

 

You assumed too much. The intended point was that the development of language depends on differentiation.

 

"If it's a superficial convention, then it's one we should avoid." why?

Just because it offends you ?

 

It does offend me when people give their pagan gods capital Gs. It's absolutely repugnant! God is God is God!

 

I rather like it. I think it adds interest to the language.

 

Feel free to use it stylistically.

 

"If it's based on fundamental rules of grammar, I will follow the rules."

I don't think there are any "fundamental" rules. I suspect it's all just as arbitrary as calling ships "she" and Gods " Gods.".

 

Do you have any evidence which suggests otherwise?

 

By "fundamental", I mean the rule has broader scope.

For example, you generally should follow verbs with the objective form (me/her/him/them), not the nominative form (I/she/he/they). This rule has broad scope, but there used to be a reverse rule specifically for forms of the verb to be. You had to say, "It is she." instead of "It is her" or "It wasn't I!" instead of "It wasn't me!" However, this small rule was gradually overtaken by the predominant rule, and modern linguists often view both forms as correct.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

One of the delights of English is that you can mess about with the rules.

Yoda, you should ask.

 

The rules are, of course in constant flux. Hardly anyone today seems to know when to use "less" and when to use "fewer".

I'm willing to bet that none of the people reading this sentence spot the grammatical error in it.

 

(Please don't post an answer yet, or use spoiler tags if you do. Let's see how many can spot the glitch)

[lightburst]

I could argue that the 'dictionary writers''s definition of a singular 'God' is biased because most people (in quantity) regard a 'God' to be a single being. I say that a 'God' is merely a noun addressed to some supreme being(s). I have friends who address God as capital G.o.d. to 'emphasize' that it is the christian one-and-only god, and has little to do with 'number' but with 'identity'. I guess my point is that we use nouns to mark ideas, and use verbs/adjectives as 'qualifiers' and you can do the plural/singular deal from there. But this involves some redefinition so I wouldn't back it up too much except that I've thrown it in the argument.

 

 

 

"The rules are, of course in constant flux. Hardly anyone today seems to know when to use "less" and when to use "fewer"."

 

would be

 

"The rules are, of course(,) in constant flux. Hardly anyone today seem(s) to know when to use "less" and when to use "fewer"."? Otherwise, it's a total fail. (A fail on my part)

 

 

Edited May 4, 2013 by lightburst

[John Cuthber]

I meant this sentence

"I'm willing to bet that none of the people reading this sentence spot the grammatical error in it."

[MonDie]

There isn't one?

I thought the use of "that" might be improper, but sure enough, "that" can be a conjunction.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

There is a deliberate error in it.

[MonDie]

I have friends who address God as capital G.o.d. to 'emphasize' that it is the christian one-and-only god, and has little to do with 'number' but with 'identity'.

 

Well, it appears that the capital-G is not enough.

 

 

Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.

Translation: I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

I don't know whether the first quote is one that Einstein spoke or wrote, but the G was capitalized by whomever wrote/typed it.

 

I think just as much would have been said with a lowercase "g", for the lowercase letter would not have led us to wonder whether he has more gods. Clearly, he's talking about one god, no more, no less.

However, I would acknowledge an exception if "Spinoza's God" is the proper name. Beyond that, I see no good reason for it. I doubt he held a firm belief in capitalizing unnecessarily!

Edited May 4, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[MonDie]

"I'm willing to bet that none of the people reading this sentence [will] spot the grammatical error in it."

That's not the place for an infinitive verb.

 

I tried it one more time as I walked down the bike path today. I have a good memory for words, which may be because I used to compulsively count the number of syllables in every sentence.

 

Also, "Supreme beings are ____." didn't convey the question. I should have done something like "Yahweh and Vishnu are ____."

Edited May 7, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

OK, it turns out that I included two errors in that sentence. (Though, to save face I will point out that it should probably be "shall" rather than "will".)

 

And I think that answer is "Yahweh and Vishnu are imaginary."