AP Style Alert: Don't Capitalize Internet and Web Anymore (poynter.org)

Saturday the Associated Press announced they're changing the rules in their influential stylebook: the words "internet" and "web" should no longer be capitalized. "The changes reflect a growing trend toward lowercasing both words," their standards editor told Poynter.org, pointing out that both words "have become generic terms." Words tend to be lowercased as their usage becomes more common, and Poynter.org points out that "In 2011, e-mail became email... in 2010, Web site became website." In 2013 the AP even revised their usage of the term "illegal immigration," advising "use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant," as part of a push towards'ridding the Stylebook of labels."

Comments

fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft, yeah, right. The associated press don't own me.

Re: fascists

[Tomahawk]

Agreed. They should stick to what is correct in order to at least demonstrate correctness. But what they are saying is that because people abuse the language, they should too, because the abuse becomes "common usage". There is a reason why dictionaries look at only certain types of publications for their weird lists, usages, and definitions. I guess AP will no longer be one of those publications, if indeed if ever was.

Re: fascists

[hackwrench]

And that would be because certain types of publications are a better indicator of what the common usage of a word is. Dictionaries are written to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Re: fascists

[Xenx]

All language is just a collection of common usage. It follows its own evolutionary process. What was correct in the past or present will not, and should not, necessarily be correct in the future. The point of language is to attempt clear communication between people. Correct/incorrect usage should be derived from how it's used by the populace, not forced upon the populace.

Re: fascists

[PopeRatzo]

Agreed. They should stick to what is correct in order to at least demonstrate correctness. But what they are saying is that because people abuse the language, they should too, because the abuse becomes "common usage".

It's not about correctness. It's about meaning. The internet isn't a proper noun any more. You wouldn't capitalize the "Phone System", would you? It just isn't a formal name. You wouldn't capitalize the "Interstate Highway System".

And the "Web" is rarely used any more at all. When something becomes that ubiquitous, it doesn't need formality.

Re: fascists

[Tomahawk]

So their correct to change based on common, thus correct, usage in there paper, because actual correctness doesn't matter over they're, yes? (sic)

Common usage isn't always correct. Yes, language evolves, but that didn't mean it can't be steered. National (and international) newspapers have the ability to demonstrate correct usage and help steer that evolution. At least then English teachers, for example, can point to a daily publication as a reference for correctness in the language. But if newspapers are going to follow what people write in blogs and comments sections, the language will degenerate rapidly. Well, more rapidly.

Re: fascists

[AthanasiusKircher]

You wouldn't capitalize the "Phone System", would you? It just isn't a formal name.

Not usually, except if it were actually a proper name for a particular system.

You wouldn't capitalize the "Interstate Highway System"

Actually, yes you would, if you were referring to the specific Interstate Highway System that is recognized by the federal government as such. If you say "interstate highway system," you create an ambiguity: are you referring to the Eisenhower System, or are you potentially referring to the network of all highways that cross state borders (like U.S. Route 1, which goes all the way from Maine to Florida, and is thus an interstate highway, but it is not an Interstate Highway).

Now, I'll grant you that the standard use of the phrase "interstate highway" these days tends to refer specifically to the Eisenhower System, so there's an argument that capitalization is unnecessary. On the other hand, by doing so you eliminate a possible distinction between (1) all highways that are commonly numbered across state borders (i.e., "interstate" highways, which include both the Eisenhower System and the U.S. Routes) and (2) state numbered highways, which do not often maintain numbering across borders.

That particular distinction is probably not that useful in common language, so most people can abandon the capital for the Eisenhower Interstate System without losing anything important.

But there is a meaning distinction there, which differentiates the common use of "interstate" in all contexts vs. a specific system. The question is whether "internet" would justify a similar distinction in modern usage or not.

Re: fascists

[Xenx]

When talking about a completely arbitrary set of rules, designed to facilitate communication between people, common usage should be the ultimate deciding factor for what is correct.

Re: fascists

[westlake]

There is a reason why dictionaries look at only certain types of publications for their weird lists, usages, and definitions.

It has been a very long since most dictionaries have tried to impose their own order on the English language.

Re: fascists

[PopeRatzo]

f you say "interstate highway system," you create an ambiguity: are you referring to the Eisenhower System, or are you potentially referring to the network of all highways that cross state borders

And that, my friend, is why we call the "Internet", the internet.

Because most people are not referring to the original network of research universities, defense department functionaries and contractors. Most people are referring to the thing you use for twittter and email and cat pictures and porn and playing Counter Strike.

Re: fascists

[Archtech]

"You are welcome on my lawn".

Very kind. Does that extend to my tanks? (I have 5,000 of them).

Re:fascists

[frovingslosh]

I bow to the will of my ap masters.

Re: fascists

[TechyImmigrant]

"You are welcome on my lawn".

Very kind. Does that extend to my tanks? (I have 5,000 of them).

You must store a lot of liquid.

Re: fascists

[St.Creed]

So.. art thou still using the book-of-words thy ealdefæder left thee?

Re: fascists

[KGIII]

> You wouldn't capitalize the "Interstate Highway System".

Yes I would. In fact, given the odds, I bet you can go through my posts and find them referred to as Interstate and National Highway System (of which the Interstate is a part).

They are proper titles.

I do say "Internet." However, I often call it the "'net." I also do not capitalize "web" as that's not the formal name. If I am calling it the World Wide Web then I'll capitalize it.

However, it should be noted that you've a Ph.D. in English Literature and not in English. I think that speaks for itself. ;-)

Re: fascists

[KGIII]

That wasn't the Internet. That was ARPAnet or DARPAnet, depending on when they research universities got on. Sheesh...

Re: fascists

[Applehu Akbar]

'But what they are saying is that because people abuse the language, they should too, because the abuse becomes "common usage" '

Clutching those pearls a little too tight? Here, have a kleenex while I xerox you a copy of the style guide.

Re: fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

And that, my friend, is why we call the "Internet", the internet.

Because most people are not referring to the original network of research universities, defense department functionaries and contractors. Most people are referring to the thing you use for twittter and email and cat pictures and porn and playing Counter Strike.

No, that is why we call it "the Internet": Because it is THE internationally connected network - which distinguishes it from other internets. Internets are multiple networks that are inter-connected. The original network of universities etc. had it's own name for their internet.
If you are calling it by a name, it should be capitalized. You are calling it "the internet", indicating that it is a specific internet. Due to the lack of other internets when you are talking about a singular item, or well known item, I expect that you are using "internet" as a name for the most commonly used internet.

Re: fascists

[ThatsNotPudding]

All language is just a collection of common usage. It follows its own evolutionary process. What was correct in the past or present will not, and should not, necessarily be correct in the future.

OK

Re: fascists

[MachineShedFred]

Remember when proper nouns would be capitalized? There's only one Internet, regardless of certain nations' efforts. As there is only one, 'Internet' is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.

QED. Fuck the AP, and fuck their 'style alert'.

Re: fascists

[Citizen of Earth]

In English, dictionaries are descriptive. In French, they are prescriptive, because authoritarian force is needed to prop up a dead language.

Re: fascists

[Coren22]

I wasn't even aware that there was more than one Internet. It seems hard to think of the Internet becoming a generic term when the word describes exactly one network.

Re: fascists

[Coren22]

No it is Okay.

Re: fascists

[Coren22]

Are you perhaps confusing Internet and intranet? There is only one Internet, it is a global telecommunications network. An intranet is an internal network which might be connected to the Internet, but doesn't have to be.

Internet != internet

[ooloorie]

There are many possible "internets", networks of interlinked networks. The "Internet" is one of them, by far the largest. That is, "Internet" is a proper noun, in the same way that "Bill", "Associated Press", and "Monica" are.

Re:Internet != internet

[chispito]

There are many possible "internets", networks of interlinked networks. The "Internet" is one of them, by far the largest. That is, "Internet" is a proper noun, in the same way that "Bill", "Associated Press", and "Monica" are.

Not anymore, not in common usage, and that is why the AP are changing their guide.

Re: Internet != internet

[Tomahawk]

Then they should be informed of their error. Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it right. An internet is a network. The Internet is, well, the Internet. Literally (meaning literally, and not figuratively, which is currently the common usage!)!

Re:Internet != internet

[mwvdlee]

Should we keep capitalizing "Web" to avoid people from fearing a giant spider that can weave one as wide as the world?

Re:Internet != internet

[JustBoo]

There are many possible "internets", networks of interlinked networks. The "Internet" is one of them, by far the largest. That is, "Internet" is a proper noun, in the same way that "Bill", "Associated Press", and "Monica" are.

There is nothing Proper, and never has been, about Bill or Monica. Ever.

Re:Internet != internet

[Dr. Evil]

Although "internet" is not common, I strongly disagree that the common use is not as a proper noun. The Internet is a place, much like Europe, Mars, Rome, or whatever.

When speaking of multiple linked networks, I speak of intranets or private networks, but if something is on the Internet, it's addressable in one, clear, named, identifiable space, and that space is called the Internet.

Re:Internet != internet

[sheetsda]

I don't disagree that what you say is what the rule currently is but taking a step back for a moment, language can be expressed in two forms: written and spoken. When speaking, there is no difference an upper and lower case letter. It's rare to hear anyone complain that the spoken form of some sentence is more ambiguous or otherwise problematic than the written equivalent. In this particular case, you'd say "the internet" or "an internet" to distinguish the two meanings. The letter case is unnecessary. This leads me to a question for any linguists out there:

Why we still use capital letters?

They seem like an unnecessary relic (another example: the difference between ',' and ';') that we should be working to simplify out of the written form of our language. The linguistic equivalent of (x + 0) or (x * 1).

In the past when I have posed this question people have replied with lists of rules surrounding the circumstances when they are applied. To head those people off - such a list is not a relevant answer, read the question again.

Re: Internet != internet

[hackwrench]

That's funny because the AP doesn't think of you at all. They continue to make these things because there are people who do want to follow their lead, not make converts.

Re:Internet != internet

[PopeRatzo]

The Internet is a place, much like Europe, Mars, Rome, or whatever.

Not really. Would you capitalize the "Multiverse"?

Re:Internet != internet

[Dr. Evil]

Are you suggesting that the Internet comprises all networks everywhere?

Re:Internet != internet

[flatulus]

I believe it was John Quarterman's 1990 book "The Matrix" (seriously, and you thought the Wachowski brothers, er sisters, er.... made it up huh?) that coined the term "the Internet", emphasizing and classifying the distinction between "an internet" and "the Internet" in precisely this way. Common usage of not capitalizing is a consequence of many millions of people not knowing the distinction.

The distinction is essentially the same as "a man" vs. "the Man", which was a popular distinction in my youth. Perhaps it still is, but for the most part I've checked out of modern culture.

Re: Internet != internet

[fruviad]

It is common to see people inappropriately use "to" when they mean "too".

It is common to see people inappropriately use "it's" when they mean "its".

Common != Correct

Re: Internet != internet

[Tomahawk]

In this case, no. Common usage is incorrect. The 2 terms "internet" and "Internet" have specific meanings. In this case, the majority are not aware of the differences as they are technical in nature. Hence the "common usage". If AP did their research and talked to a few people in the field, they would then know the reasons they shouldn't change. "Common usage" is not always correct, is just common. It means most people are wrong. Instead of following them, they should try to educate them, or we'll end up with more "literally" face-palms in the language. Educate. Steer the language. Don't just follow common usage because teenage girls use "literally" in an ironic sense without knowing (or without knowing what ironic means).

Re: Internet != internet

[Tomahawk]

That would be the Multinet, surely!

Re: Internet != internet

[smooth wombat]

Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it right.

Such as when people use "your" rather than "you're" then scream bloody murder when people point out their incorrect usage.

"Everyone knows what you mean," they say, not grasping that if they're lazy in the correct use of language, what else are they lazy at and why should someone take them seriously?

Re:Internet != internet

[AthanasiusKircher]

When speaking, there is no difference an upper and lower case letter. It's rare to hear anyone complain that the spoken form of some sentence is more ambiguous or otherwise problematic than the written equivalent.

Writing lacks all sorts of expressive capabilities that can be conveyed through speech. Cues like subtle rises and falls around words, highlighting a word through volume or pitch, etc. can all help us parse where a sentence begins/ends or to know that a specific word is referring to a person rather than a common noun with the same sound. We don't have those cues in writing.

Why we still use capital letters?

I'm not really a linguist, but you might as well ask why we still use punctuation, or why we put spaces between words, or why we spell things in the ridiculous mess that is English-language spelling. They are conventions. Language is about communication, and effective communication requires common understanding -- which relies on convention. We learn to parse patterns based on those conventions. When those conventions change suddenly, it's more difficult for people familiar with them to parse things, and the communication is less effective.

That's the very broad general answer for all such things.

For the specific notion of capital letters, they are used (and have been used for over a millennium) as cues for parsing language. They occur at the beginning of sentences, which is a signal to parse a new phrase. They occur for proper names (people, countries, specific places, etc.), which is a cue to differentiate a word from any "common noun" associations. They therefore provide a shade of meaning that is different in many contexts. Often such meanings could be determined from context too, but the capital letter is a shortcut that immediately identifies the word as a "proper" noun, which means it generally falls into a few specific categories. In cases of ambiguity, someone parsing a sentence can immediately know that the word is a person, or a specific place, or whatever.

Some other languages have other conventions for capitals that make this parsing role exceptionally clear -- see German, for example, where ALL nouns are capitalized. Is it "necessary"? Obviously other languages do without it. But for Germans, that is a grammatical cue to the function of the word in a sentence. In English, capitals also provide such cues, just for specific types of nouns, rather than all of them. But the meaning is still helpful in many contexts.

Could we do without capital letters? Of course. Ancient languages often did, and various scripts around the world don't really have an equivalent. But again, it's kind of like asking why we put spaces between words. Youcanreadasentencewithoutthem,andit'softenstraightforwardtoparseasentence. But the spaces make it quicker in some circumstances with less cognitive load for those familiar with the convention.

They seem like an unnecessary relic (another example: the difference between ',' and ';') that we should be working to simplify out of the written form of our language.

Commas and semicolons are completely different punctuation marks, and they imply completely different relationships about the words or phrases around them. (The one case of similar usage is in lists that are subdivided, but this isn't a particularly common use case. Even there, the point is that the semicolon helps delineate between comma-delineated lists of items.)

Could we eliminate semicolons? Of course, but then we'd lose some subtle meaning and parsing possibilities. We could eliminate punctuation altogether too, but it would be even worse.

We might as well ask why we have dozens of words for different shades of "blue." Why not just call them all "blue"? Well, in some contexts it helps to clarify things, and sometimes that lack of ambiguity can assist in parsing what someone else means (e.g., when trying to locate an item on

Re: Internet != internet

[Tomahawk]

It's an interesting comment and something I've thought about over the years. In fact, I think we do speak with "capitalisation", although we aren't consciously aware of it. When saying a proper noun, there tends to be a slight change in pronouncing, inflection, and/or tone, or in the separation of the words. If you say these two sentences aloud, you may hear a difference:
I'm going to the john
I'm going to see John.

It's something I sometimes notice when I'm listening for it. Speech is very complex - we carry meaning in more then just the words we say, but in how we say them. It's one of the reasons written word can be so often misinterpreted as the written word misses these additions. Written word allows for inflection, though highlighting a word use one of many methods, but doesn't allow for everything.

For example, look at the rules around commas and apostrophes. There are sets of conflicting rules here, all trying to help set the meaning so that we can comprehend the written word. But, once the reader comprehends, they can then say that string of words with the correct inflections and tones and pauses so that another listener can also comprehend.

Just my take on this anyway.

Re:Internet != internet

[donaldm]

Hmm. I wonder if they have informed Google or the Oxford Dictionarie. Maybe they did not get the memo.

Re:Internet != internet

[Bing Tsher E]

In 1996 I would have capitalized Multiverse because it was still then a proper noun in a Neal Stephenson novel.

Re: Internet != internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the frequency of "common". If to vs too is common enough then at some time in the future too will be made obsolete and to will be used for both meanings. It's note like you wrote your post using the exact same English as your founding fathers, languages change organically.

Re:Internet != internet

[Bing Tsher E]

'Humidor', though, is always spelled with lower case unless the first word of the sentence.

'Sexual predator' is capitalized in similar fashion, though it's now considered an archaic term in political usage.

Re: Internet != internet

[Oligonicella]

No it does not. Common usage simply defines what is popular.

Re:Internet != internet

[Oligonicella]

And in that fictional setting you would have been correct. Outside, dealing with science, it is simply a concept, not a place.

Re:Internet != internet

[msauve]

That would be odd, since the distinction was made as early as 1982, in RFC 823:

This document explains the design of the Internet gateway used in the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) Internet program... The gateway's primary purpose is to route internet datagrams to their destination networks.

Re: Internet != internet

[westlake]

Then they should be informed of their error.

How do you propose to do that and make it stick? When was the last time the geek engaged in a war of words and won?

Re: Internet != internet

[henni16]

Terry Pratchett kinda made 4th-wall-breaking fun of this in some of his books.
I can't find the quote this made me think of right now, but it was a character accusing another not of being sarcastic, but of speaking some word in italics (IIRC Nanny Ogg and Granny Weatherwax).

I just found some similar quotes from other books, like from "Men at Arms"

He could think in italics. Such people need watching. Preferably from a safe distance.

..or taking it even further, from his scifi-gamer YA book "Only You Can Save Mankind" when Kristy argues with Mr Patel the game shop owner about returning her "defective" copy of the game which she had already opened:

the girl's voice had a kind of penetrating quality, like a corkscrew. When she spoke in italics, you could hear them. 'Oh, no. You can't say that. Because how can I tell if it works without trying it? That comes under the Sale of Goods Act (1983).' The awed watchers were astonished to see a slightly hunted look in Mr Patel's eyes. Up until now he'd never met anyone who could pronounce brackets.

Re: Internet != internet

[henni16]

Or rather:

the girl's voice had a kind of penetrating quality, like a corkscrew. When she spoke in italics, you could hear them. 'Oh, no. You can't say that. Because how can I tell if it works without trying it? That comes under the Sale of Goods Act (1983).' The awed watchers were astonished to see a slightly hunted look in Mr Patel's eyes. Up until now he'd never met anyone who could pronounce brackets.

Re:Internet != internet

[Areyoukiddingme]

I'm not really a linguist, but you might as well ask why we still use punctuation, or why we put spaces between words, or why we spell things in the ridiculous mess that is English-language spelling.

So close. You almost had it. The 'ridiculous mess' that is English-language spelling is also an optimization of cognitive load, just as capitalization and punctuation are. When humans read, we recognize the whole word, not individual letters. English spelling puts a greater cognitive load on the writer in order to significantly reduce the cognitive load on the reader. We could regularize the spelling of all homophones, simplifying writing—and sabotaging reading. Sabotaging it so badly that we would lose a lot of expressiveness.

Written English is considerably more expressive than spoken English, and a large part of the gain is because of spelling. Carat, caret, and carrot are trivial to distinguish in writing, regardless of context, but possible to parse verbally only in context. Admittedly people who aren't Bugs Bunny rarely talk about 24 carat carrots, but if we did, it would take a moment to parse the sentence when spoken, while it's completely clear when written. Professional speechwriters have lists of phrases never to use in a speech because they're impossible to understand without great context, and the misunderstanding could be significantly bad. Speechwriters have additional lists of phrases not to use in speeches that may be relatively easy to understand in context, but are also too easy to misunderstand or misconstrue. Writers have similar lists, but they're a lot shorter, and there's very little overlap with those of the speechwriters.

Human brains parse verbal language and written language very differently, so the evolved 'optimizations' of pronunciation and spelling are different because they serve very different purposes. Homophones are spelled differently because it makes written language much easier to read.

Re:Internet != internet

[Anonymous Coward]

That's odd. "Illegal" referring to illegal immigrants is in common usage, so why do they want to avoid that?

Re:Internet != internet

[frovingslosh]

All primates can learn language, but knowing when to capitalize is what separates man from the aps.

Re: Internet != internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2 terms "internet" and "Internet" have specific meanings. In this case, the majority are not aware of the differences as they are technical in nature. Hence the "common usage".

While I completely agree with you, the AP has a problem in that few journalists are aware of the technical differences. Moreover, it seems very unlikely that the same journalists, even prominent and well educated ones, who increasingly mispronounce "nuclear" (as "noo-kyoo-lur" or rarely "noo-kuh-lur") and "pundit" (as "pun-dint", even by actual pundits), use "begs the question" in place of "raises the question", and commit a host of other common errors, both in speech and in writing, will be either interested or even capable of distinguishing between "Internet" and "internet". After the Fukushima reactor incident, Wolf Blitzer could not comprehend a fairly straightforward explanation of how the San Luis Obispo nuclear plant was safe from an earthquake of the same size with an epicenter at the same distance; a CNN meteorologist explained radioactive half-life as the "time it takes for it to become safe" (not verbatim, but close). Even science journalism often fails on simple distinctions such as correlation vs. causation. Journalists have set the bar astonishingly low with respect to anything even remotely technical.

Most journalists either cannot or will not discern "Internet" from "internet", and therefore that will inevitably spread to the general language. Pragmatically, the best we can hope to do is to prevent incorrect common usage from intruding into technical literature. The IETF and others can ignore such style guidelines just as contract lawyers ignore the common usage of "several".

- T

Re: Internet != internet

[Solandri]

Kinda ironic that this article comes just before an article on the spread of ignorance.

Re: Internet != internet

[thegarbz]

"Common usage" is not always correct, is just common. It means most people are wrong.

Which begs the question, if most people agree on a common definition for a certain term or phrase doesn't that make it ultimately the right definition? I mean what good is your knowledge of a language if you are unable to communicate with the people who speak it?

This is a problem in any uncontrolled language like English.

Now are you going to point out the incorrect use of begs the question even though the vast majority (dare I say everyone) completely and totally understood the exact meaning I was conveying despite use of the phrase being "wrong"?

Re:Internet != internet

[blindseer]

I agree, one could produce a world wide web of many things. We currently have one world wide web of internet sites and it has a name, and that name is the World Wide Web. We often shorten such things in common usage and simply refer to this as the Web.

Many things fly and could be called a flyer. The Wright Brothers made something the flew and they called it Flyer.

There's a lot of things that shuttle things back and forth. NASA built a vehicle that did this and we call it Shuttle.

Perhaps another way to put it is everyone has a mom. When writing about your own mother one might say "my mom made this" or use the word as a title or pseudonym, "Mom made this".

I think the AP failed on this one.

Re:Internet != internet

[hankwang]

"The 'ridiculous mess' that is English-language spelling is also an optimization of cognitive load, just as capitalization and punctuation are."

You make it sound like it was a conscious decision to spell English the way it is. It's not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... .

Of course, once you have the spelling, good writers will use its pecularities to their advantage, but even then I doubt that present-day English writings would be harder to read in a more phonetic spelling system - for someone who was raised with it. You mention words that sound the same but are written differently. But what about homographs such as lead, can, may, light, park, project, and wind? Or what added value is the spelling of through, though, tough, plough, and cough?

As an aside, I believe that the fuzzy, simple grammar of English makes it hard to write unambiguously about a complicated reasoning (academic writing). The lack of word genders and verb inflections makes it hard to refer to specific earlier sentence parts.

Re:Internet != internet

[omnichad]

By common usage, aks should be an accepted spelling for ask. It's been in use far longer than internet with no capital I.

Re: Internet != internet

[omnichad]

But the rule that would change is that proper noun locations are capitalized. In common usage, that's still the case. It's still a proper noun location. You don't change part of the rule, you change the whole rule.

Re:Internet != internet

[omnichad]

That's not strictly one place, but rather a set of places. Not quite the same as Europe, because they are not really grouped in any meaningful way.

Re:Internet != internet

[omnichad]

Why we still use capital letters?

To draw visual focus (e.g. start of a new sentence), and to allow readers to infer that a name is a proper name rather than a generic type of person, place, or thing. That is only obvious if you already know of the proper noun.

Re: Internet != internet

[JazzLad]

Did you only read that far?

Now are you going to point out the incorrect use of begs the question even though the vast majority (dare I say everyone) completely and totally understood the exact meaning I was conveying despite use of the phrase being "wrong"?

Re: Internet != internet

[Coren22]

"nuclear" (as "noo-kyoo-lur" or rarely "noo-kuh-lur")

I thought the proper pronunciation was new clear.

AP, of course they're wrong

[KiloByte]

Uhm no, there is a distinction. "A internet" (lowercase) is a bunch of interconnected networks, "the Internet" (capitalized) is the currently biggest one.

Because of the growth of the latter, the former meaning is far less common, but it still exists.

Re:AP, of course they're wrong

[Hognoxious]

"A internet"

I don't think there's any point in reading the rest, is there?

Re: AP, of course they're wrong

[Tomahawk]

Ever hear of a typo...? Allow for some mistakes, as humans aren't perfect, and read the comment for the content therein.

Re:AP, of course they're wrong

[truedfx]

Looking for the closest analogies I can think of: what you say makes perfect sense so long as you also refer to the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. Which the AP doesn't. They refer to the Earth, the sun and the moon. They appear to drop the capitalisation when it's not or no longer recognised by the general public as a name. I'm not saying I care much for their style guide myself, but dropping the capitalisation of internet and web appears to play well with their views.

Re: AP, of course they're wrong

[truedfx]

It should be "an internet" rather than "a internet". It's that part that was likely a typo.

Re:AP, of course they're wrong

[Ken D]

that would be the parochial view I guess?

If the AP wants to write about "the moon", I'm going to ask "Which one?" same for "the sun". You could say that it is only proper to capitalize Luna or Sol, but if you are going to use moon interchangeably with Luna, then you ought to maintain the capitalization to indicate that.

I'm good with this.

[ScentCone]

It never made sense, to me, to capitalize "web" or "internet," so this is just finally getting it right. I do find "website" to be silly, though. It makes no more sense than "constructionsite" or "landingsite" or "accidentsite."

And why is "illegal immigrant" incorrect? Yes, the act of immigrating illegally is illegal. It puts the person who commits that crime into the condition of being an illegal immigrant. If someone is squatting in a house where they don't have permission to live, they are illegally residing in that house - they are illegal residents of that house. It's not like there's any semantic confusion on the subject. We talk very reasonably about people being legal residents, visa-holding travelers, etc. A phrase which defines their nature and status is perfectly reasonable. Someone either is, or is not an immigrant, and either is or is not such in keeping with immigration law. Immigration is a process 100% defined by law. One is either doing it legally, or not. Their status after doing it is within the provisions of the law, or outside it. They are legally residing in the country, or they are doing so illegally.

Re:I'm good with this.

[StormReaver]

Web and Internet are capitalized because they both are proper nouns. Not capitalizing them doesn't make sense. It's like not capitalizing Mike or Angela, or not capitalizing Chicago or Detroit. People, places, and things (and adjectives derived from them) are capitalized.

Re: I'm good with this.

[hackwrench]

Because they don't want to pander to people who have a difference of opinion as to how to treat people who to one degree or another that also happen to be poor, perhaps. An oversimplification, but the details are messy.
You don't seem to reaize one thing about sqatting and that if a squatter does so long enough without the owner taking effective action, they can come to own the whole thing legally. Also, if someone owes a debt and they don't make any payments for a time that can vary based on jurisdiction, the debt can be legally discharged. There are also other situations where legality changes. Much of it is under the concept of statue of limitations.

Re:I'm good with this.

[kenai_alpenglow]

Are you a citizen? If not, you are an alien. (I'm ignoring the category of US Persons, who can be either a citizen or not--this is irrelevant to the discussion.) That's neither good nor bad, just a fact. Are you here legally? If not, you are here illegally. That's a fact, neither good nor bad. If you a non-citizen (alien) who is here illegally, that makes you an illegal alien. That's a fact, neither good nor bad. I've been in a situation where I could have been considered to have crossed the border illegally (in a military jet, no less); that maked me an illegal alien during that time frame--doesn't bother me. If you take offense at it (and it's true, of course), that's the same as taking offense at being called a thief when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar (or holding the diamond necklace as you're caught fleeing the jewelry store). It's a fact, neither good nor bad. GET OVER THIS PC NONSENSE!

Re:I'm good with this.

[Imrik]

I like the German practice of capitalizing all nouns, can we adopt it as the standard instead of this movement away from capitalizing proper nouns?

Re:I'm good with this.

[Ginger Unicorn]

As it said in the summary, referring to illegal immigration rather than illegal immigrants is an effort to avoid labeling people. While it is a technically correct description, there is more to language that technical specificity and precision. When discussing politically and emotionally charged subjects, labeling people as "a something or other", especially when referring to a group of people serves to subconsciously dehumanise them in the minds of the reader. Labelling people enables a cognitive shortcut that prunes any human attributes outside those implied by the label, and transforms them from "a human like me with complex motivitations and someone whom i could empathise with" to "outsiders that aren't like me and could be a threat and doesn't deserve any empathy, because all they are is [whatever label]".

It's important to careful avoid promoting lazy stereotyping, even on as seemingly innocuous a level as carefully avoiding some terminology because we are all chimps with buggy reasoning software installed, and we need to work around the bugs as much as possible.

Re:I'm good with this.

[NotInHere]

If you have immigrated illegally to a country, you lead your life in that country as far from the state as possible. You don't pay any taxes directly, you don't have a bank account under your name and address, you don't have a house registered to your name. Your whole life is illegal. If somebody steals from you or threatens you, you can't get the police, because the police would then send you back to where you came from. If your employer doesn't give you a minimal wage, you can't protest. If there is an accident which is the employer's fault, you can't sue them. If you immigrate illegally, your whole life becomes illegal, for as long as you reside in the country.

Saying that the whole immigrant is illegal when their whole life is as far from the law as possible is justified in my opinion.

Re:I'm good with this.

[ScentCone]

Yeah, we don't want to label people. Words like "citizen" dehumanize, right? Or "taxpayer." That's awful. It it just makes the half of the country's population that does pay income taxes sounds like mere beasts of burden for the half that pay no income taxes.

Or maybe, just possibly, the point is that we use such labels when they are contextually useful? When we're talking about choices of haircut, immigration status isn't particularly meaningful. When we're talking about whether or not someone is benefiting from their presence in the US without doing the things that other law-abiding people did in order to get those benefits, mentioning the fact that they are in the country illegally is completely appropriate.

Why SHOULD someone who's decided to skip the line and avoid the legal requirements of proper immigration get empathy from those they're cheating? What's lazy and stereotyping about calling someone what they actually are, when the context of the discussion directly relates to their lawbreaking and what they get out of their choice to be such ... and what other people who choose to follow the law must do, in contrast?

You've got your laziness label aimed at the wrong problem. The laziness comes from confusing race with culture, or confusing culture with personal choices to act. Those who use a label to describe the legal circumstances that someone deliberately chose to put themselves in aren't talking race, or culture, or gender or any of the other lights-progressives'-hair-on-fire PC third-rail topics. They're talking about a CHOICE people have made to break the law. Just like when they choose to hold up a liquor store or steal a car or profit from inside trading. That doesn't make them "other" in any sense other than what the phrase explicitly addresses: their choice to obey the law, or not. Have you chosen to break federal immigration law? No? Then you are in one category, and the people who HAVE chosen to break those laws are in another.

The real intellectual laziness and moral cowardice comes from trying to blur that distinction in order to avoid the personal discomfort of actually identifying someone's decision to break the law for what it is. The real question is: why does someone become uncomfortable identifying someone's actions for what they demonstrably are? Usually, it's because they're too craven to come out and say what they really want: open borders and a generous welfare state for anyone who shows up. Those who want that in the US are several years too slow watching how those policies have been turning out elsewhere.

Re: I'm good with this.

[Tomahawk]

*dog
*yard
*laptop
*network

Winter is correct. All seasons have capitals. The rest are not proper nouns. We aren't German.

Re:I'm good with this.

[Oligonicella]

First, check your pomposity. Second, they placed themselves into that category. Don't want to be called a bank robber? Don't rob a bank.

Re:I'm good with this.

[Kjella]

It never made sense, to me, to capitalize "web" or "internet," so this is just finally getting it right. I do find "website" to be silly, though. It makes no more sense than "constructionsite" or "landingsite" or "accidentsite."

Using the word site is a flawed analogy in the first place, you can change landing site but you don't move the landing site, it's the new site as opposed to the old. A quick search for "this (web site|website|site) has moved" returns 270,000 hits, in practice it's more like the address to a library that may have closed or moved away. If you think of webpages as organized by path into sections, shelves and books then a website is the level above and actually more like a virtual library than a traditional site.

Re:I'm good with this.

[AthanasiusKircher]

As it said in the summary, referring to illegal immigration rather than illegal immigrants is an effort to avoid labeling people. While it is a technically correct description, there is more to language that technical specificity and precision. When discussing politically and emotionally charged subjects, labeling people as "a something or other", especially when referring to a group of people serves to subconsciously dehumanise them in the minds of the reader. Labelling people enables a cognitive shortcut that prunes any human attributes outside those implied by the label, and transforms them from "a human like me with complex motivitations and someone whom i could empathise with" to "outsiders that aren't like me and could be a threat and doesn't deserve any empathy, because all they are is [whatever label]".

While on some level I agree with you, I think you can take this too far. It's one thing to use a word for bigoted purposes and stereotypes, but there are sometimes that "specificity and precision" you mention is relevant.

There are some people who seem to use the word "illegal immigrant" as a kind of code for "lazy Mexican." In that case, I completely agree with your objections. If you're commenting on some people you see sitting over on the other side of the bar, and just refer to them casually as "illegal immigrants" (often without proof), then yes, you may be characterizing the person inaccurately. Even if you know their status, making reference to it for no reason often tends to associate it with various stereotypes among certain groups of people.

On the other hand, there are numerous places where the "illegal" status is relevant. People who immigrate illegally don't have sufficient documentation often to apply for jobs, they can't get various social services, etc. Thus, if you're referring to a group of people's work status, it's perfectly legitimate (and accurate) to note the "illegal immigrant" status.

It's important to careful avoid promoting lazy stereotyping, even on as seemingly innocuous a level as carefully avoiding some terminology because we are all chimps with buggy reasoning software installed, and we need to work around the bugs as much as possible.

Again, I agree with you that language can be used to reinforce stereotypes. But the specific problem with the term "illegal immigrant" seems to be that people want to put it on the euphemism treadmill. I've heard public speakers insist in interviews on using the term "undocumented worker" for all illegal immigrants, even if they didn't have jobs. They refused to utter the term "illegal immigrant" even though in some cases it would have been the most accurate term to use. The process here is to combat the bigoted equation of "illegal immigrant" = code for "lazy Mexican" by proposing a term like "undocumented worker" which sounds less objectionable ("undocumented," he just didn't file the right paperwork) and emphasizes the hard "work" many of them may do.

That is perhaps a noble idea to fight a stereotype, but I do NOT agree with it when it actually results in inaccuracies. In some contexts, "illegal immigrant" is the most accurate description available to refer to a specific group of people, i.e., those who immigrated illegally. When that immigration status is relevant for some reason, the term is not inaccurate.

But what some people are doing is trying to fight stereotypes by word replacement (the "euphemism treadmill"), which never really works. See the history of words for black people in the U.S.:

(1) In the mid-1800s, the word "black" was considered derogatory and inaccurate -- since most people have skin with various shades of brown, not literally black -- so there was an argument to use the term "colored" people instead.

(2) In the early 1900s, some black scholars objected to the term "colored" since it was sometimes used disparagingly and co

Re: I'm good with this.

[hackwrench]

No, it's not.
Wikipedia: Newspeak
Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
Manipulating the way that people who agree with you use language by suggesting alternative word constructs to help them avoid words that come with emotional baggage only bears a superficial resemblance to the definition of Newspeak.

"Inserting themselves into a side of a debate" is an odd word choice for saying that they actively chose a side. In any difference of opinion, if you don't actively choose a side you've passively chosen a side.- and there's pretty much always more than two sides.

Re:I'm good with this.

[Solandri]

Internet and Web are capitalized because they refer to one specific internet or web, thus making them proper nouns. The best non-technical example is "mother". If you're talking about mothers in general, it's not capitalized: "A mother's job is never done." If you're talking about one specific mother, it's a proper noun and thus capitalized. "I wanted to have chocolate, but Mother said it would spoil my dinner." (Referring specifically to your mother.)

And "illegal immigrant" is correct. The press has collectively decided to use "undocumented immigrant" to try to legitimize their status (because such immigrants would overwhelmingly vote for the party they favor if granted citizenship). I'm wondering when they will begin to refer to murderers as "unlicensed executioners" and bank robbery as "unauthorized withdrawals."

Re: I'm good with this.

[KGIII]

Winter is not correct. Not in their usage.

Citation: http://www.write.com/writing-g...

It's okay - I could have sworn I was taught to capitalize them in school. However, they are not capitalized. I learned this from a Grammar Nazi. It turns out, they're correct.

Re:I'm good with this.

[KGIII]

What, you're calling all the "Travelers" or Hispanic people "bank robbers" now? /s

(Sadly, I have to add the /s for sarcasm. There are people who would completely not understand.)

Re:I'm good with this.

[KGIII]

Lazy Illegal Immigrant?

Seriously? Have you seen those folks pick fruits and veggies? Man, they're less lazy than almost every legal citizen I know that's more than second generation citizen. Those folks work hard.

They're criminals, but they're some damned hard working criminals - for shit wages too. If they were lazy, we'd get rid of them. Hell, even the legal migrants are damned hard workers. One of the hardest workers I had working for me was a second generation citizen with Pakistani heritage. (See what I did there - that's politically correct and not even offensively politically correct.) However, it went downhill from there. His kids were pretty lazy and getting pretty chunky by the time I sold. Him? He's in a total different department doing something or other managerial and working 60 hours a week while he pays for the fat and lazy fucks to go to a good school, a house that's huge, new cars, a vacation home, and things like that.

He's a hard working dude and has been since I met him - he was 23(?) when I met him, I think. That would have been 1998 or so. He's also socking away a whole lot of money AND still sending some to Pakistan (see, I did it again!) where he still has relatives. They're probably all able to go to school on what he sends back. His kids? Those fuckers aren't going to accomplish a damned thing. I have a distinct lack of faith.

Anyhow, the ones here illegally work even harder. I've stomped all across the southern part of the US. Both sides of it... I actually see a whole lot of people here illegally when I'm home in Maine. Seriously... We don't notice them, they never get busted, they don't (from my observations and extrapolations) even really count them accurately. I suspect it's because they're white and from Canada. They're all over the roads in pulp trucks, lumber trucks, and in the woods harvesting lumber. And I very much mean illegally - they're rather open about it, it's like an open secret. I've also seen it in Washington, Oregon, up in the Upper Peninsula, a bit in New York, Vermont, and a few in Massachusetts and New Hampshire but not as many there. I have seen 'em south of there too but there's a whole lot of 'em up that way.

Ah well... I don't actually mind too much but they really should be here legally and, probably, ought to go to the back of the line and start again. They've already demonstrated a propensity to break the law. They probably shouldn't be given extra benefits for breaking the law. Rewarding illegal behavior (note, I did not say criminal - PC again, bitches!) seems like it's generally a bad idea. On the other hand, the vast majority of them (from any country) are here because they're fucking broke and they're willing to work their asses off for dirt cheap. So, there are some realistic sides to letting them stay and granting them amnesty - aside from the emotional arguments of acclimation and ease of transition.

I dunno... I smoked some kind and I'm not even sure what the hell the subject is any more. But, I think the gist of it was that the Illegal Immigrants are anything but lazy. However, you could say I'm being racist by saying they're some hardworking people - but that kind of racism is encouraged, it's even (as near as I can tell) true.

Re:I'm good with this.

[Ginger Unicorn]

First, check your pomposity.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're projecting a tone onto what I'm saying.

Don't want to be called a bank robber? Don't rob a bank.

The trouble is the term "bank robber" possibly carries some unsubstantiated implications, and is a placeholder for subconscious caricatures. For example it conjures up an image of someone who habitually robs banks. If you're an accomplice in a bank robbery when you're 18, but you get caught, reform your character and never rob a bank again, being referred to as "a bank robber" gives an unwarranted impression that you're a career criminal.

On the other hand "man who robbed a bank in his youth" is more factual and precise and carries no inherent implication, other than those that stem from the facts, as would "man who has a history of regularly robbing banks" if that was true.

In both cases, the consideration of this person is contextualised as a human being that should be dealt with appropriately, and not a cartoon villain that can comfortably be disregarded as deserving no opportunity for redemption.

Re:I'm good with this.

[Ginger Unicorn]

They're talking about a CHOICE people have made to break the law.

That's what I'm arguing for. Talking about the choice, not talking about a person as if they are nothing but that choice. "People who chose to illegally enter the country" for instance is a term that is explicit, and conveys the facts of the matter accurately, and doesn't blur any lines about what has happened or who is responsible. The term "Illegal Immigrant" while perfectly accurate in terms of categorising the legal status of the individual, omits the reminder that these are people being discussed, not cartoon villains. This might seem infuriatingly mealy mouthed and unnecessary, but the in-group out-group instincts that are the root of every descent into inhumane behaviour are compulsive. Choosing to use more specific language as a means of regulating this instinct is not a counterproductive thing to do. It's just reminding us all collectively, to stay rational and not let our sense of injustice amplify our aggressive instincts.

The real intellectual laziness and moral cowardice comes from trying to blur that distinction in order to avoid the personal discomfort of actually identifying someone's decision to break the law for what it is...., it's because they're too craven to come out and say what they really want: open borders and a generous welfare state for anyone who shows up

This strokes me as an odd conclusion to come to. What do you mean by open borders? Like, no passport control whatsoever and just anyone can come and go as they please? I can't imagine there are very many people at all that would want something that chaotic and unregulated. I can't speak for other people, but I personally believe that people who enter a country illegally obviously should be taken back out of the country and sent back to their home country. There are situations where people are fleeing famine or a warzone where the situation become less simple and I do believe that as human beings, such people deserve some other fate than being sent home to die, which obviously means arriving at some compromise. I certainly don't want open borders and no control over who is able to claim welfare. I can't think anyone liberal/PC that I know that would want that.

And let me be explicit: Just because I believe careful use of language can mitigate some of the counter-productive wiring in the human brain does not mean I think that people should not be held accountable for their choices or that as a society we shouldn't criticise the values people hold or the behaviour they engage in.

Re:I'm good with this.

[Ginger Unicorn]

I agree that the euphemism treadmill does seem like a perpetual losing prospect, it does seem to be that each euphemism is just a fresh label that will eventually collect the baggage of the previous label.

But I would argue that referring to a person as "a person who has (x characteristic)" or a group of people as "people who have (x characteristic)" is a way of talking about people in the context of the relevant characteristic without removing the crucial context that they are a human being the same as us regardless of that characteristic. I think that sort of terminology introduces some resilience against the treadmill.

I also don't agree with terms that are less accurate, or introduce ambiguity. "people who have immigrated illegally" or "people living in this country illegally", or "a person who entered the country illegally" for instance are no less accurate than "illegal immigrants" or "an illegal immigrant". Another poster on the thread was arguing that it is a way to avoid holding people accountable for their choices, a way of avoiding accusing people of things, but I don't believe that's inherently true. As i suggested to him, in the context of talking about holding people to account, you can add more context such as "people who chose to enter the country illegally" for instance.

Naturally this isn't just about illegal immigration, i think it's a constructive way to approach any social issue, but as you say most of those issues have a practical, logistical problem creating them that needs to be dealt with for the problem to be solved. I think we have a much better chance at finding the correct solution when stay grounded to the humanity of everyone involved.

Re:I'm good with this.

[ScentCone]

Internet and Web are capitalized because they refer to one specific internet or web, thus making them proper nouns. The best non-technical example is "mother". If you're talking about mothers in general, it's not capitalized: "A mother's job is never done." If you're talking about one specific mother, it's a proper noun and thus capitalized. "I wanted to have chocolate, but Mother said it would spoil my dinner." (Referring specifically to your mother.)

Nope. Do you say, "I've got to put more money in a bank so I can save for a house" ... but then also say, "I"ve got to stop by my Bank in order to make a deposit." No, you don't. And I don't know anybody who types thusly: "My Mother and Father have been married for twenty years." Because those are NOT proper nouns. Though there are ways in which capitalizing such words make sense: as in, "I'm going to pour more tea. Can I offer you some, Mom?" Because you are substituting that word for their name while directly addressing them. And NOT doing so when you not doing so. As in: "I'm telling you, Dad, you have no idea how much my friend Jim dislikes his father." Note that neither "friend" nor "father" would be capitalized in that case, though they do refer to specific individuals.

Re:I'm good with this.

[jdavidb]

Why SHOULD someone who's decided to skip the line and avoid the legal requirements of proper immigration get empathy from those they're cheating?

For the same reason that a black woman who decided to sit at the front of the bus or a black man who ignored the "no coloreds" sign at the sandwich shop should get empathy.

Re:I'm good with this.

[germansausage]

Euphemism Treadmill. - I like that. A teacher sent a letter to our local newspaper with a copy of some recent instructions from the school board "Please refrain from using words such as retarded or mentally retarded as some people find these offensive. Instead use cognitive impairment or developmentally delayed." The best part, she included similar instructions she had received 25 years ago "Please refrain from using words such as slow or simple as some people find these offensive. Instead use retarded or mentally retarded."

Re:I'm good with this.

[jdavidb]

Usually, it's because they're too craven to come out and say what they really want: open borders and a generous welfare state for anyone who shows up.

No, I'm very pro-immigration and very anti-welfare. And I'm not craven about it at all; I speak up about it pretty frequently.

Re:I'm good with this.

[operagost]

We need to avoid labels, so from now on don't call them "thieves", call them "undocumented re-possessors".

Re:I'm good with this.

[omnichad]

You're right. When you're using my as the qualifier, you're not using the word as a proper name. But if you directly address them it becomes a noun.

You capitalize Mom and Dad in examples where the more formal words Mother and Father could be used instead and still capitalized. Your argument on that makes no sense.

What makes something a proper noun is that when you use it alone, it means a specific person or place or thing. When you say Internet, you are talking about the global internetworked computer system with which everyone else is familiar. You don't need to say my internet, unless you've created your own. Much like Interstate Highway System is capitalized (in the US), even though it's only one example of an interstate highway.

Re:I'm good with this.

[ejasons]

When you're using my as the qualifier

So, kind of like the internet, then?

Re:I'm good with this.

[omnichad]

Only if you say my internet. Otherwise, it's like the President (which is specific enough in context).

Re:I'm good with this.

[Rakarra]

This strokes me as an odd conclusion to come to. What do you mean by open borders? Like, no passport control whatsoever and just anyone can come and go as they please? I can't imagine there are very many people at all that would want something that chaotic and unregulated.

In California there are quite a few of these people. I've seen them regularly in the Latino community (and they're not necessarily Latino -- it's as much a Marin or Berkeley upper-class white attitude as it is anything else) and they are adamant about a few points:

1) They lump "legal immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" into one category, "immigrants" and refuse to call either group anything else, because they want to blur the line, as if there was no difference in actions. Because to them, there is no difference in actions. They know that if you're against any immigration at all, you're xenophobic, maybe racist, and a hypocrite. So the name of the game right now is to tar people against illegal immigration as being against "immigrants." And that's because...

2) They claim that freedom of movement is a human right, and if you do not let anyone cross whatever country border they want at any time they desire, without restriction, then you are trampling on their human rights. Country borders and laws are meaningless and evil if they impede people from living wherever they want. So there's no such thing as "illegal immigration," and thus, no "illegal immigrants."

Re:I'm good with this.

[Rakarra]

Why SHOULD someone who's decided to skip the line and avoid the legal requirements of proper immigration get empathy from those they're cheating?

For the same reason that a black woman who decided to sit at the front of the bus or a black man who ignored the "no coloreds" sign at the sandwich shop should get empathy.

It's more like the man at the back of the line waiting to get onto the bus pushing past the woman in front of him so he can get to the last seat before she can.

Re:I'm good with this.

[jdavidb]

Except that in this case there's no justice in lining them up at all. They could just come in and are being arbitrarily prohibited from doing so.

Please don't do that

[Opportunist]

The Web and the Internet are two nouns that have a meaning beyond "some interwoven stuff" and "a network of networks". Proper capitalization of proper nouns is important to retain the meaning and spirit of a sentence! For example, take the lowercase sentence

"i had to help my uncle jack off a horse"

Capitalization changes everything!

Re:Please don't do that

[Toonol]

Fundamentally, commas represent spots there would be a pause in spoken speech. That sentence would have a pause after 'uncle' and 'jack', so a comma is correct.

Re:Please don't do that

[KGIII]

I think that it would also depend on a couple of other things. The reader OR listener's familiarity with the subject and how one intended to express it later in the same subject.

"I'm going to drive my uncle, 'Jack's," car to the coast for him this weekend. Would you like to ride down and meet him? He's my uncle and he's pretty cool. My uncle and I have spent a lot of time together, back before you and I met."

vs.

"Hey, I'm going to Uncle Jack's, it should be a good drive. Want to go see him?"

In the latter case, and this doesn't mean I'm correct, I'd capitalize the U in uncle. The first would be more spoken and, though awkward in text, I can't see anything in specific that I'd call wrong with the first example. Awkward? Yes. Wrong? I'm not so sure that it's wrong - technically.

However, it should be clear that I am not an expert. I do, on the other hand, make an effort to continually improve my writing - for a variety of reasons but mostly because I try to communicate as accurately and as completely as I am able to.

As an aside; That's why I write as many novellas as I do. I don't write novellas because I'm good. I write them because I'm inarticulate and thus I end up being verbose. My intent is not to write novellas but to accurately convey the ideas which I wish to communication - with as little room for misunderstanding (willful or not) as I have the capacity to achieve.

I've expressed this before. My verbosity is the exact opposite, in my opinion, of aptitude and capacity. Someone more adept than I could often say what I said in a more concise manner. Alas, I am not only not perfect but I have flaws that I recognize, work to fix, and for which I eagerly accept correction. I know, it's not cool to admit that around here but, don't tell anyone, it happens to be the reality. Meh, I'll still be striving to improve my writing up until I die. I'm comfortable with imperfections and learning new things. Sometimes, I'm even WRONG!

Re:Please don't do that

[Xolotl]

It most likely wouldn't have a pause in spoken speech, "Uncle Jack" being treated as a single unit in this case. Replace it mentally with "Dad" or "little sister" and you'll see there's no pause. If it was "Jack, my uncle," then there would be appropriate pauses.

Re:Please don't do that

[omnichad]

A comma is a very widely accepted accepted form of punctuation for parentheticals.

Modish but foolish

[Archtech]

I can see how this decision fits in with modern fashion. The whole idea of a proper noun seems to grate - perhaps it clashes with the pervasive inverted snobbery of our culture. Many people's forum handles lower-case ordinary names, subtly suggesting that they are more sophisticated than old-fashioned upper-cased names.

As others have pointed out, there is in practice only one Internet: so it should be "the Internet". There are of course many intranets, and you can talk about different partial internets; but if they are not part of the Internet, the usage is merely confusing; and if they are part of the Internet, why use the same name for the whole and a part of it?

As for the Web, it was invented and freely given to the world by Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues at CERN. Sir Tim has always emphasized that it should be both unique and world-wide, hence the proper name "the World Wide Web".

Here is his authoritative explanation:

Q: How in fact do you spell World Wide Web?

A: It should be spelled as three separate words, so that its acronym is three separate "W"s. There are no hyphens. Yes, I know that it has in some places been spelled with a hyphen but the official way is without. Yes, I know that "worldwide" is a word in the dictionary, but World Wide Web is three words.

I use "Web" with a capital W to indicate that it is an abbreviation for "World Wide Web". Hence, "What a tangled web he wove on his Web site!".

Often, WWW is written and read as W3, which is quicker to say. In particular, the World Wide Web consortium is W3C, never WWWC.

Q: Why did you call it WWW?

A: Looking for a name for a global hypertext system, an essential element I wanted to stress was its decentralized form allowing anything to link to anything. This form is mathematically a graph, or web. It was designed to be global of course. (I had noticed that projects find it useful to have a signature letter, as the Zebra project at CERN which started all its variables with "Z". In fact by the time I had decided on WWW, I had written enough code using global variables starting with "HT" for hypertext that W wasn't used for that.). Alternatives I considered were "Mine of information" ("Moi", c'est un peu egoiste) and "The Information Mine ("Tim", even more egocentric!), and "Information Mesh" (too like "Mess" though its ability to describe a mess was a requirement!). Karen Sollins at MIT now has a Mesh project.

https://www.w3.org/People/Bern...

Re: Modish but foolish

[hackwrench]

Not more sophisticated, but more convenient. At least that's why I do it.

Re: Modish but foolish

[Archtech]

ok, that makes good sense. from now on i too shall dispense with the wasteful and tiring capital letters, even when spelling names like usa, eu, nato and ibm. maybe next week we can get rid of the annoying punctuation marks and spacing.

Re: Modish but foolish

[hackwrench]

Well if you are using all of them as part of a username with websites that may or may not treat your username as case sensitive, you might.

Screw the AP

[p51d007]

Call a spade a spade! Illegal Alien, NOT illegal "immigration". When you say immigration, it's like that they are suppose to be here, but the paperwork got screwed up. African American is another "PC" word. They are Americans...regardless of skin color. Same with Asian American, Hispanic American and on and on. The progressive culture has separated this country, and turned everyone against everyone. Once the entire world gets away from political correctness, and GROWS A SPINE, perhaps the world will be a bit better place!

Re:Screw the AP

[reboot246]

Amen, brother!

Or Headline Words !

[swell]

Doesn't that look stupid. Why would those words have capitals? They are not names of anything that require a capital, they are just ordinary words. Why can't Slashdot get in step with the majority of publishers in this century who eschew excess capitalization in headlines? Such headlines can be very confusing, but worse- they smack of the hype that publishers in the 19th century thought necessary.

Re:Or Headline Words !

[pablo.cl]

Swell Is Talking About Headline Words, Not About Normal Sentences.

Turn the tables on the ap

[Sloppy]

The associated press deserves the style that gets hacked upon them.

Probably because most people didn't realize they s

[thepacketmaster]

Back in the 90's it was made very clear in all the technical literature that an internet was a generic network that anyone could create for the purpose of networking, whereas the Internet was the name for the common public Internet that we all know and use today. Much like the term "hacker" (as opposed to "cracker", the technical people that knew about the definitions understood its proper meaning. The problems came when the media couldn't seem to grasp the concepts, and wanted to keep in simple for ordinary people to understand. Much like hacker, the media used the term incorrectly and thus we have a trend towards lowercase being used for the Internet. #KeepInternetCapitalized

They don't know what they're talking about

[Dr. Evil]

We can call it "the international internet network as governed by IETF, ICANN, ARIN etc." or "the AP doesn't know what they're talking about space", or "the Internet" for short.

I think maybe they just don't know that there is a concept of governance and organization which goes in to creating the Internet, and they think it's some vague ungoverned medium for communication, like sound through the air.

Proper nouns

[OrangeTide]

There is only one Internet right now, just like there is only one Earth and one Universe.

Re:Proper nouns

[mrprogrammerman]

Never heard of Internet2?

Re:Proper nouns

[OrangeTide]

I see you capitalized Internet2 as well.

Maybe we'll have an Earth2 one day too, and we'll capitalize that one too. Just like we still capitalize Edward II

Re:none sence

[flatulus]

I enjoyed your artful presentation of wrong words and misspellings. I started counting them and then realized it takes effort for someone to do this much of it. Couldn't be accidental. Bravo!

The classification system is too arbitary

[Karmashock]

you can't just say something is capitalized or not based on how commonly used it is otherwise we're always going to be dealing with confusion. In certain segments a given term is going to be used a lot and in others it won't. So would it be reasonable for one to capitalize and the other to not? Who takes priority? And what are you telling someone when you do or don't capitalize? Are you signaling familiarity or are you signaling ignorance of what should or shouldn't be capitalized?

The whole premise is bad.

Look. The confusion happened because people didn't understand that saying "the internet" is like saying "the ocean" or "the forest". Now if you specify a given service like "Slashdot" then that's supposed to be capitalized as a proper noun. However "the web" doesn't get capitalized for the same reason you don't capitalize "the mountains". Cite a specific mountain or mountain range... you know... use a proper noun and you have something you can capitalize. However, the internet and the web were never proper nouns.

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

Now you could say that the global internet is a distinct network and thus citing it for a proper noun designation is appropriate. However, there is only one internet just as there is only one ocean (All oceans on Earth are contiguous bodies of water. There is no ocean that I cannot sail to from any other ocean.).

Part of the mistake might have been citing the internet as only being one place. Perhaps it would help the classification people to understand that the internet while perceived as a single network is actually a compilation of many systems across every inhabited continent in the world. Collectively it is a singular but so are all the oceans collectively "the ocean".

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[omnichad]

Now you could say that the global internet is a distinct network and thus citing it for a proper noun designation is appropriate

Yes. This is what all Internet capitalizers are saying.

Perhaps it would help the classification people to understand that the internet while perceived as a single network is actually a compilation of many systems across every inhabited continent in the world.

Then maybe the President shouldn't be a proper noun. The concept of a distinct individual is an illusion, while it's actually a compilation of many organ systems composed of individual cells. From the time the President is elected until the end of their first year, 98% of the atoms in their body are replaced.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[Karmashock]

The president as you know is a very tech savvy guy being a politician. I think he likes to use black berries after all so that must mean he knows what he's talking about.

Capitalizing the "internet" and the "web" was always dumb. I'm glad it is going away. The AP style sheet's reason for it going away was also dumb. Familiarity/heavy use are not reasons to not capitalize a word. But that's what they're going with for some reason. You don't stop capitalizing the Atlantic simply because it is a common ocean that we interact with a lot.

We do however not capitalize the "ocean" because it is not specific... just like the internet.

The internet is no more a distinct place than is the "ocean".

What has happened is that the people that write the stupid sheets have merely caught up with what people knew a long time ago. High five on joining us in 1992 or so AP. You guys are amazing.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[omnichad]

The Internet is no more a distinct place than is the Earth.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[Karmashock]

Then you would agree the word "ocean" should be capitalized?

The sooner you concede, the sooner you can stop wasting my time.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[omnichad]

No. Would you agree that Earth should be capitalized? "The ocean" is equivalent to "the planet" (as opposed to Earth). Internet is used as the name of our global network, not just a description. Are you saying it's not a name?

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[Karmashock]

The ocean is equivalent THE planet but not a specific planet just as the ocean or the planet is equlient to THE internet.

Look, if you can't grasp the distinction between collections of entities and an ACTUALLY singular entity then I can't help you.

THE planet is not the ONLY planet. And yet when one is on "Earth" and one refers to "the planet" one refers to "Earth".

The "internet" is not a proper noun just as the "ocean" is not a proper noun whilst the "Atlantic" or "Earth" is a proper noun.

You've contradicted yourself and don't even get it. You cite that THE planet is not capitalized but Earth is capitalized.

Get
The
Difference.

Internet is not Earth
Internet is ocean or planet

If want a name for this network that is specific to this network and not merely specific to networks of this type... which yes is complicated by the fact that only one such network of this nature exists... but then the first automobile was also the only automobile.

There's nothing left for you to say at this point besides either apologizing or continuing to declare your stubborn refusal to admit a very simple concept.

Choose.

Apologize or become yet more ridiculous.

it's heads I win and tails you lose. Either way, I don't especially care.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[omnichad]

The difference between ocean or planet and Earth is that Earth is the name. Internet is not an original name, but it's the name we've chosen for our global internet. It's a proper name.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[Karmashock]

No it isn't. Stop wasting my time. "Internet" is a technical term for the network. It isn't a proper name.

A proper name would be "Bob"... Capitalizing internet is like capitalizing local area network.

Re:The classification system is too arbitary

[omnichad]

What about the Moon, then? It happens to be the general name for such a body, but it also happens to be the proper name of our local one.

It's not like

[Livius]

the Associated Press had that much credibility to begin with.

Upper case never made sense

[virve]

In my humble opinion, upper-case Internet never made sense. It never were a proper name. I have treated it on par with the telephone network or the electrical grid.

In both these cases, a similar distinction to the one between intranets and the internet is possible.

--
virve

Re:Upper case never made sense

[iggymanz]

Wrong, the Oxford English Dictionary, the W3C, the IETF, and ICANN disagree with you. It is a proper noun.

stylebookz

[bugs2squash]

I thought all modern words were supposed to end in z now, shouldn't it be internetz and webz.

Irony

[wonkey_monkey]

AP Style Alert: Don't Capitalize Internet and Web Anymore

Did they say anything about pointlessly capitalising words in headlines?

Re:Irony

[fintux]

Especially. When. Coming. From a. Country. Where. We. Don't. Do. That, -- I. Keep. Reading the. Headlines. Like. This and. It. Is. Very. Annoying.

Re:Irony

[wonkey_monkey]

Is the clue in your username?

labels on criminals are good

[iggymanz]

Criminals that have violated immigration laws can certainly be labeled as illegal immigrants, illegals, invading aliens, etc.

The AP shouldn't be pandering to the interests of lawbreakers

No

[God of Lemmings]

The associated press is a dinosaur of the print age, standing in the way of web news aggregation and the free transfer of information. The world will be a better place when its gone.

So

[itsphilip]

Any worth on Ethernet yet?

STYLE ALERT

[fyngyrz]

Don't capitalize "associated press" any longer. As this organization has been around for some time now and it is common to see these words associated with non-news items, we have now lost interest in them and they are no longer to be considered proper nouns.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, denizens of the Internet. If you'd like to learn more, you are welcome to visit my Web site.

Cry me an Ocean?

[Waccoon]

There are an unbelievable number of white houses, but only one White House. I can dig up lots of earth from my backyard, but could I destroy Earth? We're obsessed with medicine and pills, but only one has the distinction of being The Pill.

I've always been amused by generic-sounding names and whether they should be proper pronouns or not. If geeks decide to ignore the AP's guideline, perhaps we should offer them a Kleenex? Or would that be kleenex?

Re:AP are fucking asshats

[grcumb]

I follow The Economist or, when I have to write for the colonials, Chicago.

The rest are all shite.

The Economist's style guide is a thing of beauty. I have it sitting on my desktop to provide inspiration. But it has to be read with an Oxbridgean accent, and the speaker has to imply with every breath that really you shouldn't be writing at all, but if you absolutely must communicate, then this form is probably the least offensive to others.

Except when it's meant to be. I'd never seen the title 'Mr' used in derision before I picked up that lovely rag.

Re:What's the internet?

[Xochil]

In Cyberspace?

CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!

[Thud457]

but always capitalmatize TEH INTARWEBZ!!!1!!

Re:Do we capitalize "Net" in "the Net"?

[omnichad]

I've never typed 'Net without an apostrophe, mostly because I've never used the term before. The only person allowed to use that name is Sandra Bullock, and only in a limited amount.

Capt Obvious works there now?

[TimMD909]

Doesn't take a genius like Capt Obvious to know "internet" and "web" should not be capitalized. Do we capitalize other things like "sky" and "ground" or anything else that ubiquitous?