RoR: Forum

Rand described the Council of American Writers in The Fountainhead.

". . . The rest included a woman who never used capitals in her books, and a man who never used commas; a youth who had written a thousand-page novel without a single letter o, and another who wrote poems that neither rhymed nor scanned, . . . "

This was one of the councils that Ellsworth Toohey formed to subvert the culture of the country.

Bill

Post 1

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:56am

Bravo, Linz! In addition to your arguments, lazy writing is just damned annoying.

Post 2

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:03am

hey come on now this is not fair these punctuation rules were ultimately created by rich white men as a means of preserving their dominant power structure by making the proletariat feel inferior i will not submit to your oppresive policies beause they restrain my individualism

Post 3

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:11am

LINZ:

a: What Are Caps Good For? I See No Utilitarian Or Logical Value For Them, None Whatsoever. Why Should a Wholly Redundant Feature Of A Language Be Kept At All?

"This affront to the most glorious language on earth is postmodern sloberry on a par with chewing gum while listening to Beethoven."

What Are You Talking About, LINZ? An "Affront To Language"?? I'm Pretty Certain That English Does Not Get Hurt Feelings When Someone Abandons This Wholly Nonfunctional and Redundant Feature Of English Orthography. I Also Fail To See How This Is An "Affront" To Anything. Are You Saying We Must Conform To Whatever English Grammar Says Because English Grammar Is Just Intrinsically Glorious? This, Or Appeal To Blind Traditionalism, Are Really The Only Arguments Available To You For This Assertion. If You Appeal Instead To The Logical Or Conceptual Merits Of English, Why Should We Refrain From Reforming It to Make An Even More Rational Language? I Also Fail To See Why Chewing Gum Would Be An Affront To Beethoven. Please Substantiate This Bizarre Assertion.

"It is the vile face of Michael Moore trying to make a cameo appearance on SOLO"

LINZ, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? First Off, Mr. Moore Is Not A Postmodernist-- He's Just A Poorly Kempt Wanna-Pundit, And Seems, To The Extent That His Politics Are Identifiable, To Simply Be Some Generic Form Of Socialist. I Fail To See What He Would Have To Do With Any Sort Of AntiCultural or AntiLinguistic Nihilism. KEEP YOUR ENEMIES STRAIGHT.

"I trust the offenders won't insult me by thinking I'm joking;"

If You Are Not Joking, Than You Surely Deserve This Insult: This Proclamation Is The Most Irrational And Unintelligible Passage To Ever Come Forth From You.

"My advice to such guttersnipes: Go post on Slipknot sites that best embody your anti-values."

How Dare You Slander Those Of Us Who Question The Value Of An Irrational Linguistic Feature With The Argumentum Ad Hominem Of Assuming Us All to Be Subhuman Cultural Nihilists? If You Cannot Argue For The Value Of Capitals, Then Please Back Down Instead Of Insulting Those Of Us Who Do Not Conflate Objectivism With Intrinicism And Traditionalism. The Fact Is, You Are Just Like Mr. Stolyarov. Exactly. And This Post Proves IT.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:15am

Lindsay,

This makes a bit more sense than that nonsense about commas and quotation marks anyway ;-)

MH

Post 5

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:53am

Robert Bisno (or robert bisno if he prefers) asked what capitalization of letters is used for. I am not a linguist but, in English and other Romantic languages, it is for at least three different uses. First, it indicates the beginning of a sentence. Second, it indicates that a noun is a proper noun. Third, if every letter in a word is capitalized, it indicates that the word is an acronym. I am sure there are other reasons for being but I cannot remember any off the top of my head.

Some may argue that the choice of capitalization to serve any or all these uses is arbitrary. However, many aspects of any written language can be arbitrary. Why do we end questions with a "?" symbol as opposed to, say, "%" or "#", for example. Perhaps there is some historical significance behind that symbol. I don't know. Regardless, there are consistent rules of language so that everyone can understand what you're talking about. What else is the essential purpose of language other than communication?

Then again, languages do evolve over time. I'm not sure if removing capitalization is a direction we want to take, though, since it serves such a useful purpose.

Post 6

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:36pm

Pete:

hey come on now this is not fair these punctuation rules were ultimately created by rich white men as a means of preserving their dominant power structure by making the proletariat feel inferior i will not submit to your oppresive (sic) policies beause (sic) they restrain my individualism

Hey, come on now, this is not fair. These punctuation rules were ultimately created by rich white men as a means of preserving their dominant power structure by making the proletariat feel inferior. I will not submit to your oppressive policies because they restrain my individualism.

You figure out which passage is more intelligible.

Sam

Post 7

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 1:07pm

Here, here! Overdue announcement!

As well as all the rest, objectivism is about striving to be the best one can be. Language is a skill we can choose to master (or not). We should shoot for the sky and express ourselves as best we can in the language we are using. It's about excellence.

The arbitrary rejection of the rules of language are rejection of language itself. It is choosing to be satisfied with less than the best.

Robert Bisno's post above is all the proof I need. I didn't read it. I cannot. Its lack of form (due to incorrect capilisation) makes it irritating even to try. Why would anybody choose the gutter of poor form over the heavens of finely expressed prose?

Of course, the (B)isno's of this world are free to misuse language as they please. But this is a forum of excellence of ideas and expression and slobbish grammar is as out of place here as postmodern art.

Thanks Herr Linz, for your judicious use of property rights to maintain and develop this beautiful oasis of magnificence.
(Edited by David Bertelsen on 9/15, 7:18am)

Post 8

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:00pm

how ridiculous.

anti-gay, anti-abortionist, anti-israel, and especially anti-rand posts are welcome here, but non-capitalized ones aren't?

"But I hope it's taken to heart also by those who are *not* under moderation who commit the same mortal sin."

remember, we shouldn't think he's joking, in his own words.

and you guys accuse ari of being zealots? mortal sin, not hitting that shift key?

"This affront to the most glorious language on earth is postmodern sloberry on a par with chewing gum while listening to Beethoven."

i prefer chewing gum to listening to beethoven. anyone who thinks low of me for this should ask themselves if they ever referred to miss rand's taste in music as "mere opinion" (as some here seem to believe).

"I trust the offenders won't insult me by thinking I'm joking; if you don't understand why I'm serious then you shouldn't even be here."

i don't, and so perhaps i shouldn't.

wait, let me guess... my lack of capitalization means i'm a commie-nazi, i eat babies, i'm a modern artist, a thief, and..

a saddamite!

Post 9

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:28pm

Hear hear, to rational and consistent use of language!

quoteWhat Are You Talking About, LINZ? An "Affront To Language"?? I'm Pretty Certain That English Does Not Get Hurt Feelings When Someone Abandons This Wholly Nonfunctional and Redundant Feature Of English Orthography

Not an affront to "language" per se, but an affront to the entirety of human evolution and the glory that is putting concepts into words that can be used and understood by everyone.

Thank you Linz. I know as a newbie that even if I have something to say, if I use all lower case and poor grammar, I cannot (and should not) be taken seriously.

Notice how difficult it is to read the above quote. This is proof of the usefulness of only capitalizing beginnings of sentences, proper nouns, acronyms etc. It's like trying to read several one-word sentences. Which is why advertisers often capitalize every word. But even then it still has a purpose.

Meg

P.S. Thank you, Mr. Howison, for your correction! I was embarrassingly not aware of that.

(Edited by Meg Townsend on 9/18, 10:11am)

Post 10

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:54pm

Sam, my passage was made in jest.

Post 11

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:17pm

Hi Byron,

Sure good to see you around here more.

You said, in haste I believe, "What else is the essential purpose of language other than communication?"

Ayn Rand said the first purpose of language is to enable us to think. Communication is a secondary purpose of language. We first have to know and think something before we can communicate it.

Those who display a disregard for the logical nature of language in its written form undoubtedly have a very poor grasp of the nature of language, which means they are unable to think clearly or well. I have ceased reading any posts where things like capitalization and punctuation are ignored. They are a sure tip-offs the writer cannot think and there is no reason to read what they write.

(Hope the romantic interest you mentioned earlier is going well.)

Regi

Post 12

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:39pm

Great decision, Linz. Literacy is the least we should expect of people who want their ideas taken seriously.

Barbara

Post 13

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:16pm

Mr Bertelsen:
The overcapitalization in my previous post was a deliberate prank. You completely missed the point by calling it "sloppy" and "incorrect". If Linz wants capitals, he'll get them

Post 14

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:03pm

Linz, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

There is simply no excuse for butchering one's language. I often wonder why it is so much trouble for people to re-read their words before hitting the "Post" or "Send" button. This is not particular to SOLO, but rather seems to be rampant in any location where words appear.

In an electronic medium, one's words are all one has to display a level of intelligence (or the perceived lack thereof). I don't even bother reading posts rife with typos and misspellings. If a person cannot take his own words seriously, why should I?

Your post makes me feel simply marvelous.

Jennifer

Post 15

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:29pm

great idea linz i h8 that sort of thing esp when they dont capitalyyz i == on n ojectvist sight 2!!!! ag!

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 9/14, 7:12pm)

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 9/14, 7:15pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:02pm

Rodney - I spend a lot of time on programming-related groups online, and the typical standard of grammar and spelling on such groups is so bad that I just unconsciously translated and accepted your post.

It was only the second time I read it that I realised how bad it is :-(

Post 17

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:29pm

Capitalization is a relatively recent invention. The highly civilized Greeks and Romans certainly didn't have or use this. Still, on the whole, this linguistic invention seems useful and helpful -- not arbitrary and foolish (VASTLY unlike english spelling). I always find it rather irritating to read uncapitalized posts: it's slightly harder to understand and it makes me work a bit more. All countries and languages in the world today that I'm aware of also seem to also find caps beneficial and worth the trouble.

Altho' this issue isn't completely clear-cut, capitals are not irrational, pointless, wrong, etc in my judgment. Rather, people who refuse to make this fairly small effort in typing are guilty of true rudeness, I would say. It's a rather anti-social, disrespectful act: passive-aggressive, gauche, cold, slightly mean, something. People of decent civilization, breeding, and values do need to capitalize, IMHO.

Post 18

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:16pm

"Why would anybody choose the gutter of poor form over the heavens of finely expressed prose?"

By what standard is this judged? Conformity to existing social mores or to objective communication value? I am hard pressed to note anyone who has actual trouble reading non-capitalized posts, so I wonder if all this excitement is simply intrinicist traditionalism. Capitals in particular seem to stand out as wholly devoid of linguistic use, either in terms of content or structural logic. The enthusiasm for them, unless someone justifies their value, becomes tradition worship. The fact that thus far, the closest thing placed to an argument Linz has posted on this matter is accusations of "postmodernist" sneering, (Included with utterly unintelligible metaphors to try to bolster this, one referring to Michael Moore, the other to the certain ways of listening to Beethoven) and the rhetorical emphasis on defaming the "glories" of the language, certainly seem here to imply a sort of tradition worship without much in the way of conceptual substance. This view is furthered by the fact that last time this issue came up, Linz made the phenomenal context drop of very blatantly accusing my non-capitalized forum post on the matter of being worse than George W. Bush preferring faith over reason

Post 19

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:38pm