Dixie Schools Waterhead in English....

I can't beleive you two are wasting this much freakin time in your lives to argue capitalization on 'he' and 'god'. Oh shit, now im wasting time...
 
DigitalDave said:
I can't beleive you two are wasting this much freakin time in your lives to argue capitalization on 'he' and 'god'. Oh shit, now im wasting time...
Click to expand...

Hey, I've got nothing better to do than teach pinheads proper grammar. I didn't start this debate, and I am not continuing to argue the idiotic position taken by Waterhead and Arnold, I merely presented the expert opinion from Purdue University. It's entirely their choice, to continue insisting that I am wrong about something I've proven to be correct. That's the part that is so hard to believe, it's as if they just don't comprehend facts very well, and think if they keep blathering nonsense, sooner or later people will just accept what they say as the truth and ignore the facts. It's amazing to watch retards in action!

There is nothing 'subjective' about the rules of grammar, it's all fairly clear and unambiguous, and easy to comprehend, yet... for some reason... maybe because it's Dixie making the point.... they continue to argue against the facts. I can't explain the phenomenon, but it is fascinating.
 
Who to believe? Arnold, or the English Department at Purdue University? It's such a tough one, but I'll go with Purdue! Sorry Arnold, you lose.

Follow the link fuckwit.

Don't believe the link, follow the link's references...
 
God and Pronouns
The capitalisation of the attendant pronouns in reference to the Christian God is debatable. Whilst God is always capitalised, the rule for capitalising the attendant pronouns is hazy. Some Christian sects would have all the attendant pronouns - e.g. he, him, his, my, mine, and even thee and thine – capitalised as a traditional mark of respect to the divine, others would not, and secularists would prefer the non-capitalised forms.

1. Non-capitalised
In regards to the non-capitalised, the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) states that both the Chicago Manual and the Oxford Guide to Style (2002) comment that the capitalising of these pronouns is not warrant 'in keeping with the norms of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer' - which do not capitalise the attendant pronouns.

Conflict of Interests
Some places may require non-capitalised pronouns when talking about the divine, such as academiæ. Of this one should be aware. For a religious believer, however, this could be offensive, and thus the believer has the right to capitalise according to their conscience.

2. Capitalised
The Chicago Manual states that capitalisation is legitimate 'if you are writing for a religious readership or anyone else who might take lowercasing as a sign of disrespect.' This group may very well include the laity, priests, religious academiæ, &c. This pro-capitalisation can be seen as a symbol of affiliation: just as a nun wears a habit, a priest his robes, the capitalisation may label one inside one group and outside of another.

Prejucie and Discrimination
In the age of religious plurality and cultural literacy, all faiths have the right to be respected. The run-of-the-mill discrimination once prevalent in society towards ‘heathen’ faiths is no longer acceptable. It is the general rule to style a person in the manner they wish to be styled, within reason. Royalty is generally styled ‘His/Her Majesty’; a president, ‘Mr. President’; a professor, ‘Doctor’; &c. The same argument is applied to religion. It is best to avoid accusations of prejudice and discrimination, for they could potentially undermine the argument which one is making. One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does. For example, the name of the divine is sacred, and so writing it is forbidden. Jews have circumnavigated this problem by means of omission: writing the divine name as G-d in lieu of God, the latter being considered disrespectful in the Jewish religion. So, too, with Christianity. If a Christian sect employs capitalised attendant pronouns, then so, too, should one – that is, if one is either from that sect or is writing about/researching that sect. One should also be aware, that some religions/sects would not wish a non-believer to address the divine the same way that a believer would. A sure way to avoid confusion is to ask a believer that has some authoritative position.

http://www.answers.com/topic/god-and-pronouns
 
Hey, I've got nothing better to do than teach pinheads proper grammar.

Hey, Dixie.

You have a bad habit of building yourself a little dusthill, standing on top and declaring yourself king of the castle.... Sad little man....

See my above post...

"1. Non-capitalised
In regards to the non-capitalised, the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) states that both the Chicago Manual and the Oxford Guide to Style (2002) comment that the capitalising of these pronouns is not warrant 'in keeping with the norms of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer' - which do not capitalise the attendant pronouns. "

Through convention only.....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Who to believe? Arnold, or the English Department at Purdue University? It's such a tough one, but I'll go with Purdue! Sorry Arnold, you lose.

Follow the link fuckwit.

Don't believe the link, follow the link's references...
Click to expand...

Hello? You posted a WIKI-FUCKIN-PEDIA LINK! To refute the English Department at Purdue University, you posted a link to a user-written web encyclopedia... a "blog" in essence! I am sorry you are so profoundly retarded, you can't comprehend that a major University English department carries just a little more weight than Wikipedia, but that isn't MY problem!

And reading through your diatribe on proper Cambridge rules for capitalization, it appears my original point is made as well.

It is the general rule to style a person in the manner they wish to be styled, within reason. Royalty is generally styled ‘His/Her Majesty’; a president, ‘Mr. President’; a professor, ‘Doctor’; &c. The same argument is applied to religion. It is best to avoid accusations of prejudice and discrimination, for they could potentially undermine the argument which one is making. One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does.
 
Gaffer said:
water doesn't like the standards set by Purdues English experts so he wants to change them to fit his own ideas. Now he will repeat it a thousand times and others will begin to believe he's right. He's frantically seeking to create grey areas.

As for me I do things my own way too. I don't capitalize names that I have contempt for. Some times typos occur but names and places I think are shit I don't capitalize. like iran, syria, saddam, clinton, bin kerry, mohamad, the koran, islam, etc.
Click to expand...


Tell me, fucking moron, where do the purdue gods of the English language say that you capitilize "he"? they didn't.
 
Dixie said:
Hey, I've got nothing better to do than teach pinheads proper grammar. I didn't start this debate, and I am not continuing to argue the idiotic position taken by Waterhead and Arnold, I merely presented the expert opinion from Purdue University. It's entirely their choice, to continue insisting that I am wrong about something I've proven to be correct. That's the part that is so hard to believe, it's as if they just don't comprehend facts very well, and think if they keep blathering nonsense, sooner or later people will just accept what they say as the truth and ignore the facts. It's amazing to watch retards in action!

There is nothing 'subjective' about the rules of grammar, it's all fairly clear and unambiguous, and easy to comprehend, yet... for some reason... maybe because it's Dixie making the point.... they continue to argue against the facts. I can't explain the phenomenon, but it is fascinating.
Click to expand...

You believe that language is entirely clear-cut and unambigious? Clearly you know nothing about linguistics, then, and have never even begun to learn a new language. It's all different, different languages have different meaning for different words, different regions have different meaning and connotations of words even if they use the same langauge, and more importantly, it changes based on the individual. There is no god of language that sets all the rules, it's entirely disorganized, and it's why the English the King James version of the bible is so different than modern English that most people can barely even understand it. (Yet, for some odd reason, it's been idolized among the theocratic right, even though it's a crappy, old translation, and has nothing special about it).

I sometimes snicker whenever I hear Christians speak 400 year old words that only appear in the King James bible now (like "thou) simply because they're too stubborn to change translations. God never said "Thou", God spoke in Hebrew. There's nothing special about that translation, more than any other translation.


Of course, the language people use actually has a large affect on their culture... like all English speaking people seem to be somewhat more conservative than their more Latin influenced neighbors.
 
Dixie said:
Hello? You posted a WIKI-FUCKIN-PEDIA LINK! To refute the English Department at Purdue University, you posted a link to a user-written web encyclopedia... a "blog" in essence! I am sorry you are so profoundly retarded, you can't comprehend that a major University English department carries just a little more weight than Wikipedia, but that isn't MY problem!

And reading through your diatribe on proper Cambridge rules for capitalization, it appears my original point is made as well.

It is the general rule to style a person in the manner they wish to be styled, within reason. Royalty is generally styled ‘His/Her Majesty’; a president, ‘Mr. President’; a professor, ‘Doctor’; &c. The same argument is applied to religion. It is best to avoid accusations of prejudice and discrimination, for they could potentially undermine the argument which one is making. One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like it. Are the gods of English going to strike me with a lightning bolt now?
 
Hello? You posted a WIKI-FUCKIN-PEDIA LINK!

No, I posted the rules from Oxford and Cambridge universities. If we were playing top trumps that would piss all over your Purdue university.

One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Exactly my point. It is by convention only...

You really struggle with comprehension, don't you Dixie....

Comedy gold...
 
Of course, the language people use actually has a large affect on their culture... like all English speaking people seem to be somewhat more conservative than their more Latin influenced neighbors.

On the contrary, English is be far the most versatile language in the world, it has the largest and still growing vocabulary.

Hold this in comparison to the French language, which has an academy to limit the growth and expansion of the language, particularly the incorporation of outside words.
 
Capitalizing He for God is a PC thing that people do so Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't get all insulted. It's like the he/she and his/her thing you see constantly nowadays. The actual English rules say to use he when it is ambiguous, but nowadays, in order to keep from insulting Code Pink, we use he/she... or more often lately just she....

So, in order to not be "insulting" we use a capital letter where it is unnecessary...
 
AnyOldIron said:
Hello? You posted a WIKI-FUCKIN-PEDIA LINK!

No, I posted the rules from Oxford and Cambridge universities. If we were playing top trumps that would piss all over your Purdue university.

One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Exactly my point. It is by convention only...

You really struggle with comprehension, don't you Dixie....

Comedy gold...
Click to expand...

The Oxford-Cabridge rule seems to refute your argument that it is "improper" to capitalize refrences to "God." I don't have a problem comprehending that, it's in plain English. It's not "by convention only" because it is stated very clearly in the Oxford-Cambridge rules: One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does. That IS the rule... nothing conventional about it, unless following Oxfor-Cambridge is "by convention" itself.

Let's be clear on what the "argument" is... You and other pinheads, have maintained it is improper to capitalize pronouns refrencing God, and I have argued that it is proper and acceptable to do so. According to Perdue English Department, as well as Oxford-Cabridge, I am correct and you are incorrect. Live with it!
 
Watermark said:
I don't feel like it. Are the gods of English going to strike me with a lightning bolt now?
Click to expand...

I don't know, the argument was not whether you felt like using proper grammar, or whether you felt like it was proper grammar, it was whether or not it is acceptable and proper to capitalize God and refrences to God. You can "feel like" anything you wish, I can't do a thing about what you feel. As far as proper English grammar, I have proven you to be an absolute idiot, and it has nothing to do with your feelings. Sorry.
 
Watermark said:
It's by convention only. It's to appease only. It's certainly not worthy of a proper label if it's only to appease the holier-than-thou.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but Oxford-Cambridge seems to refute you. It clearly says... One should style the divine the way that the particular religion or sect does. What part of the Oxford Cambridge Rules of English Grammar are you having problems with, Waterhead?

It IS proper to use O-C rules, isn't it?
Christians DO want God capitalized, don't they?

I don't understand your argument here... Perhaps you need to go back to "I don't feel like" using proper grammar, as your rationale for why you're not using proper grammar? I've presented you with Purdue, Arnold even posted the Oxford-Cambridge rules, both of them refute your ignorant comment about it being okay to capitalize God because he is a person. Have you really presented us with anything? I mean, other than your profound wisdom, have you given us any evidence to support your argument? Go check the AP Style-book, maybe they can help you out here... I feel really bad for ya Waterhead.
 
"Christians DO want God capitalized, don't they?"

You always capitalize "God". It's a proper noun. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it soaks through your mile-thick lead skull and hits your brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top