Skip to main content

capitalization - Why we capitalize all race names but our own


This question about alien species and planets brought up something I've been thinking about on and off for years.


We capitalize names of alien races like Vulcan, Timelord, Cylon (well, maybe not alien), Krell, Nox, Minbari, and so on, but we never capitalize human.


So how did we end up capitalizing names for sentient species when we don't do that for our own race?



Answer



Most of the names you give are derived from proper place names, or clan names, or such, so using "human" as a comparison is not accurate.


For instance, Vulcan and Minbari are named for their planets. We would capitalize Terran likewise (or Earthling or Martian).


Also Krell, Nox, and Timelord are groups of peoples (my apologies for not using a panxenic term, but "beings" was too confusing). We would likewise capitalize Irish, Passamaquoddy, Vandals, etc. (And naturally, Timelords are Gallifreyan, just as Mongols are Terran.) Or if you consider them more like ethnicities, you would still capitalize them, like you do with Jewish, Native American, Latina, etc.


Also, in response to Vulcans born off-world as still being Vulcans, I'd make the argument that Asians born in America (for instance) are still often called Asian, or Asian-American.


And finally, I think and I know I may well be dunned for it, that Cylon was a "brand" name for the original cybernetic organisms. And we would likewise capitalize Sunbeam, Keurig, General Electric, etc.


So then by example, human is not capitalized because it is not a proper noun, and not derived from a proper noun. Vulcans, Minbari, and Timelords are humanoid beings. There are also reptilian beings, silicon beings, and energy beings, but we don't capitalize any of those types of beings (human, humanoid, reptilian, silicon, energy, etc).


It is a good question, though. Here is a discussion that you may find interesting.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.