blah blah King Charles blah blah
On a previous topic there was a little bit of a dispute over capitalisation. I do not think that I have ever seen; king Charles in a piece of writing.
I appreciate why people from countries that do not have kings, might think that it is; king Charles, but I think that I am right in saying that it is always; Queen Elizabeth.
"Elizabeth married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in 1947. The couple have four children and eight grandchildren."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom
Another example:
Elizabeth was the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), and his wife, Elizabeth.
I remember the late Shah of Persia liked to be referred to as HIM, His Imperial Majesty. So possibly this is some form of house style?
Reception of H.I.M. the Shah of Persia (Open Library)
Reception of H.I.M. the Shah of Persia. report ... from the Shah reception committee. by London. Corporation. Common Council. ...
openlibrary.org/b/OL19258675M
OK, anonymous person, what is bizarre about my semi-colon use.
"On a previous topic there was a little bit of a dispute over capitalisation. I do not think that I have ever seen; king Charles in a piece of writing."
"I appreciate why people from countries that do not have kings, might think that it is; king Charles, but I think that I am right in saying that it is always; Queen Elizabeth."
Semi colon or - colon, comma or dash?
___________________________________________________________
<<
The Italian printer Aldus Manutius the Elder established the practice of using the semicolon mark to separate words of opposed meaning, and to indicate interdependent statements
>>
___________________________________________________________
I do not think that I have ever seen - king Charles in a piece of writing.
Interdependent statements
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<<
"I appreciate why people from countries that do not have kings, might think that it is; king Charles, but I think that I am right in saying that it is always; Queen Elizabeth."
>>
Between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as serial commas:
___________________________________________________________
I do not think that it is up to me to defend my semi-colon use. I think you should explain why you think that my semi-colon use is incorrect.
<I do not think that I have ever seen; king Charles in a piece of writing.>
<I appreciate why people from countries that do not have kings, might think that it is; king Charles, but I think that I am right in saying that it is always; Queen Elizabeth.>
In each case, your semi-colons separate the verb (e.g. "seen") and its object (e.g. "king Charles"), and put them into different clauses.
This is only acceptable usage where there is a list of objects for a particular verb, e.g.
"She gave me a toothbrush with a jade handle; a bar of soap, with an impression of the Queen Mother on one side; an exfoliating device; and a tub of rancid margarine."
Your method is tantamount to writing "I have never seen; him", which is clearly irregular.
<I think that I am right in saying that it is always; Queen Elizabeth >
Your statement is not correct. In academic historical works from senior presses, "king", "queen", "lord", "earl", etc. (e.g. the earl of Dorset) are likely to appear all lower case. This avoids an unsightly excess of capital letters on the page.
<I appreciate why people from countries that do not have kings, might think that it is; king Charles>
In this example and the following, "king Charles" and "Queen Elizabeth" are not the objects of "is"; they are subject complements.
>>>blah blah King Charles blah blah<<<
Heh, this shows precisely how Robin's mind is working.
He only perceives an isolated word or a term, the rest of the text is just noise (blah, blah, blah) for him, and than he focuses on it with a bizarre narrow-mindedness and persistence. Until he gets spanked, ha.
Just obsrving.
Dear Semi-Colon
Most of these disputes are trivial and revolve around simple differences. I do not claim to be an expert, I just had a sense that king Charles was wrong. I have looked up Earl of Shaftesbury on Wikipedia. Broadly speaking, it confirms my point of view.
This is because it is talking about 'proper nouns':
A proper noun has two distinctive features:
1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item
2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.
So, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales - is a specific person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Shaftesbury
If you want to continue to prove your point - give me an example?
Look in Hart's Rules, which is the published version of the Oxford University Press handbook of style, i.e it reflects OUP usage.
Page 96: "Historians often impose minimal capitalization, particularly in contexts where the subjects of their writing bear titles: [example] the duke of Somerset."
Look at an OUP imprint of Clarendon's History, and you will find "king Charles" throughout.
Hart's Rules also includes a long section on punctuation, e.g. semi-colons.