# Is 'Yankee' a proper noun or a common noun?



## JungKim

The word Yankee starts with a capital 'Y'.
So it seems at first glance that it's a proper noun.
However, it doesn't refer to a specific person but any American, especially if the American comes from or lives in any of the northern states of the US.
So, I guess it's more of a common noun.
But then if it's a common noun, why is 'Y' capitalized?


----------



## Copyright

With that logic, you could argue that "American" is a common noun and should be lowercased. Just capitalize Yankee as you would American and you'll be fine.


----------



## sb70012

JungKim said:


> It doesn't refer to a specific person


Yes, but it refers to a group of people of a specific country (the USA).
A *proper noun* is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity.
Like _Microsoft_ = world's largest software company
Like _Yankee_ = an American


JungKim said:


> why is 'Y' capitalized?


Because it refers to a specific group of people _American citizens_. (See ... there is a reference.)
Let me give you another example:
The word "Big Apple" like "Yankee" refers to the New York City. (the USA) (See ... there is a reference)
Then, the word "Big Apple" is capitalized like the word "Yankee"
Look at these examples:
She's planning a trip to the Big Apple. (_Big Apple_ refers to the New York City)
So in the early 1980s, with her life savings of $ 3, 000, she arrived in the Big Apple. (_Big Apple_ refers to the New York City)
The bombers were not near, but across the road from us were two Yankee soldiers. (_Yankee_ refers to an American)

So, it's not a common noun. It's a proper noun.


----------



## sb70012

Have look at this link: http://macmillanmh.com/ccssreading/treasures/grade5/ccslh_g5_lg_6_1b_l1.html



> *Common and Proper Nouns*
> 
> 
> A *noun* names a person, place, or thing.
> A *common noun *names any person, place, or thing.
> A *proper noun *names a particular person, place, or thing. A *proper noun *begins with a capital letter.
> Some *proper nouns* contain more than one word. Each important word begins with a capital letter.
> The name of a day, month, or holiday begins with a capital letter.


----------



## JungKim

Copyright said:


> With that logic, you could argue that "American" is a common noun and should be lowercased. Just capitalize Yankee as you would American and you'll be fine.


I *could* argue that _American_ is a common noun, whereas _America_ is a proper noun.
_American_ the adjective is derived from _America_ the proper noun, and the adjective still has its first letter capitalized not because it's a proper noun but because it is derived from the proper noun _America_.
Now _American_ the noun has its first letter capitalized not because it's a proper noun but because it borrowed its form from the adjective just like many other nouns such as _a criminal_, _a chemical_, _a Korean_, etc.

But the same logic doesn't seem to apply to _Yankee_.


----------



## JungKim

sb70012 said:


> Yes, but it refers to a group of people of a specific country (the USA).
> A *proper noun* is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity.
> Like _Microsoft_ = world's largest software company
> Like _Yankee_ = an American
> ...
> So, it's not a common noun. It's a proper noun.




One of the characteristics of a proper noun is that it isn't normally accompanied by an article, definite or indefinite.
So, you don't normally say _a Microsoft_ or _the Microsoft_ but simply _Microsoft_.
_Yankee_, on the other hand, is normally accompanied by an article. For example, _She married a Yankee._ _He's a New England Yankee._ So it acts more like a common noun than a proper noun.


----------



## perpend

"Yankee" does not mean "an American", for me, sb. It means the northerners during the Civil War.

JungKim does have a point that it's somewhat illogical. We could get into the whole debate about what's "an American"---North, Central, South?

But, there is no "Yankee-Stan", at least not yet. 

There are movements in certain states in the USA to secede, and/or form new states, but they invariably fail. Read about "Jefferson", if you are interested.

But, back on topic, although I *see/acknowledge *JungKim's point, I would still capitalize Yankee.


----------



## DonnyB

JungKim said:


> One of the characteristics of a proper noun is that it isn't normally accompanied by an article, definite or indefinite.
> So, you don't normally say _a Microsoft_ or _the Microsoft_ but simply _Microsoft_.
> _Yankee_, on the other hand, is normally accompanied by an article. For example, _She married a Yankee._ _He's a New England Yankee._ So it acts more like a common noun than a proper noun.


But we _do_ use articles with proper nouns.

She married *a**n *Australian.  He's *a *Canadian Frenchman.  I'm *a**n *Englishman, born and bred.  And so on....


----------



## JungKim

sb70012 said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to a specific person
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it refers to a group of people of a specific country (the USA).
> A *proper noun* is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity.
Click to expand...


I suppose your first and second lines contradict each other.


----------



## entangledbank

Proper nouns can be countable in various ways: a Rembrandt (= a work by him), a _Times_ (= a copy of this morning's), a Datsun, a Boeing 747, a Malteser (a single one of the sweets sold under a plural brand name). Some of these uses are derived from unique referents (a Ford car is made by the company Ford), but others aren't.


----------



## JungKim

entangledbank said:


> Proper nouns can be countable in various ways: a Rembrandt (= a work by him), a _Times_ (= a copy of this morning's), a Datsun, a Boeing 747, a Malteser (a single one of the sweets sold under a plural brand name). Some of these uses are derived from unique referents (a Ford car is made by the company Ford), but others aren't.


I would say _a Rembrandt_, _a Times_, _a Datsun_,_ a Malteser_ and _a Ford_ are not being used as a proper noun but as a common noun in the context where the indefinite article is allowed.
The only other example of yours, _a Boeing 747_, is inherently different from the rest in that it's not strictly a proper noun regardless of context, because the name 747 is attached to not just one plane but each of a group of planes.


----------



## Keith Bradford

The point here is not whether a proper noun must be singular or can be plural, or whether it can take an article - the example of _*an American, some Americans *_has settled that.  The point is that Yankee (whatever it means!) is derived from the personal name _Janneke_, and seems to have kept its capital letter for that reason.  I for one wouldn't count it as a grave error to spell it with a lower-case 'y', but tradition dictates otherwise.


----------



## JungKim

Keith Bradford said:


> The point here is not whether a proper noun must be singular or can be plural, or whether it can take an article - the example of _*an American, some Americans *_has settled that.


Are you suggesting that the noun _American_ is a proper noun and that a proper noun can take an article because _American_ can?


----------



## entangledbank

Well, I don't know what you mean by a proper noun. (I don't know strictly what I mean by it, if it comes to that.) Does a proper name have to have a unique referent? So that there aren't any countable proper nouns? Proper names can't be plural? (Disregarding the United States and the Pennines and so on.) Is use of a capital letter irrelevant? Is lack of an article relevant? Certainly there are prototypical proper nouns - unique referent, no article, and so on, like America, Aristotle, and Sirius. But what's the essential 'proper' nature of these, and how do you extend it to multi-word names (Marcus Aurelius, Henry Ford, Alpha Centauri), words with articles (the Alps, the Commonwealth of Independent States), non-unique referents (the three Horatii, Georgetown, Boeing 747) . . .? Which of these criteria count?

I don't have a precise rule in mind, but to me American and Yankee are both _prototypical_ proper nouns. We start from them (and America and Sirius and the Alps and Ford Mustang) and define proper noun so that it includes, at a minimum, all them.


----------



## Keith Bradford

JungKim said:


> Are you suggesting that the noun _American_ is a proper noun and that a proper noun can take an article because _American_ can?



Yes. Or at least, if it's not a proper noun, like Entangledbank I don't know what else to call it.

However, you don't need to accept that point, because as I said in my post #12, that isn't the point which explains _Yankee_.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I seriously doubt that the status of "Italian" in, say, "I'm an Italian" is that of a proper noun. To me, proper nouns are, e.g., _Jack_, or _Chuck Norris_, or _Norris, _or_ Pasadena, _etc. 
In "I'm an Italian", _Italian_ is a common noun of nationality which, in English, must be capitalized.
In "I'm Italian ", _Italian_ is an adjective of nationality which, in English, must be capitalized.
Similarly, _Yankee_ in "She's a Yankee" is a noun of nationality — even though there's no Yankeeland or Yankeestan. Yet.

GS


----------



## dn88

"American" is a demonym, and so is "Yankee", I suppose. I wouldn't call either a "proper noun".


----------



## london calling

As far as I know, 'American' is a _proper noun_, which derives from a _proper name_, i.e. America. The same thing can be said for  'Yankee', which derives from a Dutch name (Janneke/Johnnie)**.

**Source: ahdictionary.com, here.


----------



## dn88

> *proper noun*_
> n._ A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. Also called _ proper name_.
> 
> *proper noun* _or_ *proper name
> *n1.  (Grammar) the name of a person, place, or object, as for example_ Iceland, Patrick, or Uranus._
> *
> proper noun*
> _n. _   a noun that designates a particular person, place, or thing, is not  normally preceded by an article or other limiting modifier, and is usu.  capitalized in English, as _Lincoln, Beth, Pittsburgh_. Also called *proper name.*
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proper+noun





> *proper noun*
> _noun_
> the name of a particular person, place, or object that is spelled with a capital letter:
> _Examples of proper nouns in English are Joseph, Vienna, and the White House._
> 
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/proper-noun



I guess none of the definitions above suggest that "American" and "Yankee" are proper nouns.


----------



## Edinburgher

I dislike and avoid the terms "proper noun" and "common noun".  "Proper noun" is misleading because it suggests a distinction is being made between proper and improper nouns (whatever they might be), leading to the possibility that a "proper" noun would be understood to be an absolutely normal noun (i.e. the same as a "common" or garden noun).

I prefer "name", which nicely generalizes to names that are not nouns.  Adjectives, for instance, like "American" in "an American newspaper".


----------



## london calling

_Proper nouns_ and _proper names_ are different, although maybe only linguists truly make this difference: here is a link to the _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ website, if anybody is interested.


----------



## entangledbank

A distinction can be made between a proper _name_ and a proper _noun_, and as I began typing this I suddenly realized I couldn't remember which was which. Anyway, one is a word that applies _primarily_ to a named individual - James, Sirius, Sicily - whereas the other names an individual thing without necessarily being a unique word, such as Easter Island or United Kingdom. (I was trying to use these consistently in my previous comment but might have got it wrong.)

Again, I repeat my earlier point. What difference does it make? The only grammatical difference I can think of is that proper n---s are usually anarthrous (they are not used with an article), and so resemble pronouns more than common nouns: Japan is rich; She is rich; The minister is rich. But if this is how you distinguish proper from not, where does that leave the UK, the USA, the USA, the Alps/Pennines/Dolomites, the Everglades . . .?

It's all very well to quote one-line definitions from a free dictionary, but where do they stand on a Buick, a copy of _The Times_, the UAE, some Beethoven, a Daniel come to judgement, and the three Marys in my office? Is Mary a common noun when I mention two of them, for each of whom individually it's a proper n---?


----------



## dn88

london calling said:


> _Proper nouns_ and _proper names_ are different, although maybe only linguists truly make this difference: here is a link to the _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ website, if anybody is interested.


Thanks for the link, but in no way does the website suggest that "American" is a proper name or a proper noun. 

I don't know why you are reluctant to call it a "demonym", as it appears to be the appropriate term. It may be rare, but it exists.

List of demonyms for U.S. states
List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations

Otherwise, just call it a "common noun".


entangledbank said:


> It's all very well to quote one-line definitions from a free dictionary, but where do they stand on a Buick, a copy of _The Times_,  the UAE, some Beethoven, a Daniel come to judgement, and the three  Marys in my office? Is Mary a common noun when I mention two of them,  for each of whom individually it's a proper n---?



That sounds about right. For example, if someone 'pulls a Shakespeare', I think the proper name becomes a common noun in that particular instance.


----------



## Edinburgher

dn88 said:


> I don't know why you are reluctant to call it a "demonym", as it appears to be the appropriate term. It may be rare, but it exists.


 It's good to avoid the use of words that are so rare that most ordinary dictionaries don't even list them, especially here, because learners won't be able to find them.  Not everyone has access to the OED,  you know.

It sounds like a class of words used to describe demons.


----------



## Hildy1

I agree with perpend that "Yankee" does not mean "American". It's fine to say that it is a proper noun and should be capitalized, but it is definitely improper to use it to refer to someone from the southern (especially south-eastern) U.S. It's like saying that Scots are English.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Hildy1 said:


> I agree with perpend that "Yankee" does not mean "American". It's fine to say that it is a proper noun and should be capitalized, but it is definitely improper to use it to refer to someone from the southern (especially south-eastern) U.S. It's like saying that Scots are English.



You're quite right for your dialect of English.  However in my dialect (British English) _Yank/Yankee _does mean anyone from the USA, and this has been dealt with at boring  length in another thread, I think.


----------



## Miss Julie

Hildy1 said:


> I agree with perpend that "Yankee" does not mean "American".



To those _outside_ the U.S., yes it does. They don't give a flying fig which part of the country an American is from.


----------



## JulianStuart

Miss Julie said:


> To those _outside_ the U.S., yes it does. They don't give a flying fig which part of the country an American is from.


So the word represents a (type of) nationality and, in English, we capitalize those.


----------



## JungKim

entangledbank said:


> Again, I repeat my earlier point. What difference does it make? The only grammatical difference I can think of is that proper n---s are usually anarthrous (they are not used with an article), and so resemble pronouns more than common nouns: Japan is rich; She is rich; The minister is rich. But if this is how you distinguish proper from not, where does that leave the UK, the USA, the USA, the Alps/Pennines/Dolomites, the Everglades . . .?
> ...
> where do they stand on a Buick, a copy of _The Times_, the UAE, some Beethoven, a Daniel come to judgement, and the three Marys in my office? Is Mary a common noun when I mention two of them, for each of whom individually it's a proper n---?


The grammatical difference of having or not having an article makes all the difference to learners of English like myself.
If you were to lump together all the examples you mentioned and other names containing capitalized nouns and call them a proper noun/name, would that be any helpful to learners of English when knowing that a certain name is a proper noun/name didn't tell them anything about whether they should use an article or not?


----------



## dn88

Edinburgher said:


> It's good to avoid the use of words that are so rare that most ordinary dictionaries don't even list them, especially here, because learners won't be able to find them.  Not everyone has access to the OED,  you know.



What would you call it then? I can't offhand think of a more fitting term. Maybe we should really just refer to it as a "common noun".


Edinburgher said:


> It sounds like a class of words used to describe demons.


By the same token, one might arrive at the terrifying conclusion that "demography" is the study of demons, and "democracy" is how they rule over the world. 

I think that quite a few people are familiar with the word "demonym", rare though it is... or at least those whose job is putting labels on the words we use.


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> ....
> If you were to lump together all the examples you mentioned and other names containing capitalized nouns and call them a proper noun/name, would that be any helpful to learners of English when knowing a certain name is a proper noun/name didn't tell them anything about whether they should use an article or not?


Complicated syntax, JungKim - my answer to your question is ... 
Could you perhaps explain your question in other words?


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Complicated syntax, JungKim - my answer to your question is ...
> Could you perhaps explain your question in other words?


If you were to lump together all the examples you mentioned and call them a proper noun/name, would that be any helpful to learners of English in properly using English, especially properly using an article with a proper noun/name? 
This is the best I can.


----------



## JamesM

Are you asking if it's best to leave out the idea that proper nouns do not use articles when discussing proper nouns?

If so, yes.  That's too simplistic.  Proper nouns are a much broader category, in my opinion.


----------



## JungKim

JamesM said:


> Are you asking if it's best to leave out the idea that proper nouns do not use articles when discussing proper nouns?
> 
> If so, yes.  That's too simplistic.  Proper nouns are a much broader category, in my opinion.



No, I wasn't asking that. If you leave out the article usage when discussing proper nouns/names, what remains to be discussed regarding the syntactic features of proper nouns/names? Nothing, I guess.


----------



## Loob

I suppose, if I think about it _really hard_, that the term "proper noun" to me indicates a noun denoting an individual person or thing.

The distinction "proper noun" vs "common noun" has always seemed to me to be completely pointless.  

.


----------



## natkretep

You could talk about atypical uses of proper nouns, I suppose. (You are quite _a Shakespeare_; I know hundreds of _Johns_; this is _an early Rembrandt_; he owns _several Picassos_.) Many definitions focus on unique reference (and the consequent lack of articles or of the plural form).

For the learner, the main point is that they all receive initial capital letters - including for atypical uses. I have no problems considering _Yankee_ a proper noun. (If you want to use more specific terms, I have no objection to _demonym_ - but this is just a specific category of name like _pseudonym, anthroponym, hydronym, patronym, teknonym _​and so on.)


----------



## JungKim

natkretep said:


> For the learner, the main point is that they all receive initial capital letters - including for atypical uses. I have no problems considering _Yankee_ a proper noun.


But few learners find it difficult to learn when to capitalize a noun. Once they see _Yankee_, it's not hard to remember it's capitalized. But the problem arises when they're trying to use _Yankee _properly (no pun intended). Remembering the rule or definition that a proper noun doesn't need an article, most, if not all, learners would wonder why _Yankee_ has an article. You have no problem considering Yankee a proper noun (or even a common noun for that matter), because you're a native speaker and you're not face with the same difficulty most learners are faced with.


----------



## JamesM

Where does it have an article, JungKim?   I'm confused.  Maybe I should put that another way.  How does it seem different to you compared to other proper nouns that use articles?

 A Korean refers to one of many Koreans.  That doesn't make it uncapitalized.  A Yankee refers to one of many Yankees.  How do you see these differently?


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> Where does it have an article, JungKim?   I'm confused.  Maybe I should put that another way.  How does it seem different to you compared to other proper nouns that use articles?
> 
> A Korean refers to one of many Koreans.  That doesn't make it uncapitalized.  A Yankee refers to one of many Yankees.  How do you see these differently?



There may be dealing with a fuzzy distinction between proper name and proper noun.  We would not (normally) put an article before "Abraham Lincoln" (a proper name - a person) or a placename "Paris" - these are unique things and do not need an article.  A Korean and a Yankee are not unique and need an article.


----------



## JungKim

JamesM said:


> Where does it have an article, JungKim?   I'm confused.  Maybe I should put that another way.  How does it seem different to you compared to other proper nouns that use articles?
> 
> A Korean refers to one of many Koreans.  That doesn't make it uncapitalized.  A Yankee refers to one of many Yankees.  How do you see these differently?



As I have said in my earlier post #5, I would argue that _Korean_ is not a proper noun per se, being converted from the adjective form _Korean_ and all.


----------



## Loob

JungKim, I've already stated my view about the term "proper noun".

But let me ask a question: what makes you think that the only words requiring a capital letter are "proper nouns"?


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> JungKim, I've already stated my view about the term "proper noun".
> 
> But let me ask a question: what makes you think that the only words requiring a capital letter are "proper nouns"?



Are you asking what makes me think that *only the words* requiring a capital letter are proper nouns?
If that's your question, I don't quite remember saying that myself. Remember I asked in the OP if we should treat _Yankee_ as a proper noun or not. Also, as I have said in my earlier post #11, I don't think that brand names attached to products such as _Boeing 747_ are a proper noun, because they don't refer to a specific thing but each of the things in the same group.

If you're saying by your question that even words not requiring a capital letter can be proper nouns, I don't know what you're saying.


----------



## Loob

I think we're mutually misunderstanding one another, JungKim.

I'm saying that words requiring a capital letter aren't necessarily "proper nouns" - whatever "proper nouns" are....


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> I think we're mutually misunderstanding one another, JungKim.
> 
> I'm saying that words requiring a capital letter aren't necessarily "proper nouns" - whatever "proper nouns" are....



And can _Yankee _be something that requires a capital letter but doesn't belong in the proper noun category?


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> And can _Yankee _be something that requires a capital letter but doesn't belong in the proper noun category?


(1) I'd say that "Yankee" normally requires a capital letter
(2) I'd say that "Yankee" isn't a proper noun
(3) As I said before, I don't find the distinction "proper noun"/"common noun" helpful or meaningful.


----------



## dn88

To me, a "proper name/noun" refers to something that is unique.
It normally takes no article: _Europe, Dublin, Peter, Audi_ (the company), etc.
Or it takes "the": _the Alps, the Pacific, the United Kingdom_, etc.

"American" is not a proper noun in my book because there's more than one American. The same applies to "Yankee".
In English, (common) nouns derived from proper nouns/names are (usually) capitalized: _an American, a Yankee, a New Yorker, a Chevrolet_, etc.

As I said earlier, "American" and "Yankee" (and "New Yorker") are sometimes referred to as demonyms, but as you can see the term is little used.


----------



## perpend

_I'm a Yankee doodle dandy._

I would have to capitalize "Yankee" in that. Maybe both sides of the pond would.

I wouldn't capitalize "doodle", nor "dandy"---but they do in these lyrics:
I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy
A Yankee Doodle, do or die
A real live nephew of my Uncle Sam
Born on the Fourth of July
http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/imayankeedoodledandee.html

I think "Doodle" is neither a proper nor common noun. But, they capitalized it.


----------



## dn88

I guess I should have been more clear in my previous post. Sometimes a proper name/noun refers to something that is unique only to the speaker and/or to the listener. Obviously, there's not only one person named "Peter" on the planet, but when I say "Peter", I'm referring to one particular person, and I also expect my interlocutor to know who I am talking about. Same thing with "Mom" or "Dad" used without a possessive determiner:

_Mom and Dad are watching TV._ (proper names/nouns)
_My mom and (my) dad went shopping. _(common nouns)


----------



## Miss Julie

dn88 said:


> "American" is not a proper noun in my book because there's more than one American. The same applies to "Yankee".



But in English, it is. I know most other languages do not capitalize the names of languages and nationalities, but we do in English because they are considered proper names/nouns.


----------



## JamesM

I agree with Miss Julie.  It comes in handy in particular with Poland:

The poles are polarized.

...means something completely different from...

The Poles are polarized.


----------



## dn88

So *a Ferrari*, as in* He can't afford a Ferrari*, is also a proper noun just because it is capitalized? I don't think I agree.


----------



## JamesM

Then what is it?  How would you classify it to distinguish it from a common, uncapitalized noun in English?


----------



## JulianStuart

dn88 said:


> So *a Ferrari*, as in* He can't afford a Ferrari*, is also a proper noun just because it is capitalized? I don't think I agree.


Then perhaps that's your distinction between a proper name and a proper noun.  In your mind, only one of them represents a "unique" thing.  In my mind, it's the "proper" that causes the capitalization


----------



## JamesM

JulianStuart said:


> Then perhaps that's your distinction between a proper name and a proper noun.  In your mind, only one of them represents a "unique" thing.  In my mind, it's the "proper" that causes the capitalization



Exactly.  "Proper" to me doesn't mean "single/unique entity".  It means a member of a distinguishable group that is capitalized.


----------



## dn88

Well, the distinction between "proper name" and "proper noun" is rather fuzzy, and you can see that a number of dictionaries list the two terms as synonymous. I'd say that _*a Ferrari *_is no more "proper" than _*a dog*_, but maybe that's just me. 


JamesM said:


> Exactly.  "Proper" to me doesn't mean  "single/unique entity".  It means a member of a distinguishable group  that is capitalized.



This is what "proper" means to me in this context: "_referring to one individual only_" or "_belonging to one:_ own" (Merriam-Webster)

Anyway, I'd better quit this discussion before it sends me 'round the bend _proper_.  

PS: I might come back later, though.


----------



## gramman

This isn't the first time I've seen a question on this forum about the damn Yankees. We're world champions and they didn't even make the playoffs. When are we going to get a question about the Red Sox?


----------



## JamesM

dn88 said:


> Well, the distinction between "proper name" and "proper noun" is rather fuzzy, and you can see that a number of dictionaries list the two terms as synonymous. I'd say that _*a Ferrari *_is no more "proper" than _*a dog*_, but maybe that's just me.
> 
> 
> This is what "proper" means to me in this context: "_referring to one individual only_" or "_belonging to one:_ own" (Merriam-Webster)
> 
> Anyway, I'd better quit this discussion before it sends me 'round the bend _proper_.
> 
> PS: I might come back later, though.


I understand that it means that to you.  Can you allow for the possibility that it might mean something else in English?  

If not, why capitalize Ferrari?  Why not write "a ferrari"?  I can tell you that it doesn't work that way in English.

There must be some category for "a Ferrari" that distinguishes it from "a dog".  "Dog" is a common noun.  "Peter" is a proper noun, as you say.  So, "Ferrari" is...?  I'm fine with a third category if you can give me its name.


----------



## JulianStuart

dn88 said:


> To me, a "proper name/noun" refers to something that is unique.
> It normally takes no article: _Europe, Dublin, Peter, Audi_ (the company), etc.
> Or it takes "the": _the Alps, the Pacific, the United Kingdom_, etc.
> 
> "American" is not a proper noun in my book because there's more than one American. The same applies to "Yankee".
> *In English, (common) nouns derived from proper nouns/names are (usually) capitalized: an American, a Yankee, a New Yorker, a Chevrolet, etc.
> *
> As I said earlier, "American" and "Yankee" (and "New Yorker") are sometimes referred to as demonyms, but as you can see the term is little used.





dn88 said:


> Well, the distinction between "proper name" and "proper noun" is rather fuzzy, and you can see that a number of dictionaries list the two terms as synonymous. I'd say that _*a Ferrari *_is no more "proper" than _*a dog*_, but maybe that's just me.


But you just capitalized Chevrolet, above.  Ferrari is capitalized for the same reason 
I am confused by what you are asking about.
(It might help if you think of "A Ferrari' as being short for a "A Ferrari car" - a common noun derived from a proper name still gets capitalized!)


----------



## dn88

JulianStuart said:


> a common noun derived from a proper name still gets capitalized!


Isn't that precisely what I wrote in post 46?


JulianStuart said:


> It might help if you think of "A Ferrari' as being short for a "A  Ferrari car" . . .


Okay, let's test this:
_
a Ferrari car
a Chevrolet car
an Impala... car?
a Canadian person
a Pole... person?_

All five words in red can be used as nouns on their own.

I think there's no point in looking for "hidden" words; to me, _*a Ferrari*_ is exactly what it is: _*a Ferrari*_. A Ferrari tractor is still a Ferrari.


JamesM said:


> I understand that it means that to you.  Can you  allow for the possibility that it might mean something else in English?
> 
> If not, why capitalize Ferrari?  Why not write "a ferrari"?  I can tell you that it doesn't work that way in English.


As I said before, _common_ nouns derived from_ proper_ nouns/names normally get capitalized.


JamesM said:


> There must be some category for "a Ferrari" that distinguishes it from  "a dog".  "Dog" is a common noun.  "Peter" is a proper noun, as you say.   So, "Ferrari" is...?  I'm fine with a third category if you can give  me its name.


Even if it's technically a proper noun, it's definitely used in the role of a common noun. So maybe we should call it a "quasi-common noun"? 
This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## Wordsmyth

JungKim, your original question regarding _Yankee_, in post #1, was "But then if it's a common noun, why is 'Y' capitalized?". 

Among all the answers, I think the simplest and most succinct is Loob's #43: "... words requiring a capital letter aren't necessarily "proper nouns" - whatever "proper nouns" are..."

If I were to answer the question "why is 'Y' capitalized?", taking into account the whole preceding discussion, I'd say (and I'm always less succinct than Loob ):

- If you take the narrow definition of a proper noun (unique entity, no article, ...), then _Yankee_ is capitalised because it's a name, just like the many other names and titles that are capitalised in English, even though they aren't proper nouns by that definition.

- If you accept a broader understanding of a proper noun (any noun that is habitually capitalised), then _Yankee_ is capitalised because it's a proper noun (or it's a proper noun because it's capitalised!).

Ws


----------



## JamesM

dn88 said:


> Isn't that precisely what I wrote in post 46?
> 
> Okay, let's test this:
> _
> a Ferrari car
> a Chevrolet car
> an Impala... car?
> a Canadian person
> a Pole... person?_
> 
> All five words in red can be used as nouns on their own.
> 
> I think there's no point in looking for "hidden" words; to me, _*a Ferrari*_ is exactly what it is: _*a Ferrari*_. A Ferrari tractor is still a Ferrari.
> 
> As I said before, _common_ nouns derived from_ proper_ nouns/names normally get capitalized.
> 
> Even if it's technically a proper noun, it's definitely used in the role of a common noun. So maybe we should call it a "quasi-common noun"?
> This is getting ridiculous.



As Wordsmyth says, if you can't accept it as a proper noun, then you have to allow for three types of nouns.

Common nouns - not capitalized
Proper nouns - capitalized
??? - a type of word that is neither a common noun nor a proper noun (by your strict definition) but must be capitalized


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> As Wordsmyth says, if you can't accept it as a proper noun, then you have to allow for three types of nouns.
> 
> Common nouns - not capitalized
> Proper nouns - capitalized
> ??? - a type of word that is neither a common noun nor a proper noun (by your strict definition) but must be capitalized



Yup - it has always seemed like an issue of definitions.  I (and at least some others) think of "proper" as the trigger for capitalization.  I do not think "proper = unique".


----------



## Loob

JulianStuart said:


> Yup - it has always seemed like an issue of definitions....


I agree with that, Julian.

I loved Wordsmyth's





Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> - If you take the narrow definition of a proper noun (unique entity, no article, ...), then _Yankee_  is capitalised because it's a name, just like the many other names and  titles that are capitalised in English, even though they aren't proper  nouns by that definition.
> 
> - If you accept a broader understanding of a proper noun (any noun that is habitually capitalised), then _Yankee_ is capitalised because it's a proper noun (or it's a proper noun because it's capitalised!).


What I'm quite sure about is that we capitalise things which are not 'proper nouns':_ The Golden Gate Bridge._
We also capitalise adjectives and verbs: _I have several Canadian friends.  When Frances moved to Florida, she Americanized her spelling and pronunciation.

_


----------



## dn88

So I've consulted a couple of books and several online resources, and everywhere there seems to be some sort of conspiracy of silence about nouns such as "American" or "Yankee". Perhaps nobody really wants to tackle this subject (which, apparently, is a bit of a gray area).

Here's how this website (http://www.k12reader.com/proper-nouns/) defines a "common noun": 


> A _common_ noun refers to the general names of things.  Look  around you and name the items you see.  A desk, a chair, a lamp, a  window, a door. When you go shopping, who do you see?  A man, a child, a salesperson,  an attendant, a toddler, a policeman. These are all general, common  nouns.



Can't I also see an American playing with the toddler, or a Yankee talking to the child?

And if "proper" is the trigger for capitalization, then why, for example, "earth" is not always capitalized? Has it become too "common" over the years?


----------



## JungKim

Wordsmyth said:


> JungKim, your original question regarding _Yankee_, in post #1, was "But then if it's a common noun, why is 'Y' capitalized?".
> 
> Among all the answers, I think the simplest and most succinct is Loob's #43: "... words requiring a capital letter aren't necessarily "proper nouns" - whatever "proper nouns" are..."
> 
> If I were to answer the question "why is 'Y' capitalized?", taking into account the whole preceding discussion, I'd say (and I'm always less succinct than Loob ):
> 
> - If you take the narrow definition of a proper noun (unique entity, no article, ...), then _Yankee_ is capitalised because it's a name, just like the many other names and titles that are capitalised in English, even though they aren't proper nouns by that definition.
> 
> - If you accept a broader understanding of a proper noun (any noun that is habitually capitalised), then _Yankee_ is capitalised because it's a proper noun (or it's a proper noun because it's capitalised!).
> 
> Ws



Thanks, Ws.
Actually, after reading Loob's posts #43 and #45, I did think I got my answer. 
Of course, I cannot deny that all the discussions before and after the couple of posts of Loob's have been very interesting and informative. So I thank you guys for participating in this thread. 

Regardless of whether you should call _Yankee_ a proper noun or not, what I should take from all this is that there is a distinct group of words (e.g., _a Yankee_, _an American_, _an Impala_) that are capitalized but refer to not a unique person/thing but each of a unique group of persons/things. And I'd rather make a subtle distinction that this distinct group of words doesn't include, and should also be distinguished from, words such as _a Toyota_ (= a car) and _a Rembrandt_ (= a picture) in that _Toyota_ and _Rembrandt_ (without an article) can be used to refer to the car company and the painter, respectively, whereas _Yankee_, _American_ (noun) and _Impala_ (brand name) are not normally used without an article.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Loob said:


> _[...] _What I'm quite sure about is that we capitalise things which are not 'proper nouns':_ The Golden Gate Bridge. __[...] _


 Indeed we do. And that's a very good example of a proper name made up of three common nouns and a determiner. 

So, to those who associate "proper" with having no article, I'd say: if a proper name can have an article, why shouldn't a proper noun? — I'm sure that the chiefs of certain Scottish clans (The Maclaren of Maclaren, The Chisholm, etc) would be upset to be told that their clan names aren't proper nouns.


dn88 said:


> _ [...] _Perhaps nobody really wants to tackle this subject (which, apparently, is a bit of a gray area).
> _[...]_
> And if "proper" is the trigger for capitalization, then why, for example, "earth" is not always capitalized? Has it become too "common" over the years?


 Well, quite a few people here seem to want to tackle the subject — and we're finding that it is indeed a grey area!

As for Earth/earth, I don't see a problem. As a proper noun (the planet) it should always be capitalised. As a common noun (soil, land), it's not capitalised.

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

After four pages, some background:

"Capitalisation of nouns in English in the 17th and 18th centuries" http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...uns-in-english-in-the-17th-and-18th-centuries.

And from Wiki: Capitalization in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_in_English

And captonyms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitonym#List_of_capitonyms_in_English

And a small poem of captonyms: 

Job's Job

_In August, an august patriarch
Was reading an ad in Reading, Mass.
Long-suffering Job secured a job
To polish piles of Polish brass._


----------



## Wordsmyth

Fascinating reading, Paul. Apparently the whole 'proper noun/name' thing is so complex that it has its own field of study. According to that Wiki article, "The study of proper names is sometimes called _onomastics _or _onomatology."! _I wonder how many job opportunities there are for onomatologists (or onomasticians).

Ws


----------



## natkretep

Wordsmyth said:


> Fascinating reading, Paul. Apparently the whole 'proper noun/name' thing is so complex that it has its own field of study. According to that Wiki article, "The study of proper names is sometimes called _onomastics _or _onomatology."! _I wonder how many job opportunities there are for onomatologists (or onomasticians).


I deal with names professionally, and I've only encountered _onomastics_ (and _onomasticians_) rather than _onomastology_. (The International Congress of Onomastic Sciences or ICOS meets in Glasgow in August.)



Wordsmyth said:


> So, to those who associate "proper" with having no article, I'd say: if a proper name can have an article, why shouldn't a proper noun? — I'm sure that the chiefs of certain Scottish clans (The Maclaren of Maclaren, The Chisholm, etc) would be upset to be told that their clan names aren't proper nouns.


It might be helpful to think of a noun generally consisting of a word. _The United Nations_ is a proper name which contains no proper nouns. Articles are not usually employed with stereotypical proper nouns, unless they are used in atypical ways ('_a Daniel _come to judgement') or for geographical features (the Amazon, the Hebrides).

But back to _Yankee _and _American_. Sometimes the term 'proper adjective' is used (though not by linguists). See wikipedia:


> In English orthography, the term proper adjective is sometimes applied to adjectives that take initial capital letters, and the term "common adjective" to those that do not. These terms are used informally only; they are not used by grammarians or linguists.


----------



## Wordsmyth

natkretep said:


> I deal with names professionally, and I've only encountered _onomastics_ (and _onomasticians_) rather than _onomastology_. (The International Congress of Onomastic Sciences or ICOS meets in Glasgow in August.) _[...]_


 So my quip about job opportunities was obviously misplaced. My first thought was that it must be a pretty obscure field, but I've since read a bit on the subject and I see that there are a number of practical applications. (It's never too late to learn.) Oh, and the wiki article I mentioned wasn't in fact one of Paul's links, but this one about proper nouns.


natkretep said:


> _[...]_ It might be helpful to think of a noun generally consisting of a word. _The United Nations_ is a proper name which contains no proper nouns. Articles are not usually employed with stereotypical proper nouns, unless they are used in atypical ways ('_a Daniel _come to judgement') or for geographical features (the Amazon, the Hebrides). _[...]_


 Absolutely, Nat. _The United Nations _is another example like _The Golden Gate Bridge_ (#63/#66). 

The point I was making about articles was inspired by JungKim's idea (#29) that knowing that a name is a proper noun/name could enable learners to know whether they should use an article or not. That would be valid only if proper nouns and proper names were never used with an article. 

But as we have seen, many proper names take an article (at least the definite article), and (as you pointed out) proper nouns can also take an article when they are used atypically or for geographical features. For learners to know whether a proper noun can take an article, they'd have to determine whether it's being used stereotypically or atypically (or whether it belongs to a some particular group that allows articles) — which sounds like a pretty tough call to me.

Ws


----------

