Should the name of a mythological creature be capitalized?
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
The name of the mythological creature in my novel is "manananggal". When I'm referring to it, should I capitalize what it is?
creative-writing novel grammar
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
add a comment |
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
The name of the mythological creature in my novel is "manananggal". When I'm referring to it, should I capitalize what it is?
creative-writing novel grammar
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
4
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
Nov 29 at 19:03
The answer to this question is yes because it lacks proper pluralization. manananggals - you can't make up a word and expect to have people assume it's a non-count noun....
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 0:11
I think it's Filipino for 'unbelievers'. Is that deliberated?
– Strawberry
Nov 30 at 10:44
@Mazura pluralisation has nothing to do with capitalisation. Take for example "James" - "James'" see how it was pluralised? eg - "James' stand up" (an alternative spelling is James's). As stated by David; proper nouns get capitalised, words starting a sentence also; the rest do not.
– UKMonkey
Nov 30 at 13:18
Actually, it has nothing to do with capitalization, pluralization, or proper nouns. The problem is the word creature, which needs to be either species or being (or proceeded by the words type of); the answers to which are a no and a yes (and a no), respectively.
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 23:43
add a comment |
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
The name of the mythological creature in my novel is "manananggal". When I'm referring to it, should I capitalize what it is?
creative-writing novel grammar
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
The name of the mythological creature in my novel is "manananggal". When I'm referring to it, should I capitalize what it is?
creative-writing novel grammar
creative-writing novel grammar
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
edited Nov 29 at 9:17
Liquid
4,365940
4,365940
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
asked Nov 28 at 22:13
R. Narine The Author
8113
8113
4
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
Nov 29 at 19:03
The answer to this question is yes because it lacks proper pluralization. manananggals - you can't make up a word and expect to have people assume it's a non-count noun....
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 0:11
I think it's Filipino for 'unbelievers'. Is that deliberated?
– Strawberry
Nov 30 at 10:44
@Mazura pluralisation has nothing to do with capitalisation. Take for example "James" - "James'" see how it was pluralised? eg - "James' stand up" (an alternative spelling is James's). As stated by David; proper nouns get capitalised, words starting a sentence also; the rest do not.
– UKMonkey
Nov 30 at 13:18
Actually, it has nothing to do with capitalization, pluralization, or proper nouns. The problem is the word creature, which needs to be either species or being (or proceeded by the words type of); the answers to which are a no and a yes (and a no), respectively.
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 23:43
add a comment |
4
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
Nov 29 at 19:03
The answer to this question is yes because it lacks proper pluralization. manananggals - you can't make up a word and expect to have people assume it's a non-count noun....
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 0:11
I think it's Filipino for 'unbelievers'. Is that deliberated?
– Strawberry
Nov 30 at 10:44
@Mazura pluralisation has nothing to do with capitalisation. Take for example "James" - "James'" see how it was pluralised? eg - "James' stand up" (an alternative spelling is James's). As stated by David; proper nouns get capitalised, words starting a sentence also; the rest do not.
– UKMonkey
Nov 30 at 13:18
Actually, it has nothing to do with capitalization, pluralization, or proper nouns. The problem is the word creature, which needs to be either species or being (or proceeded by the words type of); the answers to which are a no and a yes (and a no), respectively.
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 23:43
4
4
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
Nov 29 at 19:03
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
Nov 29 at 19:03
The answer to this question is yes because it lacks proper pluralization. manananggals - you can't make up a word and expect to have people assume it's a non-count noun....
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 0:11
The answer to this question is yes because it lacks proper pluralization. manananggals - you can't make up a word and expect to have people assume it's a non-count noun....
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 0:11
I think it's Filipino for 'unbelievers'. Is that deliberated?
– Strawberry
Nov 30 at 10:44
I think it's Filipino for 'unbelievers'. Is that deliberated?
– Strawberry
Nov 30 at 10:44
@Mazura pluralisation has nothing to do with capitalisation. Take for example "James" - "James'" see how it was pluralised? eg - "James' stand up" (an alternative spelling is James's). As stated by David; proper nouns get capitalised, words starting a sentence also; the rest do not.
– UKMonkey
Nov 30 at 13:18
@Mazura pluralisation has nothing to do with capitalisation. Take for example "James" - "James'" see how it was pluralised? eg - "James' stand up" (an alternative spelling is James's). As stated by David; proper nouns get capitalised, words starting a sentence also; the rest do not.
– UKMonkey
Nov 30 at 13:18
Actually, it has nothing to do with capitalization, pluralization, or proper nouns. The problem is the word creature, which needs to be either species or being (or proceeded by the words type of); the answers to which are a no and a yes (and a no), respectively.
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 23:43
Actually, it has nothing to do with capitalization, pluralization, or proper nouns. The problem is the word creature, which needs to be either species or being (or proceeded by the words type of); the answers to which are a no and a yes (and a no), respectively.
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 23:43
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
31
down vote
Yes, if it's the Grinch
A unique creature, which is the Manananggal (effectively THAT creature's name), should be capitalized.
No, if it's a fairy
Even if your creature is rare, if you are likely to ever refer to it as a manananggal (a member of a group or species), then don't capitalize it.
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
3
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
2
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
2
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
2
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
2
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
Mythological creatures, or creatures you've invented, don't need to be capitalised, just like real-life animals. There's no grammatical difference between "a dog", "an orc", "a dragon" and "a manananggal".
To cite a famous example,
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. (J.R.R Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 1 - An Unexpected Party)
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
5
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
2
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
3
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
2
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
1
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Do not capitalize the name of a species
There are hobbits, dwarves, dragons, horses, dogs, unicorns, cats, and so on.
Capitalize the personal name of an individual
They saw Peter, the human being.
They saw Capper, the dog.
They saw Smaug, the dragon.
Smaug is the personal name of this dragon. Other dragons have other names.
Note that while there may be more than one Peter (and potentially more than one dragon named Smaug), there is no species of peters (or smaugs). The same name can be given to different individuals (of different species: Peter the dog, Peter the dragon), but that still doesn't make them members of their own species, nor Peter a class name. They are all Peters, but not peters.
Capitalize the species names of unique beings
The Grinch.
Grinch is not the personal name of this creature, it is the name of its species. But there is (or appears to be) only one of its kind, which makes its species name like a personal name in that it denotes a single unique individual. When I say "dragon" you don't know which one I speak of, but when I say "Grinch" you know which one I mean because there is only one of them, which makes "Grinch" function like a personal name.
Now you could say that the Grinch is a fictional character, invented by a writer of literature, and that its author may have chosen to capitalize this word on a whim. But there are examples from the real world that show the same difference in capitalization between the name of a mythological species and the name of a unique mythological being, such as banshee and Cailleach. There are many banshees. It is the name of a species and is therefore not capitalized. But there is only one Cailleach. Yet Cailleach is not the personal name of this being, but a description: cailleach means "old woman" in Irish, just as banshee means "fairy woman". They are both species names, their difference is that Cailleach is a species with only one member, so she becomes the Cailleach, just like the Grinch.
As David Richerby has pointed out in a comment, "Grinch" and "Peter" are proper nouns, while "dragon" is not.
To summarize:
- If there are many manananggals, don't capitalize the species name.
- If there is only one Manananggal, capitalize its species or personal name.
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
31
down vote
Yes, if it's the Grinch
A unique creature, which is the Manananggal (effectively THAT creature's name), should be capitalized.
No, if it's a fairy
Even if your creature is rare, if you are likely to ever refer to it as a manananggal (a member of a group or species), then don't capitalize it.
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
3
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
2
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
2
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
2
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
2
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
31
down vote
Yes, if it's the Grinch
A unique creature, which is the Manananggal (effectively THAT creature's name), should be capitalized.
No, if it's a fairy
Even if your creature is rare, if you are likely to ever refer to it as a manananggal (a member of a group or species), then don't capitalize it.
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
3
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
2
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
2
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
2
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
2
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
31
down vote
up vote
31
down vote
Yes, if it's the Grinch
A unique creature, which is the Manananggal (effectively THAT creature's name), should be capitalized.
No, if it's a fairy
Even if your creature is rare, if you are likely to ever refer to it as a manananggal (a member of a group or species), then don't capitalize it.
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
Yes, if it's the Grinch
A unique creature, which is the Manananggal (effectively THAT creature's name), should be capitalized.
No, if it's a fairy
Even if your creature is rare, if you are likely to ever refer to it as a manananggal (a member of a group or species), then don't capitalize it.
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
answered Nov 28 at 22:47
Jedediah
1,05127
1,05127
3
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
2
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
2
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
2
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
2
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
|
show 3 more comments
3
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
2
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
2
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
2
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
2
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
3
3
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
Note that "the" isn't the indication. For example, I don't call you the Jedediah but it's still your given name (well, chosen username, but you get my point). However, it would be correct to say that when "a Manananggal" doesn't make sense, then it suggests that Manananggal is a given name and thus chould be capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:55
2
2
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
Yes, the rule isn't perfect. What I'm trying to give a rough rule for, say, "a devil" versus "the Devil". And English isn't even perfectly consistent on this, since in the King James Version of the bible, (or is it the Bible?), in Revelation 12, Satan is called "the Devil" and "the dragon". Apparently, in the NIV, he's called "the Dragon". The "the" rule is good but not perfect for title-names. It doesn't apply to common names.
– Jedediah
Nov 29 at 11:31
2
2
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
@celtschk The choice of "a John" is itself a bit of a special case, since that also refers to something else, besides just "one of many people with the name John".
– JMac
Nov 29 at 14:53
2
2
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
Nov 29 at 20:02
2
2
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
@ale10ander that's American toilet - Brits don't call the toilet "john"
– Chris B
Nov 30 at 15:44
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
Mythological creatures, or creatures you've invented, don't need to be capitalised, just like real-life animals. There's no grammatical difference between "a dog", "an orc", "a dragon" and "a manananggal".
To cite a famous example,
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. (J.R.R Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 1 - An Unexpected Party)
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
5
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
2
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
3
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
2
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
1
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
Mythological creatures, or creatures you've invented, don't need to be capitalised, just like real-life animals. There's no grammatical difference between "a dog", "an orc", "a dragon" and "a manananggal".
To cite a famous example,
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. (J.R.R Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 1 - An Unexpected Party)
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
5
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
2
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
3
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
2
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
1
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
Mythological creatures, or creatures you've invented, don't need to be capitalised, just like real-life animals. There's no grammatical difference between "a dog", "an orc", "a dragon" and "a manananggal".
To cite a famous example,
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. (J.R.R Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 1 - An Unexpected Party)
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
Mythological creatures, or creatures you've invented, don't need to be capitalised, just like real-life animals. There's no grammatical difference between "a dog", "an orc", "a dragon" and "a manananggal".
To cite a famous example,
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. (J.R.R Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 1 - An Unexpected Party)
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
answered Nov 28 at 22:48
Galastel
23.7k360128
23.7k360128
5
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
2
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
3
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
2
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
1
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
|
show 7 more comments
5
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
2
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
3
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
2
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
1
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
5
5
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
It's a toss up whether your answer is correct or not, as "mythological creature" can (possibly) imply that only one exists, at which point their name is considered a given name and thus capitalized. For example: Bigfoot is a specific creature and thus capitalized, whereas yeti are considered a species and thus not capitalized.
– Flater
Nov 29 at 8:59
2
2
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
@Flater Say there is only one fossil having given characteristics. Even though it's unique, biologists would give name to it as species and it is not to be capitalized.
– rus9384
Nov 29 at 9:51
3
3
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
@ANeves Otzi is no different from Lucy the Australopithecus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)). It's a personal name, given by scientists to a find. Personal names get capitalised. Species don't.
– Galastel
Nov 29 at 14:45
2
2
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
There are plenty of mythological creatures who are individuals with specific names, e.g. Medusa would be capitalised. It is not clear from from the original question whether "manananggal" is a species or an individual.
– Sean Burton
Nov 29 at 16:51
1
1
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
@SeanBurton Medusa is her given name though, she is a gorgon
– eirikdaude
Nov 30 at 10:45
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Do not capitalize the name of a species
There are hobbits, dwarves, dragons, horses, dogs, unicorns, cats, and so on.
Capitalize the personal name of an individual
They saw Peter, the human being.
They saw Capper, the dog.
They saw Smaug, the dragon.
Smaug is the personal name of this dragon. Other dragons have other names.
Note that while there may be more than one Peter (and potentially more than one dragon named Smaug), there is no species of peters (or smaugs). The same name can be given to different individuals (of different species: Peter the dog, Peter the dragon), but that still doesn't make them members of their own species, nor Peter a class name. They are all Peters, but not peters.
Capitalize the species names of unique beings
The Grinch.
Grinch is not the personal name of this creature, it is the name of its species. But there is (or appears to be) only one of its kind, which makes its species name like a personal name in that it denotes a single unique individual. When I say "dragon" you don't know which one I speak of, but when I say "Grinch" you know which one I mean because there is only one of them, which makes "Grinch" function like a personal name.
Now you could say that the Grinch is a fictional character, invented by a writer of literature, and that its author may have chosen to capitalize this word on a whim. But there are examples from the real world that show the same difference in capitalization between the name of a mythological species and the name of a unique mythological being, such as banshee and Cailleach. There are many banshees. It is the name of a species and is therefore not capitalized. But there is only one Cailleach. Yet Cailleach is not the personal name of this being, but a description: cailleach means "old woman" in Irish, just as banshee means "fairy woman". They are both species names, their difference is that Cailleach is a species with only one member, so she becomes the Cailleach, just like the Grinch.
As David Richerby has pointed out in a comment, "Grinch" and "Peter" are proper nouns, while "dragon" is not.
To summarize:
- If there are many manananggals, don't capitalize the species name.
- If there is only one Manananggal, capitalize its species or personal name.
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Do not capitalize the name of a species
There are hobbits, dwarves, dragons, horses, dogs, unicorns, cats, and so on.
Capitalize the personal name of an individual
They saw Peter, the human being.
They saw Capper, the dog.
They saw Smaug, the dragon.
Smaug is the personal name of this dragon. Other dragons have other names.
Note that while there may be more than one Peter (and potentially more than one dragon named Smaug), there is no species of peters (or smaugs). The same name can be given to different individuals (of different species: Peter the dog, Peter the dragon), but that still doesn't make them members of their own species, nor Peter a class name. They are all Peters, but not peters.
Capitalize the species names of unique beings
The Grinch.
Grinch is not the personal name of this creature, it is the name of its species. But there is (or appears to be) only one of its kind, which makes its species name like a personal name in that it denotes a single unique individual. When I say "dragon" you don't know which one I speak of, but when I say "Grinch" you know which one I mean because there is only one of them, which makes "Grinch" function like a personal name.
Now you could say that the Grinch is a fictional character, invented by a writer of literature, and that its author may have chosen to capitalize this word on a whim. But there are examples from the real world that show the same difference in capitalization between the name of a mythological species and the name of a unique mythological being, such as banshee and Cailleach. There are many banshees. It is the name of a species and is therefore not capitalized. But there is only one Cailleach. Yet Cailleach is not the personal name of this being, but a description: cailleach means "old woman" in Irish, just as banshee means "fairy woman". They are both species names, their difference is that Cailleach is a species with only one member, so she becomes the Cailleach, just like the Grinch.
As David Richerby has pointed out in a comment, "Grinch" and "Peter" are proper nouns, while "dragon" is not.
To summarize:
- If there are many manananggals, don't capitalize the species name.
- If there is only one Manananggal, capitalize its species or personal name.
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Do not capitalize the name of a species
There are hobbits, dwarves, dragons, horses, dogs, unicorns, cats, and so on.
Capitalize the personal name of an individual
They saw Peter, the human being.
They saw Capper, the dog.
They saw Smaug, the dragon.
Smaug is the personal name of this dragon. Other dragons have other names.
Note that while there may be more than one Peter (and potentially more than one dragon named Smaug), there is no species of peters (or smaugs). The same name can be given to different individuals (of different species: Peter the dog, Peter the dragon), but that still doesn't make them members of their own species, nor Peter a class name. They are all Peters, but not peters.
Capitalize the species names of unique beings
The Grinch.
Grinch is not the personal name of this creature, it is the name of its species. But there is (or appears to be) only one of its kind, which makes its species name like a personal name in that it denotes a single unique individual. When I say "dragon" you don't know which one I speak of, but when I say "Grinch" you know which one I mean because there is only one of them, which makes "Grinch" function like a personal name.
Now you could say that the Grinch is a fictional character, invented by a writer of literature, and that its author may have chosen to capitalize this word on a whim. But there are examples from the real world that show the same difference in capitalization between the name of a mythological species and the name of a unique mythological being, such as banshee and Cailleach. There are many banshees. It is the name of a species and is therefore not capitalized. But there is only one Cailleach. Yet Cailleach is not the personal name of this being, but a description: cailleach means "old woman" in Irish, just as banshee means "fairy woman". They are both species names, their difference is that Cailleach is a species with only one member, so she becomes the Cailleach, just like the Grinch.
As David Richerby has pointed out in a comment, "Grinch" and "Peter" are proper nouns, while "dragon" is not.
To summarize:
- If there are many manananggals, don't capitalize the species name.
- If there is only one Manananggal, capitalize its species or personal name.
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
Do not capitalize the name of a species
There are hobbits, dwarves, dragons, horses, dogs, unicorns, cats, and so on.
Capitalize the personal name of an individual
They saw Peter, the human being.
They saw Capper, the dog.
They saw Smaug, the dragon.
Smaug is the personal name of this dragon. Other dragons have other names.
Note that while there may be more than one Peter (and potentially more than one dragon named Smaug), there is no species of peters (or smaugs). The same name can be given to different individuals (of different species: Peter the dog, Peter the dragon), but that still doesn't make them members of their own species, nor Peter a class name. They are all Peters, but not peters.
Capitalize the species names of unique beings
The Grinch.
Grinch is not the personal name of this creature, it is the name of its species. But there is (or appears to be) only one of its kind, which makes its species name like a personal name in that it denotes a single unique individual. When I say "dragon" you don't know which one I speak of, but when I say "Grinch" you know which one I mean because there is only one of them, which makes "Grinch" function like a personal name.
Now you could say that the Grinch is a fictional character, invented by a writer of literature, and that its author may have chosen to capitalize this word on a whim. But there are examples from the real world that show the same difference in capitalization between the name of a mythological species and the name of a unique mythological being, such as banshee and Cailleach. There are many banshees. It is the name of a species and is therefore not capitalized. But there is only one Cailleach. Yet Cailleach is not the personal name of this being, but a description: cailleach means "old woman" in Irish, just as banshee means "fairy woman". They are both species names, their difference is that Cailleach is a species with only one member, so she becomes the Cailleach, just like the Grinch.
As David Richerby has pointed out in a comment, "Grinch" and "Peter" are proper nouns, while "dragon" is not.
To summarize:
- If there are many manananggals, don't capitalize the species name.
- If there is only one Manananggal, capitalize its species or personal name.
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
edited Nov 29 at 21:32
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
answered Nov 29 at 21:21
user57423
55518
55518
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
add a comment |
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
Members of a particular organization, nation, or tribe which are identified with the name of that entity (e.g. a Mason, an Americal, or a Seminole) are also capitalized, even when used to refer to one of many members. If there were a Society of Grinches, it would have been proper to capitalize the reference to the Grinch in the story, even if there were many other Grinches.
– supercat
Nov 29 at 22:00
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40406%2fshould-the-name-of-a-mythological-creature-be-capitalized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
Nov 29 at 19:03
The answer to this question is yes because it lacks proper pluralization. manananggals - you can't make up a word and expect to have people assume it's a non-count noun....
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 0:11
I think it's Filipino for 'unbelievers'. Is that deliberated?
– Strawberry
Nov 30 at 10:44
@Mazura pluralisation has nothing to do with capitalisation. Take for example "James" - "James'" see how it was pluralised? eg - "James' stand up" (an alternative spelling is James's). As stated by David; proper nouns get capitalised, words starting a sentence also; the rest do not.
– UKMonkey
Nov 30 at 13:18
Actually, it has nothing to do with capitalization, pluralization, or proper nouns. The problem is the word creature, which needs to be either species or being (or proceeded by the words type of); the answers to which are a no and a yes (and a no), respectively.
– Mazura
Nov 30 at 23:43