Should the name of a mythological creature be capitalized?
up vote
10
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 yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
10
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 yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago
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
10 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
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 yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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 yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
edited yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
edited yesterday
Liquid
4,170938
4,170938
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
asked yesterday
R. Narine The Author
563
563
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago
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
10 hours ago
add a comment |
2
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago
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
10 hours ago
2
2
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago
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
10 hours ago
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
10 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
25
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 yesterday
Jedediah
45615
2
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
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
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
22 hours ago
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
19 hours ago
1
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
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 yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
3
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
yesterday
1
@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
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
1
@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
19 hours ago
1
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
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
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 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
25
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 yesterday
Jedediah
45615
2
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
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
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
22 hours ago
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
19 hours ago
1
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
25
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 yesterday
Jedediah
45615
2
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
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
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
22 hours ago
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
19 hours ago
1
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
25
down vote
up vote
25
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 yesterday
Jedediah
45615
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 yesterday
Jedediah
45615
answered yesterday
Jedediah
45615
answered yesterday
Jedediah
45615
answered yesterday
Jedediah
45615
45615
2
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
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
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
22 hours ago
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
19 hours ago
1
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
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
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
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
22 hours ago
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
19 hours ago
1
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
2
2
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
On the other hand, there are many people called John, and there are situations when it makes perfect sense to say “a John”, yet “John” still is a proper name to be capitalized. And back to mythical creatures, if there is only one dragon, it would make sense to call it “the dragon” but you wouldn't capitalize “dragon” anyway.
– celtschk
yesterday
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
22 hours ago
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
22 hours ago
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
19 hours ago
@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
19 hours ago
1
1
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
@JMac good point. For that other use of a John, would you still capitalize it?
– ale10ander
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
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 yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
3
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
yesterday
1
@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
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
1
@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
19 hours ago
1
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
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
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 yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
3
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
yesterday
1
@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
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
1
@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
19 hours ago
1
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
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
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 yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
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 yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
answered yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
answered yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
answered yesterday
Galastel
23.2k359125
23.2k359125
3
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
yesterday
1
@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
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
1
@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
19 hours ago
1
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
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
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
yesterday
1
@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
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
1
@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
19 hours ago
1
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
17 hours ago
3
3
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
1
1
@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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
@rus9384: Because every animal ever encountered has relied on procreation, which inherently means there is more than one animal of that species. The fossil may be given a name, even the particular creature to which the fossil belongs. Those are both given names referring to a unique entity. But the name of the species is not a given name, not unique, and thus not capitalized. This is also well beyond the scope of the asked question.
– Flater
yesterday
1
1
@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
19 hours ago
@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
19 hours ago
1
1
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
17 hours ago
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
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
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 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
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 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
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 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
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 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
edited 12 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
answered 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
answered 12 hours ago
user57423
4286
4286
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
add a comment |
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
R. Narine The Author is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
2
The key concept here is the proper noun.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago
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
10 hours ago