Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?












38















Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?










share|improve this question

























  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    yesterday






  • 13





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    yesterday






  • 1





    I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    18 hours ago








  • 2





    @ViktorMellgren English-speaking people may say 'Don Quijote' nowadays, but the book was translated into English a long time ago when most people had less exposure to foreign languages, and the name was traditionally pronounced 'Quicksote'.

    – Kate Bunting
    18 hours ago
















38















Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?










share|improve this question

























  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    yesterday






  • 13





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    yesterday






  • 1





    I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    18 hours ago








  • 2





    @ViktorMellgren English-speaking people may say 'Don Quijote' nowadays, but the book was translated into English a long time ago when most people had less exposure to foreign languages, and the name was traditionally pronounced 'Quicksote'.

    – Kate Bunting
    18 hours ago














38












38








38


6






Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?










share|improve this question
















Adjectives derived from proper nouns are known as proper adjectives, and are capitalized:



A piece of writing could be Shakespearean, not shakespearean.
A person may be Canadian, not canadian.



Even Chrome's spellchecker sees these as correct and incorrect.



However, quixotic is written in lower case, despite coming from the name of the character Don Quixote. Similarly, draconian laws are named for Draco, a particularly brutal senator from ancient Athens.



Does anyone know the reasoning behind some proper adjectives not being capitalized in common usage?







adjectives capitalization proper-nouns






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









sumelic

48.9k8116220




48.9k8116220










asked yesterday









Jesse WilliamsJesse Williams

1,098513




1,098513













  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    yesterday






  • 13





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    yesterday






  • 1





    I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    18 hours ago








  • 2





    @ViktorMellgren English-speaking people may say 'Don Quijote' nowadays, but the book was translated into English a long time ago when most people had less exposure to foreign languages, and the name was traditionally pronounced 'Quicksote'.

    – Kate Bunting
    18 hours ago



















  • @only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

    – Jesse Williams
    yesterday






  • 13





    Because English!

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 3





    Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

    – Davo
    yesterday






  • 1





    I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

    – Viktor Mellgren
    18 hours ago








  • 2





    @ViktorMellgren English-speaking people may say 'Don Quijote' nowadays, but the book was translated into English a long time ago when most people had less exposure to foreign languages, and the name was traditionally pronounced 'Quicksote'.

    – Kate Bunting
    18 hours ago

















@only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

– Jesse Williams
yesterday





@only_pro - thank you. I came across this while writing up a post for a linguistic-oriented Facebook group I recently created. Was scheduling some words of the day, writing up quixotic, and realized it looked weird capitalized. Did some poking around and realized that there's no discernible rhyme or reason to which do and which do not get capitalized. Made the back of my brain tickle.

– Jesse Williams
yesterday




13




13





Because English!

– Hot Licks
yesterday





Because English!

– Hot Licks
yesterday




3




3





Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

– Davo
yesterday





Related: Why is “biblical” the only proper adjective to not use upper case?.

– Davo
yesterday




1




1





I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

– Viktor Mellgren
18 hours ago







I had no idea that quixotic came from Don Quixote, probably due to people pronouncing it very differently. "Quick sotic" vs "qijote".

– Viktor Mellgren
18 hours ago






2




2





@ViktorMellgren English-speaking people may say 'Don Quijote' nowadays, but the book was translated into English a long time ago when most people had less exposure to foreign languages, and the name was traditionally pronounced 'Quicksote'.

– Kate Bunting
18 hours ago





@ViktorMellgren English-speaking people may say 'Don Quijote' nowadays, but the book was translated into English a long time ago when most people had less exposure to foreign languages, and the name was traditionally pronounced 'Quicksote'.

– Kate Bunting
18 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















39














In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, x, and y did not yield an example (for some reason, I failed to notice quixotic):




arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






share|improve this answer





















  • 6





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    23 hours ago








  • 3





    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    23 hours ago






  • 1





    Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago






  • 2





    It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago





















22














As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    yesterday






  • 1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    yesterday






  • 6





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 2





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    yesterday








  • 1





    @Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

    – mbrig
    11 hours ago



















4














Salads can tell us something:




  • Caesar


  • Cobb


  • Waldorf


  • Greek



Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






share|improve this answer
























  • Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

    – Jesse Williams
    12 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486432%2fwhy-is-quixotic-not-quixotic-a-proper-adjective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









39














In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, x, and y did not yield an example (for some reason, I failed to notice quixotic):




arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






share|improve this answer





















  • 6





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    23 hours ago








  • 3





    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    23 hours ago






  • 1





    Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago






  • 2





    It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago


















39














In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, x, and y did not yield an example (for some reason, I failed to notice quixotic):




arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






share|improve this answer





















  • 6





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    23 hours ago








  • 3





    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    23 hours ago






  • 1





    Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago






  • 2





    It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago
















39












39








39







In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, x, and y did not yield an example (for some reason, I failed to notice quixotic):




arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.






share|improve this answer















In a comment posted years ago to the question Why is "biblical" the only proper adjective to not use upper case? I listed some other exceptions to the general rule that the first letter of an adjective derived from a proper name is normally capitalized. Only the letters q, w, x, and y did not yield an example (for some reason, I failed to notice quixotic):




arabesque, byzantine, caesarean, draconian, epicurean, faradic, galvanic, herculean, italic, jesuitical, kabbalistic, lilliputian, mercurial, nazi, oedipal, pyrrhic, rubenesque, spartan, terpsichorean, utopian, voltaic, and zephyrous




Why do these exceptions occur? The not-very-satisfactory answer seems to be that common usage determines whether an adjective based on a proper name is initial-capped or lowercased. Dictionaries provide their spelling preferences based on what amount to the found objects of preponderant real-world usage in each case; and thenceforth, real-world usage (to the extent that it is influenced by people who look things up in dictionaries) tends to reflect the dictionary treatment. The very circularity of the process makes it extremely difficult to determine where and when the critical decision regarding initial cap versus all lowercase got made.



I don't see how else to explain why Oedipal is usually initial-capped when it refers to the mythical character Oedipus (as in "Oedipal resistance to fate") but usually lowercased when it refers to Freud's Oedipus complex (as in "oedipal feelings"), although the complex is explicitly named after Oedipus.



Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, second edition (2003) concludes that trying to explain exceptions to the normal rules about what gets capitalized and what doesn't is a fool's game:




There is simply no way to reason out why Stone Age is capitalized but space age is usually not, why October is capitalized but autumn is not, why in scientific names the genus is capitalized but the species is not—even when the species name is derived from a proper name {Rhinolophus philippinensis}.




Ultimately, capitalization conventions rest on strong general tendencies tempered by exceptions that are neither consistent nor explicable.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 11 hours ago

























answered yesterday









Sven YargsSven Yargs

113k19244504




113k19244504








  • 6





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    23 hours ago








  • 3





    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    23 hours ago






  • 1





    Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago






  • 2





    It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago
















  • 6





    Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 1





    @HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

    – Davislor
    23 hours ago








  • 3





    @Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

    – Sven Yargs
    23 hours ago






  • 1





    Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago






  • 2





    It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

    – Davislor
    22 hours ago










6




6





Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

– Hot Licks
yesterday





Oddly, I can recall, in my school days, being instructed that "Autumn" is capitalized, though "fall", "winter", "spring", and "summer" are not.

– Hot Licks
yesterday




1




1





@HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

– Davislor
23 hours ago







@HotLicks I never heard that one. Autumn comes from a common noun in Latin, and was first used by Chaucer in his Boece (with the explanation, “that is, the end of somer.”) I can’t think of any basis for such a rule either in etymology or historical usage or a desire to be more sensitive to, I don’t know, deciduous trees. I guess it’s one of those completely arbitrary rules somebody made up to be able to call everybody else wrong.

– Davislor
23 hours ago






3




3





@Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

– Sven Yargs
23 hours ago





@Davislor: You'd think that Watt ought to be at least as adjective-friendly as Faraday, Galvani, or Volta, but historically (at least) that bulb won't glow, despite our wattliest efforts.

– Sven Yargs
23 hours ago




1




1





Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

– Davislor
22 hours ago





Anyway, I’d say one rule of thumb there is that, the more irrelevant, mythological or forgotten the original namesake is, the more likely English-speakers are today to stop capitalizing it. This is also especially likely to happen if the word appears in parallel with uncapitalized antonyms. People are more likely to think of lesbian as parallel to gay or straight than to know or care that the ancient poet Sappho lived on the island of Lesbos. Caesarean section is borderline, but the Imperial Presidency is always Caesarism because Julius Caesar is best-known for becoming a dictator.

– Davislor
22 hours ago




2




2





It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

– Davislor
22 hours ago







It is strange that no one capitalizes laconic, though, since everyone who knows what it means has heard “If.” And I sometimes wonder if there are people self-aware enough to make the distinction, “Oh, I was calling him a genocidal, authoritarian warmonger in general, not a literal member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

– Davislor
22 hours ago















22














As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    yesterday






  • 1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    yesterday






  • 6





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 2





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    yesterday








  • 1





    @Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

    – mbrig
    11 hours ago
















22














As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    yesterday






  • 1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    yesterday






  • 6





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 2





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    yesterday








  • 1





    @Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

    – mbrig
    11 hours ago














22












22








22







As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.






share|improve this answer















As you correctly say, technically words associated with a proper noun should be capitalized.



However as time and usage goes on, these words tend to become words in their own right, not associated any more with the person they are named after.



So 'Shakespearean' means 'associated with or like Shakespeare'. It has no meaning apart from the association with the person.



On the other hand 'quixotic' is defined as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals. especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action". The definition makes no reference to Quixote, and people can (and do) use the word without knowing who Don Quixote is. This is even more true with 'draconian', which I had no idea was related to a person. Over time the adjective morphs from directly referring to the person etc, to indicating characteristics that were once associated with that person but are now considered independently.



So the answer is that the word loses its initial cap when it stops being associated with the person (or thing) it was originally associated with.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









DJClayworthDJClayworth

11k12335




11k12335








  • 5





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    yesterday






  • 1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    yesterday






  • 6





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 2





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    yesterday








  • 1





    @Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

    – mbrig
    11 hours ago














  • 5





    +1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    yesterday






  • 1





    William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

    – Michael Harvey
    yesterday






  • 6





    A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 2





    I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

    – DJClayworth
    yesterday








  • 1





    @Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

    – mbrig
    11 hours ago








5




5





+1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
yesterday





+1 for confirming that I’m not the only one who had no idea draconian was related to a person – I just thought it was a direct reference to ‘dragon-like’!

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
yesterday




1




1





William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

– Michael Harvey
yesterday





William Blake wrote 'dark Satanic mills' in 'Jerusalem', in 1804, but by 2012 the word 'satanic' was sufficiently disconnected from the evil one for the Guardian to lowercase it when discussing the poem.

– Michael Harvey
yesterday




6




6





A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

– Hot Licks
yesterday





A minor point is that "quixotic" is not given a Spanish pronunciation.

– Hot Licks
yesterday




2




2





I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

– DJClayworth
yesterday







I completely agree with the answer to the question Davo linked to, which says essentially the same as mine here. 'balkanization' (meaning fragmentation) is no longer associated with the Balkans, although Americanization definitely refers to America.

– DJClayworth
yesterday






1




1





@Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

– mbrig
11 hours ago





@Juhasz I suspect that this is the best explanation for the trend, but given that its human language and not, perhaps, (classical) physics, the trend is weak and full of confounding factors and sub-trends

– mbrig
11 hours ago











4














Salads can tell us something:




  • Caesar


  • Cobb


  • Waldorf


  • Greek



Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






share|improve this answer
























  • Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

    – Jesse Williams
    12 hours ago
















4














Salads can tell us something:




  • Caesar


  • Cobb


  • Waldorf


  • Greek



Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






share|improve this answer
























  • Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

    – Jesse Williams
    12 hours ago














4












4








4







Salads can tell us something:




  • Caesar


  • Cobb


  • Waldorf


  • Greek



Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.






share|improve this answer













Salads can tell us something:




  • Caesar


  • Cobb


  • Waldorf


  • Greek



Even though these are very common salads, and likely to be served in a variety of ways, their names are usually capitalized.



BTW, I’m using the Wikipedia for consistency, but if you search for them on the internet, the recipe websites tend to follow the same usage.



On the other hand, the porterhouse steak, which the OED attributes to the Porter House eatery in early nineteenth century New York, has lost its capital letter. My theory is that contention over the origin (and differences over what a porterhouse actually is) must have played a role in this.



But I have no larger theory to present, especially since with sauces like Hollandaise and Bearnaise, the English have capitalized what were originally lower case French adjectives, hollandaise and bearnaise.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 21 hours ago









Global CharmGlobal Charm

2,7682413




2,7682413













  • Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

    – Jesse Williams
    12 hours ago



















  • Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

    – Jesse Williams
    12 hours ago

















Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

– Jesse Williams
12 hours ago





Definitely an interesting addition to the conversation, especially the latter with regard to the sauces. Obviously in the end common usage trumps anything related to grammar or syntax when it comes to English, so it's not surprising, necessarily, that these changes occur. It is surprising how seemingly random they can be.

– Jesse Williams
12 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage 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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486432%2fwhy-is-quixotic-not-quixotic-a-proper-adjective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

How to label and detect the document text images

Vallis Paradisi

Tabula Rosettana