Odd capitalization question

[KeithD]

Sheikh is a title, not a name. It’d be like capitalizing “duke.”

Or "president" or, in U.S. style, "queen" or "pope" (to the gnashing of teeth of Brits and Catholics).

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Or "president" or, in U.S. style, "queen" or "pope" (to the gnashing of teeth of Brits and Catholics).

The world is full of them.

There are 50+ countries whose head of state is a president. There are two queens regnant (of which Elizabeth is queen of many different countries). A number of churches are led by popes, including the Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian Greek Orthodox churches.

It only matters if speaking of one particular individual, such as Queen Margrethe of Denmark, President Macron of France or Pope Theodore of Alexandria.

 

[KeithD]

The world is full of them.

There are 50+ countries whose head of state is a president. There are two queens regnant (of which Elizabeth is queen of many different countries). A number of churches are led by popes, including the Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian Greek Orthodox churches.

It only matters if speaking of one particular individual, such as Queen Margrethe of Denmark, President Macron of France or Pope Theodore of Alexandria.

The point is, in U.S. style, you only cap the title when it's slapped in front of the name.

Queen Elizabeth
the queen
Elizabeth, the queen
the English queen, Elizabeth

 

[TarnishedPenny]

The point is, in U.S. style, you only cap the title when it's slapped in front of the name.

Queen Elizabeth
the queen
Elizabeth, the queen
the English queen, Elizabeth

Precisely. Perhaps I misunderstood your original.

 

[Athalia]

My take on it, for what it's worth, is to capitalize the word if it makes reference to a particular historical or literary person. Hence:

"He's a regular Einstein."
"She thought she was a real Sheba."
"You're no Sherlock, you know."

In these cases, one is obviously referring to Albert Einstein, the Queen of Sheba, and Sherlock Holmes.

But if no particular reference is intended, it's permitted to use lower case:

"That's a fine sheila over there, innit?"

The only exception I tan think of off hand is "She's a plain Jane." In this case, while no particular Jane is referenced, its use is so common that people wouldn't have made the assumption that you meant a specific Jane. I expect that the lower-case "plain jane" will eventually become standard, as "sheila" is.

 

[KeithD]

My take on it, for what it's worth, is to capitalize the word if it makes reference to a particular historical or literary person. Hence:

"He's a regular Einstein."
"She thought she was a real Sheba."
"You're no Sherlock, you know."

In these cases, one is obviously referring to Albert Einstein, the Queen of Sheba, and Sherlock Holmes.

But if no particular reference is intended, it's permitted to use lower case:

"That's a fine sheila over there, innit?"

The only exception I tan think of off hand is "She's a plain Jane." In this case, while no particular Jane is referenced, its use is so common that people wouldn't have made the assumption that you meant a specific Jane. I expect that the lower-case "plain jane" will eventually become standard, as "sheila" is.

In all of those cases, it's not a given fact that a specific person is being referenced. They all have come to represent types and characteristics. We all know what characteristics we're referencing when invoking an "Einstein" (brilliance in knowledge) or a "sherlock holmes" (brilliance in deductive reasoning). Earlier in the thread I didn't believe that was the case with "sheba." But then I found that it was given by the Urban Dictionary lowercased with a characteristic definition of a very hot woman. So, I've swung to it being OK to lowercase it in erotica writing when it's the characteristic and not the actual queen of Sheba being referenced.

Interestingly enough, Webster's lists "plain Jane" (noun) and "plain-Jane" (adj). I would have thought that Webster's would already have that one lowercased on the same principle used to lowercase "sheila." Unlike "Einstein," "Sherlock," and "Sheba," I don't think "Jane" comes from a specific person but is a play on how ordinary and over-used that name has been.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interestingly enough, Webster's lists "plain Jane" (noun) and "plain-Jane" (adj). I would have thought that Webster's would already have that one lowercased on the same principle used to lowercase "sheila." Unlike "Einstein," "Sherlock," and "Sheba," I don't think "Jane" comes from a specific person but is a play on how ordinary and over-used that name has been.

Muddying the waters a little further: "John Doe" is used as slang for an unnamed person, but men who buy sex are "johns", never capitalised that I've seen.

It wouldn't be the English language if it was 100% consistent.

 

[Voboy]

I think it depends, also, on how much immersion you’re going for in the story.

Noncapitalization will make the reader assume “sheba” is a normal part of everyday speech, especially once you do it twice, and so they’ll immediately figure out its meaning from context. It’ll help them get immersed in the historical period you’re trying to create.

Whereas, if you cap it, the reader will frown and wonder whether they missed you introducing a new character. Until they figure it all out, which will take a bit longer.

I wouldn’t even think twice: I wouldn’t capitalize this any more than I’d capitalize any other colloquial term. As a reader, I’d prefer to see it uncapitalized as well.

 

[NotWise]

I googled "my sheba" (in quotes), as RubenR did. He's right that most occurrences capitalize Sheba, but looking closer, most occurrences are using Sheba as a proper name, not as the 1920's slang.

I did find a couple lyrics from the time, and capitalization was variable. My favorite was from the song "All That Jazz":

Oh, you're gonna see my sheba
Shimmy shake
(And all that jazz )
Oh, she's gonna shimmy till her garters
break
(And all that jazz )
...

FWIW, the lexicon I found most useful for 1920's slang does not capitalize either sheba or sheik. I don't know that capitalization was really the lexicon's full suit, and I suspect that inconsistency may have ruled.

Also, my thanks to RubenR for a great beta read. This question arose because of his comments on my story.

 

[KeithD]

I don't know how "sheik" crept into the discussion. It's a title, not a personal name.

 

[NotWise]

I don't know how "sheik" crept into the discussion. It's a title, not a personal name.

I brought it up. The words "sheba" and "sheik" were used symmetrically for girlfriend and boyfriend. "Sheba" from the silent flick The Queen of Sheba and "sheik" from the Rudolf Valentino silent The Sheik. There hasn't been much question over the capitalization of "sheik."

 

[JJonah]

I brought it up. The words "sheba" and "sheik" were used symmetrically for girlfriend and boyfriend. "Sheba" from the silent flick The Queen of Sheba and "sheik" from the Rudolf Valentino silent The Sheik. There hasn't been much question over the capitalization of "sheik."

Actually, there’s been no question whatsoever.

So why not keep the two parallel?

 

[KeithD]

Do you mean keep them Separate? One is a title and the other is a personal name.

 

[JJonah]

Do you mean keep them Separate? One is a title and the other is a personal name.

No.

I mean that if contemporaries made one of them lowercase despite its appearance as the title of a popular film, they may well have made the other one lowercase as well.

We don’t know. But we could. It’s just a matter of how much time someone wants to spend among microfiche copies of Collier’s. I don’t. Though, if I was writing the story, I would.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No.

I mean that if contemporaries made one of them lowercase despite its appearance as the title of a popular film, they may well have made the other one lowercase as well.

The example I quoted up above capitalises "Sheba" but not "shiek" (sic), for what that's worth.

 

[NotWise]

The example I quoted up above capitalises "Sheba" but not "shiek" (sic), for what that's worth.

The lyrics I quoted a few messages back didn't capitalize sheba. I found (but didin't cite) another lyric that I found in two different places. One source capitalized Sheba and Shiek, and the other capitalized Sheba, but not sheik.

There are several lexicon's of slang from the period, and they are inconsistent in their capitalization of Sheba.

 

[NotWise]

So, you can't do it wrong, and the choice is up to you, I guess. Going back to your story, unconsciously (I guess), you capitalized it twice, and didn't do it the third time

It looks like I was being more authentic than I intended

EDIT:

I lowercased the word in all three occurrences. I suspect that uppercase would be more correct, but I'm dealing with a readership that is probably not going to find 1920s slang to be all that easy to follow. Keeping it lowercase reduces the possibility that readers will think I've introduced a new character named Sheba (as Voboy pointed out earlier).

 

[NotWise]

(if you question its relevance with erotica, check the third row, 2nd and 4th picture), and I have visited the ruins of the palace of the Queen of Sheba, in Axum,

What's going on in the 1st and 3rd pictures in that row?

According to the Ethiopians, her name was Makeda, and she was deceived by King Solomon, who was a famous womanizer. The Falasha, Ethiopian Jews, claim to be their descendants.

I've heard the story told that way, too.

 

[NotWise]

I think, in that first picture, they are preparing to go to bed, in the second, they sleep chastely, in the third, Queen Makeda is caught, taking the water, and in the fourth, their child is begotten.

Ah, the Wisdom of Solomon.

Of course, in the movie that the slang term came from, The Queen of Sheba was a scantily-clad white girl. As if Sheba was somewhere near Norway.

It amazes me what they could get away with in major movies back then. The very Christian Ben Hur had topless girls, a naked man filmed from the back, and I think Iras (Carmel Myers) would have been showing her muff if she hadn't kept something dangling in front of her -- or had it shaved.

 

[Touch_type]

Consistency is the most important thing. I once worked with a multi-national group (inc several Americans) editing a publication in English. Debates went on for literally months. Eventually we adopted the New York Times style guide and just used that (The Times and The Guardian produce similar guides for Anglophiles). End of discussions.

If you want a real doozy of an argument, try transliterated names. There are numerous ways of spelling Muhammad, for instance. We decided to use just one, unless the Muhammad in questions was a published author or public figure with an already established reputation. Explaining to people we were spelling their name our way regardless of their view was always a diplomatic challenge.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Explaining to people we were spelling their name our way regardless of their view was always a diplomatic challenge.

Huh? Saying to a living person, "I'm not going to spell your name the way you spell it" is an astonishing editorial arrogance, no matter what justification you bring to it.

I get the problem with translations and writing history, but if a bloke's name is Ffred with two Fs his name is Ffred, not Fred. I'd tell you to ffuck offf, if I was Ffred.

 

[KeithD]

Huh? Saying to a living person, "I'm not going to spell your name the way you spell it" is an astonishing editorial arrogance, no matter what justification you bring to it.

I get the problem with translations and writing history, but if a bloke's name is Ffred with two Fs his name is Ffred, not Fred. I'd tell you to ffuck offf, if I was Ffred.

Well, not always. Certainly not for government purposes. For research retrieval, you really do want it only one way. The GPO (Government Printing Office) controls the uniform spelling of foreign officials' names (for U.S. use), although they tend to take the coordinated CIA linguists' transliteration of foreign names (this is also true for the National Geographic Survey and foreign place names). If you are doing detailed analysis on a foreign (to the United States) figure, you don't want to have to be collecting separate searches on all known transliterations of Mohamed/Muhammed. That's not arrogance; that's trying to be comprehensive and not overlooking something.

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you want a real doozy of an argument, try transliterated names. There are numerous ways of spelling Muhammad, for instance. We decided to use just one, unless the Muhammad in questions was a published author or public figure with an already established reputation. Explaining to people we were spelling their name our way regardless of their view was always a diplomatic challenge.

How did you handle Western names with multiple spellings, like Graeme/Grahame/Graham, Ian/Iain, Brian/Bryan/Bryen/Brien/Briain, Chris/Kris/Krys, Robin/Robyn, Sean/Shane, and so on? If you were standardising "Muhammad" but not those, I can see that giving offence.

I remember a mathematics problem I got back in high school: how many different ways are there to transliterate Чебышёв into English?

I think it worked out at about 84. Wiki acknowledges Chebyshev, Chebychev, Chebysheff, Chebychov, Chebyshov, Tchebychev, Tchebycheff, Tschebyschev, Tschebyschef, and Tschebyscheff, just for starters, but there were many more.

Well, not always. Certainly not for government purposes. For research retrieval, you really do want it only one way. The GPO (Government Printing Office) controls the uniform spelling of foreign officials' names (for U.S. use), although they tend to take the coordinated CIA linguists' transliteration of foreign names (this is also true for the National Geographic Survey and foreign place names). If you are doing detailed analysis on a foreign (to the United States) figure, you don't want to have to be collecting separate searches on all known transliterations of Mohamed/Muhammed. That's not arrogance; that's trying to be comprehensive and not overlooking something.

Makes sense in that context. I expect that the diplomatic corps would have kept track of people's preferred spellings and observed those in correspondence, though?

These days, search doesn't need to be such an issue. Google is quite capable of recognising that a search for "Mohammed" should include results on "Muhammad". But not all search systems are up to speed on that kind of thing.

 

[KeithD]

Makes sense in that context. I expect that the diplomatic corps would have kept track of people's preferred spellings and observed those in correspondence, though?

These days, search doesn't need to be such an issue. Google is quite capable of recognising that a search for "Mohammed" should include results on "Muhammad". But not all search systems are up to speed on that kind of thing.

I would imagine that you're right about addressing documents to individuals. I only had involvement in how the government indexed them in their research databases (and the indexes didn't include personally preferred spelling variations. Seems they probably should have)--and that was well before Google was being used by anyone.

 

[JJonah]

I would imagine that you're right about addressing documents to individuals. I only had involvement in how the government indexed them in their research databases (and the indexes didn't include personally preferred spelling variations. Seems they probably should have)--and that was well before Google was being used by anyone.

Seen more recently in the increasingly ludicrous attempts by the .gov to insist that ISIL was appropriate, despite everyone else in America calling it ISIS.

For years, the .gov used “UBL” to refer to Osama bin Laden, based on a transliteration that spelt his first name Usama. AFAIK they still use UBL in official documents and briefing materials, no matter that everyone else spells it with an O.