Capital letters

[Obi2Kenobi]

I've been talking recently about how I don't like capital letters because they don't add any extra information, so it's just another thing to have to learn to use English properly. However, when I was talking to my friend Colin about this, he said that the purpose of capital letters isn't always to give extra information, but rather, to draw attention to the more important parts of a sentence. To test this hypothesis, we have set up a website that tests reading speed in normal case and lower case paragraphs.

http://colin.shoddybattle.com:81/reading/

It is my expectation that the proper case reading tests will have a slightly lower time just because people are more used to it. However, this effect is mitigated by the commonality of lower case sentences on the internet.

So, go to the reading test and give us some data! I'll be sure to post my findings here after we've gathered enough data.

If you have any suggestions to improve the test, let me know. :woot:

[kandrathe]

With the number of common names also being common words, I think you are wrong. I jumped for Joy, is different than I jumped for joy. Also, I'm in love with Chastity, would have a much different meaning than I love chastity. A capital letter at the beginning of a sentence lets you know you are starting at the correct place, rather than have skipped over some words perhaps. The syntax of English is fairly sparse anyway.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . I don't like capital letters because they don't add any extra information, . . .

Note that 'God' is not 'god', 'Truth' is not 'truth'.

Not going to bother with your test because whatever the results, you are measuring the wrong thing. You assume that capitals don't convey information but you test how they effect reading speed. If your assumption is wrong (and I for one think it is) then even if all lower case can be read faster, then all you are doing is showing that it possible to convey misinformation more rapidly.

--Pete

[Jester]

One thing you may not capture with that test is reading exhaustion. It may be that a reader of English can, for short bursts, read both types of text at equal speed. However, I suspect that the uncapitalized text is more draining, since it lacks easy cues for the beginning of sentences, which makes reading on autopilot less easy.

That may not be true, but it's something to think about.

-Jester

[shoju]

That was a horrid font choice for this type of test. I found myself re-reading things because the middle of the word seemed blurred or run together, and punctuation was hard to see.


I did 1 test, 2 minutes and change, 4/4 right.


I think you have an interesting theory, but I definitely prefer to read 'properly' capitalized text.

[Archon_Wing]

ithinkcapitalizationisimportantbecauseitmakesthingseasiertoreadspaceshoweverarenotimportantbecauseitdoesntconveyextrainformation.

Well, imo, without some kind of punctuation and capitalization, writing just hits me as a blob of text.:D
Just don't be too lazy with your writing. The amount of effort you put into writing will be related to the amount of effort people read it. And experience tells me the ratio may be close to 1000:1:)

[Obi2Kenobi]

These are the results:

http://colin.shoddybattle.com:81/reading/report.php

It seems that capital letters provide an appreciable increase in reading speed for test 0, but not for the other tests. As you can see, the populations appear to be normally distributed (A*^2 is the adjusted Anderson-Darling statistic), so confidence intervals and hypothesis tests based on the Student t-distribution are valid.

If you have any other particular tests you'd like to see run along these lines, let me know.

I plan on looking into what could possibly have made test 0 (of 0-3) significantly different in terms of reading speed with regard to capitalization, while the other tests were not. This seems interesting enough to look into further.

I also plan on looking into the idea of "reading fatigue" Jester mentioned. The theory is (just to repeat it), people may be able to keep up an equal reading speed in most cases regardless of capitalization, but they might not be able to do so for long periods of time. In other words, there is more of a mental "drain" caused by this. However, it's uncertain whether this is caused by an inherent difference in capitalized vs. non-capitalized sentences, or merely because people are used to reading capitalized letters. I liken it to the difference between qwerty and dvorak keyboards. It's obviously going to slow down a typist when they first begin using a new keyboard, but typists end up at least as fast on dvorak as they are on qwerty.

However, I know of no way to reliably test this. Any long-term study involving a group of people reading lots of lower-case only vs. proper-case only text for a while could always be answered with "Well, they've spent their whole life with primarily proper-case for long texts, so they're still more used to it.", so the hypothesis that capitalization isn't inherently significant in the difference of reading speed + comprehension isn't falsifiable, which is concerning to me.

I would appreciate any possible additions to the next round of capitalization experiments. Other ideas I have for textual experiments are things like combinations of text color (white on black, black on white, various grays, and even more exotic colors like dark blue, brown, purple, red, etc.).

[weakwarrior]

However, I know of no way to reliably test this. Any long-term study involving a group of people reading lots of lower-case only vs. proper-case only text for a while could always be answered with "Well, they've spent their whole life with primarily proper-case for long texts, so they're still more used to it.", so the hypothesis that capitalization isn't inherently significant in the difference of reading speed + comprehension isn't falsifiable, which is concerning to me.

Some languages don't have capital letters, Hebrew comes to mind, so if you could find a way to have the test run in one of those languages with some newly invented capital letter (which doesn't look too different from the non-capital letters - there are different scripts so you could use one of the other scripts for the beginning of sentences) it would be a point of comparison.

Incidentally, the fact that you can't prove that capital letters help doesn't mean you can't prove that they don't. So run the test on a large text, if there is no difference in reading speed then Jester's point is wrong.

[Obi2Kenobi]

Incidentally, the fact that you can't prove that capital letters help doesn't mean you can't prove that they don't. So run the test on a large text, if there is no difference in reading speed then Jester's point is wrong.

My point is that I can only come up with a test that can be reasonably expected to prove my hypothesis right, assuming it is. If my hypothesis is wrong, I don't know how I can prove that. It seems unfair.

[kandrathe]

My point is that I can only come up with a test that can be reasonably expected to prove my hypothesis right, assuming it is. If my hypothesis is wrong, I don't know how I can prove that. It seems unfair.

i grant joy and art foster hope and ralph chuck stew .

[Concillian]

Just saw this and it was the best answer I've seen to this issue:

Capitalization is the the difference between:

I helped my uncle Jack off the horse.
and
i helped my uncle jack off the horse.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just saw this and it was the best answer I've seen to this issue:

Capitalization is the the difference between:

I helped my uncle Jack off the horse.
and
i helped my uncle jack off the horse.

The grammar Nazi in me woke up and said you need some commas. As in "I helped my uncle, Jack, off the horse." Then the capitalization doesn't matter to the meaning.

BTW, if you say it aloud and pay attention, you can hear the pauses.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,
The grammar Nazi in me woke up and said you need some commas. As in "I helped my uncle, Jack, off the horse." Then the capitalization doesn't matter to the meaning.

BTW, if you say it aloud and pay attention, you can hear the pauses.

--Pete

Ah but if the argument is that capital letters don't convey any additional information then you just showed that 1 capital letter carries the same information as 2 commas, at least in that sentence.

I might buy that they only convey redundant information, but they do convey additional information.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ah but if the argument is that capital letters don't convey any additional information then you just showed that 1 capital letter carries the same information as 2 commas, at least in that sentence.

I might buy that they only convey redundant information, but they do convey additional information.

I agree completely. They both convey additional information and when they are redundant, they still aid. For instance, the capital letter starting a sentence is easier to see than is the period ending the previous sentence. The combination of period, extra space, and capital aids reading ease.

On a side note, I saw a show on TV some time ago, either on the History Channel or on one of the educational channels about the evolution of written material. Apparently, at first, there was a tendency not even to leave spaces between words except to avoid some ambiguity. Then there was a period when some punctuation was introduced, but was used more like the rests in music; a way to indicate the position and duration of pauses. Apparently, the intent was to help the reader read the material aloud. I didn't pay much attention to the show, but I did come away with the concept that punctuation in particular, and grammar in general, are a constantly evolving aid to communication. The use of, for instance, capital letters wasn't just something that someone woke up one day and decided to implement. Throwing those rules out should be done with great consideration and care.

--Pete

[Kevin]

I didn't pay much attention to the show, but I did come away with the concept that punctuation in particular, and grammar in general, are a constantly evolving aid to communication.

I've seen similar information before as well though I'm no linguist. The context I got the information in was doing some comparisons to spoken language. Spoken language is constantly evolving as well. New words get invented, other words fall out of use and words take on different meanings and/or connotations. Spoken language is not always an evolution to try and aid in communication either. Sometimes it's intentional obfuscation. A lot of slang is in this category. It's intended that other people don't always understand it, that the true information is not readily apparent. Of course some spoken language evolves to aid with communication as well. But it was mentioned that the general evolution of written language has been to clarify the meaning or try and convey the information that is typically carried in pitch, cadence, inflection, other vocal queues, and other body language.

I don't remember where I got the info or how reputable the source was, but it seems to make sense.

[Concillian]

Hi,
The grammar Nazi in me woke up and said you need some commas. As in "I helped my uncle, Jack, off the horse." Then the capitalization doesn't matter to the meaning.

BTW, if you say it aloud and pay attention, you can hear the pauses.

--Pete

I don't think commas belong in that sentence, even if you would pause in speech, but I'm no English major. Regardless, the analogy holds if you take the word uncle out completely.

I helped Jack off the horse.
i helped jack off the horse.

You can't tell me commas belong in those sentences.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't think commas belong in that sentence, even if you would pause in speech, but I'm no English major.

Actually, the need for commas in that sentence depends on what the intent of the sentence is. Also, on whether you have more than one uncle.

If the sentence means something along the lines of "I helped my uncle *Jack* off the horse" implying that you did not help your uncle Dick, then the commas should be left off. But if it is clear who your uncle is (i.e., Jack) and that information is redundant, then the commas should be used.

Regardless, the analogy holds if you take the word uncle out completely.

I helped Jack off the horse.
i helped jack off the horse.

You can't tell me commas belong in those sentences.

Nope, no commas need apply in this case. The meaning of the first sentence is clear. If the second sentence started with a capital "I", that too would be clear. As it is, it is ambiguous.

However, the point that capitalization imparts information is valid.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,

This is from my thread @ Tom's Hardware: Topic AM3 Gaming Rig. I was researching my new computer build and wanted some tech advice.

pace said: the phenom II 940 will not work in a AM3 board. it will not work with DDR3 ram.

however, if you bought the 955/720/(some more that im missing), you could put those in an AM3 and DDR3 board.

just curious... why Do you Capitalize random Words? it Seems quite Strange.

Hi,

Pace thank you. In answer to your question "why Do you Capitalize random Words? it Seems quite Strange."

I like to Cap certain words for Emphasis 1. special stress laid upon, or importance attached to<..[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emphasis] & I also Cap the first word in a sentance this is proper English composition. I'm Old school not Stupid. I also like to say Hi, it is a greeting :wub:

PS: "i" is a word and should be a Cap "I" where ever it is in a sentence. "

Edit: Fix the links & remove Quote box. :w00t:

pace said:
oh, in no way am i calling you stupid... it just seems that "proper english composition" dictates that you don't emphasize random words. also, you are using the quotes incorrectly, as you are quoting everything... including your own replies

[The Sandcat]

I've been talking recently about how I don't like capital letters because they don't add any extra information, so it's just another thing to have to learn to use English properly.

In German it does add info, it tells you wether a word is a noun, for example, as other words are lower case. If this were the case in English as well, crossword puzzles would be much easier to solve ( in english).
BTW, I guess your first language is not English ?:)

[kandrathe]

I'd say the biggest argument for preserving the standard rules of English grammar would be to look at the state of what some people think is acceptable;<blockquote>Why You shouldnt put ML in old instance Why cuz ppl usualy dont want to roll there and are pretty anoyed with master looter on old bosses usualay that happens when someone wants to ninja loot and i was on such a pug to AQ 40 today, all went well for all bosses ppl needed what they wanted, greeded and passed, mounts went to some etc crap, but when we hitted Cthun RL sudennly chenged from GL to ML, and then fight started, i demanded from him to chenge it back to GL, but he presisted to ML and said to me why i bother if i`m lvl 80, my response was fast and easy then Gl with killing him w/o one of the person who actually know how to do it and i left raid, after that i saw few more person leaving that raid, from what i heard they tryied to kill him few times and wiped on running in and on that clockwise beam cant remember the name of that skill:P. After i left i went with guild to Ulduar 25 man we killed few bosses then lag got us (blizz fail) like always on wensday, we went to VoA 25 man fast kills and then end raiding for that night, i was curiouse about that cthun so i went check if hes still alive, and guess what he was i got few friends from my guild and we 10 maned him in oneshoot (raid that i left had around 20 ppl:P). And thats my answer to a question why not to pull Master Loot in old instances.</blockquote>