I would like to mention something about this fashion of giving proper names and titles small initial letters. It looks absolutely awfull through my designers eyes. Is it not true that in the written word a proper name is defined by a capital letter? Otherwise, how would you know if it was a proper name or not? Therefore, does it not follow that if a written word does not have a capital letter it cannot by definition be a proper name?
Therefore, in such cases as that rubbish and ludicrously expensive 2012 London Olympics logo the word 'london' on the logo is actually just gobbledygook because without a capital letter it cannot be a proper name and as far as I know there is no such word as 'london'. The only way it could be a proper name is if the first letter was a capital 'i', but is there such a place as Iondon (pronounced 'Eye-ondon')? And if there is, what Olympics are being held there in 2012?
You have to have some way of defining a proper name otherwise confusion can be the result. Example:-
1. We came across a Ford in the road.
2. We came across a ford in the road.
I consider the ignoring of grammer to such an extent as this to be not justified by 'artistic liscense'. It is a poor design that does so in my opinion.
Therefore, in such cases as that rubbish and ludicrously expensive 2012 London Olympics logo the word 'london' on the logo is actually just gobbledygook because without a capital letter it cannot be a proper name and as far as I know there is no such word as 'london'. The only way it could be a proper name is if the first letter was a capital 'i', but is there such a place as Iondon (pronounced 'Eye-ondon')? And if there is, what Olympics are being held there in 2012?
You have to have some way of defining a proper name otherwise confusion can be the result. Example:-
1. We came across a Ford in the road.
2. We came across a ford in the road.
I consider the ignoring of grammer to such an extent as this to be not justified by 'artistic liscense'. It is a poor design that does so in my opinion.