(02-01-2020, 10:32 PM)Mattias Westlund Wrote: Terry, Nayrb, thank you for clearing that up. It makes sense, when I think about it, to capitalize a title when attached to a specific person. I've never actually made that connection! And I'm not sure books I've read are all 100% consistent in this matter either, which makes things even more confusing. So in other words (using an example from SoD) the Steward Lothandel should be referred to as the Steward, but his office is simply that of a steward. Right?
As for "patrican"... I know. I was trying to come up with something antiquated-sounding but you're right, it's too close. I'll need to think of something else. Terry: Regarding judiciate, thanks! A judiciate was basically a senator in Uldani times; a patrican (or, well, whatever I'm going to call this upper layer of land-owning nobles) that has temporarily given up his lands and duties to serve in the Tribunate, the Uldani senate.
Edit: To be clear, the reason I'm not just using existing Roman titles is that I don't want to overdo it with the Roman influences. Yes, the Uldani were similar in many ways, but not exactly the same. And sure, I could just make up random stuff like blaghor or fnugtweg for titles. But I want it to sound like actual words in English.
Well, technically Lothandel is still just a steward, even if he is the steward. King Arthur is both a king as well as the king (at one time). The title is only ever capitalized if it's part of a proper noun. Here's another link on the subject, although it focuses primarily to professional writing, the rules are basically the same:
https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/capita...ob-titles/
In examples like God (and His pronouns), or the Autarch (from Tad Williams' Shadowmarch) the capitalization is a convention typically associated with divinity. It's a subtle difference because Autarch is a personal title, but a difference nonetheless.
Language is always changing, and there was a time when such titles were capitalized in English writing no matter what. But the rules are of course different today. Then there are the various conventions providing exceptions to whatever rules you can find.
I have a copy of the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style in my lap right now and it says, "Titles and offices--the general rule. Civil, military, religious and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (typically replacing the title holder's first name). In formal prose and other generic text (as opposed to promotional or ceremonial contexts or a heading), titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name..." (Section 8.18)
It goes on to give these examples:
President Lincoln; the president
General Bradley; the general
Cardinal Newman; the cardinal
Governors Quinn and Paterson; the governors
The section goes on to clarify that it is perfectly correct to use both first and second names after a capitalized title: President Abraham Lincoln.
Chicago Manual of Style, as I understand it, is the most widely used format in English editorial practice; so most of the books you're reading in English have probably been subjected to its protocols*. The book I have is the one I had to buy for the editing class I was taking (I dropped it because I am a literature major and wanted to focus my attention on my Science Fiction Vanguards: New Wave and Cyberpunk class). In any case, I have the book, and even though it appears it was succeeded by a 17th edition, it seems 16 is still considered valid.
I think it's published online as well, but let me know if you want me to look something up in print.
*This is rather presumptuous of me: you might be reading UK editions of English texts, and editorial practice would then be a bit different. But I don't think capitalization rules are much different in either case. I believe there are some differences with regard to titles and the British Royal Family, but I'll need to do more research on that.