D
Deleted member 4007
Guest
Thanks to Gryphos' thread for answering some questions. It inspired me to do this one.
Mine extends to a question about species combined with nationalities.
In my novels, I have different species of hominids, that occupy different countries. They are the following: humans, thals, Jarthuvians and Malladrians.
The reason Jarthuvians and Malladrians are capitalised is because they came primarily from Jarthuvia and Mallados respectively. Since the humans and thals are like the Western culture of the Renaissance, i.e., they colonised much of the world, their system of everything is the most universally used.
Here's a link to put it in perspective:
The Aboriginal people of Australia never left Australia. Now assume that we called the country Australia, and all Aboriginal people were called Australians, and new white settlers were not called Australians.
Now assume that different ethnicities in my book are different subspecies of human. Here is the capitalisation question: Would you capitalise it to call them Jarthuvians, or would you say jarthuvians?
I'm interested to know - since there are no real-life instances, where a subspecies is identical to the country in name. Or am I wrong?
I still don't know whether I'm being clear here - there are 4 different species (like elf & dwarf kinda thing). Humans and thals are not capitalised, as they have been defined as species since antiquity. But these two other species, Jarthuvians and Malladrians, the two that rarely leave their own country, and, due to the racism and injustice of the industrial-era setting of my book, have not been classified beyond the place they come from.
Mine extends to a question about species combined with nationalities.
In my novels, I have different species of hominids, that occupy different countries. They are the following: humans, thals, Jarthuvians and Malladrians.
The reason Jarthuvians and Malladrians are capitalised is because they came primarily from Jarthuvia and Mallados respectively. Since the humans and thals are like the Western culture of the Renaissance, i.e., they colonised much of the world, their system of everything is the most universally used.
Here's a link to put it in perspective:
The Aboriginal people of Australia never left Australia. Now assume that we called the country Australia, and all Aboriginal people were called Australians, and new white settlers were not called Australians.
Now assume that different ethnicities in my book are different subspecies of human. Here is the capitalisation question: Would you capitalise it to call them Jarthuvians, or would you say jarthuvians?
I'm interested to know - since there are no real-life instances, where a subspecies is identical to the country in name. Or am I wrong?
I still don't know whether I'm being clear here - there are 4 different species (like elf & dwarf kinda thing). Humans and thals are not capitalised, as they have been defined as species since antiquity. But these two other species, Jarthuvians and Malladrians, the two that rarely leave their own country, and, due to the racism and injustice of the industrial-era setting of my book, have not been classified beyond the place they come from.
Istar
Maester
