Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why do people refer to an iPhone as a proper noun?

Surf Monkey said:
Memories are short, I guess.

This is a specific marketing and Apple culture choice that was made by Steve Jobs himself back in the 80s when the original Macintosh was launched. He wanted it to be a truly personal computer so he directed his staff to refer to it and market it as "Macintosh," not "the Macintosh."

This is well documented Apple history and it's exactly why Apple continues to refer to their products in this way.
Click to expand...

Per my previous post, "the Macintosh" would be grammatically incorrect, as proper nouns are not normally preceded by the indefinite article "the." It would be grammatically correct to use the indefinite article for other more specific references, such as, "I wrote an email on the Macintosh on my desk."

So, technically it's incorrect to write, "Apple released the iPhone 6 today," unless you are referring to the one in your hand.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Per my previous post, "the Macintosh" would be grammatically incorrect, as proper nouns are not normally preceded by the indefinite article "the." It would be grammatically correct to use the indefinite article for other more specific references, such as, "I wrote an email on the Macintosh on my desk."

So, technically it's incorrect to write, "Apple released the iPhone 6 today," unless you are referring to the one in your hand.
Click to expand...

Depends on the context in which you're using it. The Jobs directive had to do with this:

"Today we release Macintosh."

As opposed to this:

"Today we release the Macintosh."

And again, this is well documented Apple history.
 
Surf Monkey said:
Depends on the context in which you're using it. The Jobs directive had to do with this:

"Today we release Macintosh."

As opposed to this:

"Today we release the Macintosh."

And again, this is well documented Apple history.
Click to expand...

So it seem you are saying that the Jobs directive was to not commit a grammatical error.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Per my previous post, "the Macintosh" would be grammatically incorrect, as proper nouns are not normally preceded by the indefinite article "the." It would be grammatically correct to use the indefinite article for other more specific references, such as, "I wrote an email on the Macintosh on my desk."

So, technically it's incorrect to write, "Apple released the iPhone 6 today," unless you are referring to the one in your hand.
Click to expand...

This must be that RDF ive heard so much about. If you think this is proper grammar you need to go back to grade school. My 8 year old knows better.

When referring to a Honda civics has mileage, you wouldn't say "Civic has great has mileage" you'd say "the civic has great gas mileage."

Substitute any non-Apple product and you'll see how using iPhone is grammatically incorrect.
 
EvoXOhio said:
This must be that RDF ive heard so much about. If you think this is proper grammar you need to go back to grade school. My 8 year old knows better.

When referring to a Honda civics has mileage, you wouldn't say "Civic has great has mileage" you'd say "the civic has great gas mileage."

Substitute any non-Apple product and you'll see how using iPhone is grammatically incorrect.
Click to expand...

I can't throw my Chicago Manual of Style at you but I can point to the rule as stated here:

Most proper nouns (for example, Fred, New York, Mars, Coca Cola) begin with a capital letter. Proper nouns are not usually preceded by articles or other determiners.
Click to expand...

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/propnounterm.htm

Usually, as in, most of the time.
 
IJ Reilly said:
I can't throw my Chicago Manual of Style at you but I can point to the rule as stated here:



http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/propnounterm.htm

Usually, as in, most of the time.
Click to expand...

Nobody is disagreeing with that. In fact you're missing the point entirely. iPhone is not a proper noun.

"A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which usually refers to a class of entities (city, planet, person, corporation), or non-unique instances of a certain class (a city, another planet, these persons, our corporation)."

iPhone is not a unique entity. It is not a proper noun. That's the whole point here.
 
meistervu said:
What about:

the White House
the Golden Gate Bridge
the Nobel Prize
Click to expand...

One of the many exceptions and variations to the "usual" rule. Section 7 of the Chicago Manual lists many of these. I'm sure you have your copy in front of you for reference.

The point being, it was certainly not wrong or even eccentric of Steve Jobs to dictate that Apple's copy should refer to "Macintosh" instead of "the Macintosh." The general rule of proper nouns and indefinite articles backs it up as being the more correct form for most conditions.
 
Grammar is our attempt to formalize language usage patterns. Languages exist before grammar.

Another way to look a it, there are a bunch of dots, and grammar is our curve fitting equation. Some dots don't fit on that curve, so they are exceptions to the rules.
 
Last edited:
EvoXOhio said:
Nobody is disagreeing with that. In fact you're missing the point entirely. iPhone is not a proper noun.

"A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which usually refers to a class of entities (city, planet, person, corporation), or non-unique instances of a certain class (a city, another planet, these persons, our corporation)."

iPhone is not a unique entity. It is not a proper noun. That's the whole point here.
Click to expand...

Trademarks are proper nouns, per Section 7.121 of the Chicago Manual. It is strange to think of any trademark name not being treated as a proper noun and capitalized. Perhaps you can supply an example.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Trademarks are proper nouns, per Section 7.121 of the Chicago Manual. It is strange to think of any trademark name not being treated as a proper noun and capitalized. Perhaps you can supply an example.
Click to expand...

I gave you an example earlier with the Civic. It's grammatically I correct to refer to it as Civic. It's a Civic or the Civic.

I am not aware of any company other than Apple that refers to their products in such a way. Seriously, think of any consumer product. They're not referenced like Apple references their products. Again, see my Civic example.
 
EvoXOhio said:
I gave you an example earlier with the Civic. It's grammatically I correct to refer to it as Civic. It's a Civic or the Civic.

I am not aware of any company other than Apple that refers to their products in such a way. Seriously, think of any consumer product. They're not referenced like Apple references their products. Again, see my Civic example.
Click to expand...

I not arguing that it's completely incorrect to use indefinite articles in connection with proper nouns (sometimes it is), only that the general rule is to not use them. Perhaps His Steveness was being fussy about not using the indefinite article, but he certainly wasn't wrong. (As for other companies, I'd have to look at their press releases.) In any event, unless I misunderstood your question, you seemed to be asking whether trademark names are proper nouns, and whether proper nouns should be capitalized. They are, and they should. You just did it in your example, so it's unclear why you think it would not be correct for iPhone.
 
IJ Reilly said:
I not arguing that it's completely incorrect to use indefinite articles in connection with proper nouns (sometimes it is), only that the general rule is to not use them. Perhaps His Steveness was being fussy about not using the indefinite article, but he certainly wasn't wrong. (As for other companies, I'd have to look at their press releases.) In any event, unless I misunderstood your question, you seemed to be asking whether trademark names are proper nouns, and whether proper nouns should be capitalized. They are, and they should. You just did it in your example, so it's unclear why you think it would not be correct for iPhone.
Click to expand...

You're again completely missing the point. You seem like a smart person so the only logical conclusion is that you're trolling here. That or RDF effects.

In any case this isn't going anywhere, so I'm going to unsubscribe.
 
I have heard the same sort of setnece structure with Adnroid, Windows, OSX.

Some examples:

Android does this
Windows does that
OSX does does this

I don't find it that weird. Human speach isn;t strictly gramatically correct. Often proper grammar changes over time based on the way it is frequently used.

Why is "texting" now an actual verb? Because we use it as such.
 
EvoXOhio said:
You're again completely missing the point. You seem like a smart person so the only logical conclusion is that you're trolling here. That or RDF effects.

In any case this isn't going anywhere, so I'm going to unsubscribe.
Click to expand...

I was just trying to answer your question. You're the one who decided to respond with insults.

Have a nice day.
 
lordofthereef said:
I don't find it that weird. Human speach isn;t strictly gramatically correct. Often proper grammar changes over time based on the way it is frequently used.

Why is "texting" now an actual verb? Because we use it as such.
Click to expand...

As I commented earlier, grammar comes after languages. So instead of "human speech not strictly grammatically correct," it's more like our speech is more complex than our grammar can cover.

It's like saying, nature doesn't obey our model. It's the other way around: our model doesn't cover nature completely. In parallel, our grammar doesn't cover human speech completely. We list those cases as exceptions to the rule.

It's silly to enforce strict grammar, as silly as it is to force our rules on nature, like all apples should be Red Delicious.
 
meistervu said:
As I commented earlier, grammar comes after languages. So instead of "human speech not strictly grammatically correct," it's more like our speech is more complex than our grammar can cover.

It's like saying, nature doesn't obey our model. It's the other way around: our model doesn't cover nature completely. In parallel, our grammar doesn't cover human speech completely. We list those cases as exceptions to the rule.

It's silly to enforce strict grammar, as silly as it is to force our rules on nature, like all apples should be Red Delicious.
Click to expand...

I don't completely agree with this. There are certain dialects that are not really accepted in the English language. I won't give examples because I am sure someone will say I am stereotyping. Anyway, these dialects are often labeled as "uneducated speak" because it doesn't follow the grammar we consider to be correct.

That said I am not saying you are strictly wrong, but there are proper ways to say things. It's just that sometimes something we once considered improper may eventually be considered proper.

Regardless, I am not trying to be right here. I was only giving my take on the situation.
 
EvoXOhio said:
I gave you an example earlier with the Civic. It's grammatically I correct to refer to it as Civic. It's a Civic or the Civic.

I am not aware of any company other than Apple that refers to their products in such a way. Seriously, think of any consumer product. They're not referenced like Apple references their products. Again, see my Civic example.
Click to expand...

Ford disagrees.
https://media.ford.com/content/ford...off-to-hot-start--best-november-since-06.html

Flat Rock Assembly Plant in Flat Rock, Michigan, where Mustang is produced, is working in high gear to deliver enough 2015 Ford Mustangs to meet voracious demand from driving enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
 
lordofthereef said:
I don't completely agree with this. There are certain dialects that are not really accepted in the English language. I won't give examples because I am sure someone will say I am stereotyping. Anyway, these dialects are often labeled as "uneducated speak" because it doesn't follow the grammar we consider to be correct.

That said I am not saying you are strictly wrong, but there are proper ways to say things. It's just that sometimes something we once considered improper may eventually be considered proper.

Regardless, I am not trying to be right here. I was only giving my take on the situation.
Click to expand...

Actually, among linguists most widely used non-standard forms of English (such as African American Vernacular English aka Ebonics) ARE recognized as accepted dialects of English and have repeatedly been shown to be as complex and grammatical as standard English. They don't follow all the same grammatical structures as standard English, but they have their own common grammatical structures that allow speakers to understand each other when communicating in those dialects.

"Proper" use of a language is far more than simply understanding grammar. Communicative competence is much more complex than that.
 
lordofthereef said:
...Anyway, these dialects are often labeled as "uneducated speak" because it doesn't follow the grammar we consider to be correct.

That said I am not saying you are strictly wrong, but there are proper ways to say things. It's just that sometimes something we once considered improper may eventually be considered proper.

Regardless, I am not trying to be right here. I was only giving my take on the situation.
Click to expand...

I don't claim that I know what I am talking about. I just enjoy a good discussion.

I am the type of person who like to question everything. When you say that there are "proper ways" and "the grammar we consider to be correct," doesn't it sounds like the rules we make up as we go to bring order to society? I don't mind some order. I bothers me to see "its" and "it's" get mixed up all the time.

But on a a philosophical level, I think our thoughts are greater than our language can depict which in turn is greater than the confinement of our grammar.

If there is a good reason to break the rules because the rules don't cover the situation, then we should do it. That's what make us human, not robots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back