The earliest use of the word title is for an inscription placed by an object (or person, it comes from the Latin titulus and appears in regards to the inscription “Iesus Nazarenus and Rex Iudaeorum” placed above Christ during the Crucifixion) or a placard in a theatre giving the name of the play currently being shown.

From this another early sense is of the inscription at the top of a chapter or section, or on the cover in the title-page of a book.

However, we do have to think of the book title when we say that it is in this sense so that it can be used as the name of a book should we wish to refer to the book by abbreviating the name. (I was describing the book for about 12 yrs and found that it was wrong). So we have to think about the book title as the title itself.) The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the men perished except himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver’d by Pyrates was best-known by the name “Robinson Crusoe”).

As short titles became common, the title and the name of a book are almost always the same.

There are some exceptions however. Is There a name for *the white Bible + the K&R programming language? Which films were in the movies based on “Empire”? Some songs are known by names other than their titles.

As such, even in those cases you mention as more often having titles than names, the two are overlapping but not identical; such works may have more than one titles, and then my have yet more names again.

But for all that, it’s still the case that the title will almost always be a name, and often recognised as the “real” name.

In simple terms, the case “File Name” is a simpler case. The idea goes back to the compatible Time-Sharing System and “file title” could have arguably have made just as much (metaphorical) sense. In retrospect the jargon chosen works well with the distinction I describe above though, since hierarchical file systems, multi-host systems and aliasing all mean that there is more to the name(s) of a file from a given position in the system than just the title given to it.

And so, a title is what someone has associated with something through printing it on or near them, or otherwise formally asserting is the name, while name is wider again and refers to that it has been formally or informally referred to. By extension, it also applies to where this would often be done even if it never was (a picture with no plaque, a song for which the music or lyrics have never been printed).

So far in some cases where name is also the title (hence films, books, songs, chapters, etc.) Other names (without the caveat about other names already mentioned) we favour the more specific title over the more general name, to the point of this being more idiomatic.

For example a title in the sense of the sense of e.g. an honorific or hereditary title is another case again);

It is listed in several dictionaries here, but in fairness not all of them list the sense it is used in in this case, so I could see how you might have missed it.

Its a colloquial use (and so not found everywhere, and so not considered correct by everyone, and not appropriate for formal use) that serves to emphasise a previous assertion.

You can consider it equivalent to “without doubt”, indubitably, surely, etc. Frequently people whose dialect is such that they don’t use it have another expression they do use, like “for sure”.

As William points out in a comment, it would be common to set off the interjection with a comma.

Life has no meaning, alright.

Which in itself helps prove that “life doesn’t have any meaning” stands as a clause of its

own.

Because some English speakers who felt the need to use the Latin word interceptus in English, did so, creating intercept (Interception came later in a similar manner. I think so and it’s useful or appropriate to express that fact in an English words page).

The Latin word “conceive”, “deceive” and “perceive”, which have similar Latin origins in their -ipere / -eptus (depending on conjugation) endings, came into English from French at an earlier stage, and after they had already been altered to fit Old French.

Because some English speakers who felt the need to use the Latin word interceptus in English, did so, creating intercept (Interception came later in a similar manner. I think so and it’s useful or appropriate to express that fact in an English words page).

The Latin word “conceive”, “deceive” and “perceive”, which have similar Latin origins in their -ipere / -eptus (depending on conjugation) endings, came into English from French at an earlier stage, and after they had already been altered to fit Old French.

Because some English speakers who felt the need to use the Latin word interceptus in English, did so, creating intercept (Interception came later in a similar manner. I think so and it’s useful or appropriate to express that fact in an English words page).

The Latin word “conceive”, “deceive” and “perceive”, which have similar Latin origins in their -ipere / -eptus (depending on conjugation) endings, came into English from French at an earlier stage, and after they had already been altered to fit Old French.

Why is everybody in this whole round world down on me?

Does the “Down on Me” refrain ever really stand as it doesn’t come to you from the first sentence as you’ll be reading the fuller sentence? How often is this said on a song?

Your comment has nothing to do with oral sex, and I suspect that any explanations claiming such are either joking, or wishful thinking. In “At The Las Vegas, the Sea,” Leonard Cohen’s “Clarksea Hotel No.2”, the line with the line “Giving me head, in the unmade bed, while the limousines

wait in the street,” is about “Joplin”.

What is the difference between kinky and Kanshai? Why are they

so close, so that we can combine both their observations together, thus:

Other factors could include earlier texts being more likely to have one misread by Google’s OCR, but it seems a reasonable conclusion.

Is it valid to avoid homophones, but not to horde in relation to other synonyms?

What include the simple fact which is more often seen by readers leading words to be one of the cases where nothing succeeds like success, or the simple fact that which merely looks more Japanese to an English-speaking reader. I immediately thought that Kansai looked like a Japanese word, but didn’t have the same reaction to Kinki, so that would be a reason in itself to favour it for an English-speaking audience. My partner has called me Bent, I’m not naming any future son that if he is going to live in an English-speaking country. ).

Which one is more popular – kansai (I’m a Japanese) or kinki (Asian American) in Japan? Therefore I make more use of it over my other two languages in the Google search.

In Japan it’s possible that English has even influenced the Japanese preference, though we’d need similar data in Japanese to even begin to judge the possibility.

So in all, I think we can say that the similarity to a French word is definitely a very plausible as a reason for favouring one over the other, but it’s not proven, and certainly not proven as the only reason.

What does give up some flexibility in this, though as with other cases where there’s a degree of flexibility, a given style guide may have a firm rule that you should follow, rather than what anyone says.

When creating a compound where one or more of your elements are itself compounds (in this case natural language or natural language depending on whether you decide to hyphenate that as discussed further below), many favour using an en-dash ( – ) over a hyphen, especially if the compound is open (with a space instead of a hyphen). If you have a rule that insists against following this style, as it adds a heirarchy of “levels” to your compounds. I wouldn’t advise that following this style (there’s a precedent for following this style) as a rule would help that you do that. Alternative to natural language regulation. What can I choose, for myself, between natural nature control and natural language control?

How do I hyphenate and still be satisfied?

I would say that in this case if I’d expect people that would be reading the piece to be familiar with the phrase natural language, then I’d favour the open form: natural

language—controlled Because

I would expect many people to “pick up on” the phrase “natural language as a unit.

If I would expect a large number of readers to not be familiar with the phrase, then I’d prefer the closed form:

natural-language–controlled

Because such readers would be more likely to mis-read the “language–controlled” as a unit that is modified by natural, even with the en-dash (after all the difference between -and – is a subtle one).

I’d prefer to read the first two suggestions, but attention must be paid to likely audiences, so I’d go against my own preference if it was for a very broad audience including many unfamiliar with the term natural language.

A general rule is that a comma should be used if the two modifiers both modify the noun, rather than the first one modifying the noun-phrase formed by the second modifier and the noun.

Luggage. It’s a heavy and bulky box.

What are some of my favourite toys?

Heavy applies to box as much as bulky does.

Lovely applies to all hand made toys.

Could you put both and between it without changing the meaning (but being wordier and hence changing emphasis)?

2. Why have we moved to the second case? Where can we switch it?

3. Are they at the same level in what modifier order they are specified (amount or number, general opinion, specific opinion or quality, size, age, shape, color, origin or material, purpose or qualifier, noun-as-modifier). What modifier order?

What are the different methods of spotting the same thing around you as they are different ways of doing it.

(They can be complicated if pair of adjectives become idiomatic, so re-arranging will sound wrong even though its grammatically fine).

Noun or adjectives are ordered between them in the same order as Nouns are ordered between them. The question of modifier order is complicated here because nouns turned to modifiers (3 to ), (“30 days to 30-day, money back from noun to money-back, no risk to no-risk ) always tend to come at the end.

Is money back a qualifier or a definition of an idiom I like to hear? I was slightly more inclined to have “no-risk, 90-day trial”, but not a lot and I wouldn’t expect “90-day and no risk trial”.

In all, I think “the money-back guarantee is for 30 days” is more plausible than “the 30 days guarantee is money-back”; the modifiers aren’t at the same level, they aren’t easily switched, and they don’t work equally well with and.

How

can I run

a demo for

90 days? – Are the “correct” versions?

Are the scare-quotes around “correct” and/or “to the right” there for a reason?

If I’m trying to sell things and to use the guarantee or trial to do so, I may very well want to emphasize “30 day” and “money-back” individual qualities. What would I mean if I had a month to sell a product? No risk, 90 days, the same as the other way around. Why I should use a space between the two?

(It’s also a reason why I should choose to put “no-risk” in front and have “no-risk, 365 days trial” as much as putting a length first would be more common, as it allows for more emphasis on “no-risk”).

I think this is in itself a good example of the difficulties of talking about rules with comma placement, we’ve a very good rule that matches most use that would have us not use a comma but also a perfectly good reason to put it in anyway.

What’s a series name?

In The Ranks of Others, you will find this can be seen followed by others such as here. An example which doesn’t italicise because it isn’t in a headline is here * and one that just uses a style of not italicising is here.

What is the general answer to a question? I cannot use italics, because house style

calls for quotes around the title If you can’t do anything because of

the house style, then do what the house style says to do.

If the house style doesn’t cover the case in question, then do what the person who is in charge of the house style does.

This applies for anything where having a house style causes difficulties. When a house style has a rule about something, then it’s not your problem any more; find out whose problem it is, and have them deal with the problem.

*I never understood what was so “controversial” about someone playing the game properly for one

game. It was well played and acted, but I never understand what was wrong with a player who played “assault and skill” correctly.