“title” is somewhat graphic – if I can imagine the title written in bold, larger font above the item, it’s a title and if not, it’s a name.

What is so unique about a picture title?

Lastly, speaking of name subjectively – I’d consider its usages a superset of title’s. I am willing to use both and, while getting confused by the latter, I

don’t feel so bad about using both. I can avoid the latter.

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);

Name’ has a Germanic root, but ‘title’ comes from French. When referring to Germanic words (of the French alphabet) the register is always higher than the register of Germanic words because: Germanic: Germanic] is better. But Germanic means able to describe the register well.

Changing the name of a file to “title” implies a respectful elevation of register. I like high-status people, when I meet them – Barons, Dukes, etc. these forms of address called titles.

I suggest attribution of title implies deference, and that it’s pleasant to defer to works of art, like books, or their components, like chapters. Using a ‘name’ implies a practical relationship with the object.

Generally a name refers to a specific thing (distinctive name), and a title refers to a thing that fulfills a requirement or a role (descriptive name).

There is overlap in meaning, especially when used of books and songs.

Generally a name refers to a specific thing (distinctive name), and a title refers to a thing that fulfills a requirement or a role (descriptive name).

There is overlap in meaning, especially when used of books and songs.

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);

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);

Generally a name refers to a specific thing (distinctive name), and a title refers to a thing that fulfills a requirement or a role (descriptive name).

There is overlap in meaning, especially when used of books and songs.

Name’ has a Germanic root, but ‘title’ comes from French. When referring to Germanic words (of the French alphabet) the register is always higher than the register of Germanic words because: Germanic: Germanic] is better. But Germanic means able to describe the register well.

Changing the name of a file to “title” implies a respectful elevation of register. I like high-status people, when I meet them – Barons, Dukes, etc. these forms of address called titles.

I suggest attribution of title implies deference, and that it’s pleasant to defer to works of art, like books, or their components, like chapters. Using a ‘name’ implies a practical relationship with the object.

“title” is somewhat graphic – if I can imagine the title written in bold, larger font above the item, it’s a title and if not, it’s a name.

What is so unique about a picture title?

Lastly, speaking of name subjectively – I’d consider its usages a superset of title’s. I am willing to use both and, while getting confused by the latter, I

don’t feel so bad about using both. I can avoid the latter.