That is a very good way of putting it: it isn’t standard. In English, not much is standard, for several reasons. One is that English is one of a group of languages which do not have a legal authority in charge of style guides. (There are some languages which do. France has an established legal body in charge of authorizing changes to the French language, for example.)Overall it’s a recent thing I’ve realized that the capitalization of God’s pronouns (example: and He said) isn’t standard.
I hope the above answers your question: some secular groups “declared” that it’s not proper English to do so, and publishing houses decided to do what those secular groups decided in order to “count” as stylistically proper in the secular community.For example the books in the narthex with the mass’ reading (missal?) doesn’t capitalize those pronouns so I’ve seen it written like “and his glory” or whatnot. So I’m curious then why it seems to differ considering the convention of capitalizing those pronouns seems widespread.
Capitalizing pronouns referring to God is a pious practice, but it’s not part of the English standard. And there is no religious requirement to do so, either from the Church or anyone else. I never capitalize pronouns just because they refer to God, outside of the regular English capitalization rules.Overall it’s a recent thing I’ve realized that the capitalization of God’s pronouns (example: and He said) isn’t standard. For example the books in the narthex with the mass’ reading (missal?) doesn’t capitalize those pronouns so I’ve seen it written like “and his glory” or whatnot. So I’m curious then why it seems to differ considering the convention of capitalizing those pronouns seems widespread.
The G-d one is interesting to me. The normal spelling is not the name of God, it’s a description of the category of being He is. (Actually that sounds inaccurate too, but meh, that’s not my point.) It seems that the spelling “G-d” is similar to the spelling “God” in the following way: both are an attempt to find an acceptable term for the divine being. If we are unworthy to write one term, aren’t we just as unworthy to write the second term? Should we replace “G-d” too with finding like “G–”, and “G–” with just a series of dashes?Pax et Bonum! I use capitals for the pronoun (He) for God/Jesus and I believe I was taught this as a child that it was out of reverence. I think the Orthodox Jews did or still do leave a letter out of the word G-d when they are writing it and it is for the same reason - reverence and accepting we are not worthy or humility. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
Pax et Bonum! I don’t think in the Orthodox Jewish religion it is a devotion. I think the reason may be for the care and precision they have for writing the word of G-d or interpreting His word. At one time, as you know, only the Scribes did the official writing of documents and writing of this nature especially about G-d, was considered very sacred texts. They expressed it in this way - not just what they wrote, but how they wrote it. Perhaps someone will know more about the topic and tell us…angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]The G-d one is interesting to me. The normal spelling is not the name of God, it’s a description of the category of being He is. (Actually that sounds inaccurate too, but meh, that’s not my point.) It seems that the spelling “G-d” is similar to the spelling “God” in the following way: both are an attempt to find an acceptable term for the divine being. If we are unworthy to write one term, aren’t we just as unworthy to write the second term? Should we replace “G-d” too with finding like “G–”, and “G–” with just a series of dashes?
(This post is not a serious criticism of this practice, which I suppose is devotional and not required.)