Talk:Blowing In from Chicago

Requested move 25 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:moved.Editors disagree on whether "in" is part of the phrasal verb "Blowing In" or as part of a compound preposition "In from", with some arguing that it is both.

Editors agree that if it is the former it should be capitalized; if it is the latter there is disagreement over whether it should be. However, here editors arguing that it is have the stronger argument; they reference the MOS, which explicitly states it should be capitalized.

As such, I see a clear consensus to move.(closed by non-admin page mover)BilledMammal(talk)03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Blowing in from Chicago→Blowing In from Chicago– proper capitalization of a phrasal verbEugenia ioessa(talk) 19:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)—Relisting.BilledMammal(talk)08:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial YellowingEugenia ioessa(talk)19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• OpposeWhich case should be used should include reference to reliable sources, given the ambiguity in the record title. The cover uses all caps, but the record label, on both the original and all subsequent reissues up to the present, uses "Blowing in from Chicago".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]The work title is evidently a pun, the word "blowing" appearing in hundreds of jazz saxophone and other horn releases as a reference to the wind instrument. Thus the title reads as both <Blowing [saxophones] 'in from' [arrived from] Chicago> or as <'Blowing in' [arriving] from Chicago.> Given this dual reading pun, the title as used on the record is appropriate.Cambial—foliar❧07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  ReadMOS:5.Titles should be capitalized by wiki's mos, not source capitalization. "Blowing In" is a phrasal verb. "In" ought to be capitalized.Eugenia ioessa(talk)08:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't need to read MOS. It's already addressed in my comment. "In" should not be capitalised. The phrase in this title is not simply a phrasal verb. It means "in from Chicago". Your response ignores that fact.Cambial—foliar❧09:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. The phrase means "in from Chicago". The noun in the phrase is "Chicago", a proper noun. The preposition in the phrase is "from". The verb in the phrase is "Blowing In", a compound verb. Compound verbs (or, phrasal verbs) are capitalized as verbs.Eugenia ioessa(talk)09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, the title is a pun. In the reading "in from Chicago", Blowing in is not used as a phrasal or compound verb. This means MOS can capitalise it either way. Because it can be capitalised either way, the appropriate course is to look at the record itself. Blowing in should therefore be used. Your responses simply ignore this - the substantive part of my comment - so they are not productive.Cambial—foliar❧09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're saying "In from Chicago" is... a phrasal noun? "In" should still be capitalized then. Either way "In" isn't a preposition in the phrase.Eugenia ioessa(talk)09:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say "In from Chicago" is a phrasal noun. There's no point making things up and claiming I said them: the edit history and conversation is visible to all. "In" is a preposition in the phrase "in from Chicago" (e.g. "she's just in from Chicago" ).Cambial—foliar❧09:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm asking how you parse the title... it has to have a verb and a noun. Is the noun "Chicago" or "In from Chicago"?

  The corresponding verbs are "Blowing In" and "Blowing".

  Either way you parse it "In" isn't a preposition in the title.Eugenia ioessa(talk)10:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated in my original comment, there are two ways to read it, hence the pun. 1. "blowing" is the verb. To blow can be both transitive and intransitive verb. In this case it does not take an object. The second part is like the phrase "she's just in from Chicago", where "in" is a preposition. 2. "blowing in" is the verb. (Additionally, though not relevant in this instance, titles of works do not always conform to strict rules of grammar, so the claim that "it has to have a verb and a noun"will not always apply). With an ambiguous title, it's appropriate to refer to the work itself as well as RS cited in the article.[8][9]Cambial—foliar❧10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then you're parsing the phrase "In from Chicago" as (I believe) an adverb modifying the verb "Blowing", leaving the title as a verb phrase with no object, correct?Eugenia ioessa(talk)10:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's really an adverbial phrase, strictly speaking, but yes I am saying it takes no object in one reading. I'm also saying it is written to be both readings. One of these would take a lowercase "in" under WP style, the other a capital. But as it is ambiguous, because of the wordplay, we look to RS, such as the record itself, AllMusic, Rolling Stone Record Guide, all of which use "Blowing in from Chicago".Cambial—foliar❧10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  In neither reading is "In" a preposition. Don't hand wave and say it's ambiguous. Give me the second (apparently ambiguous) parsing. Is there a preposition in your second parsing? If so, is the preposition "in", "from", or "in from"?Eugenia ioessa(talk)14:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  "In" is a preposition in the reading where "blowing" is the verb. There is no point in claiming I've "hand-waved" when I've done nothing of the sort. The ambiguity is in between the two versions: that's the wordplay I refer to in my original post.Cambial—foliar❧14:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  If "in" is the preposition, then what is "from"? You can't have two prepositions back to back. Youcanhave a compound preposition "in from" (whichMOS:5very clearly states you capitalize the first word for).Eugenia ioessa(talk)17:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  You can have two prepositions in a row. "She came from behind the car"; "they came in from Chicago". I see little value in continuing this almost non-discussion. Rather than bludgeoning the discussion, allow it to run its course.Cambial—foliar❧17:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. That's called a compound preposition. Again, I refer you toMOS:5.The example they use is "Out of", like "Fish Out of Water".Eugenia ioessa(talk)17:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics.Graham(talk)05:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• SupportperMOS:5.Inhere is not a preposition, andeven if it was,it should be capitalized anyway because it would be "the first word in a compound preposition" which MOS:5 says is always capitalized.Nardog(talk)07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support:It seems to potentially be interpreted as part of a phrasal verb "Blowing In", which would be capitalized, or as part of a compound preposition "In from" (see the "Time Out of Mind"example atMOS:5), which would also be capitalized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof(talk)15:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Opposeper Cambial Yellowing. --Necrothesp(talk)12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support.Per Nardog and BarrelProof, the MOS holds that "In" should be capitalized here, regardless of whether it's being used as a preposition in this instance.ModernDayTrilobite(talk•contribs)18:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.