Capitalizing words mid-sentence

[Cainntear]

I think it is just a spelling mistake.

OK, but what evidence could there be to distinguish between you and Deinonysus's hypothesis (spelling error/typo) and me von Peterhof's (incorrect application of "divine capitalization convention")?

It would still be a spelling mistake.

Would it be useful to describe it as a spelling mistake and leave it at that, or would it be more useful to describe the thinking behind the mistake...? Given that the OP is a non-native speaker of English and he's asking why the writer does that, I think the latter is true.

I've had plenty of experiences where I've asked "but why is it 'XYZ' and not 'ZYX'" and it's never been particularly helpful to me when someone has said "you don't need to know why, you just need to know it's right". I just think that in a discussion board, we have to just discuss things. "Spelling mistake" isn't much better than simply "that's wrong" -- it's useful to understand how and why.

[Mike373]

I think it is just a spelling mistake.

OK, but what evidence could there be to distinguish between you and Deinonysus's hypothesis (spelling error/typo) and me von Peterhof's (incorrect application of "divine capitalization convention")?

...

...

Are there capitalisations like this through the whole book?

Yes, there are.

[Mike373]

I think it is just a spelling mistake.

OK, but what evidence could there be to distinguish between you and Deinonysus's hypothesis (spelling error/typo) and me von Peterhof's (incorrect application of "divine capitalization convention")?

It would still be a spelling mistake.

With all due respect ,I strongly disagree with you.
I have the physical book and have searched almost the entire internet and read other editions as well.
But still, i don't think it's a spelling mistake or a typo.

[lingohot]

I think it is just a spelling mistake.

OK, but what evidence could there be to distinguish between you and Deinonysus's hypothesis (spelling error/typo) and me von Peterhof's (incorrect application of "divine capitalization convention")?

It would still be a spelling mistake.

With all due respect ,I strongly disagree with you.
I have the physical book and have searched almost the entire internet and read other editions as well.
But still, i don't think it's a spelling mistake or a typo.

Because...?

[Cainntear]

With all due respect ,I strongly disagree with you.
I have the physical book and have searched almost the entire internet and read other editions as well.
But still, i don't think it's a spelling mistake or a typo.

Because...?

Does it not seem like a bit of a double standard when you make bald statements using a handful of words, with no real explanation of what you mean, then challenge others to explain themselves when they've already said more than you have?

[Mike373]

I think it is just a spelling mistake.

OK, but what evidence could there be to distinguish between you and Deinonysus's hypothesis (spelling error/typo) and me von Peterhof's (incorrect application of "divine capitalization convention")?

It would still be a spelling mistake.

With all due respect ,I strongly disagree with you.
I have the physical book and have searched almost the entire internet and read other editions as well.
But still, i don't think it's a spelling mistake or a typo.

Because...?

Because, obviously, these capitalizations were in all of them.