Yes, in English, when addressing a centurion specifically by their title, it is capitalized, like "Centurion," as it is a formal title of rank.
In formal writing or when directly addressing someone, Marine title Gunny (short for Gunnery Sergeant) is capitalized. In general text or casual conversation, it is typically not capitalized.
Not in ordinary usage, they are not proper nouns. Of course, if they begin a sentence or are part of a title, they should be capitalized. And some publishers still follow the convention of capitalizing pronouns that refer to the Deity.
Yes except if the word of is there because that is not capitalized.
Yes, "are" should be capitalized if it is the first word in a title.
If you are addressing someone as the president then yes you do capitalize it.
In formal writing or when directly addressing someone, Marine title Gunny (short for Gunnery Sergeant) is capitalized. In general text or casual conversation, it is typically not capitalized.
Yes, 'My Lady' is capitalized when addressing a noble as it is considered a sign of importance.
A noun is capitalized when it is the name of a person or place. Therefore, when you are addressing a manager by their title, you would capitalize: "Yes, Manager". When you are referring to a manager, and not using as a replacement for their name, you would not capitalize.
Not in ordinary usage, they are not proper nouns. Of course, if they begin a sentence or are part of a title, they should be capitalized. And some publishers still follow the convention of capitalizing pronouns that refer to the Deity.
A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.A Roman centurion was a military officer. There were eleven grades or ranks of centurion so the title "centurion" covered a lot of officers. Incidentally, a centurion of the lowest rank commanded a "century" of 80 men, not the 100 men that is erroneously thought to have made up the century.
No. Of course it may depend on the usage, but prepositions are not normally capitalized in a title.
no
no
Yes except if the word of is there because that is not capitalized.
In a title, the word "his" should not be capitalized unless it is the first word of the title or part of a proper noun.
If you are addressing someone as the president then yes you do capitalize it.
"Social worker" should only be capitalized if it is used as part of a specific job title or when directly addressing someone with that title, for example: "Social Worker Smith" or "Hello, Social Worker."