My rule of thumb has been to capitalise when it is used together with a proper name, but not when it is used generically, as in your example. However, I have not really looked into this, which I really should.
Following @karl_lew’s very useful link to the webpage “rules for capitalizing proper nouns”, we probably find all the information we need. It seems “Venerable” should be capitalised if it serves as a title, as it may for ordained clerics in the Church of England. So are the Pali words behind “venerable”, bhante or āyasmā, to be considered as titles? My initial feeling is probably not. These are not titles in the sense of being conferred on the recipient. Also, they are not titles in the sense of being restricted to a limited group of people. It seems from the suttas that both bhante and āyasmā were used quite widely, even when lay people were speaking to each other. On the other hand, we should be careful not to impose narrow modern criteria on an ancient culture in which such criteria may not really be applicable. Perhaps the right question to ask is whether bhante and āyasmā approximate to the modern usage of titles. I am not 100% decided, but for now I think the answer is yes. Since this is so, I will retain the capital “Venerable” when it is used as a title in conjunction with a name.
When “venerable” is used generically, however, it can no longer be considered a title, and should not be capitalised. That’s how it seems to me now. Have I missed anything?
I am unsure about this. It is not clear to me what would be the limits of “religious terms”. It seems like a very broad category. The terms listed on the webpage you link to are very specific. They refer to the name of a religion, adjectives derived from such names, and God. I am not sure how far we can extrapolate from this.
Segment 799: “That brahmin then personally served much rice-porridge and many balls of honey to the Order of monks headed by the Buddha. When the Master had finished his meal and had washed his hands and bowl, the brahmin sat down to one side.”
Removing one extra space between “finished his meal” and “and had washed his hands”.
Segment 872: “After criticizing him, he gave a teaching and addressed the monks:”
The Buddha talks to 1250 monks, so it’s “after criticizing them”.
Following in @sabbamitta’s footsteps: Kathinakkhandhako niṭṭhito.
I’m hoping QA of some sort will happen on what I’ve done… Or I’ll realize as I do more that there’s weird segmentation in stuff I did earlier
Ajahn @Brahmali I’m up for another chapter!
Excellent! It’s wonderful to see this is moving ahead nicely. I get this light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel feeling.
There probably won’t be much Q&A, because I do not expect to review this until everything has been entered. I have no doubt your work is of a high quality. And there is no urgency with any outstanding minor problems. As for weird segmentation, you can expect more of that throughout. I understand the Pali was segmented largely based on the punctuation of the MS text. The problem is that that punctuation is not very reliable, and so things would have seemed strange as you were trying to match the English to the Pali. Moreover, I have not always translated the Pali sentence by sentence, which means discrepancies between the two are likely to be quite common. So please expect more such difficulties.
As for the next chapter, it will be the Camma Khandhaka, the Chapter on Skins. Whereas the Kathina Khandhaka is very technical and probably tedious for most, this chapter is much more “lively”.
Thanks, @sabbamitta. You may be surprised to hear this, but “milch” is actually correct. This is how it is spelt, even in English, when referring to a dairy cow. Who said English was easy!
Oh well, so I have to change it back!
I see you 
…