Quoting bad English
Jason Kirk
source (usenet or message board post, web-log feed) and that source is in
a form of "internet English" (no capitalisation or punctuation, random
spelling) can I correct the grammar? I'm uneasy about editing quoted
material, but sometimes it is necessary to make the quote readable. Are
there any guidelinee/best-practice for this sort of situation?
-Jason Kirk
Simon R. Hughes
You can, but should you?
Where are you quoting it? Different publications have different
standards.
If I found myself in the bizarre situation of quoting in an academic
essay sub-standard English, I would feel uncomfortable about
changing a thing. If I did change anything, I would give the source
in a footnote.
However, were I writing a journalistic piece, I would have few
qualms about making the writer appear more eloquent than in reality.
Another point to consider: Will the writer read it, and perhaps take
offense?
--
Simon R. Hughes
War is Peace!
richard.chambers7
"Jason Kirk" <use...@captain.custard.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.25....@captain.custard.org...
The usual procedure for quoting bad English is to quote it word for word,
followed by the Latin word /(sic)/ , italicised and in brackets. The Oxford
Encyclopedic English Dictionary gives the definition of /sic/ as ""used,
spelt, etc, as written (confirming, or calling attention to, the form of
quoted or copied words)". A Latin word meaning "so, thus". In effect, when
you add /(sic)/ to a quotation, you are saying "Don't blame me for the
English grammar and spelling, I'm only quoting it as I found it".
In an extreme case, where the English is so bad that the reader might not
understand the quotation, you should quote word-for-word with a /(sic)/,
followed by a translation into standard English. Preface your translation
with an introductory phrase such as "I take this to mean . . . " or "In
standard English, this means . . . ".
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Arcadian Rises
>I've got a quick question. If I'm using a quotation from an informal text
>source (usenet or message board post, web-log feed) and that source is in
>a form of "internet English" (no capitalisation or punctuation, random
>spelling) can I correct the grammar?
A quote is a quote.
> I'm uneasy about editing quoted
>material, but sometimes it is necessary to make the quote readable. Are
>there any guidelinee/best-practice for this sort of situation?
Leave the text as it is, but sse the brackets -->[ ] for any necessary
explanation within the text.
>
>
>
>
>
Robert Lieblich
There's no universal guideline. You can do it either way. It's up
to you (or your editor) to decide which is preferable.
Lawyers are among those who tend to quote things exactly. When
reproducing an error, they use "[sic]" (without the quotation marks,
of course) to indicate that the error is in the orignial text. A
couple of examples:
"The French insisted that they was [sic] not going to support the
US."
"In Shakespeare's *MacBeth* [sic} the players reenact the murder of
the king."
Note that the second contains an error of fact (the reenactment is
in *Hamlet*), not of grammar or usage. Same "[sic]".
Sometimes the best course is to quote a text with multiple errors
exactly and warn the reader at the beginning: "The text of the
letter (reproduced exactly, complete with errors) is as follows: ...
"
Or, if you choose the alternative course of cleaning it up, you
might choose to tell the reader that ("Here is the letter I received
(edited to remove some error of grammar and spelling)"), or you
might not. Again, you have to decide.
--
Bob Lieblich
Your choice
Jason Kirk
> Thus Spake Jason Kirk:
> You can, but should you?
>
> Where are you quoting it? Different publications have different
> standards.
>
> If I found myself in the bizarre situation of quoting in an academic
> essay sub-standard English, I would feel uncomfortable about
> changing a thing. If I did change anything, I would give the source
> in a footnote.
>
> However, were I writing a journalistic piece, I would have few
> qualms about making the writer appear more eloquent than in reality.
The quotation was going to be used in an electronic essay. My job as a
research scientist means that the advice that the other posts have given
about the [sic] notation is very useful, but in this case I think it is
overtly formal.
> Another point to consider: Will the writer read it, and perhaps take
> offense?
There is a chance the source could read the essay. Considering the
material, I think it is best if I paraphrase rather than quote directly
and give a hyperlink to the original source.
Thanks to everybody who responded to my question.
-Jason Kirk
Tom Henderson
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>The usual procedure for quoting bad English is to quote it word for word,
>followed by the Latin word /(sic)/ , italicised and in brackets. The Oxford
>Encyclopedic English Dictionary gives the definition of /sic/ as ""used,
>spelt, etc, as written (confirming, or calling attention to, the form of
>quoted or copied words)". A Latin word meaning "so, thus". In effect, when
>you add /(sic)/ to a quotation, you are saying "Don't blame me for the
>English grammar and spelling, I'm only quoting it as I found it".
>
>In an extreme case, where the English is so bad that the reader might not
>understand the quotation, you should quote word-for-word with a /(sic)/,
>followed by a translation into standard English. Preface your translation
>with an introductory phrase such as "I take this to mean . . . " or "In
>standard English, this means . . . ".
>
>Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
>
That is really a good idea.
Bruce Tober
<shu...@tromso.online.no> writes
>If I found myself in the bizarre situation of quoting in an academic
>essay sub-standard English, I would feel uncomfortable about
>changing a thing. If I did change anything, I would give the source
>in a footnote.
>
>However, were I writing a journalistic piece, I would have few
>qualms about making the writer appear more eloquent than in reality.
>
>Another point to consider: Will the writer read it, and perhaps take
>offense?
While I agree with your comments I would just add that perhaps the
solution is to write to the person you want to quote asking permission
to quote him by showing him your edited version.
>
--
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> , <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk> |
| UK, +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) +44-121-553-4284 (land) |
| Now represented by The Speakers Agency Ltd |
| <http://www.thespeakersagency.com/speakerdetail.asp?speaker=160> |
Gerry
"Bruce Tober" <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3SoPrHQp...@btinternet.com...
> In message <MPG.1913d747b...@news.online.no>, Simon R. Hughes
> <shu...@tromso.online.no> writes
>
> >If I found myself in the bizarre situation of quoting in an academic
> >essay sub-standard English, I would feel uncomfortable about
> >changing a thing. If I did change anything, I would give the source
> >in a footnote.
> >
> >However, were I writing a journalistic piece, I would have few
> >qualms about making the writer appear more eloquent than in reality.
> >
> >Another point to consider: Will the writer read it, and perhaps take
> >offense?
>
> While I agree with your comments I would just add that perhaps the
> solution is to write to the person you want to quote asking permission
> to quote him by showing him your edited version.
I favor the use of "sic". Here is a definition from www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: 3sic
Pronunciation: 'sik, 'sEk
Function: adverb
Etymology: Latin, so, thus -- more at SO
Date: circa 1859
: intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to
indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it
exactly reproduces an original <said he seed [sic] it all>
--
Regards,
Gerry
g[underscore]cechony [at] hotmail [period] com
Bruce Tober
<no...@nospam.com> writes
>I favor the use of "sic". Here is a definition from www.m-w.com:
So would I normally, however, when quoting "rom an informal text source
(usenet or message board post, web-log feed) and that source is in a
form of "internet English" (no capitalisation or punctuation, random
spelling)", that's rather a pia. halve u evr scene the weigh sum ppl
rite online its abismel.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I favor the use of "sic". Here is a definition from www.m-w.com:
>
> Main Entry: 3sic
> Pronunciation: 'sik, 'sEk
> Function: adverb
> Etymology: Latin, so, thus -- more at SO
> Date: circa 1859
> : intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to
> indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it
> exactly reproduces an original <said he seed [sic] it all>
However,
In general, however, "sic" is hostile. To correct an error in a
quotation[1] is merely condescending; to leave it in and sic it is
an atack. Be warned, and do not take up arms unknowingly. Avoid
using "sic" to show how precise and knowledgeable you are, and
above all make sure that the error you point out is really wrong.
She who sics the blameless phrase
Hoping she will gather praise
Makes herself a double fool,
Wrong and pompous. Mind the rule:
Sic less, and you won't be sorrier;
Sic more, and _sic transit gloria_.
Mary-Claire van Leunen, _A Handbook for Scholars_
(rev. ed.), p. 84.
[1] By this, she means replacing the word with a correction in
brackets.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Dennis Brennan
To avoid the condescension or hostility that some might read into
"sic", how about quoting the original verbatim, then adding a
parenthetical or footnote reading "So in original"?
-Dennis
D.G. Bly
I needed this. (Only one more day in the semester, and teachermama
needs a break....)
What a lovely quote (a keeper). Applause to he who sent it.
yours,
Deborah
nyc
CyberCypher
news:070520030210001834%dg...@pipeline.com:
> Thank you, Evan Kirshenbaum, for sending such a beautiful post.
>
> I needed this. (Only one more day in the semester, and teachermama
> needs a break....)
>
> What a lovely quote (a keeper). Applause to he who sent it.
"to him who sent it".
--
Franke: Sick of Transiting Gloria