New bee flies over dead horse
Jeremy Stanford
quotation
marks. If the quotation is known to be a complete sentence
then the full stop (or, indeed, comma) IS included within
the quotation.
The two, trans-Atlantic, methods officially are:
- Logical punctuation order (British)
- Conventional punctuation order (generally American)
If I may quote (without marks) from an editing primer:
In most modern British books, a closing quote following a
word or phrase usually comes before a full stop, comma or
other punctuation.
E.g.: 'Did you enjoy your visit to "the cradle of jazz",
as they call it?'
Only when a full sentence (with subject and verb, usually
starting with a capital letter) is in quotes does the
closing quote come after the full stop or comma.
E.g.: I replied, 'I had a wonderful time.'
'I hated it,' said Fred.
In American English (and quite often in British novels and
newspapers) the closing quote always comes after the full
stop or comma.
E.g.: 'Did you enjoy your visit to the "cradle of jazz,"
as they call it?'
'I am,' I began, 'the wrong person to ask.'
In logical (British) order, the second sentence would
demand:
'I am', I began, 'the wrong person to ask.'
These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented
speech at that. There may be an issue where a British
publication quotes text from an American publication. Would
it be correct - could it be libellous - to adjust American
punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?
- Jeremy Stanford
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented
>speech at that. There may be an issue where a British
>publication quotes text from an American publication. Would
>it be correct - could it be libellous - to adjust American
>punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?
Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the original. If
the original contains spelling or grammatical errors the copy editor or proof
reader will indicate that they are to be set as is by [sic].
Steve Hayes
haye...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Jody Bilyeu
news:3ff6717e....@news.saix.net...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 01:41:23 -0000, "Jeremy Stanford" <j...@copyfit.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented
> >speech at that. There may be an issue where a British
> >publication quotes text from an American publication. Would
> >it be correct - could it be libellous - to adjust American
> >punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?
>
> Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the original. If
> the original contains spelling or grammatical errors the copy editor or proof
> reader will indicate that they are to be set as is by [sic].
Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for typesetters/proofreaders,
"sic" for authors.
--
Cheers,
Jody
jodyb...@smsu.edu
Skitt
> "Steve Hayes" wrote
>> "Jeremy Stanford" wrote:
>>> These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented
>>> speech at that. There may be an issue where a British
>>> publication quotes text from an American publication. Would
>>> it be correct - could it be libellous - to adjust American
>>> punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?
>>
>> Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the
>> original. If the original contains spelling or grammatical errors
>> the copy editor or proof reader will indicate that they are to be
>> set as is by [sic].
>
> Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for
> typesetters/proofreaders, "sic" for authors.
Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? That's
the way I have used it, not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent
marks.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Jody Bilyeu
news:bt82ou$47rq1$1...@ID-61580.news.uni-berlin.de...
Sheesh--I've certainly had to cancel many, usually marking as I go, and before I
read the whole sentence, flagging an error that might have been, but wasn't.
That's just student papers, though, not galleys, and for grading and marking for
discussion I've learned to use a good old graphite pencil rather than a blue
one, so those inadvertent marks can get cancelled with an eraser.
In the case of proofreading for publishing, I don't know. I've never heard tell
of a generally-used mark that means "Hey, though this might be considered an
error, technically speaking, the author and/or editor want it that way, so leave
it alone." The post above is the first I'd heard that "sic" might be used that
way. I've never seen "sic" used to denote a purposeful "error," but then I've
never worked in a publishing house. It seems to me that "stet" would make a
certain kind of sense in that situation--"let it stand"--as opposed to "sic"--"I
found it thus"--which seems to not quite cover it.
I've emailed _The Atlantic_ to see what they do, at any rate. If they write
back, I'll post. It would be a handy mark to have around the classroom, whatever
it is.
--
Cheers,
Jody
jodyb...@smsu.edu
Donna Richoux
I don't think "inadvertent" describes how we used it, in my editing
days. That sounds to me like the pen accidentally brushed against the
paper.
We used it thus: suppose I was going over someone's writing, marked some
sort of revision, and then I changed my mind. I'd probably draw a line
through the notes I'd made, and write STET to emphasize "Forget the
change, I take it back, let the original stand."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Ross Howard
wrought:
Yep -- with "STET" in the margin and the misrevised text itself
usually underlined with a series of dots.
--
Ross Howard
Steve Hayes
No, "stet" (let it stand) is to uncorrect a correction.
Skitt
My experience comes from The Boeing Company's headquarters, where I briefly
filled in as a technical editor while waiting for my permanent assignment to
an engineering project. I always made sure that I understood the writer's
intent before putting any proofreading marks on the paper.
> In the case of proofreading for publishing, I don't know. I've never
> heard tell of a generally-used mark that means "Hey, though this
> might be considered an error, technically speaking, the author and/or
> editor want it that way, so leave it alone." The post above is the
> first I'd heard that "sic" might be used that way. I've never seen
> "sic" used to denote a purposeful "error," but then I've never worked
> in a publishing house. It seems to me that "stet" would make a
> certain kind of sense in that situation--"let it stand"--as opposed
> to "sic"--"I found it thus"--which seems to not quite cover it.
In technical publishing and in my personal experience, I didn't encounter
the need to leave and mark intentional mistakes.
Skitt
I agree with that usage. I expressed myself poorly.