When to use [sic] and when to silently correct

[Paul]

When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions for when
to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently correct
the error without informing the reader?

For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a terrorist
outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people killed".
Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed [sic]."
or "I'm not sure how many people were killed." I much prefer the latter.
Using the direct quote with a "sic" introduces an irrelevant angle to the
story -- grammatical errors that Chinese people sometimes make when they
speak English, and is even arguably racist. However, I have seen this type
of usage of "sic" -- namely telling the reader about a grammatical error when
it could have just been silently corrected.

Any other opinions?

Thank you,

Paul

[Mark Brader]

Paul Epstein:

> When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions
> for when to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently
> correct the error without informing the reader?

> For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a terrorist
> outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people killed".
> Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed [sic]."
> or "I'm not sure how many people were killed."

There are two other choices that I think are better than either of
those. One is to avoid the direct quotation altogether. The other
is to use the edited version but mark the edits with brackets:
"I [am not] sure how many people [were] killed". (Some news sources
may substitute parentheses, perhaps on the grounds that brackets are
too hoity-toity.)

As to what's common or standard, I have no idea. Bill?
--
Mark Brader | "This was the ancient Greek equivalent
Toronto | of 'citation needed'."
m...@vex.net | --Matt Parker

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[GordonD]

On 28/11/2016 10:42, Mark Brader wrote:
> Paul Epstein:
>> When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions
>> for when to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently
>> correct the error without informing the reader?
>
>> For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a terrorist
>> outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people killed".
>> Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed [sic]."
>> or "I'm not sure how many people were killed."
>
> There are two other choices that I think are better than either of
> those. One is to avoid the direct quotation altogether. The other
> is to use the edited version but mark the edits with brackets:
> "I [am not] sure how many people [were] killed".

Whenever I come across a sentence like that I tend to stop reading and
try to work out what has been replaced.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Don Phillipson]

"Paul" <peps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:869548f1-b580-433b...@googlegroups.com...

> For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a terrorist
> outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people killed".
> Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed
> [sic]."
> or "I'm not sure how many people were killed." I much prefer the latter.
> Using the direct quote with a "sic" introduces an irrelevant angle to the
> story -- grammatical errors that Chinese people sometimes make when they
> speak English, and is even arguably racist. However, I have seen this
> type
> of usage of "sic" -- namely telling the reader about a grammatical error
> when
> it could have just been silently corrected.

This proposed editorial change invokes the traditional
distinction between good speech and good writing (and
associated rules for reporting direct and indirect speech:)
but this distinction has by now receded from general
use (cf. the AEU query about writing "YYYUUUUGGGGEEEE".)
Many Internet and book writers apply to their writing the
familiar methods of oratory or speech. This creates more
opportunities to insert [sic] -- as if the speech/writing
distinction were still observed: but it is (usually) not.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 8:41:15 AM UTC-5, Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Paul" <peps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:869548f1-b580-433b...@googlegroups.com...

> > For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a terrorist
> > outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people killed".
> > Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed
> > [sic]."
> > or "I'm not sure how many people were killed." I much prefer the latter.
> > Using the direct quote with a "sic" introduces an irrelevant angle to the
> > story -- grammatical errors that Chinese people sometimes make when they
> > speak English, and is even arguably racist. However, I have seen this
> > type
> > of usage of "sic" -- namely telling the reader about a grammatical error
> > when
> > it could have just been silently corrected.
>
> This proposed editorial change invokes the traditional
> distinction between good speech and good writing (and

How does "good speech" enter the equation wrt a foreign accent?

In this case, paraphrase is clearly the best option.

> associated rules for reporting direct and indirect speech:)
> but this distinction has by now receded from general
> use (cf. the AEU query about writing "YYYUUUUGGGGEEEE".)

This is not AEU.

> Many Internet and book writers apply to their writing the
> familiar methods of oratory or speech. This creates more
> opportunities to insert [sic] -- as if the speech/writing
> distinction were still observed: but it is (usually) not.

One suspects you've never actually seen a transcript of actual speech.

[occam]

Your example of a Chinese witness is a clear case where forgiveness is
called for. Silent correction means however that you cannot quote him.
Quotation marks imply an exact reproduction of what was said, however
wrongly.

If, on the other hand, you are critiquing a literary work where the
author has clearly misused or misspelled a word, 'sic' can be a powerful
tool for undermining his/her credibility. Most of the instances of the
use of "[sic]" I have come across fall under this category.

[bill van]

In article <4eGdnWzdHcCsl6HF...@giganews.com>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Paul Epstein:
> > When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions
> > for when to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently
> > correct the error without informing the reader?
>
> > For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a terrorist
> > outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people killed".
> > Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed
> > [sic]."
> > or "I'm not sure how many people were killed."
>
> There are two other choices that I think are better than either of
> those. One is to avoid the direct quotation altogether. The other
> is to use the edited version but mark the edits with brackets:
> "I [am not] sure how many people [were] killed". (Some news sources
> may substitute parentheses, perhaps on the grounds that brackets are
> too hoity-toity.)
>
> As to what's common or standard, I have no idea. Bill?

Paraphrase: He said he was not sure how many people were killed. That's
assuming you are certain that's what he meant.

Turning a messy sentence into a clean one is for people who write
speeches and news releases. In a journalistic context, putting a
sentence in quote marks means those are the words that came out of his
mouth, in that order.

Partial quotes are sometimes useful, but only if the quoted words are
worth quoting.
--
bill

[Don Phillipson]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:618f50fc-fffe-4d2c...@googlegroups.com...

> One suspects you've never actually seen a transcript of actual speech.

Without disputing the authenticity of this reaction, it genuinely
surprises a person formally trained (by Canadian Hansard) in
editing recorded speech for print, and actually thus employed
(for a brief time, until the next prorogation.) That was 20 years
ago: but I have been exposed to rather a lot of transcripts of
actual speech (since 1971, when assembling a TV documentary
series from transcripts of interviews.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Transcriptions of formal oratory?

Transcriptions of interviews, the format in which the interviewee is
_most_ conscious of their speech and doing a great deal of self-editing?

Transcription of actual speech is fantastically difficult. I refer you
to Hockett et al.'s *The First Five Minutes*, a several-hundred-page
transcription of five minutes of conversation (1959, IIRC) and the
transcripts of the Nixon tapes (the ones that don't have their "expletives deleted").

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> posted:

"Most of the instances of the use of "[sic]" I have come across fall

under [sic] this category."

I can't remember: do we close and re-open quotation marks to permit the
insertion of "[sic]"?
--
Paul

[Richard Heathfield]

You don't need to insert "[sic]", just [sic].

Thus:

According to Mr Harris, "I were [sic] waiting in the queue at the chippy
when this bloke jumps [sic] out and started 'aving a go at this other
geezer, 'e gave 'im a right kicking. 'E were going at it 'ammer and
prongs [sic], I tell you, 'ammer and prongs."

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:14:05 PM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 28/11/16 21:03, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> posted:
> >
> > "Most of the instances of the use of "[sic]" I have come across fall
> > under [sic] this category."
> >
> > I can't remember: do we close and re-open quotation marks to permit the
> > insertion of "[sic]"?
>
> You don't need to insert "[sic]", just [sic].
>
> Thus:
>
> According to Mr Harris, "I were [sic] waiting in the queue at the chippy
> when this bloke jumps [sic] out and started 'aving a go at this other
> geezer, 'e gave 'im a right kicking. 'E were going at it 'ammer and
> prongs [sic], I tell you, 'ammer and prongs."

http://www.marysrosaries.com/collaboration/index.php?title=File:Prongs_and_Hammer_002.jpg

Best,
Helen

[Peter T. Daniels]

No, the square brackets suffice. You can italicize it if you'd like.

[Richard Heathfield]

Strange.

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> posted:

>On 28/11/16 21:03, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> posted:
>>
>> "Most of the instances of the use of "[sic]" I have come across fall
>> under [sic] this category."
>>
>> I can't remember: do we close and re-open quotation marks to permit the
>> insertion of "[sic]"?
>
>You don't need to insert "[sic]", just [sic].

As I did.

Does an instance fall under a category, or in it?

>
>Thus:
>
>According to Mr Harris, "I were [sic] waiting in the queue at the
>chippy when this bloke jumps [sic] out and started 'aving a go at this
>other geezer, 'e gave 'im a right kicking. 'E were going at it 'ammer
>and prongs [sic], I tell you, 'ammer and prongs."
>

--

Paul

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/11/16 22:34, Paul Wolff wrote:

> Does an instance fall under a category, or in it?

Into, methinks.

[Robert Bannister]

I think I've been whooshed. Prongs don't look much like tongs.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

Someone's definitely in the prong.

Sic (transit gloria calcar),
Helen

[Richard Heathfield]

I don't understand why Helen posted the image link, except that the
caption happens to coincide with Mr Harris's[1] malapropism[2] that was
the vehicle for illustrating the usage of the word 'sic'.

[1] Made up character. He doesn't exist.
[2] Strictly speaking, it wasn't Mr Harris's malapropism, because he
doesn't exist. But he was my vehicle for the vehicle for illus... you
get the idea.

[Adam Funk]

I guess at a push you could call the jaws of a pair of tongs "prongs"?



--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. --- David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995

[Adam Funk]

That certainly sounds like the sensible approach.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Janet]

In article <ll20hdx...@news.ducksburg.com>, a24...@ducksburg.com
says...

>
> On 2016-11-29, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> > On 29/11/16 5:34 am, Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:14:05 PM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> On 28/11/16 21:03, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> posted:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Most of the instances of the use of "[sic]" I have come across fall
> >>>> under [sic] this category."
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't remember: do we close and re-open quotation marks to permit the
> >>>> insertion of "[sic]"?
> >>>
> >>> You don't need to insert "[sic]", just [sic].
> >>>
> >>> Thus:
> >>>
> >>> According to Mr Harris, "I were [sic] waiting in the queue at the chippy
> >>> when this bloke jumps [sic] out and started 'aving a go at this other
> >>> geezer, 'e gave 'im a right kicking. 'E were going at it 'ammer and
> >>> prongs [sic], I tell you, 'ammer and prongs."
> >>
> >> http://www.marysrosaries.com/collaboration/index.php?title=File:Prongs_and_Hammer_002.jpg
> >
> > I think I've been whooshed. Prongs don't look much like tongs.
>
> I guess at a push you could call the jaws of a pair of tongs "prongs"?

Pronged tongs are more like pincers.

Janet

[Steve Hayes]

Normally "[sic]" is an instruction to the typesetter not to change it,
and after setting it as it stands, the typesetter removes the "[sic]".

In these days of self-publishing, when people do their own typesetting,
it stands as a notice to the reader that "Yes, I did notice the error,
but it was in the original".

But if quoted material is clearly marked as quoted, any observant reader
would know that, so "[sic]" is in most cases unnecessary, and, indeed,
intrusive. It's like those spectators at sports events who, when they
notice the TV camera is pointed at them, jump up and down yelling and
waving their hands and looking idiotic.
--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:38:43 AM UTC-5, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:31:05 -0800, Paul wrote:
>
> > When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions
> > for when to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently
> > correct the error without informing the reader?
> >
> > For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a
> > terrorist outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people
> > killed".
> > Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed
> > [sic]."
> > or "I'm not sure how many people were killed." I much prefer the
> > latter. Using the direct quote with a "sic" introduces an irrelevant
> > angle to the story -- grammatical errors that Chinese people sometimes
> > make when they speak English, and is even arguably racist. However, I
> > have seen this type of usage of "sic" -- namely telling the reader about
> > a grammatical error when it could have just been silently corrected.
> >
> > Any other opinions?
>
> Normally "[sic]" is an instruction to the typesetter not to change it,
> and after setting it as it stands, the typesetter removes the "[sic]".

This is bizarre.

The slogan in typesetting is "Follow copy if it goes out the window."

"[Sic]" is a note from author to reader noting that a statement is
quoted accurately even if it looks wrong.

> In these days of self-publishing, when people do their own typesetting,
> it stands as a notice to the reader that "Yes, I did notice the error,
> but it was in the original".

Nonsense. Nothing to do with "self-publishing."

> But if quoted material is clearly marked as quoted, any observant reader
> would know that, so "[sic]" is in most cases unnecessary, and, indeed,
> intrusive.

Nonsense.

[CDB]

In the absence of "sic" or the confident expectation of "sic" in the
appropriate place, how does the observant reader know the mistake wasn't
made by the quoter? And is the less-observant reader not at risk of
being led into error by misplaced confidence in a twice-endorsed opinion?

Anyway, it's more like jumping around and saying "Don't look at me."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-11-28 22:03:13 +0100, Paul Wolff

No. Square brackets, even without "sic" inside them, inform readers
that their contents are not part of the quotation.


--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

I've seen a lot of instances that I consider an annoying way to say, "I
disagree, but I'm not going to say why."

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On 11/30/16 2:37 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:31:05 -0800, Paul wrote:
>
>> When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions
>> for when to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently
>> correct the error without informing the reader?
>>
>> For example, suppose you're quoting from a Chinese witness to a
>> terrorist outrage and the witness says "I don't sure how many people
>> killed".
>> Should a journalist quote that as "I don't sure how many people killed
>> [sic]."
>> or "I'm not sure how many people were killed." I much prefer the
>> latter. Using the direct quote with a "sic" introduces an irrelevant
>> angle to the story -- grammatical errors that Chinese people sometimes
>> make when they speak English, and is even arguably racist. However, I
>> have seen this type of usage of "sic" -- namely telling the reader about
>> a grammatical error when it could have just been silently corrected.
>>
>> Any other opinions?
>
> Normally "[sic]" is an instruction to the typesetter not to change it,
> and after setting it as it stands, the typesetter removes the "[sic]".
>
> In these days of self-publishing, when people do their own typesetting,
> it stands as a notice to the reader that "Yes, I did notice the error,
> but it was in the original".

That's the only meaning in the OED, which notes that the entry, from
1910 and thus before self-typesetting, hasn't been fully revised. When
has "sic" been used as an instruction to typesetters?

> But if quoted material is clearly marked as quoted, any observant reader
> would know that, so "[sic]" is in most cases unnecessary, and, indeed,
> intrusive. It's like those spectators at sports events who, when they
> notice the TV camera is pointed at them, jump up and down yelling and
> waving their hands and looking idiotic.

There is a lot of that, but sometimes you need it.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Most of the time there is no reason to draw attention to errors in what
is quoted, especially because literate readers should know that Jane
Austen's spelling of, say, "surprize" is not necessarily the same as
what the quoter would write.

If there is really a point in drawing attention it would be better to
be more explicit than just a [sic]: \footnote{The original source had
"Macchiavelli", but the more usual modern spelling is "Machiavelli"}


--
athel

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/11/16 02:20, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > On 29/11/16 5:34 am, Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:14:05 PM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 28/11/16 21:03, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> posted:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Most of the instances of the use of "[sic]" I have come across fall
> >>>> under [sic] this category."
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't remember: do we close and re-open quotation marks to permit the
> >>>> insertion of "[sic]"?
> >>>
> >>> You don't need to insert "[sic]", just [sic].
> >>>
> >>> Thus:
> >>>
> >>> According to Mr Harris, "I were [sic] waiting in the queue at the chippy
> >>> when this bloke jumps [sic] out and started 'aving a go at this other
> >>> geezer, 'e gave 'im a right kicking. 'E were going at it 'ammer and
> >>> prongs [sic], I tell you, 'ammer and prongs."
> >>
> >> http://www.marysrosaries.com/collaboration/index.php?title=File:Prongs_and_Hammer_002.jpg
> >>
> >
> > I think I've been whooshed. Prongs don't look much like tongs.
>
> I don't understand why Helen posted the image link, except that the
> caption happens to coincide

I thought it would amuse you. Didn't it?

I liked your use of "hammer and prongs," so I scrounged around to see
if I could dig up any other instances of it. There weren't many.

Best,
Helen

[Peter T. Daniels]

Never.

He couldn't be confusing it with "stet," could he?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 30/11/16 17:14, Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 29/11/16 02:20, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 29/11/16 5:34 am, Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:14:05 PM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/16 21:03, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Most of the instances of the use of "[sic]" I have come across fall
>>>>>> under [sic] this category."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't remember: do we close and re-open quotation marks to permit the
>>>>>> insertion of "[sic]"?
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need to insert "[sic]", just [sic].
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus:
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Mr Harris, "I were [sic] waiting in the queue at the chippy
>>>>> when this bloke jumps [sic] out and started 'aving a go at this other
>>>>> geezer, 'e gave 'im a right kicking. 'E were going at it 'ammer and
>>>>> prongs [sic], I tell you, 'ammer and prongs."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.marysrosaries.com/collaboration/index.php?title=File:Prongs_and_Hammer_002.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think I've been whooshed. Prongs don't look much like tongs.
>>
>> I don't understand why Helen posted the image link, except that the
>> caption happens to coincide
>
> I thought it would amuse you. Didn't it?

I did laugh when I saw it, yes. But when Robert asked about it, I
thought there might be some deeper point to it that I wasn't seeing.

> I liked your use of "hammer and prongs," so I scrounged around to see
> if I could dig up any other instances of it. There weren't many.

I sit at the feet of Mrs M.

[RH Draney]

Because maybe, just maybe, they're right and you're wrong:

"Ingersoll soon got his just deserts [sic]."

....r

[Jerry Friedman]

That can happen too.

> "Ingersoll soon got his just deserts [sic]."

"Arizona landscapes are just deserts [sic]."

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:33:49 AM UTC-7, athel...@yahoo wrote:
> On 2016-11-30 16:56:31 +0100, Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > On 11/30/16 2:37 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:

...

> >> But if quoted material is clearly marked as quoted, any observant reader
> >> would know that, so "[sic]" is in most cases unnecessary, and, indeed,
> >> intrusive. It's like those spectators at sports events who, when they
> >> notice the TV camera is pointed at them, jump up and down yelling and
> >> waving their hands and looking idiotic.
> >
> > There is a lot of that, but sometimes you need it.
>
> Most of the time there is no reason to draw attention to errors in what
> is quoted, especially because literate readers should know that Jane
> Austen's spelling of, say, "surprize" is not necessarily the same as
> what the quoter would write.
>
> If there is really a point in drawing attention it would be better to
> be more explicit than just a [sic]: \footnote{The original source had
> "Macchiavelli", but the more usual modern spelling is "Machiavelli"}

That brings up another use of "sic" (and footnotes): to avoid
propagating an error or non-standard practice that's not relevant enough
to one's topic to justify a discussion. Your example definitely needs a
footnote, because readers might well not know what the error was or how
to correct it.

I think the sic I used recently was reasonable.

"...a hot-heated [sic] young sailor, who has the honour to be a cousin
of my wife, having taken it into his head to insult me, I took it into
mine, /par consequence/, to eject him this morning out of a window..."

A footnote doesn't seem necessary, but I did want to say that I hadn't
mistyped the quotation.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

"Puddings aren't just desserts [sic]."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-11-28 10:31:05 +0000, Paul said:

> When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions for when
> to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently correct
> the error without informing the reader?

I came across an example today that mde me wonder about several of the
ideas that have come up in this thread. The author is a distinguished
philosopher at an American university:

"He means to make his case without resorting to ad hominem arguments
(Xxx writes this as using ‘ad homonym attacks’: Xxx 2009, xv)"

Xxx is someone I hadn't previously heard of but appears to be well
respected. I would expect him to know the difference between "hominem"
and "homonym", as the author probably also did. However, what to do? If
I were quoting the original I would probably leave "homonym" without
comment. If I feared that readers would think I was the illiterate one
I might add a [sic], but I'd feel guilty about it. Or, maybe best, I'd
leave out the parenthesis altogether. Given that it's indirect speech
there is no necessity to indicate how "hominem" was spelt.

Incidentally, the quoted author went on to do exactly what he said he
would not do. However, he was writing about Peter Duesberg, about whom
ad hominem attacks are normally all you ever get.



--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:54:45 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> I came across an example today that mde me wonder about several of the
> ideas that have come up in this thread. The author is a distinguished
> philosopher at an American university:
>
> "He means to make his case without resorting to ad hominem arguments
> (Xxx writes this as using ‘ad homonym attacks’: Xxx 2009, xv)"
>
> Xxx is someone I hadn't previously heard of but appears to be well
> respected. I would expect him to know the difference between "hominem"
> and "homonym", as the author probably also did. However, what to do? If
> I were quoting the original I would probably leave "homonym" without
> comment. If I feared that readers would think I was the illiterate one
> I might add a [sic], but I'd feel guilty about it. Or, maybe best, I'd
> leave out the parenthesis altogether. Given that it's indirect speech
> there is no necessity to indicate how "hominem" was spelt.

I didn't notice the misspelling (as fluent readers don't) and saw
the comment as between "arguments" and "attacks."

[Richard Tobin]

In article <eaisi2...@mid.individual.net>,

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>"He means to make his case without resorting to ad hominem arguments
>(Xxx writes this as using 'ad homonym attacks': Xxx 2009, xv)"

I remember Robert Mugabe making fun of the BBC reporter Ian Smith.
That was an ad homonym attack.

-- Richard

[Adam Funk]

badoompah


--
They do (play, that is), and nobody gets killed, but Metallic K.O. is
the only rock album I know where you can actually hear hurled beer
bottles breaking against guitar strings. --- Lester Bangs

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-12-04, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2016-11-28 10:31:05 +0000, Paul said:
>
>> When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions for when
>> to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently correct
>> the error without informing the reader?
>
> I came across an example today that mde me wonder about several of the
> ideas that have come up in this thread. The author is a distinguished
> philosopher at an American university:
>
> "He means to make his case without resorting to ad hominem arguments
> (Xxx writes this as using ‘ad homonym attacks’: Xxx 2009, xv)"

I guess that's an ad homophone attack.

> Xxx is someone I hadn't previously heard of but appears to be well
> respected. I would expect him to know the difference between "hominem"
> and "homonym", as the author probably also did.

Autocorrect error that got past proofreading?

I texted the shopping list to my wife the other day, then realized I'd
asked for "lapsang douching".


--
The internet is quite simply a glorious place. Where else can you find
bootlegged music and films, questionable women, deep seated xenophobia
and amusing cats all together in the same place? --- Tom Belshaw

[Janet]

In article <ku8ghd...@news.ducksburg.com>, a24...@ducksburg.com
says...

> I texted the shopping list to my wife the other day, then realized I'd
> asked for "lapsang douching".
>

A teabag not a douchebag?

Janet

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le lundi 5 décembre 2016 15:15:07 UTC+1, Adam Funk a écrit :
> On 2016-12-04, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > On 2016-11-28 10:31:05 +0000, Paul said:
> >
> >> When quoting directly, what are the standard journalistic conventions for when
> >> to use "sic" when quoting errors, or when (if ever) to silently correct
> >> the error without informing the reader?
> >
> > I came across an example today that mde me wonder about several of the
> > ideas that have come up in this thread. The author is a distinguished
> > philosopher at an American university:
> >
> > "He means to make his case without resorting to ad hominem arguments
> > (Xxx writes this as using ‘ad homonym attacks’: Xxx 2009, xv)"
>
> I guess that's an ad homophone attack.
>
> > Xxx is someone I hadn't previously heard of but appears to be well
> > respected. I would expect him to know the difference between "hominem"
> > and "homonym", as the author probably also did.
>
> Autocorrect error that got past proofreading?
>
> I texted the shopping list to my wife the other day, then realized I'd
> asked for "lapsang douching".

The spelling is wrong but, "lapsang a toujours tort" as they say in Marseilles, don't they, Athel?

[Snidely]

On Monday, bebe...@aol.com pointed out that ...

> Le lundi 5 décembre 2016 15:15:07 UTC+1, Adam Funk a écrit :

>> I texted the shopping list to my wife the other day, then realized I'd
>> asked for "lapsang douching".
>
> The spelling is wrong but, "lapsang a toujours tort" as they say in
> Marseilles, don't they, Athel?

Why would they say that?

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[bebe...@aol.com]

"L'absent a toujours tort", as pronounced with a strong local accent.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I fear I was whooshed by that, so maybe bebercito* can explain.

*I initially wrote that as bevercito, but for fortunately I noticed it
immediately. However, the error reminded me of a misunderstanding that
came up yesterday. My wife wanted to buy a shower fixture, and said we
should go to a shop called, apparently, La Maison du Vin. That struck
me as an odd name for a shop selling shower fixtures, and after several
attempts to get me to understand she had to spell the last word out as
Bain. Normally her [b] and [v] are not difficult to distinguish.

--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

OK, thanks. I wrote my response to Snidely before realizing that you
had also given a response.



--
athel

[Adam Funk]

Indeed (well, a box of teabags).


--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis

[Adam Funk]

Good one.


--
Unit tests are like the boy who cried wolf.