Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop defacing quotes with brackets

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 206 posts

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#111

Post by QuesnayJr »

Majromax wrote: post #107
QuesnayJr wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, you would use an article before "hospital": either "a" or "the".

To elaborate, it appears that American English treats "hospital" as a place. So you go to the hospital, just like you go to the airport, or the subway station. On the other hand, Commonwealth English treats "hospital" as something more like a state. You go to hospital just like you go to work.

That's a good way to think about it. I couldn't think of a rule for when I drop the article. I guess for the state in the US we would say "hospitalized". So I would say "he was hospitalized", unless the identity of "they" in the original quote was important.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#112

Post by jkingsbery »

The root behind most (meaningful) objections to bad grammar comes back to clarity - by using poor grammar, the writer obfuscates the meaning of a sentence. In this case, the meaning is perfectly clear, and it is pretty obvious what the original quote is. Writing a whole article nit-picking something like this is obnoxious and silly.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#113

Post by monadgonad »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #81

While I was reading this rant about erroneous brackets, I was consistently thrown off by the authors wrong styling of links. That is not even snark, the bold read, weirdly placed lines under links kept pulling my eyes in. Apparently, the author removed the (old-fashioned, but agreed upon) typographical underline for links and replaced it by border-bottom, which starts below the descender of the letters instead of the…

The author did not do that at all. This is a major magazine; individual contributors are extremely far removed from the website design.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#114

Post by mojomark »

leephillips wrote: post #106

What’s the proper way to quote someone who uses square brackets in what you are trying to quote? It seems as if this could get as thorny as the problem of escaping quote marks in quoted strings that besets programmers. For example, in Scocca’s first specimen, how do we know he’s referring to the use of square brackets, or if the square brackets that appear are his own interpolation? The context makes it clear, but in…

I don't think it's thorny at all...

If you're quoting a quote directly from a secondary source (like a 'news' article), and that quote has bracketed content, you should retain the bracketed interpretation and cite the secondary source (as the source of the quoteed material) along with the original source themself (as the source of the unbracketed material).

If you suspect the interpretation isn't accurate, you will need to do some digging to either reach out to the reporter to obtain the recording of the original source, or just reach out to the original source themselves in order to hear the same information first hand (which is probably best any way since you could be able to discuss the interpetation with the source directly).

If you don't have the time or will power to do all of that digging, then you're relegated to retaining the bracketed interpretated language and citing both the secondary and original sources since the quoted language is now a hybrid of ideas from both sources, delineated by brackets.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#115

Post by px43 »

kqr wrote: post #2

This does not address the primary way I (ab?)use these brackets: to fill in the subject explicitly when the original author refers to it only implicitly. So quoting the last clause in the above paragraph, I might write > when the author refers to [the subject] only implicitly. The obvious alternative is to quote a longer passage. Maybe this is one of those cases where conciseness fights with authenticity. Another sol…

It annoys me when someone gets interviewed, and they make intentionally vague comments to avoid leaking non-public information, and the interviewer fills in the blanks with whatever they think will generate the most clicks, wildly misrepresenting the statement, and giving it a completely different meaning than the interviewee intended.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#116

Post by anon98356 »

ghusbands wrote: post #90
ddingus wrote: post #62

The usage the author points out is odd, and one I would never use. However, it is not brackets alone that is an issue. The usage is strange! Begin excerpt: They may groan when Corky, denied the massive funding he’s asked for, tells the town council he’s going to “go home and bite [his] pillow,” the way I do now. End excerpt. The quote with brackets in it appears functionally equivalent to: "go home and bite my [his]…

The syntax given in the article is standard - a square-bracketed part replaces words in the original text that would otherwise appear there. Your proposed alternative is not standard. (At least one example given in the article is incorrect usage, but the basic principle is normal and widely used.)

Is that the standard syntax? I've always been led to believe square brackets are used to insert words that don't exist in the quote.

> "go home and bite my [his] pillow."

To me makes way more sense. If I was to read "go home and bite [his] pillow." I would assume the person being quoted had said ""go home and bite pillow." which makes almost no sense.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#117

Post by GavinMcG »

kome wrote: post #22
tomc1985 wrote: post #3

Hard disagree, the shift in perspective from third-person to the first-person quote is jarring. You use the brackets to mold the quote into the grammatical context of the sentence that surrounds. Extra emphasis on the context of the grammar , as changing the overall context alters its message. You can also use those brackets to cut out unnecessary/irrelevant/extraneous words. A necessity, sometimes, and one that is e…

what's the point of quoting if you are paraphrasing?

Quotation lends more authority than paraphrase, and the original language may be important, precise, or eloquent.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#118

Post by GavinMcG »

Illniyar wrote: post #70

I know why Brackets are used in quotes - usually to add a subject that wasn't in the original quote but was obvious from the context, which is missing in the quote. I've seen these used a few times in the weirdest places and I just assumed the person who originally said the words mixed things up - so in the example quote given in the article I would've assumed Corky said "go home and bite pillow." (cause you know som…

> I would've assumed Corky said "go home and bite pillow."

I think that amounts to an assumption that the author is dishonest. If Corky's speech is broken in that he leaves out "my", the author's addition would be changing the quotation. Brackets can generally be assumed to replace tense (in single-word uses) or to paraphrase (in lengthy uses).

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#119

Post by easton »

The reason I always did it in school was because we’d have maximum word limits on essays (either due to an evil teacher or time constraints on exams) and copying an entire quote when you only needed the beginning and end would eat up time you could use to write the analysis bits. Maybe I’ll grow out of it (or maybe I already have, given I rarely shorten quotes when writing for fun on the internet).

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#120

Post by eqvinox »

jstanley wrote: post #93
eqvinox wrote: post #71

> A set of brackets is a barrier to understanding between the reader and the writer. No, a set of brackets is a sign of respect for the original author who didn't spell their statement to match the writer's situation. Any change to a quote that isn't clearly indicated would make me very, very suspicious whether the writer is misrepresenting what the original author said.

They're not saying "change the quote without indicating that you did", they're saying "don't change the quote".

Sorry, I forgot to spell out that side since it's _very_ deeply ingrained in me: that would just be bad English. (For the cases where it's possible; there are enough where it makes the quote nonsensical or overly long without bracketing something.)

Coincidentally, I'm a German native speaker :D

Post reply on HN