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

121–130 of 206 posts

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#121

Post by mattowen_uk »

QuesnayJr wrote: post #111
Majromax wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seeing as you've brought up an '-ized' word... Can you explain the US usage of the word 'Burglarized', when 'Burgled' is perfectly adequate?

I know online dictionaries say both are correct, but irregardless[1] it's one of those words that really irritates me.

--

[1] Yes, using that word is an attempt at written humour.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#123

Post by mattowen_uk »

aimor wrote: post #23

I think the sin is removing words from the quotation. Adding editorial clarifications is sometimes unnecessary and often annoying, but can be read around. However substituting or outright omitting words without noting the removal is indeed "wrong" and "rude".

Agreed. Imho, the only valid use of brackets in a quote is where the original quoter left out some words due to a colloquial dialect, or just spoke badly, and the editor/author had to add a word or two so that the reader has a more clear understanding of what was said:

  "house on fire!", Billy-Jo Bob shouted.
vs.

  "[My] house [is] on fire!", Billy-Jo Bob shouted.
The use of the quotes makes it clear to the reader, that Billy-Jo didn't actually say the words 'my' and 'is', but they were added for clarification.

Any other usage (inside quoted text) is simply wrong.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#125

Post by pc86 »

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…

This is the only way I've ever seen them used - in your example, "[the subject]" would be replacing a word like "it" or "something." I seem to recall my English teacher saying it was used (paraphrasing) to change the text of a quote without changing its meaning, and that any other usage was incorrect.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#127

Post by eplanit »

abstractbarista wrote: post #126

This article goes against what I was taught all throughout school. I will keep doing what I've been taught.

I assume your schooling is very recent, as this practice of changing text within quotations is new, and completely wrong. A quote is what was said, verbatim.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#128

Post by eplanit »

giantDinosaur wrote: post #77
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…

Often molding the quote to the 'grammatical context' simply means you've added too much anyway. For example, saying 'he says he's going to ' which requires modification of the quote, vs. dropping it entirely: 'he says '.

"molding the quote to the 'grammatical context'"

That's called "paraphrasing", and is distinct from quoting, because a quote is what was actually said.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#129

Post by SamBam »

zeven7 wrote: post #98
ant6n wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why remove the „it“? That changes the quote in a way that’s not marked, since the brackets denote an addition but not a removal. Keeping it would make it clearer what actually happened to the quote, That you merely expand what the „it“ references to, and thus is more trustworthy.

Brackets often indicate a replacement, which includes a removal of something.

It can be done either way.

> He said he was going to "post this on HN [Hacker News] right away."

Of course, there are often other ways to do that:

> He said he was going to "post this on HN right away," referring to the website Hacker News.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#130

Post by dragonwriter »

La1n wrote: post #100
dragonwriter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that "sic" has two uses. No, it doesn't. > The standard use is, as you say, to indicate that the text is as it appeared originally, This is the use. > and you didn't add a typo. It is not restricted to things which might be mistaken for typographical errors. > The common Internet use is to indicate "This is wrong. Har har you're stupid." It's very common, for some reason, on the internet for people t…

> I'm not convinced that the second use actually exists. Look at the following message from this thread. Arrow quote marker is already there, so it there'd be no reason for the [sic] in my mind. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26074970

> Arrow quote marker is already there, so it there'd be no reason for the [sic] in my mind.

[sic] is only ever used with marked quotes, to indicate that something the reader may see as an error is preserved exactly from the cited original, so the presence of an arrow quote marker doesn't remove a reason to use it, it is what creates the context that makes it relevant to use. It is clearly used in the standard wat.

It's true that one might see less reason to use it in a medium like HN where the source is on the same page and the usual method of quotation is cut-and-paste rather than transcription. OTOH, it's also a medium where the source can often be edited after the response is posted, which can provide an additional reason to do it.

Post reply on HN