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

161–170 of 206 posts

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#161

Post by antonvs »

titzer wrote: post #133
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…

There is a way to do that by adding context outside the quote but keep the quote verbatim. "It's an older code, sir, but it checks out", the officer said, referring to the stolen access code Han had just provided, stolen from god knows where, god knows how long ago. See, now the original quote is undisturbed and the added context is less authoritative (on purpose), since it is not inserted into the quote. The provena…

> Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to, "oh, what they really meant to say is [phrase phrase phrase]".

As Einstein put it, "[Grammar nazis] are [really the worst]."

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#162

Post by ddingus »

anon98356 wrote: post #116
ghusbands wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly!

Brackets do not modify the quote at all. Subtract them, and the original expression is intact, verbatim.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#163

Post by greggyb »

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #136
thedufer wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is addressed in the following section: > Sometimes you have to use brackets anyway. Maybe the speaker or writer was using an acronym or a completely unfamiliar piece of jargon that the reader needs explained. Maybe they were referring to a person by their last name or nickname, when the reader has not yet been introduced to the person’s full name. But these changes should be both necessary and obvious. N…

Bracketing acronym's on first use is a totally separate issue.

As is creating a plural form by adding an apostrophe. (;

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#164

Post by ddingus »

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.)

The use is incorrect.

If we adhere to the syntax, the reader will be led to believe the person quoted said something they did not, and further, said it in a way that required clarity in brackets.

Neither are true.

Accepting this use muddies and accepted and precise syntax.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#165

Post by valarauko »

mattowen_uk wrote: post #123
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…

I agree with you. Editing a direct quote should be a last resort, with a light touch, and only to provide clarity. Editing quotes for grammatical correctness is going too far, especially if the meaning is self evident to most readers. For the given example, it probably doesn't require editing. If rather Billy-Jo Bob was shouting to his neighbor Joanne about her house being on fire, then yes, adding that context is helpful, and wouldn't be apparent from the quote itself.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#166

Post by airhead969 »

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…

Yes. The intent has to be honest rather than throwing out a device without nuance. It often seems like black&white reasoning to predicate an article on "why you should start doing this" or "why you should stop doing that."

As an additional device, [sic] is also helpful to indicate an original typo or improper usage not by the quoter.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#167

Post by ddingus »

hansvm wrote: post #158
titzer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a way to do that by adding context outside the quote but keep the quote verbatim. "It's an older code, sir, but it checks out", the officer said, referring to the stolen access code Han had just provided, stolen from god knows where, god knows how long ago. See, now the original quote is undisturbed and the added context is less authoritative (on purpose), since it is not inserted into the quote. The provena…

> Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to, "oh, what they really meant to say is [phrase phrase phrase]". Slippery slope arguments tend to ignore that if a result is actually unconscionable then regardless of the apparent slope we'll still actually stop somewhere. Additionally, they often could be applied just as well in reverse, indicating some sort of flaw in the reasoning: "We can no longer even substitute prope…

Prior to this use, brackets were clear. Subtract them and what remains is quoted verbatim.

Using them this way breaks that and renders both past and future text less clear, and does not add real value otherwise.

Real ambiguity becomes codified into otherwise precise expression.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#168

Post by ddingus »

bobthepanda wrote: post #146
titzer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a way to do that by adding context outside the quote but keep the quote verbatim. "It's an older code, sir, but it checks out", the officer said, referring to the stolen access code Han had just provided, stolen from god knows where, god knows how long ago. See, now the original quote is undisturbed and the added context is less authoritative (on purpose), since it is not inserted into the quote. The provena…

But now you’ve basically doubled or tripled the length of the whole sentence. The primary usage I see of this is to replace some second or third person pronoun with the actual name of the person, which is much simpler than appending a short biography of the person and trivially easy to verify.

That is already a thing. Simply put it in brackets and insert it into the quote.

Overwriting the quote makes the expression unclear, which does require readers seek original expressions or otherwise speculate.

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#169

Post by valarauko »

I'm confused. I'd assumed that brackets in quotes were to add words for the sake of clarity, not substitute them. So I would have assumed the original quote to have been "go home and bite pillow".

In such cases, is there a different style (perhaps different brackets?) to indicate an insertion rather than a substitution?

Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets

#170

Post by interestica »

px43 wrote: post #115
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.

> It annoys me when someone gets interviewed....

I disagree. I think interviews are critical tool of discourse!

(I'm kidding...to your point)

I think it's extra prevalent now when there is so much video media that users want to get summarized for them. It takes longer to watch a video than to read a summary from someone whose viewpoint I already align with to make a judgment about the video.

This discussion about citation/quoting/primary sources makes me recall university days when (as a student of history) I tried to cite a DVD as a source. But, the professor's required Style guide made no provisions for the media type. Thus, there was pressure to either quote from a book (either written by the person being quoted or from a secondary source quoting the person) rather than transcribing the quote from the visual source I was verifying myself: literally seeing the person I was quoting say the exact words.

Post reply on HN