31–40 of 206 posts
Why can't "[the bracekts] “[...] be transmitted over news wires.”"?
https://iptc.org/standards/iptc-7901/
Perhaps the convention of a limited character set dates back to the telegraph era
This does remind me that I really dislike when authors insert "sic" inside quotes.
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…
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Quotes are, well, quotes , and if their grammar absolutely needs to be edited to fit your prose, then that means you shouldn't be using that quote. Editing a quote should be done with grave solemnity -- you are changing someone else's words -- and only to clarify meaning that was disturbed when you extracted the quote from its natural context. Anything else can be handled in your…
After all quoting someone at all is already an act of tearing their words out of the context they have been put in by that author.
You can misquote someone badly without brackets, while you can quote someone faithfully with brackets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how else are you supposed to denote that something is in the original text and not a transcription mistake?
The problem is that "sic" has two uses. The standard use is, as you say, to indicate that the text is as it appeared originally, and you didn't add a typo. The common Internet use is to indicate "This is wrong. Har har you're stupid." Many people don't realize the first usage exists.
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…
> Hey now, [he is] one of these people, and [he] most definitely exists! Who? How do you know?
Look at it done correctly: tomc1985 objects that "[he is] one of these people, and [he] most definitely exists!"
You may not like how it looks, but it completely solves the fake issue you were making fun of.
This does remind me that I really dislike when authors insert "sic" inside quotes.
I saw one the other day on a news article where they'd put something like "They took him to hospital [sic]." The journalist hadn't realised that "to hospital" is correct English.
Reminded me if this funny quote: "I hate people who generalise; like, all white middle-class heterosexual men, for example."
Why can't "[the bracekts] “[...] be transmitted over news wires.”"?
Because they use(d) a reduced character set that included parentheses but not brackets. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code#ITA_2_and_US-TTY There was a time before ASCII, you know...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw one the other day on a news article where they'd put something like "They took him to hospital [sic]." The journalist hadn't realised that "to hospital" is correct English.
"took him to hospital" sounds very weird. Are you sure that's standard in american english?
[1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-grammatically-correct-he-was-...