Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    Not a sour note, I suppose
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Not a sour note, I suppose Login/Join
 
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
This gleaned from a radio-controlled model airplane newsgroup, of all places!


"Storm's Hamilton" <htcomp.net@storms> wrote in message
news:12n8nvnf5l0ld16@corp.supernews.com...

I work at a small restaurant in a small town and many people come to me for
supplies and foods ect.(sic) that I can get from purveyors. SO, a woman called
me yesterday and wanted a whole case of these little pickles she really
likes....."Gershwins"
mk
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Funny, Asa. Big Grin

I have often wondered about the word (sic). You surely used it right, Asa, and I am not criticizing your use at all. However, I've wondered if one should use it if there is a minor grammatical error. I've seen people use it when it took me awhile to figure out why they've used it! I find that a bit arrogant.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
I've wondered if one should use it if there is a minor grammatical error.

Of course. Otherwise readers might assume that the error was your own or, worse still, that something that was factually wrong was correct.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of wordmatic
posted Hide Post
In journalistic reporting, it's considered unethical to alter or edit a direct quotation in any way. So if there's an error in the quote, and especially if there's a glaring error, the editor needs to make it clear that the error was not the newspaper's or the magazine's.

Doesn't the same hold true in academic writing? If there is an error in a text you are quoting, don't you need to insert the (sic) to make it clear to your reader that you, the writer, did not insert this error into the quoted text. Historians also do not mess with original sources, but quote them, warts and all, liberally sprinked with "sics."

My question is, how do we get from "sic" meaning this guys's an idiot; that's what he really said, to "sic-em" yelled at a dog, commanding it to bite someone?

Wordmatic

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordmatic,
 
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Sic is Latin for 'thus'. The style I learned was to enclose it within square brackets thus: [sic]. Also, if you changed a word to make the quotation begin a sentence or change the person where it didn't in the original. You delimit the word within those same square brackets. There's a bunch more convetions when editing MSS or ancient inscriptions or cuneiform and such.

An example: "[T]he time to fight the terrorists are [sic] now." for "He told me that the time to fight the terrorists are now." or "[He] reread the Manhattan Yellow Pages for fun." for "I read the Manhattan Yellow Pages for fun."


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
According to Dictionary.com, to sic a dog on someone is a dialectical variant of seek. Presumably it is a command.

BTW, the word the woman was looking for was gherkin, in case anyone's confused.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Sic is Latin for 'thus'.
Interestingly, although OED's earliest citation is dated 1887, the text of the cite makes it clear that the word was already in common and familiar usage.
    1887 SWEET Second Anglo-Sax. Reader Pref., A prefixed star calls attention to an erroneous or anomalous form, being thus equivalent to ‘sic’.
 
Posts: 1184Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Junior Member
posted Hide Post
Hi I haven't been in for a look for a while, but have just re-read about 3 pages. I am enjoying the Alzheimer's, sic, Gershwin/gherkin convos immensely. I don't think I earned the right to 'sic' my 'convo' word, because the slang is my own.

For what it's worth, as someone who's had an Alzheimer's sufferer living with us for some years until last week, when he passed away, out of sheer laziness we never bothered to add the word 'disease' when making reference to Bill's condition. All I can suggest is when you have such a person living with you, any shortcuts are gratefully accepted, because it's exhausting just having him around. The funny thing is, even though the term - Alzheimer's - without the second word (disease), is technically incomplete, I still feel the need to include the apostrophe before the 's'. Hmmmm.... could it be I'm selectively anally retentive?

I have no comment to make on the word 'sic' because I've never been skilled enough to use it.

But I'm something of an expert of Gershwin and gherkins. I love both - although for very different reasons.
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Blue Mountains, AustraliaReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
So do you suppose Gershwin liked gherkins?
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
My question is, how do we get from "sic" meaning this guys's an idiot;

That's my point, wordmatic and why I don't think you need to write it when there is a "minor" grammatical error. Yes, we use it in academia, though some use it too often, in my opinion.

peta, I agree with you about including the apostrophe even if you don't write "disease."
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
Since I used parentheses instead of brackets, I must be as much of an idiot as the original writer. Oh, welllll, I do have an excuse... Frown

Brain-damaged Asa
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
My question is, how do we get from "sic" meaning this guys's an idiot;

We shouldn't; [sic] simply means, "quoted as written"

It's the reader's inference, not the quoter's implication, that this makes the original writer an idiot.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
That's right. As with Wordnerd's 1887 source, it simply draws the attention of the reader to an erroneous or anomalous form. The original writer may not have been wrong.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Caterwauller
posted Hide Post
I love a Gershwin tune, how about you?
I love gherkins [sic] in June, how about you?


*******
"Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions.
~Dalai Lama
 
Posts: 5149 | Location: Columbus, OhioReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of wordmatic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:
quote:
My question is, how do we get from "sic" meaning this guys's an idiot;

We shouldn't; [sic] simply means, "quoted as written"

It's the reader's inference, not the quoter's implication, that this makes the original writer an idiot.


Right, Richard and Kalleh, I was only fooling about the idiot part. I really do know and believe that "sic" means "this is the way it was written, and I am only quoting it exactly." It is also a defense that, to me, implies, "...so don't blame me." And yes, with square brackets.
 
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
It is also a defense that, to me, implies, "...so don't blame me." And yes, with square brackets.

Which is, of course, you own inference.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The Chicago Manual of Style Online costs money, so I don't get it (though a free trial is available). However, the Chicago Style Q&A is free, and I do get it. Here are a few comments from the Chicago Style Q&A on sic.
quote:
Q. Dear Editor, I am editing a quarterly bulletin for a church, and have run into a problem. “It’s” is confused with “its” in a lengthy article an author quotes in his text. Given your feeling on the overuse of “sic,” I’m wondering how best to handle this. Simply ignore it, or “sic” it? I appreciate your help. Thank you.

A. A bit of quiet copyediting is best in cases like this, where sic would serve only to embarrass the original author and as a result reflect poorly on the current author as well.


Q. A manuscript I am editing uses a lengthy extract from a source that uses brackets; in fact the original is sprinkled with unitalicized bracketed “sics.” What do I do? I don’t want readers to think these interjections are added by us! I could say “brackets in original,” but there are a couple of things we have had to add in brackets, too. Perhaps I should put a [ sic] next to every [sic]. (Just kidding.)

A. Yes, adding a note “Brackets in original” is the right thing to do (although I love your idea of siccing the sics!). When you add your own comments within brackets, append “Eds.” (or just “Ed.” ) to the text to clarify.


Q. In quoting historical letters or correspondence, what is the current accepted practice as far as leaving mistakes or clarifying mistakes for modern readers? Is it dependent on the work?

A. In scholarly publishing, corrections must be acknowledged, either with the use of interpolations in square brackets or explanations in the notes. Using [ sic] to note that an error occurred in the original is also conventional. Some minor errors or typos may be corrected without acknowledgment. All this requires considerable editorial judgment. Please see CMOS 11.4, 11.8, and 11.69 for more guidance.


Q. In the references section of a paper I’m editing, I found a misspelled word. I checked the original journal and found that it was published with this mistake. Should I correct the typo or leave it as is? My colleague says the typo should stay because this is how it appeared in print originally. Thanks a lot!

A. You may correct the typo. If an error has important implications that you want to point out, you can reproduce the error and write [sic] after it, but it’s not nice to do this just to point out that someone made a mistake. (Of course, you must be very, very certain that it’s actually a typo before you change it.)

Tinman
 
Posts: 2879 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
quote:
If there is an error in a text you are quoting, don't you need to insert the (sic) to make it clear to your reader that you, the writer, did not insert this error into the quoted text.
The bracketed sicdoes not mean there's an error in the quoted text. Rather it means, "This is an exact, verbatim quote (though it may look odd)."

Of course, the usual reason the original looks odd is that it has an error. But the oddity may instead be a perfectly good usage that just looks odd because it has become antique. For example, the U.S. Constitution six times says chuse where we would today say choose:
    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate ... The Senate shall chuse [sic] their other Officers ...
Hmmmmmmmmm ... wonder if I should put a sic after their as well. Smile
 
Posts: 2666 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
It has jocularly been suggested that sic, indicating error, is short for Sic transit gloriam, or "There but for the grace of God go I."
 
Posts: 2666 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Until I saw Shu's post, I was going to say...okay, everyone here is right and I am wrong. [Sic] should always be used, and if the reader considers the original writer an idiot, so be it. Then I saw the U.S. Constitution's "chuse." Come now...we'd not put it there, would we? If so, then I'd put it after programme or honour or recognise.

I don't think it is as easy as the rest of you seem to think...
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
quote:
I'd put it after programme or honour or recognise
Don't forget Noah Webster hadn't yet been let loose on the English language and Americans could spell words properly then. Smile


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Sic transit gloriam

I've always translated sic transit gloria mundi as "thus fades the glory of the world", but then I'm no Dale or Humpty.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Then I saw the U.S. Constitution's "chuse." Come now...we'd not put it there, would we?

If I were quoting that bit from the constitution, I'd stick a sic in there. That's exactly the kind of place to use it.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
I wonder, arnie, if Webster hated French? So many "streamlined" American words are English through French.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
quote:
Originally posted by zmjezhd:


If I were quoting that bit from the constitution, I'd stick a sic in there. That's exactly the kind of place to use it.


I agree. Now for one in which one might put [sick] instead of [sic]: Sunflower found this on an Indiana real estate ad: "$126000 Hamilton Co. Italian Eight Farm House." Either the seller doesn't know how to spell "Italianate" or it's a Mafia hideout. Big Grin
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
or it's a Mafia hideout

"Let's to the mattresses!"

[Fixed spelling error.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
zm: Didn't Godfather say somethibng like that
 
Posts: 657Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Didn't Godfather say somethibng like that

In the movie, The Godfather, the character of Clemenza says" "That Sonny's runnin' wild. He's thinkin'a going to the mattresses already. We gotta find a spot over on the West Side. Ya try—309 West 43rd Street. You know any gooda spots on the West Side?"


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of wordmatic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:
quote:
It is also a defense that, to me, implies, "...so don't blame me." And yes, with square brackets.

Which is, of course, you own inference.


Well, it's not an inference on my part when I use [sic] myself, which I have, when quoting others' written text that contains errors.

WM
 
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Alright, then. I guess I am wrong that [sic] is overused. Don't let anyone think I never say I am wrong. Wink

I guess you wouldn't use it with the different UK spellings, but I have had problems with that from time to time. In citing a UK journal on dyspnea, UK English spells it dyspnoea. My editor went nuts! She kept asking me about it and wanting to change it, and I refused to let her. Then there is the speaker we've invited from Scotland who is a Programme Director. In disseminating the flyers (widely), I wanted to use her terminology, but I didn't want people to think I misspelled program. In the end, out of respect for our speaker, we kept programme. While those wouldn't be areas of using [sic], some designation might have helped. There are a lot of clueless American English speakers.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
If I were worried that someone thought that either I couldn't spell the word or that it was something different, I'd put in square brackets after the first occurence of "dyspnoea" something like "[US spelling dyspnea]". Programme Director is the speaker's title and so you were quite right to keep it as spelt in UK English.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    Not a sour note, I suppose

Copyright © 2002-12