Member |
Funny, Asa.  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. | |||
|
Member |
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 | |||
|
Member |
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? WordmaticThis message has been edited. Last edited by: wordmatic, | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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.
| |||
|
| Junior Member |
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. | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
So do you suppose Gershwin liked gherkins? | ||
|
| Member |
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." | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
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...  Brain-damaged Asa | ||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
Which is, of course, you own inference. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
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.
Tinman | |||
|
Member |
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:
 | |||
|
| Member |
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." | |||
|
| Member |
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... | |||
|
| Member |
Don't forget Noah Webster hadn't yet been let loose on the English language and Americans could spell words properly then. 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. | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
I wonder, arnie, if Webster hated French? So many "streamlined" American words are English through French. | ||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
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. | ||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
zm: Didn't Godfather say somethibng like that | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
Alright, then. I guess I am wrong that [sic] is overused. Don't let anyone think I never say I am wrong.  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. | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12