When we leave quoted grammatical or spelling errors intact, we add sic as an indication. Other than bracketing [corrected segments], is there a proper way to note when a direct quote has been modified for spelling and grammar?
[If the spelling or grammar part of the correction matters, I'm mostly curious about spelling corrections.]
Posted Mar 27, 2011, 12:39 PM UTC
[corrected segments] is the way to go. there is no opposite term.
thanks. The reason I brought this up was because I often have quotes containing spelling or apostrophe errors that I'd want to correct before, well.. quoting. Bracketing significant words can sometimes diminish the impact of a direct quote, since the reader doesn't know what liberties a writer may have taken when choosing the new word.
In this case, journalists will paraphrase.
I'd say explain it in a footnote/endnote.
The most common way I've seen is to bracket the corrections.
"I never seen that cat over their."
becomes
"I never [saw] that cat over [there]."
There's [recte . . .], but that's so obscure that clarity might be better served by omitting it and entering only the bracketed correct spelling. An example or two of the kind of text you have in mind could elicit some other suggestions.
You could, depending on context, throw something like (Edited for grammar.) onto the end of the quote or in a footnote.
Wel
I don't have an answer, but I want to point out that when "sic" is used it should always be within square brackets, not parentheses. Square brackets indicate the contents are not part of the quoted text. The rules for this seem to be changing to allow parentheses, but this creates ambiguity. Note, I'm not a grammarian, just a guy.
that makes sense. I learned something. thanks.
I've always seen it as brackets -- or "square brackets," as the British call them.