6 ms·

This does remind me that I really dislike when authors insert "sic" inside quotes.

by google234123 6y ago

Digit-Al 6y ago
But how else are you supposed to denote that something is in the original text and not a transcription mistake?
- kens 6y ago
  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.
  - andai 6y ago
    I've never seen the second usage. Although, shouldn't they be indistinguishable?
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Interesting, I never realized that there was this second usage out there. I have always seen "sic" after an obvious grammatic or spelling mistake.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It's basically a difference in emphasis between "Note that I didn't add this mistake." and "Note that I didn't add this mistake." so I'm not sure it's really a 'problem' you could point to with the grammatical device.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The problem is that "sic" has two uses. No, it doesn't. > The standard use is, as you say, to indicate that the text is as it appeared originally, This is the use. > and you didn't add a typo. It is not restricted to things which might be mistaken for typographical errors. > The common Internet use is to indicate "This is wrong. Har har you're stupid." It's very common, for some reason, on the internet for people to respond (usually with displaced offense on the part of the not-present author of the quote) as if the standard use had that implication, but I've literally never seen a use which elicited a response indicating that it was taken that way for which there was any reason to believe that it wasn't being used in the completely standard way. I'm not convinced that the second use actually exists.
    - La1n 6y ago
      > I'm not convinced that the second use actually exists. Look at the following message from this thread. Arrow quote marker is already there, so it there'd be no reason for the [sic] in my mind. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26074970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26074970
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Arrow quote marker is already there, so it there'd be no reason for the [sic] in my mind. [sic] is only ever used with marked quotes, to indicate that something the reader may see as an error is preserved exactly from the cited original, so the presence of an arrow quote marker doesn't remove a reason to use it, it is what creates the context that makes it relevant to use. It is clearly used in the standard wat. It's true that one might see less reason to use it in a medium like HN where the source is on the same page and the usual method of quotation is cut-and-paste rather than transcription. OTOH, it's also a medium where the source can often be edited after the response is posted, which can provide an additional reason to do it.
Nition 6y ago
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.
- krackers 6y ago
  "took him to hospital" sounds very weird. Are you sure that's standard in american english?
  - Nition 6y ago
    Well now I'm learning something here. I see that it's not standard English in the USA. I'm in a commonwealth country where that's the standard way to say it[1], and both the source of the quote and the article were local. But now I wonder if the journalist writing it might have been originally from the USA. [1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-grammatically-correct-he-was-admitted-to-hospital-or-to-the-hospital https://www.quora.com/Which-is-grammatically-correct-he-was-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - midasuni 6y ago
    It’s perfectly normal in English English
  - ivanche 6y ago
    Why is it weird? Genuinely interested because, as a non-native speaker, I would have said exactly like that.
    - QuesnayJr 6y ago
      In the US, you would use an article before "hospital": either "a" or "the".
      - Majromax 6y ago

This does remind me that I really dislike when authors insert "sic" inside quotes.

Digit-Al 6y ago

But how else are you supposed to denote that something is in the original text and not a transcription mistake?

kens 6y ago
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.
- andai 6y ago
  I've never seen the second usage. Although, shouldn't they be indistinguishable?
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Interesting, I never realized that there was this second usage out there. I have always seen "sic" after an obvious grammatic or spelling mistake.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  It's basically a difference in emphasis between "Note that I didn't add this mistake." and "Note that I didn't add this mistake." so I'm not sure it's really a 'problem' you could point to with the grammatical device.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The problem is that "sic" has two uses. No, it doesn't. > The standard use is, as you say, to indicate that the text is as it appeared originally, This is the use. > and you didn't add a typo. It is not restricted to things which might be mistaken for typographical errors. > The common Internet use is to indicate "This is wrong. Har har you're stupid." It's very common, for some reason, on the internet for people to respond (usually with displaced offense on the part of the not-present author of the quote) as if the standard use had that implication, but I've literally never seen a use which elicited a response indicating that it was taken that way for which there was any reason to believe that it wasn't being used in the completely standard way. I'm not convinced that the second use actually exists.
  - La1n 6y ago
    > I'm not convinced that the second use actually exists. Look at the following message from this thread. Arrow quote marker is already there, so it there'd be no reason for the [sic] in my mind. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26074970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26074970
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Arrow quote marker is already there, so it there'd be no reason for the [sic] in my mind. [sic] is only ever used with marked quotes, to indicate that something the reader may see as an error is preserved exactly from the cited original, so the presence of an arrow quote marker doesn't remove a reason to use it, it is what creates the context that makes it relevant to use. It is clearly used in the standard wat. It's true that one might see less reason to use it in a medium like HN where the source is on the same page and the usual method of quotation is cut-and-paste rather than transcription. OTOH, it's also a medium where the source can often be edited after the response is posted, which can provide an additional reason to do it.

Nition 6y ago

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.

krackers 6y ago
"took him to hospital" sounds very weird. Are you sure that's standard in american english?
- Nition 6y ago
  Well now I'm learning something here. I see that it's not standard English in the USA. I'm in a commonwealth country where that's the standard way to say it[1], and both the source of the quote and the article were local. But now I wonder if the journalist writing it might have been originally from the USA. [1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-grammatically-correct-he-was-admitted-to-hospital-or-to-the-hospital https://www.quora.com/Which-is-grammatically-correct-he-was-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- midasuni 6y ago
  It’s perfectly normal in English English
- ivanche 6y ago
  Why is it weird? Genuinely interested because, as a non-native speaker, I would have said exactly like that.
  - QuesnayJr 6y ago
    In the US, you would use an article before "hospital": either "a" or "the".
    - Majromax 6y ago