15 ms·

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.

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.