8 ms·
No, I think you're absolutely right, and the author of the Slate piece is a nitwit. Of course it's better to find a quote that can stand alone, but if you can'
by wiml 6y ago
No, I think you're absolutely right, and the author of the Slate piece is a nitwit.
Of course it's better to find a quote that can stand alone, but if you can't do that — say, because there's a pronoun that refers to something too far away from the phrase of interest to include — then use brackets, ellipses, and so on.
- loeg 6y agoThey're both right. The Slate article is just picking on an uncommon, mistaken use of the pattern. I agree that it's pointless whining — I don't know that I've ever seen this mistake made.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoWell, the author clearly has, but since I haven't either, this article probably has no place on HN (which seems to have quite a different audience)...
- function_seven 6y agoThe author's point here is different than that, though. The original writer had no need to substitute the pronoun in the short quote. It was replaced with just another pronoun, so no extra information was inserted. It would have been just as clear if left in its original phrasing. From TFA: > Sometimes you have to use brackets anyway. Maybe the speaker or writer was using an acronym or a completely unfamiliar piece of jargon that the reader needs explained. Maybe they were referring to a person by their last name or nickname, when the reader has not yet been introduced to the person’s full name. But these changes should be both necessary and obvious.