4 ms·

Tip: it's not an official grammar rule, but in colloquial terms, scare quotes [1] are often used to indicate that the speaker is being sarcastic or that the quo

Tip: it's not an official grammar rule, but in colloquial terms, scare quotes [1] are often used to indicate that the speaker is being sarcastic or that the quoted thing isn't actually true. So a typical American reader might infer from your title that this app is not _really_ "private" or "free". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

rzzzt 4y ago
BBC news articles are full of scare quotes then.
- vmception 4y ago
  A non American publication, exhibit a
- kube-system 4y ago
  Those are just traditional quotes, used to indicate that the words are something that someone else said, verbatim.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- zem 4y ago
  the bbc usage is scare-quote-adjacent, they mean "this is not us saying this, it is someone else who said it and we are reporting it verbatim" (implied: we make no claims as to its accuracy)
  - rzzzt 4y ago
    I think OP intended to use them in the same way. I can find a direct reference to "private" and "no ads" on the landing page, "free" is not written anywhere so that's a miss.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  In the headlines. The journalistic use of scare quotes around single words in headlines is so they can trumpet claims without taking legal responsibility for them.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    They are more commonly used just to communicate to the reader about which part of the headline is paraphrased and which part is not. A subject’s diction can be very important in many news stories and so quotations of this type can communicate a lot of information in a short headline. It also indicates when a phrase is not editorial in nature, but a claim made by someone else.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Single-word quotes can't help but be taken out of context.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        They can be used that way, but hard news sources typically use them in pretty unambiguous circumstances. Like ‘Disaster left “devastating” path of destruction, says mayor’
sjmm1989 4y ago
- cylon13 4y ago
  Language is dynamic and flowing and changing, and it's going to be whatever it is no matter how angry it makes you. Better to go with the flow than to scream into the wind. Is "fuckwits" proper English? Who cares?
  - sjmm1989 4y ago
    There is language changing with the times, and then there is people changing language just because they figure they should/can. I have no issue with the prior. My issue is with the latter. And anyone who speaks the language or uses it on a daily basis has all the right in the world to judge the misuse of it. If you have a problem with this, then please stop talking all together, because your opinions are worthless. It is not the random idiot who gets to decide how the rest of the world shall use a language when the rules are already set beforehand by previous people who created those rules via the long process of natural change; not the short process of morons making things up to please themselves. Have a nice day. P.S. Before asking stupid questions about words like fuckwit, maybe do yourself a favor and look them up. I wasn't sure what colloquial meant, so I did exactly that before typing my comment. You should have done the same. You would have found out it's a legitimate word, to some extent at least more than the 'rule' of using "" improperly. Fuckwit: a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse). You can thank Oxford for this, via google.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      Oxford also has a definition of "scare quotes", e.g. "quotation marks that a writer puts around a word or phrase to show that it is used in an unusual way, usually one that the writer does not agree with" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/scare-quotes https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...) or "Quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/scare_quotes https://www.lexico.com/definition/scare_quotes). M-W does too. Cambridge Dictionary too. Quotation marks. Not just "air quotes" or "italics" or "/s" (in what universe does one think "/s" is more proper English than "scare quotes"?). So. What's the problem, again? This is well enough established for Oxford, and seems to have only been a huge surprise to you. (Edit: per MLA, the term was coined in 1956, but the use of punctuation in such a manner can be traced back to the second century BC. https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ Fun fact!)
cylon13 4y ago
I definitely read the title as sarcasm.
wvenable 4y ago
Yeah, if it's private, free, and has no ads why is the title not simply: Like Facebook, but smaller and private and free with no ads.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dang 4y ago
I don't know if the submitted title ('Like Facebook, but smaller and “private” and “free” with no “ads”') was intended to be sarcastic, but since the OP itself does not include that language (with or without quotes), we've changed it above to something it does include. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rzzzt 4y ago

BBC news articles are full of scare quotes then.

vmception 4y ago
A non American publication, exhibit a
kube-system 4y ago
Those are just traditional quotes, used to indicate that the words are something that someone else said, verbatim.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
zem 4y ago
the bbc usage is scare-quote-adjacent, they mean "this is not us saying this, it is someone else who said it and we are reporting it verbatim" (implied: we make no claims as to its accuracy)
- rzzzt 4y ago
  I think OP intended to use them in the same way. I can find a direct reference to "private" and "no ads" on the landing page, "free" is not written anywhere so that's a miss.
pessimizer 4y ago
In the headlines. The journalistic use of scare quotes around single words in headlines is so they can trumpet claims without taking legal responsibility for them.
- kube-system 4y ago
  They are more commonly used just to communicate to the reader about which part of the headline is paraphrased and which part is not. A subject’s diction can be very important in many news stories and so quotations of this type can communicate a lot of information in a short headline. It also indicates when a phrase is not editorial in nature, but a claim made by someone else.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Single-word quotes can't help but be taken out of context.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      They can be used that way, but hard news sources typically use them in pretty unambiguous circumstances. Like ‘Disaster left “devastating” path of destruction, says mayor’

sjmm1989 4y ago

cylon13 4y ago
Language is dynamic and flowing and changing, and it's going to be whatever it is no matter how angry it makes you. Better to go with the flow than to scream into the wind. Is "fuckwits" proper English? Who cares?
- sjmm1989 4y ago
  There is language changing with the times, and then there is people changing language just because they figure they should/can. I have no issue with the prior. My issue is with the latter. And anyone who speaks the language or uses it on a daily basis has all the right in the world to judge the misuse of it. If you have a problem with this, then please stop talking all together, because your opinions are worthless. It is not the random idiot who gets to decide how the rest of the world shall use a language when the rules are already set beforehand by previous people who created those rules via the long process of natural change; not the short process of morons making things up to please themselves. Have a nice day. P.S. Before asking stupid questions about words like fuckwit, maybe do yourself a favor and look them up. I wasn't sure what colloquial meant, so I did exactly that before typing my comment. You should have done the same. You would have found out it's a legitimate word, to some extent at least more than the 'rule' of using "" improperly. Fuckwit: a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse). You can thank Oxford for this, via google.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Oxford also has a definition of "scare quotes", e.g. "quotation marks that a writer puts around a word or phrase to show that it is used in an unusual way, usually one that the writer does not agree with" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/scare-quotes https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...) or "Quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/scare_quotes https://www.lexico.com/definition/scare_quotes). M-W does too. Cambridge Dictionary too. Quotation marks. Not just "air quotes" or "italics" or "/s" (in what universe does one think "/s" is more proper English than "scare quotes"?). So. What's the problem, again? This is well enough established for Oxford, and seems to have only been a huge surprise to you. (Edit: per MLA, the term was coined in 1956, but the use of punctuation in such a manner can be traced back to the second century BC. https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ Fun fact!)

cylon13 4y ago

I definitely read the title as sarcasm.

wvenable 4y ago

Yeah, if it's private, free, and has no ads why is the title not simply: Like Facebook, but smaller and private and free with no ads.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dang 4y ago

I don't know if the submitted title ('Like Facebook, but smaller and “private” and “free” with no “ads”') was intended to be sarcastic, but since the OP itself does not include that language (with or without quotes), we've changed it above to something it does include. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html