Reply
Sun 15 Feb, 2004 10:59 am
How do I show a misspelled word in a quotation? I am responding to an article that has misspelled words and I am quoting portions of the article that have these misspelled words. I do not want to the reader to think that I misspelled these words when he reads it. I have quotation marks around the sentences that I am using but these contain the misspelled words. Is there an annogram like e.g. or something that I can put after the misspelled words that show the quotation contains misspelled words?
Put (sic) or [sic] immediately after the misspelled words.
American Heritage wrote:sic
adv.
Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.
I've seen (sic) used, but I'm not sure what it stands for.
I believe it's from Latin.
Thanks for your help. I will insert [sic] after each of the misspelled words.
I could be wrong, but I thought (SIC) stands for "spelling is correct".
So, in your opinion, does using (sic) after a misspelled word within a quote is correct?
Equus wrote:I could be wrong, but I thought (SIC) stands for "spelling is correct".
It doesn't. And it shouldn't be all capitalized as it's not an abbreviation...it means "thus so."
What is the correct way to put this notation? Is using (sic) correct? An example is "He raised his concerns and hopes a compromise will be made to accomdate the polices of the company." Accomdate and polices are the misspelled words I am questioning on how to make sure the reader of my note does not think I misspelled these two words. Do I put (sic) after each of these words?
sic means thus or thus so, but it usually used to point out a variant use of a word or a misspelling. ----Used also to show that the editor didn't miss the misusage. Thus: Jenna said she didn't want to came (sic) back to the show, but she did. (So it's Jenna who can't speak the King's English and not the editor/writer. )
Use sic wisely, check to make sure the usage is really incorrect.
Joe
T M Almany wrote:What is the correct way to put this notation? Is using (sic) correct? An example is "He raised his concerns and hopes a compromise will be made to accomdate the polices of the company." Accomdate and polices are the misspelled words I am questioning on how to make sure the reader of my note does not think I misspelled these two words. Do I put (sic) after each of these words?
That would be fine.
If it's possible to use "sic" only once to indicate that you're leaving the whole quotation alone, I'm not sure how it would be done.
Thank you so much. I appreciate everyone's help. I am trying to learn more about the King's English but it can be difficult at times.
T M Almany wrote:Thank you so much. I appreciate everyone's help. I am trying to learn more about the King's English but it can be difficult at times.
I'm fairly certain that it's actually the Queens English at the moment.
You refer to the current reigning monarch.
see Lynch, Guide to Grammar & Style
This source mentions that you should put the word "
sic" in italics. It is also OK to show one [
sic] when quoting vernacular and leave it at that.
Quote:Sic.
Apart from necessary omissions and interpolations, your quotations should always be exact, and any departures from the original should be clearly indicated with ellipses or brackets.
Sometimes, though, you may have to quote something that looks downright wrong. In these cases, it's traditional to signal to your readers that the oddities are really in the original, and not your mistake. The signal is "[sic]": square brackets for an interpolation, and the Latin word sic, "thus, this way." (Since it's a foreign word, it's always in italics; since it's a whole word and not an abbreviation, it gets no period.) It amounts to saying, "It really is this way, so don't blame me."
George Eliot was a woman: if someone you quote gets it wrong, as in "George Eliot's late fiction shows major advances over his earlier works," you might signal it thus: "George Eliot's late fiction shows major advances over his [sic] earlier works." Old spellings were often variable: if your source spells the name Shakspear, you might point out with a [sic] that it really appears that way in the original.
Don't use sic to show off with gotchas. Too many writers sic sics on the authors they quote just to show they spotted a trivial error. If your audience is unlikely to be confused, don't draw attention to minor booboos. [Entry added 3 November 2000.]
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace