Author Topic: Dear Expert (Read 165674 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #525 on:** July 16, 2012, 06:49:24 PM »

No problem.

The Genuine · « **Reply #526 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:06:55 PM »

When quoting a source, brackets are typically used to signal that the quotor^† has modified the original material.

But what if one is quoting a source that has itself quoted a source? How do you eliminate ambiguity as to who added the brackets? And then, what if the first quotor has already added brackets, and the second quotor wants to add its own too?

This isn't a purely academic question, since I'm asking this from the perspective of legal writing (where minutiæ like this might actually matter^‡).

I think different color brackets would be a neat solution, especially when you got into levels of bracketing beyond two. Unfortunately color printing availability and cost would be prohibitive. Any other suggestions? (At least for the two-level scenario?) Perhaps a clumsy parenthetical sentence along the lines of (First brackets in initial quotation, second brackets added.) ?

^† I used the -or suffix over the -er suffix because quote is of Latin origin. I hope you're impressed.

^‡ That reminds me—tomorrow at work I have to find this "awesome" case where the court decides that and means or. Note to self.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #527 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:15:03 PM »

I don't know what is actually done in practice (I'm sure the Purdue OWL does, somewhere) but I imagine is has to do with different types of brackets. [..] {..} etc

In Japanese their quote marks look 「like this」. And then the quote within a quote looks 『like this』, which I always thought was cool.

Jonathon · « **Reply #528 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:35:52 PM »

It's safe to assume that unless otherwise noted, brackets are the author's. If the quote already has brackets and you want to make it clear that they're not yours, you add a parenthetical note like "Brackets in original." For the scenario you're talking about, I think you're right that you'll have to come up with some awkward explanation of which ones are yours and which ones aren't. Or perhaps using different kind of brackets, as Annie says, would work, though you'll still need a note explaining which are which. There's really no good solution, but you're really just asking for trouble when you use a quote within a quote that already has brackets and then add your own brackets on top of it.

Quote from: The Genuine on August 01, 2012, 08:06:55 PM

^† I used the -or suffix over the -er suffix because quote is of Latin origin. I hope you're impressed.

I am not.

There are at least two sources of the suffix -er in English: Old English and Old French. So lots of words of Latin origin have a perfectly legitimate -er ending.

The Genuine · « **Reply #529 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:38:34 PM »

So would you have used quotor or quoter, and why?

Jonathon · « **Reply #530 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:43:39 PM »

Simple answer: quoter, because quoter is at least a semi-established English word and quotor is not.

Ela · « **Reply #531 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:19:17 PM »

Why does MS Word spellcheck want to capitalize honorarium?

Jonathon · « **Reply #532 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:39:06 PM »

I have no idea. What's the sentence in which it's used?

Ela · « **Reply #533 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:46:18 PM »

Our organization gave B a check to cover C's honorarium for speaking at our organization.

Or something along those lines. (Sorry, the details have been coded to protect the innocent.

)

Jonathon · « **Reply #534 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:53:14 PM »

I just pasted that sentence into a document in Word for Mac 2011, and it didn't try to capitalize it there. I'm befuddled.

Ela · « **Reply #535 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:58:25 PM »

Me, too. I have an old version of MS Word (2004). Maybe that explains it.

Ela · « **Reply #536 on:** August 13, 2012, 03:48:02 PM »

I've officially decided my spellcheck is screwy. It doesn't like "activities" either. It wants to correct it to "activity."

No. I mean more than one - plural - activities. Not activity.

Jonathon · « **Reply #537 on:** August 13, 2012, 06:18:18 PM »

I think that Word's grammar checker is worthless, and it's spellchecker is mostly worthless.

Ela · « **Reply #538 on:** August 13, 2012, 09:31:45 PM »

You won't find me disagreeing.

But those green and red squiggly lines on my documents-in-progress drive me crazy.

Jonathon · « **Reply #539 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:46:31 AM »

That's why I turn them off.

Ela · « **Reply #540 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:52:05 AM »

Hmm, I never looked to see if I could.

The spellcheck is sometimes useful but the grammar check is totally worthless, in my opinion. As you said previously.

Jonathon · « **Reply #541 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:57:14 AM »

I'll admit that spellcheck is sometimes useful, though I often feel that its annoyances (flagging properly spelled words that aren't in its dictionary and so on) outweigh the benefits. I guess it depends largely on how good you are at catching your own spelling errors.

Ela · « **Reply #542 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:16:15 AM »

Once again, I agree about the spellcheck flagging properly spelled words. I get a lot of that in my field, since spellcheck often doesn't recognize scientific/medical terms. Also, it flags proper names and abbreviations it doesn't recognize, which can get annoying. You can add words to the dictionary.

It does sometimes catch an error I didn't see in my spelling (after looking at a document for the umpteenth time) so I like it for that.

Jonathon · « **Reply #543 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:24:36 AM »

By the way, I'm not seriously arguing for you to just turn it off.

Ela · « **Reply #544 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:34:25 AM »

Totally understood.

I actually never knew I could till you mentioned it.

MS Word has a lot of annoying features I can't figure out how to turn off, to be honest.

rivka · « **Reply #545 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:40:35 AM »

On any computer I have used Word for a while (and thus have taught the checker most of the words it doesn't know), I find it more useful than not.

The first 6 months on a new computer or new install are a PITA, though.

SteveRogers · « **Reply #546 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:34:52 AM »

Quote from: Jonathon on August 14, 2012, 09:57:14 AM

I'll admit that spellcheck is sometimes useful, though I often feel that its annoyances (flagging properly spelled words that aren't in its dictionary and so on) outweigh the benefits. I guess it depends largely on how good you are at catching your own spelling errors.

I just dislike when the spellcheck tries to correct me when I'm clearly making up words. *shakes fist* Spellcheck should be able to read my mind!

Jonathon · « **Reply #547 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:26:46 PM »

Stupid non-mind-reading programs.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #548 on:** August 16, 2012, 07:33:10 PM »

Quote from: rivka on August 14, 2012, 10:40:35 AM

On any computer I have used Word for a while (and thus have taught the checker most of the words it doesn't know), I find it more useful than not.

The first 6 months on a new computer or new install are a PITA, though.

Mmm, I love pitas.

pooka · « **Reply #549 on:** August 19, 2012, 11:13:18 PM »

It depends on what one is writing. If it's for work, I wouldn't recommend turning it off. If I'm writing on my own, especially anything fiction, I would recommend turning it off.

I don't like quoter or quotor. I don't think colors is a good idea. Too many things still happen in black and white.

I also wouldn't call something parenthetical and not put it in parentheses. I know, they make pills for people like me.