Quoting

[Kama]

I have a problem with this. I understand that since I am quoting someone, I am not supposed to change anything. But what do do in the case when the quoted sentence contains personal pronouns, which may be the subject of misunderstanding?

Example:

We totally refute your allegation regarding our “...refusal to discuss your questions concerning our amendments to your VOR payment schedule at Commercial Meeting”.

In the middle of the sentence, we switch from our meaning us to our meaning them.

One idea would be to just leave out the quotations marks and write:

We totally refute your allegation regarding our refusal to discuss our questions concerning your amendments to our VOR payment schedule at Commercial Meeting”.

But what do I do when I want to keep it as a quotation, but avoid misunderstanding as to who exactly is "we" and who is "you"?
 

[Anna]

In French, you can add things like this : "your (Harry's) broomstick..." or change it like this "and that [Harry's] broomstick..."

[Brinestone]

As far as I know (I don't know the APA style very well), you always use square brackets in English to set off your changes to the original. So in your case, it would be:

We totally refute your allegation regarding our "refusal to discuss [our] questions concerning [your] amendments to [our] VOR payment schedule at Commercial Meeting.”

Yes, it's ugly. What's even uglier is this (MLA style):

We totally refute your allegation regarding our "refusal to duscuss [our] questions concerning [your] amendments [ . . . ] at Commercial Meeting."

Yes, apparently MLA style dictates that if the ellipsis points weren't in the original, you have to set them off with square brackets. And since MLA is mostly used in liberal arts/humanities writing, which often deals with literature, there might be an ellipsis in the original. Strange.

If it were me, I would reword the sentence so that it still refers to their allegations but doesn't quote them directly. That way, you can make it super clear. Something like this, maybe:

We totally refute your allegation that we refused to address your questions about the amendments you made at Commercial Meeting to our VOR payment schedule.

Especially since this looks like a business document. It's not like the original was copyrighted; it's just that you want them to feel like you actually listened, right?

[Jonathon]

Putting in too many changes in brackets is ugly and may hamper readability. If it's not possible to work in the quote without having to change all those pronouns, I would suggest paraphrasing, like Ruth said. Quoting it verbatim (except for changed pronouns) without putting it in quotation marks is generally considered unethical.

[Icarus]

In this context, I don't think it would be unethical to write:

We totally refute your allegation regarding our refusal to discuss our questions concerning your amendments to our VOR payment schedule at Commercial Meeting.

Yes, the phrasing is lifted from the original, but it's not as if intellectual property of the sentence in question is even an issue here. If somebody asks you, "Did you go to the bar after work?" and you reply, matter-of-factly, "No, I did not go to the bar after work," I don't think you would be expected to acknowledge the fact that you are quoting the original in some way. This isn't so much a quotation as a natural occurence of using the same words to say the same thing.

-o-

(Now, how important is it that the original sentence makes very little sense to me?   )

[Kama]

It's not like the original was copyrighted; it's just that you want them to feel like you actually listened, right?

Yup.

(Now, how important is it that the original sentence makes very little sense to me?

Most of them do. See what I have to translate?

One day, I'll pick some of the more interesting ones and post here.  :ph34r:  

[Sheila]

Hey, Joe, try this:

I really feel frustrating to make my SP impressive and individual. But i am sure that you may have experts' taste of it. So any comments, about the general impression, suggestions, the comments, or the syntax errors, are badly welcome.

I love this guy, really I do.

[Icarus]

I really feel frustrating as too. Badly so.

[Porter]

ROFL

[Brinestone]

I have no response to that.

[Kama]

Okay, how about these, Icky?

We have repeatedly questioned the Engineer’s authority to instruct acceleration and the fact he considers his demands for double shifts does not constitute acceleration is mere semantics that in our view justifies our decision to proceed only at rates of production upon which our tender was based.

Your reference to and explanation of GCC Clause 55, whilst being interesting, was somewhat otiose in that we are fully conversant with the terms of the Contract and how they are to be applied/administered.

Whilst acknowledging there may have been an agreed procedure, the aspect of our being made aware of all amendments and given the opportunity to resolve, was not happening in recent months.

Until such time as we have such consent we are unable to place a subcontract with the result that this critical preparatory activity of Bridge E(Mo)019 works, and indeed the Bridge itself, is held in abeyance.

In so saying, it must be clearly understood that such additional information as may come available will only be to supplement that already in your possession and upon which, we believe, your instruction as to how to improve the sub-grade could have already been issued.

[rivka]

*gouges out own eyes*