Does Chuck do the work himself? “He does.” Wrong verb choice. When I recently watched an interview with a famous athlete after the game, I counted twenty such “bad verb” errors. If the journalist had written a newspaper article about this interview, would it have been appropriate to quote each of these twenty, or has our society changed to the point where such grammar has become acceptable and somehow the norm? It is not always possible to specify exactly how best to use the tool [sic]. We do not think that replacing the words “and requires” with “[sic]” would be helpful because no one would understand what is wrong. You may just need to exercise your best judgment. Perhaps a legal style manual contains useful instructions. You may also want to read our latest article, Understanding the Trick Behind [sic]. How do I indicate that I wrote in italics to highlight words in a quote? Add a check mark with “Italics added” after the page number, for example, ` . raises the question of what desire is” (Smith, 1991, p. 343).
For definition/use author and contributor your first 4 sentences, with the main definition in the body – two sentences that are in exact opposition to each other; completely contradictory statements (I ignore the remarks about the punctuation required). Can you explain? It depends on the type of relationship you want to have with the person. [Sic] is used after each error. Instead, you may want to consider placing a disclaimer before the sections of the contract, for example: B: “The following sections of the ABC contract contain grammatical errors, but are included here exactly as they appear in the contract, as they do not affect the legal issues at stake” or something like that. However, if it is possible that the grammatical errors have led to some of what is disputed by the parties, it may be preferable to identify each error with [sic]. That`s what I do, I replace the error (or dated spelling) for the correct version and put it in parentheses. I often get the impression that the use of “[sic]” is arrogant because it draws attention to the container and not to the content of the quote. This is particularly unfair to those whose first language is not English. For example, last week I quoted a Russian researcher whose work I admire but whose English is imperfect: instead of using [sic] five times per sentence, which would undermine his credibility, I replace the wrong words with the good ones in parentheses. So if you put it on “Americanisms”, you should know damn much better what you`re talking about, and my experience suggests that most English speakers/British writers don`t! It is difficult for us to visualize what you mean. Can you give a specific example? From the little context you gave, we suggest replacing the word meaning with an ellipse: “Photography has become so easy – that people don`t really believe that a photo has intrinsic value.” I completely agree with your comment, which corrects this general mistake of agree! While many people, starting from the descriptive rather than prescriptive ending of conventions, have simply switched to the use of plural pronouns in general examples, such as Catherine S., there is actually no clause in the conventions that allows such an inadequacy just to satisfy feelings that advocate gender neutrality and at the same time avoid the somewhat cumbersome use of both singular pronouns! Instead of resorting to this extraordinary error, authors can use both antecedents and plural pronouns in their general examples. Thus, a teacher`s observation that “even the strong writer can benefit from a fresh look reading and evaluating his work in the tutoring center” would become “Even strong writers can benefit from a fresh look reading and evaluating their work in the tutoring center,” not “Even the strong writer can benefit from a fresh look reading and evaluating his work in the tutoring center.” Shared usage patterns and the ever-changing nature of language lead to changes that even adapt formal conventions (divide infinitives for $500, Alex), but agreed-upon conventions found in existing writing manuals can often provide less drastic solutions for correcting chord errors.
Thank you very much for that. It was a very simple explanation – exactly what I was looking for. And in this case, ignoring GrammarBook`s other good reasons for not doing so, the OP would be wrong, as they have clearly generalized the false “rule” that the words “ize” are “Americanisms” and therefore necessarily false in “correct” English (i.e. British or perhaps Commonwealth). I consider Oxford to be the authority on British English and their online entry for en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organisation redirects to en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organization which says “organisation” is also acceptable, but Oxford`s position has always been (?) that there are many correct words “ize” in British English. Yes, “analyze” is a usage of American English and incorrect in British English, and there are a few examples where “ise” is preferred to “ize”, but most are not. Let me give you an example. Suppose you quote a source called “Public Policy in Dertoit.” As in the title of the source, Detroit spells misspelling for some reason. Would your quote look like this: I`m writing a report and I`m quoting a sentence that bolds the word “probably” – that is, “I think he`s probably capable of doing this.” The original author wrote “probably” in bold to draw attention to this. So, is it correct to put [sic] after the word that probably indicates that bold font is what the original author wanted? As far as my report is concerned, I do not want to give the impression that I am the one drawing attention to this word. I know it sounds pretty artificial, but I faced it once and now I can`t remember what I ended up doing.
What if [sic] is part of a title (not the first word), capitalize it? (e.g. “Luv [sic] All of Me” or “Luv [sic] All of Me”. What if you can`t italicize the font in the program you`re using, is it okay to leave it normal? Thank you very much. One of the definitions of homonym in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “homophone”. The American Heritage Dictionary defines homonym as “one of two or more words that sound and often spell the same but have a different meaning.” In the strict linguistic sense, the definition of homonym is “one of two or more words that are spelled and pronounced in the same way but have a different meaning.” True homonyms are both homographs (spelled the same way but different in meaning or pronunciation) and homophones (pronounced the same way but different in meaning or spelling). The word homonym is often used, as we did on our blog, to refer to words that are either homographs or homophones. Dictionary.com says: “The more familiar homonymous word, heard in classes since the early years, has become an overarching term that describes not only words that are both homophonic and homographic, but also words that are one or the other. In everyday language, words that sound the same, look the same, or both, can be called homonyms. “Okay. It helped, but I need help figuring out what to do if I intentionally misspell a word (usually for the desired comic effect).
Can anyone help? If a quoted sentence contains the words “a threaded fastener”, is it correct to place it after the word “a”, or should it go after “elements”? A question mark or exclamation mark may be acceptable. The Chicago Manual of Style says: 6.72: Exclamation instead of Question A sentence in the form of a direct question can be marked as rhetoric using an exclamation mark instead of a question mark. Various dictionaries list both sicced and sicked as acceptable spellings for the past sic. Therefore, writing [sic] is not necessary. The title of this blog post is not “The Many Uses of [sic]”. The purpose is to explain the most common use of [sic]. If there is a spelling mistake instead of a grammatical error, do you still use [sic]? Sometimes a writer [sic] relies on his own words to indicate that the language was deliberately chosen for a particular effect, especially when the writer`s ironic meaning may otherwise be unclear. [14] Bryan A.
