The world of the blog seems to attract people who write well. My blog is surrounded by people who write well, that is they can express themselves well in good written English. Let me tell you, it has made me pull up my socks, even though it may take me longer to write something than in the early years of my blog. I focus much more on sentence construction now. What might be correct and clear, can also be ugly, and rearranged to read much more nicely. Yes, of course I get things wrong at times and I get great pleasure at wonderful blog writers occasionally missing a typo in their own writing.
I have used the word sic in posts. It is a useful tool when writing, but I have never used it inside quotation marks.
I think I may have used who's instead of whose once or more when writing, even though I know the difference.
A mother is grieving for her lost son and her husband was killed in a car accident not so long ago. I find it patronising and just plain nasty on the part of the writer of this piece to insert sic inside a quotation written by the mother's sister.
Ellen Lutton, or your sub editor (do they still have sub editors?), you may very well always get who's and whose correct, but please don't patronise the grieving who's writing skills may not be as quite as good as your own. In fact, how dare you!
A Facebook page that Daniel McNamara’s mother had set up in his memory after he died now includes Michael’s name as well.
“It was a long and frantic night searching for Michael since
about 6pm last night and that bright little boy, who's (sic) smile lit
up the world around us, is now no longer on this Earth,” Michael’s aunt
wrote on his Facebook memorial page.
Hear, hear! Good grammar is valuable, but to insist on it is rude.
ReplyDeleteHH, I like people to try to write well, but if their education was lacking, then I won't pillory them for their errors.
DeleteThe insertion of 'sic' was probably unnecessary anyway given that the item concludes with the words 'Michael's aunt wrote...'.
ReplyDeleteQuite unnecessary Victor.
DeleteDo you think it is possible that "sic" was in fact an instruction to the subeditor not to correct it rather than something intended to run in the story?
ReplyDeleteMarcellous, it is a possibility but really, I don't think subs are used much anymore.
DeleteThe aim of good grammar and good spelling is to improve communications between the writer and reader.
ReplyDeleteSic means "I, the writer, know there is a mistake in the text and I don't want you to think I didn't notice it". So you are soooo right. Apart from being patronising, how does that improve communication?
Hels, that is a long explanation for what can be easily translated, but it is an excellent explanation.
DeleteWon big fat rarszbury to ellin
ReplyDeleteI reckon so FC.
Delete"...the grieving who's writing skills..."
ReplyDeletetut tut Andrew, that should be whose.
Who's is an abbreviation of who is.
I've never seen the importance of (sic).
Bingo, I knew someone would pick that up and make a comment.
DeleteYes Andrew I agree with you and
ReplyDeleteditto what Fruitcake said.
ellin should have just corrected it - not like it's a legal document or anything.
Just the fact that the media go near griefstricken people offends me.
Ann, would correcting it be seen as being patronising? Not sure. Media harassment of grieving people is appalling, and we know which media empire specialised in it.
DeleteI agree with you and all your commenters.
ReplyDeleteDiane, I nearly always agree with my commenters. They are terribly clever.
DeleteDitto here. Interesting, that you read the Brisbane Times.
ReplyDeleteBill, I have been known to look at it for something specific, but I think it might have been linked to The Age.
DeleteI've never used (sic) and I never will Andrew..I'm definitely not a punctuation snob as you might have gathered, am a big fan of ......! and (?) and even .....and, so shoot me!
ReplyDeleteGrace, I think both of your punctuation marks are very useful, especially when repeated!!!
DeleteOhhhh..... I think that sic is often used to patronise the original writer rather than inform the current reader and have never, ever used it.
ReplyDeleteYes, it should be used only with great care Kath. I think I have only used it on my words.
DeleteI'm clearly a nastier person than Kath - I've used it when the original writer is 'worthy' of being patronised (eg smug, pretentious etc) ...
ReplyDeleteBut to use it in such a context as you found is appalling - even insensitive little ol' me would give a grieving person some latitude.
Red, that is fair use.
ReplyDeleteI think the Fairfax press are the last ones to be highlighting grammatical errors of others. Some of the grammar that they employ on their websites leaves much to be desired, especially since the last round of redundancies.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, the quality of writing is only going to get worse, as less people do more at a faster pace. The Guardian Australia will be an interesting development to watch. While it may have suffered badly from typos in the past, as per Media Watch, there is no doubting the quality of the writing.
DeleteHi Andrew
ReplyDeleteOh god, it falls to yours pedantry - sorry. It's parentheses or round brackets rather than quotation marks that are used to signify (sic). I agree that it was repugnant to use the device in the context above but I don't see any reason to be squeamish about its use in general reporting or commentary. If you're quoting written text containing an unequivocal grammatical error and you're also someone with an interest in maintaining the integrity of the language, then I don't see a problem with politely identifying an embedded error with this elegant device.
xxx
Pants
Pants, best left to the professionals, I think. I can't recall you using it, but I expect you have, and done so correctly.
Delete