f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

 

If you’re volunteering for the Battle of the Blang, you should check out

tonight’s lengthy update to Sunday’s post “that blankety-blank‘ new word

‘blang’. ” The update was inspired by an interesting post at Language Log,

on Monday, by Mark Liberman, titled “Battling Blang” (April 24, 2006).

 

This post is “inspired” by the same piece.  Mark starts “Battling Blang” with

a lengthy exerpt from from f/k/a, which is always nice.   But, he spotted

a typo that I had missed in my piece and decided to “[sic]” it.  To wit:

“the Old Gray Lady becomes an accesory [sic] to languicide.”

 

This got me wondering about implicit and explicit, rigid and loose, policies

for when to use the adverb “sic,” which you surely already know stands for 

“Thus; so” and is (per the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2000):

“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.”

Coincidentally, “Sic.” happens to be the abbreviation for (my ancestral home

of) “Sicily,” and for “Sicilian.”  Ironically (or is it?) sic is also a transitive verb

meaning:

1. To set upon; attack. 2. To urge or incite to hostile action.

 

                                                                                          

Mark, being a scientist, certainly had no ill-intent when he sicced me.  He

merely wants his readers to know that the error/quirk was in the original.

For most webloggers, however, I’m afraid that “siccing” is meant to attack

or embarrass the quoted author or to incite the reader to ridicule him or her.

Frankly, there might have been a time when I would use “sic”

offensively to embarrass an author who was in disfavor.  However,

I hope that I’ve grown out of that stage — even if a bit late in life.

Indeed, your Humble Editor is quite often humbled by his many typos (and

grateful to a certain Anonymous Editor who often spots them and alerts me). 

Besides not being a trained typist, I have always been terrible at proof-reading my

own writing — even when others counted on me to review their work and catch

their errors.  Things have gotten much worse the past decade, as a number

of my aging fingers are often rather numb (due to numerous medical problems),

while my old eyes have a hard time with screen glare and trifocal interstices.

 

typo?

her divorce lawyer

listed under “Martial Law” 

 

        dagosan 

 

Perhaps for those reasons, and perhaps due to the sentimentality that comes

with finding out that one is no longer invincible or anywhere near perfect, I de-

cided shortly after I started this weblog that I would not use “sic” with a quote

when I am quite certain that I know which word was actually meant by the author 

and there is no good reason to embarrass the author by having the misspellation,

typo or mindo pointed out to my readers.  Instead of “siccing” the word, I simply

correct it in the quote.  If there is a doubt as to what the author intended, I have

at times first contacted him or her to see if the odd spelling or odd word was in

fact intended.

 

In the example above, if quoting the phrase “an accesory to languicide,” from the

f/k/a blang post, I would have noted the context of felony and crime and concluded 

that the poor old author surely meant “accessory.”   Then, even at the risk of appear-

ing condescending, I would have edited the misspelled word and had no need for a

sic.  

 

 

Am I just an old, myopic and decrepit softee, with lax standards?  Am I making

excuses for my own sloppiness? (yes, of course)  What do you do at your weblog,

or what do you expect as a weblog visitor?  Peridemented minds want to know.

 

update (11 AM, April 25):  A wise weblogging patroon, who is surely too

humble to seek attribution, has pointed out a particularly good reason to

avoid using “sic” in a weblog quotation: a correction — if not already made

by the original author — is very likely to be quickly made once spotted in the

original post or spotlighted elsewhere.  Suddenly, it is the “siccer” who is in

error, with no apparent benefit to any of the parties involved.

 

an old man’s ways–
my backside warmed
by the wood fire

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the old dog
looks as if he’s listening…
earthworms sing

 

 

 

 

 

exposing my spine
to the spring sun…
old age

 

 

Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

 

                                                                                                                             “NolosharkS”

                                                                                                                               nolo.com