To Stet Or Not To Stet, That Is the Question

theodp writes "The NY Times' Virginia Heffernan confesses to being stumped by how to excerpt the language on message boards and blogs. For example, Heffernan notes she could quote kavya on Yahoo Answers word for word ('How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?'), but worries that doing so makes kavya look like an idiot rather that the sweetly earnest 7-year-old that he or she might be. Is it better to paraphrase or revise the question into 'How is a baby formed?' For now, Heffernan is going to let things stand (stet) and treat message boards like novels, preserving idiosyncrasies of language as far as possible and taking them as intentional — a 'wuz' on the Internet remains 'wuz' in the paper."

Maybe

I have a sic feeling I know the answer.

one viewpoint

Traduttori traditori; "translators are traitors".

Re:one viewpoint

Traduttori traditori; "translators are traitors".

And I`m supposed to believe you?!

Probably some kind of pasta.

Well?

How is babby formed? [somethingawful.com]

Re:Well?

Oh now that is too priceless. They should do that for people who type "loose" instead of "lose".

I hate those kinds of loosers, get an education morans.

Re:Well?

Oh now that is too priceless. They should do that for people who type "lose" instead of "loose".

Fixed that for ya!

Re:Well?

That's a rule I've never understood. I try to force myself to put the punctuation inside, but it's just anathema to me as a coder.

#!/usr/bin/perl
print "This is a test;"

It's just wrong.

Re:Well?

Yes I know that one, though I often get it wrong (as in my previous post). More out of laziness than anything else though.
And that's why the common sense way is better. It's quite obvious that you should have written

"Its = possessive. It's = 'it is'".

My rule is quote what is being quoted, and nothing else. If there was punctuation in the quote, then put it in. If there wasn't then don't. Then after the quote is finished, put in whatever punctiation you would on a normal sentence. Which leads to things like

Harry asked "What are you doing?".

I know it's wrong pretty much anywhere you go, but it makes the most sense, and if anyone doesn't like it - well I'll get over it if they don't. Plus I never write in a situation that is formal enough for people to be rightfully pissed off about it anyway.

Re:Well?

I've a feeling that grammer nazies will patrol the comments to this story in full force.

I've a feeling the grammar Nazis will be too. ;-)

[sic]

I always thought the marker for material being quoted as it was spoken or written was [sic].

For example,

'John be [sic] tripping. He always [sic] doin' shit like that.'

In this case, the [sic] denotes the use of the infinitive of the copula verb in African-American English Vernacular (AAEV) to mean a habitual action; the second is used to mark the elision of the copula verb in the sentence.

Just my two cents' worth (former English grad student and undergrad seminar leader/paper grader).

Re:[sic]

Yes indeed, and [sic] exists because it is extremely poor form to edit a quote.

I'm more familiar with what journalism demands, but you're really not wanting to edit what a person says, even if it makes them look better than what they originally said. Any edits to somebody else's words opens up liability both for lawsuits as well as ethics complaints.

A well written article uses quotes as a means of showing the reader what happened, if one were to edit the quotes beyond cutting unnecessary bits to fit the article, there's a real risk of changing the quote. Even cutting it down brings in risks if it's not done in a careful manner.

Really, editing quotes is just a bad idea if the quote is so bad that you really have to edit it, then the appropriate thing to do in most cases is to just look for another one.

I'm definitely not the foremost expert on this, but it is something to undertake only with great trepidation.

Re:[sic]

Shouldn't that second sic be after 'He', the location of the elision?

In which case when quoting you I need to write

* 'John be [sic] tripping. He always [sic] [[sic]] doin' shit like that.'

Re:[sic]

I always thought the marker for material being quoted as it was spoken or written was [sic].

Minor nitpick, but typographically the square brackets are set roman while the word is set in italics. So it would appear as [sic] instead of [sic].

Re:[sic]

I always thought the marker for material being quoted as it was spoken or written was [sic].

In printing, the word "stet" has, for generations, been used to indicate matter that should be allowed to stand in its original form, overriding any blue-pencil changes introduced by another editor.

Since hardly anybody actually edits on paper any more, I doubt that the term is taught these days. Similarly, there's no reason to teach copyfitting, headline counting, or strange marks added to penciled copy above the lower-case n and below the lower-case u.

Re:[sic]

I'm pretty sure that means "Spelling InCorrect"

You are wrong. [wikipedia.org]

Can't Wait For Virginia Heffernan's Edit Of ...

The Gettysburg Address:

F0ur 5c0r3 4nd 53v3n y34r5 460 0ur f47h3r5 br0u6h7 f0r7h 0n 7h15 c0n71n3n7, 4 n3w n4710n, c0nc31v3d 1n |1b3r7y, 4nd d3d1c473d 70 7h3 pr0p051710n 7h47 4|| m3n 4r3 cr3473d 3qu4|.

N0w w3 4r3 3n6463d 1n 4 6r347 c1v1| w4r, 73571n6 wh37h3r 7h47 n4710n, 0r 4ny n4710n 50 c0nc31v3d 4nd 50 d3d1c473d, c4n |0n6 3ndur3. W3 4r3 m37 0n 4 6r347 b477|3-f13|d 0f 7h47 w4r. W3 h4v3 c0m3 70 d3d1c473 4 p0r710n 0f 7h47 f13|d, 45 4 f1n4| r3571n6 p|4c3 f0r 7h053 wh0 h3r3 64v3 7h31r |1v35 7h47 7h47 n4710n m16h7 |1v3. 17 15 4|70637h3r f1771n6 4nd pr0p3r 7h47 w3 5h0u|d d0 7h15.

Bu7, 1n 4 |4r63r 53n53, w3 c4n n07 d3d1c473 -- w3 c4n n07 c0n53cr473 -- w3 c4n n07 h4||0w -- 7h15 6r0und. 7h3 br4v3 m3n, |1v1n6 4nd d34d, wh0 57ru66|3d h3r3, h4v3 c0n53cr473d 17, f4r 4b0v3 0ur p00r p0w3r 70 4dd 0r d37r4c7. 7h3 w0r|d w1|| |177|3 n073, n0r |0n6 r3m3mb3r wh47 w3 54y h3r3, bu7 17 c4n n3v3r f0r637 wh47 7h3y d1d h3r3. 17 15 f0r u5 7h3 |1v1n6, r47h3r, 70 b3 d3d1c473d h3r3 70 7h3 unf1n15h3d w0rk wh1ch 7h3y wh0 f0u6h7 h3r3 h4v3 7hu5 f4r 50 n0b|y 4dv4nc3d. 17 15 r47h3r f0r u5 70 b3 h3r3 d3d1c473d 70 7h3 6r347 745k r3m41n1n6 b3f0r3 u5 -- 7h47 fr0m 7h353 h0n0r3d d34d w3 74k3 1ncr3453d d3v0710n 70 7h47 c4u53 f0r wh1ch 7h3y 64v3 7h3 |457 fu|| m345ur3 0f d3v0710n -- 7h47 w3 h3r3 h16h|y r350|v3 7h47 7h353 d34d 5h4|| n07 h4v3 d13d 1n v41n -- 7h47 7h15 n4710n, und3r 60d, 5h4|| h4v3 4 n3w b1r7h 0f fr33d0m -- 4nd 7h47 60v3rnm3n7 0f 7h3 p30p|3, by 7h3 p30p|3, f0r 7h3 p30p|3, 5h4|| n07 p3r15h fr0m 7h3 34r7h.

Re:Can't Wait For Virginia Heffernan's Edit Of ...

Hmmm, with a little rot13'ing of that whole thing you just gave me a great big new batch of passwords to use.

Re:Can't Wait For Virginia Heffernan's Edit Of ...

Most people use passwords. Some people use passphrases. Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem, detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes.

Easy answer: use current verbal quote practice

Current practice for verbal quotes:

If the person is a high-status, middle-aged white person, edit out all "umms", "ahhs", spelling mistakes, restatements, etc.

If the person is under 30, leave in all 'likes', 'ya knows', etc. If they are of appropriate class or race, feel free to transcribe all '-ing' endings as '-in', too.

So just follow this practice. Be sure to clean up high-status people if they are drivelling on, while doing verbatim quotes from teenagers, poor people, etc.

Even worse...

We need a better system for referencing the contents of Websites. Perfect example: the link to Yahoo Answers [yahoo.com] in the summary is already broken. It's of little use quibbling over the language if the original is lost.

To make matters worse, the referencing styles reek of the hammer-nail syndrome. Websites are NOT periodicals, but every citation style treats them as such. Author's full name? Title of Periodical^WWebsite? And what use is the access date if we don't have reliable archiving (or time machines)?

I think we need, at the very least, to set up reliable archiving before we can tackle any other citation questions raised by the nature of the Web. Perhaps a central, trustworthy source could copy a single page at request along and add metadata (date/time of archival, etc.), and then cite that?

All I'm saying is that the citation standards have more pressing problems. "Babby" versus "baby" doesn't make a lick of difference if the link cited gets you "This question has been deleted."

It Makes Me Queasy...

OK, I know I'm older than God, but there must be other people around who remember or have read the "dialect" renderings in stories and novels. I'm thinking of anything between, say, "Honestly, Miz Scyallet, ah don' know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies..." all the way to "We don't need no steenking badges..." That includes a lot of childrens' stories that have now thankfully been banished.

What it boiled down to was that if your skin was dark, or you were "foreign," your speech was rendered as "dialect" by some white person somewhere. Seeking kavya's question quoted verbatim somehow transports me back in time. Even the use of "sic" seems somehow to say, "I know this is a deviation from standard English. I just want you to know I didn't originate it, and I'm literate enough to know the difference."

I almost (but not quite) think I might prefer just having the conversation related to me. Or, as an earlier commenter has said, throw the whole thing out and find a better way to cite Web comments.
 

Re:It Makes Me Queasy...

Where on earth did you get the impression that rendering dialect correctly had anything at all to do with skin color? Rendering dialect can be done to put someone down, it's true. However, writers with that kind of agenda typically don't have anything worthwhile to say anyhow.

The truth is that people living in all kinds of places at all economic levels of society develop their own dialect. For example, did you ever read Kipling's "Captains Courageous?" Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn?" Henry Fielding's "Tom Jones?" Read any of Falstaff's scenes from Shakespeare's plays? See any 'people of color' being put down in any of those examples?

To ignore dialect when writing or hide it is to ignore the rich and complex diversity that is the human race. It is to turn the orchestra of language into a single section of brass. It takes away the spice from written or spoken dialog. Don't hide from dialect, treat it as those great writers did. Celebrate it!

Re:It Makes Me Queasy...

The underclasses had and have their own dialects

I'm certainly not going to fix up every instance of Aluminum [sic] and -ize [sic] that all these underclass Americans insist on using!

Re:Stet it in print, but perhaps not on T.V.

I think they should be left alone in all formats. When it's put against a background of generally proper grammar, it looks even worse. If there's a higher chance of someone's quote becoming popular, it may (may) get them to consider using a spell checker. Even if it's incremental, getting people to learn better grammar is good for everyone.

Re:My view

I do not think egalitarian [tfd.com] means what you think it means.