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."

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

[Apple Acolyte]

I'm not opposed to leaving excerpted web errors in print, but for some reason I really detest seeing it on television, especially TV news. Here in Los Angeles I recently saw a local news report that was highlighting Internet sentiment on gas prices, and when they showed misspellings and poor grammar, it really annoyed me - I considered it to be lowering quality of the segment. My view is probably based largely on the fact that the newscaster was reading off these opinions with so much seriousness and gravity (which a good newscaster should normally do). I'd rather have intelligent posts discussed or none at all.

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

[Martin Blank]

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:[sic]

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Consider translated quotes. Nobody seems to have a problem with them even though there is no guarantee that the translation perfectly reflects the original statement. I think quoting children or people who use slang on message boards should follow the same rules. Yes, it "opens up liability both for lawsuits as well as ethics complaints," but the same could be said for any translated quote.

Re:[sic]

[gEvil (beta)]

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]

[VoyagerRadio]

You don't find this article interesting? I find this extremely interesting because, as a writer and blogger, I'm often wondering how best to transcribe the "idiosyncrasies of (message-board) language", which the author of the article suggests

"should be preserved as far as possible and taken as intentional, unless in context they are obviously evidence that the writer has innocently hit the wrong key ("teh," "rihgt"). A "wuz" on the Internet remains "wuz" in the paper.

My own take: consider the reporter, who takes notes while interviewing. Does she transcribe her subject's language verbatim? Not always, particularly if the extra words (the excessive adjectives, the obscene pronouns) aren't necessary to the thesis of the story. In a story about language itself, of course you would transcribe word-for-word, but it's not necessary to do so when relaying the general meaning of your interviewee. Or is it? Like I said, I find myself struggling with this one often.

Square brackets

[hkmarks]

You can use square brackets to indicate a change for grammar or spelling, can't you? "How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?" becomes "How is [a baby] formed? How [does a] girl get [pregnant]?"

I would not change a written text without indicating so, ever. If it's reasonably clear and doesn't make the original look dumb or silly, don't change it.

A (sic) always seemed to me like "Sigh, yes, I know it's spelled wrong. Don't blame me. It's their fault." It seems vaguely rude.

Re:It Makes Me Queasy...

[beadfulthings]

I've read each of the works you've cited, including all of Shakespeare's histories.

The authors you mention were all able to render dialect with a carefully tuned ear and a determination to advance whatever story they had chosen to tell. And even so, two of those authors are in danger of being damned as politically incorrect.

There's another whole category of dialect writers who choose to write in their own dialects and accents. Robert Burns comes to mind first, and American literature is also richly endowed with writers of both poetry and prose who speak with forceful, authentic accents.

I was more concerned with authors who somehow place themselves above it all. You've cited authors who were deeply involved with their stories and their characters.

(Would you care to join me in a rousing chorus of "For old long since?")

There are some...

[jd]

...absolutely superb novels that accurately depict the different dialects in England. That has nothing to do with skin colour, origin, or ethnicity. Since it is typically the author's own dialect that is depicted accurately, it is very likely not prejudice against that region, either. Oh, certainly, I'd question some use of dialect, but even someone as prejudice as Enid Blyton did not use them maliciously. Oh, some American authors might, but even some of the best-known examples of American authors who have used dialects in writing have done so to be historically or geographically correct, or to highlight prejudice, not to exacerbate it.

Re:Even worse...

[moosesocks]

There is, in the form of the DOI [wikipedia.org], which is used for Journal articles and such, and is accordingly loved by librarians.

Unfortunately, as is the case with many of these librarian-developed databases, they didn't quite "get it" in terms of how the internet functions, and there is a fee to assign each new DOI. Accordingly, though it remains an indispensable tool for keeping track of journal articles, its use hasn't spread very far beyond that.

Re:A wake up call

[Chrisje]

> I refused to send an SMS for 15-20 years until I finally got hold of a phone with a qwerty keyboard,

That's just plain stupid. I have never (and probably will never own) owned a phone with a full QWERTY keyboard, and I've been sending SMSes that are completely grammatically correct and spelled properly for the last ~12 years. The input method is no excuse. Similarly, I do not converse in "IM-language" on MSN or Jabber.

Like my dear mother used to say: "Als iedereen in de sloot springt hoef jij het nog niet te doen." which loosely translates to "If everyone jumps into the ditch, you don't have to."