Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Use of (sic) to denote grammar mistakes, or to rebut an entire argument or position.

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 18,249 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how


    Hi, am debating with someone the correct way to use this.
    I understand that it is to be used to absolve someone from an incorrect spelling/translation/publication of someone else's original statement/work. That its purpose is to highlight solely grammatical or spelling errors.

    The other person feels that it can be used to denote a fundamentally flawed statement or argument, so for example, they would use it as such.
    You say that Pascal Donohue is 'correct to raise taxes' (sic) because they have been lowered dramatically over the last 3 budgets.
    The other persons position is that as, in their view, taxes have not been lowered dramatically, it is false to suggest Pascal is correct to raise them and so the use of (sic) is appropriate.

    I would argue that should the statement have originally appeared as follows, it would be appropriate to use (sic) in this way.
    You say that Pascal Donohue is 'correct to raze (sic) taxes' because they have been lowered dramatically over the last 3 budgets.
    I have never seen it used to disparage an argument or position but instead to indicate spelling or grammatical errors are someone else's work, can anyone clarify which is correct or are both acceptable?


Comments



  • Hi, am debating with someone the correct way to use this.
    I understand that it is to be used to absolve someone from an incorrect spelling/translation/publication of someone else's original statement/work. That its purpose is to highlight solely grammatical or spelling errors.

    The other person feels that it can be used to denote a fundamentally flawed statement or argument, so for example, they would use it as such.

    The other persons position is that as, in their view, taxes have not been lowered dramatically, it is false to suggest Pascal is correct to raise them and so the use of (sic) is appropriate.

    I would argue that should the statement have originally appeared as follows, it would be appropriate to use (sic) in this way.

    I have never seen it used to disparage an argument or position but instead to indicate spelling or grammatical errors are someone else's work, can anyone clarify which is correct or are both acceptable?

    The use of (SIC) is to show you have quoted a spelling error as found in the source. It’s not an argumentative tool in the slightest.




  • I've always wondered what the hell that meant.




  • I agree with you. The other person is wrong.

    I always feel it is also a side swipe at the original author emphasising the error. My feelings are not particularly accurate, it is not a sideswipe, it just seems like one.




  • sic

    ADVERB

    Used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in a story must hold a child's interest and ‘enrich his (sic) life’.

    Origin
    Latin, literally ‘so, thus’.

    source

    Your friend needs to brush up on their googling ... :rolleyes:




  • Sic is sick(sic).


  • Advertisement


  • Moderator: gozunda, do not post in this thread again until further notice.

    This, I think, is the first time I have ever had to moderate a thread in this forum. So... yay?




  • You are not going to be able to reason with someone who posts in that way. Citing one dubious source and oneself as "two independent sources" is gaslighting in the extreme

    I'd be inclined just to ignore those posts and continue as though they're not there.

    EDIT: I have removed them.




  • I concur with Horrorscope; it's simply a way of saying "this is how the article/post originally wrote this word - it is not my error and I am faithfully reproducing the full quote, albeit with a spelling/grammar mistake". It doesn't convey any implication of demeaning the post because of an error.




  • I normally find that the tone of the rest of the article/paragraph/text indicates if the author meant [sic] as "literally", or as ":rolleyes: literally".




  • New Home wrote: »
    I normally find that the tone of the rest of the article/paragraph/text indicates if the author meant [sic] as "literally", or as ":rolleyes: literally".

    Yes, but that is to indicate their interpretation of the argument in play as would be done in a normal conversation. (Sic) is not used to defacto indicate the view being expressed is incorrect. It is a grammatical and spelling reference only in my view.


  • Advertisement


  • Agreed.


Advertisement