-1

The usage of "sic" in writing? thread explains that:

[sic] is used when quoting another to say, "this is not a typographical, spelling or grammar error on the part of the reporter; rather, the error was in the original, and we're quoting it without change."

Now, I just read a news article with this excerpt:

The documents also show IT workers for Platte River Networks referred in an internal work ticket to “the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation." A worker later said the term was a joke.

"[sic]" indicates that there is an error. Yet, the Hillary coverup operation is perfect English and does not have a typographical, spelling, or grammatical error.

So, "[sic]" is there because this author thinks that there is an error in meaning. But, not every author would put a "[sic]" in that quote. So, since when did quotes become alterable by an author?

In professional writing, do author's have the prerogative to insert "[sic]" into quotes based on the author's interpretation of what the speaker really meant to say? Isn't a quote a quote? Isn't that what causes political gaffes?

Community
  • 1
Jaqaex
  • 92

2 Answers2

0

Sic is from the Latin for "thus". Placing [sic] in a quotation, near (usually following) an apparent misspelling or grammatical error or some other anomaly, indicates that the person doing the quoting did not introduce this anomaly, but rather it is a direct quote from the source material.

What the person doing the quoting considers to be an "anomaly" is up to them. Certainly in the case of spelling "Hillary" as "Hilary" the notation is deserved. And in the case of "coverup" it is reasonable for the person quoting to want to indicate that he did not choose this term, but rather it was copied from the original source. (Alternatively, as the P-ists among us have argued, [sic] may have been used because of a perception that "coverup", without the hyphen, is a misspelling.)

It should be noted that the use of [sic] does not conceptually alter the quoted material, but rather assures the reader that it has not been altered.

(And, yes, there are cases where [sic] is used to highlight and ridicule minor, nearly negligible errors in the original source. But many sorts of writing can be used for ridicule, and even if the intent is ridicule this does not make the use of a notation such as [sic] invalid or improper. Some of the greatest writing in English literature has ridicule at its core.)

Hot Licks
  • 27,508
0

This is indeed indicating two spelling errors in the original source. It is referring to "Hilary" (instead of "Hillary") and "coverup" (instead of "cover-up").

Owen
  • 121