From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moved from User talk:Snalwibma[edit]

(1) Hello. My name is Dean Dwight Camp. I don't know who you are or what your story is, but I provided sources citing MLA 4th edition and "A Grammar Book for You and I (oops, Me): All the Grammar You Need to Succeed in Life" by C. Edward Good informing English language users that 'sic' is "always" enclosed by brackets when used inside quoted material. I provided the book's title, author, and page number. Do you have any sources indicating either that these sources are disreputable or that sic is 'sometimes' or "generally" not enclosed within brackets when inside quoted material? I ask you this because you continue to replace my editing with your editing that is wrong information. If you do not have any sources to cite your claim that sic is "generally used" where I had made a universal claim that sic is "always used", then please stop deleting the changes I made or the changes I will make because your deletion does not help the Wikipedia user's understand either the grammar rules provided by these two sources or, more importantly, help the Wikipedia user's understand the common usage of 'sic' within the context of communicating to the reader that a quote has been transcribed verbatim or when the writer can communicate his or her themes, ideas, or thesis effectively by ridiculing a quoted source. . (2) I provided two examples of 'sic' being used. One example was "Using sic normally" and the second example was "Using sic to ridicule" "example 2". I have placed the previous full stop outside the quote because it's my own style if that is acceptable for you. The following is an editing I had made that you had deleted:

Using 'sic' normally Example 1 The following is an example of 'sic' being used by Patrick V. Kirch under normal academic conditions to quote material from Marshall Sahlins:

As Sahlins once remarked, Hawai'i took "the primitive contradiction between the domestic and public economies to an ultimate crisis—revealatory [sic] it seems not only of this disconformity but of the economic and political limits of kinship society."49 (Kirch 40).[34] In this example, "revealatory" should be 'revelatory'.

Two circumstances set the context for this quoted material. (1) Patrick V. Kirch, who is the author of "Controlled Comparison and Polynesian Cultural Evolution", is informing the reader that the quoted spelling error, "revealatory", is not a mistake he made in transcription, but that the quoted material from Marshall Sahlins, who is author of "Stone Age Economics", was originally misspelled.[34][35] (2) The last circumstance is that Kirch is using Sahlins's quoted material to support his essay's themes and ideas, which were that Hawai'i's politics and society transformed comparatively more than two other Polynesian Societies from the same Ancient Polynesian Society (APS).

Using 'sic' to ridicule A bracketed sic may also be used as a form of ridicule by drawing attention to the original writer's mistakes in an attempt to disparage the quoted source and prejudice the reader against the source. The use of sic could commit the fallacy, appeal to ridicule, whether intentional or not, because using sic highlights perceived irregularities. The application of sics with the intent to disparage has been called the "benighted use" because it creates a "false sense of superiority" in its users.[8]

Example 1 The following is an example of 'sic' being used by The Times to ridicule the quoted source, which is Walmart. This example demonstrates how the interpolation of a sic can subtly discredit a quoted statement:

Warehouse has been around for 30 years and has 263 stores, suggesting a large fan base. The chain sums up its appeal thus: "styley [sic], confident, sexy, glamorous, edgy, clean and individual, with it's [sic] finger on the fashion pulse."[18] In this example, 'styley' should be 'styled' or 'stylish' and 'it's', which is a contraction of 'it' and 'is', should be 'its', which is the possessive form of the pronoun 'it'.

Four circumstances set the context for this quoted material. (1) Walmart could have used italic type if they were intentionally trying to introduce new terms. (2) Walmart did not use italic type. (3) "The Times" could have contacted Walmart requesting a corrected sum of "its appeal" prior to printing their paper. (4) The last circumstance setting the context is that "The Times" either did not contact Walmart again or did contact them again, but printed this quoted material anyway.

Example 2 The following is an example of 'sic' being used by the main author, Pratap Chatterjee, to ridicule the quoted author, who is Robert 'Butch' Gatlin:

Perhaps he realized that trouble was inevitable, or because he realized that he could make more money if he set up his own subcontracting company, on February 15, 2004, Gatlin sent a terse letter to his bosses, which read: "This project has grown to such proportion and the issues and problems which have ensured [sic], I feel my leadership and management are ineffectifve [sic] and nonproductive. I therefore request to tenure [sic] my resignation with this project, effectife [sic] immediately."68 (Chatterjee 127)[36] In this example, "ensured" should have been 'ensued', "ineffectifve" should have been 'ineffective', "tenure" should have been 'tender', and "effectife" should have been 'effective' (Chatterjee 127).[36]

Six circumstances set the context for this quoted material. (1) Robert is supposed to be professional and educated: "Capouya's man in charge of engineering and construction was fifty-five-year-old Robert Bruce "Butch" Gatlin from Tennessee, who had worked for the Army Corps for thirty-two years, including several years as the commander for the agency's Texas coastal district" (Chatterjee 62-63).[36] (2) Robert's previously cited correspondence with his boss used in the previous example was a matter of official record, should have been performed correctly, but instead was incorrect four times. (3) The substance of Robert's letter expressing that he intended to quit his job because the work was too big, too hard, or too complex is contradictory and ironic because Robert later took a sub-contracting job for Halliburton/KBR doing the same work he previously did directly for Halliburton/KBR as an employee: "Three former Halliburton/KBR senior managers would stand out: Terry Hall...Butch Gatlin, the man whom Halliburton/KBR hired to prepare for the invasion, who would also set up his own company and apply to Halliburton/KBR for the very work he used to supervise... and, finally, Gatlin's boss Al Neffgen" (Chatterjee 113).[36] (4) The writer, Pratap Chatterjee, has drawn attention to the original writer's mistakes, three of which are probably keyboard typos and one of which is probably a result of Robert Gatlin either not recognizing a phonetic distinction between "tenure" and 'tender' or not knowing that the two terms have different meanings, by using "[sic]" four times within a two sentence quote. This abundant use of '[sic]' draws attention to the original writer's mistakes. (5) Drawing attention to Robert Gatlin's mistakes ridicules him. In doing so, Chatterjee supports his chapter's theme, which is "Corruption in Kuwait". And in doing this, Chatterjee supports his book's theme, which is to expose "corporate malfeasance and political cronyism" (Chatterjee cover). (6) The last circumstance setting the context is that Chatterjee could not have accomplished any of these literary goals as effectively if he had quietly edited the mistakes of Gatlin instead of ridiculing Gatlin because ridicule causes the reader to stop and reflect upon Chatterjee's themes. (Internet, Wikipedia, Sic, 16:47, 10 December 2011‎ (talk)‎ (30,255 bytes) (→Formatting) (undo) (Tag: section blanking))

(3) I am not sure what your credential are in regards to English language usage, but I would like to hear more from you about your justification for deleting my editing under such rational as "rubbish", "garbled stuff", "it's incorrect", "further tweaks to opening", and "personal opinion, advice, and a certaian [sic] quantity of nonsense" (Internet, Wikipedia, Sic, Revision history of Sic, 10:14, 11 2012 Snalwibma (talk / contribs) (21,006 bytes)). If you noticed, I just used "[sic]" when citing you because you misspelled 'certain' as "certaian". I did not quite 'copyedit' you, the term of which should be two words or should be a hyphenated word, because I am seeking to establish three points: (A) I would like to use "sic" as a teaching aid for you to learn how to use sic in normal conditions, (B) I would like to ridicule you because the act of ridicule demonstrates how an author can use ridicule to make a point, support a thesis, or support a claim, and (C) I find that using "sic" for your quoted material is ironic given the topic of concern is the use of "sic". Please freel free to use sic if you would like to respond to these comments, such as if you notice a spelling error, such as in this sentence.

(4) Could you please establish what your objective normative standards are for "rubbish", indicate to me where you considered my editing was "garbled stuff", provide an argument that I made factual errors prompting you to claim that "it's incorrect", explain why "tweaks" are prohibited, and establish where my personal opinion, advice, and a certain quantity of nonsense" were exhibited?

(5) If you feel that I have unfairly or unjustly shifted the burden of proof to you requesting that you cite your reasons for deleting my editing, then please do the following: (A) provide citation supporting your arguments and claims that you do not need citations for your reasons and claims, (B) stop censoring what I edit because what I edit is correct or more informative than what you replace my editing with that is either incorrect or less informative, and (C) stop vandalizing this Wikipedia article using the definition of "vandalism" that Wikipedia provided, though I do not consider censorship of information as vandalism but instead consider that vandalism relates only to the destruction of property that is more tangible than internet information.

(6) Here is a list of sources I have cited that have been deleted or ignored:

[33] "A Grammar Book for You and I (Oops, Me)": C. Edward Good, "A Grammar Book for You and I (Oops, Me): All the Grammar You Need to Succed in Life", Capital Books, 2002, page 390. [34] "Natural Experiments of History" an anthology edited by Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson, Chapter 1, "Controlled Comparison and Polynesian Cultural Evolution", Patrick V. Kirch, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010, pages 40 & 52. [35] "Stone Age Economics": Marshall Sahlins, Chicago, 1972, page 141, as cited in endnote 49, from "Natural Experiments of History", chapter 1, "Controlled Comparison and Polynesian Cultural Evolution", pages 40 & 52.[34] [36] "Halliburton's Army": Pratap Chatterjee, "Halliburton's Army: How a Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized the Way America Makes War", Nation Books, 2009, pages 62-63, 113, & 127. [37] "Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court", publisher Penguin Press HC; 1st edition, 2009, pages 176 and the citation of the quote is on page 297 following the second note 176. [38] Burn's citation is quoted verbatim, including the initial bracketed phrase: "["before we allow"] : the text of Douglas's stay is reprinted as an appendix to his dissent in Rosenberg v. U.S., 346 U.S. 273 (1953), quoted at 321."

(7) I have read many books, have a degree in Political Science from Boise State University, teach English in Thailand to 10-12 year olds, and have a TESOL certificate. My credentials are not as impressive as your own. However, I would like to follow basic rules of debate, argumentation, rhetoric, reason, and the three laws of logic, which have been mislabeled as "Laws of thought" by Wikipedia in order to sort this conflict we have between us out concerning common usage of "sic". I am open to learning more about the use of sic from you if what you provide is reasonable and cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are the anon editor who has added various bits of text over the last couple of days. My reasons for deleting the new material are in my edit summary: here. My only other comment is WP:TLDR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold reorganization by Lobsterthermidor[edit]

The article was reorganized with new headings in February by User:Lobsterthermidor. Being the main designer of the previous heading scheme, perhaps I may be a bit biased, but I really do not understand the current scheme at all. Out of respect for WP:BOLD I will not revert it, however, while some of the new headings do seem to have some value, many of these headings should be made into subheads at the very least in my opinion. Moreover, the subhead "Formatting" simply doesn't belong under the "Use to denote errors of fact or logic". Does anybody else have an opinion on this? —CodeHydro 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My purpose in sub-categorising was to provide more focus points into which more detailed contributions can be made in future. Keep the ones you feel have value and alter the ones you don't feel are useful. Sometimes a new section is obviously needed but finding the mot juste for its title is not achieved first-time. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC))
In the same spirit of boldness, I have completely reorganized the article again. Now, similar topics are grouped together, and subtopics are placed in subsections of the section corresponding to the main topic. I also changed section titles for greater brevity, and combined some sections into a single section. Hope this is helpful! Augurar (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Source in context[edit]

I remember learning at one point that the origin of the word was as an abbreviation for 'source in context'. I believe that the Latin etymology is correct, but this might bear mentioning in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

See the section "Improper acronyms" --Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Latin Origins[edit]

The article begins with "The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") added immediately after a quoted word..." But in the etymology section, it says, "The adverb sic – meaning "intentionally so written", first appeared in English circa 1856. It is derived from the Latin adverb sīc, which contains a long vowel and means "so, thus, in this manner", "as such" or "in such a manner"." Later on, in the formatting section, the article says, "Because sic is not an abbreviation, it is incorrect to place a period or full-stop inside the brackets after the word sic."

The beginning of the article, if I understand correctly, implies that "sic" is a Latin abbreviation for the full Latin phrase "sic erat scriptum". Perhaps the article should more consistently convey that (if this is actually correct) the English use of the word "sic", while not technically an abbreviation itself, refers to the Latin use of the word "sic" as an abbreviation for the full Latin phrase "sic erat scriptum". I'd do the editing myself, but I'm really not sure if I even have it right. Regardless, the article, in its current state, is a bit confusing regarding the Latin origins and abbreviation status surrounding the English use of "sic". (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Article needs an expansion of scope[edit]

Sic is not something unique to the US, therefore this article needs a bit of a rewrite as the current article only sites cases in US and states the uses of sic "in Modern U.S." -- (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives for making clear that there is no intention of disparagement?[edit]

I came to this page to see if there is an accepted way of dealing with the problem that "sic" can seem disparaging even when it is used merely to point out that an irregular or archaic usage that appears is not a typo but is in the original as quoted, without wanting to imply that there was anything wrong with that irregular or archaic use in the original. I think this happens often. Sometimes an author with a modern style will use neologisms or orthographic puns that could appear to be typos in quotes. Another author quoting a passage containing invented words or spellings might want to point out that there isn't a typo. Sic seems to be appropriate, but for many readers it carries a disparaging connotation. I don't see a solution to this in "alternatives." It seems to me that the problem is really that the word "sic" is simply misunderstood as having a disparaging connotation when it shouldn't necessarily be understood that way, but if there were a way of dealing with this it would be good to include it in the article. Sorry not to have a good suggestion for a solution. Rlitwin (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Usage of "sic" does always imply that the originator was wrong in some way, syntactical or semantical. I think you just can't help it if someone is offended by being pointed to an error he made. A full sentence could be used like "All typos reproduced as in the original text", if this sounds better to you; though the basic issue will still be the same. I definitely wouldn't worry too much about it. -- Seelefant (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
   I harbor some doubt abt sic necessarily implying error in the quoted text; i think i would use it in some cases where i am unsure of what its author meant:
...bcz the text is ambiguous, and i couldn't tell (or didn't have time to become sure) which meaning was intended, or
...bcz even my most reasonable construction of the text seemed implausible to me, and i wanted it clear that i had checked my transcription three times to be sure i hadn't introduced any error, and wanted to give my reader(s) a chance of puzzling it out (perhaps without their digging up or paying for the source i had access to, and rather than assuming that i found it coherent and thus being inclined to guess that i'd most likely garbled my transcription); this case is especially relevant when my source is a bad photocopy or un-proofread OCR, and/or composed with output technology less uniform than copy from IBM Selectric typewriters. (Handwritten sources, as with scriptorial output, business or public ledgers and forms, or personal correspondence -- especially in cursive -- make this flavor especially to the point.)
(Oh, and i just recalled an error-free case -- or rather, a thot-experiment someone faked up to clarify the real-world hazards of construing texts from before clever inventions like
  1. returning to the left margin upon reaching the right margin of the medium (in place of boustrophedon) and
  2. (to come to the point) inserting a blank before the first letter of the next word:
The only shortcoming in the (3- or 4-word) quasi-English sentence
HEISNOWHERE [ambiguity sic]
is failure to recast it (or paraphrase the quote), due to failing to notice the ambiguity (which is
absent when spoken, including when dictated to a scribe,
probably invisible to both author and scribe, and
plausibly invisible to all those likely to be invited to proofread).
I'd bet, tho, that our discussion need not describe such relatively rare cases, as long as it is not quite so dogmatic as Seelefant's limitation above to unambiguously identified errors.
--Jerzyt 08:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposite of sic - denote a misquotation[edit]

Off-topic discussion:--Jerzyt

How would you formally denote that you were misusing a quote / deliberately mis-quoting?

Marx: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

I like it stated thus: The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 21:03 & :04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't misuse quotes or deliberately mis-quote. But there are good ways of paraphrasing while pointing out the source inspiring your paraphrase, e.g.
  1. Marx made a point that can be restated as "...."
  2. Marx pointed out, in effect, that ....
  3. Attending to Marx's comment in ..., I think ....
--Jerzyt 08:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Shoot, i should have added
Well, it may have sounded better in dee oritchinal Tscherman.
(even tho i think Marx wrote an awful lot in English).
--Jerzyt 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The argumentative sic[edit]

   In the section that i retitled as Construed as argumentation i settled for leaving the wording

minor punctuation error, then edited out that error

pretty much as i found it, without checking that against the cited source. I'd word it differently depending whether the "editing out" was paraphrasing or regarding the change in punctuation as too trivial to mention fixing it, and i think the text could still use the further attention to be sure i didn't leave too much as i found it.
--Jerzyt 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sic erat scriptum[edit]

   In the lead sent, a colleague last month justifiably added a {{Citation needed}} tag re "sic erat scriptum"; my reaction was

Good thing that busy editor dropped a flag before getting back to other work, but too bad that no one else has responded to this trivial task!

Considerable research later, i'm sad to report that even OED reports only sic and not the longer phrase (and only since the 1880s) -- while i had expected an etymology that would cite medieval or even classical use of the phrase! I still hope for a Latin-phrases guide documenting when stand-alone " [sic]" came into usage, but i did come up with a context with dignity sufficient to reassure me that it was not relying on WP! It's a use with the same meaning (not an explicit assertion of equivalence or genealogy), so i shall leave the tag in place despite this provision of a persuasively authoritative example, awaiting at least a medieval scribe's use of the three words as we now use " [sic]".
   My precious is a formal decision composed by a Federal judge in a case that led to three life terms for the defendant, Freddell Bryant, also known as Fredell Bryant, who had signed one crucial document with what looked like two Ds in his given name; footnote 1 begins

This spelling of Defendant's name is used, sic erat scriptum, in the Agreement ...

While this usage of the phrase does not position it in the syntax we would expect " [sic]" to be positioned in,

* " [sic]" in fact is used as an adverb whose meaning is the literal meaning of sic erat scriptum, and
* the phrase's acceptance as a formal legal term gives good reason to believe that " [sic]" derives from sic erat scriptum.

(Uh-oh, that sounds like OR -- even tho there is plenty of evidence of people writing the phrase out, with the same meaning as " [sic]", in cases where there's no indication that they just learned to do so from the accompanying article.)
   I'm going forward seeking legal dictionaries and Latin-phrase dictionaries that go further, but i am asserting that listing the court document as a ref, and leaving the cite tag in place, would improve the article at least in the interim. Thots?
--Jerzyt 08:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My thots [sic] is [sic] that I have never liked sic erat scriptum ever since it first appeared in the article. I have never quite got around to doing anything about it, but it always struck me as (a) unnecessary, given that a simple sic conveys quite enough meaning, and (b) of doubtful validity/provenance/authenticity. I suspect that a simple sic is the original, and sic erat scriptum is simply someone's subsequent attempt to expand and explain. The OED lists just plain sic, with no mention of any longer phrase. Unless there is good evidence that sic erat scriptum pre-dates sic used alone, I think it should be deleted.SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
   Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we now know that the longer phrase is not something dreamed up (as with the seemingly idly invented "s.i.c." and "p.o.s.h") by ignorant amateur linguists. Legal language prizes tradition, and much of legal tradition is older than the English language. I'd like to see more research, and less of gut "suspicion".
   Specifically as to OED, the relationship between the word and the phrase is a pretty thin form of etymology, and in any case, OED IMO specializes much more in usage (note the emphasis on attested examples rather than development), and absence of evidence in the places one would least expect to find it is yet another step away from evidence of absence. I may have been foolish to hope that OED would document the reduction, in Latin, from three words to one, that probably was accomplished in courts in which Latin was not a foreign language.
--Jerzyt 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, given Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources, absence of evidence is in fact tantamount to evidence of absence, in that without evidence from such a source we don't include whatever-it-is in the article. And actually, it seems to me that "idly invented by an ignorant amateur linguist" could be exactly what that judicial source amounts to. Sounds to me like a judge idly showing off his Latin learning. Sic is only an abbreviation of sic erat scriptum (or any other Latin phrase with equivalent meaning that happens to begin with sic) if the longer phrase pre-dates the usage of the single word. if there is no evidence that it does, I think the reference to sic erat scriptum should be deleted. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it as yet another folk etymology when it first appeared, but relented when I found examples of the phrase in use. I think it may well be worth mentioning "sic erat scriptum" as a related usage, but it should not be in the lead as "in full". Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
   Ian, i quite agree, tho my priority in this is the inclusion issue that the tag raises, not placement.
--Jerzyt 04:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
   Snal, my remark was two-edged, and your response fails to address either "edge":
1. It's true that when no evidence exists for X, we don't assert X, but that doesn't apply here: a search for, e.g.
"sic erat scriptum" pronunciation
(apparently a popular search involving the phrase, since it is the only search Google-supplied search tendered to my as i came close to completing typing of the three words; more abt this later) gives extensive evidence that people who want specific information about the phrase are much more likely to want to know how to say it than any other thing about it (such as
whether something (sic, e.g.) is considered an abbreviation for it,
...); that amounts to evidence that people aren't anywhere near as interested in knowing more abt
what it means or
whether [sic] comes from it or
whether it's in fact Latin or
what professions use it,
as in how to use it in speech. And a search for "sic erat scriptum" in general gets more hits than those for "pelion on ossa" plus those for "pelion upon ossa".
2. The other "edge" of this razor is that we don't eliminate based on the absence, in the article or on the talk page or even on the Web, of evidence of significance; we eliminate based on failure to find such evidence even after all the reasonable places to look have been exhausted. I had just examined hundreds of summaries of Google hits, and specified two previously unmentioned avenues of investigation as promising; your position shows only that you have not absorbed the substance of IDL.
   Your second point dismissed the hit i found most persuasive (and which suggested the further areas of investigation i mention) by positing "a judge idly showing off his Latin learning". Some people's most powerful fashion advice is "Look what that woman is wearing; clearly she has no gay friends." It's clear to me that not only AYNAL; you may have attorney friends, but if so, they trade work-place stories with you only when they are drunk or high. Your surmise about what i cited is nothing like what Federal judges do in drafting official documents crucial to cases that end with a CI getting a multiple-life sentence for a drug-trade triple-homicide.
--Jerzyt 04:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Clarification - When I say "delete", I mean delete from that location, and delete the claim that sic alone is an abbreviation for it. No objection to including the phrase later in the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
   Thanks for that. (And FWIW i try to say "remove" for text and "delete" for pages, but in either case "move" -- or when applicable "rename" -- if location is the focus.)
   I'm continuing to pursue various leads that could turn out to support " [sic]" as being derived from the phrase; i agree that more than our respective speculations are needed to get this right; i reiterate that the ref-tag should not be removed at this time.
--Jerzyt 11:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to Section "Etymology and Usage History"[edit]

  • Deleted "history" from heading as superfluous: Etymology is history, and usage comprises history of use.
  • Rewrote this sentence:
Though occasionally misidentified as an abbreviated word, sic is a Latin adverb incorporated into the English-language similarly as an adverb (also used by some as a noun and verb).
Leaving aside the incorrect hyphen in "English-language" and the odd "similarly as", sic has not been incorporated into the English language: it remains a foreign word, which is why we write it in italic script.
  • Deleted irrelevant comment on the derivation of En. so.
  • Deleted definition ("as such") not in cited source. The Latin term meaning "as such" is per se, not sic.
  • Removed tangential comment on the publication date of the Bax article from the main text, and gave the original a "see also" reference in the footnote.
  • Corrected "usage" for use in 4th ¶. Fellow editors, usage means custom, usual practice, not use. In a linguistic article there is no excuse for getting that wrong.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading(s) yet again. Originally I removed the word "usage" from the heading in question because the very next section was called "Usage". But then the heading seemed to specific, because the section still contained some "history of use" info. So I changed the former heading to "Etymology and historical usage" and the latter to "Modern usage". I hope this will be acceptable to all. (BTW, @Jdcrutch:, Wiktionary defines usage as "The manner or the amount of using; use" [my emphasis]; Merriam-Webster agrees. But I agree with you that the sentence sounds better starting with "Use".) - dcljr (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a revision war with @Dcljr:, particularly since he clearly has good intentions, and since Merriam-Webster has blessed this innovation in the meaning of usage—though in the second definition, I will point out. (Anybody can put any old solecism in Wiktionary, and it will be removed only if somebody who knows better happens to come across it and feel the need to do something about it. ) I will even acknowledge the utility of giving "usage" a secondary meaning of "amount of use", "consumption of a supply, share, or allowance", for which some other European languages have adequate words, but English has not. I maintain, however, that to use usage merely as a synonym for the noun, use, is still incorrect and unnecessary; and, moreover, that in a linguistic article, in a discipline in which usage has a long-established, specific, and technical meaning, it is particularly inappropriate to employ the term in the secondary, colloquial, and non-technical sense—let alone in the incorrect sense. Not wishing to be aggressive, I'm not restoring my former revisions, but I respectfully invite dcljr to do so.

Jdcrutch (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Title of wikipedia page should be "sic" not "Sic"[edit]

To avoid misunderstandings, the title of this page should be written in lowercase, if possible even better placed in italics. Please do someone correct this who can do it properly? Thank you. (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Using {lowercase title} and {italics title} and {DISPLAYTITLE} seem not to work; they appear to handicap one another. (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It is now lowercase and italics. Using DISPLAYTITLE alone is sufficient. Deli nk (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Use in Latin texts[edit]

Was the word sic (or something similar) actually used in ancient Latin texts in the manner it is used in English today? If so, this might be worth mentioning in the (currently-named) "Etymology and historical usage" section. - dcljr (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found it in ancient Latin texts (in the editorial sense under discussion here), but, guessing that the original Latin phrase ought to have been Sic in authentico (= "So in original"), I googled that phrase, and found that it has indeed been used, though apparently not before about 1600. See, e.g., Kuit, Historia Critica comitatus Hollandiae et Zeelandiae (Middelburg, 1779). I did not find it in any ancient text on Perseus. (In Servius's Commentaries on Virgil, however, I did find "in Corn. 'equm', in authentico 'aquam', ipsius manu 'equm'."—thus, without the sic.)

Jdcrutch (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Best way to deal with 404 for ref carillo2010[edit]

I'm having some trouble dealing with a dead link. Currently #13, the reference "Carillo, Jose A. (March 6, 2010). "The role of the bracketed 'sic' in English prose". The Manila Times." redirects to the Manila Times homepage, as it appears to be no longer available on the website. I've searched through the website and its archives and performed standard web searches and archive checks without any luck. However, I did find the cited author's forum that he uses as a resource for teaching English and found a post by the author dated on 27 February 2010 (a week before the cited publication date for the Manila Times article). It supports the information in Sic#To_denote_archaisms, though I'm unsure if a forum post would be an acceptable substitution. Notably, though, this forum is regularly referenced and discussed in Manila Times articles, as seen at

The post is located at

The author's qualifications are listed at, and

Advice would be appreciated. korbnep «talk» 17:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of Catholic churches' use of IHS.[edit]

Here (i.e. in the "sic" article on Wikipedia), I see "False etymologies" section and it offers some interpretations of "s.i.c." although it's known that "sic" does not take a period after each letter. **THIS IS OKAY; I have no changes to recommend to it.**

But I am writing the remarks you are reading because this has also happened with IHS, which (from memory of other readings) is taken from the 1st 3 letters of (Greek?) form of Jesus' name and also does NOT take a period after each letter. Some people, however, interpreted this as "I Have Suffered" or "Iesus Hominem Savior". See Christogram.