Talk:Medhurst's Chinese and English Dictionary

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

China

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Sic[edit]

Hi @Sirlanz:, I could be wrong, but added [sic] because I've never heard of any Chinese characters without pronunciation or meaning. Could you give me a few examples? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is no basis for inserting sic into the quotation. Bone up on the term and you'll see why. sirlanz 23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, so I double checked and confirmed that "supposedly have either no sound or no meaning attached to them [sic]" is correct usage. The OED (2009, v. 4.0) defines sic. as: "A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation." Medhurst's statement is both anomalous and erroneous. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirlanz: Would you please provide some sources or stylebooks that say correct sic. usage is limited to cases of "misprinting, typo or unintentional error"? Neither MOS:SIC nor Sic gives that interpretation. Keahapana (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term may not be used merely to express doubt or reservation about the veracity of a statement quoted, which is what bothers Keahapana. The term is used to indicate a certainty of unintended error in the quoted material. Additionally, the term must be used with circumspection as it is a flat rejection of the accuracy of the quoted material, an editor comment which places the editor in a position of superiority to the source. I'm not starting an English language school, and materials can be easily sourced online to serve Keahapana's education, so I'll not be going any further with this. sirlanz 00:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies, you're right and I was wrong. Thanks for getting a bonehead to bone up. Keahapana (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]