lcd panel separting from bracket quotation

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Intentionally making a new word and writing (sic) after that is okay? Although it is an uncommon practice, sometimes [sic] is used to indicate ironic use of a word. Brackets, not parentheses, should be used, and there should be a space before [sic].

I am in complete agreement with your comment that corrects this common agreement error! While many people working from the descriptive rather than prescriptive end of the conventions dichotomy have simply switched to using plural pronouns in general examples, as Catherine S. advocates, there is not actually a clause in the conventions that allows for such an agreement error just to satisfy sentiments favoring gender neutrality while also avoiding the somewhat awkward use of both pronouns in singular forms! Rather than resorting to this exceptional error, writers can instead utilize both plural antecedents and pronouns in their general examples. Thus an instructor’s observation that “Even the strong writer can benefit from fresh eyes reading and evaluating his/her work in the tutoring center” would become “Even strong writers can benefit from fresh eyes reading and evaluating their work in the tutoring center,” not “Even the strong writer can benefit from fresh eyes reading and evaluating their work in the tutoring center.” Common usage patterns and the ever-evolving nature of language do drive changes that adapt even formal conventions (splitting of infinitives for $500, Alex), but the agreed-upon conventions found in existing writing manuals often can provide less drastic solutions for resolving agreement errors. GrammarBook.com says:

I have inserted the sic, but am confused as to the exclamatory punctuation of the quoted statement. Should there be a space between the closing bracket and the exclamation mark? “Who do you think you are, trader [sic]!” is correct, though awkward. Since sic is never mandatory, there are other choices, like saying before or after the quotation, “The reader will note thattraitor is spelled wrong.” Or you could stop or interrupt the quote before the misspelling and simply tell readers that the message sent to the account called the person a traitor, but misspelled it. guest says:

Now, I understand how the defendant eight [sic] me for lunch at the end but, I believe I still have a Continuing Violation. I even got the attention of an appeals judge for six months [sic], three months because I motioned the court for a continuation due to an emergency and, it was not only granted but the requested documents went from 10 to 5, but was still foreign to me.

Not trying to be a Nazi, but a homonym is a word that shares the spelling while a homophone is a word that shares the sound. I get them mixed up all the time so I thought I might post this for the benefit of those like me who may confuse the two. In the sense of strict linguistics, the definition of homonym is “one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning.” True homonyms are both homographs (spelled alike but different in meaning or pronunciation) and homophones (pronounced alike but different in meaning or spelling). The word homonym is often used, as we did in our blog, to refer to words that are either homographs or homophones. Dictionary.comsays, “The more familiar word homonym, heard in classrooms from early grades on, has become an all-inclusive term that describes not only words that are both homophonic and homographic, but words that are either one or the other. In common parlance, then, words that sound alike, look alike, or both, can be called homonyms.”

I am quoting a passage with an error which is that the author has attempted to use a pair of parenthetic commas but done so incorrectly. The result is two commas in the wrong place. Where should [sic] go? While commonly placed following a misspelled or wrongly used word in an original document or passage, we have never seen [sic] used to indicate punctuation errors. We fear that wherever you place it, readers will assume that the word immediately preceding [sic] is somehow in error. If the passage you wish to quote sufficiently conveys the message you are needing, we would just leave it alone. If you feel it is necessary to point out the incorrect commas, you might try an explanation within brackets, e.g., [note to readers: the pair of commas . . . ].

Obviously there is no error, but in the same vein, alerting the reader to an additional contextual piece of information which is vital to the communication. Is there any need to justify the ‘[grunge fiction]’ by adding [sic] at the end of the quote, or is it sufficiently implied by the parentheses? As discussed in our Rule 1 of Brackets, brackets can be used to explain or comment on a quotation. Therefore, “characters in these [grunge fiction] texts challenge imaginary borders” is correct.

I have one of those Irish Fitz-starting surnames where the following part of the name is customarily initial-capped, as it would be were it written alone, or as the latter part of an O’-starting, Mc- or Mac-starting surname. However, many ignoramuses (especially professional editors, proof readers and such) apparently know better than I how my surname should be capitalized and it is far from uncommon to have it appear incorrectly in print with only the initial “F” upper-cased, even if I am the source of the original text. (This common ignorance has caused very many Fitz-es to give up trying to retain the correct capitalization of their surnames, increasing the ignorance and depressing the correct usage.) Were I ever to quote such a “misprint” of my own name, I would certainly, and I’d argue correctly, flag the error with a “[sic]”.

I often must include large pertinent sections from contracts in the briefs I type. These contracts are so full of grammatical errors, that I’m embarrassed typing them. Is there a way to put “sic” at the end of each error-filled section? [Sic] is used after each individual error. Instead, you might consider placing a disclaimer before the contract sections, such as: “The following sections from the ABC contract contain grammatical errors but are included here exactly as they appear in the contract since they do not impact the legal issues at hand,” or something to that effect. However, if there’s any chance the grammatical errors have led to any part of what is being disputed by the parties, you may be better off identifying every error with [sic].

I am writing a piece using UK english but quoting a lot of American writers – should I keep the American spelling in the quote and put [sic] after each word that uses the American spelling? Since [sic] is usually used to indicate something that is incorrectly written, and the spelling in the quotes is not incorrectly written in American English, we do not recommend using [sic]. You may want to mention in your article that American spellings may differ from those used in UK English. zar says:

Whoever made the use of “sic” possible, why did he/she use “sic” when it sounds like “sick”? Or does it evolve from Latin? The word sic comes from the Latin term sic erat scriptummeaning “thus was it written.” Drew Murray says:

My iPod frequently corrects incorrect intentions or slang. Is (Apple sic) gonna be OK to use in grammar to denote you didn’t intend to write the message that way because it changed just when you hit the send button? That’s a clever idea, but it’s not just Apple products that do this. Normally, the wordsic is used to indicate an error. Sic is italicized, surrounded by brackets, placed immediately following the error, and no other word is used in the brackets. We recommend proofreading messages before sending.

The appropriate way to do this should be indicated in whichever style guide you are using, but as an example, here is a copy and paste from the University of South Australia’s style guide:

Insert square bracket with ’emphasis added’ after the page number, for example, ‘ … raises the question of what desire is’ (Smith 1991, p. 343 [emphasis added]).

Yes. This is done by inserting square bracket with ‘original emphasis’ added after the page number, for example, ‘identities that are not simple to describe’ (Smith 1991, p. 26 [original emphasis]). Bob asked specifically about using the term sic. His question was in regard to changing the author’s boldface word to regular font. The rules you cited apply to clarification of italics. Perhaps the University of South Australia’s style guide allows “[original emphasis]” to apply to boldface as well.

I format legal documents at a law firm. Opposing firms send discovery to us for our clients to answer. To prepare these documents, I scan to convert them into our system and format using Styles in Word to create a document that mimics or looks exactly like the one that was sent to use from opposing counsel.

I know from your many responses and explanations that [sic] is to be used after each error, but when quoting someone where there are multiple errors within a short quote it raises the issue of shaming the quoted. A singular [sic] after the final quote feels discreet and unambiguous when the errors are obvious. This is a real-world example someone else used in an email I received, and I admit I liked the usage because it was obviously literally quoted, but did not unnecessarily (repeatedly) shame:

I still understand this is incorrect usage, but maybe not so bad! The use of a single [sic] at the end might not give enough information to the reader of the quote regarding the errors. If you are opposed to using [sic] after each error, other options include silent correction or making the corrections in square brackets, e.g., [alleviate]. We agree with recent direction from the Chicago Manual of Style that outside an academic setting, [sic] may be viewed as impolite or condescending.

I believe there is supposed to be a comma after ‘easy,’ but I’m unsure how I can correct it. Thank you. From what little context you have provided, we would suggest replacing the word meaning with an ellipsis:

I’m writing a genealogy book and I’m using a lot of quotes, long and short, from the 17th and 18th centuries involving wills, property records, and other historical documents. I’m overwhelmed with the amount of misspelled words like in the following: “Said pattents may alsoe appeare together wth all ye Benifitts Rights priveledges…” Using [sic] in all these quotes seems intrusive. Is there anything wrong with just underlining the misspelled words?

I was wondering the same, because I used a dictionary site to define a word, and the title of the article is “policy.” No caps and a period at the end. I wanted to know if [sic] would be appropriate to let my professor know I didn’t just forget to capitalize “Policy.” Using [sic] is appropriate after the word Dertoit; however, there should be a space before the bracket.

I am publishing a series of historical letters. My research has turned up some errors (such as a name being Jackson rather than Johnson). I would like to remain true to the original, but supply the correct name. What would be the proper form to do so? You might include a preface that points out the inconsistencies and your treatment of them. Within the reproduced letter text, you could then follow any inaccuracies with the correct information in [brackets].

I am translating a quote from a newspaper, and the author misspells (Alois instead of Alvise) the name of a person. Should I use [sic] here as well or just correct the name, as it is a translation? Thanks! If your readers are not likely to recognize that Alois is a misspelling, then rather than using “Alois [sic] …,” you may be better off indicating the correct spelling with a note such as, “Alois (note error in original: the correct name is Alvise) …” If this occurs numerous times in the material you are quoting, you may wish to place the note at the top of the quoted material. Maria says:

I am translating material that is largely in Spanish but contains a direct quote in English by the writer himself. The writer is a non-native speaker of English. The original quote contains a grammatical error that is not marked. Correcting the error would be wrong. Using a TN might be cumbersome, and simply adding [sic] after the error is wrong as well, since the author decided to leave the mistake there, unmarked. To make matters more complicated, it’s an old quote from testimonial/historical material (more precisely, a diary). I was thinking of either

What would anyone in my place do? We’re unable to provide a definitive answer because, without context, we are unsure who is referenced as “the writer” and who is “the author,” and whether one or both are non-native speakers of English. From the information given, we are not seeing why the use of [sic] would be inappropriate. If you’d like, write back and include the applicable text. However, we are not experts in the art of translation and can’t guarantee that our next response will be any better than this one.

The Wikipedia page on “sic” reads: “Some guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style, recommend ‘quiet copy-editing’ (unless where inappropriate or uncertain) instead of inserting a bracketed sic, such as by substituting in brackets the correct word in place of the incorrect word or by simply replacing an incorrect spelling with the correct one.”

This is what I do, I substitute the error (or dated spelling) for the correct version and put that in brackets. I often feel as if using “[sic]” is arrogant, for it draws attention to the container, rather than to the content of the quotation. This especially unfair to those whose native language is not English. For instance, I quoted a Russian researcher last week, the work of whom I admire, but whose English is imperfect: Rather than using [sic] five times per sentence, which would undermine his credibility, I replace the incorrect words with the correct ones in brackets.

I am quoting the following from an English book. It was written in a sarcastic tone and they used the incorrect words on purpose. Should i use [sic] after each one?

There are many misused contractions that should be eliminated from our vocabulary. The Chicago Manual of Style’s Rule 5.104 (Verb Phrases) says, “An interrogative can be negated by placement of not after the subject {do you not want more?}, but a contraction is often more natural {don’t you want more?}. Most negative forms can be contracted {we do not–we don’t} {I will not–I won’t} {he has not–he hasn’t} {she does not–she doesn’t}, but I am not is contracted to I’m not (never I amn’t).” Therefore, we consider don’t an acceptable contraction for “do you not” in our answer.

I am marking academic papers in a post-secondary institution. One student consistently uses (sic.) (not italicized, but with a period after it within the enclosed bracket). He appears to be using it as a replacement for i.e. I can’t seem to find any formal explanation of the use of “sic” in this way. Is this correct use of the “word” in academic writing? Any direction you can provide would be greatly appreciated. GrammarBook.com says:

In an effort to preserve the hand-written, 120-year-old account of one man’s journey from Australia to Ireland and back again, I am endeavouring to transfer the original record into a typed copy for the interest of the writer’s descendants. The faded personal record is both fascinating and vivid but there are many spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes contained in it. How do I handle the very frequent errors (eg. the almost complete lack of full stops throughout) without losing the veracity and flow of the original document? GrammarBook.com says:

The second Link Adjacent Text connects/links the colon, Cited Pages field, and second closing parenthesis together.  So if the Cited Pages field is blank this segment of the citation won’t be displayed.  Adding a Forced Separation marker prevents this from happening. The Forced Separation “breaks” the dependence between the Cited Pages field and the parenthesis so the parenthesis will display despite the absence of info in the Cited Pages field. So the corrected template is:

Q: How come the Forced Separation marker wasn’t apparently needed in previous versions of EndNote? That right bracket has always appeared without problems, whether or not a page number is included, and even in the new optional format that X6 introduced with author outside the left bracket. It’s only with the release of X7 that this problem has appeared.

Also note that output styles are updated from time to time to conform with publication and EndNote software changes which can be problematic for users who modify their own output styles and may be unaware of these changes unless they periodically check for updated styles.

Q: You’ve suggested modifying the template only for Citation -  Author (Year). Why does this behave differently from the plain Citation? Or would it be good EndNote practice to include a Forced Separation marker before the right bracket there as well?

The map() function takes two argument, first is a function and second is a item from iterable which need to be mapped and it passes to that function which is mention is the first argument.

If you just want to separate the items and print a list without the brackets and single quotes,then you don’t need to specify the value of sep because it has a default value of whitespace.

There could be uncommon scenarios when you want to print list without brackets and quotes in Python.In this article, we’ve discussed four distinct methods using different python functions.

Home moves caret to first non-whitespace characterWhen this checkbox is selected, on pressing Home, the caret is positioned at the first non-whitespace character of the current line. Pressing Home subsequently moves the caret from the Smart Home position to the first column and back.

Insert pair brackets (), [], {}, <>Select this checkbox to have PyCharm automatically add a closing bracket for each typed opening bracket, respectively.

Jump outside closing bracket/quote with Tab when typingIf this checkbox is selected, pressing Tab when typing inside brackets/quotes will move the caret outside the closing bracket/quote. If this checkbox is not selected, pressing Tab will insert the Tab character.

KotlinUse this area to configure the smart keys options for Kotlin.Convert pasted Java code to Kotlin: select this option to convert any Java code to Kotlin on paste. PyCharm displays the Convert Code from Java dialog. If you don"t want PyCharm to show the dialog, select the Don"t show Java to Kotlin conversion dialog on paste option.

When you combine values from multiple fields into a new string, you may want to include a value in the new string (such as a comma) only when data exists in a particular field. To conditionally include a value, you use the + operator instead of the & operator to combine your fields. For example, suppose that you have a table called Customer, and that table contains fields called City, State, and Postal Code. You want to combine the values in those fields for a report, but some records may not have a value in the State field. In that case, you end up with an unwanted comma before the postal code value if you use the & operator to combine the fields.