New bee flies over dead horse

Question

There is slight confusion over the British way with quotation
marks. If the quotation is known to be a complete sentence then the full stop (or, indeed, comma) IS included within the quotation.
The two, trans-Atlantic, methods officially are:
- Logical punctuation order (British)
- Conventional punctuation order (generally American)

If I may quote (without marks) from an editing primer:
In most modern British books, a closing quote following a word or phrase usually comes before a full stop, comma or other punctuation.
E.g.: 'Did you enjoy your visit to "the cradle of jazz", as they call it?'
Only when a full sentence (with subject and verb, usually starting with a capital letter) is in quotes does the closing quote come after the full stop or comma.
E.g.: I replied, 'I had a wonderful time.'
'I hated it,' said Fred.
In American English (and quite often in British novels and newspapers) the closing quote always comes after the full stop or comma.
E.g.: 'Did you enjoy your visit to the "cradle of jazz," as they call it?'
'I am,' I began, 'the wrong person to ask.'
In logical (British) order, the second sentence would demand:
'I am', I began, 'the wrong person to ask.'
These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented speech at that. There may be an issue where a British publication quotes text from an American publication. Would it be correct - could it be libellous - to adjust American punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?

- Jeremy Stanford

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented speech at that. There may be an issue where a ... be correct - could it be libellous - to adjust American punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?[/nq]
Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the original. If the original contains spelling or grammatical errors the copy editor or proof reader will indicate that they are to be set as is by (sic).
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]These are, of course, examples of speech - and invented ... American punctuation in order to quote in a British journal?[/nq]
[nq:1]Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the original. If the original contains spelling or grammatical errors the copy editor or proof reader will indicate that they are to be set as is by (sic).[/nq]
Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for typesetters/proofreaders, "sic" for authors.

Cheers,
Jody

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the original. ... that they are to be set as is by (sic).[/nq]
[nq:1]Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for typesetters/proofreaders, "sic" for authors.[/nq]
Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? That's the way I have used it, not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent marks.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]"Steve Hayes" wrote Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for typesetters/proofreaders, "sic" for authors.[/nq]
[nq:1]Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? That's the way I have used it, not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent marks.[/nq]
Sheesh I've certainly had to cancel many, usually marking as I go, and before I read the whole sentence, flagging an error that might have been, but wasn't. That's just student papers, though, not galleys, and for grading and marking for discussion I've learned to use a good old graphite pencil rather than a blue one, so those inadvertent marks can get cancelled with an eraser.

In the case of proofreading for publishing, I don't know. I've never heard tell of a generally-used mark that means "Hey, though this might be considered an error, technically speaking, the author and/or editor want it that way, so leave it alone." The post above is the first I'd heard that "sic" might be used that way. I've never seen "sic" used to denote a purposeful "error," but then I've never worked in a publishing house. It seems to me that "stet" would make a certain kind of sense in that situation "let it stand" as opposed to "sic" "I found it thus" which seems to not quite cover it.

I've emailed The Atlantic to see what they do, at any rate. If they write back, I'll post. It would be a handy mark to have around the classroom, whatever it is.

Cheers,
Jody

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]"Steve Hayes" wrote Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for typesetters/proofreaders, "sic" for authors.[/nq]
[nq:1]Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? That's the way I have used it, not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent marks.[/nq]
I don't think "inadvertent" describes how we used it, in my editing days. That sounds to me like the pen accidentally brushed against the paper.
We used it thus: suppose I was going over someone's writing, marked some sort of revision, and then I changed my mind. I'd probably draw a line through the notes I'd made, and write STET to emphasize "Forget the change, I take it back, let the original stand."

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? ... not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent marks.[/nq]
[nq:1]I don't think "inadvertent" describes how we used it, in my editing days. That sounds to me like the pen ... the notes I'd made, and write STET to emphasize "Forget the change, I take it back, let the original stand."[/nq]
Yep with "STET" in the margin and the misrevised text itself usually underlined with a series of dots.

Ross Howard

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Most publishers' house styles require quotations to follow the original. ... that they are to be set as is by (sic).[/nq]
[nq:1]Not "stet" anymore? Last I heard, it was "stet" for typesetters/proofreaders, "sic" for authors.[/nq]
No, "stet" (let it stand) is to uncorrect a correction.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? ... not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent marks.[/nq]
[nq:1]Sheesh I've certainly had to cancel many, usually marking as I go, and before I read the whole sentence, flagging an ... a good old graphite pencil rather than a blue one, so those inadvertent marks can get cancelled with an eraser.[/nq]
My experience comes from The Boeing Company's headquarters, where I briefly filled in as a technical editor while waiting for my permanent assignment to an engineering project. I always made sure that I understood the writer's intent before putting any proofreading marks on the paper.
[nq:1]In the case of proofreading for publishing, I don't know. I've never heard tell of a generally-used mark that means ... kind of sense in that situation "let it stand" as opposed to "sic" "I found it thus" which seems to not quite cover it.[/nq]
In technical publishing and in my personal experience, I didn't encounter the need to leave and mark intentional mistakes.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Isn't "stet" used only to cancel an inadvertent proofreading mark? ... not that I have had to cancel many inadvertent marks.[/nq]
[nq:1]I don't think "inadvertent" describes how we used it, in my editing days. That sounds to me like the pen ... the notes I'd made, and write STET to emphasize "Forget the change, I take it back, let the original stand."[/nq]
I agree with that usage. I expressed myself poorly.
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

New bee flies over dead horse

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions