Importance of Ellipsis for Accurate and Trustworthy Quotations in Forum Discussions

[Pilgrim9]

Ellipsis in quotations:

This post will only be of interest to those who believe that accuracy of quotations is important for effective communications and trust. If this subject does not interest you, read no further.

In many of the posts on this forum, we quote other posts and then we respond to the thoughts expressed in the quoted texts. We thereby advance the conversation. This is perfectly normal and is a good thing.

Sometimes we excise from our quotations, text that is superfluous to our line of reasoning. I think that excising superfluous texts is acceptable, but if and only if an ellipsis ("...") is inserted in place of each excision.

The ellipsis is important because it informs readers where excisions were made, and enables them to examine, if they choose to, the original text, to verify that the excised texts were indeed superfluous. It allows the reader to challenge the quoter's line of reasoning. Lines of reasoning that enable challenges and withstand them become more effective and convincing.

The ellipsis is a tool for building trust.

I do not think that it is acceptable for quotations to excise substantive text or to be inaccurate.

BTW this thread includes a comment wherein someone quoted someone else, excised a substantive clause, omitted the ellipsis, and then added commentary making a point that the excised text had already made. Not sure why this was done. The excised text was substantive and should not have been omitted from the quotation.

Moderator note: This post was moved from a another thread to create this new thread, and the last paragraph in this post refers to a comment in that other thread, which is here.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

I do not think that it is acceptable for quotations to excise substantive text or to be inaccurate.

I'm serious here. What do you think about this use of quoting? Lots cut out but the part that is relevant can stand on its own. Also, there is a link to the full original post (unless it has been edited).

 

[grayland]

Is this the proper thread to discuss the subject of using quotes in posts? ....or is it actually more accurately described as hijacking?

I'm serious here. What do you think about this use of quoting? Lots cut out but the part that is relevant can stand on its own. Also, there is a link to the full original post (unless it has been edited).

NOTE from Mods: At your suggestion, there is now a new thread. I don’t expect it will ever reach the “most viewed posts” in the weekly list, but there may be some with opinions to respond to @Pilgrim9 ’s question/comment.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

Is this the proper thread to discuss the subject of using quotes in posts? ....or is it actually more accurately described as hijacking?

I occasionally hijack threads and possibly would have replied to @Pilgrim9's post, but I couldn't make "heads nor tails" out of it.

 

[SabsP]

I occasionally hijack threads and possibly would have replied to @Pilgrim9's post, but I couldn't make "heads nor tails" out of it.

" It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like What about lunch? " My favourite from Winnie the Pooh!

 

[mspath]

It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like "What about lunch?" My favourite from Winnie the Pooh!

My favourite short, easy phrase for directions is "...straight on till morning!" from Peter Pan.

 

[NorthernLight]

I love proper grammar.

My favourite short, easy phrase for directions is "...straight on till morning!" from Peter Pan.

And this would be an excellent example of the proper use of ellipsis in quotations.

 

[mspath]

I love proper grammar.


And this would be an excellent example of the proper use of ellipsis in quotations.

Peter Pan hopefully would also be pleased. No kidding I saw Peter Pan in NYC on stage winter 1954 when I was 15. Mary Martin played Peter and first flew by hidden wires from the balcony. ...This then was properly perfect.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

I occasionally hijack threads and possibly would have replied to @Pilgrim9's post, but I couldn't make "heads nor tails" out of it.

" It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like "What about lunch? " My favourite from Winnie the Pooh!

This time I'm not serious but to respond to your quotes I think we need to visit Pooh for his quotes.

PS: I think this thread has been hijacked.

 

[nycwalking]

This time I'm not serious but to respond to your quotes I think we need to visit Pooh for his quotes.

PS: I think this thread has been hijacked.

Fly me to the moon!

 

[dougfitz]

This post will only be of interest to those who believe that accuracy of quotations is important for effective communications and trust.

This is an interesting remark.

I looked back at the thread where this came from, and note that @Pilgrim9 has completely mangled the embedded quotations used when he then re-quoted extracts from another post in that thread. It is, at least at the time of writing this, impossible to clearly distinguish in his post what were someone else's remarks, and what had quoted from a third source.

If, indeed, the issue is about building trust, then there is much more than a grammatically correct use of the ellipsis to be considered when quoting other members material.

Perhaps the advice from Matthew 7:5 is appropriate - none of us are perfect here.

 

[Kathar1na]

Moderator note: This post was moved from a another thread to create this new thread, and the last paragraph in this post refers to a comment in that other thread, which is here.

It took me a while to find the comment in question in that other thread. I found it. Or at least I found one such example: a reply to a comment where this reply contains a quote from the comment and where there are only a few minutes between a) the time the comment was posted and b) the time the reply to the comment was posted and c) the time the comment was slightly edited with the result that there is now a discrepancy between the comment and the quote in the reply to the comment. OK, I tried to explain this as clearly as possible without actually ... erm ... quoting the lines and posters in question.

Oh, the mysteries of the forum software. I noticed this a few times: I thought that I was still editing my text without having posted it yet and when I clicked on the Post reply button I was surprised to see that someone had already reacted to my comment and had quoted it, with the same discrepancy.

Anyway, this thread is about how to quote properly or appropriately. On the forum and not in a news article or scholarly work. Depending on your forum quoting skills and inclination of the moment, you have the choice between:

• quoting the whole comment of the post to which you reply;
• not quoting any comment at all, whether in total or in part(s);
• quoting one or more parts of a comment;
• quoting a part or part(s) and then editing the quote in the belief that you will improve what you are referring to and trying to say.

I am going to stop here but I could say more about the pitfalls of quoting on the forum ...

 

[C clearly]

I do not think that it is acceptable for quotations to excise substantive text or to be inaccurate.

It think it makes sense to excise irrelevant text. Of course it is not "acceptable" to be inaccurate or misleading, but our only weapon is to use logic back, and challenge what was done (if it is important). There are infinite ways to misconstrue statements and interfere with communication and trust, and no rules about punctuation will stop that from happening.

I agree with @dougfitz that...

If, indeed, the issue is about building trust, then there is much more than a grammatically correct use of the ellipsis to be considered when quoting other members material.

People regularly do not read the posts carefully - either the first one or subsequent ones - and they often wildly miss the point that was intended, either deliberately or not. We. Cannot. Control. That.

It took me a while to find the comment in question in that other thread. I found it. Or at least I found one such incidence:

Thank you @Kathar1na. I looked for the case but I couldn't identify it at a glance. Now I can go study it. You make some very useful points about the weaknesses of dynamic online conversations. We need to understand those weaknesses and the great strengths, whether we are reading or writing on the forum.

This is the internet. It is a gathering of strangers from around the world. We have huge differences in education, interest, logical inclinations, and concern about classical methods of discourse.

 

[dougfitz]

It took me a while to find the comment in question in that other thread. I found it. Or at least I found one such example: a reply to a comment where this reply contains a quote from the comment and where there are only a few minutes between a) the time the comment was posted and b) the time the reply to the comment was posted and c) the time the comment was slightly edited with the result that there is now a discrepancy between the comment and the quote in the reply to the comment. OK, I tried to explain this as clearly as possible without actually ... erm ... quoting the lines and posters in question.

Thank you for pointing that out. As the author of the the example you have used, sometime I find value in quoting someone else's text in preference to making an indirect reference to what they have written. Whether this avoids or creates confusion isn't clear, but what is clear is that it avoids any suggestion that the text being quoted didn't exist in the first place. Over my many years contributing to this forum, this has happened frequently enough that I think it's worth the little extra effort to insert the quote, verbatim or with material excised, when responding to some matters.

 

[woody66]

Gone very dark here i think there might be a solar ellipsis! (my spelling is atrocious;you can quote me though)

 

[nycwalking]

…eclipse…!

 

[C clearly]

there might be a solar ellipsis!

That was a very clever pun for the thread. I assume it was deliberate.

 

[trecile]

Thank you for pointing that out. As the author of the the example you have used, sometime I find value in quoting someone else's text in preference to making an indirect reference to what they have written. Whether this avoids or creates confusion isn't clear, but what is clear is that it avoids any suggestion that the text being quoted didn't exist in the first place

I think that it's definitely preferable to use the quote function - that way readers can click on the quoted person's name to be taken directly to the post that was quoted.

I think that a lot of people are not aware that you don't have to quote an entire post. You can highlight part of a post and a an option will pop up to add that quote. You can add multiple quotes from different posts in your response.



Then when you make your own post click the "Inset quotes..." button at the bottom of the text box.

All of the highlighted portions will show up like this



You can even rearrange the quotes if you want by "dragging" on the area with the "hamburger" symbol

You will then have this

Perhaps the advice from Matthew 7:5 is appropriate - none of us are perfect here.

Gone very dark here i think there might be a solar ellipsis!

 

[Pilgrim9]

This is an interesting remark.

I looked back at the thread where this came from, and note that @Pilgrim9 has completely mangled the embedded quotations used when he then re-quoted extracts from another post in that thread. It is, at least at the time of writing this, impossible to clearly distinguish in his post what were someone else's remarks, and what had quoted from a third source.

If, indeed, the issue is about building trust, then there is much more than a grammatically correct use of the ellipsis to be considered when quoting other members material.

Perhaps the advice from Matthew 7:5 is appropriate - none of us are perfect here.

You are correct in that I myself also mangled one. This was caused by technical difficulties when using an iPad to write and edit comments. I spent much time on that one and finally gave up.

 

[Pilgrim9]

I think that it's definitely preferable to use the quote function - that way readers can click on the quoted person's name to be taken directly to the post that was quoted.

I think that a lot of people are not aware that you don't have to quote an entire post. You can highlight part of a post and a an option will pop up to add that quote. You can add multiple quotes from different posts in your response.

View attachment 139228

Then when you make your own post click the "Inset quotes..." button at the bottom of the text box.

All of the highlighted portions will show up like this

View attachment 139229

You can even rearrange the quotes if you want by "dragging" on the area with the "hamburger" symbol

You will then have this

Thank you, Trecile. New information to me and very helpful too.

FYI I have been using an iPad to read this forum. It is an outstandingly good media consumption device but attempting to use it for serious work such as writing, quoting, and editing anything of more than about 50 words, on any application or website, requires hours of work and the results frequently include residual undetected errors. The touchscreen is simply not optimal for precise text selection. The problem is not attributable to this forum and I suppose I shall have to either upgrade my equipment or simply remain mute. I am not complaining, just explaining.

Thank you again for the tutorial.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

I have never researched nor used the quote function as the reply option has always been fine for my use; occasionally I highlight only a portion of the text.

 

[C clearly]

the reply option has always been fine for my use; occasionally I highlight only a portion of the text.

The reply option simply quotes the whole post. The beauty of the quote feature is that as you read through a post, you can save the snippets that you want to comment on, and then insert them into your blank reply. If you end up not wanting them, they are easy to remove.

 

[C clearly]

occasionally I highlight only a portion of the text

I just realized that if you do this - highlight a portion - then it has exactly the same effect whether you hit the Reply button or the Quote button. Either way, the portion you highlight is quoted.

Using the Quote feature as you read through the text allows you to highlight a collection of quotes and insert them later, either one at a time, or all at the same time. Try it!

 

[peregrina2000]

I for one really like it when a member takes the time to be clear about which part of a post he/she is referring to in a response. Just hitting ”reply” when a post is many paragraphs long is frequently confusing, but hey, not a huge deal. I will nominate @peregrino_tom as the champion user of the quote function.

See his posts here and here for examples.

 

[henrythedog]

7 and 3/4 my good man. I’ll take a brown one for otter-hunting.

I simply cannot get the hang of the ‘quote’ or ‘multi quote’ options. I usually end up using ‘reply’ and deleting that which seems irrelevant to my contribution.

 

[peregrina2000]

I simply cannot get the hang of the ‘quote’ or ‘multi quote’ options

I have the same problem.

The method that works most regularly for me is to first click on quote, then highlight the part
I want to quote, and then hit reply. But it doesn’t always work, because sometimes I am very sure that I have hit the quote button, but then when I hit reply after highlighting the material I want to quote, the whole post appears in quotes.

I just realized that if you do this - highlight a portion - then it has exactly the same effect whether you hit the Reply button or the Quote button

The frustrating thing is that sometimes that approach works for me, and sometimes it doesn’t. I find I usually get the whole post in my reply, but sometimes it’s as you say.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

I will nominate @peregrino_tom as the champion user of the quote function.

I agree, but @VNwalking is quite a contender! She immediately came to my mind.

 

[dougfitz]

I will nominate @peregrino_tom as the champion user of the quote function.

See his posts here and here for examples.

I agree. This approach appeals to me far more than a string of individual posts responding to each person who has made a contribution to the thread.

There is another technique not mentioned here that I find useful, one that allows you to insert a quote into a Conversation with another member:

• select the post or portions of text you want to discuss as you would if you were going to respond publicly.
• insert this into a blank response using the 'Insert Quotes' function - the button will only appear when you have text selected in the previous step.
• select all the text in the response box. Ctrl-A for Windows and Android users. I'm sure there is a similar function for other operating systems.
• copy that text using Ctrl-C or Ctrl-X
• Start a conversation. In Windows (Chrome) hover the cursor over the member's name, then select 'Start conversation' in the popup when it appears. On an Android using Chrome, tap on the member's name, then select 'Start conversation' when the popup appears. You may want to open this in a new tab or window if that option is presented.
• Paste the copied text into the conversation text box that appears.

The copied text retains the hyperlinks, which can then be followed like any other hyperlinks to their source.

At the end of this, go back the the thread you started from and remove any text from the reply box. The forum software keeps this as a 'draft' if you don't, and you might find it on some future visit waiting for you to complete your reply. It's not essential to do this, but it does keep thinks tidy. Close any windows you no longer need to keep open, etc.

 

[trecile]

I simply cannot get the hang of the ‘quote’ or ‘multi quote’ options. I usually end up using ‘reply’ and deleting that which seems irrelevant to my contribution

I did this before I knew that I could quote just portions of a post. It's much easier to choose which portions you want to quote at the outset than to go back and delete the unwanted portions.

 

[henrythedog]

I did this before I knew that I could quote just portions of a post.

Woo-hoo!

There’s no stopping me now.

(In performing this apparently simple task I found I was about to post about a hundred samples of text dating back over the last eight years or so. They are now deleted. Probably.)

 

[trecile]

(In performing this apparently simple task I found I was about to post about a hundred samples of text dating back over the last eight years or so.

When I'm reading and posting on my phone my finger often hits that +Quote button at the bottom of the text box!

 

[VNwalking]

I agree, but @VNwalking is quite a contender! She immediately came to my mind.

Thank you @Camino Chrissy!
It's so easy once you figure it out.
Block the text you want to quote, then hit 'quote;' the quotes stack up until you want to reply - then after you press 'insert quotes,' you can rearrange them if you want to post a coherent message (very cool).

About ellipses? Not much comment from this peanut gallery except to say I have from time to time used them in a quote to indicate that I've cut something out. It only seems fair. But it's not something to get steamed up about. And I'm a self-professed grammar pedant, and just can't resist adding that they need to be in square brackets, not parentheses - like this:
[...]

 

[t2andreo]

OMG! See what happens when an English grammar expert (or teacher) creeps into the flock?

But seriously, I have a former supervisor from my pre-retirement professional life who was both an English Grammar & Lit teacher AND a Spanish teacher in a former career. She vexed me then, with her nit picking correction of my staff work, and even now chases me down to comment, for example, on my book when first written in 2020. But, after so many years of this, we are good friends.

AIY, YAI, YAI!

I have enjoyed this trip down memory lane, with some caution. I say that because learning the finer points of grammar and punctuation - even in my native English language - was a painful thing. But, thank you for the refresher course in the use of ellipsis.

Happy New Year to all!

Tom

 

[VNwalking]

If anyone wants to really get in the weeds here, here is a good and (warning!) extremely detailed source of information:

Ellipses AND Square Brackets

Learning Goal: Use square brackets and ellipses when integrating quotations to help keep flow of writing smooth.

t3dailygrammar.weebly.com

Reading this, I learned I was wrong, because sometimes ellipses can have square brackets and sometimes not. It's a bit complicated:

The MLA Handbook recommends using square brackets on either side of the ellipsis points to distinguish between an ellipsis that you've added and the ellipses that might have been in the original text. Such a bracketed ellipsis in a quotation would look like this:

Example: "Bohr […] used the analogy of parallel stairways […]" (Smith 55).

And in case anyone wonders whose spelling is wrong, the answer is no-one's:

The plural of ellipsis is ellipses (handy to remember when you're playing Scrabble), but the points themselves (the dots that make up the ellipsis) are called ellipsis points or ellipsis marks.

Maybe TMI. Sorry, Tom.

 

[Tom Hagger]

It seems to me that this forum is very different from academic texts in which ellipses would be absolutely necessary. The wonderful thing about the use of quotations ('quotes') on the forum is that it automatically refers you to the original post. Surely an ellipsis is truly necessary on the forum only when there otherwise is a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding?

 

[bullingtonce]

Ellipsis in quotations:

This post will only be of interest to those who believe that accuracy of quotations is important for effective communications and trust. If this subject does not interest you, read no further.

In many of the posts on this forum, we quote other posts and then we respond to the thoughts expressed in the quoted texts. We thereby advance the conversation. This is perfectly normal and is a good thing.

Sometimes we excise from our quotations, text that is superfluous to our line of reasoning. I think that excising superfluous texts is acceptable, but if and only if an ellipsis ("...") is inserted in place of each excision.

The ellipsis is important because it informs readers where excisions were made, and enables them to examine, if they choose to, the original text, to verify that the excised texts were indeed superfluous. It allows the reader to challenge the quoter's line of reasoning. Lines of reasoning that enable challenges and withstand them become more effective and convincing.

The ellipsis is a tool for building trust.

I do not think that it is acceptable for quotations to excise substantive text or to be inaccurate.

BTW this thread includes a comment wherein someone quoted someone else, excised a substantive clause, omitted the ellipsis, and then added commentary making a point that the excised text had already made. Not sure why this was done. The excised text was substantive and should not have been omitted from the quotation.

Moderator note: This post was moved from a another thread to create this new thread, and the last paragraph in this post refers to a comment in that other thread, which is here.

This creates more work for the moderator, but it will significantly elevate the quality of this platform and will, as a side affect, bring to certain posters' attention that freedom of speech demands responsibility and accountability. It also will serve as a good example for young posters who are trying to figure out how to navigate life. It made my day to read this post.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

.

A few times I've edited quote boxes like the above to ensure that the forum software calls someone's attention to my post (in case the quoted person has "unwatched" the thread).

And I'm a self-professed grammar pedant, and just can't resist adding that they need to be in square brackets, not parentheses - like this:
[...]

My (old) copy of the MLA doesn't mention their bracketing and neigher does another writers guide I have. Are my knuckles safe from your ruler?

@Pilgrim9, I feel your pain. For the last couple of years I've been posting on a smartphone.

 

[VNwalking]

My (old) copy of the MLA doesn't mention their bracketing and neigher does another writers guide I have. Are my knuckles safe from your ruler?

Of course.
The quote I posted above references the MLA, but I had to trust the source I linked to because I don't have the original at my fingertips, or at all.

 

[David Tallan]

In general, I definitely approve of the use of ellipses when excising text from a quote, whether it is a quote manually copied or inserted through the Forum software's quote function. One can also discuss the use of brackets to insert or change text to provide clarity, while keeping the sense of the original.

However, as has been pointed out, people can edit their posts after those posts have been quoted. The edits will not be reflected in previously shared quotes from the original post. So one shouldn't necessarily attribute discrepancies between a quote and an quoted text to sloppiness or ill intent. It could be that the quoted text was changed after the quote was taken.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

For the last couple of years I've been posting on a smartphone.

I always post using my smartphone. Sometimes when well intentioned posts of others become super long, I assume an ipad, laptop or full size computer is being used.
Unfortunately for me, I occasionally fall into the TL;NR category (a new abbreviation I learned on the forum yesterday), and only skim through it. Putting a space between each paragraph can help the post seem less daunting to read through rather than just indenting the first word or having none at all.

 

[grayland]

This must be the most boring thread in forum history.

 

[SabsP]

This must be the most boring thread in forum history.

Winnie and I are still eating lunch.Welcome to join us...

 

[Arctic_Alex]

This post will only be of interest to those who believe that accuracy of quotations is important for effective communications and trust. [...]

So that would be me.

Sometimes we excise from our quotations, text that is superfluous to our line of reasoning. I think that excising superfluous texts is acceptable, but if and only if an ellipsis ("...") is inserted in place of each excision.

Here I totally disagree. While when quoting in a context where the full original text is missing and the author of the quoted text cannot react easily in case he is misquoted or the omitted text leads potentially to severe misunderstanding, on a forum like this the situation is totally different. First, the original text can be found further up, second, the author is usually informed by the system when he is quoted. If he feels misquoted or sees potential misunderstanding, he or she can react and correct almost interactively.

I am used to quoting professionally, but this is a forum and not a scientific publication. If one wants to be strict, that also would mean every post, once published on the forum, may not be altered afterwards by the author ever, but needs to be republished as a new revision with an according revision identifier. Quite often I quote someone, but after I quoted, the original text is altered because of typos, bad phrasing or wrong information. In such cases, what I quoted does not exist any longer outside my quote. This is totally OK, as this is just a forum. To me this is casual exchange of information, just like talking. When talking, even scientists (worked as one for decades myself) do not mention that they left out the context when they quote a sentence, a line or an isolated statement because it is obvious.

If there were strict quotation rules on this on this form, I would certainly not participate any longer as then it had lost the casual aspect

 

[C clearly]

This must be the most boring thread in forum history.

I am shocked that anyone would say this!

Isn't it interesting, though, how much complexity there is in the design of forum software?

Surely an ellipsis is truly necessary on the forum only when there otherwise is a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding?

I think they are appropriate/necessary when we remove text from within a quote. It is a courtesy to flag that discontinuity in the quote.

A few times I've edited quote boxes like the above to ensure that the forum software calls someone's attention to my post (in case the quoted person has "unwatched" the thread).

I am not sure this would work. Have you tested it? Very devious idea anyway.

It could be that the quoted text was changed after the quote was taken.

Yes. When a member edits their own post, an "Edited... " note appears - so we can see that has happened. (However, I think the edit note might not appear if the edit is done really fast.)

Putting a space between each paragraph helps

Now this deserves a thread of its own!

 

[Arctic_Alex]

Yes. When a member edits their own post, an "Edited... " note appears - so we can see that has happened. (However, I think the edit note might not appear if the edit is done really fast.)

I usually edit my posts right after posting as they usually are full of typos. Especially when I was typing on a mobile device. Then it is flagged as edited, but this usually happens way before anyone will be quoting me. Hence the "edited" flag does not tell you if the text quote was edited after it was quoted or before and it remains totally unclear if the quotation reflects the current version or an earlier

 

[C clearly]

This must be the most boring thread in forum history.

On further reflection, I think that some of the phone and SIM card threads come close.

 

[Rick M]

This must be the most boring thread in forum history.

You are sooooo right. Besides, everyone knows how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it's 42*.

*Citation Required

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

This

must

be

the

most

boring

thread

in

forum

history

It could be worse.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

.

Did this work?

 

[trecile]

Putting a space between each paragraph can help the post seem less daunting to read through rather than just indenting the first word or having none at all.

Yes, yes, yes!
A huge wall of text is a a huge turn-off, and something that I'll often skip reading.

As a moderator I will occasionally add spaces between paragraphs if they exist, or divide the text in to paragraphs that make sense to make it more palatable to read - leaving a note to the author of the post about what I've done.

 

[C clearly]

Did this work?

No, I did not receive any alert that I had been quoted.

 

[David Tallan]

No, I did not receive any alert that I had been quoted.

Interesting. Maybe it is in a setting. I got an alert when you quoted me above.

 

[Annw]

Grammar/mechanics are all about communicating clearly. This English teacher* is happy to see so much care about it.

That said, yes, conversation and journal papers are difference modes of communication; forums are closer to the former. An international forum must also be mindful of trans-language issues.

The MLA guide I learned on says 3 dots, no parentheses, and a full line of dots when omitting lines of poetry. Maybe we could adopt the full line of dots, given how poetic this forum is!

* "I am silently correcting your grammar."

 

[VNwalking]

* "I am silently correcting your grammar."

Best line of the whole thread.
Uh-oh.

 

[C clearly]

I got an alert when you quoted me above.

Yes, because I actually quoted you. Rick edited out all of my text, leaving an empty quote box. He was trying to trigger an alert, as he said below:

A few times I've edited quote boxes like the above to ensure that the forum software calls someone's attention to my post (in case the quoted person has "unwatched" the thread).

 

[Pilgrim9]

It seems to me that this forum is very different from academic texts in which ellipses would be absolutely necessary. The wonderful thing about the use of quotations ('quotes') on the forum is that it automatically refers you to the original post. Surely an ellipsis is truly necessary on the forum only when there otherwise is a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding?

When people quote someone else's text, sometimes they cut out (excise) some text from somewhere in the quotation.

Inserting an ellipsis tells the reader that, at the ellipsis, the quoter excised some of the original author's words. That is important because in some cases excising words substantially changes the sense or meaning of the quotation.

The ellipsis alerts the reader so that, if they want to, they can go back to the source document and determine for themselves whether or not the excision (the cut-out part) changed the sense or meaning of the quotation.

The ellipsis is a tool that enables auditing and builds trust.

 

[David Tallan]

[...] I am used to quoting professionally, but this is a forum and not a scientific publication. If one wants to be strict, that also would mean every post, once published on the forum, may not be altered afterwards by the author ever, but needs to be republished as a new revision with an according revision identifier. Quite often I quote someone, but after I quoted, the original text is altered because of typos, bad phrasing or wrong information. In such cases, what I quoted does not exist any longer outside my quote. This is totally OK, as this is just a forum. To me this is casual exchange of information, just like talking. When talking, even scientists (worked as one for decades myself) do not mention that they left out the context when they quote a sentence, a line or an isolated statement because it is obvious.

I think there is quoting and reporting what someone said/wrote. In talking, I'm generally doing the latter. I will say something like "John said that...." and there won't be real (finger motion) or implied quotation marks. It is understood that I am accurately reporting the gist of what was said (or the bits relevant to the discussion) and not necessarily using their exact words. In writing I might do the same.

But real quoting is different. When I use quotation marks, I'm going to do my best to use someone's exact words. I may leave out stuff before and after

Yes, because I actually quoted you. Rick edited out all of my text, leaving an empty quote box. He was trying to trigger an alert, as he said below:

I think he left in a period.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

Yes, because I actually quoted you. Rick edited out all of my text, leaving an empty quote box. He was trying to trigger an alert, as he said below:

Rick left a "period" in the quote box. It must not count as a keystroke.
Now I am questioning my use of quotation marks around certain words I want to stand out, and should I have used a semi-colon between my two sentences?
I am starting to get paranoid.

 

[Pilgrim9]

In general, I definitely approve of the use of ellipses when excising text from a quote, whether it is a quote manually copied or inserted through the Forum software's quote function. One can also discuss the use of brackets to insert or change text to provide clarity, while keeping the sense of the original.

However, as has been pointed out, people can edit their posts after those posts have been quoted. The edits will not be reflected in previously shared quotes from the original post. So one shouldn't necessarily attribute discrepancies between a quote and an quoted text to sloppiness or ill intent. It could be that the quoted text was changed after the quote was taken.

Hmmm, yes, I thought of that.

A few minutes later - Edit 1: Darn it. I meant to write: "Hmmm, yes, I had not thought of that."

Edit 2: I am seriously considering cutting off, or even "excising", all eight of my fingers and both of my thumbs. Then I won't make any more spollung mostykes or ebbitoriul errirs.

Or maybe a very long walk would be a good idea.

 

[Pilgrim9]

... Surely an ellipsis is truly necessary on the forum only when there otherwise is a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding?

Yes, but, in my opinion, a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding automatically arises each time a quoter cuts out (excises) text from a quotation of text that was originally written by someone else, hence the need for the ellipsis.

 

[VNwalking]

Now I am questioning my use of quotation marks around certain words I want to stand out

Italics?
Paranoia is normal around grammar when people were taught by people who used rulers as weapons. That may or may not describe you, Chris, but breathe anyway.
It's not that important.

Back on track, the trust issue may be more of a consideration in formal contexts, but this is a forum. People are alerted if their posts have been quoted, and can engage if the've been misquoted or if something's been taken out of context.

That said, it's good to be careful and considerate. Both are conducive of harmony.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

Italics?

I tend to use italics in the middle of a sentence if wanting to add a bit of clarification to something I'm saying without truly interrupting the sentence flow itself. I'm just glad there are no pedants on the forum.

 

[David Tallan]

[...] I am used to quoting professionally, but this is a forum and not a scientific publication. If one wants to be strict, that also would mean every post, once published on the forum, may not be altered afterwards by the author ever, but needs to be republished as a new revision with an according revision identifier. Quite often I quote someone, but after I quoted, the original text is altered because of typos, bad phrasing or wrong information. In such cases, what I quoted does not exist any longer outside my quote. This is totally OK, as this is just a forum. To me this is casual exchange of information, just like talking. When talking, even scientists (worked as one for decades myself) do not mention that they left out the context when they quote a sentence, a line or an isolated statement because it is obvious.

I think there is quoting and reporting what someone said/wrote. In talking, I'm generally doing the latter. I will say something like "John said that...." and there won't be real (finger motion) or implied quotation marks. It is understood that I am accurately reporting the gist of what was said (or the bits relevant to the discussion) and not necessarily using their exact words. In writing I might do the same.

But real quoting is different. When I use quotation marks, I'm going to do my best to use someone's exact words. I may leave out stuff before and after. When I quote from a book, I don't feel it necessary to quote the whole book. And I don't precede and conclude all my quotations with ellipses to indicate I haven't quoted the whole book. But if I excise content from the middle of my quotes, I will put in ellipses.

That's just the way I do things. It's what I tend to expect from others, but I accept that my expectations may not always be met and that there are no rules on the Forum in this area.

 

[Kirkie]

One of the best features is the part where, after taking ages to craft a response, I can select all, delete, go to the three dots next to the back arrow and select delete draft. Avoids all kinds of trouble.

 

[pelerine]

I usually edit my posts right after posting as they usually are full of typos. Especially when I was typing on a mobile device. Then it is flagged as edited, but this usually happens way before anyone will be quoting me. Hence the "edited" flag does not tell you if the text quote was edited after it was quoted or before and it remains totally unclear if the quotation reflects the current version or an earlier

Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?

As for the rest of this thread, much ado about nothing (quotation?). I am not an academic, not a scientist, English is not my mother tongue, I never learned punctuation in English - however it seems to me the communication is functioning well enough on this forum. So…

(Having read through my post and corrected the mistakes I found I am now going to hit the Post reply button)

 

[trecile]

Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?

Of course that's always best, but sometimes typos and other errors are overlooked at the first read.
And sometimes, when I'm typing on my phone I accidentally hit the "post reply" button before I'm done!

 

[peregrina2000]

This must be the most boring thread in forum history.

Well, grayland, it’s garnered over 1,000 views. That‘s many hundred more than any of the other threads posted yesterday at about the same time. If we keep it up, this thread will go into the email Ivar sends out about “most read posts” every week.

And ps. I edited out all your smiley faces without using an ellipsis. Now people won’t know you were intending to be funny and someone may take offense — see, it is an important and fascinating issue.

 

[Arctic_Alex]

Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?

Why should I? It works for me the way I do and no one ever complained. If someone has a problem with that, he or she has always the option to block me so my posts and replies remain invisible and piece of mind is ensured.

 

[Arctic_Alex]

Of course that's always best, but sometimes typos and other errors are overlooked at the first read.
And sometimes, when I'm typing on my phone I accidentally hit the "post reply" button before I'm done!

In my case this does not happen accidentally but because I do not care. I am a fast typer and the idea must get out quickly. Then I reread and adjust if I am not in between starters and main course and time is limited.

 

[dougfitz]

Then it is flagged as edited, but this usually happens way before anyone will be quoting me.

I wouldn't be too confident about that. Like you, I frequently post then have to fix errors of spelling and grammar, only to find that someone has liked or responded. In some cases I might recast what I think are clumsy turns of phrase to make my meaning clearer. Particularly in this latter case, I will normally message anyone who has responded to let them know that the content has changed, which gives them the opportunity to assess whether they still want to like, etc, my post.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?

Sometimes it is for the reasons that @trecile mentioned but other times it make take me 20 minutes to compose something that looks simple but I decide to post it with the intent of correcting, clarifying or completing it immediately afterwards. That is because the post is good enough and there is a chance that I may lose it all through a glich otherwise. It has happened more times than I can count.

Edit: Some corrections made above (but not quickly) because I had to post right away. Peg needed me to bring in groceries.

 

[Arctic_Alex]

I wouldn't be too confident about that. Like you, I frequently post then have to fix errors of spelling and grammar, only to find that someone has liked or responded. In some cases I might recast what I think are clumsy turns of phrase to make my meaning clearer. Particularly in this latter case, I will normally message anyone who has responded to let them know that the content has changed, which gives them the opportunity to assess whether they still want to like, etc, my post.

I agree when we talk about major changes. But correcting spelling or de-germanising my sometimes too Teutonic wording does not alter the meaning of a text. It becomes just easier to read (hopefully).

 

[dougfitz]

Of course that's always best, but sometimes typos and other errors are overlooked at the first read.
And sometimes, when I'm typing on my phone I accidentally hit the "post reply" button before I'm done!

I will be a contrarian here, inasmuch as I can think of times when I would rather have a response done quickly, and while I might check that the general thrust of my remarks is clear, will not 'proof-read' my text before posting.

ps - and I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way

 

[NorthernLight]

… and I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way

I hear ya. I always distrust anyone that says I should do x, y or zed.

 

[trecile]

ps - and I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way

You're right, it's usually best.

 

[Kanga]

Interesting. Maybe it is in a setting. I got an alert when you quoted me above.

Yes.
To do this click on your avatar at the top of the page to open your profile and account settings. In the drop down box select "preferences". That brings up a list, and on "content options" click the box for "automatically watch content you create" which will then set up the alarm function. You can also tick "and receive email notifications" if you also want email notifications.

 

[Tom Hagger]

I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way

But Trecile merely gave his opinion, initially at least, that it is 'always best' to read over and correct a comment before hitting the Post button. He was not saying that it 'has to be a particular way' for anyone. He should, I would suggest, have stuck to his initial comment, as it seems perfectly good sense to me.

 

[trecile]

But Trecile merely gave his opinion, initially at least, that it is 'always best' to read over and correct a comment before hitting the Post button. He was not saying that it 'has to be a particular way' for anyone. He should, I would suggest, have stuck to his initial comment, as it seems perfectly good sense to me.

Good points, but I'm a she.

 

[Richard Smith]

Sometimes we excise from our quotations, text that is superfluous to our line of reasoning. I think that excising superfluous texts is acceptable, but if and only if an ellipsis ("...") is inserted in place of each excision.

I agree (but I never really thought about it before - thanks).

 

[Pilgrim9]

I'm serious here. What do you think about this use of quoting? Lots cut out but the part that is relevant can stand on its own. Also, there is a link to the full original post (unless it has been edited).

That looks fine to me.

As far as I am concerned the auto-generated box around the quoted text is equivalent to an enclosing pair of quotation marks.

If the quoted text was not in a box then I would write it this way:

'
Rick of Rick and Peg said: "I'm serious here. What do you think about ... "
'

Straying off topic a bit, if there was a substantial risk of problems arising because of readers not realizing that "Rick of Rick and Peg" must be an indivisible text string, perhaps like this:

'
Rick-of-Rick-and-Peg said: "..."
'

The hyphens won't be needed on this forum because readers already understand that usernames are indivisible strings, but in other environments such as geographical place names in Québec, hyphens are required.

For example
Commune-de-la-Baie-du-Febvre

Commune-de-la-Baie-du-Febvre · Nicolet-Yamaska Regional County Municipality, QC J0G 1A0

Nicolet-Yamaska Regional County Municipality, QC J0G 1A0

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[dougfitz]

But Trecile merely gave his opinion, initially at least, that it is 'always best' to read over and correct a comment before hitting the Post button. He was not saying that it 'has to be a particular way' for anyone. He should, I would suggest, have stuck to his initial comment, as it seems perfectly good sense to me.

Possibly, although I didn't think the sentence structure would sustain your view here. In any case, I am more likely to consider a moderator's pronouncements as imperatives, not merely guidance!

ps I can hear them laughing now!

 

[Blister Bill]

What about that camino thing. Do you think boots or shoes? What size pack should I take? Are cyclists really pilgrims ? Is anyone still awake ??

 

[AlwynWellington]

BTW this thread includes a comment wherein someone quoted someone else, excised a substantive clause, omitted the ellipsis, and then added commentary making a point that the excised text had already made. Not sure why this was done. The excised text was substantive and should not have been omitted from the quotation.

Wasn't me.

I wasn't there, whatever it was that happened, whenever it was that happened and I have 12 independent witnesses, now all in outer Mongolia.

 

[Tom Hagger]

Good points, but I'm a she.

Pardon me. I do apologise. I have read a great number of your posts over the years with interest. I even had a rough picture of you in my mind. Way off target!

 

[Arctic_Alex]

What about that camino thing. Do you think boots or shoes? What size pack should I take? Are cyclists really pilgrims ? Is anyone still awake ??

You should use boots, always, you know!

 

[Arctic_Alex]

Pardon me. I do apologise. I have read a great number of your posts over the years with interest. I even had a rough picture of you in my mind. Way off target!

I guess I am joining the same crowd as you here …

 

[Arctic_Alex]

That looks fine to me.

As far as I am concerned the auto-generated box around the quoted text is equivalent to an enclosing pair of quotation marks.

If I had know this I would have replied slightly different in the first place

 

[C clearly]

indivisible text string

It has been my observation that the art of hyphen usage in English has declined considerably in my life time. This used to trouble me greatly, but I have come to believe that there are worse things to worry about. The onus is on the reader to figure out the ambiguities and enjoy them.

 

[trecile]

Pardon me. I do apologise. I have read a great number of your posts over the years with interest. I even had a rough picture of you in my mind. Way off target!

I guess I am joining the same crowd ss you here …

Hopefully I look somewhat feminine in my forum avatar

 

[Arctic_Alex]

Hopefully I look somewhat feminine in my forum avatar

View attachment 139285

You certainly do. When posted here as an image. But as an avatar it is so tiny that I never realised plus with it being cropped to a circle you are hardly visible at all
… says he who is hiding behind dogs in his avatar

 

[JabbaPapa]

Partial or even selective quotes of a post earlier up in a discussion thread do not affect the content of that post, whereas the removal of one or several adverbial, adjectival, conditional, or other secondary clauses may allow the making of a related point, or to address an underlying issue, which could be confused by that content.

If someone is, for example, using several qualifiers to support some actions, a partial quote where those qualifiers were removed could be used for a commentary about those actions in themselves, wherein consideration of those qualifiers would be just so much clutter, notwithstanding that they were intrinsic to the original points made in that post.

Because if you want to make a different albeit related point, there's no reason why you should have to abide scrupulously to that poster's particular points of view, nor to some specific words that he has used for the expression thereof.

 

[Kanga]

I am terrified of getting into a grammar debate, English usage or even worse, spelling. I’d be happy with the idiosyncrasies of medieval expression and spelling, which seem entirely random.

My personal disabilities aside, it is good to remember that not everyone had the benefit of higher education, and although this is a forum in English, we do have many members whose first language and culture is not.

I find the forum software takes care of quotes very effectively and I do appreciate it’s use when it clarifies exchanges.

 

[dougfitz]

If someone is ... using several qualifiers ... a partial quote ... could be used ... notwithstanding that they were intrinsic to the original points made ... .
Because if you want to make a different ... point there's no reason why you should have to abide [by] ... that poster's ... points of view, nor to ... specific words that he [sic, or she] ... used ... .

I agree, but it would seem there might just be a limit to how far one should go with this

and without the ellipses and some minor editing:

If someone is using several qualifiers a partial quote could be used, notwithstanding that those modifiers were intrinsic to the original points made.

Because if you want to make a different point there's no reason why you should have to abide by that poster's points of view, nor to specific words that they used.

Thank you, @JabbaPapa for providing such a wonderful example to work with.

I'm sure some people are finding this entertaining, and it might still have a little way to go before the thread quietly fades away. I am thinking I will let others do that now.

 

[Tom Hagger]

Hopefully I look somewhat feminine in my forum avatar

Very much so.

It is a shame that the circular presentation almost decapitates you.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

You certainly do. When posted here as an image. But as an avatar it is so tiny that I never realised plus with it being cropped to a circle you are hardly visible at all
… says he who is hiding behind dogs in his avatar

@trecile has in her profile that she is female, which is why I like it when people identify themselves in their profile. (I also appreciate if they include the country they live in).
I originally was Camino Chris, but later discovered a few members thought I was a man, although my profile said female. I had Ivar change me to Chrissy, which was what my parents affectionately called me growing up. My given name is Christine; TMI perhaps?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Guess being cropped by a circle is just more ellipsis - - unless ; it's aliens ?

 

[Arctic_Alex]

@trecile has in her profile that she is female, which is why I like it when people identify themselves in their profile. (I also appreciate if they include the country they live in).
I originally was Camino Chris, but later discovered a few members thought I was a man, although my profile said female. I had Ivar change me to Chrissy, which was what my parents affectionately called me growing up. My given name is Christine; TMI perhaps?

To be honest, I hardly ever click on the profile of anyone, to me it almost feels like stalking ... only today I started to check some people out and ... so far there were 3 (three!) who I mistakenly took for being male but now learned otherwise! . As for you, I unconsciously had a sort of neutral stance on your gender. "Chrissy" to me could also be a male character just being funny, or female. So I was undecided!
It appears this forum is by far less male dominated than I thought all the time!

 

[David Tallan]

JabbaPapa wrote:

If someone is, for example, using several qualifiers to support some actions, a partial quote where those qualifiers were removed could be used for a commentary about those actions in themselves, wherein consideration of those qualifiers would be just so much clutter, notwithstanding that they were intrinsic to the original points made in that post.

Because if you want to make a different albeit related point, there's no reason why you should have to abide scrupulously to that poster's particular points of view, nor to some specific words that he has used for the expression thereof.

dougfitz responded

I agree, but it would seem there might just be a limit to how far one should go with this

"If someone is ... using several qualifiers ... a partial quote ... could be used ... notwithstanding that they were intrinsic to the original points made ... .
Because if you want to make a different ... point there's no reason why you should have to abide [by] ... that poster's ... points of view, nor to ... specific words that he [sic, or she] ... used ... ."

and without the ellipses and some minor editing:

"If someone is using several qualifiers a partial quote could be used, notwithstanding that those modifiers were intrinsic to the original points made.

Because if you want to make a different point there's no reason why you should have to abide by that poster's points of view, nor to specific words that they used."

Thank you, @JabbaPapa for providing such a wonderful example to work with.

I'm sure some people are finding this entertaining, and it might still have a little way to go before the thread quietly fades away. I am thinking I will let others do that now.

(I can't seem to use the Forum software's quoting functionality on edited quotes.)

In this case, dougfitz, my preference would be, if you are going to edit it this much, not to present it as a direct quote but to use a construction like "JabbaPapa said that..." without quotation marks or the quotation box and feel free to edit and paraphrase as much as you want.

Without quotation marks, I understand I am getting the gist of what someone said, and while I expect it to be accurate to their intent, I also understand that it may be edited for clarity or relevance. As a direct quotation, I'm expecting it to be pretty much as said, which I don't think the second, edited example of "JabbaPapa's words" is (quotation marks added to reflect that I don't think they are really JabbaPapa's words after that level of editing, although the sense may be much the same).

 

[JabbaPapa]

Well I had no problem with it, but instead found it amusing and worthwhile.

And I *am* a pedant ...

 

[Tony Lenton]

I think that it's definitely preferable to use the quote function - that way readers can click on the quoted person's name to be taken directly to the post that was quoted.

I think that a lot of people are not aware that you don't have to quote an entire post. You can highlight part of a post and a an option will pop up to add that quote. You can add multiple quotes from different posts in your response.

View attachment 139228

Then when you make your own post click the "Inset quotes..." button at the bottom of the text box.

All of the highlighted portions will show up like this

View attachment 139229

You can even rearrange the quotes if you want by "dragging" on the area with the "hamburger" symbol

You will then have this

I really like your post but I fear that trying to apply it will be beyond me.Thanks for letting me know of that facility, though.