For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
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).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).
I occasionally hijack threadsIs 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 threadsand possibly would have replied to @Pilgrim9's post, but I couldn't make "heads nor tails" out of it.
My favourite short, easy phrase for directions is "...straight on till morning!" from Peter Pan.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!
And this would be an excellent example of the proper use of ellipsis in quotations.My favourite short, easy phrase for directions is "...straight on till morning!" from Peter Pan.
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.I love proper grammar.
And this would be an excellent example of the proper use of ellipsis in quotations.
I occasionally hijack threadsand 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.
This is an interesting remark.This post will only be of interest to those who believe that accuracy of quotations is important for effective communications and trust.
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.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 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 do not think that it is acceptable for quotations to excise substantive text or to be inaccurate.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
That was a very clever pun for the thread. I assume it was deliberate.there might be a solar ellipsis!
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.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
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!
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.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.
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
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.the reply option has always been fine for my use; 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.occasionally I highlight only a portion of the text
I have the same problem.I simply cannot get the hang of the ‘quote’ or ‘multi quote’ options
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.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
I agree, but @VNwalking is quite a contender! She immediately came to my mind.I will nominate @peregrino_tom as the champion user of the quote function.
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.
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.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
Woo-hoo!I did this before I knew that I could quote just portions of a post.
When I'm reading and posting on my phone my finger often hits that +Quote button at the bottom of the text box!(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.
Thank you @Camino Chrissy!I agree, but @VNwalking is quite a contender! She immediately came to my mind.
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).
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.
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.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.
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).VNwalking said:
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?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:
[...]
Of course.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?
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.For the last couple of years I've been posting on a smartphone.
This must be the most boring thread in forum history.
This post will only be of interest to those who believe that accuracy of quotations is important for effective communications and trust. [...]
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 am shocked that anyone would say this!This must be the most boring thread in forum history.
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.Surely an ellipsis is truly necessary on the forum only when there otherwise is a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding?
I am not sure this would work. Have you tested it? Very devious idea anyway.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).
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.)It could be that the quoted text was changed after the quote was taken.
Now this deserves a thread of its own!Putting a space between each paragraph helps
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 earlierYes. 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.)
On further reflection, I think that some of the phone and SIM card threads come close.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*.
This must be the most boring thread in forum history.
This
must
most
boring
thread
forum
history
C clearly said:
Yes, yes, yes!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.
No, I did not receive any alert that I had been quoted.Did this work?
Interesting. Maybe it is in a setting. I got an alert when you quoted me above.No, I did not receive any alert that I had been quoted.
Best line of the whole thread.* "I am silently correcting your grammar."
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 got an alert when you quoted me above.
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).
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?
[...] 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 he left in a period.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.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:
Hmmm, yes, I thought of that.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.
... Surely an ellipsis is truly necessary on the forum only when there otherwise is a danger of inaccuracy or misunderstanding?
Italics?Now I am questioning my use of quotation marks around certain words I want to stand out
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.Italics?
[...] 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.
Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?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?
This must be the most boring thread in forum history.
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.Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?
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.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 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.Then it is flagged as edited, but this usually happens way before anyone will be quoting me.
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.Tip: How about reading and correcting your text before hitting the Post reply button?
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).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 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.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!
… and I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way
You're right, it's usually best.ps - and I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way
Yes.Interesting. Maybe it is in a setting. I got an alert when you quoted me above.
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.I always distrust anyone or anything that says something always has to be a particular way
Good points, but I'm a she.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.
I agree (but I never really thought about it before - thanks).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'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).
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!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.
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.
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!Good points, but I'm a she.
You should use boots, always, you know!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 ??
I guess I am joining the same crowd as you here …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!
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.
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.indivisible text string
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
I agree, but it would seem there might just be a limit to how far one should go with thisIf 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 ... .
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.
Very much so.Hopefully I look somewhat feminine in my forum 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).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?
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.
"If someone is ... using several qualifiers ... a partial quote ... could be used ... notwithstanding that they were intrinsic to the original points made ... .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 those modifiers were intrinsic to the original points made.and without the ellipses and some minor editing:
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 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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?