I have a question for advice from this group that might have political
implications.
In an article I'm about to submit, I cite a number of discussions on
this list and humanist about the use of language, especially English.
The authors are both native English speakers and non-native speakers
and, as is typical in emails, there are a number of small typos.
solecisms, and the like.
Currently, I have a note at the first citation indicating that "as is
normal in as conversational a medium as email correspondence, the quoted
passages have small typographical errors and other solecisms. These have
not been corrected or otherwise noted." My reason for this is that I
don't want to put in a lot of sic or corrections in square brackets.
Although I'm a terrible typo offender myself, the case can be more
politicised it seems to me when dealing with non-native speakers. I'm
uncomfortable acting either as judge or, worse, in my case, calling
attention to "errors"--especially since I think they are really more
issues of register than actual errors.
I could silently correct them, of course, as well, but I don't like that
either, in case what I think is an obvious correction turns out to
misrepresent something.
What do other people think? I've seen /sic/ used before as a form of ad
hominem attack and so I generally really hate using it if I can avoid
it. But since it also seems nuts to pepper the correspondence with
square brackets (and since that could have the same effect as a lot of
sics), I don't want to do that either.
Is there a better solution than simply flagging the register difference,
as I currently do?
--
---
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Professor of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada
+1 403 393-2539