Conference thebay::joyoflex

    You should be able to look these up in any dictionary (except maybe the
    paperback American Heritage). Some dictionaries put abbreviations and
    foreign terms in a separate section, which would make it easy for you
    to locate all the Latin expressions if that's what you want to do. 
    
    "Sic" (which is a word, not an abbreviation) is Latin for "thus". 
    
    					Val

    E.g. (also spelled eg) means "exempli gratia." I have also seen a
    dictionary (a Webster's New World?) define it as "example given" and
    give other plausible English definitions for other Latin abbreviations. 
    
    	Jon 

    quad erat demonstrandum = which was to be demonstrated
    

    I know that q.v. means "which see", but
    I don't know any latin and my AHD doesn't
    list the abbreviation.

    q.v. -- quod vide.  Cf. qq.v. (quae vide)
    
    
    John B.

    I'm still not happy with 'sic'. How would I use it ? An example ?
    
    While we're on Latin, who knows what "Caesar adsum jam forte" mean ?
    
    It's NOT about what Caesar ate last night !!
    
    Cheers,							Steve

>    I'm still not happy with 'sic'. How would I use it ? An example ?

In English, it's helpful to turn it into the acronym "said in context."  
Thus, if you were quoteing someone who had made a typo, you'd do like 
this:
	"Thus, if you were quoteing [sic] someone who..."

This means that it was wrong, you knew it was  wrong, you know that your 
readers will know it's wrong, and you want to let them know that you 
knew.  Got it?

					>>>==>PStJTT

`Sic' is used with most effect when you are trying to rebut a point.  Then it 
means, "Not only is this moron's logic faulty, but his spelling and grammar 
are faulty also."

One of life's great embarrassments is to see `sic' and not understand what the 
error is.

Clay

    re .10
    
>One of life's great embarrassments is to see `sic' and not understand what the
>error is.
    
    In that case I must be pretty high up the embarrassment charts, not
    understanding that "sic" means that there's an error to be understood :-)
    
    Cheers,							Steve

>One of life's great embarrassments is to see `sic' and not understand what the
>error is.
    
'Tis a far, far greater embarassment to annotate something with "sic"
and be wrong. 

Although I have seen "sic" used in a snotty manner, it has legitimate 
and I think greater use just to alert the reader that there has not been 
a typo in a source being quoted.  Newspapers used to annotate puns that 
way to try and head off vast numbers of letters pointing out an "error."

You have to be careful when going after someone for spelling or phrasing 
problems, since I've never met anyone qualified to throw the first stone 
on that charge.
					>>>==>PStJTT

    re:.12
    
    There's a Murphyish law somewhere that one cannot comment on
    someone's poor spelling without making at least one spelling
    error.
    
    --- jerry

    getting back to the subject 
    
    how about
    
    ps - post script
    nb - nota bene
    op cit - opus cited 
    and ibid
    
    and I know that my translations need refinement
    
    Bonnie (the other one)

    Sic does mean "thus," but more specifically its meaning is "as the
    author intended." Its usage is usually sarcastic, a critic's way
    of pointing out a writer's error, ostensibly so that the reader
    won't think it's a typo.
    
    Eileen

    In scholarly writing, the use of 'sic' is not at all sarcastic.
    It is a straightforward way of attributing the error to the original
    text, which, in many fields of scholarship, is very important
    information.
    
    I have used 'sic' in writing that could hardly be called scholarly,
    but I meant only to avoid responsibility for the error while quoting
    accurately.  No sarcasm was intended.  I suppose it can be used
    sarcastically, especially by critics, but other users are sincere.
          
    Bernie

    'Sic' means 'thus'.  'Thus' doesn't have to refer only to typos. 'Said
    in context' (thanks, .9) is a useful pneumonic [sic]; but not many
    people insist that the word 'context' can refer only to what is
    textual. 
    
    So '[sic]' can imply sarcasm, but needn't. 
    
    Exemplorum gratia:
    
    1	"A pneumonic [sic] is an aid to memory." - spello
    
    2	"Under this Government there has been an improvement [sic] in
    	health care."	- disbelief
    
    3	"All men are equal.  I am a man.  Therefore I am equal [sic]."
    	- faulty argument
    
    b

    
       The concern I have with the usage of 'sic' is its careful
    placement, or element (word, phrase, etc.) emphasis.  Calling
    attention to non-spelling or non-typo errors which seem so
    painfully obvious to the critic are not always so blatant to the
    readership.
    
    

    Re: .17
    
    I don't recommend the use of 'sic' as in your #2 and #3 examples. 
    I've seen it used as in #2, but don't approve; never seen it used
    as in #3 (of course, my experience may be limited here).  Fowler
    would seem to back up this view:
    
    	Latin for _so_, is inserted after a quoted word or phrase to
    	confirm its accuracy as a quotation, or occasionally after the
    	writer's own word to emphasize it as giving his deliberate meaning;
    	it amounts to Yes, he did say that, or Yes, I do mean that,
    	in spite of your natural doubts.  It should be used only when
    	doubt _is_ natural; but reviewers and controversialists are
    	tempted to pretend that it is, because _sic_ provides them with
    	a neat and compendious form of sneer.
                                   
    Bernie

    I don't disagree with Fowler; he's the most able and witty and
    commonsensical writer on grammar that I've come across. 
    The expression 'neat and compendious sneer' is typically good.
    
    But I'm afraid the 'it is' (in the second-last line of .-1) isn't
    clear. Is there a typo here? Are we dealing with a case of
    [sic [sic]]?
    
    I think my #2 and #3 are tolerable as examples of the usage 
    he prefers: 
    
    >it amounts to Yes, he did say that, or Yes, I do mean that,
    >in spite of your natural doubts
    
             	
         in #2, 'doubt _is_ natural' if you consider - as recommended by
         someone else - the context (which might be, for example, a student
         nurse who borrows the _Daily_Worker_ every day, and sells
         _Militant_ on street-corners on Saturday)
         
         in #3, I'm pointing to a fallacious argument and saying 
	 'Yes, he did say that'
         ('tho in this case I was aware of the problem Ed mentioned -
         how to make it clear that _sic_ was applied to the whole
         argument and not just to one jot or tittle)
    
    I thought #1 was my weakest example, because of the quotation marks.
    I meant it as a comment on someone elses's [a mythical someone else's]
    malapropism, but it looked like the 'Yes, I do mean that' version
    of _sic_ - misused, because I didn't; as though _sic_ could mean
    'Yes I know I'm making a mistake, but you know what I really mean'
    (does anyone think it can mean that? I don't)     
    
    b
    version

>         ('tho in this case I was aware of the problem Ed mentioned -
>         how to make it clear that _sic_ was applied to the whole
>         argument and not just to one jot or tittle)

The times I've seen "sic" applied to a whole argument it was done by 
having "sic" introduce a quote.

...but so-and-so argues, [sic] "<argument goes here>"

					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: .20
    
    The "it is" is accurately quoted; he's referring back to the word
    "natural."
    
    The reason I believe that Fowler excludes the use of your #2 is
    that he says 'sic' "is inserted after a quoted word or phrase to
    confirm its ACCURACY AS A QUOTATION..." [my emphasis].  In your
    #2 example, you say its purpose is to express "disbelief."  In other
    words, the quotation is accurate, but the user of 'sic' disagrees
    with the meaning of the quoted statement or the conclusion it reaches.
    Fowler is saying that the criterion for the use of 'sic' after
    quotations, is quotational accuracy only, not disbelief or opinion
    about the quoted material.  That has always been my understanding
    of its proper use with quotations; a handy device for saying that
    the error (not wrong opinion) is the writer's, not the quoter's.
    
    Bernie

    Aha,
    
    'It should be used only when doubt _is_ natural; but reviewers and
    controversialists are tempted to [use _sic_ to give the impression that
    they] pretend that [doubt is natural]...'
    
    Sorry for misunderstanding.
    
    'To confirm its accuracy as a quotation' - agreed. Where we (and
    others) differ is over interpretation. Two possibilities:
    
    	o	'To confirm [something's expression in writing] as
    		a quotation'
    
    	o	'To confirm [something's] accuracy as a quotation
    		[in its context - sociological, historical or whatever]'
    
    I think Fowler's 'quoted word OR PHRASE' [my emphasis] suggests
    the second interpretation. 
    
    b
    
    Afterthought - dangerous word, 'it'.  I'll never use it again (oops).

    Yes, even Fowler can contract the dreaded 'faulty pronoun reference'
    disease; is anyone safe?
    
    I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.  'Sic,' in my experience
    and in all the references I've found means literally 'the quote
    is accurate' with no judgements or opinions permitted.
    
    The broader use _is_ becoming more and more popular.  You'll have
    to pardon us purists while we take a dim view.
    
    Bernie

    re .all
    
    Brilliant !
    
    What about "viz" ?
    
    Cheers,							Steve

    viz		abbreviated version of _vide_licet_, heaven knows why.
    
    Vide means 'see' (as in q.v.) and licet means 'it allows'. Should
    videlicet be one word?  If so, what does it mean?  Whatever the
    original, unabbreviated, version means,  'viz' means 'namely'.
    
    e.g. [NB: viz .neq. e.g.; any list that follows 'viz' has to be
    	complete]
    	There are three primary colours, viz red yellow and blue.
    
    Bob

I remember that "viz" is equivalent to "namely" (as in .-1) and is used to 
introduce a complete list.  "E.g." is the same as "for example" and 
introduces an incomplete list.  I also recall that it is incorrect to 
terminate a list begun with "e.g." with "etc." (e.g. "There are many colors,
e.g. red, blue, brown, etc.") 

Is there a good reason for this rule that harks back to the original Latin, or
is it just an arbitrary usage convention? 


Larry

    Re: .27
    
    Reasons, off the top of my head. I prefer the last one.
    
    Etymological reason 
    
    	"Gratia" (in _exempli_gratia_) can mean many things to do 
    	with grace and graciousness. It's not at all gracious to say 
    	'there are lots more reasons, but I can't be bothered to
    	think of them'.
    
    Logical reason
    
    	If (as is true) _viz_ introduces a complete list and _e.g._
    	introduces a incomplete list, it's part of the meaning of
    	_e.g._ that what follows it, if it's a list, must be incomplete.
    	To say 'etc' after saying 'here comes an incomplete list'
    	is pleonastic.

    Pragmatic reason
    
    	Using 'etc' after a list introduced by 'e.g.' is a waste of
    	space or a waste of breath or a waste of ink; 'etc' adds
    	nothing in this context.
    
    b

    Re: .8
    
    > While we're on Latin, who knows what "Caesar adsum jam forte" mean ?
    >
    > It's NOT about what Caesar ate last night !!

    Ah, but it is!  It's a parody, using Latin words with an English
    sense.  The complete thing:
    
    		Caesar adsum jam forte,
    		Brutus aderat.
    		Caesar sic in omnibus,
    		Brutus sic in at.
    
    Notice 'sic' creeps in here too.  And US readers have to note that,
    in British usage, 'to be sick' means to throw up.
    
    Here's a similar one, using Spanish-like words, but with an English
    pronunciation:
    
    		Si, Se�or, dere dago,
    		Forte lorez enaro,
    		Sumare lorez, sumare trux,
    		Fula cousan ensan dux.
    
    Jeff.

   re:.-1
    That reminds me of a Spanish pun.
    
    A Hispanic gentleman entered a shoe store in Gringoland.  He wanted
    to buy some anklets, but didn't know the word for them.  So he walked
    up to the salesman and pointed to his ankles and said, "you have?".
    
    The salesman pointed to the shoes on the wall and said, "you like
    one of those?"  
    
    The man said, "No" and pointed to his ankle again.  The saleman
    missed the cue and pointed to the shoelaces.  Once again the visitor
    shook his head and pointed to his ankle.  Finally the saleman walked
    over to the corner and pointed out a rack of socks.  The visitor
    suddenly smiled and said,
    
    "Eso s� que es!�"     

    The salesman said, "Why didn't you say so in the first place?"

�(which means "yes, that's it!").
 

    re:.30
    
    --- jerry

      Re .29
      
      The second poem given is similar to this one using Latin words:
      
      
              Si, villi, siemgo:
              Fortibus esinero.
              Nobili, demis trux.
              Sivatis inem?  Causandux.
      
      Dave C.