grammar - help...
Discussion
I regularly see square brackets used [ ] in sentences where there seems to be no need for any interruption (example below)
“For over 30 years [California has] not been able to approach management of that species the way every other state manages or the way they manage other species,”
I appreciate that the rule is that "square brackets are used to enclose words that are added to a quote or to interrupt a direct quotation. They can also be used to clarify the situation." but IMO there seems to be no need to emphasise the bit above... what am I missing?
“For over 30 years [California has] not been able to approach management of that species the way every other state manages or the way they manage other species,”
I appreciate that the rule is that "square brackets are used to enclose words that are added to a quote or to interrupt a direct quotation. They can also be used to clarify the situation." but IMO there seems to be no need to emphasise the bit above... what am I missing?
I have always taken it to mean that the words in the square brackets are a summary of a longer but unnecessary for present purposes phrase in the original quote.
So in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
So in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
DodgyGeezer]I regularly see square brackets used [ said:
in sentences where there seems to be no need for any interruption (example below)
“For over 30 years [California has] not been able to approach management of that species the way every other state manages or the way they manage other species,”
I appreciate that the rule is that "square brackets are used to enclose words that are added to a quote or to interrupt a direct quotation. They can also be used to clarify the situation." but IMO there seems to be no need to emphasise the bit above... what am I missing?
It's not about emphasis, it is being use to provide the context of who the subject of the quote is because the person being quoted didn't say the actual words at that point.“For over 30 years [California has] not been able to approach management of that species the way every other state manages or the way they manage other species,”
I appreciate that the rule is that "square brackets are used to enclose words that are added to a quote or to interrupt a direct quotation. They can also be used to clarify the situation." but IMO there seems to be no need to emphasise the bit above... what am I missing?
mac96 said:
I have always taken it to mean that the words in the square brackets are a summary of a longer but unnecessary for present purposes phrase in the original quote.
So in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
I think in the example givenSo in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
California would have been specified in an earlier sentence and "they have" would have been used in the quoted sentence.
So the quote wouldn't have made sense without replacing "they have" with [California has]
Aa above, adds context to the quote.
For example the original text might be "William was saying how great the TrackHawk is. He says it's pretty nippy."
But now I only want to quote the last sentence "He says it's pretty nippy.", which without context is pretty meaningless.
So it's clearer as "He [William] says it's [the TrackHawk] is pretty nippy [cock waving]".
The first 2 bracketed sections make sense of the quoted sentence. The final one is another use, where I want to add a comment or expand on something that's not in the quoted text and shouldn't be red as part of it, but helps comprehension.
For example the original text might be "William was saying how great the TrackHawk is. He says it's pretty nippy."
But now I only want to quote the last sentence "He says it's pretty nippy.", which without context is pretty meaningless.
So it's clearer as "He [William] says it's [the TrackHawk] is pretty nippy [cock waving]".
The first 2 bracketed sections make sense of the quoted sentence. The final one is another use, where I want to add a comment or expand on something that's not in the quoted text and shouldn't be red as part of it, but helps comprehension.
Edited by tvrolet on Thursday 20th February 11:38
48k said:
DodgyGeezer]I regularly see square brackets used [ said:
in sentences where there seems to be no need for any interruption (example below)
“For over 30 years [California has] not been able to approach management of that species the way every other state manages or the way they manage other species,”
I appreciate that the rule is that "square brackets are used to enclose words that are added to a quote or to interrupt a direct quotation. They can also be used to clarify the situation." but IMO there seems to be no need to emphasise the bit above... what am I missing?
It's not about emphasis, it is being use to provide the context of who the subject of the quote is because the person being quoted didn't say the actual words at that point.“For over 30 years [California has] not been able to approach management of that species the way every other state manages or the way they manage other species,”
I appreciate that the rule is that "square brackets are used to enclose words that are added to a quote or to interrupt a direct quotation. They can also be used to clarify the situation." but IMO there seems to be no need to emphasise the bit above... what am I missing?
TownIdiot said:
mac96 said:
I have always taken it to mean that the words in the square brackets are a summary of a longer but unnecessary for present purposes phrase in the original quote.
So in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
I think in the example givenSo in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
California would have been specified in an earlier sentence and "they have" would have been used in the quoted sentence.
So the quote wouldn't have made sense without replacing "they have" with [California has]
I think both are possible though.
tvrolet said:
Aa above, adds context to the quote.
For example the original text might be "William was saying how great the TrackHawk is. He says it's pretty nippy."
But now I only want to quote the last sentence "He says it's pretty nippy.", which without context is pretty meaningless.
So it's clearer as "He [William] says it's [the TrackHawk] is pretty nippy [cock waving]".
The first 2 bracketed sections make sense of the quoted sentence. The final one is another use, where I want to add a comment or expand on something that's not in the quoted text and shouldn't be red as part of it, but helps comprehension.
Or a more topical example:For example the original text might be "William was saying how great the TrackHawk is. He says it's pretty nippy."
But now I only want to quote the last sentence "He says it's pretty nippy.", which without context is pretty meaningless.
So it's clearer as "He [William] says it's [the TrackHawk] is pretty nippy [cock waving]".
The first 2 bracketed sections make sense of the quoted sentence. The final one is another use, where I want to add a comment or expand on something that's not in the quoted text and shouldn't be red as part of it, but helps comprehension.
Edited by tvrolet on Thursday 20th February 11:38
Trump stated that Zelensky was a dictator with no democratic mandate.
In reply Zelensky said, "he [Trump] is a complete
"Where an incomplete quote is used square brackets are usually used to replace pronouns that have not been defined in the quote.
For example an original article may talk at length about how hairy Baldchap's backside is, culminating in 'He may have the hairiest arse on the planet'. In isolation, that sentence means nothing because we haven't defined who 'he' is, so as a standalone quote you would see '[Baldchap] may have the hairiest arse on the planet'.
TL;DR: Square brackets are usually the author defining items not defined in a quote.
For example an original article may talk at length about how hairy Baldchap's backside is, culminating in 'He may have the hairiest arse on the planet'. In isolation, that sentence means nothing because we haven't defined who 'he' is, so as a standalone quote you would see '[Baldchap] may have the hairiest arse on the planet'.
TL;DR: Square brackets are usually the author defining items not defined in a quote.
Baldchap said:
TL;DR: Square brackets are usually the author defining items not defined in a quote.
This is how I've always understood their usage too. Maybe we should tell the journalists on the f1.com website, they seem to use them somewhat haphazardly in any quoted interview with a driver.TownIdiot said:
mac96 said:
I have always taken it to mean that the words in the square brackets are a summary of a longer but unnecessary for present purposes phrase in the original quote.
So in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
I think in the example givenSo in your example, the full quote would have included a lot more words that could be abbreviated to 'California has'.
I'll be interested to see if there is agreement on this!
California would have been specified in an earlier sentence and "they have" would have been used in the quoted sentence.
So the quote wouldn't have made sense without replacing "they have" with [California has]
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff