Timeline for Serial commas in quotations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2014 at 1:56 | history | edited | Sven Yargs |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 10, 2013 at 5:47 | vote | accept | Dave | ||
| Mar 10, 2013 at 1:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/310564280636420096 | ||
| Mar 10, 2013 at 0:51 | answer | added | Sven Yargs | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 9, 2013 at 21:26 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | This is the old 'accuracy' vs 'readability / understandability' issue; some people still claim that the Bible one uses has to be the KJV. However, translations are widely known to be bound to have differences from the original scripts; if 'readability improvements' are deemed advisable, it must be made clear exactly what these are. Bibles often include alternative possible interpretations, and, where modern idioms are substituted, mention of the older wording, with explanatory comments. | |
| Mar 9, 2013 at 20:50 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | Personal opinion - I've never used Chicago - but 'to improve readability' looks to me like a camel's nose with a big red flag painted on it. You may have been entrusted with responsibility for improving your author's readability, but you certainly have not been entrusted with that responsibility by your author's source. Your responsibility toward the source is to ensure that your author has quoted the source's work accurately. | |
| Mar 9, 2013 at 19:03 | comment | added | Dave | Actually Chicago is not as direct and clear on all the issues you've raised as your comment implies. It is absolutely clear on wording (13.7), which "should be reproduced exactly." It then lists six "permissible" changes to quotations. It does not say whether there might be other permissible changes, and this seems to me to be purposeful. (It does not say only six permissible changes.) This seems to me to be something Chicago does frequently, as its editors know it is not possible to imagine every issue an editor will encounter when preparing a manuscript for publication. | |
| Mar 9, 2013 at 18:34 | comment | added | MetaEd | Permissible according to whom? If you mean permissible according to Chicago Manual, you have answered your own question. Per Chicago Manual, direct quotes must reproduce exactly not only the wording but the spelling, capitalization, and internal punctuation of the original. Serial comma (or lack thereof) is not an obvious typographical error. Therefore it's not something Chicago Manual permits you to 'correct' silently. | |
| Mar 9, 2013 at 18:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 9, 2013 at 19:56 | |||||
| Mar 9, 2013 at 18:09 | history | asked | Dave | CC BY-SA 3.0 |