Can [sic] be used to highlight a punctuational error?
In the sentence below, the bracketed sic would obviously denote that the punctuation preceding it was an error — that is, a semicolon should supplant the comma. Has anybody ever seen this usage, and would you support it?
The sun is high, [sic] put on some sunblock.
The Wikipedia article is excellent here (below, my emphasis);
Sic, in its bracketed form, is most often inserted into quoted or reprinted material in order to indicate meticulous accuracy in reproducing the preceding text despite appearances to the reader of an incorrect or unusual orthography (spelling, punctuation, etc.), grammar, fact or logic.[7][10] Several usage guides recommend that a bracketed sic be used primarily as an aid to the reader, and not as an indicator of disagreement with the source.[7][11]
[7] Bryan A. Garner. "sic." A dictionary of modern legal usage (2nd edition). Oxford University Press US, 2001. ISBN 0-19-514236-5, ISBN 978-0-19-514236-5 (pp.806-807)
[10] "Grammar and Style." USD History Guide for Writing Research Papers. Department of History, University of South Dakota. 6/12/2009
[11] William Coyle and Joe Law (2009). Research Papers. Cengage Learning. p. 72. ISBN 0-547-19081-6.
I agree with this passage, and think '[sic]' can be used to highlight a punctuation error. It should be an actual error though, one that can confuse the reader, not marking a stylistic choice. I think your example asserts a stylistic choice rather than an actual error; at any rate, this 'error' does not actually introduce any substantive ambiguity.
