7

In academics, the note [sic] is used to make it clear that material lifted from a secondary source was incorrect as the author found it, as opposed to a mistake in the text.

Is there an opposite term which can be used to denote a paraphrased usage, informing the reader that the source material has been changed.

For instance:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
1 Timothy 6:10

Is often mis-quoted as:

Money is the root of all evil.

Could I make it clear that if I was using the second version, that I know it is a variation on the actual source?

Update: It has been suggested that this question is a duplicate of one about using squared brackets to fill in possibly missing words. This is a question about denoting a paraphrase, or changed meaning, in texts which sit between the source and my own writing.

  • 10
    sic is a truncated version of the Latin sic erat scriptum (paraphrase: "that's how it was written"). I know of no similar abbreviation you can inject that means "this is a paraphrase". – TRomano Jul 22 '15 at 10:31
  • 1
    possible duplicate of What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? – WS2 Jul 22 '15 at 10:33
  • 3
    '[sic]' means 'thus' or transcribed verbatim intending that one hasn't changed things (because of a mistake or old wording or things other than mistakes). The opposite is to not use it. You can emphasize it by saying something like 'to paraphrase' or 'loosely', but often nothing is said at all. – Mitch Jul 22 '15 at 11:37
  • 1
    Just don't use quotation marks around it. Then it won't be interpreted as a quotation, and there's no need to qualify anything. – Barmar Jul 22 '15 at 21:17
  • 2
    Most style manuals use quotation marks or block quotes to indicate exactly quoted material. To indicate something omitted from the quote, you use ellipses. To indicate that a word is changed or inserted you use square brackets. If you change the wording significantly but keep the same meaning, it's no longer a quote, it's paraphrasing. This is the default, assumed state, so there's no special symbol or indicator. – barbecue Sep 20 '15 at 16:57
3

Square brackets are used for interpolations and clarifications from the author and can enclose arbitrary meta-text (though this normally kept short). Examples are:

  • negative press covfefe [sic]
  • she wrote "you shall go to the ball" [my emphasis]
  • she wrote "you shall go to the ball" [author's italics]
  • The earth is round [editor's note: corrected from previous edition]

So you could simply use "[paraphrased]", "[translated]" or, dare I say, "[not sic]" as the "opposite" to "sic" to add clarification.

Depending on the situation it may be appropriate to interpolate the paraphrasing itself with the source text using square brackets. E.g.:

He said "the smart fridge is cool [fashionable]" without the intention of humour

The Chicago Manual of Style (Section 13, 16th Edition) has recommendations on using bracket notation, translations and paraphrasing.

  • "not sic": et barbara lingua Latina misceri estis. – Spencer Nov 23 at 13:45
2

[sic] sic erat scriptum - meaning - thus was it written, in reference to a word that was as it was spelt, could be archaic, foreign or a misspelling, etc. There are no antonym for thus so the opposite would have to be 'Nec scriptum' ‘Nor was it written’

  • Interesting. So I could perhaps try [nec]? Although it appears that's not a standard approach. – AJFaraday Jul 23 '15 at 22:04
  • 1
    It is as you say 'not standard', and you will not find it in any dictionary. – Jeremiah Jones Jul 25 '15 at 5:41
0

Well, in academia, if you use someone else's ideas or work in you own, you have to give the proper attribution, even if you don't quote them verbatim. So, if you were paraphrasing or giving only the gist of their words, you would cite the author in question and then describe the nature of your reference as appropriate.

For example:

The ideas of X could be paraphrased as: "Money is the root of all evil"

or

This passage in the work of X could be interpreted, in a sense, as "one in the hand is worth two in the bush"

0

“Money is the root of all evil” is an expression in its own right, not a misquote of “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” The only way it would be a misquote is if it read:

“Money is the root of all evil.” – 1 Timothy 6:10

That is the only way that you would know that the person was actually trying to quote Timothy.

In that case, you could fix this in one of two ways, both of which involve brackets.

You can leave it as is and add a sic to say that is how it was written:

“Money is the root of all evil.” – 1 Timothy 6:10 [sic]

… or you can do the opposite, which is to change how it was written, and indicate that by wrapping your changes in brackets:

“[For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.]” – 1 Timothy 6:10

So the answer you are looking for is to wrap your changes in brackets.

  • You've possibly misread the question a little bit, here. [sic] denotes that it's a direct quote, in spite of any inaccuracies, spelling errors etc. I was looking for short hand to say "this is not the actual quote". I know the last version, square brackets in a quote, can be used to denote my quote filling in gaps in the original, based on context. But what about saying "this is not what this actually says"? – AJFaraday Feb 5 '16 at 15:29
-1

When paraphrasing a quote you can use double square brackets in a sentance to show you have omitted words to make a point []

For instance this George Orwell quote is often shortened

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

or And to quote Orwell, [] "telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

  • 6
    Removed words would normally be shown by an ellipsis, not brackets. – Chenmunka Feb 2 '16 at 12:23
  • 1
    You would add brackets around text that is inserted in the quote, including capitalization changes. For example, "George Orwell is often quoted as saying, "[i]n a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act". – jimm101 Feb 2 '16 at 12:35
-1

You wrote: "Is there an opposite term [to 'sic'] which can be used to denote a paraphrased usage, informing the reader that the source material has been changed... Could I make it clear that if I was using the second version, that I know it is a variation on the actual source?"

In grad school, we had to meticulously cite any sources or ideas used in our papers and projects, which is a good practice. However, there wasn't a word or phrase, outside of the properly used footnote/endnote and bibliography, that accomplished this. We used Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations for all formatting of approved, professional papers. That being said, you can also articulate your usage in the text itself or in a note if you feel it would detract from the flow of your work.

I would also like to point out that in some cases, like the one you used of 1 Timothy 6:10, more work might need to be done to address discrepancies in your source material. Noting variations is important, as you yourself showed that:

  1. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." – NIV, NRSV
  2. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils." – ESV
  3. "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil" – NASB
  4. "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." – NLT
  5. "For the love of money is the root of all evil: – KJV, KJ21

...is often mis-quoted as: "Money is the root of all evil." Obviously, 1-3 are different from 4 & 5, which are both different from how you said they are misquoted. Aside from just articulating the difference between what your source says and YOU say (a cited paraphrase), I'm aware of no other phrase (Latin or otherwise) to cite your usage. Whatever you choose citation MUST be made to avoid unintentional plagiarism. I hope this helps.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.