I am glad that Silverback and I are in agreement as to
principles. However, Skyring and Silverback are still either
misrepresenting or misunderstanding the issues in this particular case.
Skyring wrote:
>In this case Adam changed "shall be" to "is". That changes the meaning
>and saves only a few letters. Nor did he use any commonly-used form of
>words to indicate a paraphrase. He used boldface to indicate that he
>thought it was a factual statement.
First, your claim that changing "shall be" to "is" is a change in meaning
is absurd. The Constitution is using the subjunctive because guess what,
constitutions are written before they are instituted. But once the
constitution is instituted, events actually come to pass, and the
subjunctive should not be used for ongoing or actual events. Adam Carr's
change in grammar, from the subjunctive to the present tense, is completely
appropriate. The basic meaning is unchanged -- what you call a change is a
trivial function of the passage of time. In fact, to say that the Governor
"shall be" when there actually is a governor would be incorrect and
inaccurate. You say that Adam's use of the word "is" in boldface signals
that he thought that he is making an factual statement -- but that is
because he really is making a factual statement.
Second, you say that he did not do anything to signal he was
paraphrasing. Well, this is again proper usage of English. We are not
supposed do to anything to signal we are paraphrasing. On the contrary, it
is when we are not paraphrasing that we must do something extra. In
writing, you should know that in the English language, we use these things
called "quotation marks" to signal that something is not a paraphrase but
rather the precise words originally used (in speech, you have to use a
phrase like ", and I quote," to signal that you aren't paraphrasing.
Again, Skyring is being disingenuous, manipulative, and obstructionist --
but I observe that he is not making any personal attacks. As a community,
we really have to come up with reliable procedures for dealing with
this. The old strategy -- just keep rewriting to undo the damage -- just
does not work in some cases, because the person damaging the article, or at
least obstructing any improvement to the article, does not just go
away. As Skyring's posting to the list-serve proves, he will simply go on
making silly arguments and wasting people's time. Even if we don't condone
Adam's temper-tantrum, surely every good editor here can appreciate his
high level of frustration in having to deal with this stuff.
and Silverback wrote:
>BTW, it is not my position, quite the opposite, I oppose the position, it
>is just my observation of practice. Note that poor skyring, has not been
>allowed to use the word "republic" himself, but had to find a quote in
>order to use the word.
As I said, I am glad we are in general agreement. However, the observation
Silverback makes here is another misrepresentation of the situation. Adam
Carr does not need to provide a quote that uses the word "is" because he is
accurately paraphrasing a cited text. "Poor" Skyring does have to find a
quote in order to use the word "republic" because he is not paraphrasing,
but rather making a substantive claim. These two instances are not
comparable. Period.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
