Fools talk about [this noise]. I prefer talking about [[moderated stuff]]. The problem with using quotation marks for sarcasm is that your opponents might be reading it in opposing light. I agree that many people do not know the rules for curlies, either. I do not. They seem to be royal edicts from people who prefer "vague" to "foggy". _______ http://tinyurl.com/NinjaRinger (Turn your volume down, way down, before you listen to that, because those are physical harmonics with one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fundamental_frequency, so that voice carries).
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:c51.48f1df00.36fa9abb@aol.com...
The problem with extending the use of square brackets to cover sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek and incredulity is that square brackets traditionally mean "this context is being added and was not previously present in the quoted text". I.E. The Prime Minister stated, "Yesterday Mrs [George] Jones went to Hampshire." The editor of the top-most source is inserting "George" not to convey emotional meaning, but merely to convey contextual meaning within a quoted phrase.
Also, I believe the use of quotes to cover the cases I mentioned is already present in materials.
In a message dated 3/24/2009 8:18:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
I think square brackets work better for your second case, because newspapers use them to correct grammar and insert context
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l