Enquoted text can mean (in my book): 1. You are quoting verbatim some source; or 2. You are using an expression tongue-in-cheek or with implied sarcasm, hostility or a questioning stance (i.e. John and Pat are "good friends"; Mr Smith is in his "private compartment"; I appreciate your "delightful" conversation)
Will Johnson
p.s. Sometimes I have use "*" for this purpose and I've seen other's do it as well. It's much easier than trying to underline or bold some phrase.
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
I have sometimes used quote marks to quote myself hypothetically replying to someone when trying to illustrate a point, or when paraphrasing someone. However, this can get confusing if people think you are quoting what someone actually said.
i.e. Will, when you said "using expressions tongue-in-cheek or with sarcasm" I thought of replying "well, there are other ways of saying that", but I decided not to.
In the above bit, it looks like I've quoted Will and myself saying things, but in fact I've paraphrased Will (from memory, for example) and got the quote wrong, and I never actually said what I've used quote marks for for my hypothetical comment.
A better way to write the above would be:
i.e. Will, when you said "using expressions tongue-in-cheek or with sarcasm" (paraphrasing from memory) I thought of replying "well, there are other ways of saying that" (unstated comment), but I decided not to.
Unfortunately, if you remove the quote marks, it becomes difficult to see where the different levels of narration begin and end (in that sentence I am switching between narrative voices, from the main author-reader one to a paraphrasing voice to one voicing my unspoken thoughts.
Some I use single quote marks to make it clear it is something separate, but not a direct quote:
i.e. Will, when you said 'using expressions tongue-in-cheek or with sarcasm' (paraphrasing from memory) I thought of replying 'well, there are other ways of saying that' (unstated comment), but I decided not to.
But as long as the context makes clear what is happening, it should be OK.
In a similar way, some really strange literature uses this as a device to messes with readers' minds, leaving them confused as to who is speaking, and when, to whom.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:56 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Enquoted text can mean (in my book):
- You are quoting verbatim some source; or
- You are using an expression tongue-in-cheek or with implied sarcasm,
hostility or a questioning stance (i.e. John and Pat are "good friends"; Mr Smith is in his "private compartment"; I appreciate your "delightful" conversation)
Will Johnson
p.s. Sometimes I have use "*" for this purpose and I've seen other's do it as well. It's much easier than trying to underline or bold some phrase.
**************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
----- Original Message ----- From: WJhonson@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plagiarism
Enquoted text can mean (in my book):
- You are quoting verbatim some source; or
- You are using an expression tongue-in-cheek or with implied sarcasm,
hostility or a questioning stance (i.e. John and Pat are "good friends"; Mr Smith is in his "private compartment"; I appreciate your "delightful" conversation)
Will Johnson
p.s. Sometimes I have use "*" for this purpose and I've seen other's do it as well. It's much easier than trying to underline or bold some phrase.
I agree that number two is a use that people make of quotation marks. I even pointed out to someone that they do not make emphasis. I think square brackets work better for your second case, because newspapers use them to correct grammar and insert context. Once you are doing that much, it is no great leap to [interpreter], fully constructing sentences for Jean Chretien, or paraphrasing a conclusion that does not come easily from legalese. Square brackets are better, IMAO, and I guess I can not blame Churchill for missing that, either.
Regarding *bold* and _underline_, I do not remember any semantics other than emphasis. _______ I deleted "Ninja Bell Ringer" from my ringtones, because it sounded much darker than I intended in the first place. Good thing I recently listened to Enya, because I can't seem to find what I was looking for on her disk, and everything that is on it sounds a lot like what I was looking for.
Clear emoticon 8-; (tung in cheek with sunglasses) for sarcasm. Probable emoticon in your example :-( for frustration with someone who did not read one page of the fine manual. The emotion was not sarcasm or incredulity, and the purpose is the same.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:c68.497344fe.36f7f1db@aol.com... (...)
p.s. Sometimes I have use "*" for [an oppositional] purpose and I've seen other's do it as well. It's much easier than trying to underline or bold some phrase.
_______ Fools talk about [this noise]. I like talking about [[moderated stuff]].