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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l