|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 13, 2008 8:15:35 GMT
[...] What's the distinction in their use [...] ? In the above quotation, I've inserted the ellipses in brackets because I wish to indicate that the omissions are editorial ones (i.e. mine, not the author's). If I wish to omit letters from a word, I insert the ellipsis with no brackets and no spaces - e.g. super...docious. This may be for reasons of shorthand, laziness, ink-saving, or to leave out elements of a possibly offensive term so that the censors and net nannies don't gag on it. (For the last two of those uses, a two-em rule [ I'll —— him!] can also be used, and is preferred in some instances - e.g. if I need to refer to a person without identifying him, I might write Mr ——). Of course, in print-intended typography, those two em rules would be kerned close so there would be no intervening gap. If I omit whole words from a sentence, I insert an ellipsis with spaces around it, thus: I don't give a ... what you think.. To be sure an ellipsis doesn't break at the end of a line, use the discreete ellipsis glyph, not three periods. On a Windoze machine, you probably need to use the "insert symbol" function; I know only the Mac keyboard shorcut for it (Option+semicolon). When typing for the screen, however (such as in this post), I use three periods for simple and universal recognition across platforms and character sets.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 13, 2008 8:20:11 GMT
I always use square brackets when using the three dots ... What's the distinction in their use, as I've seen that throughout this thread, not one of you have used them? The square brackets would show something done by a editor. E.g., if a witness said, "He ran up the street and turned left," and a reporter was writing the story, he may write the quotation as, "[Stewart] ran up the street and turned left," to identify who ran up the street, because there was no antecedent in the witness' quotation. I trust that you followed Tone's link above to his Charles' and Gordon's (Verbivore's) article.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 13, 2008 8:42:34 GMT
[...] I trust that you followed Tone's link above to his Charles' and Gordon's (Verbivore's) article.[...] I have now, Dave, thanks very much. Think the article (and Vv's excellent response) kind of answers my question. MT.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Aug 13, 2008 10:46:52 GMT
By convention, the use of square (aka box) brackets can indicate an editorial addition/comment or, in the case of their use with an ellipsis, elision. For example: He said that Sean Connery was the greatest living Englishman [sic].
They are also commonly used in place of parentheses (round brackets) within parentheses (for example, they will [commonly] be used in this way). There are, of course, plenty of other uses, particularly in maths and computer languages.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 13, 2008 12:04:38 GMT
By convention, the use of square (aka box) brackets can indicate an editorial addition/comment or, in the case of their use with an ellipsis, elision. For example: He said that Sean Connery was the greatest living Englishman [sic].They are also commonly used in place of parentheses (round brackets) within parentheses (for example, they will [commonly] be used in this way). There are, of course, plenty of other uses, particularly in maths and computer languages. A very interesting point you make, Alan, to me that is. I used the "parentheses within parentheses" several times in my thesis (especially when citing a reference). My supervisor advised against this saying I should use commas in place of the "round brackets" and therefore, there would be no need for the square brackets. Do you have any advice on this use?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 13, 2008 12:45:49 GMT
[...] I used the "parentheses within parentheses" several times in my thesis (especially when citing a reference). My supervisor advised against this saying I should use commas in place of the "round brackets" and therefore, there would be no need for the square brackets. Do you have any advice on this use? Vadim: That seems to indicate a structural problem - one that I see frequently in academic theses. Short of recasting those unwieldy sentences, you could try replacing the outer parentheses (the "round brackets") with dashes (en rules surrounded by a space either side); that would then allow you to convert the inner brackets ("square brackets") to parentheses. Of course, your supervisor might be averse to dashes, as they are often over-used or substituted for more formal punctuation.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Aug 13, 2008 14:38:06 GMT
I agree with Vv; it might be best to recast such sentences. Although you should of course always aim for clarity when writing, in a thesis it is especially important. If the person reading stumbles and has to go back to re-read part of the thesis, that is likely to affect their mood and, even if subconciously, their goodwill towards what you are saying.
I'd also take your supervisor's advice; perhaps not necessarily because the style is better, but because s/he is likely to know the moderator's little foibles. In addition, most universities have set style guides for use when citing references in particular which should always be followed to the letter.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 13, 2008 19:52:21 GMT
Glad that you liked Charles' (sic) article. I would add that Charles is a very good friend of mine, and she has written some excellent articles (including an amusing spoof one about photomultipliers). Tone
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Aug 21, 2008 11:50:53 GMT
Indeed, that's an academic convention, usually used when you are quoting someone else, to show that the missing bit is your omission (not that of the original author). But if you are the originator of the material , the brackets are not required - although this is more likely in descriptive fiction than in academic writing (in which you would surely have little reason to leave material incomplete, unless you were indicating that you were repeating something already stated, and had no need to finish a by-then well-known sentence).
|
|
|
Post by rickcarpenter on Aug 21, 2008 18:22:05 GMT
To be sure an ellipsis doesn't break at the end of a line, use the discreete ellipsis glyph, not three periods. On a Windoze machine, you probably need to use the "insert symbol" function; I know only the Mac keyboard shorcut for it (Option+semicolon). When typing for the screen, however (such as in this post), I use three periods for simple and universal recognition across platforms and character sets. I don't like fonts' handling of ellipsi's spacing, so I use three periods... with no space before them when ending a sentencelet nor ...after them when beginning a sentencelet. Just make sure they don't break with a simple search routine and you're good to go in my book ;D . In formal work with ellipsi, I'll use a period after (i.e., four periods) to end a sentence. In less than formal situations, I conserve periods and only use the three-period ellipsis. Rick typesetter/typographer/whatever
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 21, 2008 22:23:37 GMT
Rick: What you have described does seem to be a (the?) common style in the US - I see it in many US-typeset publications.
The style I was advocating is the Australian and, I believe, the British approach.
|
|