On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Steve Howell <showel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:16 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > > > Alf, although your English in this forum has been excellent so far, I > > understand you are Norwegian, so it is possible that you aren't a native > > English speaker and possibly unaware that quotation marks are sometimes > > ambiguous in English. > > > > While it is true that quoted text is officially meant to indicate a > > direct quote, it is also commonly used in informal text to indicate a > > paraphrase. (There are other uses as well, but they don't concern us > now.) > > > > Unfortunately, this means that in informal discussions like this it is > > sometimes difficult to distinguish a direct quote from a paraphrase, > > except by context. In context, as a native speaker, I can assure you that > > Stephen Hansen's use of quotation marks is a paraphrase and not meant to > > be read as a direct quote. > > As another native speaker of English, I can assure Alf that using > quotation marks in a paraphrase in written English is actually > strictly admonished against in some English speaking countries. At > least according to my English teachers. To the extent that many > people on the Internet don't speak English natively, I think the most > conservative and reasonable convention applies--use quotes to quote > directly; if you're not quoting directly, omit quotes and make clear > the fact that you are paraphrasing. > > Which isn't to say we don't all make mistakes. > > I have no idea about what Stephen Hanson said. Most misattributions > are actually paraphrases, whether they be in quotes or not. Well, no, I have to stand in my defense at this point. Given the context of the communication medium, an actual "quote" has IMHO a clearly defined context. It is lines, unchanged and unedited, prepended with a certain appropriate set of characters, and clearly cited with some variation of something like "On <date>, Someone said:" A quote, in context, is an attempt to directly reference another individual's words as they spoke them. Any alteration of such words, any adjustment of such words to your own end, is dishonest. What I did was say something like this paragraph (with no quote characters before it): And then you hand-waved my arguments with a response of, "this that blah bleh" Minus the indention. There was IMHO, NO misattribution, NO reasonable assumption that I specified actual or explicit words of Alf or anyone else. There MAY be an argument someone can make claiming my statement wasn't clear, but to declare it is a deliberate /lie/ is another thing entirely. There is a difference between using quote marks and making an actual quotation-- a quotation requires a citation-- and in informal discourse use of quote marks to represent clear paraphrasing of the interpretation of position is valid, imho. In a formal paper or thesis, I'd use a different format. But this is not formal. In context that statement can not possibly be reasonable considered an actual quotation, even with quote marks. And I'm responding because: yes, I'm finding this "You are a liar." response particularly personally offensive. I should get over it. I'm just used to people disagreeing with me. Dismissing me as a liar is something new. --S
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
