Question on quoting English words...

[Questioninggeller]

I'm having trouble getting a straight answer on quotations for English words. The problem is when I quote "labour," "colour," or "harmonise," in article using American style English, how do I properly quote those words?

Do I write, for example, "Tony Blair is a member of the Labour [sic] Party," "Tony Blair is a member of the Labor Party," or leave it alone with the 'incorrect' American style English, "Tony Blair is a member of the Labour Party"?

I've been trying find out what the proper (academic) way to quote the words, but have not had any luck in any reference/ citation book.


Thanks.

[joesixpack]

This is just a guess, but I think if you are quoting from an English source, you leave the spelling intact, and don't add the "[sic]". If you're writing about the Labour Party, whether you're quoting or not, leave the spelling as "Labour", but if you're describing an englishwoman's giving birth, call it labor. In other words, quotes and proper nouns, leave the spelling intact, otherwise, Americanize it.

Maybe this is covered in "Strunk & White"?

[sophia8]

The basic rule in direct quoting is not to change any of the text.
"The Labour Party" is a name and you don't change the spelling of names; neither do you follow it with (sic), since that expression denotes a wrong spelling, and "The Labour Party" is the correct spelling.
If you quote directly from a UK-English source, with quotation marks, you don't change the spelling. As for inserting a (sic); that's a bit of a gray area. A phrase like "the woman went into labour" is correct UK-English spelling, but if it's not obvious to US readers that the quote is from a UK-English source, then I suppose you should put it in.

[Art Vandelay]

"[sic]" is often used to denote incorrect spellings, but it does not necessarily denote one. It just means that the author believes that there may be confusion as whether he meant to have that spelling. For instance, "Linkin Park" is the correct spelling of the band, but one might put "Linkin Park [sic]" if one thinks that one's readers is unfamiliar with the band. If one's editor repeatedly returns articles containing the phrase "Labour Party" with a spelling "correction", one might decide that a "[sic]" is appropriate. Or maybe a new editor.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Do I write, for example, "Tony Blair is a member of the Labour [sic] Party," "Tony Blair is a member of the Labor Party," or leave it alone with the 'incorrect' American style English, "Tony Blair is a member of the Labour Party"?

'The Labour Party' is a proper name, you spell it as-is. It's like the name 'Qantas', which is spelt without the 'u'.

So I suppose it would be fair to a person writing in american english to write:

Tony Blair said, "The Labour Party is the party that stands for the rights of Labor!"

(interestingly, that second use of the word 'labour' is also a proper name. It does not have an article on it, which is a giveaway. I spelt it with a 'u' in these parenthesis because I was talking about the word 'labour', not about it's specific spelling in the above quote, ie: "labor". Note the distinction between double and single quotes.).

However, if one was quoting printed material, then one would leave the printed spelling as-is. you can put a [sic] in there is you want.

[Ririon]

If you don't change the spelling of names, why call a guy John Paul even on the most formal of occations, say a funeral, when his name clearly was Johannes Paulvs?

Ririon

[LW]

Originally posted by Ririon
[B]If you don't change the spelling of names, why call a guy John Paul even on the most formal of occations, say a funeral, when his name clearly was Johannes Paulvs

ITYM Papa Ioannes Paulus Secundus.

It is a longstanding tradition to translate names of monarchs to one's own language if there is an established local form of the name.

[Ririon]

I know. But why?

I suspect we should blame the British, since it seems they developed an extensive system for this early on. The pope has biblical names, which seem to have systematic translations into english from greek, hebrew and (via?) latin.

It's not like there were guys walking around called Luke, Matthew or Paul in ancient Palestine. Come to think of it, probably not Jesus, either. I havent seen mr. Gibson's movie, so I don't know his proper arameic(?) name.

And what's with European (not to mention Asian) cities? What is gained by calling Roma Rome? Who decided to change one letter in Roma, but not call Berlin Barlin or something? A night in Peris, anyone? ;)

I know. That's just the way it is...

Helsinki - Helsingfors... Pot-ey-to - pot-ah-to...

And, as they say in Alaska: Nome wasn't built in a day...

Forgedaboudit! :)
Ririon

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Ririon
If you don't change the spelling of names, why call a guy John Paul even on the most formal of occations, say a funeral, when his name clearly was Johannes Paulvs?
Actually his name was Karol Wojtyla.

pmurray
'The Labour Party' is a proper name, you spell it as-is. It's like the name 'Qantas', which is spelt without the 'u'.Although the American convention would have it be "QANTAS" (Queensland And Northern Territories Aerial Services). The first time I saw a British person writing about "Nasa", it took me a while to figure out he wasn't referring to a woman.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Although the American convention would have it be "QANTAS" (Queensland And Northern Territories Aerial Services
I have driven through Longreach on my way from Darwin to Canberra. I have seen the Black Stump. Yay!

[LW]

Originally posted by Ririon
I suspect we should blame the British, since it seems they developed an extensive system for this early on.

No, it is far older than that. The ancient Greeks practiced it already in the 5th century BC. The Great King, King of Kings Xerxes who invaded Greece didn't call himself 'Xerxes' but 'Xashayarasha'. It's just something that we have to live with.

[Ririon]

Oh, well..

I remember one of my teachers claiming that no genuinely new ideas have surfaced since greek/roman times, so you're probably right, LW...

Global standardization of anything is up there with world peace and the end of hunger, I guess: Not realistic in the forseeable future.

However: In a few hundred years, we'll all be speaking english (and maybe chinese, spanish or russian as a second language). That should take care of some of it...

Ririon

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by LW
No, it is far older than that. The ancient Greeks practiced it already in the 5th century BC. The Great King, King of Kings Xerxes who invaded Greece didn't call himself 'Xerxes' but 'Xashayarasha'. It's just something that we have to live with. Well, if one really wants to quibble, I very much doubt that he used the Roman Alphabet, so he probably didn't call himself either.

[LW]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Well, if one really wants to quibble, I very much doubt that he used the Roman Alphabet, so he probably didn't call himself either.

Well, he usually used Persian cuneiform (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/opcuneiform.htm), one of the last variants of cuneiform ever developed. In general translittering names from cuneiform is a little dangerous since quite a lot of ancient Middle East people used cuneiform even though their languages were not suitable for it and this led to profiliation of extra vowels in the text. However, the Persian cuneiform was specificallly designed for Persian so that problem doesn't necessarily apply there.

BTW, the Persian script was the first form of cuneiform writing that was deciphered in the 19th century because the Great Kings used to write multi-language monumental enscriptions.

[Ririon]

In that case, let's all congratulate the Catholic Church with their new pope, Benedict XVI, or "Benny16" as I like to call him. :)

Ririon