8

The following is a quotation in which something ("[an angel, for example]") is added by the writer who quotes. This added part, is it only an explanation of the writer, by which they make the quotation more easily understood, or should it be at least something mentioned by the one they quote in the context of the text?

The translation that I call motion, is not something with less being than figure has, that is, it is a mode in body. But the moving force can be that of God, conserving as much translation in matter, as he placed in it in the first moment of creation, of that of some other created substance, such as our mind, or some other thing [an angel, for example] to which he gave the force for moving a body. . . . I consider “matter left free and having no other impulse” as plainly at rest. Moreover, it is impelled by God, conserving as much motion or translation in it as he placed there in the beginning.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    The question in the title is clear, but the question just before the quotation is not. Are you asking whether it is OK for the quoting writer to add extra information that was not mentioned by the original quoted writer?
    – toby544
    Commented Sep 29 at 8:45
  • @toby544. I think that the title and the content are in accord. Square brackets can be used to add clarifications, examples, and explanations, but can those be freely added? Can the angel be mentioned here if it is not directly lifted from an adjacent paragraph?
    – TRiG
    Commented Sep 30 at 15:05

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
8

Words in square brackets in a quote are words added by the quoting author. When the square brackets are in the original quote, sic is used to so indicate.

See The Skidmore Guide to Writing.

Improve this answer
4
  • The page you linked to doesn't mention sic . If a quoted text has square brackets in it, would you quote like this: "some other thing [an angel, for example] [sic] to which ..."
    – user70769
    Commented Sep 30 at 13:36
  • That's it, @minseong
    – Scott Seidman
    Commented Sep 30 at 13:54
  • 5
    @minseong I have to say, I would probably be confused reading that. Sure, I would probably understand it because it's the only reasonable thing that the [sic] could refer to, but it would take a bit fo "huhh?". I'd prefer just a statement outside the quote saying that the part in brackets was in the original quota.
    – JiK
    Commented Sep 30 at 14:24
  • @JiK same. It also more closely conforms to other instances where formatting of a quotation and formatting within the quotation itself (e.g. emphasis of certain words or phrases)
    – Tristan
    Commented Oct 1 at 12:57
7

In the example you give, I would say "no". It isn't clear to the reader whether the bracketed words come from the original source or were added by someone else. If it is in quotes, then it should be literal. The exception being a phrase that clearly clarifies the original authors intention. This can be made clear in the surrounding context of the quote.

But "freely adding content" is problematic.

However, some have made it clear that "explanatory" words have been added by using a formulation like: [an angel, for example: ed.] indicating that it has been added by an "editor". Another form might be to put the addition in bold face and follow the quote with an explanation that the bold has been added.

A third possibility is to use something like a superscript asterisk at the point of the "needed" insertion and put the "explanation" in a footnote.

There is nothing per se that implies that square brackets necessarily imply an out of quote addition.

Also, in your example, there is nothing to suggest that "an angel" was in the mind of the original writer. It isn't "clarifying" the meaning.

Improve this answer
4
  • there is nothing to suggest that "an angel" was in the mind of the original writer Taking the text literally and with no extra knowledge, you are right. But I think the quoting writer knows about theology and the writing of this historical period, so he or she is adding an explanation to help modern readers.
    – toby544
    Commented Sep 28 at 20:09
  • 1
    @toby544, yes, the surrounding text in the original can supply necessary context to make such a thing valid. And that might need to be explicitly expressed in the text surrounding the citation as well.
    – Buffy
    Commented Sep 28 at 20:29
  • Not just the surrounding text, but all sorts of knowledge about what is meant can be used by the writer to decide what extra information to put
    – toby544
    Commented Sep 29 at 8:47
  • 2
    +1 for noting that "an angel" is not clarification. I am of the opinion that square brackets are appropriate to clarify a pronoun or another reference that may confuse the reader. Or to insert a word in a quote to make it conform to the rules of grammar. Editorial comments such as a "for instance" should be in a footnote.
    – Wastrel
    Commented Sep 29 at 16:10
5

You can't add content completely freely, as it would be confusing. But it is OK to add a few words to clarify something, or to add one or two words to make the quotation grammatical, etc.

In your example the original text looks like it was written several hundred years ago. Most readers will not know what "some other thing" could refer to, so the quoting writer is adding an explanation to help them. Angels might not be explicitly mentioned by the original writer, but the quoting writer has enough expertise to know that that is what was meant.

It might have been clearer if they had said something like "[this means angels, for example]", or made it a footnote.

Improve this answer
4

Text added in square brackets should not change the original text. You are still quoting. It isn't a quote anymore if you freely add stuff.

Examples for square brackets would be grammar:

Original: The sky being green is the only truth.

Quote: The author in xyz makes a contrafactual statement by saying that "the sky [is] green is the only truth."

Or omissions:

Original: The sky as seen by looking up (i.e. turning your head towards the sky) is blue.

Quote: The author claims that "[t]he sky as seen by looking up [...] is blue." (Important: no change in meaning of the quote, you may only leave out something that does not change the perception of the content).

Or additions:

Original: The bear eats fish. He likes fish.

Quote: "He [the bear] likes fish."

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    Are you saying these three are all OK? The first one is unclear, as you have changed green to blue and the quote is barely correct grammatically
    – toby544
    Commented Sep 29 at 8:50
  • @toby544 that was a mistake, thank you for noticing it. The grammar ... I had a hard time finding a good example ;)
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Sep 29 at 9:46
  • All your examples are good and typical. But I'm not sure whether it is an ironclad rule that text added by the quoter in square brackets should never contain anything beyond these narrow adjustments. Your argument "you are still quoting" does, in my opinion, not hold entirely because the square brackets explicitly exempt their contents from the quote; that is their very meaning. As long as any remarks are clearly recognizable as such, I don't think they violate academic standards and are a mere matter of taste and style (in the OP's example I'd move them past the quote in an explanation).
    – Peter - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Sep 29 at 10:42
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica I disagree. If something changes the meaning, it does not belong in square brackets between the quotation marks. Editorial remarks that are more than an explanation can go anywhere outside the quotation marks.
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Sep 29 at 15:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .