When written, the expression [sic] means that the person relaying the message is a aware of an error in speech and or grammar, but is posting the message “as is”. [I am sure someone will point me to what latin, or whatever [sic] translates to.]
Is there any mark or expression that the Original speaker can use, to state I’m not making an error here, I intend to say precisely what I am saying.
Example:
There was discussion on E3 2009 in the Game Room. I wanted to comment on the Playstation 2 and NOT the Playstation 3.
Video game systems typically have a 3 character shorthand. To imply that I intended to say PS2, over PS3, I decided to spell it PSTWO. In this way, the implication was, I would not typo a full word, over two keys being next to each other. ’
Is there some easier, more generic way to do this?
Now that I think about it, how is stet different from [sic] ?
Stet is used to indicate that a previously made correction should be reversed.
I don’t know of a way to indicate “What I typed I really typed and isn’t a mistake.” In any event, sic is used when quoting something, and in the example you gave, you’re not quoting anything, even yourself, you’re just writing. If you were quoting someone else and you wanted to bold or italicize or underline something to highlight it, the typical comment would be [emphasis added] or [emphasis mine].
To answer the OP question, as opposed to the slightly divergent specific example giving rise to it, one places the correction in brackets, implying “This is a direct quote but I have supplied what the writer clearly intended as opposed to what s/he erroneously typed.” For example, “Unfortunately none of the literally hundreds of vehicles in the large corporation’s three motor pools [was] available.” where the original author, misled by the multiple plural nouns, wrote “were.”
People tend to use ‘[not a typo]’ in those situations - I think that’s the closest you will get to a standard expression. Even if you dig up some obscure latin abbreviation, no one will know what it means so it will be useless.
I would still use “[sic]” in your example. Although it’s usually use in a quotation, I think this use would also be valid.
“Stet” is commonly (though not exclusively) used to undo a former correction. If you had written “PS2” and a proofreader changed it to “PS3,” I might cross out his correction and write “STET,” meaning “Leave it the way it is; do not make this change.”
I think that would be a bad idea - one could easily interpret that to mean that it WAS a typo that he was copying from elsewhere, and thus the true meaning is actually PS3.
[sic] will do. Sic means “thus”, and has the connotation “despite what you might think, this is really the way it is.” It’s normally used in quotations, to indicate that the author is not misquoting, but it’s perfectly acceptable to use it in your own (non-quoted) text as a sort of “yes, really” when you anticipate that the reader will double-take.
I’ve got to say, I would interpret the usage of “sic” this way - which is of course the exact opposite of what you are trying to communicate. I bet I am not alone.
We do have a precedent for pointing out that I wrote what I meant, and that it is not misspelled. Namely, with numbers. For example, it is common to see something like
... the sum of $124.56 (one hundred twenty four dollars and fifty six cents) ...
But I don’t know how to use that convention for the OP’s case. “PS2 (pee ess two)” would totally suck.
It is a typical usage of the word in professional writing, yes. An educated audience isn’t going to misunderstand what you mean if you don’t use quotation marks or other indicia that you’re quoting. An uneducated audience will try to mock you for it, and then you will experience truly the most sublime pleasure one can have on a message board – proving that you’re smarter than some snot-nosed jerk.
But seriously, the way to disseminate correct language is to employ it, and this is a thoroughly correct and, outside of the idiosyncratic (read: idiotic) grammar common on MBs, common usage.
Not really a solution here, but I thought I’d mention it for the record . . .
If you want to get all pedantic and truly incomprehensible to the average reader, you could use “(cq),” which I’m told stands for “casu quo,” or “because that’s the situation.” (Can any Latinists confirm that translation?) It was supposedly used in journalism to mean “yes, that’s how this should read – it’s not a typo.”
This info is courtesy of an old post to Copyediting-L. I haven’t been able to find an authoritative cite for this definition online.
However, Wikipedia says under its entry for cadit quaestio:
TEMPO SAYS:
Irregardless [sic], I’ve always had the [false] applied knowledge that “sic” was an acronym for “Said in Context” which made sense to me until now.
CITE: “Mamma told me.” [sic]
[I asked my mother what it meant in 1974 after coming across the term in a newspaper while learning to read and she said so — so it was, is, and always shall be ]
I’ll ask Mamma what the “anti-sic” is and come back to post it and we can put the OP’s question to rest.
Another common way I have seen for this is:
“PS2 [yes, PS two] …”
That method may be even better, in that you have twice mentioned the correct version (with different spellings – 2 vs. two), and the alternative (PS3) is never even mentioned in the statement at all.
]