# Is there an anti- \[sic\] ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 11, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483 "2009-06-11T20:23:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/1 "2009-06-11T20:23:03Z")
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] ? ---
**Author:** ![Claire\_Beauchamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ec9cab/32.png) [@Claire\_Beauchamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claire_Beauchamp)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/2 "2009-06-11T20:29:21Z")
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]. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/3 "2009-06-11T20:42:11Z")
“PS2 [not PS3]” would work. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Bad\_Astronaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Bad\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/4 "2009-06-11T20:46:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/5 "2009-06-11T21:06:43Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Bad\_Astronaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Bad\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/6 "2009-06-11T21:09:45Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > I would still use “[sic]” in your example. Although it’s usually use in a quotation, I think this use would also be valid. 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. ---
**Author:** ![JonathanTheRed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JonathanTheRed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonathanTheRed)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/7 "2009-06-11T21:11:02Z")
[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. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/8 "2009-06-11T22:02:57Z")
> [@JonathanTheRed](#): > > [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. This logic makes perfect sense to me, but, is it that acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![JonathanTheRed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JonathanTheRed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonathanTheRed)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/9 "2009-06-11T22:10:34Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > This logic makes perfect sense to me, but, is it that acceptable? Acceptable to whom? I don’t know whether or not I’ve ever used it myself, but I do know that I’ve _seen_ it used by others. I don’t have my login to the OED handy but will check it out when I get home… in the meantime, a [slightly less authoritative source](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sic): > [@](#): > > **Usage notes** > [ul] > [li]The term _sic_ is most often used in quoted material (usually in square brackets, and sometimes italicized) to indicate that the preceding segment of the quote was copied faithfully, in spite of a mistake or seeming mistake; that is, that the mistake or seeming mistake was in the original text, and not due to misquoting on the part of the present writer.[/li] [li]It is also sometimes used outside of quoted material to emphasize that the preceding segment of text was intentionally written as is; that is, that a seeming mistake in the text is not, in fact, a mistake (or if it is, that it’s an intentional mistake).[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/10 "2009-06-11T22:25:41Z")
> [@Bad\_Astronaut](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/11 "2009-06-11T23:02:51Z")
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 ```auto ... 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. I vote for “PS2 (not PS3)” or “PS two”. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/12 "2009-06-11T23:33:47Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > This logic makes perfect sense to me, but, is it that acceptable? 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. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/13 "2009-06-12T03:09:58Z")
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_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadit_quaestio): > [@Wikipedia](#): > > In journalism, the abbreviation “CQ” is used to indicate that a fact, such as the spelling of a name, has been checked and found to be correct. YMMV, etc. ---
**Author:** ![tempo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@tempo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tempo)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/14 "2009-06-12T12:10:05Z")
> [@JonathanTheRed](#): > > [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. ``` **** ** ``` 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-anti-sic/499483/15 "2009-06-13T04:54:47Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > “PS2 [not PS3]” would work. 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.