Typically, “sic” is used in print to denote that an error is being shown as it originally was written. In this case, “Same Old Lang Syne” is the actual name of a Dan Fogelberg song instead of “Same Auld Lang Syne.” If sic isn’t appropriate, and I don’t really think it is, is there a proper way to denote that something that looks like an error, actually isn’t?
I’m just using Auld Lang Syne as an example of what I mean. The question should be interpreted generally and not necessarily specifically.
From an editor/proofreader point of view, you can write “stet” (“let it stand”), but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that extended to a final publication, just part of the editing process.
The way I’ve always interpreted (sic) is that there actually was a mistake and we’re just reprinting it. In this case, there is no mistake but people might believe that there is.
so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim:
I think the usage in the OP satisfies that definition.
I don’t think it means there was a mistake…it simply means “this quote looks weird, or mistaken, or illogical but we are repeating it exactly the way the person spoke it or wrote it himself”
Sic is the Latin word for “so”.
It is used by editors to mean : this quote is “just so”–i.e. exactly the way it was in the original, so blame him, not blame us (the current author/editors)
The OP has sic enclosed within parentheses and not italicized. Either of these would cause an aneurysm in some circles. They would have to quote the thread title as ([sic]sic[sic])[sic]. (Well, they wouldn’t have to, but I’d like to think someone might.)
Editor’s Manual has the best discussion of sic I found. It takes care to note how different style guides use it and render it. Or not. Apparently, the AP style guide now discourages sic’s use entirely.
This was my interpretation too. It was basically “you may think this is my mistake/misuse/inappropriate wording, but this is me accurately quoting the original.” You might see it in a misspelling, bad grammar, mismatch (i.e. “he have(sic) gotten it”
I suppose the other problem comes when you’re quoting something that already has “sic” in it.
The song as referenced in the first post was “Same Old(sic) (sic) Lang Syne” - or should it be “Same Old(sic) Lang Syne” (sic)?
AFAIK “sic” references a specific word that seems inappropriately used.
To me, the appropriateness of [sic.] depends on the context. In library cataloguing, which I have not done for about nine years, [sic.] was used when a title, or some other chief source of information, contained an obvious typo or some other error. The cataloguer would follow the error with [sic.] to indicate that the erroneous word was being transcribed as it was found. The square brackets signified that the word had been added by the cataloguer, not the author or anyone else. [sic.] was used to justify adding an alternative title entry to the record, which would allow patrons to find the book under its correct title.
Real catalogers will know that [sic.] and all the other clubby Latinisms in Anglo-American Cataloging Rules were dropped in the standard that replaced it, Resource Description and Analysis. Of course, millions of catalogue records were created under AACR and its succeeding editions. A lot of these records will have been converted to RDA, but I’m sure there are a lot of AACR records out there where [sic.] lives on.
IMHO, in other contexts, [sic.] is pretty pedantic (whether surrounded by square brackets or not). But hey, it takes one to know one.
The Robert Burns poem and song is titled Auld Land Syne. That alone should be enough differentiation from Same Old Lang Syne. I’d also guess that Fogelberg never considered Same Auld Lang Syne as the title; once you add same to the mix you get a classic American phrase: same old. “Same old thing” was in use long before “same old, same old” came along in the 1970s. Fogelberg’s song is a lament on “you can’t go home again,” the opposite of the meaning Burns left us with.
If Fogelberg knew exactly what he was doing when titling the song does it affect the later decision on applying a sic? I don’t think so. Context matters, as I said above. They may be examples when adding a sic is all but mandatory. But I’d forego the sic in most instances. And if possible, my preferred procedure would be to use the AP stylebook’s advice and write the sentence in such a way that sic is not necessary, but making clear to the reader that the title is a sly reference rather than a cover version.
I’m playing the Latin pedant here to note that the literal translation of “stet” is “it shall stand” - it’s a third person subjunctive. “Let it stand” includes an imperative, which exists only in the second person.
As to the OP: I agree that “sic”, as I understand it, does not imply that there is an actual mistake in the original, only that there is something which might look like one.
Yeah, I think ‘stet’ is really just a sort of internal markup convention. I have mostly seen it in the context where someone crossed something out, then realised they didn’t mean to, thus, writing stet alongside the crossing out indicates ‘let it stand’.