A non-fiction book from the early 20th century that I read placed a quote in italics and followed that quote with the phrase “italics supplied” in brackets. After poring through various manuals on style, I have yet to re-encounter this terminology. Could it mean that the original source of the quote had already come with italics, or that the author who was doing the quoting added them? It’s enigmas like these that burrow into the back of the mind like a tic.
I would guess that the author meant that the italics were part of the quoted material [supplied] rather than the author adding them on their own [emphasis/italics added]. Another way to say that would have been to write [SIC], but IME, that’s typically reserved to mean ‘yeah, I know the grammar is bad or there’s some typos, but I’m just quoting it, don’t blame me’. If I saw that in your case, I don’t think I’d realize it was for the italics. I’m assuming the author of your book felt it was important to make sure the reader understood that the it was the author of the quote that emphasized that part of the passage.
Yes, its ambiguous. Usually now such a quote would be followed by the words “emphasis in original” to point out that any bolding / underlining etc was put there by the quoted author, not you.
That also neatly gets past the issue of reformatting, where you might need to call out the phrase differently to the original, to match your own style guidelines, eg by underlining instead of italicising.
I would have guessed that “italics supplied” meant that the present writer needed to “supply” them, that they weren’t in the original. It’s ambiguous, but there are much clearer ways to indicate “italics in original.” Am I wrong? Is my English sense of idiom poor?
I read it this way as well. “Italics supplied by this author doing the quoting, not the original author being quoted.”
That’s how I’d do read it too, similar to things like “Bolding mine” (seen to indicate bold typeface being added by the more recent writer) or “(sic)” being used to indicate that “This might be atrocious English, but I’m just quoting this person.”
That is how I read it as well.
As well ?? So what, do you mean to say that you agree with the majority and the majority must be right ? no it isn’t.
Supplied … The verb supply means “A gives it to B”.
A supplied the paint that B used to paint the graffiti with.
If B bought the paint, then the shop supplied it.
If B made the paint, no one supplied it, B made it.
What I am saying is its impossible to supply one self.
And why would a writer, or editor, insert the phrase “italics supplied”.
It means that the italics may not suit the current context.
In the context, it might be assumed that the italics are for some specific meaning
eg keywords for the current topic …
lets contrive an example. The topic is “The use of credit ratings for nations governments”.
"John Smith, Secretary of State, used the word indefatigable . The oxford dictionary gives the following entry for indefatigable … “archiac, invincible, unbeatable”.
(Italics supplied).
Well, lets run with my claim means I have copied the quote preserving italics, such as cut and paste with format. (Don’t you hate it when cut and paste preserves font and colour and paragraphing styles… )
I am saying that the use of italics for “invincible” and “unbeatable” was something decided upon and done by the dictionary authors. I am also saying, as a corollary, that the italics are questionable in regard to my style. For example, I might have been using legal and political jargon terms in italics… I said “italics supplied” to say that it was not my style guide putting the italics in the quote.
Lets run with the idea “italics supplied” meant I, the author or editor, put the italics in, and I did so because those three words are the names of british warships (for whatever reason my style is to do that.) I find it unnecessary, I am surely quoting this and that, and not preserving font and all the other styles on them… I am not going to be saying “I chose to apply my style guide to this bit” to every quote and 10 times a page. Also the quote is readable as a quote, with or without italics, and if I put the names of british warships in italics, then I do so… in my efforts, or quoting of someone elses.
Well ironically one reason I might tell the reader the italics were put by me was that their meaning might be something different in a dictionary. I just happen to have contrived an example which is clear when used to support my argument, but slightly supported the other argument too. But the exception highlights the rule… For most cases, there would be no such assumption about why the italics were there, and the reader would likely assume they were consistent with MY style guide. Its only when its a dictionary entry or something highly formulated that the italics would be assumed to be from the other context and not MY (the author or editor) context.
If you are claiming that it’s unnecessary to say you added emphasis to a quote, that is simply not true. It is very common to add “emphasis added”, “italics added” or “emphasis mine.” Because whenever you are quoting someone else, it is extremely bad form to modify the quote in any way - you would be putting words in someone else’s mouth. Same reason this forum has strict rules against quoting someone else’s post and editing the content.
A quick search of Google booksshows it to be a fairly common phrase.
Looking through a few, it does seem to mean “italics added for emphasis”
Was thisthe one you saw?
I am not entirely clear on what you’re saying in your post, but “italics supplied,” does, indeed, mean the italics were not in the original, but added by the author who is quoting the work.
This is from the MLA: (Scroll all the way down to see the unformatted text.)
I thought the rule was that if you added the italics, to highlight some part of a quote, you append (Emphasis added). If the italics were already there, you said (emphasis in original).
Regards,
Shodan, recovering English major
Depends on the style guide you’re following. There is not one, single, universally “correct” way to do it. I always use “emphasis added” when modifying a quote by adding bold/italics/underscoring/etc, and I only use"emphasis in original" where I need to really underscore the fact that it is emphasized that way in the original. The default assumption is that the quote is verbatim, including the emphasis, so some style guides will explicitly tell you not to use “emphasis in original.” As you see, some authors use phrases like “italics added” or “italics supplied” or even lengthier ones like “bolding added for emphasis.”