But the rule that has been quoted explicitly allows square brackets for clarification. LHOD followed that rule exactly.
And as I’ve pointed out, I think that multi-quote would have been less readable. I agree it’s an alternate solution. It’s one I find stylistically inferior.
No it shouldn’t. The rules explicitly allow adding certain things to a quote in brackets. Why should adding those things to a quote in brackets raise red flags?
Morgenstern, at this point I’m aware we’re talking at cross-purposes. Let me ask, are you clear on what a demonstrative pronoun is? On what an antecedent is? Would a refresher course be helpful?
More specifically, for clarifying the antecedent of the pronoun. He’s not extending the rule by the smallest, slightest iota.
I disagree that a multi-quote would be better.
But more importantly, I disagree with the notion of a guy complying with the letter and spirit of the rules and then being faulted because “the wise way” to have done it was something else.
If you can’t make a case on its own merits that this was some sort of violation, then suggesting that alternatives might have been wiser does not create one.
I disagree entirely. There’s nothing wrong with using the multiquote for continuity but interpolations in quotes are and have always been acceptable, as long as they are set aside through brackets.* And indeed, multiquoting has its own dangers as one could use multiquote to set two disparate quotes next to each other to give the appearance of continuity when the writers intended no such thing.
*I mean this mostly in the real world and not the dope’s bizarro world of quote box violations, but even here, it has been acceptable in the past to use brackets to add clarification.
I couldn’t disagree more. What LHoD did is a textbook example of how square brackets in quotes should be used, and the warning is ridiculous.
Shit, a refresher course might be helpful to me. I realized as I was driving home just now that I’ve been using “relative pronoun” and “demonstrative pronoun” interchangeably, which they decidedly are not. “That” can be both, but in this case, it was a demonstrative pronoun.
My apologies for any confusion. For those who want a refresher course from someone clearly more qualified than me, here you go.
Yes, I think so too. While I certainly don’t speak for him, or endorse his interpretation, I understand him to be saying that the portion of the rule that forbids the insertion of editorial content, namely, “but you may not add editorial comments,” means that if the referent of the pronoun in question is itself editorial commentary, it may not be added to the quoted material, and consequently, clarification is disallowed. I think this is a coherent, but not likely to be commonly shared, reading of the rule, and I doubt very much that it was the intent of C K Dexter Haven to disallow such when he wrote that. I think that pretty clearly the rule is meant instead to prohibit the one doing the quoting from editorializing, which can best be done by quoting the referent verbatim, just as was done in the example under discussion.
Offered merely because a number of folks seem to be talking past each other at this point.
Here’s what Superdude said, and SA quoted.
Here’s what SA said in response to that quote:
Now that you’ve read up on demonstrative pronouns, what do you believe is the antecedent to the word “that”?
I see a few possibilities:
- The whole statement. SA believes that it’s just an act that Superdude wants to believe that Trump is setting up Ivanka for politics–Superdude doesn’t really believe that.
- Superdude’s inability to see Trump as being altruistic: SA thinks Superdude is just acting like he can’t see Trump that way.
- Trump’s being an egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist. SA thinks that’s mostly just an act.
- Something else that I haven’t thought of.
#3 is far and away the likeliest antecedent, to the degree that the others are absurd readings of the text IMO. Do you see a different antecedent?
It’s not enough just to say I’m wrong, if you don’t see an antecedent yourself.
In post 52, everywhere I wrote “opinion,” I’d originally written “editorial comment.” I changed that because of the confusion it would generate. An opinion and an editorial comment are not the same thing. When someone expresses an opinion in a post, that’s not necessarily an editorial comment.
Consider Larry, who writes, “Peaches are the nastiest fruit in the world.”
Velma responds, “That is the opinion of a philistine.”
Bob quotes Velma:
Bob included the opinion, but made no editorial comment.
Charlotte quotes Velma:
Charlotte has included an editorial comment.
I fully agree. I was just explaining what I understood Morgenstern to be saying because there seemed to be some confusion. You and him go fight. 
Where does the rule say you can add brackets to a person’s post that contain wording from a another poster? Are you seriously not seeing how this could cause problems if it were considered OK to do going forward?
For those who are struggling with reading comprehension or basic logic, thie hypothetical sequence below is precisely logically identical. Do you think the sequence below violates any rules?
At comment #1251 Hypothetical Superdude says:
Donald Trump has blue eyes.
At comment #1254 Hypothetical Starving Artist says:
[QUOTE=Hypothetical Superdude]
Donald Trump has blue eyes.
[/QUOTE]
That is not true, I think he has green eyes and wears blue contact lenses.
At comment #1277 Hypothetical LHoD says:
[QUOTE=Hypothetical Starving Artist]
That [Donald Trump having blue eyes] is not true, I think he has green eyes and wears blue contact lenses.
[/QUOTE]
[clarification added]
Why would Donald pretend that his eyes are blue when they are really green?
Just another terrible decision by a mod w/ a long string of terrible mod decisions.
I have no problems at all with the idea that it is acceptable to replace a pronoun in a quote, through brackets, with that pronoun’s antecedent.
Bracketed clarification used in that fashion is for the antecedent to pronouns like “that”. How else could LHOD have used this explicitly allowed rule to clarify what SA was referring to by “that”, aside from using the exact language from the post he responded to?
For example (using {} to indicate quote blocks):
Andy: I support raising the minimum wage.
Bob: {Andy: I support raising the minimum wage} I think that is a bad idea.
Charlie: {Bob: I think that [raising the minimum wage] is a bad idea} Why do you think it’s a bad idea?
This is explicitly what the rule allows. It doesn’t matter if who made the 1st post – the 3rd poster can and should quote it exactly, at least per common usage for square-bracketed clarification.
You’re focusing on the wording from another poster, but that’s not the salient point. It doesn’t matter if it’s from another poster, or a brand new phrasing as long as it adds clarity and is not editorial in nature. The fact that it was the exact language from the antecedent bolsters the point.
Bob: We need to raise the minimum wage
Andy: Raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers is a bad idea.
Bob: I disagree. That is the best way to fight poverty.
Charlie: {Bob: That [raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers] is a good way to fight poverty} Why do you think that is a good way to fight poverty?
Bob: I never said they were a bunch of losers!!!
Well, if you’re not going to take this seriously, I don’t see much point in talking to you about it.
But that’s an inaccurate antecedent. LHOD used the exact antecedent.