Didn’t see a link. Got one? Or anyone have good interview links? I have students “prepping in the parking lot” for job i’views, and they could use a laugh… that educates.
But you presumably allow them to judge whether to use all the other parts of punctuation. Why?
That’s… a really odd sentence. You’re saying that if someone is working for you as a transcriptionist, they’d literally have to ask you every single time they wanted to mark an aside using parentheses, because you don’t believe they exist?
I hope I never get a job for your company. You remind me of the manager who fired me for doing things like reverting back to its original form an editor’s “correction” of anchors aweigh to anchors away.
Because, as I already explained, marking something as parenthetical is more akin to putting words in someone’s mouth. If they actually use words like “As an aside …” then we know that it’s parenthetical and we also know that parentheses are unnecessary. If they haven’t explicitly marked something as parenthetical, then it’s not appropriate to pretend you know whether it was parenthetical or not. It’s an attempt at mind-reading, which is inappropriate when putting things within quotation marks.
No, I would simply not allow reporters to use parentheses when quoting spoken words. Unless someone tells you that something is parenthetical–by explicitly saying it’s parenthetical or by showing you the text in which they’ve used parentheses themselves–then it is improper to pretend you as a reporter of spoken words know for sure whether it’s parenthetical or not.
Everything becomes personal with you, doesn’t it?
We’re going to have to disagree on this. It is, IMO, not “putting words into someone’s mouth” but merely sorting out the flow of words exactly equivalent to commas and periods and paragraphs. If you can figure out where a paragraph begins and ends, you can figure out where a parenthetical statement begins and ends. There is no conceptual difference. (Do you also deny the use of dashes? Brackets? Ellipses? Where do you draw the line?)
All punctuation is artificial. You can look back through the history of writing and see that words were once run together without spaces, sentences without periods or capitalization. Every bit of punctuation developed as a means of making the written word more understandable. There are no lines of demarcation. You either accept all punctuation or none. Nothing in between can be logically defended.
Utter rubbish. No other form of punctuation so clearly grades, or judges, or characterizes speech in the way that marking it as a parenthetical does. All other forms of punctuation within quotation marks are used merely to aid the understanding of the flow of speech, not to characterize it or judge it. When reporting speech, this crosses the line. The reader should merely be presented the words and left to judge for himself or herself what is parenthetical and what isn’t.
From a debate on terrorism:
“The Arabs who participated in acts of terrorism should be executed.” vs. “The Arabs, who participated in acts of terrorism, should be executed.” When spoken, there are clear pauses marking the commas in the second, reprehensibly broad-brush sentence; there are none in the first. That is a rhetorical parenthesis, and the second sentence could as well be written with parenthesis marks as with commas.
I take your point – as a matter of style, you object to transcription using parenthesis marks, because it implies something that other punctuation marks do not. I submit this is not always true, though I respect your judgment on proper style in preparing transcriptions.
He helped my uncle jack off the horse.
He helped my uncle, Jack, off the horse.