“Sic”, or more usually “[sic]”, with brackets, is used to show that you realize what another author is using is incorrect or misspelled. I just have one question: Does the “[sic]” go before or after the word? My large Webster’s dictionary has the word “sic” and its usuage, but doesn’t mention if it goes in front of or after the word, which leads me to believe perhaps both usages are correct.
Does anyone else know?
It goes (in square brackets, italicized or not depending on your tastes) after the word in question.
Microrant: the intention of “sic” is to indicate when something “wrong” (e.g. a typo or grammatical error or mistake of fact) isn’t your error but is contained in the original text you quote. Lately I’ve seen a lot of academic books where the quotations are dotted with "sic"s after instances of supposedly sexist language–every use of “he” for “any person” gets zapped with a “sic.” The effect is of obsessive self-righteousness on the part of the quoter. [/microrant]
‘Sic’ = ‘thus’ (latin)
goes after the word/phrase quoted - I’ve seen both parenthesis and brackets used, but it is always set off by one or the other.
Especially since they could just use [sic passim] after the first instance to indicate that the mistake is repeated throughout the passage.
“Sic” goes right before “‘m,” as in “Sic ‘m, Towser, sic ‘m.” 
As mentioned, after the word.
I have never seen this particular PC BS, (not that I am doubting that you have seen it) but I would have very little regard for any author who would do such a thing.
I often wonder how many undereducated people read as “sic” as an editorial comment that they consider the quotation to be “sick”.
[Richard Dreyfuss]
Now, he said, “Sic 'm, Towser, sic 'm.” But what I heard was, “Towser, sic balls.”
[/Richard Dreyfuss]
Before “and tired”.
It may not be 100% approved and proper, but it seems like it could go at the end of the sentence, too. If the misspelling if obvious enough, why break up the sentence and make it harder to read?
Going even further, how often is the word really needed, at all? Any book or article is liable to have mistakes, does it really make a difference that a one character spelling mistake occurs within a quote? Whole words missing, or peculiar meanings, yes. Spelling mistakes? Naw.
You may well be right, but curiously I always thought it was short for the Latin word ‘Sicut’ means ‘as’ or ‘like’, so the person using ‘sic’ was pointing out that the faulty usage was being reproduced exactly as it appeared in the source.
I always understood it to be the author’s way of showing that the source used was incorrect in one regard (such as spelling), but was valuable nonetheless. The quote is reproduced as it appears (or “thus”) so as not to breach copyright, yet the author reproducing it wants the reader to know that s/he understands it is not correct in that one regard and to set it apart from possible genuine typos. An overzealous copy-editor could easily correct it when it shouldn’t be corrected in subsequent editions. The original quote may contain an error, but it should stand as it was found. It’s not the latest author’s responsibility to fix his source’s grammar or spelling.
Agreed.
What foolishness!
:rolleyes:
The usage of “sic” has changed somewhat in online interactive communications. Some people (like me) purposefully do it on message boards to others who are known to be “spelling and grammar kommissars”.
I’d like to defend the use of [sic] with gender-specific language when that language is clearly inappropriate. If I were writing a paper about the way doctors treat their patients, for instance, and I specifically discussed female doctors, but I needed to quote from an older work in which doctors are referred to only as he, I would include the [sic] to indicate that the “he” was incorrect in the context of my work. I see that as clarification rather than political correctness. I’ve seen that appropriate use of [sic] before. I’ve also read documents that thoroughly confused me by using the wrong gender pronouns. If you’re talking about a woman, and suddenly insert a quote that refers to “he”, I start wondering who “he” is. The [sic] helps to clarify the reference.
I thought it was “Chopper, [sic] balls.”
:tap tap:
Is this thing on?
Well, to heck with you, then, I use it all the time. When I’m quoting another’s writing, and that person can’t differentiate between there/their/they’re (as an example), I’m going to use a “sic” because I don’t want to appear to be the moron.
I take it your reference to “PC” is political correctness? What on earth does that concept have to do with a device that has been used for hundreds of years to denote a mistake in a quoted original?
Sic is an extremely useful word to denote ‘thus it stands in the original text’ in a case where the reader might otherwise suspect a printer’s error. To use it as a device for indicating one’s own linguistic purity and high-mindedness is just laughable. Credit the reader with some intelligence; if you’re quoting something from the 40s or 50s, they won’t be surprised to come across ‘inappropiate’ pronouns. There are other ways, if they are so minded, for writers to show how impeccably correct they are.