When I see:
“[We] believe that we are awesome…”
I’m ok. However, when I see:
“[C]onstitutional rights here are being…”
I get [v]ery worried about that single letter, especially when I find them in [d]ocuments that should have no [t]ypos.
When I see:
“[We] believe that we are awesome…”
I’m ok. However, when I see:
“[C]onstitutional rights here are being…”
I get [v]ery worried about that single letter, especially when I find them in [d]ocuments that should have no [t]ypos.
The “[C]” in that quote is not correcting a typographical error; it’s an editorial note showing that the person extracting the quote has substituted “C” for some other text. The most likely original text being “c”.
In other words, they’re saying “this *could* have started a sentence, and I’m using it that way in my quote; but in the original text, it’s actually in the middle of a sentence without the capital C at the start”.
Just like the “[We]” in your other quote is simply saying “I substituted this word because it’s the word that makes the grammar work when I extract this quote from the rest of the sentence, and doesn’t change the meaning at all”.
But what if they’re talking about something else entirely? Like Monstitutional rights? Monsters need rights too!
bignose — yeah, that’s why I was ok with things like [We] but not C. Now that I know that the c didn’t just appear out of nowhere, I’m more comfortable with c.
Christina — Totally. I’d like to claim my monstitutional claim too.
Leave a Reply