Unintelligible Latin

Post by **lovingpenfull** » January 31st, 2006, 2:15 am

So, being that I am in contact with you intellectuals, I want to ask a couple questions about some Latin words: what does 'sic' mean? Sometimes you see it in parenthasis, sometimes punctuated with an exclaimation point, and it seems to signify some irony or something (sic!) and I want to know if any could tell this uneducated Dog, and also what about in bibliographies you see 'Ibid', what is 'Ibid'? All the other listings in the bibliography are references with titles and author names and copyright dates, but sometimes there is just 'Ibid', does this mean like: I bid, I say, according to me? Anyways, pray for me guys, I am in the hell of uncertainty between life or death, god save me, me save me

Post by **lovingpenfull** » January 31st, 2006, 2:20 am

It is an uncertainty about something having nothing do with my wondering about sic and Ibid, by the way, that last part of the post, just wanted to clarify that

Post by **microbe** » January 31st, 2006, 2:22 am

From my distant schoolboy days I remember "sic" literally means "thus" or "therefore".

Wikipedia is a good source for this kind of thing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_(Latin)

"Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus" or "so", used inside brackets [sic] to indicate that an unusual (or incorrect) spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is intended to be read or printed exactly as shown, and is not a transcription error.

This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully (for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker...") or to highlight an error, often for purposes of ridicule or irony (for instance, "Dan Quayle famously miscorrected a student's spelling to 'potatoe' [sic]").

In folk etymology, "sic" is sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an abbreviation of "spelled incorrectly" or "spelling is correct", or even "sorry, incorrect"."

"Ibid"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibid

"Ibid (Latin, short for "ibidem", "the same place") is the term used to provide an endnote or footnote citation or reference for a source that was cited in the last endnote or footnote. It is also abbreviated "Ib." in legal documents. It is similar in meaning to idem, abbreviated Id.

To find the Ibid source, one has to look at the reference right before it.

Also means: This word/phrase/concept also defined in this document.
[edit]

Example

* 4. R. Millan, "Latin for dummies" (Academic, New York, 1997), p. 23.
* 5. Ibid, p. 100.

The reference no. 5 is the same as in no 4. (R. Millan, "Latin for dummies"). Note that page is different."

Post by **stilltrucking** » January 31st, 2006, 2:24 am

sic glorious monday, kind of like a malaise.
Ibid ben zero, invented the arabic number naught

too bad Bablefish does not do latin. I wonder how many of the people who use it know who Douglas Adams is.

Praise the the lord and pass the ammunition.

It is a hell of a place to be

to be between life and death

trying to get to someplace

but you don't know where

hustle on the east coast for your west coast fair.

Limbo

going nowhere fast

now here.

Post by **stilltrucking** » January 31st, 2006, 2:27 am

Wikipedia is a good source for this kind of thing!

ten four it is a good place for trivia but it is not to be trusted. A good way to post disinformation. A good way to slander anonymously

"And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research--but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects," he wrote in the essay. "Congress has enabled them and protects them."

This kind of stuff is just funny these days… actually, it’s the people who actually think that wikipedia is a viable source of reference that is funny…

Talk about 1000 monkeys… I for one, perfer to get my news and information from more reputable sources. Like Slashdot!

Of course the funny thing about this is that the story saying that the wikipedia article is false became part of the wikipedia article. Ouch, my brain hurts!
http://www.wormus.com/aaron/stories/200 ... raphy.html

In an op-ed in USAToday Seigenthaler takes the community-authored encyclopedia to task for running a biography of him that falsely accused him of being a suspect in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.

http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5978359.html

Post by **microbe** » January 31st, 2006, 2:36 am

I know it is full of "opinion" and many entries are questionable but for questions like the one asked above, on semantics, it is reliable I have found. Anyway, if someone disagrees with what is posted I am sure it will be pointed out.

Post by **lovingpenfull** » January 31st, 2006, 2:40 am

thanks fellers [sic], I hope all goes well in the informations game, no viruses, no poison pens, just clean and pure

Post by **stilltrucking** » January 31st, 2006, 2:45 am

I tell ya silicon pal I am the sic(est one here) Like standing around scratching my head trying to figure out what happened. History has got to be pretty thermo-plastic these days. I been googling the six day war, who to believe?

Post by **Anonymous-one** » February 1st, 2006, 9:29 am

[sic]= Tel que citer.

Post by **mousey1** » February 3rd, 2006, 12:50 am

Thank-you intellectuals. I'm using [sic] everywhere now.

A sic sic here

and a sic sic there

here a sic

there a sic

everywhere a sic sic

got no use for ibid though.

(maybe at an auction!)

Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Unintelligible Latin

Unintelligible Latin

Who is online