hello, On 26 December 2012 11:00, <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi > File Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi#newcode155 > Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi:155: The correct way to add > [changes like this] to the documentation is to > On 2012/12/26 07:32:01, J_lowe wrote: >> >> On 2012/12/25 09:10:01, bealingsplayfordnews wrote: >> > Why the [] ? > > >> This is a standard way to to clarify the antecedent. Also you will see > > it used >> >> to denote missing text [ ... ] or more commonly to denote a mistake or >> inaccuracy in a quote without it being attributed to the author of the > > text it >> >> is being quoted in (i.e '[sic]'). > > >> Anyway, enough of that, I have rewritten the sentence. > > > Actually, the _only_ usage of [...] I know in text passages is an > editorial addition, signifying material added by someone different from > the original author. In particular, "[sic]" means "as the editor, I am > perfectly aware that this is wrong, thank you very much. But since this > is a literal quotation, I am not at liberty correcting it." > > Another frequent use is to make explicit what object a pronoun in a > quoted section is referring to if the scope of the quotation does not > allow deducing it.
That's the 'antecedent' thingy I referred to. > Also, when only sentence parts are quoted and the > result would be ungrammatical, editorial insertions used for creating a > grammatical sentence again will be marked with [...]. I thought I might get responses like this, which is why I rewrote the sentence. Life is too short. Merry Christmas ;) James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
