punctuation - How do you quote a passage that has used '[sic]' mistakenly?

The usage of '[sic]' is well defined for quoting a passage that you believe has an error in it: nearest to the mistake you place '[sic]' within the quotes. For example, suppose I write a letter from I to you. This last sentence of mine is counter to most norms of English writing (it's wrong), so in quoting it someone would naturally want to write:

...suppose I write a letter from I [sic] to you.

Suppose though that I do something else, suppose I write a letter from me to you. This follows accepted grammatical practice (it's correct grammar). But then further suppose that someone thinks you should use 'I' instead of 'me'. And they quote it thus:

...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you.

The '[sic]' has been mistakenly used.

But how do you quote the passage I just wrote? Would it be:

"...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]

or

"...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] [sic] to you."

or

"...suppose I write a letter from me [sic [sic]] to you."

None of these sound right to me: the first because it doesn't point out where the error is, the second because you can't tell (for either '[sic]') if you're using '[sic]' or it is part of the thing quoted, and for the third example...well, that might be a way to mark the error, but surely the mechanics of '[sic]' could have been designed better to begin with.

So which of these three, or something else entirely, should be used for quoting a passage where '[sic]' is used wrongly?

Answer

There are three authors involved here:

1. The author of the original quote


2. The author who quoted #1 and added the first "[sic]"


3. The author who is writing the final document (you)

Let's deal with the easy case: If your intent is to quote author #1, simply remove the offending '[sic]'. This omission does not change the meaning of the quoted phrase, and there is absolutely no reason to include it.

It gets more complicated if your intent is to quote author #2. I can think of five main options:

1. Ignore the offending '[sic]' entirely (this is the most sane option)

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me to you."

   
   




2. Replace the offending '[sic]' with an ellipsis

   
   
   

   
   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me ... to you."

   
   




3. Add your own '[sic]' after the quoted sentence (as Serodis recommends)

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]

   
   




4. Add a footnote to clarify the situation. This can be used in several different ways. I prefer the first one, but it really comes down to a matter of style

   
   
   

   
   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me ¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me to you." ¹
   "...suppose I write a letter from me ...¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic]¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]¹

   
   
   

   ¹: [Author #2] chose to add [sic] after the word me when quoting [Author #1]

   
   




5. Describe the offending '[sic]' in words.

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you". [Author #2] thought that me was incorrect here.
   "...suppose I write a letter from me ([sic] in original) to you". (as proposed by Ariel)

   
   

The choice between these options depends on the purpose of your document. I feel that option 1 makes the most sense unless you are writing an academic or legal document that will be highly scrutinized. In those cases, I would prefer options 2 or 4, since they present much less of a mental speed-bump for the reader.

Options 3 and 5 really only make sense if you actually want to draw attention to the '[sic]' itself. This would be the case if you were critiquing author #2. Between these two, I prefer option 5 since it is the most explicit.

Note 1: Oswald points out that [sic] does not necessarily indicate an error in the quoted text, but rather that "the text appears in the source exactly as quoted".

Note 2: Both SLaks and chris propose creative solutions that use changes in typeface to differentiate between each author

Note 3: Rex Kerr has some good information regarding nested quotes