|
|
Post by dreampolice on Aug 27, 2023 16:47:30 GMT
For you clever folk. I know brackets can be used in text to add further information to a sentence, or maybe explain what is being written in a quote.
Can anyone explain why "Home Secretary" in the below quote from the FBU in The Guardian, is in brackets (square ones), although TBH I can't understand why it is in any form of bracket.
If you take the first [Home Secretary] out the sentence would not make any sense and I'd say it is unlikely that the words would have been missed in the original letter and therefore have been added. I could get it if it had said "she [Home Secretary]........" where they are explaining who she is.
Perhaps it is just bad writing by the journalist or am I missing something?
“The [home secretary] has decided to crowd in an additional 284 people by using single rooms for double occupancy, and creating rooms for four or six persons to sleep in (presumably by converting other spaces).
“The decision of the [home secretary] therefore creates an apparently entirely new, and highly dangerous accommodation arrangement, in which 506 traumatised asylum seekers may face a fire or hazardous materials emergency and need to evacuate the barge as an emergency, while being entirely untrained in fire safety, without even having undertaken fire drills. This situation is inherently unsafe,” the letter says.
And again here
“It remains our professional view that [the barge is] a potential deathtrap and an accident waiting to happen.”
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Aug 27, 2023 17:08:23 GMT
Square brackets are used to denote explanatory text inserted by the author for clarity or to indicate a substitute word(s) if a direct quote doesn't make sense out of context because information is missing. Round brackets, to me anyway, indicate that the contained text is optional to the meaning of the paragraph. It will still make sense if the contents are read around whereas a subordinate clause delineated by commas is essential to the meaning of the paragraph. I use square brackets quite a lot. It is a real pain on the forum because bulletin board code uses them to indicate a control sequence is coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Aug 27, 2023 17:36:09 GMT
As far as I can see it, in both cases, the 'the' is the problem.
Having read where square brackets should or could be used, it is when a quote is being reported and the text in square brackets is used to explain what is not said in the quote used.
As you say, if it had been She [Home Secretary] has decided... it would be sensible.
I'd say it is bad reporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by gezza on Aug 27, 2023 18:28:11 GMT
Home Secretary in brackets is sometimes used as a replacement for the words unempathetic asshole
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Aug 27, 2023 18:29:51 GMT
As far as I can see it, in both cases, the 'the' is the problem. Having read where square brackets should or could be used, it is when a quote is being reported and the text in square brackets is used to explain what is not said in the quote used. As you say, if it had been She [Home Secretary] has decided... it would be sensible. I'd say it is bad reporting. Terrible reporting ! But it was from the Guardian. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Aug 27, 2023 18:51:46 GMT
Home Secretary in brackets is sometimes used as a replacement for the words unempathetic asshole It reads much better that way so I'm sure you are right. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Aug 27, 2023 19:16:16 GMT
Can anyone explain why "Home Secretary" in the below quote from the FBU in The Guardian, is in brackets (square ones), although TBH I can't understand why it is in any form of bracket.
It's used where the writer has substituted his/her own word(s) for what was written in the original text.
In the example you provided, the FBU wrote the letter to the Home Office, and - I'm guessing - the original wording might have been "The Minister" (for example) but the writer of the Guardian article has chosen to make it clearer, by specifying which Minister.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Aug 27, 2023 19:17:16 GMT
Home Secretary in brackets is sometimes used as a replacement for the words unempathetic asshole Notwithstanding my previous post, this is BY FAR the best answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 27, 2023 20:12:38 GMT
{I have no idea} but in previous contributions (to the Forum)
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 27, 2023 20:14:36 GMT
That [is not(what) I typed]...
|
|
|
|
Post by dreampolice on Aug 27, 2023 22:04:08 GMT
Can anyone explain why "Home Secretary" in the below quote from the FBU in The Guardian, is in brackets (square ones), although TBH I can't understand why it is in any form of bracket.
It's used where the writer has substituted his/her own word(s) for what was written in the original text.
In the example you provided, the FBU wrote the letter to the Home Office, and - I'm guessing - the original wording might have been "The Minister" (for example) but the writer of the Guardian article has chosen to make it clearer, by specifying which Minister.
That makes more sense. I understand why brackets are used, just in this context it seemed wrong and I couldn't figure out why. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Aug 28, 2023 5:39:21 GMT
It's used where the writer has substituted his/her own word(s) for what was written in the original text.
In the example you provided, the FBU wrote the letter to the Home Office, and - I'm guessing - the original wording might have been "The Minister" (for example) but the writer of the Guardian article has chosen to make it clearer, by specifying which Minister.
That makes more sense. I understand why brackets are used, just in this context it seemed wrong and I couldn't figure out why. The newspaper example is rubbish. He said it was a surprise. He [the neighbour] said it [the birthday party] was a surprise. The neighbour reported that the birthday party was a surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 28, 2023 6:03:53 GMT
Apologies for what appears to be incoherent rambling a couple of posts ago( certainly more than normal)
I was trying to be clever by writing a sentence with brackets and parentheses in but either the forum software or this kindle and autocorrect/predictive text threw a wobbler, just like it has whilst I have been typing this message.
So much for artificial intelligence, I would just like a dash of the real thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 28, 2023 6:11:13 GMT
A while back on another topic I asked if electioneering newspaper reporting was better than Reach plc journalism.
The local rag is one in that stable, and I have to say that the standard and style of reporting is awful.
I appreciate there are fewer journalists around, and that they are not the best paid, but as an old school newspaper delivery boy and reader I find it all a load of tripe.
The actual means of getting the "story" out amidst the clamouring clickbaiting is something else I find makes me a grumpy old man.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Aug 28, 2023 6:32:44 GMT
Apologies for what appears to be incoherent rambling a couple of posts ago( certainly more than normal)
No need to apologise, David. We're used to that, on here.  |
|
