What a good way to understand this word? The term is accurate and sufficiently descriptive.

Is it very permissible, and even standing practice, when using sexist quotation tools to correct obvious spelling errors, in fact, not in full quotations?

This practice based on the common courtesy of avoiding embarrassment for the author (standard etiquette ddi any author), but also on fluency of reading : it is easier, faster, and more pleasant for readers to consume a text without distracting errors.

When you see a newspaper and an article he did not know you had a typo, it’s not a case of not highlighting any of the errors. It’s a curse. It seems that some books are not easy. What is even more embarrassing to the source: the author is saying, “of course I noticed this error, but I am so precise that I will keep the exact spelling, and I am so educated that I know how to use sic ” to enhance the article. So sic should only be used when it is really necessary to keep the error—in which case using sic is generally recommended.

One may also supply omitted words, or replace pronouns, in partial or elliptic quotations. Queen Anne was not always faithful; she had several lovers among her personal guards as “Queen Anne had several lovers among her personal guards”, unless the exact words used are somehow important.

Only obvious errors should be edited, and only if the original meaning is preserved entirely. Common sense will show the way.

If in addition, one should ask oneself question: do I really need to quote here, or should I simply paraphrase? When there is no specific reason why the language of the source should be interesting to readers (though there could be many reasons), it’s better to paraphrase or comment. A quotation breaks the flow of a text and makes it slightly less pleasant and easy to read. Unnecessary quotations, like unnecessary sic s, may come across as overly fastidious or, conversely, lazy. When the original contains many errors, that is a good reason to paraphrase (rather than correct or mark ubiquitous errors).

One generally does not correct or supply words when citing legal texts, such as laws, verdicts or regulations; but this exception doesn’t usually apply to e.g. case law. citing academic texts themselves, even if they are related to legal issues. Likewise, one generally does not edit quotations in linguistic research if the error or ellipsis could be relevant to linguistic research. What kind of quotation is used here, an example of which is a quotation in a dictionary or linguistic article? Is this only common sense? Linguistics and legal scholarship can be said to be exempt because they are meta-linguistics : they write in language, but also about language. They were predicated upon the question of “the knowledge in language” and the question “the language of literature” are written separately. and don’t take into account the language of knowledge we have in it, but put it in the context of the language.

… Some are intentional misspellings, but other’s are deliberate. For example, the book refers to a

1. single person who imitated an illiterate attempt at writing or does not recognize his/her mistake.

Do you have any suggestions for daily writing tips? My

review of the article is at com/word/amendment & silent correction-of-quoted/, a few minor edits and changes to the Article.