Hello, everybody!

Does anyone remember Pamela Ramsey Taylor, the former Clay County Development Corporation director, who was eventually fired from her job for a Facebook post describing Michelle Obama as "a [sic] Ape [sic] in heels"?

(Beverly Whaling, who complimented the post, resigned right away, but Taylor resisted, describing the backlash as "a hate crime against me.")

Well, it seems that Taylor is back in the news, and looking at 30 years in prison!

Seems she was lapping up FEMA benefits for claiming her home was damaged in a flood and was forced to live in a rental property. Her home wasn't damaged and she was still living in it.

Now, my question is, when you're quoting someone who's describing Michelle Obama as "a Ape in heels," where does the [sic] go? Does it go after the "a" since she's using the article "a" when it should be "an"? Or does it go after the "Ape" since "Ape" is capitalized, despite not being a proper noun?

Should the "[sic]" go after both the "a" and "Ape," since they are both errors, or just after the "Ape," with the understanding that it will cover both the "a" and the "Ape"?

Patrick, at the risk of incurring yet another self-righteous tirade for daring to address you, try this.

I'm not sure what expertise, if any, the respondent in this query holds, but he/she makes as good an argument as any for the rationale of the reply. I've seen that rationale in several other grammar blogs as well.

I don't have my Elements of Style handy, so I'll defer to this until I get home and can check.

The Economist Style Guide -- here -- does not address multiple uses of [sic].

Conan:

I don't have my Elements of Style handy, so I'll defer to this until I get home and can check.

I would point out that Elements of Style isn't an authority and shouldn't be treated as one.

Elements of Style was originally written by William Strunk, Jr. with additions by children's book author E.B. White after Strunk's death.

It's more about E.B. White's personal preferences than anything else. For instance, the work insists that we must "use active voice." So, if we ever use the passive voice, we've either offended Strunk, White or both. But that does not make the use of the passive voice "wrong."

Cambridge wants its residents to give up their motor vehicles.

Yet even Cambridge — which took up the anticar cause decades ago to oppose a proposed interstate highway through the heart of Central Square — can’t get more residents to give up their vehicles.

The city appears all but certain to fall short of its 2020 goal of reducing the ratio of cars owned by Cambridge residents by 15 percent from 1990 levels. The target, set in 2014, was to lower ownership to about 0.8 cars per household, but with about a year left on the clock, Cambridge is less than halfway there.

“In terms of the trend, we are on the right track, but we’re not going to get that target,” said Iram Farooq, Cambridge’s assistant city manager for community development.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly-happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html

So, pro tip: use eminent domain and seize the vehicles you need to hit your target. Like a bird hitting a window. What do you mean they can't do that? it's for the children!

I would point out that Elements of Style isn't an authority and shouldn't be treated as one. ~ Patrick at February 19, 2019 11:45 AM

I agree with your criticism of White's disdain of the passive voice. Sometimes, using a passive voice can be quite evocative. However, one should be wary of using it in general. Stephen King, in his rules for writing, echoed White's disdain for the passive voice.

Any style manual is the product of the opinions and preferences of its authors. White was a better choice than most to author a style manual.

Unlike the French language, there is not a board or committee charged with issuing the final word on English usage or style.

That EoS has survived as long as it has is a testament to its usefulness and the general acceptance of its usage rules.

Dorothy Parker called EoS the "second-greatest" gift to writers:

"If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the second-greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of The Elements of Style. The first-greatest, of course, is to shoot them now, while they’re happy."

While there are many valid criticisms of EoS, yours included, it is still a handy guide to have and, at the least, a quasi-authoritative text on writing and word usage. You have to know what the rules are so you can break them like a pro.

> I would point out that Elements
> of Style isn't an authority and
> shouldn't be treated as one.

?

What does it need, beyond several generations of high-performance enthusiasts, to qualify as an authority? An armed enforcement squad?

Did you go to college?

Is Black's an authority? Crocker? Chicago Manual? Bartlett Roget DSM-5? KJV?