Though the church is deeply regretful about the Holocaust victims’ posthumous baptisms, the church says “names would continue to be improperly submitted.”
p.s. I fixed thespacebar. I have no clue why it didn’t work.
Though the church is deeply regretful about the Holocaust victims’ posthumous baptisms, the church says “names would continue to be improperly submitted.”
p.s. I fixed thespacebar. I have no clue why it didn’t work.
| levixvice on Only Abuse | |
| Lunaduna on Only Abuse | |
| cfalover on Counterintuitivity | |
| chickendinner on Card Hypothesis | |
| chickendinner on Card Hypothesis | |
| anonymousgirl116 on 02 Class WED JAN 27 | |
| anonymousgirl116 on 02 Class WED JAN 27 | |
| davidbdale on PTSD Claims-JohnWick66 | |
| davidbdale on Causal Rewrite- compIIstudent | |
| davidbdale on Rebuttal Rewrite-CompIIstudent |
I like the way you thoroughly exonerate the church in advance of the quote by making them sound so remorseful, Ally. When the news comes that they don’t expect wrongful submission to end, it makes the church sound like a victim of nasty people’s bad behavior, which is just how they would like to be portrayed. Nice work! 🙂
Now, in your White Paper, you had an opportunity to use your Quotation skills in a real-world setting. This is what you said:
There’s no characterization issue here, Ally. You haven’t tried to shape the meaning of the quote in any particular way. I have only technical advice to offer.
Your use of brackets indicates you know the quote doesn’t match the grammar of your sentence and your decision to change the have of the original to having makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t go far enough. The same sentence contains another have, which still doesn’t match, and other problems follow.
So, if you can’t make the quote match your grammar, you’re better off changing your own sentence to match the quote. Here are two solutions, one of each.
Break up the grammar of the original:
Do a better setup:
Will this help you construct your own quotes?
LikeLike
yes, thank you. is it wrong that i didn’t characterize it?
and can i just change it to:
Marijuana is a schedule one drug. A schedule one drug is described as, “hav[ing] a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.”
?
LikeLike
No, it’s not wrong not to characterize. Do so when you need to shape your readers’ expectations or help them interpret.
But no, you can’t quote quite as you have because you’re obligated to reproduce the original exactly unless you clearly indicate where you’ve made changes, however slight. It’s also just confusing to start with a word you have to change, especially when it’s so easy to start a word later. You could say:
Marijuana is a schedule one drug. A schedule one drug is described as having “a high potential for abuse, . . . no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States . . . [and] . . . a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” But it doesn’t seem like much of an improvement.
LikeLike