Square Brackets in American English

[German_EE]

This is a question for American members of the EEVBlog board, please could someone explain the rules behind use of square brackets in American English? By way of an example I quote the following post which has just appeared on Slashdot:

It's no secret Apple [is] on a privacy bent as of late. But that extends inside of Apple as well with various internal groups fighting for access to user data and often being denied by Apple's "privacy czars" who ensure Apple doesn't collect information they don't [need], that information is used only [in] ways the user allows, and to design the systems to keep user data separate. This has lead to many conflicts, especially for the Siri and iAd team who often cannot access [the] user data they need. Of course, Apple can do this because unlike Google, Facebook or [Amazon], Apple makes money on hardware and not on the sale of customer data.

Remove those brackets and the passage makes sense, so why are they there?

[suicidaleggroll]

It's when somebody is editing the original text of a quote:
https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-square-brackets.htm

[IanB]

Yes. The words inside the square brackets were not there in the original quote, they have been inserted for clarity by someone who was editing a longer text into a shorter form. Without the inserted words the grammar would not be correct and the text would be harder to read.

[German_EE]

So [you're] saying that in the [original] passage all the text in brackets [was] missing?

as in..........

So saying that in the passage all the text in brackets missing

[Macbeth]

Also [sic] when quoting someone verbatim. Usually used for ridicule 

I have to admit I've found most other uses of square brackets [] in news articles that are entirely redundant and just add to confusion. The hack journo [sic] involved must be inserting his own political reasoning or beliefs in the article and it makes no sense to an ordinary person who could quite happily read the original article without any prompting.

[IanB]

Not precisely missing, but the original passage would have been longer with other clauses that have been removed. The words in square brackets were then put back in to maintain the overall sense of the text.

When you see square brackets like that you may want to go find the original quote and see what has been lost in the editing.

[suicidaleggroll]

So [you're] saying that in the [original] passage all the text in brackets [was] missing?

Either missing or worded differently.

For example, if I said "I like to take my wife out to lunch", somebody might quote that as "[He] like[s] to take [his] wife out to lunch".

[Fred27]

Also [sic] when quoting someone verbatim. Usually used for ridicule 

That's normally used after a quoted spelling mistake. It pretty much means "their typo, not mine". Hard to tell if it's for ridicule. If you're a journalist it might be just to head off people who are going to correct you.

[TimFox]

"Sic" is Latin for "thus", indicating that the word or phrase was in the original writing.  Yes, it is usually done to show superiority over the ignorant original author, who could not spell or made a grammatical error.  Since it is a foreign word, it should italicized in English:  [sic].

[Bob F.]

WFIW, same usage in British English too. 

[Someone]

Not precisely missing, but the original passage would have been longer with other clauses that have been removed. The words in square brackets were then put back in to maintain the overall sense of the text.

When you see square brackets like that you may want to go find the original quote and see what has been lost in the editing.

Yes, they seem to be used more often for shortening quotes by taking the boring bits out and replacing them with something that tries not to change the meaning, always good to see the original if you're interested. The square brackets get used less often for the OPs example of adding context/clarity to the quote by adding words which were not said but implied by the context.

[Tom45]

Some people make numerous mistakes when talking, mistakes that slip by because the listeners mentally fill in the gaps without realizing it.

But when that same thing is recorded and then transcribed for a news story, the mistakes are obvious. Hence the square brackets to turn what the speaker said into what most of the listeners present thought was said.

Square brackets let the reader know that the writer/transcriber, not the original speaker, filled in those missing words.

As was already stated, they can also be used to clarify based on context that isn't part of the quote.

[Brumby]

Works the same in Australia.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

As everyone has said, they're used to indicate a word or short phrase has been inserted to paraphrase/simplify/explain a longer, more complicated, or ambiguous or confusing quote.

But comparing your quote with the original /. submission, in this case it seems (a) the original submitter used poor/lazy/incorrect English, (b) Slashdot's editors thought they would "fix" it but are also terrible at English, and (c) the editors also wanted to clarify or add a few keywords for SEO or user-trolling purposes (e.g. they tidied up "Apple's" to "Apple [is]", they changed "or others" to "or Amazon", etc)

[Brumby]

From what I have seen many readers wouldn't notice the error anyway, so it may actually be more likely to hold the reader up for ridicule.

That's one thing that has me concerned.  In this day and age when text based communication is so high profile, the lack of educational standards in fundamental things like spelling and grammar are a worry.  Clear, accurate and concise communication is important, yet the basic tools are being neglected.

What's more, an author may, in fact, have something very worthwhile to share, but due to their poor language skills finds their message is lost under a cloud of ridicule.

[MarvinTheMartian]

I get dismayed by the education level of the younger generations these days (not their fault necessarily), but irritating non-the-less!

However, when reading these international forums, I also look to see whether the poster uses English as a second language and subsequently give them a lot of latitude as a result.

I don't have a go at anyone for poor spelling/grammar but it does irk me. 

Note that I am by no means perfect in this respect either! 

[IanB]

I don't have a go at anyone for poor spelling/grammar but it does irk me. 

I do notice when people write "walla" instead of voilà, or "per say" instead of per se, and I wish they wouldn't do that...

[MarvinTheMartian]

I do notice when people write "walla" instead of voilà, or "per say" instead of per se, and I wish they wouldn't do that...

"People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference." The American President 

Need I say moore [sic]?   

[Nerull]

To be fair, a lot of english words are morphs of words from other languages - its essentially arbitrary which you insist must be spelled in the original language.

People seem to have an inherent need to imagine language as a fixed static thing where words never change, but that's not how it works. That's not how it has ever worked. If you want to speak that sort of language, the cobbled together mess that is English is not for you.

Referring back to your post, Ben Franklin once wrote of how strange it was that Americans had suddenly started using 'notice' as a verb, and the British long considered it to be a strange american mutilation of the word.

[Cubdriver]

I don't have a go at anyone for poor spelling/grammar but it does irk me. 

I do notice when people write "walla" instead of voilà, or "per say" instead of per se, and I wish they wouldn't do that...

To shay!     Those are definitely some of the ones that irk me.  The scary thing is that often the people for whom English is a second language have better grammar and spelling than those who grew up speaking/writing it, and most of the time they're no worse than the worst of the 'native' speakers!

-Pat 

[MarvinTheMartian]

To be fair, a lot of english words are morphs of words from other languages - its essentially arbitrary which you insist must be spelled in the original language.

I agree, English 'adopts' words from lots of languages. This can make things more confusing for non-English speakers because the meanings may also have changed, and as you say, it is also a dynamic not a static system.

I suppose everybody thinks that the 'version' of English they were taught is the 'true' one and measure everybody else against this 'truth'! 

It used to bother me that Americans had corrupted the English language but as I get older, I can appreciate the logic of many of the changes they have made (still rubs me the wrong way though ).

...but then, maybe I'm just an old codger who knows no better! 

[MarvinTheMartian]

The scary thing is that often the people for whom English is a second language have better grammar and spelling than those who grew up speaking/writing it, and most of the time they're no worse than the worst of the 'native' speakers!

Yes, I have found this to be true also.

Some are even much better that the native English speakers - I sometimes realize a well written post was by someone from a non-English speaking country! 

[Cubdriver]

The scary thing is that often the people for whom English is a second language have better grammar and spelling than those who grew up speaking/writing it, and most of the time they're no worse than the worst of the 'native' speakers!

Yes, I have found this to be true also.

Some are even much better that the native English speakers - I sometimes realize a well written post was by someone from a non-English speaking country! 

Perhaps because it's not their native tongue, they take more care in crafting their replies than those of us who speak/write/type it regularly and who frequently seem inclined to simply spew forth with whatever comes to mind?  (I often wonder if some people ever proofread what they've typed before hitting 'post'. )

-Pat

[Dave Atom]

WFIW, same usage in British English too.

WFIW[sic], same usage in British English too.

lol.

[GEuser]

(I don't actually know why but I use a lot of those)