Learn To Say It Correctly!!

Eaglelady · Mar 13, 2009

I luv you awl no matta hows you tawk. Believe me I do NOT correct on the spot. With my southern dialect and drawl I'd be the first to go SPLAT.
But you have to admit that sometimes you just HAVE to smile.

Sometimes LOL and I know what you mean P_RN with my southern drawl also and Docs are always pokin fun of my southern drawl but thats ok I laugh along with them at times :)

Atheos · Mar 13, 2009

Yes. I knew that - but I figured folks were gonna be ridiculously confused about it anyhow...
.... so I chose the "easier option".
cheers,
PS: You're mistaken is stating (assuming?) that only "script kiddies" use this

Oh, they are script kiddies, or the equivalent. Script kiddies being noobs that is.

I use script kiddies liberally. Maybe the more accurate term would be poser.

ToxicShock · Mar 13, 2009

In that case...
Quotations and apostrophes go AFTER the period.
'punctuation.' NOT 'punctuation'.
Sorry... I couldn't resist. ROFL
You can't plagiarize AND paraphrase at the same time. Either they are plagiarizing or they are paraphrasing. Which is it?
I love this thread!

Actually, you can.

According to Good Reasons With Contemporary Arguments, "when you paraphrase, you represent the idea of the source in your own words at the same length as the original. You still need to include the reference to the source of the idea . . . When a string of words is lifted from a source and inserted without quotation marks, the passage is plagiarized." :smokin:

Purple_Scrubs, BSN, RN · Mar 13, 2009

Afterwards, I was showing it to another faculty and she immediately spotted an error: in a paragraph where I caution about using correctly spelled but inappropriate words (I used the example of the use of breathe when what is meant is breath), I used the word devise when I meant device.
:chair:
Keeps us humble, don't cha know.

You know, I would have just had to claim that it was a cleverly inserted but purposeful error and the first person to catch it gets a prize! You'd just have to hope you had a $5 on you or something for the impromptu prize!

Atheos · Mar 13, 2009

Actually, you can.
According to Good Reasons With Contemporary Arguments, "when you paraphrase, you represent the idea of the source in your own words at the same length as the original. You still need to include the reference to the source of the idea . . . When a string of words is lifted from a source and inserted without quotation marks, the passage is plagiarized."

Ahhh but you just contradicted yourself.

When a string of words is lifted from a source and inserted without quotation marks, the passage is plagiarized."

Whereas paraphrasing is

"when you paraphrase, you represent the idea of the source in your own words at the same length as the original.

plagiarize -

1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

paraphrase -

1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

Paraphrasing, in fact, implies that the work is not original AND that you are not using a close imitation of the original work. The only reason universities and other educational bodies expect you to cite is because people paraphrase incorrectly.

If you are paraphrasing to solely add content to your own information or as 'evidence' in an argument you are incorrectly utilizing this function of grammar. The sole purpose is to clarify meaning. Such as when 2 computer nerds are discussing something and I turn to a non-computer nerd and put it into layman's terms. THAT is paraphrasing.

Citation's are used not to give credit as largely believed but to provide substantiation. When paraphrasing properly and clarifying the meaning of something the citation is largely unneeded because you are not using the words in any manner that needs substantiation.

:smokin:

Seems like a mouthful...

BUT this argument BEAT a charge of plagiarism. I argued against the charge with the English professor in the presence of the Dean. The professor capitulated and the dean agreed with me. Though he did call it a 'technicality.'

The devil is in the details...

marachne · Mar 13, 2009

You know, I would have just had to claim that it was a cleverly inserted but purposeful error and the first person to catch it gets a prize! You'd just have to hope you had a $5 on you or something for the impromptu prize!

Actually, we had this very conversation -- I meant to do that! It's a perfect example of what I was warning you about! etc.

Great minds think alike

marachne · Mar 13, 2009

Paraphrasing, in fact, implies that the work is not original AND that you are not using a close imitation of the original work. The only reason universities and other educational bodies expect you to cite is because people paraphrase incorrectly.
If you are paraphrasing to solely add content to your own information or as 'evidence' in an argument you are incorrectly utilizing this function of grammar. The sole purpose is to clarify meaning. Such as when 2 computer nerds are discussing something and I turn to a non-computer nerd and put it into layman's terms. THAT is paraphrasing.
Citation's are used not to give credit as largely believed but to provide substantiation. When paraphrasing properly and clarifying the meaning of something the citation is largely unneeded because you are not using the words in any manner that needs substantiation.
Seems like a mouthful...
BUT this argument BEAT a charge of plagiarism. I argued against the charge with the English professor in the presence of the Dean. The professor capitulated and the dean agreed with me. Though he did call it a 'technicality.'
The devil is in the details...

Ah, I beg to differ as to your argument regarding not needing to cite.

If you are writing a scholarly piece, you must substantiate your statements with other, respected work. After all, my saying that use of cynobenzaprine is contraindicated in older adults due to potential for delirium, it's not going to have the same weight as if I cited Mark H. Beers when issuing this caution.

Trust me, one of the great joys [not] of my current writing life is having dissertation committee members say "give me a citation for that" when it is something that I have so totally synthesized and integrated into my understanding that I have no idea where to find an appropriate citation!

Atheos · Mar 13, 2009

Ah, I beg to differ as to your argument regarding not needing to cite.
If you are writing a scholarly piece, you must substantiate your statements with other, respected work. After all, my saying that use of cynobenzaprine is contraindicated in older adults due to potential for delirium, it's not going to have the same weight as if I cited Mark H. Beers when issuing this caution.
Trust me, one of the great joys [not] of my current writing life is having dissertation committee members say "give me a citation for that" when it is something that I have so totally synthesized and integrated into my understanding that I have no idea where to find an appropriate citation!

Citation is used SOLELY for substantiation.

Citation

1. The act of citing.

2. a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.

b. A source so cited; a quotation.

When defending dissertations they do this solely to make sure that someone in the future reading it can't claim that you have a false assumption or assertion somewhere.

However, if the paraphrased content is well known OR if you generated the content, as in paraphrasing content from an experiment you conducted you don't necessarily have to.

Plus, professors requiring it doesn't necessarily make it law. I've had some that were super strict and some that weren't.

I had one professor that got mad because I didn't have a citation for a mathematical theorum that I came up with myself. He INSISTED that there be a citation. Was he right? Not in the least.

All that aside...

If x number of times you don't need citation and y number of times you do then the assertion that one must always cite paraphrased content is false. IT all depends on the context and arena.

Professors always harp on this because they are pseudo-intellectuals. Real intellectuals don't cite. Many of Einstein's papers aren't cited because mere tradition doesn't really count for anything.

P.S. That's why I despise the idea of dissertations and theses. Nowadays they are all regurgitated content. Rarely original and even if appearing original are many times things that are obviously there but not put together yet.

There was a time when these things had to be ORIGINAL. As in you didn't graduate unless your thesis/dissertation covered something new and never before seen. This though is yet another symptom of our decaying educational standards.

Someone once told me that there was nothing new to invent or discover. I countered with there are plenty of things to discover and invent. We just don't produce smart enough offspring to do so.

Wishinonastar, BSN · Mar 13, 2009

I think the real reason they require citations for every little thing is because a general paranoia has descended upon our educational institutions, complete with a belief that EVERYONE is too lazy to have thoughts of their own, and if anything intelligent comes out of those thoughts then they must have STOLEN it from somewhere.

At least that was the feeling I got from my professors. : >

This thread is crazy!

motyandproudofit · Mar 14, 2009

Whatnot?

What does that really mean?? :banghead:

I think people saying "whatnot" makes them sound intelligent but ...... I don't think so!!

Atheos · Mar 14, 2009

Whatnot?
What does that really mean??
I think people saying "whatnot" makes them sound intelligent but ...... I don't think so!!

Are you serious??

whatnot

1. A minor or unspecified object or article.

2. A set of light, open shelves for ornaments.

You gotta read the dictionary before slamming a word...

Oh, and it's not a new word. It originates from approximately 1540. :smokin:

marachne · Mar 14, 2009

oh stanley, you knew i couldn't let this go, didn't you?

citation is used solely for substantiation.
citation
1. the act of citing.
2. a. a quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
b. a source so cited; a quotation.
when defending dissertations they do this solely to make sure that someone in the future reading it can't claim that you have a false assumption or assertion somewhere.
not sure what you mean by this-- in dissertations, just like in morificecripts that go into peer reviewed journals, there is a need to create context -- you discuss what is and isn't known, what has been done and where the gaps are, as well as to explicate your assumptions -- i.e. the theoretical basis for your approach.
however, if the paraphrased content is well known or if you generated the content, as in paraphrasing content from an experiment you conducted you don't necessarily have to.
you're not paraphrasing content if you have created the content.
plus, professors requiring it doesn't necessarily make it law. i've had some that were super strict and some that weren't.
i had one professor that got mad because i didn't have a citation for a mathematical theorum that i came up with myself. he insisted that there be a citation. was he right? not in the least.
all that aside...
if x number of times you don't need citation and y number of times you do then the assertion that one must always cite paraphrased content is false. it all depends on the context and arena.
and again, i will assert that when you are discussing information that is clearly derived from other's work -- you cite them.
professors always harp on this because they are pseudo-intellectuals. real intellectuals don't cite. many of einstein's papers aren't cited because mere tradition doesn't really count for anything.
don't understand this either...
p.s. that's why i despise the idea of dissertations and theses. nowadays they are all regurgitated content. rarely original and even if appearing original are many times things that are obviously there but not put together yet.
there was a time when these things had to be original. as in you didn't graduate unless your thesis/dissertation covered something new and never before seen. this though is yet another symptom of our decaying educational standards.
ok, now you're getting me really hot under the collar -- yes, i've spent the last two years working on the background for my dissertation research study. i have sweated over content that was not, on the whole, my original information because of what i was working on, but rather: background and significance -- what is the context, why should anyone even give a rip about this particular accumulation of knowledge i'm proposing? review of the literature -- what work has been done by others, what their approaches have been, what are the limitations and gaps in that body of work? methods how am i going to conduct this study? and why have i made those choices? even this needs to be cited, because goddess knows i'm no expert in conducting research and others are.
but now i'm done with that (for now). now i have started talking to the nursing i'm going to be my recruiting through. soon, i hope, i'm going to be interviewing my participants and observing them with their dying relative. and i'm going to be analyzing what i see, both in terms of my understanding, work that has been done before, and the feedback i receive from my committee and my peers. but it will be my generated knowledge, my analysis, and my conclusions. and that is exactly what is expected of me.
someone once told me that there was nothing new to invent or discover. i countered with there are plenty of things to discover and invent. we just don't produce smart enough offspring to do so.

absolutely there is plenty more to discover, and i know a boat load of smart people who are doing just that.