How do you quote a passage that has used '[sic]' mistakenly?

Solution 1:

There are three authors involved here:

1. The author of the original quote
2. The author who quoted #1 and added the first "[sic]"
3. The author who is writing the final document (you)

Let's deal with the easy case: If your intent is to quote author #1, simply remove the offending '[sic]'. This omission does not change the meaning of the quoted phrase, and there is absolutely no reason to include it.

It gets more complicated if your intent is to quote author #2. I can think of five main options:

1. Ignore the offending '[sic]' entirely (this is the most sane option)

   "...suppose I write a letter from me to you."

2. Replace the offending '[sic]' with an ellipsis

   "...suppose I write a letter from me ... to you."

3. Add your own '[sic]' after the quoted sentence (as Serodis recommends)

   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]

4. Add a footnote to clarify the situation. This can be used in several different ways. I prefer the first one, but it really comes down to a matter of style

   "...suppose I write a letter from me ¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me to you." ¹
   "...suppose I write a letter from me ...¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic]¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]¹

   ¹: [Author #2] chose to add [sic] after the word me when quoting [Author #1]

5. Describe the offending '[sic]' in words.

   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you". [Author #2] thought that me was incorrect here.
   "...suppose I write a letter from me ([sic] in original) to you". (as proposed by Ariel)

The choice between these options depends on the purpose of your document. I feel that option 1 makes the most sense unless you are writing an academic or legal document that will be highly scrutinized. In those cases, I would prefer options 2 or 4, since they present much less of a mental speed-bump for the reader.

Options 3 and 5 really only make sense if you actually want to draw attention to the '[sic]' itself. This would be the case if you were critiquing author #2. Between these two, I prefer option 5 since it is the most explicit.

Note 1: Oswald points out that [sic] does not necessarily indicate an error in the quoted text, but rather that "the text appears in the source exactly as quoted".

Note 2: Both SLaks and chris propose creative solutions that use changes in typeface to differentiate between each author

Note 3: Rex Kerr has some good information regarding nested quotes

Solution 2:

The usage of '[sic]' is well defined for quoting a passage that you believe has an error in it

This is not the actual meaning. The actual meaning is, that the text appears in the source exactly as quoted. It is used to draw attention to that fact, for whatever reason. An error on the side of the original author is a very common reason, but not the only one.

If I make the same error in every sentence, then a sentence where I do not make that error might just as well be worth a [sic].

If the author you quote from uses [sic] and you use it on his quote, it is not clear who introduced which [sic] (regardless of where you put yours). You cannot remove the [sic] of the original author, because that would distort the intent of the original author. I would therefore go for a footnote on the quoted [sic], that explains the details.

Solution 3:

I don't think you can simultaneously make it clear that the [sic] was used under dubious circumstances and avoid distracting your reader at the same time. It's hard enough to indicate that you're quoting a quote rather than quoting directly--you skipped showing how you accomplished that, actually.

In programming languages, these sorts of nested and interjected formats are common. For example,

"Look at me now!"
"She said \"Look at me [sic] now!\""
"He said \"She said \\\"Look at me \[sic\][sic] now!\\\"\""

is perfectly interpretable to computers, and possibly programmers.

But the logic of what you're trying to convey is so unexpected for English that I don't think there's a compact way to do it that is not confusing.

Thus, I suggest that a footnote is the best way to deal with this situation, along with making it clear that you are quoting someone who is quoting someone else:

According to John, "Jane wrote, 'Look at me [sic]¹ now!'"
¹ [sic] inserted by John

Anyone skipping footnotes will still possibly be under an mistaken impression, but at least they were warned if it's clear it was a quoted quote.

Solution 4:

What about playing with the typeface?

... suppose I write a letter from me [sic] [sic] to you.

In the example above, it's clear that italicised text is the original (2nd author) quote, and the non-italicised text is the 3rd author's addition.

Solution 5:

In court documents it's common to write: (italics in original) So you would write ([sic] in original, but is incorrect).