Quoting or Paraphrasing? (1 Viewer)

[Sickle]

If I was told correctly, slipping in quotes is more prefferable with the markers. Even more so if you use them to back up a point you have just made (obviously).

Such a pain though, having to remember quotes, historians, sources and all that crap. Stoopid specifics.

 

[SarahMary]

my teacher's a marker, and he said while exact quotes are good, not everyone can remember all the quotes necessary (who are these people that can???) and so while exact quotes are important, an accurate paraphrasing of a quote will do the job just as well. it's just not the best idea to completely rely on them (ie. use nothing but paraphrasing)

 

[Paroissien]

Now that I can handle. I didn't fancy memorising 10s of 10s of quotes

 

[Will_Sparky]

im not sure why putting a footnote citing the source would make you run out of time...
in terms of structure - you should never have brackets in an essay. EVER. a bracket is an aside - ie. something you've deemed isn't on-topic and important to the essay. so, if it is important, put it in the essay properly. if it's not, why the hell are you wasting your time putting in irrelevant information?

You do the quote then in brakets straight after just the historians surname. ie. (Tacitus)

 

[Paroissien]

Bad idea. It's usually better to work the historian name into your essay. Makes it flow better, or so I believe

 

[gemita]

There's nothing wrong with brackets. Sometimes there is a relevant point which stems from the one you are making, but can't be directly included in the sentence because it would direct what you're saying away from your eventual conclusion. Thus, you need to bracket it as a relevant point but one which is not the endpoint of your original point.

 

[silvermoon]

look, i hear you, and ive had the same argument with ppl over the years - but the thing is, in the end, it IS structurally incorrect to use brackets in an essay. you can get away withit more in an exam, because they understand that its a first draft and you havent got time to plan everything out wonderfully and edit it so that it flows well. with the historians name in brackets thing - someone used it as an example - this is not the correct way to do it, and even if you are using the Harvard footnoting system where you do footnote in brackets after the text there is additional information that needs to be included so that the marker knows that this is not an aside but that brackets are being used, correctly, to denote a footnote.
if the point is relevant, than find a way to include it without using brackets. if it "stems away from what you are saying" then it either isnt relevant or it should be a separate point in a separate paragraph.

 

[angelduck]

Go Rhia Go!
*personal cheeerleading squad makes a comeback*
I knew Harpy would teach us something, even if it was after our trials, so, it didnt really matter, and none of us were listening.......

And i do believe AP Lewis is female, as she is ME!!!!!!

Yes, thats right, the historian is me, me! And, now, to steal all the left shoes....

Oh, and Go ANTI!!! I pledge alligence to our Mod in the hope of not being deleted.

Now for something useful, according to the advice line, whilst you wont loose marks for paraphrasing, nor gain for exact quotes, exact quotes integrated into argument, like in english, with historian/primary source also integrated will sit better with markers, and give you "bonus" marks, as they will think ur smart!!!

This is directly from advice line, and is therefore unquestionable, even though if they give you the wrong advice is your own fault....i dont really understand that, but hgey, im only a duck

*curses education system*

Yep, i was actually trying to make a point there, if you sound smart by integrating quotes etc. into your argument, you'll appear smart. Yep, that makes perfect sense, as long as ur not a duck.......

 

[trekkie]

theres nothing wrong with a name drop, many of the 5-6 exemplars ive looked at have been made up of "Tacitus says" or,"As suetonius records in the twelve caesars" with probably one or two quotes per essay, thats all that ive ever done in exams. Our trial papers were double marked as well, once by our teacher and another time by another one of our history teachers whose a marker and neither of them had any problem with this method, because your referring to sources

Oh and dont believe everything you hear from the advice line, i called the bio one yesterday to ask a question, wanted to just clarify that symplastic/apolplastic loading were how materials are loaded into the phloem vessles in plants not transported, and this guy had no idea what symplastic or apoplastic loading were, suffice it to say i hung up very quickly

 

[persephone]

my ancient teacher said that you shouldn't remember quotes cos it's too hard and takes to long. rather you should paraphrase, which would mean that you would need to have a general idea on the historian's opinions on the person/place/event. if you have a general opinon or idea what they think about something you can basically paraphrase anything that they believe...get it...paraphrase....

 

[silvermoon]

i think most of us paraphrase for the bulk of our argument...or in the case of us MHS gals, have been able to get away with making up the most ridiculuous arguments by putting "According to Egyptologist Gae Callender..." in front - but thats just coz our teacher is an idiot.
trekkie: gadzooks, we dont actually have 2 know that for bio do we??? agh, i have no idea which one it is either...sorry bout the OT everyone.

 

[angelduck]

The OT???

What tha????

Yeah, its great, or by using A P Lewis, funny how in 2 Rome essays she was quoted as believein two contradictory arguments.....

 

[silvermoon]

OT means 'off-topic' and was in reference 2 the bio bit. very sorry...shall never make even rudimentary attempt at politeness again...
lol, u know i luv u duckles...grr, do not like harpy tho. IDIOT!

 

[angelduck]

its true, andmy stupidity provides the comic relief! So lets just leave it at that...

 

[silvermoon]

u know...it also rhymes with OC...and we all know what that stands for. btw, to get back on topic, does anyone write (sic) after their quotes (where appropriate of course)?

 

[angelduck]

nah, i try and integrate the name as well

 

[silvermoon]

what? what does that have to do with my question?? im so lost duck. i wanted to know whether ppl bothered writing (sic) after quotes where appropriate, not whether they integrated the name of the historian into their sentence...*confuzzled*

 

[Paroissien]

What do you mean by (sic)?

 

[silvermoon]

note: not a proper grammatical definition, but im too tired to work one out, so - very roughly:
you write (sic) after a quote, sometimes subscripted but not always, to let people know that this is an exact quote but you know that some of what it says is wrong. Basically two instances where you use it - one is where some of what the person says is right but some is wrong (or where what they say is right but the evidence is wrong), the other is when you're taking the mickey outta them. so, in ancient, you might use it with a quote from an old-school historian who wrote before some new evidence came to light.

 

[Paroissien]

Ahh ok. And no I never do that, and in an exam I don't think it would be necessary or even a good idea