or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Outdated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Outdated?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Someone informed me that no one used the devices, ibid, loc.cit, and op.cit, anymore for footnotes, etc. Have they become the grammatical equivalents of typewriters, and carburetors? Is this true?
post #2 of 22
Ibid is still all over the place. The others are quite rare in modern scholarship.
post #3 of 22
Latin outdated? Or have people just become stupider and lazier in a largely post-literate world?
post #4 of 22
Ibid. is still around. Don't see loc.cit and op.cit around much though.
post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
I can't imagine why op.cit. and loc.cit. are rare as they're quite practical.
post #6 of 22
I think i see op cit sometimes...I haven't seen loc cit though. (In fact I don't know what it means.)

We had to learn ibid and op cit in high school, maybe earlier, for writing papers.

More recently I've written papers that contained the 'footnote' inside the text, i.e. (Campbell, p. 23). That seems pretty useful to me - you don't have to flip to the back of the book/paper. In those instances I would reserve the superscripted numbers and footnotes for actual expository notes that don't belong in the text itself.
post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 
The loc.cit device is used in lieu of op.cit when it is referring back to a work previously cited, and the same pages but with a break in the middle. Joyce, James. Dubliners(Publisers) p.12 Ibid. p.45 Milton, John. Paradise Lost(Publishers) p.14 Joyce. op.cit., p.87 Milton. loc.cit.
post #8 of 22
so with the loc.cit (and also the op.cit, i guess), it's understood that the reader knows which source (Joyce versus, say, Eliot, whose footnote appears even earlier)?
post #9 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by faustian bargain
so with the loc.cit (and also the op.cit, i guess), it's understood that the reader knows which source (Joyce versus, say, Eliot, whose footnote appears even earlier)?
I believe for numerous references, the author's name is given unless idem for a different text but same author consecutively is used. As in: Mann, Thomas. Buddenbrooks(Publishers) p.98 Id. Death in Venice(Publishers) p.87 Mann. op.cit. p.23 Grass, Gunter. The Tin Drum(Publishers)p.90 Mann. loc.cit.
post #10 of 22
Oh, I use them sometimes; merely because I am anachronistic. However, that is almost a sure sign that their death knell has already sounded. Most of the time I am compelled to use those horrid paranthetical citations (MLA 2006, 13). If that is not a stupid idea, I don't know what is, for they break up, and unnaturaly pause, otherwise elgant prose. Some of my Profs actually care more about the spirit of the notes rather than worshiping at the altars of form that are the MLA and APA; I pour my soul into work for them. Regards, Huntsman
post #11 of 22
I rarely have the opportunity to write footnotes, but I jump at the chance to include "e.g., i.e., et. al., p.s, vs., Ph.D., A.D., A.M.", etc. in my informal memos and emails.

I was a Latin dweeb in high school. Now it seems only to be of use when doing the NY Times crossword.
post #12 of 22
Carburetors are still alive and well in many street and race machines. Many EFI systems can't hold up to the level of minute control provided by an "analog" throttle system.
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
Someone informed me that no one used the devices, ibid, loc.cit, and op.cit, anymore for footnotes, etc. Have they become the grammatical equivalents of typewriters, and carburetors?

Is this true?


My field doesn't use footnotes for citations so they (those thigns you mention) are rare. Ibid is one I never see. Op cit is more common. I'm honestly not heard of/seen loc. cit.

bob
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
I believe for numerous references, the author's name is given unless idem for a different text but same author consecutively is used. As in: Mann, Thomas. Buddenbrooks(Publishers) p.98 Id. Death in Venice(Publishers) p.87 Mann. op.cit. p.23 Grass, Gunter. The Tin Drum(Publishers)p.90 Mann. loc.cit.
see, even in that instance: does 'Mann. loc.cit.' refer to 'Death in Venice' or to 'Buddenbrooks'? It might be confusing, unless the context of the footnote, in the body of the text, makes it apparent which book is being referenced.
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntsman
.... Most of the time I am compelled to use those horrid paranthetical citations (MLA 2006, 13). If that is not a stupid idea, I don't know what is, for they break up, and unnaturaly pause, otherwise elgant prose. ....
Point well taken. Luckily for me, I'm not an academic so I don't have to grapple with these issues.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Outdated?