APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-05 > 0989253565


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Citing Sources within Sources
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:39:25 -0500
References: <4.2.0.58.20010506203705.012c2690@127.0.0.1>


In answer to Robert's question, Nedra wrote:
> The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th Edition, recommends citing the original
> source, semi-colon, and the reprinted source, which shows that it was
based
> upon a primary source but that you did not actually view that source. I
> also use a similar style for tombstones which someone else has read.

Nedra may I quibble with you just a wee bit on this? Consider these two
separate situations:

If, as per above suggestion . . .
1. We cite a source (one we haven't actually seen), we follow it with a
semi-colon, then we cite the another source (the one we actually used).

And, as per standard convention for citing multiple sources for one fact . .
.
2. We cite a source we used, we follow it with a semi-colon, then we cite
another source we also used.

In both of those cases, the two sources are separated by a semi-colon.
Exactly the same form is used. So how is the reader to know, in the first
case, that we didn't actually use the first source in the first example?

Wouldn't it be clearer if we follow the practice Cheryl mentioned last
night -- cite what we actually used, then say that that source cites or
quotes such-and-such?

As an example:

Susie Screwball, *Screwball Wills from Doozie County* (Dooziedale: Screwball
Press, 2001), 66, citing Doozie County Will Book 2: 257.

Thoughts?
Elizabeth


This thread: