It's not about the house.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

I Think I Feel an Attack of Poesy Coming On

In my Ernestine post about an hour ago, I said this (in the context of other things):

"Do you want to hear me chastise myself for op. cit.-ing an ibid.? No. Because no one has used either of those terms in twenty years. "

Then Su said this:

"I know the rule.. you can ibid an ibid but must NEVER ibid an op cit. That is from my butt when I actually had to write documented term papers. Wow I love retirement!"

And now I'm confused.

I know you can ibid. an ibid. (and you can ibid. an ibidded ibid., ad infinitum), but I thought the other rule said that you can ibid. an op. cit. but you can't op. cit. an ibid.

I googled it before I posted it, because I didn't want any smarties out there telling me I was wrong. But I couldn't find the rule. Just lots of definitions of the terms, and lots of pointing out how obsolete I am -- I mean they. Are. How obsolete they are.

This led me to conclude that, if the rule was far enough out of date that even the internet has never heard of it, I could go ahead and make my little joke. That, if I fo'ed it up, no-one would be the wiser.


But this topic is just begging for iambic pentameter, don't you agree? So. If y'all are looking for something to do whilst I break dishes and hurt myself...

Let's have a POEM CONTEST!!!

What is the f-o rule I'm searching for? I know this is a toughie, so I'll be open to three types of entries:

1. You know because you just know (Anyone? All those editory-types out there who sometimes, I think, get drunk and read this blog?).
2. You think you know, because you googled (not easy, though; I tried -- and I am, like, a freaking genius).
3. You don't know, but you can make me laugh.

Don't send more than one of #2, though. We've got enough Number Two around the AssVac as it is.


Janice said...

Nana knows. Sorry dear but neither term was used correctly in that situation. You actually meant ditto. You were repeating an answer, not repeating the citing of a source.

Charlie said...

Hmmm -
I agree with Nana (2008), you really should have ditto'd. But, that aside, I don't see why you can op. cit. an ibid. AND ibid. an op. cit. You seemed to have done it correctly with ibid. refering to the immediately prior, and op. cit. refering to the not immediately preceeding (Chicago Manual of Style Online 16.47, 16.50). The only correction I could suggest is that it should have been idem instead of ibid. because it was from a single work (ibid. 16.49).

EGE said...

No, no. I know.
Janice, Ditto.
Charlie also.
We all so know
How it SHOULD go.
(It was a jo.)

But if I put an ibid. where an ibid. shouldn't go, is it okay to op. cit. it or is that not apropos?

Khurston said...

BUT what will happen if you drink the whole bottle and the entire piece of cake?

theotherbear said...

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There, you feel smarter already, don't you!

braveheart said...

The Chicago would not seem to allow op. cit. in this instance. You are of course referring to this definitive manual, and the rule that apply to end notes, otherwise known as footnotes.

su said...

jeesh chastised again! Uncle

DonnaStaf said...

Khurston~my thoughts EXACTLY! We don't needa to speaka da language likea dem...