Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 6
    I am no editor, but looking at that entire article, the first time these words are mentioned, the text uses quotes, the second time it does not. I feel that this is a style choice (somewhere in the NYT internal style guide), and I think it is appropriate. The first is necessary to point to a mention of the word, the second time they are left out as unsightly repetition.
    – Mitch
    Commented Jul 18, 2018 at 19:05
  • 1
    I think there's also a distinction to be made between mentioning words, as in the above example, and quoting specific words, i.e. if the article would have read, critics said "treason" and "traitor" and so on.
    – Mr Lister
    Commented Jul 19, 2018 at 6:15
  • 1
    I think the bigger problem is using "like" when they probably meant "such as" (inclusive rather than exclusive).
    – Toby Speight
    Commented Jul 19, 2018 at 8:50
  • 3
    @TobySpeight You'd be mistaken there. There's nothing wrong with 'like' in this instance.
    – lly
    Commented Jul 19, 2018 at 13:55
  • I misread the title and thought this was about (pronunciation) how the cadence is supposed to change when spoken words are in scare quotes, which when written use 'apostrophes' (?) not "quotes".
    – Mazura
    Commented Jul 19, 2018 at 23:11