I stumbled upon the quote in the OP while seeking the proper use of a term nested inside a bracket that's part of a clause I now wanted put inside a bracket.
The original clause (contrived for this example): yet [not] another donkey
I want to know if [yet [not] another donkey] is proper.
BTW, the word not is purposely italicized in what I'm penning, perhaps making what I seek that much more complex. Thus, it would look like this: [yet [
not] another donkey].
Worse still, it's included in a White Paper I'm penning, thus wanting the overall text as tight as possible so that I could easily be forgiven for a tiny handful of grammatical errors, albeit will be peer reviewed, but heaven forbid my peers thinking I'm an idiot.
In all honesty those kinds of statements baffle me, since (to me) they seem contradictory. I've always understood that a statement made with brackets can be read with or without (what's in) the brackets and still mean roughly the same thing. Therefore, the clause you provided [yet (
not) another donkey] seems to contradict itself, IMO. [Regardless, I (
always) use square brackets outside of round ones. You can see my point of how contradictory it would seem if i used "
never" instead of "
always" in the previous statement.]
Ergo, the quagmire, for its the contradiction that's relevant, hence the 'not' being in italics.
The following is how I currently have it penned.
=========
That voiced at the risk of ridiculousness by assuaging criticism, contrary to the [implied] mere mention of the pseudo-proverbial
The Fall & Fall of Trade Coins, yet [
not comes] another
alt-crypto - ÇoinProLite - destined to perform a sole subsidy function as long as semi-forsaken
sçhitcoins exist: Remonetizing
sçhit on a one-to-one-plus-a-premium basis used primarily to acquire [yet [
not comes] another
crypto] YTC, sequentially procuring [yet [
not comes] other novel
cryptos]
<redacted> of any publisher's
<redacted> numbering in the [possibly tens of] thousands.
=========
("redacted" only used for illustrated purposes in the above)
BTW, this thread nor the above is in any way me trying to get help in penning my copy. This is just a grammar thread to hopefully teach others, each other, and myself tricks of the trade starting with the bracket racket.
I've edited the copy since my last post, hence 'not' is now 'not comes' (in italics). The first and last use of brackets is correct, for the term/phrase could be read as if they're not there, nor am I trying to emphasize the clauses with its use.
I'm also aware that I've broken the said/unsaid cardinal rule of using brackets sparingly, especially embodied in one paragraph, but in this particular case the act could easily be forgiven given the opening clause "at the risk of ridiculousness". The White Paper is being penning in all seriousness, albeit subtle humor is incorporated within, with the exception of the very last word before the references: boo-boos.
Fuck it! Might as well share the boo-boos part in context.
Acknowledgement
We respectably thank Satoshi Nakamoto and subsequent developers whose collective avant-garde work in the cryptocurrency space made <redacted>’s ambitious crypto-commodity vision a realistic possibility.
Withal, we applaud those whom we entrusted advanced copies of this White Paper, generously expending time and expertise toward providing their unique perspectives and duly bringing to light grammatical and structural boo-boos.
==============
In case you thought I forgot, thank you, (oYo), for your valuable input.
