i.e. vs. e.g.

[Ceri Davies]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:47:24AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday 09 September 2004 03:51 am, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 06:27:13PM -0600, Warren Block wrote:
> > > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > >Apologies in advance for coming over all schoolmaster like, but I've
> > > >noticed a few instances where I believe that people are confusing the
> > > >terms "i.e." and "e.g.", and so here's a little reminder/summary:
> > > >
> > > >	i.e. can be read as "that is to say".
> > > >
> > > >	e.g. can be read as "for example".
> > >
> > > The FDP says to avoid contractions.  Maybe these should be avoided in
> > > the same way.
> >
> > I think that would be overkill, and if we stopped doing things that we
> > did wrong occasionally then there wouldn't be much of FreeBSD left ;-)
> >
> > I was "just saying" really.
> 
> The reason for avoiding contractions though is to avoid confusing non-native 
> readers, and I think that that's a good argument for spelling out i.e. as 
> "that is", and e.g. as "for example" as well unless this type of idiom is 
> common to more than just English.

There's no need to stop using these parts of the language just because
people sometimes use them incorrectly.  Non-native speakers who have
never seen these terms before will have bigger problems.

Ceri
-- 
It is not tinfoil, it is my new skin.  I am a robot.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/attachments/20040909/8a9b3bc8/attachment.sig>