Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:14:25 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Ceri Davies <ceri@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: i.e. vs. e.g. Message-ID: <20040912181425.GC1047@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <20040910081323.GB2296@straylight.m.ringlet.net> References: <20040908201737.GG44674@submonkey.net> <20040908182322.L1034@wonkity.com> <20040909075121.GJ44674@submonkey.net> <200409091047.25148.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20040910081323.GB2296@straylight.m.ringlet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-09-10 11:13, Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> wrote: > > 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. > > I have a gut feeling that pretty much all languages probably have > "predefined", often-used contractions for "that is" and "for example"; > I can certainly vouch for Bulgarian and Russian. Same for Greek. We have at least 3 similar "well-known" contractions; one of them is used as a substitute of both `i.e.' and `e.g.'. I don't think that we should avoid altogether the use of i.e./e.g. Adding a note to the FDP Primer, with the excellent explanation of their different meaning that Ceri posted earlier on this thread, is definitely a good idea though. Just my $0.02, Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040912181425.GC1047>