On 2018-04-01, Joel Kulesza wrote:
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 8:45 AM, racoon <xraco...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 31.03.2018 15:45, Joel Kulesza wrote:
>>> I regret that continually sending URLs about what "fn" means will not
>>> change my mind that (a) fn comes first as "function" and (b) foot->fn is an
>> Abbreviations are contextual and these links feel like selection bias to
>>> me. Clearly, by just using two letters one can mean a lot of things (my
>>> own Google'd URL: https://www.abbreviations.com/FN).
>> Yes, I agree context is important. That is why I send the scholarly texts
>> which LyX is clearly related to.
>> Further, I wonder how translations of just the two letters would work.
>> I don't think English abbreviations on labels should be chosen based on
>> whether they work in other languages as well. It would also be a pretty
>> tricky aim given the variety in languages.
> True, but it is a complicating factor.
We already have different translations in different languages: German, e.g.
uses "Fußnote" == footnote, while Norsk and Swedish use fot == foot.
>> To the remark:
>>> Yes, "footnote" might be better than "foot". But I think there is reason
>>>> to prefer a short labels since labels clutter the text. Hence, I suggest
>>>> "fn" or, maybe, "fn.".
>>> I wonder why you think brevity is preferable to clarity. I suspect
>>> "foot" was attempting to strike a balance. I'd rather see no change than
>>> moving too hard in one direction (brevity) versus the other.
>> The argument was not based on brevity alone. (Though I still consider it a
>> virtue.) There was also the reason for "fn" being a common abbreviation for
>> footnote in texts while "foot" is none. Hence, also, my favoring "footnote"
>> over "foot".
> Understood. I too favor footnote over foot but prefer foot over fn
> (consistent with prior behavior and less ambiguity even if abnormal).
The jury on abbreviating footnote is still out:
The word footnote is not often abbreviated because it is not a very long
word to begin with. However, it could be written as "ftnt" or"footnt".
The abbreviation of "footnote" is "fn." Another variation which may be
used is simply "n."
>> Further, regarding context: because LaTeX can and is used with
>>> mathematics, "fn" could easily be misunderstood as function by a new user
>>> and not taken immediately as a footnote even by an experienced one if
>>> collapsable mathematical insets were to be used.
>> I don't think "fn" is a common abbreviation for function in mathematics.
>> At least I can't remember having come across it in my studies. Do you have
>> any evidence?
> In my undergraduate and graduate math and engineering courses, "fn" for
> function is common. Further, the couple previous replies from Jose and
> Scott that "fn" first felt like "function" (and no replies to counter other
> than yours) are what lead me to this.
I'd say it may be common in engineering and maths for engineers but never
came across fn for function in physics and maths for physicists. This
matches the context given in https://www.allacronyms.com/function/abbreviated:
All Acronyms has 10 abbreviations for Function
Technology, Radio, Electronics
Technology, SPACE, COSMOS
Technology, Electronic engineering, Telecom
Technology, Telecom, SPACE
Medical, Medicine, Healthcare
SPACE, COSMOS, Study
Medical, Medicine, Health
>> The only place I see "Fn" is right in front of me on my keyboard. There it
>> actually stands for "function", so that might be where the connection is
>> coming from. But it is not mathematical at all. Still the connection might
>> be made by enough people. I don't know that.
> Indeed, that's another good instance of fn = function that I hadn't thought