David Landgren wrote on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:13:22 +0200
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Following on from Steve Peters' id est is i.e. peeve:
One ponders just how many peters one might (not) be discussing here? :-)
(Hint: an apostrophe is *never* pronounced as anything whatsoever. How can
an entire generation have forgetten this? See S&W Rule #1.)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/perl5-porters@perl.org/msg89902.html
FYI, Mr Peters's complaint there reads:
> Sorry, but this is a pet peeve. The proper abbreviation for
> "id est" is "i.e.", not "ie." or "ie". ARRRAGAGAFASD!
> Sorry, I feel better now. Attached is a patch to fix the included
> pod files.
>I was struck by one of my own: exempli gratia being abbreviated to eg or
>eg., rather than e.g.
The obscure marketeering pun of pronouncing "e.g." as "free sample(s)" to
attract the instinctive penny pinchers notwithstanding, I was taught that
one pronounces "i.e." as "that is", "e.g." as "for example". The truly
perplexing phenomenon--those not living in glass houses might even venture
to call it risible--is when people in extemporaneous speech pronounce these
abbreviations aloud and letter by letter, saying "ee gee", or "aye ee".
And I'm not talking about saying "etcee" in /etc/passwd. It's really
rather peculiar, don't you think?
I am hardly wishing to attempt to justify the use of B<eg> and <ie>. I use
them, but this is more out of reflexive habit than conscious decision, for
I believe Mark to be more right than otherwise about their dubious
appropriateness in non-Latin documents. Hysterical porpoises needn't
always be appeased, merely recognized.
However, I *would* like to dispel(l) an apparent confusion regarding what
punctuation--if any--must, may, can, and perhaps even should accompany
these abbreviations. Vide infra^W^WSee below.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| The bottom line is that standards vary, and orthographic(al) |
| correctness becomes no more than an exercise in accepting and |
| adhering to some particular standard. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
All plumbed sources concurred that commas must follow these abbreviations,
but what dots you should throw in depend on whom you cite. From heavy to
light, three such standards are:
(1) O'Reilly requires the heavy-handed double-dotted versions, "i.e."
and "e.g.", which to my mind are more trouble than they're worth.
This one appears to be the treatment favored by American publishers.
(2) Some authorities prefer single-dotted versions, "ie." and "eg.",
which do seem more cohesive to my eye.
(3) Still others use no dots at all. Here I cite from the style
guide currently used by _The_Economist_ magazine (but which they
themselves yet call a newspaper):
Use lower case for B<kg>, B<km>, B<lb> (never B<lbs>), B<mph> and
other measures, and for B<ie>, B<eg>, which should both be followed
by commas. When used with figures, these lower-case abbreviations
should follow immediately, with no space (B<11am>, B<4.30pm>,
B<15kg>, B<35mm>, B<100mph>, B<78rpm>), as should B<AD> and B<BC>
(B<76AD>, B<55BC>), though they should be set in small capitals.
Two abbreviations together, however, must be separated: B<60m b/d>.
http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673905
While I have personally come to prefer the tidier versions over those
mandated by O'Reilly, I've certainly not always been of that bent, so
historical writings may reflect not foolish inconsistency so much as
different stages in the development of my current and as always
unabashedly idiosyncratic preferences of personally proper punctuation.
--tom
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
