TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Correct usage "i.e." and "e.g." ? From:Mike Stockman <stockman -at- JAGUNET -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 7 May 1998 21:43:37 -0400
On 5/7/1998 5:00 PM, Parks, Beverly (ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL) wrote:
>And why are the Latin abbreviations e.g., i.e., and etc. sometimes
>disallowed, but a.m. and p.m. are accepted? The abbreviations B.A.,
>M.A., and M.D. (to name a few) are also Latin. Are they disallowed? (Not
>picking on Janice here; just asking in general.)
That's an easy one... a.m., p.m., and many other commonly-used Latin
abbreviations don't have common English equivalents... they *are* the
common usage. "i.e." and "e.g." may be common, but "that is" and "for
example" are much more common and straightforward. For "et cetera" or
"etc.", you can argue it either way... I just think "and so on" or "and
other <things you're talking about>" is simpler, and therefore more clear.
When using B.A., M.A., and so on, I'd say what they mean the first time
(in most contexts, anyway). I would never say "No Latin abbreviations" as
a blanket rule... that would be as rigid as having a standards committee
to control the departmental template, or something... ;-)
----->Mike
____________________________________________________________
Internet: stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com AOL: MStockman
