 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010Time to retire Latin abbreviations, phrases? (e.g. i.e., viz., et al.)
Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and phrases? If we use "e.g." at least a few of our readers might not know what it means. Shouldn't just write "for example" in its place? How about "viz." -- isn't "namely" better? Is "i.e." really any better than "that is"? Wikipedia gives an interesting list of Latin abbreviations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations and Latin words and phrases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Latin_words_and_phrases Now, other things being equal (I will write that instead of *ceteris paribus*), we wish to communicate as clearly as we can with as many people as we can. Are Latin abbreviations useful to that end? Or is their purpose more to advertise that we are educated? Is the introduction of Latin (or French, or Greek, etc.) just an attempt to say, "I'm a smart person who uses the jargon that smart people use (and that non-smart people can't understand)"? Is there really any value in that? (Yes, I realize that I used the Latin "etc." in the previous paragraph, but I think just about everyone knows what that means!) (I seem to recall (at least in my opinion) that William F. Buckley would lapse into Latin when he didn't have a strong argument. I always found this rather silly.) Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. -- Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA) http://www.electoralmaps.org/ Pictorial election results for every U.S. Presidential Election from George Washington to Barack Obama. > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. There is a time in the tides of men--and in communication communities. Since many people now use shorthand "emoticons", and others use "lol"s, then I don't find it unpleasant or puzzling to continue other, older shorthand expressions. The amazing thing to me is that the written forms of speech migrate to the oral forms. O. M. G. > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. Good writers have avoided unnecessary foreign expressions for decades, or generations. In continuous non-technical prose, abbreviations in any language shouldn't be used in body text, and in technical or academic work the writer will, or should, consider his target audience, as one would with rare or specialist words. So I think you may be knocking at an open door.  SignatureMike. Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:36:24 -0000 from Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: > Good writers have avoided unnecessary foreign expressions for decades, > or generations. It wasn't always that way, though. Herodotus and Thucydides were full of Greek phrases. :-) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:36:24 -0000 from Mike Lyle > <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It wasn't always that way, though. Herodotus and Thucydides were full > of Greek phrases. :-) Only because they didn't have the Chicago Manual of Style to guide them. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and >phrases? >If we use "e.g." at least a few of our readers might not know what it >means. »e.g.« is a part of the English language, not of the Latin language, so I do not call it a »Latin« abbreviation. Calling it »latin« might be an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy . It is very common, so readers are recommended to learn what it means. > >Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > >phrases? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > . It is very common, so readers are recommended to learn what > it means. It would be nice if writers learned what "i.e." and "e.g." mean. Too many writers confuse them, or think they mean the same thing, seldom, if ever, using the one that makes sense at the time. I've been recommending for years that the writers I proofread and transcribe for use English instead. Cece filted: >It would be nice if writers learned what "i.e." and "e.g." mean. Too >many writers confuse them, or think they mean the same thing, seldom, >if ever, using the one that makes sense at the time. I've been >recommending for years that the writers I proofread and transcribe for >use English instead. So you'd prefer that instead of "id est", they abbreviate "that is to say"?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Cece filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So you'd prefer that instead of "id est", they abbreviate "that is > to say"?...r That is worth a 10d guffaw! > . It is very common, so readers are recommended to learn what > it means. I didn't immediately realise where that period came from. For one horrible minute I thought we were about to suffer through a new heron infestation. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and >> phrases? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > »e.g.« is a part of the English language, not of the Latin > language, Right. And the same applies to i.e. (The fact that some writers confuse them is irrelevant: they also confuse other words that no one would want to drop.) Likewise etc. On the other hand, terms like viz., scil. and so on are already on the way to disappearing, and they probably won't be missed. et al. is a special case: everybody who reads it knows what it means. People who don't know what it means don't encounter it. Having said that, I'd add that I normally avoid all abbreviations all the time: they don't save much space, not enough to compensate for the (small) barrier to understanding that they erect. Signatureathel > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? ... > Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. In my opinion, efforts to do this represent an extension of the "dumbing-down" of written/spoken English. njg >> Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and >> phrases? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In my opinion, efforts to do this represent an extension of the > "dumbing-down" of written/spoken English. I can old-fogue with the best of 'em; but I'm not sure you have a strong case. How about setting out some examples of foreign words or phrases which are uniquely and usefully expressive, and which haven't been thoroughly naturalized in English? SignatureMike. On Feb 1, 3:24 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > >> phrases? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which are uniquely and usefully expressive, and which haven't been > thoroughly naturalized in English? In my experience, i.e. and e.g. are thoroughly naturalized and not subject to confusion by listeners*. Avoiding them in favor of longer phrases makes as much sense to me as avoiding "A.M." and "etc." in favor of "in the morning" or "and so forth". I'll occasionally hear people complain about them being confusing to others, but I've never heard anyone claim that they are themselves confused. I think the people complaining on behalf of others are conflating commonplace expressions with more obscure ones such as q.v., c.f., or i.a.--they hear someone ask what "q.v." means, make a mental note that "Latin abbreviations are confusing", and wind up casting an overbroad net in their attempts at clarity. There's a middle gray area of things like C.V. and viz. that seem mostly understood but not universally; I'll avoid those (and the more obscure ones) unless I'm sure of the audience. These distinctions obviously vary based on dialect--C.V. may be completely intelligible outside of the US. *They may be occasionally mixed up by speakers or writers, but that's no different from pairs like imply/infer or effect/affect that require the user to know what a word means before using it. > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. The one I would like to see dead and buried is i.e. It seems to be used as a word more and more, rather than as a written abbreviation. The frustrating thing with that is it is used so often when the itended meaning is e.g. > The one I would like to see dead and buried is i.e. It seems to be used as a > word more and more, rather than as a written abbreviation. The frustrating > thing with that is it is used so often when the itended meaning is e.g. Why not "bury" the clueless writers who, in an attempt to "advertise how educated they are" (OP), misuse those abbreviations and phrases. The lasting impression is precisely the opposite. I say: when in doubt, don't try to get fancy; just use plain, standard English phrases. Just my 2 cents (I hope it's all right for a non-native speaker to have a say on the matter). Best regards. SignatureNey André de Mello Zunino On 01 Feb 2010, Ney André de Mello Zunino wrote >> The one I would like to see dead and buried is i.e. It seems to >> be used as a word more and more, rather than as a written [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the opposite. I say: when in doubt, don't try to get fancy; just > use plain, standard English phrases. I think since at least Fowler's day, the general stylistic recommendation hasn't been "when in doubt" -- it's been "opt for the English phrase unless you're cramped for space (as in a footnote)". Sadly, the abbreviations are persistent little beggars. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 01 Feb 2010, Ney André de Mello Zunino wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > recommendation hasn't been "when in doubt" -- it's been "opt for the > English phrase unless you're cramped for space (as in a footnote)". I think that "i.e." and "e.g." serve a purpose. Even when space isn't at a premium, proximity can be helpful. By virtue of their brevity, they keep the subsequent examples or comparatives close to the original terms. They also keep the focus off of the phrase itself and on the more important content. On 01 Feb 2010, sjdevnull@yahoo.com wrote -snip- >> I think since at least Fowler's day, the general stylistic >> recommendation hasn't been "when in doubt" -- it's been "opt [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > close to the original terms. They also keep the focus off of > the phrase itself and on the more important content. Interesting how mileages can differ so much on these things. I have the opposite reaction: "i.e." and "e.g." seem to me to place undue focus on the phrase rather than the content, whereas "for instance/example" strike me as conversational and fairly seamless. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 01 Feb 2010, sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > undue focus on the phrase rather than the content, whereas "for > instance/example" strike me as conversational and fairly seamless. FWIW, I think I agree with you in speech (though I disagree in writing). Pronouncing letters is always a bit stilted and slow. >> On 01 Feb 2010, sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > FWIW, I think I agree with you in speech (though I disagree in > writing). Pronouncing letters is always a bit stilted and slow. I think it depends on the speaker. I use "i.e." regularly in casual speech (and many of my friends do, as well). More interestingly my now-11-year-old appears to have picked it up organically when he was around five or six. I don't recall him ever using it incorrectly, and I'm not sure that he even really realizes that /aI i/ is an abbreviation for anything (although he's probably seen it in print by now), much less be a "foreign phrase". It's just an everyday word. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> FWIW, I think I agree with you in speech (though I disagree in >> writing). Pronouncing letters is always a bit stilted and slow. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >abbreviation for anything (although he's probably seen it in print by >now), much less be a "foreign phrase". It's just an everyday word. When I was five or six, I used to think there were items in the garage called "tubafores"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On Feb 1, 1:28 pm, Ney André de Mello Zunino <zun...@softplan.com.br> wrote: > > The one I would like to see dead and buried is i.e. It seems to be used as a > > word more and more, rather than as a written abbreviation. The frustrating [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Ney André de Mello Zunino Actually, non-native speakers of English often have insights into the language that native speakers do not have (in my experience). Perhaps this is because some of them learned the language as adults, whereas native speakers learned it as children? That might be at least one explanation. (Another reason might be that multilingual people as a group tend to have higher IQs than the general population, at least to a degree. It takes a certain neural skill to learn a second language. (I'm a bit of an "IQ skeptic," but I do think IQ tracks general intelligence, albeit quite imperfectly.) ) I work at a national laboratory in Berkeley, California in which there are about equal numbers of native and non-native speakers of English (there are researchers from all over the world at the lab), and I often find that non-native speakers seem to use the language with greater skill in some respects. Hearing English spoken with a wide range of international accents has always been a joy to me. (For the life of me, I've never understood why some people find this a source of discomfort.) One sometimes hears it said that if you're an American and you hear someone speaking English with a foreign accent, this means that person speaks one more language than you do. Not a universal rule, but true often enough. Thank you for your contribution, and best wishes.... -- Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA) http://www.electoralmaps.org/ Pictorial election results for every U.S. Presidential Election from George Washington to Barack Obama. Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Pictorial election results for every U.S. Presidential Election from > George Washington to Barack Obama. I'm happy with (inter alia) e.g. and i.e. When used properly they give the (true) impression that the speaker is *cultured* and so should be treated with a bit more respect than usual. It's the same mutatis mutandis with other languages, intended to introduce a certain je ne sais quoi into one's Weltanschauung. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > I'm happy with (inter alia) e.g. and i.e. When used properly they give the > (true) impression that the speaker is *cultured* and so should be treated [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply I'm all in favor of injecting a bit of je ne sais quoi into one's Weltanschauung (: ceteris paribus, or course :), but I try to do it sans Latin (the present sentence being a conspicuous exception!) (Then again, when is ceteris really EVER paribus?!?) On another subject, why don't people who use smileys/emoticons use opposite smileys as parentheses (: as I am doing here :) or (-: here :-). Is such a usage contrary to nature or something? Surely I can't be the only one who does this. (More on emoticons here): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon "Wikipedia knows everything, though it knows some things wrongly." Best wishes to all.... -- Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA (inter alia) ) http://www.electoralmaps.org/ Pictorial election results for every U.S. Presidential Election from George Washington to Barack Obama. Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > On another subject, why don't people who use smileys/emoticons use > opposite smileys as parentheses (: as I am doing here :) or (-: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Best wishes to all.... I have used (: a few times, mostly with reference to printing reverse text or to pictures accidentally reversed when printing. I've invented a few emoticons myself e.g. (sorry, for example) scantily clad ladies may be referred to using :)8 or more crudely :):3, while O:) was appropriate for a discussion on one of the services offered by a massage parlour - "halo restorer". To all ice-cream companies out there - I'm willing to consider sensible offers to buy the exclusive rights to :),C> And there's another original - and appropriate - one in my sig, if your browser can handle Greek letters that is. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > I've invented a few emoticons myself e.g. (sorry, for example) scantily clad > ladies may be referred to using :)8 or more crudely :):3, while O:) was > appropriate for a discussion on one of the services offered by a massage > parlour - "halo restorer". OK, I googled "halo restorer" (with the quotes) and got your post quoted here, your similar comment from 2005, and pages about video games (with a comma between the words). Enlighten me. SignatureNo right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] Adam Funk set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> I've invented a few emoticons myself e.g. (sorry, for example) scantily >> clad ladies may be referred to using :)8 or more crudely :):3, while O:) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Enlighten me. Unfortunately the Age of Enlightenment is past. The establishment in question, a massage parlour which was actually called Halo, is no longer a customer of our point-of-sale system, so I no longer have contacts with the company who could provide said enlightenment. It was just one of the "products" that we had to set up as a button on the cash register. No connection with video games except, as you say, with a comma between the words, presumably to refer to bringing a damaged copy of a game (AIUI there is/was a video game called Halo) back into a usable condition. (Or is "Restorer" another video game?) Within the point-of-sale industry HALO is an acronym for "high amount lockout", a fancy expression for the maximum price that can be charged for something, to prevent operator errors. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Unfortunately the Age of Enlightenment is past. The establishment in > question, a massage parlour which was actually called Halo, is no longer a > customer of our point-of-sale system, so I no longer have contacts with the > company who could provide said enlightenment. It was just one of > the "products" that we had to set up as a button on the cash register. Maybe it's better not to know. > No connection with video games except, as you say, with a comma between the > words, presumably to refer to bringing a damaged copy of a game (AIUI there > is/was a video game called Halo) back into a usable condition. (Or > is "Restorer" another video game?) No idea. It seems to come up in lists on (what I think are) warez sites. > Within the point-of-sale industry HALO is an acronym for "high amount > lockout", a fancy expression for the maximum price that can be charged for > something, to prevent operator errors. A coincidence? SignatureTake it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo] Adam Funk set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> Within the point-of-sale industry HALO is an acronym for "high amount >> lockout", a fancy expression for the maximum price that can be charged >> for something, to prevent operator errors. > > A coincidence? Possibly, just as any mention of the *minimum* price, identified by a similar acronym, immediately triggers STS with a certain French composer's Symphonie Espagnole for violin and orchestra. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Adam Funk set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > similar acronym, immediately triggers STS with a certain French composer's > Symphonie Espagnole for violin and orchestra. Nice. SignatureJames "Brett": > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? No. Don't be silly. SignatureMark Brader | "I do not think about things that I do not think about." Toronto | "Do you ever think about things that you *do* think about?" msb@vex.net | --Inherit the Wind, Lawrence & Lee > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is "i.e." really any better than "that is"? There are all sorts of English words that I'd bet fewer people understand than the ones you've used here. Shall we banish them all? Restrict everyone to a third grade vocabulary? Why go through all the bother of learning a language at all? We can always just grunt and point. --Jeff SignatureIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? --Friedrich Nietzsche > Do you think it's time to retire certain Latin abbreviations and > phrases? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Or is their purpose more to advertise that we are educated? � What's wrong with that? I mean, is it worse than advertising your populist common touch? >Is the > introduction of Latin (or French, or Greek, etc.) just an attempt to > say, "I'm a smart person who uses the jargon that smart people use > (and that non-smart people can't understand)"? �Is there really any > value in that? What if those fancy words come naturally to the speaker? Should the speaker erase them from his or her vocabulary, or even memory, in order to please a certain audience? > Your thoughts on this matter are most welcome. True, An Englishman's way of speaking Absolutely classifies him The moment he talks He makes some other Englishmen despise him... ...but wouldn't it be boring if we (y compris the non native speakers) would all speak a uniform standard English highly recommended by the manuals of style? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.