2

Is it true that people are generally unfamiliar with abbreviations like "i.e." and "e.g." and therefore it is best to avoid using them in technical writing?

Avoid abbreviations such as “i.e.” and “e.g.” (Many people don’t know what they mean.)

I saw this advice at https://www.dartlang.org/articles/doc-comment-guidelines/.

user7610
  • 315
  • 1
  • 13
  • 1
    related https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/211492/is-it-best-to-avoid-e-g – user7610 Oct 21 '15 at 19:29
  • 1
    As expected, ngram confirms that "for example" is more frequent than "i.e." or "e.g.". But only twice more: Authors don't share the assumption that "Many people don’t know what they mean". – Graffito Oct 21 '15 at 19:57
  • 1
    I believe that any writer has a duty to assume that their readers are literate and at least as well-informed as are they. Otherwise society enters on a downhill spiral to the lowest common denominator of mankind. That is a process known as dumbing down and explains why we eat what passes for food in fast restaurants, and drink what passes for coffee in miserable coffee houses. Many of the population simply don't know any better and won't do while people keep serving it to them.. – WS2 Oct 21 '15 at 20:04
  • It is true that people have very different skill levels in reading any language; remember, the majority of humans are illiterate. Many people do, however, use these abbreviations, often correctly. If you are unsure about how to use them, therefore, don't use them. If you are writing for people with little education, probably not. But in technical writing, technical terminology is necessary and proper. – John Lawler Oct 21 '15 at 20:22
  • @JohnLawler are you saying that these abbreviations are technical? I'd have to disagree, and of course they aren't necessary because they can be replaced with a couple of words. – Matt Samuel Oct 21 '15 at 20:29
  • Depends on the technicality, I'd say. And anything can be replaced by a couple of words. – John Lawler Oct 21 '15 at 20:32
  • I should have added to my own diatribe 'and keep reading miserable tabloid newspapers rather than journalism of quality'. – WS2 Oct 21 '15 at 20:32
  • In my humble opinion, they should never be used because they are not abbreviations of English expressions. There's no reason to use either. Instead of "i.e", you can simply write "that is" or "to wit". – William Oct 21 '15 at 21:26
  • 1
    @William Why? Latin has a critical part in the history of the language we speak. Deliberately eliminating it from view is Orwellian. It is like saying you have no interest whatever in who your great-grandfather was. – WS2 Oct 21 '15 at 22:56
  • @William It's as English as "et cetera". Native English speakers (e.g. I) use it, therefore it is part of the language. – Parthian Shot Oct 22 '15 at 00:05
  • @WS2 That's a huge misconception. No, Latin actually has nothing to do with English, and is not even a distant cousin and much less a great-grandfather. Needlessly using Latin expressions (e.g, i.e, ergo, per se..ad nauseum) for the the purpose of sounding lofty or educated does not add substance to writing. – William Oct 22 '15 at 14:53
  • @Parthian The logic that if some native speakers use it, it's English, is why English has become a jargon of foreign words that is almost unrecognizable in some registers. There is absolutely no reason to use italicized French or Latin expressions or abbreviations in writing. Those who are enamored with the idea shouldn't even bother with English at all; they should just write in Latin or French and let English be English. – William Oct 22 '15 at 15:10
  • @William But English has never been anything other than a hybrid hotch-potch. It has produced some of the world's finest literature, I will grant you that, and vast amounts of it. But it would be quite ridiculous not to accept the role that Latin and the Romance languages have played in the development of English - not least through the huge component of Norman French. It would seem parochially-minded in the extreme to restrict what we use simply to something described as English - whatever that is. Include Latin, Greek, Chinese - anything which works and allow your expression to flower – WS2 Oct 22 '15 at 15:35
  • @WS2 There is such a thing as a native English word, meaning one not taken from some foreign language. Latin and Greek are foreign languages not related to English. The reason that the Latin expressions "et cetera, exemplia gratia, id est" and their abbreviations are not widely understood and frequently misused is not because people are stupid nor because "society is in a downward spiral" but because those are not English words, and they make no intuitive sense to English speakers. We don't speak Latin, and in my stylistic opinion, it shouldn't be needlessly included in English writing. – William Oct 22 '15 at 16:14
  • 1
    @William ...But what you aren't getting is that English hasn't been English for over a thousand years. It already is Latin and French and German and Greek and a number of other languages. That's what etymology is about. The word "thug" for instance, is pretty obviously English. It's not even particularly uncommon (especially if you've ever cracked a comic book), but it comes from the Hindi name for a sect of Kali worshipers. Is it Hindi? Sure. Is it also English? Also yes. – Parthian Shot Oct 23 '15 at 20:44

2 Answers2

5

i.e. - from Latin "id est," stands for "that is." e.g. - from Latin "exempli gratia," stands four "such as," "for instance."

They're pretty common. Folks who don't know what they mean, well, maybe it's time they found out. One must not pander to the ignorant.

"In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” George Washington. Farewell Address, 1796).

Ricky
  • 20,450
4

Avoid abbreviations such as “i.e.” and “e.g.” (Many people don’t know what they mean.)

The problem with this statement is that it is neither quantified nor backed up with any research. How many is 'many'? Is it 70% of people? 20% of people? 1% of people? The word many just indicates a guess by the person who wrote the article.

Maybe the writer has met one or two people that didn't understand and has generalised to the whole population based purely on his/her own experience.

The truth of the matter is that there are many people who do not know what 'abbreviation' means, that don't know what a document is or don't know what a sentence is.

You have to draw your own arbitrary line according to how educated you think your readers are. I am sure that anyone answering here understands the abbreviations. So does anyone who has a reasonably good education.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of effort to write things in full. Unless of course you repeatedly have to use the expressions in the same document.

chasly - supports Monica
  • 37,215
  • 1
    Most people these days are conditioned to get resentful when they encounter something they don't understand. Many (ha, ha) speakers (and authors), being aware of this, "dumb down" whatever they have to say in fear that someone might not like them. Yes, but, as a Nobel Prize for Literature winner once said, "I don't mind not being liked by everybody. I'm not a banknote." – Ricky Oct 21 '15 at 21:31
  • 1
    @Ricky, Yes unfortunately people are accustomed to being resentful about almost anything -- if possible with an eye to suing someone. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? It's incredible to me that someone who can understand something like, *
    "* and all kinds of computing jargon, can't cope with a simple two-letter abbreviation like "e.g."
    – chasly - supports Monica Oct 21 '15 at 21:48
  • @Ricky The best part of that, of course, being that anti-capitalists hate bank notes. – Parthian Shot Oct 23 '15 at 20:47
  • @Ricky Dude, I love the quote...who's it from? – michael_timofeev Oct 27 '15 at 04:55