| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Grammar usage: eg vs ieGrammar usage: eg vs iePosted Dec 11, 2002 21:45 UTC (Wed) by Pananix (guest, #8512)In reply to: Grammar usage: eg vs ie by simon_kitching Parent article: Coming soon: gnucash 1.8 As I'm a bit of kibitzer myself, so I'll see your grammar and raise you punctuation. BTW, I only mildly despise people who correct grammar, and only when their punctuation is hosed ;-). The abbreviations e.g., i.e., et. al., are _always_ followed by a comma. Only your definitions contain the correct punctuation. If you're going to criticize, it would be best to get it all correct: grammar, spelling, and punctuation. (And depending on your source for punctuation, the comma following the word spelling in the previous sentence is correct -- or not.)
(Log in to post comments)
Grammar usage: eg vs ie Posted Dec 13, 2002 15:48 UTC (Fri) by sl70 (guest, #1585) [Link] I'll see your punctuation and raise you pedantry.Technically, there should be no period after the ``et'' in et al., as et (meaning ``and'') is a complete word in Latin. Similarly, etc., back in the old days, was written et c. (with a space and no `.' after et), standing for et cetera (meaning ``and other things''). And if we're going to get REALLY picky (OK, I'm getting really picky), etc. should be used to mean ``and other (inanimate) things'' and et al. (from et alia) should be used to mean ``and other people.'' I find et al. frequently misused where etc. should be used.
|
|
||||||||||||