I.e. versus e.g.

By -
It is really annoying when someone confuses "i.e." with "e.g." If you are unsure, just say "in other words" for the former and "for example" for the latter. It really is important. When I read such dolts (i.e. those confusing the two) I want to take drastic measures (e.g. chew a NyQuil).

Comments

  1. Rachael Anne10:53 PM

    If you're going to write posts like this, you should do the ignorant a favor and define the terms clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sheldon Richman7:24 AM

    Better idea: leave Latin in the graveyard. You may know the difference between i.e. and e.g., but can you be sure your reader does? Do you want to risk being misunderstood? Write "that is" for i.e. and "for example" for e.g. Often you don't even have to use those phrases.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah9:01 AM

    Sheldon et al. make a good point when they note that, ceteris paribus, it's much better to interfecit the Latin and, at least a priori, speak English!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy11:00 AM

    Quick responses:

    Rachael, I didn't define them because I don't know what they stand for.

    Sheldon, that's a good point. But just to clarify, I'm not being snooty and saying people ought to use them, I'm just saying if they DO use them, they should know what they mean.

    Gene, I could take your posts a lot more seriously if your picture didn't show you at play.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim Wetzel5:32 PM

    This gives me such a flashback to "Get Shorty." Ray Bones (Dennis Farina): "E.g., i.e., f--k you."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wabulon4:17 PM

    Whatever happened to "viz."? And it's 12:00 m., not 12:00 p.m., f'r Christ's sake (yes, He did visit Japan, read the Book of Mormon if you don't believe me). Verbum quam veritatem malo.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more