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

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
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