TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: ie and eg From:John Engler <spillman!jengler -at- UUNET -dot- UU -dot- NET> Date:Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:21:54 -0700
I agree that these abbreviations are not extremely difficult to
understand, although I'm *certain* the distinction between the two of
them eludes the *average* reader. But that's not why I don't use them.
I don't use them because I try to write as though I'm talking
(verbalizing) with my readers, a sort of dialogistic approach. And I
would never say "ie" or "eg" if I were talking with them, so I don't use
them when I write either. Why take the chance that they might not
understand, or that it might distract, when I've got a simple way to
eliminate that possibility?
jengler -at- spillman -dot- com
Spillman Data Systems, Inc.
P.S. (See, I'm not against abbreviations altogether) I emphatically
disagree with the implication that an audience who doesn't understand (or
like) ie or eg is illiterate.