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: Correct usage "i.e." and "e.g." ? From:"Parks, Beverly" <ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> Date:Thu, 7 May 1998 15:59:12 -0700
I'm not arguing that they be used over their English word equivalents.
I'm all for avoiding abbreviations. I just think it is unsubstantiated
to NOT use them on the assumption that readers do not understand them or
because they are Latin abbreviations.
Also, I don't think the reader has to figure anything out. The average
reader probably thinks they are synonymous, or at least so similar in
meaning, that he would not stumble at all, regardless of which one is
used (like the en/em dash comparison).
To your comment, " if the writer has used the incorrect one, the reader
could get distracted from the manual's content by doubting their own
knowledge and maybe going to look it up," I say that could happen with
ANY word or abbreviation. Just as with anything the writer produces, the
responsibility for correctness is on the writer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janice Gelb [SMTP:janiceg -at- MARVIN -dot- ENG -dot- SUN -dot- COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 3:26 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Correct usage "i.e." and "e.g." ?
> Beverly Parks said:
> > The confusion comes in knowing which one to use when (a writer
> > responsibility), not in reading. I think most adult U.S. readers
> > some idea of what i.e. and e.g. mean in context. They may not know
> > the *correct* one was used, but it doesn't affect their
> True -- but why bother trying to figure it out from context? (And, if
> the writer has used the incorrect one, the reader could get distracted
> from the manual's content by doubting their own knowledge and maybe
> going to look it up.) Isn't it clearer for everyone, writer and
> to say "that is" or "for example" directly rather than with a Latin