Jump to content

User:W.andrea/drafts/Exempli gratia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"e.g." redirects here. For other uses, see EG.
Look up exempli gratia, e.g., ex. gr., or Appendix:Variations of "eg" in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Exempli gratia (usually abbreviated e.g.) is a Latin phrase that means "for example" or "for the sake of example".[1]

The abbreviation "e.g." is often interpreted (Anglicised) as "example given".[2]

The plural exemplōrum gratiā to refer to multiple examples (separated by commas) is now not in frequent use; when used, it may be seen abbreviated as "ee.g." or even "ee.gg.", corresponding to the practice of doubling plurals in Latin abbreviations.[citation needed]

E.g. is often confused with i.e. (id est, meaning 'that is' or 'in other words').[1]

Writing style

[edit]

Exempli gratiā is usually abbreviated "e. g." or "e.g." (less commonly, ex. gr.).[citation needed]

E.g. is not usually followed by a comma in British English, but it often is in American usage.[citation needed]

Periods (full stops)

[edit]

Some writing styles give such abbreviations without punctuation, as ie and eg.

Assertions, such as those by Bryan A. Garner in Garner's Modern English Usage,[3] that "eg" and "ie" style versus "e.g." and "i.e." style are two poles of British versus American usage are not borne out by major style guides and usage dictionaries, which demonstrate wide variation. To the extent anything approaching a consistent general conflict can be identified, it is between American and British news companies' different approaches to the balance between clarity and expediency, without complete agreement on either side of the Atlantic, and with little evidence of effects outside journalism circles, e.g. in book publishing or academic journals.

There is no consistent British style. For example, The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors has "e.g." and "i.e." with points (periods);[4] Fowler's Modern English Usage takes the same approach,[5] and its newest edition is especially emphatic about the points being retained.[6] The Oxford Guide to Style (also republished in Oxford Style Manual and separately as New Hart's Rules) also has "e.g." and "i.e.";[7] the examples it provides are of the short and simple variety that often see the comma dropped in American usage as well. None of those works prescribe specifically for or against a comma following these abbreviations, leaving it to writers' own judgment.

Some specific publishers, primarily in news journalism, drop one or both forms of punctuation as a matter of house style. They seem more frequently to be British than American (perhaps owing to the AP Stylebook being treated as a de facto standard across most American newspapers, without a UK counterpart). For example, The Guardian uses "eg" and "ie" with no punctuation,[8] while The Economist uses "eg," and "ie," with commas and without points,[9] as does The Times of London.[10] A 2014 revision to New Hart's Rules states that it is now "Oxford style" to not use a comma after e.g. and i.e. (which retain the points), "to avoid double punctuation".[11] This is a rationale it does not apply to anything else, and Oxford University Press has not consistently imposed this style on its publications that post-date 2014, including Garner's Modern English Usage.

By way of US comparison, The New York Times uses "e.g." and "i.e.", without a rule about a following comma – like Oxford usage in actual practice.[12] The Chicago Manual of Style requires "e.g.," and "i.e.,".[13] The AP Stylebook preserves both types of punctuation for these abbreviations.[14]

"British" and "American" are not accurate as stand-ins for Commonwealth and North American English more broadly; actual practice varies even among national publishers. The Australian government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers preserves the points in the abbreviations, but eschews the comma after them (it similarly drops the title's serial comma before "and", which most UK and many US publishers would retain).[15] Editing Canadian English by the Editors' Association of Canada uses the periods and the comma;[16] so does A Canadian Writer's Reference.[17] The government publication The Canadian Style uses the periods but not the comma.[18]

Style guides are generally in agreement that both abbreviations are preceded by a comma or used inside a parenthetical construction, and are best confined to the latter and to footnotes and tables, rather than used in running prose.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b "Word Fact: What's the Difference Between i.e. and e.g.?". blog.Dictionary.com. IAC Publishing. August 19, 2014. Retrieved July 8, 2017.
  2. ^ Brians, Paul (25 May 2016). "e.g. / i.e. | Common Errors in English Usage and More". Washington State University. Archived from the original on 2024-07-26. Retrieved 5 August 2024.
  3. ^ Garner, Bryan A. (2016). "'e.g.' and 'i.e.'". Garner's Modern English Usage (4th ed.). pp. 322–323, 480. This is an internationalized expansion of what was previously published as Garner's Modern American Usage.
  4. ^ Ritter, Robert M., ed. (2003). "'e.g.' and 'i.e.'". Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. pp. 704, 768.. Material previously published separately as The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors.
  5. ^ Burchfield, R. W.; Fowler, H. W., eds. (2004). "'e.g.' and 'i.e.'". Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 240, 376.
  6. ^ Butterfield, Jeremy; Fowler, H. W., eds. (2015). "'e.g.' and 'i.e.'". Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 248, 393. Both should always be printed lower case roman with two points and no spaces.
  7. ^ Ritter, Robert M., ed. (2003). "3.8: e.g., i.e., etc.". Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. pp. 69–70.
  8. ^ "abbreviations and acronyms". The Guardian and Observer style guide. Guardian Media Group/Scott Trust. 2017. Retrieved July 8, 2017.
  9. ^ "Abbreviations". The Economist Style Guide. Economist Group. 2017. Retrieved July 8, 2017.
  10. ^ "'eg,' and ', ie'". The Times Online Style Guide. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved July 8, 2017.
  11. ^ Waddingham, Anne, ed. (2014). "4.3.8: Other uses [of the comma]". New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 79.
  12. ^ Siegal, Allan M.; Connolly, William G.; Corbett, Philip B.; et al., eds. (2015). "'e.g.' and 'i.e.'". The New York Times Manual of Style (2015 ed.). The New York Times Company/Three Rivers Press. E-book edition v3.1, ISBN 978-1-101-90322-3.
  13. ^ "5.250: i.e; e.g.". The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). University of Chicago Press. 2017.
  14. ^ "'e.g.' and 'i.e.'". Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (2009 ed.). Associated Press/Basic Books. pp. 95, 136.
  15. ^ "6.73". Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (5th ed.). Australian Government Publishing Service. 1996. p. 84.
  16. ^ "4.22: Latin Abbreviations". Editing Canadian English: The Essential Canadian Guide (Revised and Updated (2nd) ed.). McClelland & Stewart/Editors' Association of Canada. 2000. pp. 52–53.. States no rule about the comma, but illustrates use with it in §4.23 on the same page.
  17. ^ Hacker, Diana; et al. (2008). "M4-d: Be sparing in your use of Latin abbreviations". A Canadian Writer's Reference (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin's. pp. 308–309. This is a Canadian revision of an originally American publication.
  18. ^ "12.03: Words commonly misused or confused". The Canadian Style (revised and expanded 2nd ed.). Dundurn Press/Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau. 1997. pp. 233–234.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:W.andrea/drafts/Exempli_gratia&oldid=1284790554"