Anyone looking to remember the difference: “id est” (that is) vs “exemplī grātiā” (for the sake of an example). You use the first to clarify meaning, and the second to begin a non-exhaustive list of examples.
What matters is ultimately if you can convey your ideas, so using the wrong term is fine when people can still figure out what you meant. But it’s still a good idea to learn the difference, because there will be times when mixing up “i.e.” and “e.g.” will create ambiguity or misunderstanding.
The best idea is maybe to use “for example” or “that is to say”. The former could be abbreviated to “f.ex.” like in Norwegian, and the latter could be abbreviated “t.i.t.s.”
…Alright, on second thought maybe don’t abbreviate that one.
In any case, the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends avoiding use of “e.g.” and “i.e.” in regular running text altogether, saying that these abbreviations are better fit for parentheticals, quotations, citations, tables, and lists. This is because there is no word or character limit on Wikipedia, nor is there on Tumblr, and so the language is more clear when abbreviations are avoided. Even when someone is using “i.e.” and “e.g.” in the prescribed way, that doesn’t guarantee that the reader knows the distinction.
I guess another way to put it is that “i.e.” is more specific while “e.g.” is more general. So “i.e.” carries an energy of “I am referring very specifically to the following” while “e.g.” means “there are other things that I’m not mentioning”. So the use of “i.e.” in the Tumblr post would imply that “tattoo”, “sushi”, and “guillotine” are the only loanwords in the English language.
One gives a definition or clarification and the other is a set of examples. If you do that with a word that your listener has never seen or heard before, you will miscommunicate.
Here watch when I use made up words:
I enjoy multifacetous martialific numbrate (i.e., chess).
If I selected carelessly, does this mean I like games or that I specifically like chess? Maybe here it doesn’t matter, but what if I’m describing a category of things I’m allergic to vs a specific example? It’s worth being able to articulate either case distinctly no?
Not just specific example. i.e. when used in contract law is a limited list of things covered.
Acts of god (i.e. fire or flood) would not include hail or rain or lightning or….
Acts of god (e.g. fire or flood) would include anything you could argue to a judge is an act of god.
If they use ie in a contract, you would first have to argue they didn’t mean to use ie and both parties believes them not to be a complete list, and were supposed to be examples of.
Correct. Literally, and literally all of its synonyms, really, truly, actually, honestly, etc, have been used as intensifiers for hundreds of years. Both for factually true and hyperbolic statements. The real irony is that a real purist against evolving usage of words should stop and look at the word a little harder, it originally was used in regards to literature. Specifically letters, as in correspondence, IIRC. Using it to mean something that is precisely true is just as much a perversion as any meaning that came after that.
The colloquial use is only better when it enhances understanding of what you’re trying to say. Mixing up eg and ie does the opposite and every time you mean figuratively but say literally, an angel is waterboarded.
Post about linguistics, but they used i.e. when they meant e.g.
Anyone looking to remember the difference: “id est” (that is) vs “exemplī grātiā” (for the sake of an example). You use the first to clarify meaning, and the second to begin a non-exhaustive list of examples.
What matters is ultimately if you can convey your ideas, so using the wrong term is fine when people can still figure out what you meant. But it’s still a good idea to learn the difference, because there will be times when mixing up “i.e.” and “e.g.” will create ambiguity or misunderstanding.
The best idea is maybe to use “for example” or “that is to say”. The former could be abbreviated to “f.ex.” like in Norwegian, and the latter could be abbreviated “t.i.t.s.”
…Alright, on second thought maybe don’t abbreviate that one.
In any case, the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends avoiding use of “e.g.” and “i.e.” in regular running text altogether, saying that these abbreviations are better fit for parentheticals, quotations, citations, tables, and lists. This is because there is no word or character limit on Wikipedia, nor is there on Tumblr, and so the language is more clear when abbreviations are avoided. Even when someone is using “i.e.” and “e.g.” in the prescribed way, that doesn’t guarantee that the reader knows the distinction.
I remember “eg” as “example given” and “ie” as “in explanation”. Nice mnemonic ways imho
I remember it as eg-zample.
what is the point of the distinction even? ‘that is’ make sense to introduce an example and vice versa
To add to the explanations, here are some examples that might help:
There are various transportation methods, e.g. cars
There are various transportation methods, i.e. ways for a person to move from one location to another
I guess another way to put it is that “i.e.” is more specific while “e.g.” is more general. So “i.e.” carries an energy of “I am referring very specifically to the following” while “e.g.” means “there are other things that I’m not mentioning”. So the use of “i.e.” in the Tumblr post would imply that “tattoo”, “sushi”, and “guillotine” are the only loanwords in the English language.
One gives a definition or clarification and the other is a set of examples. If you do that with a word that your listener has never seen or heard before, you will miscommunicate.
Here watch when I use made up words:
I enjoy multifacetous martialific numbrate (i.e., chess).
If I selected carelessly, does this mean I like games or that I specifically like chess? Maybe here it doesn’t matter, but what if I’m describing a category of things I’m allergic to vs a specific example? It’s worth being able to articulate either case distinctly no?
Not just specific example. i.e. when used in contract law is a limited list of things covered.
Acts of god (i.e. fire or flood) would not include hail or rain or lightning or….
Acts of god (e.g. fire or flood) would include anything you could argue to a judge is an act of god.
If they use ie in a contract, you would first have to argue they didn’t mean to use ie and both parties believes them not to be a complete list, and were supposed to be examples of.
ie and eg are colloquially synonyms like literally and figuratively
Which are literally not synonyms though.
Correct. Literally, and literally all of its synonyms, really, truly, actually, honestly, etc, have been used as intensifiers for hundreds of years. Both for factually true and hyperbolic statements. The real irony is that a real purist against evolving usage of words should stop and look at the word a little harder, it originally was used in regards to literature. Specifically letters, as in correspondence, IIRC. Using it to mean something that is precisely true is just as much a perversion as any meaning that came after that.
Ugh, you’re one of THOSE…
The colloquial use is only better when it enhances understanding of what you’re trying to say. Mixing up eg and ie does the opposite and every time you mean figuratively but say literally, an angel is waterboarded.
In conclusion: stop torturing angels.
Is a post about linguistics colloquial?