[Jenk]

Polite FYI:

When a statement has many examples it is correct to use "e.g.," which is an abbreviation of _exempli gratia_, which in turn is Latin for "for example." For example: There are many emotions a person may feel, e.g., happiness.

When a statement has only one logical conclusion it is correct to use "i.e.," which is the abbreviation of _id est_ which in turn is Latin for "that is." For example: It was the same colour as a clear summer's day sky, i.e., blue.

[elgenie]

My mnemonic is "i.e." = "in essence" and "e.g." = "example given". The real phrases being abbreviated are, of course, the Latin ones.

[Brian-Puccio]

Mine mnemonic is use e.g. when you could say “for eg-zample” and use i.e. when you could say “that is” — ie to is. Admittedly, the second half isn’t as good as the first. : )

[sumanthvepa]

Loved this. Sure it is language pedantry. But proper grammar really does improve comprehension.

[_carbyau_]

This had me conflicted.

It seems a bit trite to pick on a single element of language out of the whole post. But it was delightfully communicated and factually educational.

TIL.

[teekert]

Til, thanx.

[eagsalazar2]

jeeze please stop! e.g. and i.e. both have come to interchangeably and loosely mean "for example" in the very broadest interpretation. Why? Because way back when people who wrote those things did agree on a specific and distinct meaning for each, a lot of other people who didn't share that understanding co-opted those abbreviations to mean "for example". That interpretation has now exploded in popularity. At this point that simple and shared definition for both is overwhelmingly used and understood by the vast majority of the population - which makes it "right". A historically held understanding of how a word, phrase, or abbreviation was commonly used does not mean that historical belief is right today. That's not how language works. It evolves and that is a good thing. Grammar prissiness is both misguided and futile because language will continue to beautifully evolve no matter how much you try to label that evolution as "incorrect".

[funklute]

> e.g. and i.e. both have come to interchangeably and loosely mean "for example"

It seems you live on a completely different planet to me... "i.e." simply does not mean "for example", and no one who has a good, academic level of English would ever think so.

[eagsalazar2]

I'm not saying anything about what I do or don't know about the meaning of i.e. vs e.g., I'm just saying stand in front of any mall in America and poll people as they go in:

(Q1) "Do you, even occasionally, ever use e.g. or i.e. when speaking or writing?" Almost all people will answer yes.

(Q2) "Can you correctly define these abbreviations and explain their correct usage?" 1 in 10 will answer correctly.

(Q3) You (the interviewer), use one or the other in a sentence, ask people to correctly paraphrase your meaning to see if, in spite of their lack of academic understanding, they are still perfectly capable of understanding you. 9 in 10 will answer correctly.

This, almost by definition, represents linguistic evolution. And that is ok. I would go so far as to argue that "academic level of English" should be rephrased as "academic style of English" and that that stye has zero relationship with any notion of "correctness" at all. Telling the 9/10 from Q2 that they are "wrong" is, again, very misguided and pretty jerky honestly.

[funklute]

> Telling the 9/10 from Q2 that they are "wrong" is, again, very misguided and pretty jerky honestly.

I disagree. I do see your point about linguistic evolution. But I don't think it applies here.

In my native tongue, the word for "and" and the word for "to" (the infinitive marker) are very similar. As a result, tons of people mix the two up. But probably not even the most progressive and liberal linguist would agree that this represents linguistic evolution. It is pretty much universally understood to be symptomatic of a poor technical understanding of the language.

I think the same applies to "i.e." vs "e.g.". They are both used predominantly in academic style or level (whichever you prefer) of English. And in that context, their respective meanings are often quite important for understanding the precise details of a text.

I don't think that paraphrasing a text is a good test here btw - even with an A1 or A2 level of English you can get a pretty good rough understanding. Besides, paraphrasing often loses the precise meaning, which I would argue is to answer incorrectly. Logical hierarchies and implications really do matter when it comes to conveying information, and if not everyone understands the subtleties of the language, the go-to response should be "more education is needed" rather than "let's give up and have all words mean the same thing".

[eagsalazar2]

A more appropriate preamble to gp comment might be "It might be of historical interest to you that e.g originally stood for <blahblah> and meant <blahblahblah> and i.e. <blahblahblah>". It would be even more interesting to include some information about the history of its usage and influences leading to its modern (and perfect acceptable) usage.

[eagsalazar2]

And, in case you think I'm being pedantic here, I'm not making a stink just because I think you are misguided, I'm making a stink because grammar prissiness is a favorite pastime of liberals (which I am BTW) but the real social impact of grammar prissiness is social classism (putting it nicely) and gross racism (putting it less nicely). You nitpick the grammar of your fellow tech bros on HN (which I also am) but when someone goes so far as to say "I ain got nuttin but deeze bags uh sasage", they get this condescending attitude on full blast like "OMG so uneducated and uncultured!!" while failing to recognize that that manner of speaking is a dialect and is most commonly associated with our poorest and most disenfranchised peers. You may not mean it this way but it is equivalent to saying "white rich conformist == right, poor and different == trash".

[6510]

The proper way is to down vote everything that isn't about Ubuntu.

We are all wrong.