Rafael Garcia-Suarez: > On 9/7/05, Mark Jason Dominus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to suggest that Latin is obscure, and latin abbreviations > > are doubly obscure. There is no space constraint that should require > > us to use "e.g." in place of "for example". Using "i.e." in place of > > "that is" is even sillier. (57% sillier, in fact.) > > How do you get that result ? I'm closer to 63.63%.
Using "e.g." instead of "for example" saves 7 characters, which is silly. Using "i.e." instead of "that is" saves only 3 characters, which is 57% fewer. But probably I should have said that since the savings is only 3/7 as great, the silliness is 7/3 as much, or 133% more, not 57%. I do not use these abbreviations in my own writing, and I see no harm in avoiding them. They do not add any expressiveness to the language.
