As a medievalist, I would like to think that "i.e." and "e.g." are more
widely understood in Latin script languages than "that is" and "for
example" (loose translation). Is there any on-anecdotal evidence that
such is the case?
Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
On Wed, July 17, 2013 3:37 pm, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Kevin said:
>
>>But then don't the words "leaves" and "pages" also constitute
>> Anglocentrism???
>
> Not for Canadian Francophones.
>
> Abbreviations were more likely to be the same; spelling out creates
> differences. The only thing we used to change in collation was "maps"
> to "cartes",
>
> For inclusions such as "that is", the Latin based abbreviations "i.e."
> is more internationally known.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
