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/ > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ >