i.e. vs. e.g.

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-09-10 11:13, Peter Pentchev <roam at ringlet.net> wrote:
> > The reason for avoiding contractions though is to avoid confusing
> > non-native readers, and I think that that's a good argument for
> > spelling out i.e. as "that is", and e.g. as "for example" as well
> > unless this type of idiom is common to more than just English.
>
> I have a gut feeling that pretty much all languages probably have
> "predefined", often-used contractions for "that is" and "for example";
> I can certainly vouch for Bulgarian and Russian.

Same for Greek.  We have at least 3 similar "well-known" contractions; one
of them is used as a substitute of both `i.e.' and `e.g.'.

I don't think that we should avoid altogether the use of i.e./e.g.  Adding
a note to the FDP Primer, with the excellent explanation of their different
meaning that Ceri posted earlier on this thread, is definitely a good idea
though.

Just my $0.02,

Giorgos