Correct typesetting of ``i.e.'' et ``et al'' ?
Bernhar...@lien.uhp-nancy.fr
as I am writing a my masters thesis, I often write ``i.e.'' in sentences
like `` The car is red, i.e. the same color as a tomato'', and ``et al''
as in `` This red car has been entirely described by John Smith et al
[Smi93]''.
I wonder how to typeset correctly i.e and et al. Is is italic, are there
points, how large are the spaces, are there commas before or after? You
are welcome to tell me everything you know about correctly typesetting
these two abbreviations ;)
Best,
Bernhard
Adam Funk
> Hello,
>
> as I am writing a my masters thesis, I often write ``i.e.'' in sentences
> like `` The car is red, i.e. the same color as a tomato'',
IMHO:
The car is red, i.e.~the same color as a tomato
or
The car is red, \emph{i.e.}~the same color as a tomato
The first is more modern, the second more traditional (possibly now
considered old-fashioned). The tie is important because (I have been told)
a line should not end with a "." unless it marks the end of a sentence.
If you put a comma after "i.e.", you don't need the tie:
The car is red, i.e., the same color as a tomato
> and ``et al''
"al" should be "al." since it's an abbreviation for "alii".
Bob et al.~told me so.
Bob \emph{et al.}~told me so.
> as in `` This red car has been entirely described by John Smith et al
> [Smi93]''.
The natbib package (and some others) will do this for you, depending on the
options you use:
described by \citet{smith:fnord}
> I wonder how to typeset correctly i.e and et al. Is is italic, are there
> points, how large are the spaces, are there commas before or after? You
> are welcome to tell me everything you know about correctly typesetting
> these two abbreviations ;)
My *opinion* is that you should use commas around "e.g.", "i.e." and "et
al." just as you would around "for example", "that is" or "in other words",
and "and others".
jan.ri...@gmail.com
\newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}
and then in the body put:
It was last year, \ie\ in 1845.
Jan.
Steven Endres
wrote in message news:d86ua6$ka6$1...@arcturus.ciril.fr...
I, too, am writing my thesis, so I empathize with you as you face this
predicament. The most important consideration is to be able to defend
whatever rules of writing you use. If your university has a particular style
guide they want you to follow, follow it explicitly. Then, you can always
point to the appropriate section in the guide they require and you're off
the hook! If they don't have a preferred style, I recommend the 15th edition
of the Chicago Manual of Style because of its comprehensiveness. Chicago
makes the following recommendations:
According to §7.56, "commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not
be italicized." This would include all common Latin abbreviations such as et
al. (et alli[masculine], et aliae[feminine], or et alia[neuter]-"and
others"), i.e. (id est-"that is"), e.g. (exempli gratia-"for example"),
ibid. (ibidem-"in the same place"), op. cit. (opere citaro-"in the work
cited"). The only exception explicitly stated by Chicago is sic (thus),
which, "because of its peculiar use in quoted material is best italicized."
It would be a misssteak [sic] to leave this Latin word in Roman type.
The requirements for spacing are less clear. In general, Chicago in §15.45
seems to omit spaces from "double abbreviations"- such as i.e. and e.g.-
while retaining the space for expressions in which the first word is
complete-like in et al. and ad inf. (ad infinitum-to infinity). But some
other "double abbreviations are shown typeset while retaining the space. For
example, op. cit., cet. par. (ceteris paribus-"other things being equal"),
and loc. cit. (loco citaro-"in the location cited) are shown with spaces.
So, I would stick religiously with whatever your style guide uses.
Also, if you have a period followed by a space and the period is not the end
of a sentence, it's good practice to use a tilde ~ instead of the space.
LaTeX inserts more space between sentences than between words unless you
invoke \frenchspacing. So, it could introduce extra space where it's not
needed, like in the middle of op. cit.
With regard to comma usage, temporarily substitute the English equivalent
for the Latin abbreviation and the punctuation should become clear to you.
As a matter of personal preference, I would not use et al. when referring to
people in my body text. I prefer
The work of Hasselhoff, Bleeth, and others (2001) clearly shows the
viability of swimsuit models as a form of entertainment.
to
The work of Hasselhoff, Bleeth, et al. (2001) clearly shows the
viability of swimsuit models as a form of entertainment.
but
Previous research (Hasselhoff, Bleeth, et al.2001) suggests that
continuously running on scorching sand prevents athlete's foot.
is fine by me.
Good luck with the thesis!
Steven
Juergen Spitzmueller
> IMHO:
> The car is red, i.e.~the same color as a tomato
I'd say:
The car is red, i.\,e.\ the same color as a tomato
Jürgen
Adam Funk
I can see the point of the thin space between "i." and "e.". But your
example could produce a line break between "e." and "the" -- I thought
that was A Bad Thing?
Donald Arseneau
> `` The car is red, i.e. the same color as a tomato''
Italic or not depends on local style, but these days practically
everyone has settled on using not italic (having accepted "i.e."
as part of English).
I don't normally see a space (or even a thin space) in it.
Some avante-garde (*that* might be italic) publishers omit
the periods, writing "ie", but I rarely see that; it is not as
common as writing "dr" for "doctor".
What *is* necessary is a comma, for proper sentence punctuation!
You can see that by writing the words in full:
The car is red, that is, the same color as a tomato.
The car is red, i.e., the same color as a tomato.
The "et al." does retain its space. It may or may not be italic;
rarely italic but more often than "i.e." is. I sometimes see it
without the period. Since it is not automatically followed by a
comma, you should watch for unwanted space after the period. You
should prevent a line break in the middle, and before.
Wheeler~et~al.\ claim that
--
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Marc Cooper
<snip> Good post.
I'd disagree with using commas around, such as, i.e., e.g., et al.
Indeed, I'd consider it illiterate. Personally, I would place such
clarifications and asides in parentheses. Outside of parenthesese I'd
use the full English, so to speak: For example: That is.
Thus,
The car is red, i.e.~the same color as a tomato
or
The car is red, i.\,e.\ the same color as a tomato
both set my teeth on edge.
--
Best,
Marc (Pedant)
Marc Cooper
> The car is red, i.e., the same color as a tomato.
Eugh!
The car is red (i.e. the same color as a tomato).
--
Best,
Marc (Pedant)
Timothy Murphy
> Some avante-garde (*that* might be italic) publishers omit
> the periods, writing "ie", but I rarely see that; it is not as
> common as writing "dr" for "doctor".
I agree, ie I would not use any periods,
as recommended eg by George Bernard Shaw.
On the other hand, a thesis is not written in normal English.
Perhaps it would be better to write \ie
and ask dr Arseneau how to ensure it got a space after it.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Adam Funk
> Donald Arseneau wrote:
>
>> Some avante-garde (*that* might be italic) publishers omit
>> the periods, writing "ie", but I rarely see that; it is not as
>> common as writing "dr" for "doctor".
>
> I agree, ie I would not use any periods,
> as recommended eg by George Bernard Shaw.
He was also an advocate of radical spelling reform, but I wouldn't write my
thesis that way.
Juergen Spitzmueller
> I can see the point of the thin space between "i." and "e.". But your
> example could produce a line break between "e." and "the" -- I thought
> that was A Bad Thing?
I never heard of this rule.
Jürgen
Will Robertson
> Donald Arseneau said...
>
> > The car is red, i.e., the same color as a tomato.
>
> Eugh!
>
> The car is red (i.e. the same color as a tomato).
Eugh!
"(that is the same color as a tomato)"?
Surely not.
The car is red (that is, the same colour as a tomato).
This thread has been interesting. I've generally been told that Latin
abbreviations tend to obscure the flow of a sentence or whatever, a
sentiment I agree with to an extent. Generally, I have something like
\newcommand\foreign[1]{\emph{#1}}
\newcommand\ie{\foreign{i.e.}}
\newcommand\eg{\foreign{e.g.}}
\newcommand\etal{\foreign{et~al.}}
\newcommand\etc{\ifnextchar.{\foreign{etc}}{\foreign{etc.\@}}}
% add the period if not used at the end of a sentence
in my preamble, (I would prefer consistency for italicising all
non-English words when writing in English, but I'm no authority) but I
often change these along the way to
\newcommand\ie{that is}
\newcommand\eg{for example}
The most important thing, in my opinion, is to do it with macros so you
can change your mind later on.
Will
Paul Vojta
Will Robertson <email.will...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... (I would prefer consistency for italicising all
>non-English words when writing in English, but I'm no authority)
But: \textit{i.e.,} \textit{e.g.,} \textit{et al.,} et al.~are
English words \emph{now} (albeit of Latin origin). They're in your
English dictionary, aren't they?
--Paul Vojta, vo...@math.berkeley.edu
Timothy Murphy
> On the other hand, a thesis is not written in normal English.
> Perhaps it would be better to write \ie
> and ask dr Arseneau how to ensure it got a space after it.
As dr Arseneau has not told me what to do,
may I ask if there is any way of completing
\newcommand{\ie}{...} so that there will be a space inserted after
where required (I guess always)?
I would find it rather annoying to have to write \ie\ .
Marc Cooper
Here, here. Italicising i.e. and e.g. is repugnant - the obvious caveat
aside. I would question the authority of the author if I saw such a
thing.
--
Best,
Marc
Marc Cooper
> Marc Cooper wrote:
> > Donald Arseneau said...
> >
> > > The car is red, i.e., the same color as a tomato.
> >
> > Eugh!
> >
> > The car is red (i.e. the same color as a tomato).
>
> Eugh!
>
> "(that is the same color as a tomato)"?
> Surely not.
> The car is red (that is, the same colour as a tomato).
That's not what I said ;-)
However:
The car is red (i.e. the same color as a tomato).
is not equal to:
The car is red (that is, the same colour as a tomato).
Nor is equal to:
The car is red (that is the same colour as a tomato).
You appear to be making the mistake of translating "i.e." to be a
literal replacement for "that is", which it is not.
> This thread has been interesting. I've generally been told that Latin
> abbreviations tend to obscure the flow of a sentence or whatever, a
> sentiment I agree with to an extent.
How bizarre?
> Generally, I have something like
>
> \newcommand\foreign[1]{\emph{#1}}
> \newcommand\ie{\foreign{i.e.}}
> \newcommand\eg{\foreign{e.g.}}
> \newcommand\etal{\foreign{et~al.}}
> \newcommand\etc{\ifnextchar.{\foreign{etc}}{\foreign{etc.\@}}}
> % add the period if not used at the end of a sentence
>
> in my preamble, (I would prefer consistency for italicising all
> non-English words when writing in English, but I'm no authority) but I
> often change these along the way to
>
> \newcommand\ie{that is}
> \newcommand\eg{for example}
Well, there y'go. These are not equivalents in the written word.
--
Best,
Marc
Robin Fairbairns
>Will Robertson <email.will...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>... (I would prefer consistency for italicising all
>>non-English words when writing in English, but I'm no authority)
>
>But: \textit{i.e.,} \textit{e.g.,} \textit{et al.,} et al.~are
>English words \emph{now} (albeit of Latin origin). They're in your
>English dictionary, aren't they?
if i didn't have the oed searchable i wouldn't have found i.e. and
e.g. -- they're not head words. et al. _does_ have its own entry -- a
veritable upstart of a phrase (the earliest quoted reference is 1883).
--
Robin (http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq) Fairbairns, Cambridge
Robin Fairbairns
>As dr Arseneau has not told me what to do,
>may I ask if there is any way of completing
>\newcommand{\ie}{...} so that there will be a space inserted after
>where required (I guess always)?
>
>I would find it rather annoying to have to write \ie\ .
you could always read my faq.
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=xspace
Adam Funk
I don't remember where I learned that; if I find it I'll post it.
I have however found this similar rule.
http://noether.vassar.edu/physastro/vjmp/Guidelines.html
--> Figures are referenced as "Fig.~\ref{label}" and equations
--> as "Eq.~\ref{label}", unless they appear at the beginning of
--> a sentence, in which case there is no abbreviation. Tables
--> are referenced as "Table~\ref{label}". Note the tie "~"
--> after the period to prevent splitting across lines.
Timothy Murphy
>>may I ask if there is any way of completing
>>\newcommand{\ie}{...} so that there will be a space inserted after
>>where required (I guess always)?
> you could always read my faq.
>
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=xspace
I do, Robin, I do.
It is my favourite reading after Tony Blair's speeches.
Though the example in this case
\newcommand{\restenergy}{\ensuremath{mc^2}\xspace}
strikes me as somewhat bizarre.
Robin Fairbairns
>Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=xspace
>
>I do, Robin, I do.
>It is my favourite reading after Tony Blair's speeches.
is it _that_ bad? where do dubya's speeches appear in your bedtime
reading?
>Though the example in this case
>
> \newcommand{\restenergy}{\ensuremath{mc^2}\xspace}
>
>strikes me as somewhat bizarre.
you only have to think of its author to understand why.
David Klassen
> You appear to be making the mistake of translating "i.e." to be a
> literal replacement for "that is", which it is not.
Ahhh...OK, so, why isn't it?
Michael Prager
>You appear to be making the mistake of translating "i.e." to be a
>literal replacement for "that is", which it is not.
Many would disagree with you on that point, including the three
(U.S.) reference books on style that I've consulted. They all
consider "i.e." a literal abbreviation for "that is" and specify
a comma after the abbreviation.
British author often seem to eliminate many commas, including
this one. The answer may depend on where the OP's writing will
appear.
--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.
Adam Funk
> You appear to be making the mistake of translating "i.e." to be a
> literal replacement for "that is", which it is not.
Well, literally "id est" means "it/that is", but I think (and I think we
agree) that "i.e." should be treated as equivalent to "in other words".
Brooks Moses
> Paul Vojta said...
> > But: \textit{i.e.,} \textit{e.g.,} \textit{et al.,} et al.~are
> > English words \emph{now} (albeit of Latin origin). They're in your
> > English dictionary, aren't they?
>
> Here, here. Italicising i.e. and e.g. is repugnant - the obvious caveat
> aside. I would question the authority of the author if I saw such a
> thing.
If you're going to make a big deal out of being a pedant elsewhere in
this thread, you really should write that (correctly) as "Hear, hear".
:)
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Marc Cooper
> Marc Cooper wrote:>
> > Paul Vojta said...
> > > But: \textit{i.e.,} \textit{e.g.,} \textit{et al.,} et al.~are
> > > English words \emph{now} (albeit of Latin origin). They're in your
> > > English dictionary, aren't they?
> >
> > Here, here. Italicising i.e. and e.g. is repugnant - the obvious caveat
> > aside. I would question the authority of the author if I saw such a
> > thing.
>
> If you're going to make a big deal out of being a pedant elsewhere in
> this thread, you really should write that (correctly) as "Hear, hear".
> :)
The subtleties of irony, eh?
Are you doing the same by placing "correctly" incorrectly in
parentheses?
--
Best,
Marc (Pedant - it's a big deal that I'm make apparently)
Will Robertson
Which would still require a comma to separate it from whatever phrase
it is you're "in other wordsing"...
Will
blm...@myrealbox.com
bernhar...@lien.uhp-nancy.fr <Bernhar...@lien.uhp-nancy.fr> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>as I am writing a my masters thesis, I often write ``i.e.'' in sentences
>like `` The car is red, i.e. the same color as a tomato'', and ``et al''
>as in `` This red car has been entirely described by John Smith et al
>[Smi93]''.
>I wonder how to typeset correctly i.e and et al. Is is italic, are there
>points, how large are the spaces, are there commas before or after? You
>are welcome to tell me everything you know about correctly typesetting
>these two abbreviations ;)
It seems that you're getting a nice range of replies. If you want to
get yet more opinions about the punctuation aspects (commas or no)
as opposed to the typesetting aspects (spacing), you might ask this
question in alt.usage.english. "FYI", as they say.
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Chung-chieh Shan
For one thing, "The car is red (that is the same color as a tomato)." is
perfectly grammatical (with "red" as the antecedent for "that"), if only
revisable to "The car is red. (That is the same color as a tomato.)".
Of course, i.e. not the only argument against translating "i.e." to be a
literal replacement for "that is". Perhaps "i.e." is only "that is" in
a certain sense, but someone who argues i.e., I think, responsible for
specifying the sense i.e. required.
Me, I avoid "i.e." altogether and write "that is," or "in other words,".
--
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
Mothers are the necessity of invention. --Bill Watterson
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
s a tomato).
>
> You appear to be making the mistake of translating "i.e." to be a
> literal replacement for "that is", which it is not.
Well, as far as I recall my high school latin, it actually is: id = that
and est = is.
Robin Fairbairns
um...?
>> You appear to be making the mistake of translating "i.e." to be a
>> literal replacement for "that is", which it is not.
>
>Well, as far as I recall my high school latin, it actually is: id = that
>and est = is.
you appear to be assuming that direct translation is the way of
derived phrases. it isn't; may be in this case, though marc's
argument is persuasive.
sure, the phrase may have meant what the original latin meant, when
first adopted into the english language, but that could well have been
5 centuries ago. we know that significant differences are observable
between two variants of english that separated about 2 centuries ago,
so why should "i.e." not have changed over 5?
Steven Endres
news:3h49ftF...@individual.net...
> It seems that you're getting a nice range of replies. If you want to
> get yet more opinions about the punctuation aspects (commas or no)
> as opposed to the typesetting aspects (spacing), you might ask this
> question in alt.usage.english. "FYI", as they say.
>
> --
> | B. L. Massingill
> | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Just for kicks I emailed the Chicago Manual of Style staff asking when they
use a space in the abbreviation and when they exclude it.
Their answer was, "We look in the dictionary."
So there you go...
Steven
Adam Funk
>> Well, literally "id est" means "it/that is", but I think (and I think we
>> agree) that "i.e." should be treated as equivalent to "in other words".
>
> Which would still require a comma to separate it from whatever phrase
> it is you're "in other wordsing"...
I'm not sure about that. I would punctuate after "i.e." according to how
I'd say "in other words...", so I'd write "...was tomato-coloured, i.e.
red" because I wouldn't pause there.
I think this is highly subjective, however.
Adam Funk
I still haven't found documentation for this "rule"---which now appears
to be my personal notion---, but "Hart's Rules for Compositors and
Readers at the University Press Oxford" (1967, 37th edition) includes
the following rules under "Spacing".
If possible, avoid (especially in full measures) printing at the ends
of lines---a, l., ll., p., or pp.
Do not divide intials: W. E. | Gladstone not W. | E. Gladstone.
No spaces to be placed between lower-case abbreviations, as in e.g.,
i.e., q.v.
So that official reference agrees and disagrees with me about different
aspects of this question.
I would put ties in "W.~E.~Gladstone", because somewhere along the road
I picked up the idea that a line shouldn't end with "." unless it marks
the end of a sentence because it might mislead the reader.
I'm cross-posting this to alt.usage.english in search of further
opinions.
Donald Arseneau
> I'm not sure about that. I would punctuate after "i.e." according to how
> I'd say "in other words...", so I'd write "...was tomato-coloured, i.e.
> red" because I wouldn't pause there.
Odd. I couldn't imagine saying "in other words red" without pause.
I would write a comma whether using "i.e." or "in other words".
--
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Adam Funk
Hmm. I've just repeated it out loud a few times and I am pausing between
"words" and "red" but very briefly.
OK, I can't justify not putting the comma after "i.e." --- it's just my
personal preference.
Ross Howard
>I would put ties in "W.~E.~Gladstone", because somewhere along the road
>I picked up the idea that a line shouldn't end with "." unless it marks
>the end of a sentence because it might mislead the reader.
>
>I'm cross-posting this to alt.usage.english in search of further
>opinions.
If breaking a surname and its initials is absolutely unavoidable (by
which I mean having pleaded with the writer/editor for an extra word
to be able to drop the initials down a line), then I think the hyphen
could be misleading.
This is okay, because the hyphen is part of the name:
According to J.-
P. Sartre....
But not this:
According to J.-
P. Morgan....
That said, if there was the slightest chance that you could get away
with dumping house style for the sake of the readers' sanity, you
might be able to gain a character by dumping the full points in the
initials:
According to JP
Morgan....
which may not be pretty, but unlike the other options at least it
looks vaguely comprehensible!
--
Ross Howard
Adam Funk
> On 24 Jun 2005 02:47:38 -0700, "Adam Funk" <a24...@yahoo.com> wrought:
>
>>I would put ties in "W.~E.~Gladstone", because somewhere along the road
>>I picked up the idea that a line shouldn't end with "." unless it marks
>>the end of a sentence because it might mislead the reader.
>>
>>I'm cross-posting this to alt.usage.english in search of further
>>opinions.
>
> If breaking a surname and its initials is absolutely unavoidable (by
> which I mean having pleaded with the writer/editor for an extra word
> to be able to drop the initials down a line), then I think the hyphen
> could be misleading.
>
> This is okay, because the hyphen is part of the name:
Sorry to mislead: those "~" in my example are not hyphens but non-breaking
spaces in the markup used by the LaTeX and TeX typesetting programs, which
we were discussing in comp.text.tex.
Ross Howard
wrought:
Ah, sorry. I was reading/posting from alt.usage.english.
Only comment, get down on your knees and plead with the editor for
more/fewer characters!
--
Ross Howard
eromlignod
Most style guides call for no spaces between letters of such Latin
abbreviations. There are periods after each letter and they are
usually followed by a comma.
In the old typewriter days of my youth I can remember high school
teachers insisting that we underline (the old typewriter equivalent of
italics) these terms in addition to other Latin terms like "et al",
"ibid" and "idem", since they are foreign. Now, however, this is
usually taboo. I suppose this makes sense for ordinary literary terms
since we must draw the line somewhere. Otherwise we'd be italicizing
"etc.", "vs.", etc.
Don
Kansas City
Karl Berry
"eg" that have been discussed in this incredibly long thread. It is
apparent that there are different conventions in different
countries/cultures, so we generally don't try to unify them, just make
sure they are consistent within a given paper. Different authorities
say different things, there is no "one true way".
Personally, I write "e.g.," and "i.e.,", with no internal space and a
comma following.
HTH,
karl
Robert Bannister
> Most style guides call for no spaces between letters of such Latin
> abbreviations. There are periods after each letter and they are
> usually followed by a comma.
There is a very good reason for omitting the full stops with
abbreviations like ie and eg, as was posted earlier. These days, most of
us use word processors, and if you use full stops, there is a good
chance that the will get split up. I realise, of course, that you are
referring to American style guides, but the danger is still there.
--
Rob Bannister
John Harper
I don't use American style guides, being a New Zealander. The NZ Style
Book recommends i.e. and e.g. but op. cit. not op.cit. for reasons
unclear to me. It also suggests that degree abbreviations should be
B.Sc., Ph.D. etc. but this university decided some years ago to save
a little ink with BSc, PhD etc. Why would anyone use a word processor
so badly written that they were forced either to say eg and ie or to
accept line breaks between e. and g. and between i. and e.? I edit
files with emacs and process words with LaTeX.
John Harper, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science,
Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
Peter Flynn
> Brooks Moses said...
>> Marc Cooper wrote:>
>> > Paul Vojta said...
>> > > But: \textit{i.e.,} \textit{e.g.,} \textit{et al.,} et al.~are
>> > > English words \emph{now} (albeit of Latin origin). They're in your
>> > > English dictionary, aren't they?
>> >
>> > Here, here. Italicising i.e. and e.g. is repugnant - the obvious caveat
>> > aside. I would question the authority of the author if I saw such a
>> > thing.
I agree if the periods are retained. However, ie and eg italicised without
periods is acceptable -- I used it for a publication a few years ago and
it passed without comment (but I was using Garamond, where the italic
slant is variable, and the distinction from upright is very obvious). But
it really isn't needed -- these abbreviations have become sufficiently
absorbed into host languages not to need distinguishing.
>> If you're going to make a big deal out of being a pedant elsewhere in
>> this thread, you really should write that (correctly) as "Hear, hear".
>> :)
>
> The subtleties of irony, eh?
Don't use irony on Usenet :-)
> Are you doing the same by placing "correctly" incorrectly in
> parentheses?
No, he's just making me sic.
///Peter
--
sudo sh -c "cd /;/bin/rm -rf `which killall kill ps shutdown mount gdb` *
&;top"
Marc Cooper
> Marc Cooper wrote:
Damn (US trans.: darn), I lost track of this thread.
> > Brooks Moses said...
> >> Marc Cooper wrote:>
> >> > Paul Vojta said...
> >> > > But: \textit{i.e.,} \textit{e.g.,} \textit{et al.,} et al.~are
> >> > > English words \emph{now} (albeit of Latin origin). They're in your
> >> > > English dictionary, aren't they?
> >> >
> >> > Here, here. Italicising i.e. and e.g. is repugnant - the obvious caveat
> >> > aside. I would question the authority of the author if I saw such a
> >> > thing.
>
> I agree if the periods are retained. However, ie and eg italicised without
> periods is acceptable -- I used it for a publication a few years ago and
> it passed without comment (but I was using Garamond, where the italic
> slant is variable, and the distinction from upright is very obvious).
LOL Cunningly disguised italics. Now that's style!
> But
> it really isn't needed -- these abbreviations have become sufficiently
> absorbed into host languages not to need distinguishing.
Ah, but it's the thin edge of the wedge. Next you'll be condoning Im and
Id, or worse, im and id. It's a one way spiral into oblivion.
> >> If you're going to make a big deal out of being a pedant elsewhere in
> >> this thread, you really should write that (correctly) as "Hear, hear".
> >> :)
> >
> > The subtleties of irony, eh?
>
> Don't use irony on Usenet :-)
Or is it Google Groups, or googlegroups, as many folk have renamed them.
Bring back gopher, I say.
> > Are you doing the same by placing "correctly" incorrectly in
> > parentheses?
>
> No, he's just making me sic.
:-)
--
Best,
Marc
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> I can see the point of the thin space between "i." and "e.". But
>> your example could produce a line break between "e." and "the" -- I
>> thought that was A Bad Thing?
>
> I never heard of this rule.
I still haven't quite found the rule I made up^W^W mentioned earlier,
but Lamport's LaTeX book says in "Preventing Line Breaks" in S.2.2.1
that "Line breaking should be prevented at certain interword spaces."
and gives the following examples, which are inclined towards what I
said.
Mr.~Jones
U.~S.~Grant
Figure~7
from 1 to~10
(1)~gnats
rmagere
No, they are not. From my point of view those examples are trying to keep
something that is `one concept' together so that the reader mental task is
facilitated.
Instead you are claiming that there should be no interword line braking
after i.e. only because of the dot which, I assume, you think might be
mistaken as a end of sentence full stop (impossible in my opinion given that
you the dot is integral to the concept i.e. or e.g.).
Both i.e. and e.g. are self-standing concepts they might act as introduction
to another idea but so does `but', `and' etc. and you do not stop line
braking between them and what comes after.
As you said yourself [in another post] you might not put a comma after i.e.
and e.g. but you do pause [although briefly] after them when you read them
in sentences; I am sure that you do not put such pause between the words in
the examples above.
Adam Funk
>> I still haven't quite found the rule I made up^W^W mentioned earlier,
>> but Lamport's LaTeX book says in "Preventing Line Breaks" in S.2.2.1
>> that "Line breaking should be prevented at certain interword spaces."
>> and gives the following examples, which are inclined towards what I
>> said.
>>
>> Mr.~Jones
>> U.~S.~Grant
>> Figure~7
>> from 1 to~10
>> (1)~gnats
>
> No, they are not. From my point of view those examples are trying to keep
> something that is `one concept' together so that the reader mental task is
> facilitated.
I see your point, but I still think the above rules are based on aesthetics
as well as keeping concepts together.
I've just seen LaTeX -- in otherwise identical examples -- break
"Figure~12" and "Figure 12" as
"Fig-|ure 12" and "Figure|12", respectively.
If Lamport considered it important to keep the whole of "Figure 12" on the
same line (as opposed to merely preventing the break before "12") then he
would have told us to use "\mbox{Figure 12}".
> Instead you are claiming that there should be no interword line braking
> after i.e. only because of the dot which, I assume, you think might be
> mistaken as a end of sentence full stop (impossible in my opinion given
> that you the dot is integral to the concept i.e. or e.g.).
I agree and I retract my claim that lines shouldn't end in "." when it isn't
a full stop just in order to prevent misreading. I do however still think
there's an aesthetic case against such line breaks.
Naturally this is a matter of taste and opinions are bound to differ!
Enrico Gregorio
> I've just seen LaTeX -- in otherwise identical examples -- break
> "Figure~12" and "Figure 12" as
> "Fig-|ure 12" and "Figure|12", respectively.
> If Lamport considered it important to keep the whole of "Figure 12" on the
> same line (as opposed to merely preventing the break before "12") then he
> would have told us to use "\mbox{Figure 12}".
Not at all; this would give uneven spacing between words in the line.
If you don't want to hyphenate a word, then /that/ word must be enclosed
into a \mbox:
\mbox{Figure}~12
is the correct way. Or, since references to figures should be through
the \label-\ref system, you can use a command such as
\newcommand{\figureref}[1]{\mbox{Figure}~\ref{#1}}
relieving you from all burdens and leaving to the final revision
the managing of possible bad line breaks. There you can decide whether
resort to "Fig-|ure~12" or "Figure|12" or, better, suitably change the
text.
Ciao
Enrico
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I've just seen LaTeX -- in otherwise identical examples -- break
>> "Figure~12" and "Figure 12" as
>> "Fig-|ure 12" and "Figure|12", respectively.
>> If Lamport considered it important to keep the whole of "Figure 12" on
>> the same line (as opposed to merely preventing the break before "12")
>> then he would have told us to use "\mbox{Figure 12}".
>
> Not at all; this would give uneven spacing between words in the line.
> If you don't want to hyphenate a word, then /that/ word must be enclosed
> into a \mbox:
>
> \mbox{Figure}~12
>
> is the correct way. Or, since references to figures should be through
> the \label-\ref system,
Good points. But even using "Figure~\ref{sec:foo}" allows LaTeX to
hyphenate Fig-|ure, so Lamport (whom I would consider an expert!) must
think that "Fig-|ure 12" is OK but "Figure|12" is not.
Enrico Gregorio
> Enrico Gregorio wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [CUT]
>
> Good points. But even using "Figure~\ref{sec:foo}" allows LaTeX to
> hyphenate Fig-|ure, so Lamport (whom I would consider an expert!) must
> think that "Fig-|ure 12" is OK but "Figure|12" is not.
Well, it /is/ OK. Someone reading the paragraph will go
to the next line in order to find the reference to the
figure and will not look, maybe wrongly, to the figure
just above it.
If you are fussy about not hyphenating "Figure", then
the solution is available. "Figure|12" is definitely
wrong.
Ciao
Enrico
PB
Adam Funk a écrit :
> On Wednesday 08 June 2005 19:25, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk wrote:
> >
> >> IMHO:
> >> The car is red, i.e.~the same color as a tomato
> >
> > I'd say:
> > The car is red, i.\,e.\ the same color as a tomato
>
> I can see the point of the thin space between "i." and "e.". But your
> example could produce a line break between "e." and "the" -- I thought
> that was A Bad Thing?
I thought \, would create a half non-breakable space ?
If it is so, there is no risk of line break...
Patrick