Post about linguistics, but they used i.e. when they meant e.g.
Anyone looking to remember the difference: “id est” (that is) vs “exemplī grātiā” (for the sake of an example). You use the first to clarify meaning, and the second to begin a non-exhaustive list of examples.
What matters is ultimately if you can convey your ideas, so using the wrong term is fine when people can still figure out what you meant. But it’s still a good idea to learn the difference, because there will be times when mixing up “i.e.” and “e.g.” will create ambiguity or misunderstanding.
The best idea is maybe to use “for example” or “that is to say”. The former could be abbreviated to “f.ex.” like in Norwegian, and the latter could be abbreviated “t.i.t.s.”
…Alright, on second thought maybe don’t abbreviate that one.
In any case, the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends avoiding use of “e.g.” and “i.e.” in regular running text altogether, saying that these abbreviations are better fit for parentheticals, quotations, citations, tables, and lists. This is because there is no word or character limit on Wikipedia, nor is there on Tumblr, and so the language is more clear when abbreviations are avoided. Even when someone is using “i.e.” and “e.g.” in the prescribed way, that doesn’t guarantee that the reader knows the distinction.
I remember “eg” as “example given” and “ie” as “in explanation”. Nice mnemonic ways imho
I remember it as eg-zample.
what is the point of the distinction even? ‘that is’ make sense to introduce an example and vice versa
To add to the explanations, here are some examples that might help:
There are various transportation methods, e.g. carsThere are various transportation methods, i.e. ways for a person to move from one location to another
I guess another way to put it is that “i.e.” is more specific while “e.g.” is more general. So “i.e.” carries an energy of “I am referring very specifically to the following” while “e.g.” means “there are other things that I’m not mentioning”. So the use of “i.e.” in the Tumblr post would imply that “tattoo”, “sushi”, and “guillotine” are the only loanwords in the English language.
One gives a definition or clarification and the other is a set of examples. If you do that with a word that your listener has never seen or heard before, you will miscommunicate.
Here watch when I use made up words:
I enjoy multifacetous martialific numbrate (i.e., chess).
If I selected carelessly, does this mean I like games or that I specifically like chess? Maybe here it doesn’t matter, but what if I’m describing a category of things I’m allergic to vs a specific example? It’s worth being able to articulate either case distinctly no?
Not just specific example. i.e. when used in contract law is a limited list of things covered.
Acts of god (i.e. fire or flood) would not include hail or rain or lightning or….
Acts of god (e.g. fire or flood) would include anything you could argue to a judge is an act of god.
If they use ie in a contract, you would first have to argue they didn’t mean to use ie and both parties believes them not to be a complete list, and were supposed to be examples of.
ie and eg are colloquially synonyms like literally and figuratively
Which are literally not synonyms though.
Correct. Literally, and literally all of its synonyms, really, truly, actually, honestly, etc, have been used as intensifiers for hundreds of years. Both for factually true and hyperbolic statements. The real irony is that a real purist against evolving usage of words should stop and look at the word a little harder, it originally was used in regards to literature. Specifically letters, as in correspondence, IIRC. Using it to mean something that is precisely true is just as much a perversion as any meaning that came after that.
Is a post about linguistics colloquial?
Ugh, you’re one of THOSE…
The colloquial use is only better when it enhances understanding of what you’re trying to say. Mixing up eg and ie does the opposite and every time you mean figuratively but say literally, an angel is waterboarded.
In conclusion: stop torturing angels.
And then there’s Zangendeutsch, where germans replace every single loanword with a calque. It doesn’t matter how much sense it makes, all that matters is that it’s technically correct.
SPRICH
DEUTSCH
DU
ABKÖMMLING
DES
MINISTERPRÄSIDENTEN
Love how all these accounts are from feddit.de
HUANSN
I kinda love that about German though. In Dutch we don’t do that and I feel like it’s approaching silly levels with the English words we just take over as is, even if there is or could be a much better Dutch alternative. With how much we want to be America and how badly we want to be relevant it just seems very try-hard, while Chad Germany is confident in its language and culture and doesn’t need to bend to Angelsaksisch gebrabbel.
I also very much love to translate things literally, I mean word by word instead of the meaning. My friends very, very much hate it. It’s glorious.
curated tumblr is the best sub on reddit and lemmy
curated lemmy is the best blog in tumblr
It will be a memorable day when I see on Lemmy a screenshot of a Twitter, Tumblr or Reddit post screenshotting Lemmy.
A facebook post screenshot of a tumblr post of a twitter screenshot of a reddit screenshot of a threads screenshot of a lemmy post. Also known as the social media singularity.
Hey Japan? Yeah we already have three discreet words for “savory,” “meaty,” and “delicious” - you can have your ambiguous catch-all back.
Which one is that? Umami?
It is.
Sure but having a singular catchall for the phenomena around that taste is actually better and I would argue more discrete (wait wtf is it discrete or discreet?). Imagine if we had to describe the fundamental tastes like this:
- Salty
- Sweet
- Sour
- Bitter
- Savory, meaty and delicious
discrete
That’s the correct one for your usage of it.
Except that you can have savory that isn’t meaty, meaty that isn’t savory, and deliciousness is 100% subjective, so I’m afraid your logic for replacing 3 different English adjectives with one Japanese one is fundamentally flawed. If anything, Japanese needs to pick one definition and import some new words to make up the difference.
Or just admit that the languages work differently and that what works for Japanese doesn’t work for English, and trying to make it fit just sounds pretentious.
I guess I’ve never put enough thought into it to feel the term was pretentious. Based on my understanding of what the term was describing, I figured that the Japanese had just come up with a good bow to put on a complex flavor that is difficult to sum up succinctly in English. Calling the flavor “meaty” is not very complete at all because really what is being described is not a meat flavor but something that often is paired with meat flavoring. Mushrooms have umami, and beef jerky, and cheddar cheese, and ghee, yet none of these things taste much of anything alike.
You’re right that something can be meaty but not savory, and to your defense I should not have claimed “deliciousness” as a component of umami—that’s not really a taste descriptor but a preference. I find tart green olives to be delicious (and incredibly savory) but my fiance hates them. But the point about savoriness and meatiness is that they are both just incomplete, adjacent terms to describe a particular flavor profile missing in English. Savory is probably the closest match, but even so could something be umami and not savory?
Very sneaky, those words are
Does guillotine count as a loanword when it’s actually named after someone? That’s like saying pasteurise is a loanword because Louis Pasteur was French, even though the word is clearly just his name
Fun fact about the guillotine, it’s not named after the person who ‘invented’ it (there were other iterations outside of France). Or well, it was briefly, it was called the louisette after Antoine Louis, but the guy named Guillotin was just the person who proposed using it as a more humane way to carry out the death penalty instead of the more brutal breaking wheel at the very beginning of the French Revolution.
While I’d say no in English, the word is at least a loan word in Spanish
“Did anyone notice the funny that you could literally only guess at?”
Odd way to write.
Well, it is obvious that calque is not a calque. But I did not care to notice that until it was pointed out explicitly.
“…I did not care to notice…”
English is my second language. How should it be written instead?
I don’t think it was wrong. In fact, it’s such a good phrase that I’m going to incorporate it into my vocabulary
Neurodivergence.
Orca is a much better name for killer whales
Felt like I was having a déjà vu when watching Tom Scott’s latest video (https://youtu.be/TFpzps-DCb0) but I dug a bit deep to find where I read it. He spoke about the same thing!
He totally saw this meme when it was doing the rounds
You borrowed the wrong word for killer whale. In Swedish its “lard stabber” and that is a infinitely better name.
This hurts my brain.
