Re: Incorrect use of "it's" in package control files -- file mass bug?
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 12:00:29AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Mike Hommey <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:02:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > For what it's worth, the more usual *Latin* phrase is actually "hoc
> > > est"!
> > I guess you wanted to say "ad hoc"
> No. "Hoc est", which is also normally translated "that is", and is
> the more usual Latin phrase--in Latin writing, not in English
> writing--for "that is".
Ah sorry, i didn't get your sentence in that way.
> "Ad hoc" means something totally different.
That, i know. But anyway, "Hoc est" and "Id est" maybe translate into
the same "that is" english phrase, but there is a nuance between these
two, that makes "id est" and "hoc est" different.
> > > The ideographic status of "i.e." and "e.g." (in *English*) have well
> > > been demonstrated by asking unprepped native speakers to read text
> > > aloud and seeing what they actually say.
> > Same applies to any abbreviation. Do the same for IANAL, FWIW, IMHO,
> > etc.
> Oh, it's far less regular than that.
> There are at least four ways of reading abbreviations in English, and
> which is chosen depends mostly on the abbreviation (often arbitrarily)
> and somewhat on the speaker.
So, what is the problem with "i.e." and "e.g." ?