Hello Paul, On Sat, Sep 16 2017, Paul Hardy wrote: > I was educated by some pretty old-fashioned American English teachers when > I was a kid, but I have moved away from a lot of what they taught me. I > wouldn't recommend any change to make a document sound more stodgy or > anachronistic. Still, I do not think it has become correct to just have a > space after "i.e." or "e.g." (although I was going to ignore that prejudice > if it were applied consistently throughout the document). > [...] > Maybe there is an emerging convention to use nothing after "i.e." and > "e.g." that I don't know about. I am a current social sciences/humanities grad student, fwiw, and IME we often use a comma, and often we don't use it, depending on context. I general I would say that written English uses fewer commas than it used to. Society moves too fast for commas nowadays? ;) > I was also going to edit comma splices. This has not changed. Patches to those sounds good. > Incidentally, the Chicago Manual of Style always puts "i.e." and "e.g." in > italics, because they are of foreign origin. That's what I was taught when > I was a kid, but I planned on just leaving them plain text (which is > becoming more and more common). That convention has definitely gone away. Thanks for your review efforts. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature