On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Ingo Kloecker <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 September 2011, Benjamin I Krefetz wrote: >> I don't know why I've never noticed this before, but why aren't we >> placing commas after "e.g." and "i.e."? I looked for a definitive >> ruling in the Manual of Style, but there's no mention either way. > > I did a quick check of all books. "e.g." and "i.e." are never followed > by a comma. I think that pretty much answers the question. Why come up > with a definitive rule for something which, de facto, is already > standardized in the books? I think your search may have missed some examples from the printed of "eg," and "ie,". In those cases, if I remember correctly, we dropped the commas when we added the commas based on the recommendation of Fowler. I'm surprised now to find that this seems to be the minority opinion: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ie-eg-oh-my.aspx This unimpeachable source says that both are acceptable: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/ie Personally, I find the comma either fussy-looking or arguably wrong depending on context. To take an example from the Grey Star the Wizard, we currently have: "... section of your Action Chart. (e.g. if your pencil fell on the number 4 in ..." I think the following looks too fussy with too much punctuation going on: "... section of your Action Chart. (e.g., if your pencil fell on the number 4 in ..." (BTW, we really should capitalize that as "E.g." or move the parenthetical sentence inside the previous sentence or something.) In the case of "i.e." I would argue that it's usually wrong to use a comma because "i.e." translates as "that is" and so the comma separates a verb from its complement which is a no-no. We should add an entry in the Manual of Style. Any objections to the status quo? -- Jon ~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon