<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Another Reason to Drop IE	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie</link>
	<description>A running commentary of occasionally interesting things — from Mike Davidson.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 06:34:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Sunshinemom		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-39677</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sunshinemom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-39677</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I just came here searching for the pronunciation and usage of viz., after an argument with my boss!!  I was never confused about i.e. and e.g. but thanks for the discussion! 

@ Trent - Thanks for the link and leading the discussion to viz.,]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just came here searching for the pronunciation and usage of viz., after an argument with my boss!!  I was never confused about i.e. and e.g. but thanks for the discussion! </p>
<p>@ Trent &#8211; Thanks for the link and leading the discussion to viz.,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike Davidson - Introducing sIFR: The Healthy Alternative to Browser Text		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-32324</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Davidson - Introducing sIFR: The Healthy Alternative to Browser Text]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-32324</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] possible size on screen, the font ended up looking like crap. Even today, the best web typefaces (viz. Verdana, Tahoma, Helvetica) have been specially adapted for low-resolution displays and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] possible size on screen, the font ended up looking like crap. Even today, the best web typefaces (viz. Verdana, Tahoma, Helvetica) have been specially adapted for low-resolution displays and [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: OisÃ­n		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-31265</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OisÃ­n]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-31265</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As many others, I came to this page through a link to the word &#039;viz.&#039; on another page—and as many others, I find the thread amusing and interesting. The previous reply is months old already, but I&#039;m going to reply anyway :-)


Re.: geekboy&#039;s post —
I&#039;m a bit unsure of what exactly it is you dub &#039;newer school of pronunciation&#039;, &#039;Classic pronunciation&#039;, and &#039;Church Latin&#039;.

The way the papal clergy and the Vatican and Italian churches pronounce Latin is not close to how Classical Latin was pronounced, that&#039;s proven without much hint of doubt. It&#039;s an approximation based on the pronunciation rules governing modern (or pre-modern) Italian.

The pronunciation of v as [w] and of the diphthongs ae, oe as [aÉª, É”Éª] (to rhyme with &#039;eye&#039;, &#039;cloy&#039; in English) is definitely the &#039;original&#039; way, i.e. (pun intended), the inherited pronunciations from pre-Latin stages.

That [aÉª, É”Éª] were among the first sounds to be changed is well-established fact as well, and that it started among the plebs is undisputed, too (since the highbrows would be more desperate to stay closer to the pronunciation of the corresponding diphthongs in contemporary Greek, which was generally viewed as the language to emulate when possible); but the change still didn&#039;t take place until some time around Caesar&#039;s time, as far as is known, which is quite a bit later than Classical Latin.

And if your teacher claimed that &quot;people around other parts of Italy&quot; spoke &quot;natural Latin&quot;, he was quite simply wrong. At the time of the Roman Citizen (the height of the Roman Empire in its classical period), Latin was still the language/dialect of Rome, and most of Italy only spoke Latin the way a Geordie speak Queen&#039;s English or the way an Alabaman speaks broadcaster American: as a not altogether foreign language/dialect, but not as the local, natural language, either.


Also, if we&#039;re talking about the Classical Latin pronunciation, videlicet would be pronounced [wi&#039;dÉ›:likÉ›t]. Which is hard to squeeze into a regular English sentence, since neither [i] nor [É›:] exist as phonemes in English (unless you happen to be Scottish or from some parts of Australia) and the fully voiced d of Romance languages (Latin included) is equally absent from English. Then again, &#039;viz.&#039; shouldn&#039;t be said as &#039;videlicet&#039;, anyway, but as &#039;namely&#039;.


Re.: Herve&#039;s post —
&quot;As far as Celeborn goes, I don&#039;t remember him being either Celtic or Roman. From my first reading of the trilogy I&#039;ve thought the name was pronounces &#039;Sel-e-born&#039;.&quot;

In a way, he is actually both Celtic and Roman. Quenya and Sindarin, the two Elven languages invented by Tolkien, were (orthographically and partly also grammatically and semantically) based in part on Latin and Welsh, respectively: one Roman language and one Celtic language. And in both Latin and Welsh, c is always pronounced as a velar plosive (the &#039;hard c&#039;), never as a sibilant (the &#039;soft c&#039;). Tolkien himself specified that c represents the sound [k] in both Quenya and Sindarin, too.



(I&#039;m guessing this comment is about four times as long as any other comment on this page—my apologies for that.)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As many others, I came to this page through a link to the word &#8216;viz.&#8217; on another page—and as many others, I find the thread amusing and interesting. The previous reply is months old already, but I&#8217;m going to reply anyway :-)</p>
<p>Re.: geekboy&#8217;s post —<br />
I&#8217;m a bit unsure of what exactly it is you dub &#8216;newer school of pronunciation&#8217;, &#8216;Classic pronunciation&#8217;, and &#8216;Church Latin&#8217;.</p>
<p>The way the papal clergy and the Vatican and Italian churches pronounce Latin is not close to how Classical Latin was pronounced, that&#8217;s proven without much hint of doubt. It&#8217;s an approximation based on the pronunciation rules governing modern (or pre-modern) Italian.</p>
<p>The pronunciation of v as [w] and of the diphthongs ae, oe as [aÉª, É”Éª] (to rhyme with &#8216;eye&#8217;, &#8216;cloy&#8217; in English) is definitely the &#8216;original&#8217; way, i.e. (pun intended), the inherited pronunciations from pre-Latin stages.</p>
<p>That [aÉª, É”Éª] were among the first sounds to be changed is well-established fact as well, and that it started among the plebs is undisputed, too (since the highbrows would be more desperate to stay closer to the pronunciation of the corresponding diphthongs in contemporary Greek, which was generally viewed as the language to emulate when possible); but the change still didn&#8217;t take place until some time around Caesar&#8217;s time, as far as is known, which is quite a bit later than Classical Latin.</p>
<p>And if your teacher claimed that &#8220;people around other parts of Italy&#8221; spoke &#8220;natural Latin&#8221;, he was quite simply wrong. At the time of the Roman Citizen (the height of the Roman Empire in its classical period), Latin was still the language/dialect of Rome, and most of Italy only spoke Latin the way a Geordie speak Queen&#8217;s English or the way an Alabaman speaks broadcaster American: as a not altogether foreign language/dialect, but not as the local, natural language, either.</p>
<p>Also, if we&#8217;re talking about the Classical Latin pronunciation, videlicet would be pronounced [wi&#8217;dÉ›:likÉ›t]. Which is hard to squeeze into a regular English sentence, since neither [i] nor [É›:] exist as phonemes in English (unless you happen to be Scottish or from some parts of Australia) and the fully voiced d of Romance languages (Latin included) is equally absent from English. Then again, &#8216;viz.&#8217; shouldn&#8217;t be said as &#8216;videlicet&#8217;, anyway, but as &#8216;namely&#8217;.</p>
<p>Re.: Herve&#8217;s post —<br />
&#8220;As far as Celeborn goes, I don&#8217;t remember him being either Celtic or Roman. From my first reading of the trilogy I&#8217;ve thought the name was pronounces &#8216;Sel-e-born&#8217;.&#8221;</p>
<p>In a way, he is actually both Celtic and Roman. Quenya and Sindarin, the two Elven languages invented by Tolkien, were (orthographically and partly also grammatically and semantically) based in part on Latin and Welsh, respectively: one Roman language and one Celtic language. And in both Latin and Welsh, c is always pronounced as a velar plosive (the &#8216;hard c&#8217;), never as a sibilant (the &#8216;soft c&#8217;). Tolkien himself specified that c represents the sound [k] in both Quenya and Sindarin, too.</p>
<p>(I&#8217;m guessing this comment is about four times as long as any other comment on this page—my apologies for that.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: BG		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-591</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BG]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-591</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What are you saying here?

Surly, on its own, &quot;e.g.&quot; isn&#039;t more grammatically correct that &quot;i.e&quot;. It all depends on the context. You were just using the two incorrectly.

Nevertheless, I have recently reduced my usage of IE and starting using Mozilla Firefox.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What are you saying here?</p>
<p>Surly, on its own, &#8220;e.g.&#8221; isn&#8217;t more grammatically correct that &#8220;i.e&#8221;. It all depends on the context. You were just using the two incorrectly.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I have recently reduced my usage of IE and starting using Mozilla Firefox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Randy		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-592</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Randy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-592</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Latin behind &lt;em&gt;i.e.&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;em&gt;id est&lt;/em&gt; which simply means &quot;that is.&quot; So you can use &lt;em&gt;i.e.&lt;/em&gt; if there is only one example:

&lt;blockquote&gt;There was only one way the USA would lose the 4 x 100 medley relay, i.e., if they are disqualified.&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Latin behind <em>i.e.</em> is <em>id est</em> which simply means &#8220;that is.&#8221; So you can use <em>i.e.</em> if there is only one example:</p>
<blockquote><p>There was only one way the USA would lose the 4 x 100 medley relay, i.e., if they are disqualified.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike D.		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-593</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike D.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-593</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[BG:

True, on its own, e.g. is not more grammatically correct, but what I said was that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; was overusing it, so by using it less, I am now more grammatically correct.  I&#039;m sure others are using it incorrectly as well.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BG:</p>
<p>True, on its own, e.g. is not more grammatically correct, but what I said was that <strong><em>I</em></strong> was overusing it, so by using it less, I am now more grammatically correct.  I&#8217;m sure others are using it incorrectly as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Patrick H. Lauke		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-594</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick H. Lauke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-594</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[sorry, but i.e. and e.g. are different things, and one is certainly not better than the other. define &quot;grammatically better&quot;. your &quot;argument&quot; is just a non sequitur.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry, but i.e. and e.g. are different things, and one is certainly not better than the other. define &#8220;grammatically better&#8221;. your &#8220;argument&#8221; is just a non sequitur.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Patrick H. Lauke		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-595</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick H. Lauke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-595</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[ah ok...i see what you mean now. quickly reading over your entry, though (combined with the title) i could have sworn you were making an argument about e.g.&#039;s superiority ;)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ah ok&#8230;i see what you mean now. quickly reading over your entry, though (combined with the title) i could have sworn you were making an argument about e.g.&#8217;s superiority ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike D.		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-596</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike D.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-596</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ha, no problem Patrick.  I guess my argument is more that IE is perhaps as overused in the grammar world as it is in the browser world.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha, no problem Patrick.  I guess my argument is more that IE is perhaps as overused in the grammar world as it is in the browser world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Brent		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-597</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brent]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I was under the impression that i.e. and e.g. where the same thing for the longest time.  I learned about 6 months ago this very thing that they are different and are intended for different uses.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who still use it wrong.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was under the impression that i.e. and e.g. where the same thing for the longest time.  I learned about 6 months ago this very thing that they are different and are intended for different uses.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who still use it wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Phil Ringnalda		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-598</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Phil Ringnalda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-598</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The easy way to keep them straight is to treat them as abbreviations for &quot;in explanation&quot; and &quot;example given.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The easy way to keep them straight is to treat them as abbreviations for &#8220;in explanation&#8221; and &#8220;example given.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Trent		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-599</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trent]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-599</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Forget both &lt;em&gt;e.g&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;i.e.&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;b&gt;viz.&lt;/b&gt; is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;abbreviation of champions&lt;/a&gt;. Here&#039;s why: &lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;It substitutes wonderfully for the abbreviations under discussion (viz., both &lt;em&gt;i.e.&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;e.g.&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Generally no one knows what the hell it means, which accomplishes two very important things: &lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;Your logical argument may not be sound, but it at least &lt;em&gt;sounds&lt;/em&gt; sound.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;People think you are smart, which is the whole reason we use Latin abbreviations anyway.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forget both <em>e.g</em> and <em>i.e.</em>, <b>viz.</b> is the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viz" rel="nofollow">abbreviation of champions</a>. Here&#8217;s why: </p>
<ol>
<li>It substitutes wonderfully for the abbreviations under discussion (viz., both <em>i.e.</em> and <em>e.g.</em>).</li>
<li>Generally no one knows what the hell it means, which accomplishes two very important things:
<ol>
<li>Your logical argument may not be sound, but it at least <em>sounds</em> sound.</li>
<li>People think you are smart, which is the whole reason we use Latin abbreviations anyway.</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: gb		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-601</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gb]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-601</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For those of you who, like myself, were wondering what e.g. actually means (although Phil&#039;s &quot;example given&quot; is a great explanation), I hit up Merriam-Webster and found: &lt;em&gt;Latin - exempli gratia, or &quot;for example.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

Now that I think about it, I say Phil&#039;s is a better translation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those of you who, like myself, were wondering what e.g. actually means (although Phil&#8217;s &#8220;example given&#8221; is a great explanation), I hit up Merriam-Webster and found: <em>Latin &#8211; exempli gratia, or &#8220;for example.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Now that I think about it, I say Phil&#8217;s is a better translation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Matthom		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-602</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-602</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for that tip. I will point people to it, whenever a disagreement of the nature comes up.

I learn something new every day.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for that tip. I will point people to it, whenever a disagreement of the nature comes up.</p>
<p>I learn something new every day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike D.		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/08/eg-is-the-new-ie#comment-603</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike D.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-603</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Trent,

Very interesting.  I am always interested in using what the champions are using.

Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&amp;va=videlicet&amp;x=15&amp;y=15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;full audio pronunciation&lt;/a&gt; from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of the word &quot;videlicet&quot; (where viz comes from).  That is almost too wacky to use in conversation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trent,</p>
<p>Very interesting.  I am always interested in using what the champions are using.</p>
<p>Check out the <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&#038;va=videlicet&#038;x=15&#038;y=15" rel="nofollow">full audio pronunciation</a> from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of the word &#8220;videlicet&#8221; (where viz comes from).  That is almost too wacky to use in conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
