Talk:e.g.

Followed by a comma or not?

The examples provided use both a comma (e.g., yes) and without (e.g. chocolate and marzipan). Which is correct? Preferred? -Andre Q 199.46.199.233 00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I do believe there should be mention of commas in this entry. Most style guides, e.g., Chicago Manual (16th edition 6:43) , call for a comma. That makes sense when you realize the expression 'e.g.' means in essence "for example," which is typically surrounded by commas in a sentence. But see Chicago Manual for greater precision Joe Detroit (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that it should be followed by a comma in US english, but not in UK english. LuisMenina (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Space or nor space between e. and g.?

Or does it not matter? Pbeinbo (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In modern English no space should be common. E.g. dictionary.reference.com only has the non-spaced variant: dictionary.reference.com/browse/e.g.?s=t&path=/ . In non-English languages a space is not uncommon in abbreviations (e.g. in Latin and German) and it's not uncommon in older English (like 19th century). books.google.de/books?id=QLXukDnn4PMC&pg=PA1 (English) & books.google.de/books?id=tytUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6 (American) e.g. contain e. g., ex. g., ex. gr. (English) & E. G. (American) for exempli gratia. Also: When using a space and when using a computer, a non-breaking space should be used (& nbsp ; [without those spaces]), maybe a thin one (& #8239 ; [without those spaces] -- not & thinsp ; [without those spaces] as that's not non-breaking).

• e.g. (no space)
• e. g. (space)
• e. g. (non-breaking space)
• e. g. (thin space
• e. g. (thin non-breaking space)

--IP, 09:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Using Ex and friends instead of e.g.

Noticed on some websites (e.g. wikipedia) the use of (Ex ...), and variations, instead of e.g. The artical doesn't comment on whether this is a mistake or trend. 165.144.180.81 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–September 2015

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

e.g.#Latin

Is Latin e.g. (without space) attestabe? In the internet (la.wp, la.wt) it's used, but as far as I saw it's only "e. g." (with a space) in Latin books (resp. New Latin books before the 21th century as google book search doesn't have ancient manuscripts).
Also (for comparision):

• Even in English spaces were traditionally used, e.g. in books before the 20th/21st century it's often "A. D." (with a space) and not "A.D." (without a space).
• German spelling rules even prescribe the use of spaces (e.g. "z. B.") though this is nowaydays sometimes omitted as it isn't easy to type non-breaking spaces which are the correct ones to use.

-80.133.107.114 14:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustratingly, I can't figure out a way to search for this on Google Books and get results in Latin rather than results in English discussing Latin. For example, google books:"e.g." "omnium" is entirely useless. It seems reasonable that this may have been used, but I just don't know how to prove it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I found three citations (which I added to the entry) by searching for "est e.g." (which still found a lot of non-Latin chaff). I also found this where there's a bit of space between the "e." an the "g." but not as much as between words:

• 1749, Johann Gottlieb Heinecke, Joh. Gottlieb Heineccii [...] Operum, volume 8, page 22:
• Aliud, si quis culpa sua ratione priuatus est, e.g. propter ebrietatem; et tune aliter formanda regula:

- -sche (discuss) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks sche.

• Regarding Heinecke and the small space: (a) In younger non-English style guides it's not rarely said that it is like "e.[small space]g." or "e.[small non-breaking space]g.", so with a smaller space. (As it's not easy to type such a space often "& nbsp ;" is used though, which is just non-breaking but not smaller.) (b) Maybe one could explain the smaller space by full justification (see below).
• Is "1907, Wallace Martin Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus" a valid quote? It's from an Englishman (or maybe "Britman"), it's from the 20th century, and the book title even is in English. So, it rather seems like an Englishman used his "modern" English orthography instead of traditional ones.
  If it is valid, than "e.g." should be attestable. But then maybe a note could be added, like "since the 20th century" or "in Englishmen's 'modern' orthography".
• In "1732, Antonius Mayr (S.J.), Theologia scholastica tractatus omnes in universitatibus provinciae germaniae superioris societatis jesu tradi solitos, et quaestiones in iis praescriptas complexa, p.55", which might be the same as "1731, Theologia Scholastica" it is also "obligationem e. g. restituendi". So the very small or missing space in the given quote could be explained by full justification (Blocksatz).
• In "1821, Julius Müller, Ratio et historia [...]" it is also "commutatur, e. g." on page 3. So maybe one could explain the spelling on page 10 by full justification.

-80.133.99.105 21:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 09:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help re: guideline for italicization?

Should "e.g." and its alternative forms be italicized? Always, never, sometimes? This is not covered in the Usage notes. Also, there's inconsistency in the entry itself:

Alternative forms

• (informal): eg
• (dated): ex. gr., e. g.

Etymology

A terser form of ex. gr....

Template:link did not italicize the term "ex. gr." but Template:mention did, so probably this expected behavior, but it still looks odd especially with the lines so close.

I found all this out trying to figure out why some regular (without any templates) text in a different entry was italicized and what the en.WT standard is. Sorry all I can do is data-dump this here. I haven't finished rereading WT:EL and the like yet, and my real-life limitations are starting to act up again. Thanks in advance! —Geekdiva (talk)

RFM discussion: November 2020–April 2022

See Talk:ibid. § RFM discussion: November 2020–April 2022

Mentioning English exempli gratia

@Sgconlaw: Should English exempli gratia be linked somewhere in this entry? J3133 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@J3133: I added a usage note. I suspect that it is only rarely spelled in full. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)