Banning e.g. and etc. at


Me either.

The Government Digital Service has announced that certain abbreviations, namely etc., e.g. and i.e. are going to be “phased out” from UK government websites. You may think this sounds like a pointless endeavour, and you’d be right. So let’s look at their justifications.

1. “Several programs that read webpages for those with visual impairment read ‘eg’ incorrectly.”

So, instead of getting this bug fixed (which would seem like a very useful thing to get done, since e.g. is such a common lexeme and is not going to go away, whatever the policy of any one institution happens to be), the Government’s digibods have decided to embark on the minor task of changing the language.

(It’s worth mentioning here that although most people write e.g. with two periods, many style guides recommend the spelling “eg.” or “eg”, and these are the spellings that “several programs” have a problem with. But why do they have a problem? It really is a trivial problem to solve: just tell the software that “eg.” and “eg” are pronounced “e.g.”.)

2. “There are better, clearer ways of introducing examples for all users. We promote the use of plain English on GOV.UK. We advocate simple, clear language. Terms like eg, ie and etc, while common, make reading difficult for some.”

How to write better and clearer is a matter of opinion. But there are words, phrases and constructions that are wronger, rarer or more complicated than others, and of course it’s wise to avoid them if clarity is the number one goal of a text. So there is something to be said for avoiding i.e.: it’s not especially common, and there’s quite a lot of people who read it without understanding its significance (or even confuse it with e.g.).

But it’s hard to use the same argument for etc. or e.g. Both are very common and widely understood. They are English words in their own right since people know how to pronounce them and know what they mean without knowing (or worrying about) what their origin is or why they’re written like that. etc. is often pronounced “e t c” instead of “etcetera”, and is often written “ect.” but neither of these things affect general understanding.

It’d be interesting to know what evidence the author has that understanding etc. and e.g. (except in relation to the software issue mentioned above) is more difficult than any other word that has a similar frequency of use.

3. “Anyone who didn’t grow up speaking English may not be familiar with them.”

This is the most desperate strand of the digibods’ argument. Surely this claim could be made about any lexeme of the English language? If you didn’t grow up speaking English you might not be familiar with “green”, “happy”, “government”, “etc.”, “no.”, “Mrs” and “antidisestablishmentarianism”, etc, etc. Virtually all English courses teach etc. and e.g. so this claim is simply truistic bullshit.

4. “When we’re updating existing pages, we’ll replace the eg, etc and ie.”

I wonder how many people think this is a good use for our taxes (and people’s time)?


Style guides exist. The people who produce them justify their existence in a variety of ways. But their existence doesn’t mean that interference in the natural forces of language use is a thing that should be encouraged, at least not except in certain specific circumstances.

There are many problems with the English language, but 99% of the time we navigate them successfully. Some of the most common errors include the confusion of they’re, there and their, you’re and your, too and to, off and of, it’s and its. Shouldn’t we do something about this? Maybe simplify the spellings, with one spelling for each: there, your, to, of and its? Well, no, we probably shouldn’t. Interfering with the language is hubristic, Canutian and patronising, and causes confusion, arguments and resentment. Let the language evolve naturally and if there’s a real problem, i.e. one that impedes communication, people will vote with their feet.

etc., e.g., and i.e. are common features of the English language. Even if there was a genuine reason to eschew them, it’d be quite a challenge to do so consistently, and making them rarer will only make them more difficult to understand. The only reason to substitute another word for any of them is if there is genuine feedback that individual or general usage is confusing people.

French keyboards

Is France’s unloved AZERTY keyboard heading for the scrapheap?

1. I was taught that capital letters in French don’t have to be accented. I assume from reading this article that this “rule” stemmed from the fact that French typewriters have been unable to do accented capitals. But given that this situation has existed for so long (many decades, despite the article’s expressed “growing disuse of accented capitals” – in fact, accented capitals seem to be becoming more common again, in response to a combination of autocorrect and peevology), people are used to it, it’s become convenient and it creates no barrier to understanding, the calls for accented capitals on keyboards seems rather backward-looking, puristic and unwilling to accept change. Even worse is the laughable lament at the absence of ligatures on the keyboard. It’s a shame that the article doesn’t canvass any opinions on these matters from members of the public.

2. It hadn’t occurred to me that is the only use of u-grave in the language. I guess it’s used to avoid “confusion” with ou meaning or, but there are plenty of homonyms in French so it’s not clear why this one requires such an over-the-top “solution”. I’d just get rid of the distinguishing accent.

cancelled but not cancelled

When thinking of words which don’t mean the same in English as they do in most other languages, a classic example is “control”. But “cancel” is an example that hadn’t occurred to me before. A couple of days ago there was an orienteering race in Sweden and because of some technical difficulties the results of the race were voided. The race wasn’t “cancelled” however, because if it had been, it wouldn’t’ve taken place. I suppose the usual English term in these situations is “declare null and void”.

word of the day: femmephobia

I admit it: I’m not very interested in the debates that seem to rage around feminism. There doesn’t seem too much to it to me other than that sexists, misogynists, MCPs and patriarchalists are dicks. Because of this lack of interest it’s not surprising that I haven’t heard the term “femmephobia” before. I’ve just seen it here, and I read elsewhere on Skepchick that it’s “a particular subset of sexism that suggests that femininity and things regarded as feminine are inherently inferior, bad, weak, stupid, non-preferable, valueless, disempowering, etc.” So you’d be very unlikely to see a femmephobic (or his* son*) wearing pink.

Femmephobia is a silly word, but I’m against the femmephobics.

*Thinking about it, I suppose femmephobics can also be women, and femmephobics might not want their daughters wearing pink either. Femmephobia must be different from insisting that both sexes adhere to their repsective stereotypes. What’s the word for that? Is that just sexism?