I used to do some proofreading work for a publisher* of magazines and books for teachers and childrens' librarians. It was an okay job (and of course, could be done in my pyjamas, which it often was), but I remember one pet peeve I had with the job very clearly. Several of the authors whose work I proofread didn't understand the difference between "i.e." and "e.g.," which always made me crazy. Even crazier than authors who didn't understand the difference between "its" and "it's."
I don't actually know what "i.e." and "e.g." stand for, although I think it's something in Latin. But I do know that "i.e." means, approximately, "that is..." while "e.g." means "for example." So it's very easy to work out which one you should use: i.e., you should try them out in a sentence (e.g., like I just did).
Those are messy examples but you take my meaning. So yesterday I was reading along in Candace Bushnell's (she of Sex and the City fame) new novel One Fifth Avenue, and I came to this paragraph:
"'Isn't that some kind of record for you?' Schiffer asked. 'I thought you never went more than four years without getting hitched.'
'I've learned a lot since my two divorces,' Philip said, 'i.e.: Do not get married again. What about you? Where's your second husband?'"
Now there's really nothing wrong with that. "That is, do not get married again." But I don't know. I think I might have used an e.g. there: "For example: do not get married again." It's debatable, I know. But once I had that in mind I couldn't get it out of my mind, and fifteen pages later, I was still thinking about it. So I ditched the whole book. (I wasn't really enjoying it all that much anyway.)
*Speaking of proofreading, I'm pretty sure publishers have just quit doing it. On the very first page of American Prince: A Memoir, by Tony Curtis: "All my life I had one dream, and that was tobe in the movies." Sigh.
You've touched on something big here. I don't understand why my Microsoft Word is a better spelling, grammar, and punctuation checker than what all publishers seem to use to print books. One of the trends I've been noticing is misuse of homophones, like 'reigning it in' or 'pouring over a book.' The its/it's thing seems to be swapped more and more often everywhere we look. If I were wealthy, I'd put up billboards around the country explaining how to use an apostrophe, and anyone caught doing it wrong would be rounded up for 'reeducation' (i.e., put in the stocks).
Posted by: Jessica | 04 December 2008 at 10:24 AM
i.e. is id est; e.g. is exempli gratia, and they translate as you describe. (Technically, exempli gratia is "for the sake of example," but close enough. And all these things bother me even though I've never done proofreading.
Posted by: laura | 04 December 2008 at 11:48 AM
Jessica,
Yes, I guess one of the first things to go in a recession is proofreading budgets. Maybe publishers can't even afford the time to run a spell-check?
I wish I could grant your wealthy wish so I could see your billboards! Wouldn't that be a great job? Incidentally, there's a jewelry store in my area that's called "Forever Your's Jewelry." Every time we see it advertised we shudder; we just don't get the apostrophe.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 04 December 2008 at 01:23 PM
Laura!
You're the best. I knew if I just acted helpless someone smart out there would tell me the Latin translation. Thank you! Yes, whether you're a proofreader or not, once those things jump out at you, they never stop being annoying. Did you ever read Lynne Truss's "Eats Shoots and Leaves"? Good stuff.
BTW, Jessica--forgot to giggle over "pouring over books." That makes me INSANE and I know I've seen that several times just this past year...
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 04 December 2008 at 01:25 PM
Does anyone actually say "i.e." or "e.g." in actual conversation? Forget whether or not the author used the correct term; more amusing, to me, is that the dialogue isn't even reflective of how real people speak.
Posted by: Brandon | 04 December 2008 at 02:40 PM
Brandon,
Hmm. This is a very interesting question. That part didn't strike me weird, but then, I think I am actually nerdy enough to have used "i.e." when speaking. But you're right--I definitely see it more in print than I hear it aloud. There I was ready to give Candace the benefit of the doubt--maybe they speak like that more in Manhattan?
Hey, in your opinion, what IS a good novel for reflecting how people actually speak?
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 04 December 2008 at 02:59 PM
And how about peek, peak and pique? Site and cite? I see those all the time in the local paper and it makes me want to commit murder. It's hard to be so pedantic....
Posted by: Kathy | 04 December 2008 at 05:39 PM
This may sound sappy, but: I LOVE YOU ALL. I've never had such an outpouring of support and examples for my grammatical hang-ups; most people just look at me like I'm insane when I bring it up. Kathy, the peek/pique thing makes me shudder. How could I forget about that? Site and cite makes me nutty too but for some reason I don't see that as often. I'm glad we have each other so we can save ourselves from going out and committing murder...don't do it!
I will admit that I used to correct signs at work with spelling mistakes. An ex-coworker used to leave notes that said "please shelf these" by books and I always had to get a pen, cross out the f, and insert the ve. Yup, I'm pretty sure that co-worker is glad I'm gone.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 04 December 2008 at 05:46 PM
Well, people tend to speak in starts and stops, with lots of pauses. It's never anything like "Gilmore Girls," a rapid-fire dialogue. Dialogue, to my ears, is pretty awkward in real life, especially if the two people don't really know each other. If they're friends, that's different. Friends tend to speak using a lot of inside jokes. Sit down and listen to two friends and I can almost guarantee you'll have no idea who or what they're talking about, because it all seems to be in code. And few people I know--aside from myself--swear as much as the characters in "Pulp Fiction." Personally, I love swearing. It's a habit I fully embrace.
If filmmakers or writers wrote dialogue the way it's really spoken, they'd have a dud on their hands. Furthermore, it wouldn't advance the story or plot, and dialogue should do that. When it comes to entertainment, people want catchphrases. They want lines they can quote to their buddies. In real life, people are rarely as witty as a movie character.
But "i.e." in dialogue? I'm sorry, but that's just lazy writing.
Posted by: Brandon | 05 December 2008 at 11:19 AM
As for novels with good dialogue, I can't think of any right off, but I've always heard that Elmore Leonard is one of the best. James Joyce was good at it, too.
Posted by: Brandon | 05 December 2008 at 11:24 AM
It's too early in the morning. I thought there were 0 comments, and I was ready to defend you, C.R., but I misread and realized there 10 comments on this post!
Re: dialogue. "In an Evening with Kevin Smith" (of Clerks fame), he admits that no one speaks the way his characters do in his movies. As you said, Brandon, they would be duds.
Posted by: Venta | 06 December 2008 at 08:35 AM
Brandon:
All very interesting. I know you're right about how people speak in fits and starts; my best friend and I were once videotaped by my roommate, a masters' student in linguistics. She said neither of us ever finished a sentence and we continually cut each other off (without ever noticing). She also told us we were boring for only discussing the TV shows The X Files and Melrose, but that's a whole other problem.
I don't know that I can do the James Joyce, but I've been meaning to look into Elmore Leonard. Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 07 December 2008 at 07:59 PM
Venta!
I'll always be up for you to defend me, no worries, no matter how many comments there are!
Oh, and I love the dialogue in Kevin Smith's movies! Sure it's not realistic, but it IS fun. I'd never heard of this "Evening with Kevin Smith"--a movie? I have to look into that too. Thanks!
Posted by: | 07 December 2008 at 08:02 PM