"GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD, i.e. games that use the Zelda ucode" implies that all games made by Nintendo EAD use the Zelda ucode, doesn't it?
(03-31-2013, 06:12 AM)dEnigma Wrote: [ -> ]"GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD, i.e. games that use the Zelda ucode" implies that all games made by Nintendo EAD use the Zelda ucode, doesn't it?
"GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD" only clarifies the console. It doesn't say which GC and Wii games; it's an assumption on the reader's part to interpret that as meaning all.
Furthermore, most people use "i.e." to highlight examples, however, it's derived from Latin ("id est" roughly translated as "that is to say"). With a general statement, it can be used to assert further clarification. You could say something like "A game company makes Mario games, i.e. (that is to say) Nintendo." Here it acts not as one given example out of possible others; it specifies the statement. The i.e. in my statement was meant to clarify which games specifically in that same manner.
In this forum, is it considered normal to hijack these threads to debate the topic, which is only somewhat related to my original question?
|
\|/ Yes, I have my answer now.
Hasn't your question already been answered, or is there something else we can answer for you?
Fwiw, it's not uncommon actually (especially in the Hardware forum) when the topic has been answered and discussion continues thereafter, often not directly pertaining very much at all to the OP :p
As someone who uses i.e. a lot, I have to agree with dEnigma on this. Also, your example "A game company makes Mario games, i.e. (that is to say) Nintendo." is correct usage, as there's only one correct option. If you'd said "Certain" games made by EAD, then you'd have used i.e. correctly, but as it is, what you said strongly implied that all EAD games use the Zelda microcode.
(03-31-2013, 09:55 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]As someone who uses i.e. a lot, I have to agree with dEnigma on this. Also, your example "A game company makes Mario games, i.e. (that is to say) Nintendo." is correct usage, as there's only one correct option. If you'd said "Certain" games made by EAD, then you'd have used i.e. correctly, but as it is, what you said strongly implied that all EAD games use the Zelda microcode.
You're still ignoring the fact that I didn't say
all Nintendo EAD games. Whenever you feel something is implied, ask yourself as a reader "what assumptions am I making?" That's one of the keys to critically understanding anything (books, speeches, even ordinary dialog).
I.e. is used correctly in my sentence since it clarifies a statement that is still general; "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD" covers both non-Zelda ucode and Zelda ucode games. People frequently use i.e. to illustrate examples, thus it's often viewed as making two statements equivalent. However, it can be used to narrow a definition (which I did here) when the second statement contains more specific information than the first. This is more so true if you consider that one of the transliterations of "id est" comes out to "in this case".
Sorry, I forgot American and English are different languages.
If you imply something, then it's your fault and not the readers' fault that the implied meaning is taken as the meaning.
Either way, "i.e." is supposed to add clarification, not override the definition of the clause which preceded it. It does not mean "in this case, specifically" or any other similar phrase. It can be used to add a definition of a term, and it can be used to add examples, but it cannot be used to restrict the definition of the preceding clause without the addition of a word which restricts things, such as 'specifically', 'just' or 'certain'.
If I have to, I'll get the exact correct definition from a rather large volume of the chambers dictionary (and don't go telling me another dictionary is better, because I'm too lazy to look up the reasons why its the best) and if that fails to convince you, I'll go on a strike of misplacing apostrophes. Whether I do it through logic and sense, or brute force and threats, I will make you correct.
(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I forgot American and English are different languages.
Correct, we no longer need the Queen's English, given that we have no queen.
(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]If you imply something, then it's your fault and not the readers' fault that the implied meaning is taken as the meaning.
The only way any text can imply anything is if the reader already carries certain assumptions. Take this statement for example: "I like Nintendo games." Depending on what your assumptions are as a reader, you can either take it to mean you like all Nintendo games ever made, or perhaps a limited selection. Whatever that statement implies is totally reliant on what the reader assumes to be true.
(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]Either way, "i.e." is supposed to add clarification, not override the definition of the clause which preceded it. It does not mean "in this case, specifically" or any other similar phrase. It can be used to add a definition of a term, and it can be used to add examples, but it cannot be used to restrict the definition of the preceding clause without the addition of a word which restricts things, such as 'specifically', 'just' or 'certain'.
I wasn't overriding the definition at all, it was adding clarification. The initial definition was "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD". While more specific than saying "games made by Nintendo EAD" (which spans a number of consoles) it does not limit which games. "GC and Wii games made by Nintendo EAD" covers Zelda ucode and non-Zelda ucode games. Id est, clarifies that point by telling you which subset specifically. That isn't redefining things. By nature, clarifying something refines its meaning by narrowing and restricting the definition, especially if that definition was broad, general, or not specific (in this case, I didn't feel it was specific enough, hence why I put "id est" in the first place).
And depending on the context, "id est"
can be used to refer to specific cases alone, thus it can be used to restrict definitions:
http://www.thetipsbank.com/latin.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lat...%29#id_est
(04-01-2013, 05:11 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]If I have to, I'll get the exact correct definition from a rather large volume of the chambers dictionary (and don't go telling me another dictionary is better, because I'm too lazy to look up the reasons why its the best) and if that fails to convince you, I'll go on a strike of misplacing apostrophes. Whether I do it through logic and sense, or brute force and threats, I will make you correct.
What would convince me is if you thoroughly knew Latin enough to prove otherwise that "id est" was never used to limit or narrow a meaning. Place as many misplaced apostrophes as you want. I can edit your posts you know
Im' not su're why ther'es suddenly a big argume'nt over I do'nt know, grammar and definitions,' but 'am I supposed to do something o'r close this thread'? Or ju'st let you a'rgue over nothing?
'Edit: No, it is'nt pos'sible to close your own thr'eads, at least this one. 'Oh well...