Is "e.g." moribund?

[Tone]

Has anyone else noticed that the use of "e.g." seems dying out?

I've noticed recently, especially in technical literature, that it is being replaced by "ex." And usually with both the "ex." and the example itself being enclosed within a pair of parentheses.

At the least, I suppose it's better than the previously prevalent misuse of "i.e." when "e.g." is clearly required!

Tone

[Dr Mildr]

I've never seen "ex" used for e.g. I shan't be using it (unless explicitly required by a journal or whatever I'm writing for).

[Bertie]

It will always have a life (half-life?) in cryptic crosswords.

[Sue M-V]

Sorry, Tone - I haven't noticed "ex" replacing "e.g." except when my Swedish students do it, and I correct them! Perhaps I should let them get away with it. Is this technical literature written by native English speakers?

Sue

[Paul Doherty]

Never seen it either.

[Alan Palmer]

I have seen "ex." (or "ex:") used a few times, but "i.e." still seems to be common.

[Dave]

May 3, 2008 11:27:07 GMT Alan Palmer said:

I have seen "ex." (or "ex:") used a few times, but "i.e." still seems to be common.

I trust that you meant too commonly misused!

[Tone]

Is this technical literature written by native English speakers?

I get the impression that it's used by English subsidiary companies aping (or toeing the line to) their American masters.

Tone

[Sue M-V]

I asked my brother, who has lived in Canada for the past 26 years in a highly technical environment, and he says he's never heard of "ex" being used for "e.g." either. So if it's an American thing, it doesn't seem to have made it over the border yet.

Sue

[Dave M]

I think the periods are dying out (like many, I now write "eg"), and "ie" (or "i.e.") is certainly creeping in far too often where it shouldn't, but I've never yet encountered "ex.".

(Spot the two periods, there, Paul!)

If I did, I'd be confused as to its meaning - ex what?

[Tone]

Here an "ex." of usage (sorry it's long -- to get both in):

During the initial certification stage for a non-rewireable plug and cable many certification bodies will list the approved cable type and manufacturer to be used with the approved plug. An example of this would be power cords which are approved through the German certification agency VDE. Once a VDE Marks license is issued it will specifically list the type of plug tested and the cable type and manufacturer approved (ex. H05VVF3G1.0mm2, manufacturer ABC) for use with that particular component.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in the United States also uses a similar method of approving plug and cable combinations. UL will list the specific cable type (ex. 18/3 SJT) in the file issued to the manufacturer of the power cord. UL does not list the specific manufacturer of the cable however. Other international certification bodies use similar methods where they list the specific cable style to be used with the approved plug.
To summarize it is important that the equipment manufacturer ensure that their power cord meets the requirements for the country of its intended use. This includes confirming that the cable itself is the proper type (ex. H05VVF or 18/3 SJT) and carries the correct approvals for the destination country. The same holds true for the plug, it should carry the appropriate current ratings and pin configuration required by the destination country.

Tone

[Paul Doherty]

Well, it's clear enough. Why not just write example: though?

[Sue M-V]

I feel very fortunate that I never (normally) need to read this sort of text! I expect you quite enjoy it, though, Tone!

Sue

[Dave]

I sense a difference in use for e.g., ex./example, and for example.

E.g., I'd use e.g. at the beginning of a sentence or clause, as in this one.
But in the middle or at the end of a sentence or clause, for example, I'd use for example, as in this one. For me, e.g. seems inappropriate.
Ex. or example seems to be more for lists, tables, or longer scenarios:
Ex.:

• horses
  
• cows
  
• pigs
  

Example: The Smiths each have earned income amounts of $47,000 and $58,900 for 2007. Their deduction for state taxes totals $1917, and their medical expenses not covered by insurance total $458. On Schedule A (1040)...

Does that make sense?

Personally, I won't be abandoning the periods.

[Geoff]

Sue,

It's probably not that Tone enjoys reading 'this sort of text', but rather, it's just part of his job.