Re: [groff] 02/11: doc/groff.texi: Fix style nits.

[Damian McGuckin]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> >     * Use "e.g." and "i.e." correctly; that is, with a trailing
> >       comma.
>
> Well, a lot of people from England would strongly disagree that this
> is 'correct', since those abbreviations are used there *without* a
> trailing comma...  Of course, were the groff manual following an
> English writing style, it would be necessary to either say
> `@frenchspacing on` or use `@:` appropriately.

My GO-TO Guide is The Elements of Style by Strunk (& White). But the Yale 
professor is sadly silent on this. And my fall back is The Economist's 
Style Guide or Fowler's Modern English usage. And they seem silent too.

> From the Oxford Dictionary's website about grammar, an example is

        Life events (e.g. birth, death, and marriage)

There is no trailing comma. The British writing style leans more to text 
readability and writing convenience by using relatively fewer punctuation 
marks.

The European Commission's Style Guide for English follows the same line:

        
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf

It avoids the trailing command and mandates it out explicitly on Page 16. 
Then again, that document rarely uses the abbreviation "e.g." and instead 
uses the words in full, as also recommended by some other style guides, 
especially those which have to cater for those where English is not their 
mother tongue. See below.

The AP, APA and CMS Style Guides, all of American origin, have a mandatory 
comma. While these Guides live behind paywalls, the Q+A web site of the 
Chicago Manual of Style says to "Put a comma before and after; avoid using 
both in the same sentence; and try not to use either in formal prose. And 
(a bonus tip) if you start a list with e.g., theres no need to put etc. at 
the end."

        
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0047.html

The British writing style seems more authorative. But what do I know? I am 
an Aussie. Avoiding those abbreviations altogether is truly modern trend 
so the trend is:

        such as  (not e.g. or for example)
and
        that is  (not i.e.)
and
        and so on (not etc.)

Some people use "such as" instead of "for example". Three extra characters 
in the former in OK, but an extra seven is too much (for me). :)  The 
Guardian and Observer Style Guide does not use those abbreviations either.

Note that James Clark is an English citizen but a Thai permanent resident.
Does that mean the American connection to style is tenuous?

Stay safe - Damian