On 15 February 2011 20:43, Mark Harig <idirect...@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> Also, while the Chicago Manual of Style recommends it, some other online >> >> grammar sites mention that it is American English style, but British >> >> English would not add a comma afterwards. >> >> My feeling is consistent with that. I'm British, and I'd say there are >> lots of cases where it is more natural (to me) not to have a comma after >> "i.e." or "e.g.". >> > > This is the crux of the argument. Should the GNU Guile manual be > written using British English or American English, both in grammar and > spelling? American English usage rules require a comma, while British > English requires that there not to be a comma. There needs to be a > decision about which set of usage rules should be used in the primary > version of the manual, and then differences can be resolved in > translations. But whichever is decided, it should not be "use a comma > if you feel it's needed; otherwise, leave it out." Reference manuals > are not the place for personal style. Let's leave that for tutorials. >
While I agree that a consistent style is desirable for a manual, I just wanted to point out that the issue at hand is definitely not a British vs. American English debate. For example, although he has nothing to say on the matter (that I could find), you'll notice that H.W. Fowler quite consistently uses a comma after "i.e." and "e.g." in his book, "The King's English" [0]. I sincerely doubt that anyone would dare to call his English Americanised. Personally, although it's neither here nor there, I'm pro-comma and most definitely en_GB. Francis [0] - http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html (An arbitrary page, but if you search it for "i.e." you'll see the comma.)
