On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:27:35 -0600, Lee Daniel Crocker lee@piclab.com wrote:
(Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net): Andre Engels wrote:
I don't agree that there should be an article on each such
abbreviation;
however, if there is no article, one should just write out the
abbrevation
in almost all cases. I tend to write out abbreviations like "etc.",
"i.e."
and "a.o." whenever they occur in an article I am editing.
This is a sensible position. I would tend to make such changes in most cases, but I would hope that eventually each of them does have an article on Wiktionary. Of the given examples, I tend to leave "kg" and "etc." alone, I have mixed feelings about "i.e." where most English speakers would understand "id est" even less, and I don't know what "a.o." means. I have to guess that it means "change it".
I never use abbreviations when they can be avoided. I also write out "that is" and "for example" and even "and so on"; we are not constrained by the size limits of paper here. I suppose measurement units are hard to avoid though, but even there I'd write "kilogram" if it was just an isolated use in an otherwise non-technical article.
Well, in the page that prompted this: [[Marine Corps Memorial Statue]] I was wanting to expand the abbreviations Sgt. Cpl. and Pfc. The latter occured in front of four names, and I don't think we'd want to see "Private, First class" written in full four times. I don't think we'll have an article on it any-time soon, either. Also, does anyone know what PhM. expands to as a U.S. Naval rank?