James Tauber

* e.g.
* i.e.
Use these all the time.
* n.b.
Use this with literate folks but not in general, but only capitalized: N.B.
* q.v.
Don't know these.
Alex sez q.v. is quod vidit and is used in cross references. Okay, I've seen that one now that I think of it. Kinda goes with things like ibid.
* viz.
Have used this rarely, seen it in texts.

c.f. Nope. Looks familiar but no idea what it means. Okay, having looked it up, I see the usage:
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/lasste/resources/scholabbrev.html
Kewl. Nice to know.

Well, I was required to do two years of latin so I can read lots of things enjoyed by lawyers and academics but...

For a general audience only ie, eg, and NB, are OK. ie/eg are common enough and close enough in meaning [which is fortunate because writers frequently get them wrong] that readers understand them. NB is less common but is usually used as a boldface PS so even if you don't know what the letters are the intent is plain. No harm no foul.

The rest are uncommon which is fine because they aren't commonly used in places where they aren't understood.

You missed the most obnoxious which is sick [sic]. Strictly this has no negative connotations but popularly it means "I quoted the guy I disagree with in order to point out he is an illiterate retard."

NB, by the first rule of internet pedantry I will have made one false assertion and two spelling mistakes in the above post.

Please excuse the Latin spelling errors.

* e.g.
exemplii gratii - gratuitous (or given?) example.
would use
* i.e.
id est - that is.
would use
* n.b.
nota bene - note well.
would use "Note:" instead
* c.f.
confer - compare.
wouldn't use
* q.v.
quod videre?
forgotten what it means, so wouldn't use
* viz.
videlicet?
means "see also", i think.
wouldn't use

Ah, good old NB. My chemistry teacher at school used this a lot when dictating notes to us. One of his many catchphrases, you might say. Interesting it's rare in the US.

I use and understand all of them but I'm generally hard-pressed to come up with the actual Latin phrases which are abbreviated (and therefore the literal phrases involved - nota bene being the one exception, curiously).

What bothered me about your "c.f." is that the "cf" standing for "confer" and meaning "compare" has no period between the "c" and the "f." It should be "cf." Are you thinking of some different abbreviation?

cc - Carpe Canem

One habit that I've gotten into in writing technical documentation for a world audience is to avoid the latin in all cases; these are often very confusing to readers for whom reading in English is already a chore. Simply avoiding them has become one of those "good habits" that I follow in all writing.

> cc - Carpe Canem

Seize the dog?

I'm familiar enough with all six to be comfortable using them, but the last three could well get you accused of obscurantism (except in America many people would regard "obscurantism" as obscurantist).

I am surprised that nobody has pointed out the seventh Latin tag, which you used in your title: etc. is an abbreviation for "et cetera", normally taken as meaning "and the rest" (of such things).

Only knew the Latin for the first three.

I was required to do *four* years of Latin at school (back in the day when it was required for Oxford and Cambridge entrance) but could no longer translate the Aeneid to save my life.

etc.: closer reading shows me *you* mentioned, it. Sorry.

More popular than some of your Latin list is "et al" which I do occasionally use. Also "ibid" which I don't use but shows up in the same academic publications as some of your choices.

Not listed are all the Latin words that we don't think of as Latin. It's been said (variously attributed) that "English doesn't just borrow from other languages; It leads them down dark alleys, bashes them over the head, and rifles through their pockets."

Being an engineer and having all those theorems and lemmas and things like that, I miss the good ol' "q.e.d": "quod erat demonstrandum" or "which was to be shown or proven".

I come across "et seq" a lot. It didn't make your list.

* e.g.
* i.e.

I tend to find myself annoyed when these are used incorrectly, particularly when one is used where the other would be appropriate. That happens often enough that I usually recommend that people avoid them entirely, using English equivalents (for example, that is) instead.

* n.b.

I've seen this more frequently in the last couple of years, but rarely does it add anything. It's certainly not nearly as attention-calling as it sounds like it should be. Again, the English equivalent is both more understood and less annoying.

* cf.

I see this one once in a while, but again, I see no reason to prefer it over "see also" or "compare", as appropriate.

* q.v.

I might have seen this one somewhere, but not often enough to have looked up what it means nor to remember how it's used.

* viz.

I tried to use this in Scrabble once and got slammed for it. That experience also demonstrated a remarkable lack of agreement on how to pronounce it.

* etc.

I occasionally actually use this one, but only at the end of a sentence or parenthetical aside. Even then, I occasionally use "and so forth" or "and so on."

* ibid.

I have used this in citation footnotes, and seen it more frequently. I have no idea what the actual Latin is, and quite frankly don't care.

I remember the first time i used viz. in a customer facing document I was immediately corrected and told that viz. is not used in US English. Now i am not sure how authentic that fact is but i have always got raised eyebrows when ever i have used viz. in any of my documents.

e.g. and i.e. I use all the time. I've only seen n.b. infrequently, cf pretty rarely (and I don't remember the meaning), and I've never heard of q.v. or viz.

From an Indian context, e.g, i.e, viz. and etc. are very common. I must add the meanings are generally well understood but the actaul latin not many care for. These abbreviations are used generously through out schooling and college. However, industries like IT that has US as its major market do not encourage frequent usage.

I knew about half of them, but don't use them in writing. The Latin abbreviations have no great advantage over English equivalents ("for example", "that is", "and so on" are not so long), and why put speed bumps in your readers' way?

"etc" is the one exception: I think it is widely enough understood that it will confuse no one reading my writing, but even there I think an English equivalent can produce nicer sentences and paragraphs.