4

Sometimes people say "etc., etc." at the end of a list to whimsically suggest many more items. Is this grammatical? Is it acceptable in a professional or academic context?

closed as primarily opinion-based by tchrist, Phil Sweet, MetaEd, user180089, Chenmunka Jul 29 '16 at 9:12

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    It's Latin, there is nothing more beloved in academics. ;) – Helmar Jul 27 '16 at 14:10
4

Doubling words for emphasis is common in English - very very common in fact. This is despite the duplication having no semantic role.

A list finishing with etc. etc. is slightly different in that it's not exactly for emphasis, but to imply many more items, trailing off ad infinitum.

As regards usage, I wouldn't write it in a paper/thesis. I would be happy to use it in a talk, even on the slides. If your overall presentation style is at the formal/dry end of what I've seen, this might not fit so well, but if you aim more for a storytelling feel it would be absolutely fine.

0

Yes. That is, in an official context even:

Queen Beatrix's official title was Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, etc., etc., etc. The triple 'etc.' refers to the monarch's many dormant titles. [My bold.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_of_the_Netherlands#Titles.2C_styles.2C_honours_and_arms

This link shows the list not to be infinite, but it is getting there...

  • 1
    I question whether the occurrence of a 'phrase' in Wikipedia constitutes proper substantiation of correct usage. Wikipedia can be written & edited by anyone. – TrevorD Jul 27 '16 at 23:25
  • @TrevorD OK. Here's the Dutch central bank and the Dutch statistics office and UNESCO (p. 29) – We oath to creation Jul 28 '16 at 5:22
  • Linking to a 273-page document, a 20-page document & a 10-pqge document are hardly appropriate ways to substantiate your point - and the document where you've referred to p.29 has only 10 pp.! May I suggest you amend your answer to incorporate relevant extracts from your cited documents, and then link to the source docs with page numbers. May I respectfully refer you to the page How to answer and the paragraph entitled "Provide context for links". – TrevorD Jul 28 '16 at 22:16
  • 1
    @TrevorD I already (independently) knew the title. I then looked it up on Wikipedia, to be able to give a reference. So, I don't really feel the need to be bothered with your distrust of Wikipedia on this issue (despite me providing further evidence, for your personal satisfaction). :) – We oath to creation Jul 29 '16 at 16:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.