Is it required that an i.e. clause have an explicit subject? Preferred?

E.g., is the following sentence correct?

She was not amenable, i.e., turned him down.

Or would it have to be

She was not amenable, i.e., she turned him down.

I.e., can you use i.e. to clarify only part of a sentence, or must you use the full sentence (and restate the the other part that didn't bear clarifying)?

  • 3
    My rule: If the sentence reads fine when you substitute "that is" for "i.e." then you can go with it. (Personally I don't think the first sentence reads as nicely as the second.) – Hellion Apr 26 '17 at 21:22
  • @Hellion I use that rule too! So the first sentence is not grammatically incorrect, just awkward? – user2455117 Apr 27 '17 at 15:44

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, ".... i.e is an abbreviation for the Latin expression for id est, which means “that is” in Latin. It introduces a rewording or a clarification of a statement that has just been made or of a word that has just been used."

There is no reason to use i.e. unless you follow it with a clause specifying or explaining.

For a clause introducing a not "explicit subject", perhaps you are thinking of inter alia, a Latin phrase that means among other things, or including.

| improve this answer | |
  • There is no basis for using inter alia in either case. I have edited the original question, if it was for some reason confusing. – user2455117 Apr 27 '17 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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