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
    Commented Apr 26, 2017 at 21:22
  • @Hellion I use that rule too! So the first sentence is not grammatically incorrect, just awkward? Commented Apr 27, 2017 at 15:44

1 Answer 1


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.

  • There is no basis for using inter alia in either case. I have edited the original question, if it was for some reason confusing. Commented Apr 27, 2017 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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