Talk:&c.

Is this legitimate, or just someone goofing aroung with punctuation characters in a headword? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fine (just a bit dated) SemperBlotto 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted as archaic. Added 4 quotes, from 1612 - 1977 (actually moved quotes from &c where I had previously put them, since they all used the "."). Then changed &c to a stub as "Alternative spelling of &c., rare except in titles" since that is the case (and it was fairly rare even in titles as far as I could tell from books.google. I think the advent of house styles reducing the used of "."s in abbreviations was a 20th century phenomenon.) --Enginear 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with SemperBlotto and Enginear -- it's completely legitimate. I see this all the time in older works.  (I even tend to use it myself, just for fun.) —Scs 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

the "pregnant et cetera"?
I have read a book entitled The Two Babylons, and in it, the author refers to '&c' as a pregnant et cetera, "used in situations where the 'etc.' covers a very large list" (to paraphrase his explanation). Can anyone confirm or deny the plausibility of that usage? Knowledge seeker 2.0 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are completely misunderstanding him. In discussing this passage:
 * Then the priest that initiated them, called Ἱεροφαντης [the Hierophant], proposed certain questions, as, whether they were fasting, &c., to which they returned answers in a set form.
 * he writes:
 * The etcetera here might not strike a casual reader; but it is a pregnant etcetera, and contains a great deal.
 * So he's not saying that the notation means, or always is, a pregnant etcetera; he's presupposing that it means, or is, an etcetera, and is saying that this specific instance is "pregnant".
 * (By the way, for anyone else reading this discussion, the full context is at .)
 * —Ruakh TALK 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)