Talk:Et cetera

Spelling: et cætera?
I first came across the spelling et cætera many years ago here. I recall, however, asking a friend of mine who was at the time studying to be a Latin teacher about the ligature, and he expressed doubt about the authenticity of this alternative spelling. The present article says, "It is also sometimes spelled et caetera, et coetera or et cœtera and is usually abbreviated to etc. or &c." However, no source is included. Can someone with a background in Latin please confirm whether this spelling was ever considered valid in the Latin era. And, in the event that it never was, can anyone ascertain where this alleged alternative spelling came from? Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Short answer: the spelling et cætera is considered archaic or unfashionable in English, but does exist and is still a valid spelling in French. Some wrongly claim that it is obsolete, when they really want to means that it is incorrect, but the form et cœtera is even more incorrect and never was used in Latin.
 * More complete: The original Latin language (when it was still a living language) indeed seldom included the syntax et cætera. It appeared mostly in ecclesiastic Latin in the middle age (mostly in Northern France and countries around it, but probably not when close to current Italy) and it "contaminated" local languages. French was very influential to the English language, and so it did appeared in English as well.
 * It was possibly done accidentally as a way to note the long vowels "ē" as "æ", even if traditionally the latin letter "æ" was pronounced as a long "ē" only when ending a word, and otherwise it was usually a diphthong, but in the middle age many diphthongs were often not vocalised anymore.
 * Even if not etymologically justified, it nonetheless got in use in the French language and is currently one of the valid spelling even if the Académie française tried (and failed) to get ride of it many times. Et cetera is the favoured spelling in French, but if you must choose, the typographical ligature "æ" is usually favoured over "ae" for most French words (unless of course they are pronounced separately).
 * Finally, even if etymologically incorrect, it is valid in French and was actually seen in Latin, even if rare, which is not the case of et cœtera (that latter form have always been wrong in French and never seen in traditional Latin). It is also used in English, even if not the most common spelling.  Notice that et cœtera is way more faulty and probably just a transcription of some current pronunciation, but perhaps it entered usage and "œ" seems to be now tolerated in some English-speaking countries, just like the "æ" form entered the French language.  I am not neutral here, but in English I would certainly favour "æ" over "œ", as it makes no sense to me to tolerate et cœtera but refuse et cætera which at least was sometime seen in traditional Latin even if rarely.
 * 45.73.14.41 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if not etymologically justified, it nonetheless got in use in the French language and is currently one of the valid spelling even if the Académie française tried (and failed) to get ride of it many times. Et cetera is the favoured spelling in French, but if you must choose, the typographical ligature "æ" is usually favoured over "ae" for most French words (unless of course they are pronounced separately).
 * Finally, even if etymologically incorrect, it is valid in French and was actually seen in Latin, even if rare, which is not the case of et cœtera (that latter form have always been wrong in French and never seen in traditional Latin). It is also used in English, even if not the most common spelling.  Notice that et cœtera is way more faulty and probably just a transcription of some current pronunciation, but perhaps it entered usage and "œ" seems to be now tolerated in some English-speaking countries, just like the "æ" form entered the French language.  I am not neutral here, but in English I would certainly favour "æ" over "œ", as it makes no sense to me to tolerate et cœtera but refuse et cætera which at least was sometime seen in traditional Latin even if rarely.
 * 45.73.14.41 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 45.73.14.41 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The trash can picture (Sign in Millbourne, PA)
This photo has nothing to do with Et cetera. To me it is clearly "E___ Trash Collection". Why is it here?

coin
It seems to have been raised here before. The coin is inappropriate. If that is to remain, somebody should go into the city centre to take a picture of the first instance of 'etc' they see. There is no need for this. Removal must be given serious consideration. --Sb2001 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. AdrianAJNunez (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any earlier discussion. I must be a bit dense, exactly how is showing a historical example of "&c" usage as illustration for this subject inappropriate (irrelevant I would understand)? — OttoMäkelä (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claims about trivia
There's presently a block of text reading: "It is also sometimes spelled et caetera, et coetera or et cœtera. Some abbreviations that are still used in the United Kingdom, Australia, and India are considered archaic in the United States and commonly used only in legislation, notations for mathematics, or qualifications, include &ca, etca, &/c., &e., &ct., &cm, etcm, &cs, and etcs. (The ampersand derives from a ligature of et. This is occasionally formed by knowing 'et' to mean 'and' but not realising '&' is a ligature of 'et'.)"

I've flagged this as dubious because: — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not, per WP:NOT, the job of this article to catalogue very misspelled or idiosyncratic attempt at writing or abbreviating "et cetera".
 * 2) There are no sources for any of this.
 * 3) The "still used" claim must provide sources for every variant it claims is still in use, and this means a source about the usage, or examples of use in current reliable sources, not something like someone's blog showing it. (In use by the barely literate isn't of encyclopedic interest.)
 * 4) The idea that any of these are used in the United States in legislation, etc., also needs citations.
 * 5) "This is occasionally formed by" has no clear referent for "this", and appears to be WP:SYNTH or supposition.


 * Came here to write this before you'd already done it. If any of that para is true, it should be sourced. 85.119.27.27 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nearly a year was long enough for someone to source any of that, and they didn't, so I've pared it down further to what is already verified, or easily verified by every English-language dictionary there is (i.e., that &c. is still in use).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tename the article
I propose changing the article name from Et cetera" to et cetera''. Comments? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is possible via WP:NCTR. --Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky! [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 20:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"In other languages" section
Does the "in other languages" section have to be there, and not say, a link to the wiktionary article which has translations? --Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky! [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 20:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

ECT is valid
It is valid as it's commonly used and understood by the general public. Also to note that those whom are reverting it are from non accounts with public ips. Troll edits. DarkStrifeYT (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be good to have a couple of reliable sources for "ect", as this is otherwise up to speculation (e.g. et cetera). -Vipz (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Etc
Etc 2603:6011:502:793:853:8217:F8F7:745C (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)