Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1296654-20190726133841/@comment-38288735-20191105162456

While I agree that the origins of et al. and etc. are what SOTO says they are, I do not agree that they are relevant. Language is a living thing, and origins of words only have practical meaning if the people who use the words know those origins. Otherwise, the words only reflect how they are currently used. I doubt people who haven't studied Latin would have any knowledge of the words' original meaning, so the distinction SOTO is making is entirely immaterial to most people. Which is not in and of itself a problem; this wiki makes borderline determinations over minutiae all the time.

The problem is that using et al. in an unconventional manner, even if it is a use that is supported by the original Latin, is a little more substantial. While et al. is infrequently used for lists of things other than people, those are so sparse in appearance that I had to dig to find an example. Meanwhile, many English language style guides actively advise against its use for lists of things other than people. It seems to me that going against the grain of the words' common modern usage is distinctly more problematic than going against Latin meanings that most people won't know anything about.