I had just finished a master`s degree in which it was necessary to learn those boring and non-intuitive Latin abbreviations that I had to look for every time I used them. I found you in the research, if cf. was only for comparison or only for contrast. Thank you for that clarification. Thanks for the list of other abbreviations at the end. I will stay here again! I`m very late to this post, but I have the same pet peeve. But as I get older, I think more and more that Latin abbreviations should be discouraged. If you want to say « for example », write it down and forget « for example ». If you mean « see Jones 2016 » or « compare Jones 2016 », just choose the one you want to say and write it down. For some people, including my young self, using Latin abbreviations is just cheap scholarship. However, if your publisher wants to use a Latin abbreviation for « see Jones 2016, » you can tell them to use « v. » for « empty. » The use of this abbreviation indicates that another section of a particular work or case or volume contains contradictory, comparable or explanatory opinions and texts.
Abbreviation of the Latin word confer, which means « to compare ». So what`s the problem with cf.? It`s that I often see it as if it means « see also » or just « see » – but it`s not. It is actually an abbreviation of the Latin conferre*, literally « to gather ». It means « to compare », and in particular it suggests that the reader can see the author`s point of view by gathering two or more things (to compare or contrast them) that follow the « cf ». For example, I could write: « Although the theory confirms that attack by specialized parasitoids can make herbivore populations cyclical, the authors disagree on whether parasitoid attack data for spruce budworms are compatible with this mechanism (see Smith 2014, Jones 2016) » This is more specific than writing « e.g. Smith 2014, Jones 2016 » or « see Smith 2014, Jones 2016 » as this identifies the contrast between these two quotes as the point of interest. Beautiful melody Stephen, thank you! But: isn`t it a useful (and legal) tool in taxonomy/nomenclature that you can use if you`re not 100% sure it`s for example Musca domestica (=> Musca cf. domestica)? So I always want to use this abbreviation and introduce it to students. But I understand that you are just 🙂 more on a semantic path thank you for your nice blog, by the way. cheers Jens Cf. is an abbreviation of the Latin word confer, which means « to compare ».
Cf. is a signal that the cited source supports a different statement (statement) than the one just made, that it is worth comparing the two claims and judging the difference. Explanations in parentheses are recommended to explain how a source relates to the text. If people stop using words or abbreviations because of semantic drift, how will they develop a fixed meaning? Readers usually understand meanings from context, just as words reach fixed meanings. I say to keep using them and drop the fleas where they want. The abbreviation cf. (abbreviation of Latin: confer/conferatur, both meaning « to compare »)[1] is used in writing to refer the reader to other documents in order to make a comparison with the subject addressed. The style guides recommend using cf. only to suggest a comparison, and using the word « see » to refer to a source of information. [2] [3] I tried to think of a 2-letter abbreviation that roughly meant « see also: » or « referenced by, » and « cf » fit perfectly. It was for a bit of code that formats a reference to an external resource (i.e. files and URLs), and its name had a large character limit of 2 characters (yes, don`t ask…).
*^Note that this is an abbreviation of a single word, and therefore c.,, not c.f. I`d like to pretend I didn`t learn this just now while I`m working on this post. I had misused cf. in writing legal briefs for the past six years, suddenly I had a bad feeling when I used it tonight and Googled it and found this site. Thank you very much! (I love the Inigo meme, totally stolen) I looked at a legal document and you are absolutely right. The text was useful, so I thought I would share it. California Style Manual (Fourth Supplement) pp. 9-10: If a case is cited as the source of a citation, or if a case directly supports the statement given in the text, no introductory signal is appropriate. However, quotes about weaker support should be introduced with the word « see. » Therefore, « see » should precede citations of cases that only indirectly support the text, citations to supporting dictations, and citations to a concurring or dissenting opinion.
Never use « see » to support a direct quote. In the latter cases, add an explanatory note in parentheses indicating « dicta », « cone ». opn. » or « dis. opn. ». Secondary authority can be introduced by « seeing », but it does not have to be. The « d » signal. (Latin: confer, meaning « to compare with ») is used to introduce a decision analogous enough to support the proposal, as if a cited case applied a similar law. The word « agreement » is a signal used after a lead authority has been cited and has submitted decisions, including those of other jurisdictions, that correspond directly. « Agreement » is also used when the author wants to quote an opinion and then quote other supporting authorities. To compare decisions, use the « Compare. with…..
