They’re confusing enough as it is. Don’t go inventing your own! They’re easy enough to check on the net if you’re not certain.
Just because there is a standard abbreviation in Dutch for a common short phrase in running text doesn’t mean there will be an equivalent in English (or vice versa). Which is a prime example in its own right: no English person will know what v.v. means…
- The following have to be written out in full in English, or an alternative found:
among others, for example, for instance
- Especially don’t invent ones that already mean something else:
btw (Dutch = VAT, EN = by the way)
p.m. (NL pro memoria = for the record, EN post meridiem = afternoon)
s.o.s. (NL z.o.z. = see other side, EN PTO = please turn over – whereas an SOS is an urgent plea for help!)
- The Latin ones used in Dutch aren’t necessarily used in English, or not in the same way. At least etc. is okay! The following may well not be understood:
a.i., ca. (English just uses “c.”), c.q., c.s., dd., e.a., i.c., LS, p.m. (used in English in times, but not pro memoria), v.v.
- And get your English Latin right when you do use it. Fortunately there aren’t many in English, but the two commonest often get mixed up in Dunglish:
e.g. means “for example” (bijv.)
i.e. means “that is” (d.w.z.)
The one area where abbreviations keep being invented is texting; that’s a world of its own, though, with short forms that are all-caps and without dots. But that’s a separate topic.
Prevalence: very high. Can occur in just about any document other than fiction.
Frequency: very high. With a few particularly common ones being a.o., c.q., f.e. and v.v. – none of which will be understood.
Native: no. There are of course lots of abbreviations in English, but they’re mostly widely known and people stick to them.