Re: Use of ACRONYM
by "Charles F. Munat" <chas(at)munat.com>
|
Date: |
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:00:40 -0700 |
To: |
|
Cc: |
aware-techniques(at)mail.hwg.org |
References: |
GUY |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
1) Dictionaries are opinions, not facts.
2) Words change meanings (and pronunciations) over time, usually because
of ignorance. For example, unique used to mean one-of-a-kind. Now it
means unusual. What a waste. Or, for example, forte is pronounced fort,
not for-tay. But if you pronounce it correctly people will correct you
(incorrect you?) thanks to the near ubiquitity of ignorance regarding
the word.
3) The sad thing about this is that by defining acronym as an
abbreviation that can be pronounced as a new word, we gain something.
The other option makes it almost useless. Abbr. is an abbreviation but
CSS is an acronym. So what? What difference does it make? Why even
bother to differentiate? But if I say that MADD is an acronym, then you
know that it is pronounced mad, not M-A-D-D. And if I say that CREEP is
an acronym, then you know that it stands for something else, i.e., that
it is not simply the word creep.
4) It is almost certainly a lost cause. Ignorance rules the world. Most
people simply don't care. The same aspect of human nature that compels
humans to use wrenches as hammers, pliers as wrenches, screwdrivers as
chisels, and knives as screwdrivers compels them to the same laziness in
language. And when they chip their knife blades, bend their
screwdrivers, strip nuts and smash their fingers with the wrench, they
swear and blame God, fate, or bad luck -- everyone and anything but
themselves.
Similarly, having turned unique into a synonym for unusual, they are
left helpless when confronted by the truly unique. Just as those who
abuse superlatives are rendered speechless by the truly superlative.
Aaargh.
Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington
Guy M. Fisher wrote:
>>>An acronym is an abbreviation made from the first letter or first few
>>
>
> letters of multiple words *and producing a pronounceable new word.* MADD
>
> is an acronym, CSS is not. ... CSS is a type of abbreviation consisting
> of initials. <<
>
> True, CSS is a type of abbreviation consisting of initials. More
> specifically, according to the Columbia Guide to Standard American
> English <http://www.bartleby.com/68/88/3288.html>, it is a type of
> acronym called an initialism:
>
> "Initialisms are acronyms of a special kind, abbreviations made up of
> the initial letters of a phrase: BTU for British Thermal Unit; E.R.A.
> for Equal Rights Amendment or Earned Run Average. We pronounce
> initialisms only by saying the names of the letters, not as though they
> are words."
>
> The rule I follow when marking up abbreviations is that they are marked
> up as <ABBR>s when they are pronounced as the words they abbreviate
> ("etc.") and as <ACRONYM>s when they are acronyms pronounced as new
> words ("RADAR") or initialisms that are pronounced letter by letter
> ("FBI").
>
> Just thought I'd pour more fuel on the fire ...
>
>
> Guy M. Fisher
>
> Cleveland, Ohio
> guyfisher(at)email.com
>
>
>
HWG: hwg-basics mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA