Re: UserFriendly.org: Truth in Acronyms

[Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>]

Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu to David Lodge:

> > Must... not... be... pedantic... Must... not... be... pedantic...
>
> > DMCA is *not* an acronym. It's an abbreviation. An acronym can be  
> > pronounced (like radar, laser and NATO). DMCA cannot be pronounced  
> > (easily: DAM-ca? DUM-ca?) ergo it is not an acronym...
>
> If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right:
>
> Feeding 'define:acronym' to Google finds this:
>
> word formed from the initial letters of a series of words. (eg, IEEE is an acronym for Institute of Electrical and 
> Electronics Engineers).
> www.lib.vt.edu/help/instruct/glossary.html

Oddly, the definition and example don't make sense together -- please 
tell me how the fuck you pronounce the "word" IEEE -- so I'd 
respectfully suggest that this example does NOT support your contention 
as it is, itself, internally inconsistent (I'd say, written by a semi-
literate even).

> Out of the 15 hits that gets, they all agree that a word is formed by taking the
> first letter of each word of the phrase, but only 3 or 4 get "pronounceable" as a
> critical part of the definition.  Note that if there was an absolute requirement
> for words to be pronounceable, Worcestershire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershire)
> would be ruled illegal due to having an incorrect number of syllables, and any
> loanword of Welsh origin would be taken out back and shot... ;)

I disagree further with your analysis.  Several of the Googled 
definitions make no mention of pronuciation issues, per se, BUT seem to 
stress the fact that the combined grouping of initial letters _or_ (my 
emphasis) initial _few letters_ _form a word_.  That, to me (as Dave), 
is the defining difference between an acronym and an abbreviation.  
IEEE is an abbreviation (unless I'm entirely unaware that it is 
normally pronounced "i-ee" or something, rather than "i-e-e-e" or "i-
triple-e").

Also, some of the sources of your definitions that tend to suport the 
"pronunciation is not an issue" approach are rather less than 
definitive or schaolarly, whereas the more traditional "keepers of the 
language" tend to side with the abbreviation =/= acronym view.  for 
example, Oxford (from my handy 8th edition Concise) says:

   acronym ... n. a word, usu. pronounced as such, formned from the
   initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato).  ...

And Wikipedia says:

   Acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations such as NATO, laser, or
   DNA, written as the initial letter or letters of words, and
   pronounced based on this abbreviated written form.

   Of the two words, acronym is the much more frequently used and
   known, and many dictionaries, speakers and writers refer to all
   abbreviations formed from initial letters as acronyms. However, some
   still differentiate between acronyms and initialisms: an acronym was
   originally a pronounceable word formed from the initial letter or
   letters of the constituent words, such as NATO ... or RADAR ...,
   from RAdio Detection And Ranging, while an initialism referred to an
   abbreviation pronounced as the names of the individual letters, such
   as TLA ... or XHTML.

[In both quotes above I've elided pronuciation and/or derivation notes 
because of their use of non-ASCII characters.]

I'd add that, in my experience, well-educated folk are especially 
likely to make the "distinctly pronouncable" differentiation separating 
acronyms from abbreviations, and thus it is still a useful and 
meaningful disitinction despite lesser/lazier speakers failing to 
make/care for/etc the distinction.  (Many nonsensical idioms become 
popular, but that doesn't make them meaningful or useful.)


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.