Talk:Acronym and initialism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Yeshu 3 Spelling of non-English derived acronyms 4 Pluralization of Acronymns 5 Is the obsolescence of a distinction just an Americanism? 6 Why the section on French usage? 7 Differences between acronyms and initialisms 8 Remove OPEC Example? 9 What about "i.e.", "ie,", "e.g.," and "eg"? 10 Relationship Between "Acronyms" and "Initialisms" 11 USN abbreviations 12 Nested Acronyms 13 A meaning with no word 14 articles 15 Alternate initials for words in acronyms 16 lowercase abbreviations 17 Get Smart 18 Frequency as a function of language 19 Proposed title change 20 Perhaps most famously the US Government 21 Merge with Abbreviation 22 palindrome 23 Definite articles 24 Incorrectly Written 25 Dispute 26 Syllabaries 27 Nohat's Next Move: Lobster is a Fish 28 Initialization redirects to Booting 29 initialism? 30 Is this right? 31 Clean up some of the examples? 32 Remove Fictional Section 33 Tagging on Wikipedia 34 Intro 35 Anonymous user vandalism 36 W.A.S.T.E. 37 NPOV Policy against Information Suppression

Archives

• Talk:Acronym and initialism/Archive 1

See also:

• Talk:Acronym
• Talk:Initialism

Yeshu

I added the "Yeshu acronym for 'erase his name'" tidbit. I think it is very interesting. It has since been reworded several times; regardless of what was there before, I think it is now erroneous. If you believe the Yeshu page, it is clear that the acronym does exist as an acronym in ye olde Hebrew texts; it is not clear that the name existed. Therefore, either what is currently on this page is wrong, or the Yeshu page needs correcting... have at it.

Spelling of non-English derived acronyms

The question of spelling of non-English derived acronyms is raised due to the spelling of Tanakh rather then TaNaKh, where the additive letters -a- and -h are used to provide non-Hebrew speaker with assistance to correct pronunciation of the acronym which in Hebrew is written TNK. If Tanakh is written in the current Wiki usage, it looses not only the form of an acronym, but acquires the form of a proper name such as Bible, which of often used in English to refer to TaNaKh but which is not an acronym. I would like to propose that the TaNaKh spelling be adopted throughout Wikipedia as the correct form to reflect both the Hebrew usage from which it is derived, and to differentiation from proper names.--Mrg3105 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pluralization of Acronymns

There is an issue that is not addressed in the pluralization section, namely, what happens in which we are pluralizing an acronym in which the noun is not ordinarily pluralized with an "s." For example -- the plural of tableau is tableaux, so how is one supposed to pluralize the acronym for Standard Young Tableau (SYT)? A related question is what happens if the noun is not at the end of the acronym -- is the plural of CD-ROM supposed to be CD-ROMs or CDs-ROM? It seems to me, adopting a descriptivist point of view, that most people tend to treat the acronym as a whole as one noun (similar to the "lasers" example already mentioned in the article), so I think most people would say SYTs and CD-ROMs. Any thoughts as to what the proper usage is, and whether it's worth including in the article? It may be the case that the rule mentioned for "lasers" applies to more acronyms than just those spelled in lower-case.129.97.192.28 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the obsolescence of a distinction just an Americanism?

I have to own up to being an old pedant, but I am willing to admit when I'm losing. However, in this case, I really don't know anyone (this is in the UK) who doesn't know that the 'old' meaning of acronym is actually still the current and correct one.

The Oxford English Dictionary is quite specific on the matter: see acronym and initialism.

Is the lack of a sensible distinction actually, then, just an Americanism? (I also have to say that I personally wouldn't usually treat the America-centric Merriam-Webster dictionary as a definitive English-language reference.)

Neil 07:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The OED indicates that the origin of "acronym" is in fact from the U.S., so I would think there is no need to dismiss American usage, which is very influential internationally, as "just an Americanism". --C S (Talk) 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"American usage, which is very influential internationally". What an arrogant statement! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.63.237 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 August 2006.

Hm...arrogant? How so? If you look at American English you will see some of the international influence. --C S (Talk) 15:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do a Google search of the query "is an acronym" +site:.uk, you will find thousands of examples on British web sites of the word "acronym" being used exactly as described in the article, referring both to abbreviations which are pronounced as the names of the letters as well as abbreviations which are pronounced as words. You will also find that there is less than one half of one percent as many results shown for a similar search for "is an initialism", indicating that the word initialism is a rarely-used word, and not one frequently employed to make a distinction between acronyms pronounced as words and acronyms pronounced as letters. If the distinction were being maintained, then one would expect to find more results, as abbreviations that would be called "initialisms" far outnumber those that would be called "acronyms". It appears that no such distinction is being maintained by the English-writing public at large, inside or outside the UK. As far as the OED is concerned, outdated dictionary definitions show nothing other than the fact that the dictionaries are outdated. Nohat 08:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If you google just '"is an acronym" uk' (as not all UK sites are actually .uk), at least the highest matches give a far higher proportion of what I'd call the 'correct' definition of acronym (including some pointing out the distinction). I appreciate that, even in the UK, there is a tendancy for people to incorrectly use acronym on-the-fly, but they will always concede the correct definition (in my experience, anyway). This may be more due to people not being aware of an alternative (except possibly 'abbreviation'). I, for one, had never actually heard of the word 'initialism' before reading this article! (but that may just be me highlighting my ignorance more than anything else ...) Neil 11:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't highlight your ignorance—it highlights the reality of the English language for the vast majority of its users. It is not our place to tell native English speakers that the way they're using their own language is wrong. Nohat 08:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I agree with you, Neil. There is a distinction between an acronym and an initialism. However, "initialism" isn't a common word in America; the plural word "initials" is more commonly used, e.g. "Michael Jordan's initials are MJ". It seems to me that this distinction is put vaguely in the first paragraph. I will try to clear it up a bit. Subversive 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The alleged distinction is not borne out by the preponderance of usage. Please see Talk:Acronym/Archive 2 and Talk:Acronym for evidence and a discussion on why making the assertion that abbreviations like IBM are not "acronyms" on Wikipedia is inappropriate. Nohat 08:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Pattersonc(Talk) 11:12 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)

I hadn't even heard the term "initialism" before I saw this article, and it doesn't even appear in my old (1986) edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. However, I was definitely taught that for an acronym to be described as such, it must be a word that can be pronounced. Anything else was simply referred to as an abbreviation, with each letter enunciated separately. However, both terms are given separate, distinct definitions within the latest OED. I have rewritten the opening paragraph, which will now hopefully provide a factual and impartial description. Chris 42 18:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the section on French usage?

I could see a section on importing non-English initialisms into English (SNCF, CCITT, KGB, MiG) but I don't see the reason for a French usage section in the English Wikipedia (or vice versa, obviously). Sharkford 15:36, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Agreed, not needed. {Ανάριον} 15:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That was fast! I will try to do some research and add a section on borrowing foreign i~s and a~s; there's probably something interesting to be said of Tu and MiG. (Don't let me discourage anyone else from doing it first!) Sharkford 17:08, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Differences between acronyms and initialisms

An acronym is a pronounceable word formed from the initial letter or letters of the constituent words, such as NATO. An initialism is an abbreviation pronounced as the names of the individual letters, and is formed only from the initial letter of constituent words, such as HTML.

This is all fine and dandy, except if you read HTML, you will find that the H and T come from the same word, HyperText (also Hypertext). So how does that meet the requirement of being "formed only from the initial letter of constituent words"? --timc | Talk 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's also written Hyper Text. No rule can be absolute here though. Anárion 17:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My point was just that HTML is a bad choice of an example since it seemingly violates the very rule that it is exemplifying. I have replaced it with TLA, which I consider somehow appropriate. :-) --timc | Talk 23:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They should be two separate subjects on WIKI IMHO NigelHorne 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove OPEC Example?

OPEC has been classified as a mixed case (letter "O" + word "PEC"). What is the most likely pronuncation of the arbitrary word "opec"? My first attempt would be a long/hard "o" followed by "pec". Therefore the current mixed case classification is at best ambiguous. - BillR

What about "i.e.", "ie,", "e.g.," and "eg"?

The current entry does not adequately address these cases. I have seen the lower case simplified initialization more and more frequently. The argument that "the periods are not needed because each letter is capitalized" clearly does not apply. - BillR

Interesting. I've never seen these in any carefully written and reviewed work, only in email (attributable to laziness or being hurried). --pjh 22:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Relationship Between "Acronyms" and "Initialisms"

Does this article give the correct relationship between acronyms and initialisms? Are not acronyms special cases of initialisms? Is there really a dictionary that explicitly states that initialisms are *not* pronounced as words? If so, which dictionary?

Yes, there is: the Oxford English Dictionary. See this link: OED definition of "initialism" Chris 42 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And I've rewritten the lede *again*; this is still going on? We're discussing a technical issue of lexicography, people; common usage is not on point. People can mish-mash it any way they like in common usage, that is not a valid excuse for us to get it wrong. And anyone who wants to say that the OED is *not* an authoritative source on the topic... well, I'll just laugh at them, 'k? We should correctly describe the two, make the point that most people don't much distinguish, and move along, instead of glorifying ignorance, which is what I feel is being done when we don't properly distinguish.

Acronyms are actual words. Initialisms are merely abbreviations. --Baylink 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

USN abbreviations

I find it amazing all the big abbreviations the Navy, and maybe other services, use for commands, etc., let alone all the smaller ones they might use for other things. COMNAVAIRLANT, COMFITAEWWINGPAC, NAVAIRSYSCOM, and tons more. I dunno, that just always amused me.

these were always called acronyms, and the article would be improved if this type were added in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.115.98 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

On a side note, I also always thought the HowToGAMIT was cool.

Nested Acronyms

On occassion. I have seen acronyms in which one of the letters refers to another acronym. I used the phrase nested acronym to describe that type. I can't think of an example (the horror of seeing one traumatized me so that I have apparently blocked the memory). I wondered if it might be of interest to include a few of those in the Trivia section, if anyone knows of any in actual use.

WCFrancis 02:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about recursive initialisms like PHP (PHP's Hypertext Preprocessor), or GNU (GNU's Not Unix) --Doc0tis 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OPC is one such. -- JethroElfman 22:19, Jan 26 2006 (UTC)

Currently we have AIM AOL's Instant Messenger. This does not seem to be a recursive initialism. It is a Initialism that references another Initialism. Should we create another subsection?--Doc0tis 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

VIUF was V International Users Forum, VHDL is VHSIC Hardware Definition Language, and VHSIC is the U.S. Department of Defense's Very High Speed Intergrate Circuit program. Other acronyms use VDHL, too. --Drpaule 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A meaning with no word

I am requesting for a word or phraze that describes an acronym that everyone seems to repeat the last word of. e.g:

PIN number, ATM machine, LCD Display, DNS Server, NT Technology,

To name a few.

RAS syndrome Joestynes 10:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I complained about DNS Server a while back, it was pointed out that DNS server is Domain Name System server. --pjh 22:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

When people say PIN Number I cringe :-) --Doc0tis 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

--different issue: what is the word for an acronym whose initials previously stood for different words, such as these from the article: SADD (Students against Driving Drunk->Students against Destructive Decisions), YM (Young Miss->Young & Modern->Your Magazine), and SWAT (Special Weapons Assault Team->Special Weapons and Tactics)?

backronym is not specific enough

Please, sign your post. I don't know of a word for abbreviations that stay the same while their component words change. — President Lethe 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

articles

so it is "a FAQ" or "an FAQ"? - Omegatron 21:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Depends on how you say FAQ. If you say "ef-ay-cue", then it's "an FAQ". If you say "fack" then it's "a FAQ". Nohat 03:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternate initials for words in acronyms

Sometimes, words in acronyms that start with ex can be used as an X in the acronym; and also, crossing is used as an X as well. They could also use numbers for words that sould like numbers (e.g. 2,4). Should we give this a mention in the article? --SuperDude 04:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

lowercase abbreviations

rms, mph, emf

Why??

I got this reply once when I asked someone:

"rms" is written in lower-case because that follows the general accepted practice as outlined in the Abbreviations Dictionary, 9th ed. (Ralph De Sola, Dean Stahl and Karen Kerchelich; CRC Press ISBN0-8493-8944-5, 1995) and other sources. Quoting the CRC book: "American as well as British and Canadian publishers appear to be following the trend to capitalize only those letters normally capitalized: proper nouns and important words in titles. They reserve lowercase letters for abbreviations consisting of adjectives and common nouns." This is the way it appears in the IEEE reference above. Other popular examples are "rpm," and "mph."

How did this start? In which situations is it used? (How can we stop it?)  :-) - Omegatron 15:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why-oh-why has the BBC started using initial capitals only for abbreviations. It may be fine for things like 'Nato' but when they started to apply it to 'Pc' for 'Police Constable' (as in 'Pc [name]) it just started to look silly...

It's not just the BBC. References to persons of the U.S. Army rank "Private First Class" are often printed "Pfc. So-and-So". The "Plc" (Private Limited Company) that's been in use in Britain for years is another non-BBC example. I share your distate, though—at least in some cases. — President Lethe 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Get Smart

This has become one of the most commonly parodied clichés of the spy thriller genre. Some of the most popular were:

• C.O.N.T.R.O.L. and K.A.O.S. from the Get Smart series.

According to [1]

The letters in CONTROL and KAOS do not stand for anything. The names were picked because evil represents chaos and the opposite of chaos is control. Also, KAOS and CONTROL were never written as acronyms (K.A.O.S.), as U.N.C.L.E. and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. were. There was never an episode where any member of KAOS or CONTROL said that the names stood for something.

If true, I think the information should be clarified (one could argue that CONTROL and KAOS are parodies of the acronym cliché) or removed. --66.216.68.28 21:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Frequency as a function of language

I have heard it said (by speakers new to English) that English has far more acronyms than any other language. They are understandably confusing to new speakers. I would love it if someone could speak to that on this page. I did some WWW searching and could not find direct statistical evidence for this, even though I am quite sure it is true, or close to true. David W. Hogg 14:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed title change

I think there should be a separate article "Acronyms", incorporating most all of this article. Why? First, because it is SO MUCH more familiar a term than "initialism." This current article title is like having one titled "Automobiles and SUV's". Second, because most people who have even heard of the term "initialism" take it to be a specialized form of acronym, like "NATO," formed solely from the initial letters of each word. Most of the alleged "initialisms" cited in this article are simply "initials" or abbreviations.Sfahey 00:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps most famously the US Government

The Nazi regime certainly rivaled the US govt and the New Deal for use of acronyms. Perhaps the 1930s was a time when the use of acronyms became a global trend. BDM (Bund Deutscher Maedels -- League of German Girls), DAF (Deutscher Abeit Front -- German Labor Front), are two of many, many examples. Gestapo is an acronym (GEheime STAats POlizei -- Secret state police) as is FLAK. Today, in English, we use flak (or the anglicized spelling variation flack) as a synonym for opposition, criticism or verbal abuse. But FLAK is really an acronym for anti-aircraft guns (or fire). FLAK expands to FLieger/FLugzeug Abwehr Kanone (literally: aircraft defense cannon).--Trweiss 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Abbreviation

WARNING! I am planning to merge this into Abbreviation as per request. Does anyone have any objections? If I hear nothing by November 16, the merge will be carried out. Brisvegas 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)'

== Objection == Acronyms go beyond abbrvns and often become words of their own, such as scuba, radar and many others. What this article needs is for acronyms to be peeled off from "initialisms", an obscure designation which is little (if anything) more than an abbreviation. Sfahey 03:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

== Objection == I disagree with the proposal; an acronym is not an abbreviation. The acronym phenomenon, especially in English, is so widespread these days that they deserve their own entry. Kmorrow 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

== Objection == I also disagree, they are even taught seporately.

Objection: I oppose the merge. There is enough distinct content about each subject to warrant separate articles. --TantalumTelluride 22:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection. Enough distinction to warrant separate entries. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - as per above arguments. --Vivenot 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

palindrome

I am going to remove the sentence about palindromes at the end of the intro. It seems irrelavent. Ozone 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Definite articles

Should definite articles be used before an acronym or initialism that stands for a proper noun? For example, is "He traveled to USA." correct or only "He traveled to the USA."? Presumably, style guides differ about this, but this should be addressed in the article. Pgan002 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an english guru and don't know alot about acronyms or initialism's but I would say you would include the word "the" in the sentence. It doesn't make sense otherwise--Doc0tis 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. If the full phrase requires an article, the acronym would too. And I can't imagine that much difference in the style guides, just that acronyms would have different situations. JFK wouldn't have one, but DVD will (unless you're using it as a name for the format...) USA is fine stand-alone, but I'm pretty sure it's always "the USA" in a phrase. - BalthCat, 2006.01.27

It depends on the word and the user. For example, in the U.S., a certain television and radio network used to identify itself on the air by having an announcer say "This is NBC, the National Broadcasting Company"—no article for the abbreviation, but an article for its full form. But, yes, usually, whether to use an article for the abbreviation is decided by whether one is used for the full form: for example, "We watch the BBC [(the British Broadcasting Corporation)] and ITV [(Independent Television)]]." — President Lethe 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectly Written

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

• This has several inaccuracies it in. I'm going to ask for support and opposition responses before I rewrite this article. I have no issue with both being on the same page but the factual data should be represented.

1. Acronyms and Initalisms are usually created by the first letters but not exclusively.
2. An acronym is a word form (eg: MADD)
3. An initialism consists of initial letters pronounced separately (eg: CPU)

I'm not fastidious enough to may mention of this in general usage but on wikipedia I would like a high attention to accuracy. Please, I implore you to reply if you have any concerns with this. I will proceed to rewrite this page in 3-5 days.

We've had this discussion before, and unfortunately, while this view is held by some, it is not "factual data", but simply a POV that is contrary to not only a large portion of how the word is actually used, but also to at least one major English dictionary definition. If anyone attempts to change the article so that it supports only this view, they will be reverted. Also this comment shows that the writer does not have fluent command of English, so it is difficult to take seriously any assertions about subtle points of semantics. Nohat 07:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, there is a distinction between prescription/description divergence (as with "decimate", "comprise") and technical/popular divergence (as with "[the sun is a] star", "[a mushroom is a] plant"). I submit that the discrepant definitions of acronym belong in the second category, not the first. An encyclopedia should use the technical definition. Of course, the definition of "initialism" is even less standardised; for some it is only non-acronym abbreviations, for others it is the superset including acronyms and others. Joestynes 13:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Merriam-Webster gives "an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters" without further remark as a definition for acronym [2]. I see no reason to discount this definition in any way. Nohat 17:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, because your "without further remark" is highly misleading. The full MW definition is:

a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM

"The sense divider also is used to introduce a meaning that is closely related to but may be considered less important than the preceding sense" [3] and "A synonymous cross-reference indicates that a definition at the entry cross-referred to can be substituted as a definition for the entry or the sense or subsense in which the cross-reference appears." [4]. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Joestynes 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly a condemnation, either. The article as it is currently fairly represents the reality of usage. Nohat 08:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nohat, you seem to be the torch carrier for the conflating and confusing of distinct terms. You keep linking back to previous talk pages where numerous people, citing the OED and other reputable sources, show you to be unequivocaly wrong. While implicitly accusing others of pedantry, you continue to make arguments for why you, and not the OED, should be the arbiter of correct usage. Even "your" dictionary (not really the cream of the crop) cites your definition as secondary. Those arguing for distinction between the two terms are not arguing for a more "restrictive" definition; they are arguing for using the correct defintion. Levi P. 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This article explains the reality of usage as well as what dictionaries say without taking a stand on what is and isn't an acronym. A secondary sense of a word is still a sense of a word. An article about acronyms that only considered and discussed one sense of word that is used in more than one way would be incomplete and one-sided—I daresay such an article would not reflect a neutral point of view. This article should describe what people say about the word and how people use it without taking a stand on what is "correct" and what is "incorrect". Claims like [t]hose arguing for distinction between the two terms are not arguing for a more "restrictive" definition; they are arguing for using the correct defintion betray a woeful misunderstanding of how language works. I would think by now that it is obvious that there isn't universal agreement on what an acronym is, and Wikipedia policy is not to take sides in debates, but to simply describe the debate and the arguments on either side. I never claimed to be the final arbiter of correct usage—the only arbiter of correct usage is usage itself—and this article reflects the diversity of usage as well as the the fact that some senses of the word have been criticized. Nohat 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"This article should describe what people say about the word without taking a stand on what is "correct" and "incorrect"". This seems to be the rub. One need not "take a stand" on this anymore than one need take a stand on the proper use of the word "camera". The reason why this is not necessary is because there are dictionaries that clearly delineate the proper use of terms. Further, your assertion that "the only arbiter of correct usage is usage itself" belies your implied knowledge of correct usage. "Usage itself" in no way implies correct usage, and any assertion otherwise is completely foolish. If this were the case, then there would be no such thing as incorrect usage, since, having been used, it would have become correct. So unless there is no such thing as the incorrect use of a term, your assertion is without meaning. I've now looked in three different dictionaries (including a Merriam-Webster) and have not yet seen the (secondary) definition to which you cling. While I believe you that it exists, there is no reason why one secondary definition should supercede, or be given equal weight, as all the other primary definitions (from more respected dictionaries). I appreciate your passion, but an encyclopedia should define terms correctly. No intellectual gymnastics can make one secondary def. in (some) issues of MW equivalent to numerous primary def. in the OED, among others.Levi P. 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you for pointing out to me that in fact correct usage is only defined by dictionaries that you consider respected. If I have any future usage-related questions, I'll be sure to ask you where I should go to have my usage questions answered from on high by the almighty usage arbiters. Nohat 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you out anytime. I assume this means you will stop reverting people who correct the article. I wouldn't be too upset as it is a common mistake that can be easily corrected. Here is an example of a website owned by the Washington Post doing just that http://www.slate.com/id/2134203/?nav=ais (scroll down to the bottom).Levi P. 05:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I dispute the accuracy of the definiton and usage of acronym in this article. Nohat, please provide references for "dictonaries" (plural) that substantiate your claim. To this point I have only seen you cite one secondary definition as support. If that is all you have, the article should not use the plural. Please provide a reference, from a book dealing with English grammer, that describes the difference between an acronym and initialism as being contentious. I can not find one. Most importantly please cite at least one book on English grammer that states that an acronym is the same thing as an initialism. I can cite many that clearly, explicitly state that this is not the case. To wit: 1) "First, we should be aware of the technical difference between the two types of abbreviated names. An acronym is...read or spoken as a single word, not letter by letter...An initialism is...sounded letter by letter. (Garner's Modern American Usage" 2003)"; 2) "Abbrevations...are pronounced either as the individual letters (NBC, CIA, LSD) or sometimes, if the letters spell out something pronounceable, as an acronym. ("Grammatically Correct" 2004)"; 3) "...the word acronym refers only to terms based on the initial letters of their various elements and read as single words...initialism refers to terms read as a series of letters. ("The Chicago Manual of Style" 15th Edition)"; or, if you really need it 4) "English Grammer for Dummies" states, "Don't confuse abbrevations with acronyms...Acronyms are new words made from the first letters of each word...". I intend to edit the article in the next few days so it correctly defines acronym. Please lay your cards on the table.Levi P. 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I confess that, every time I've read the "Incorrectly Written" argument, directly above, I've tired of it. Still, Levi P., I see that you "dispute the accuracy of the definition and usage of acronym in" the article. You say that you intend to edit the article in the next few days. The opening of the article at the moment is this:

Acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, such as NATO, laser, and LED, written as the initial letter or letters of words, and pronounced on the basis of this abbreviated written form. Of the two words, acronym is the much more frequently used and known; and some dictionaries, speakers, and writers use it in describing all abbreviations formed from initial letters. However, this is a contentious point, and there are also some (including the Oxford English Dictionary and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language) who differentiate between the two terms, restricting acronym to pronounceable words formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the constituent words—such as NATO (pronounced [neɪtoʊ]), from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, or radar (pronounced [reɪdɑɹ]), from radio detection and ranging—and restricting initialism to abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters—such as TLA (pronounced [ti.ɛl.eɪ]) or XHTML (pronounced [ɛks.eɪtʃ.ti.ɛm.ɛl]).

I would appreciate it, Levi P., if you would say quite clearly what exactly you dispute in this opening paragraph and what exact changes you would make to the opening paragraph. (I'll save questions and discussion about the rest of the article for later.)

It occurs to me that some may be confused about the wording "pronounced on the basis of this abbreviated written form". I read this sentence not as saying that the word UFO (or U.F.O.) should be pronounced "you-eff-oh", or that it should be pronounced "oofoh": I read it simply as saying that the word UFO (or U.F.O.) should not be pronounced "unidentified flying object". I don't know whether that's part of your issue, Levi P.; but I thought I'd mention it. "[O]n the basis of this abbreviated written form" is neutral about whether the abbreviation, when pronounced aloud, is spoken as a single word or as the names of the letters; the point is that whatever pronunciation is uttered comes from the letters that are in the abbreviation and not those that are in the "full" version of the abbreviated term.

I have a large number of books about language in general and English in specific. Unfortunately, because of a move I'm in the middle of, some of them are not so easily accessible. Still, for the sake of this debate, I want to quote, soon, from as many of them as I can, at this Talk page, so that we're all even more informed.

Yet, even before transcribing from the various books and websites, I feel safe in saying that the best conclusion we will reach, after examining the sources and considering the purpose of Wikipedia, will be that the article should include all these points:

• acronyms are abbreviations formed from the initial letters of words

• initialisms are abbreviations formed from the initial letters of words

• many speakers use the word acronym to describe any abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words, regardless of whether such an abbreviation is pronounced, for example, "you-eff-oh" or "oofoh"

• many sources make a distinction between the meanings of acronym and initialism

• many sources that make a distinction restrict the definition of acronym to such an abbreviation that is pronounced as a single word ("oofoh", but not "you-eff-oh"; NATO, but not BBC)

• some sources that make a distinction consider all acronyms (those pronounced as words rather than letter names) to be a subset of the set called initialisms, because acronyms (those pronounced as words rather than letter names) are made of the initial letters of words and thus are initialisms

• some sources that make a distinction consider all initialisms (those pronounced as letter names rather than words) to be a subset of the set called acronyms, because initialisms (those pronounced as the names of initial letters) are a kind of acronym (with the idea that an acronym is a word made of the initial letters of other words, regardless of pronunciation)

• some sources that make a distinction consider acronyms and initialisms to be mutually exclusive, because acronyms are pronounced as words while initialisms are pronounced as the names of the initial letters.

Firm and/or distinct definitions of vocabulary are useful in discussions of a topic. Because of that, I propose the following:

• that the above several points (about disputed/overlapping meanings of the words acronym and initialism) be brought up very early in the article

• that it then be stated that the article, for the sake of concision and consistency, will then stick with one definition for acronym and another definition for initialism

• that the rest of the article then be written with that distinction maintained

• that the distinction be that acronyms are pronounced as words and initialisms are pronounced as letter names.

There are two reasons for that last point. One is that it's a distinction that some users of English already maintain. (In other words, it doesn't create some new distinction for the reader to deal with; at most, it requires the reader to switch to a mindset that employs a distinction that some other readers already use.) The second is that, with the word abbreviation, we already have a category that includes both abbreviations pronounced as words and abbreviations pronounced as letter names—and so the remaining vocabulary (acronym and initialism) should be used for two mutually exclusive subsets of the abbreviation set. (Comparison: it's useful to use man and woman as two mutually exclusive subsets of the adult human being set.)

Defining terminology and then using it carefully throughout is one mark of a good scholarly work, a good encyclopedia article. As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly acceptable to address terminology disputes early on and then to say "In this article, the terms will be used in [such and such] way"; this is done all the time in good works. In this case, presenting a debate and then 'taking a side' on it for the sake of convenience seems far better than, throughout the article, just using any old term (abbreviation or acronym or initialism) and then further qualifying every instance of any of those words with extra words ("abbreviations that are pronounced as words", "abbreviations that are pronounced as the names of their constituent letters", "acronyms that are pronounced as words", "acronyms that are pronounced as the names of their constituent letters", "initialisms that are pronounced as words", "initialisms that are pronounced as the names of their constituent letters").

Does anyone have a response?

President Lethe 04:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A message that Nohat left for me after I made the above posting:

I just wanted to thank you for answering Levi P. I find his pugnacious attitude unpleasant and was not looking forward to having to educate yet another person on the inherent conflict with prescriptive claims about language and NPOV. So thanks for that; it's most appreciated.

I will confess that I am worried about your proposal—using a disputed term in a particular way in an article has a way of giving the article an implied bias in favor of that usage or meaning. I recognize that circumlocutions make for weak writing, but maintaining neutrality is paramount. The other difficulty with defining acronym and initialism as you propose is that there is a large class of things, such as the hybrid types, whose membership in one or the other categories defined by the "received" definitions of those words is questionable. I think that if we are going to "define terms" for the purpose of the article, our best bet would be some kind of ad hoc terminology that is not polluted by readers' preconceptions of what the terms might mean.

Again, thanks for your support. If you think the article is suffering at present from confusing and inconsistent circumlocutions, I am sure we can come to a satisfactory solution. Nohat 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that many have a view of the descriptive–prescriptive debate that is different from mine.

The fact is that you cannot describe anything without using a system of vocabulary, syntax, &c.—and the system must be agreed upon by both you and your listener. If I look at an orange and call it go, and you look at an orange and call it mouse, we're gonna suck at communicating with each other about that orange. We have to prescribe, for the sake of our discussion, the thing's name and other rules about the language we're going to use to talk about the thing.

At the same time, we cannot make those prescriptions without being descriptive: you and I have to have a descriptive discussion in which we say "Well, one of us calls that fruit over there a go, and the other calls it a mouse", so that we get to the point of being sure what each of us is talking about—and then, usually, for the sake of expedience, one of us ends up adopting the other's term, at least temporarily. The descriptive exchange of information about language is followed by a prescriptive agreement on how that language can be molded to facilitate further, easier communication about more things. (It's why understanding someone who speaks a different language is hard at first but then stops being hard once at least one of you understands both languages. When the German-speaker says Wand, and the French-speaker says mur, and I say wall, each of us is confused—until (1) we describe to one another what we mean by Wand and mur and wall, and then (2) we make some kind of prescription (even if the prescription is nothing more than "The only person who will say Wand is the German-speaker; the only person who will say mur is the French-speaker, and the only person who will say wall is the English-speaker") about what to call that vertical structure in our future discussions.)

Yes, O.K., sometimes the two conversants can continue using their own terms: in a discussion of a certain device, it might be fine for the Briton to keep on calling it a "lift" and the American to keep on calling it an "elevator". But why is this fine? It's fine in this instance because the American understands that, when the Briton says "lift", the thing that the American calls "elevator" is exactly what is meant (and nothing else is meant), and because the Briton understands that, when the American says "elevator", the thing that the Briton calls "lift" is exactly what is meant (and nothing else is meant). Here, only one thing is being described by the two different names. In the abbreviation–acronym–initialism discussion, three different things are being described—actually three different categories, one of which entirely encompasses the other two, and the other two of which are mutually exclusive (and they are: regardless of names, the concepts remain; the categories, the set and the subsets, remain; a rose is still a rose by any other name).

Defining terms at the outset of the article is especially necessary when the writer already knows that the terms are debated. Writers should be very careful and conservative about coming up with new terminology. It is better to ask one reader to think of an existing term in a way that may be new for that reader (though not new for another reader) than to ask all readers to adopt totally new terminology. The problem with asking them to adopt new terminology is that they might then get the craziest looks from anyone who hasn't read the article that introduces the new terminology. The other problem is that Wikipedia is not in the business of original research, which is what creating new terminology would be.

So, as Wikipedians, we're stuck with existing terminology. This leaves us with two options:

• temporarily put some limits on the use of our terminology—limits that may be somewhat different from those that the reader brings to the article before sitting down to read it—and then telling the reader about the upcoming usage, right at the outset, and explaing why we've adopted the limits on the usage (the why is to facilitate your ease of understanding the topic, reader, by giving you strong writing to read)

or

• constantly use circumlocutions, which make clauses, phrases, and sentences longer, and which take up more of the reader's time—repeatedly—, and which clutter the reader's understanding with long strings of words to keep in mind again and again, instead of giving the reader a single word to read and telling the reader, right from the beginning, what the word means in the present article.

Life is full of 'prescription'. It makes life easier. It's not always about horrible bias and point of view. It's not necessarily better or worse to drive your car down the right side of the road than the left—but, if we don't all agree on it, at least when we're on the roads together in a certain jurisdiction, we'll end up with a mess.

Bias is sometimes useful. It's why the efficient worker keeps the job while the wasteful one is fired. It is wasteful and inefficient, every single time either of the words (acronym or initialism) comes up in any sentence at any point in the article, to say "which kind" of acronym or initialism we mean. It's a service to the reader to say, right off the bat, what to expect from the article and then give the reader what was promised.

The opening descriptive statement can be worded as wonderfully neutrally as possible. That defining introduction can (nay, should) even state explicitly why a 'bias' for one disputed usage over another is being employed throughout the article. It will leave all but the stupid reader with the understanding that the writers showed bias only for the sake of the reader's ease (the reader's having good, firm, strong writing to read) and that the writers are not pressing the reader in any direction about the terminology that the reader should use in his or her own discussions of the topic.

I've gone on a long while; but I hope to make clear my opposition to, and support for, ideas expressed by both Nohat and Levi P. Say I share both views; say I oppose both views; say I have a third view: whatever you call it, I've stated it and I intend to stand by it until someone shows me strongly that another way is better.

Oh, about the 'hybrid' class: I don't see what the big deal is. Is it so hard just to tell the reader that CD-ROM ("see-dee-rom") is an abbreviation that combines an initialism (defined as I propose defining it) and an acronym (defined as I propose defining it)? The fourth group under the article's "Examples" heading already addresses this adequately anyway. ... Maybe I misunderstand some of Nohat's point about the hybrid class. ... ?

I understand Nohat's concerns about favoring one usage over another. (It's sort of like the idea that government should not appear to favor one particular religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.) Perhaps Nohat and I differ in the relative importance we give to strong writing and to NPOV—and perhaps we differ in our opinions of how much we should concern ourselves with the reader who, despite having read the descriptive introduction and then the stated reasons for being temporarily prescriptive within the article for the reader's benefit, still doesn't get it. I myself don't want to bother too much with the person who sees everyone driving in one direction on one side of the road, and in the other direction on the other side of the road, and thinks that they must all be saying "Oh, it's so awesome to drive in this way and not the opposite"; the point is that, in some areas of life, you can't get anything done if you don't conform, even if it's temporary and in just one place. We can't even have a descriptive comparison of different usages without using prescribed language in our discussion. If we couldn't agree on the meaning of the words prescriptive and descriptive in the context of this debate, we couldn't even debate about the two concepts. We have to agree on what descriptive means, and we have to agree on what prescriptive means, before we can go throwing "Prescription rules!" and "Description rulz!" at each other.

And about contradicting preconceptions that readers may bring to the article: sometimes we need someone to tell us our preconceptions are off base. If someone lets me keep on calling that orange a mouse, it's a disservice to me because I'll never understand what those other people who keep calling it a go are talking about and they'll never get what I'm talking about when I say mouse.

Let's go back to the British English–American English thing for a moment. In the article about, say, a Jumper dress, the writer, very near the beginning, says "Here's what this thing is called in other versions of English"—and then sticks with just one form of the terminology in the rest of the article. The reader who finds this all horribly biased and POV is just missing the point. It's the same reason why Wikipedia doesn't advocate artifact over artefact, or vice versa, but does advocate using just one spelling consistently within one article (and maybe pointing out, at the beginning of the article, that some readers may be accustomed to a different spelling). It's the same thing we should do about initialisms and acronyms: we start out by telling them the various usages, and then we stick to one usage throughout the rest of the article. And, in this particular case, we can even go so far as to explaning why we're sticking to one usage (the expediency of having one word for the set and then having another word for one of the two mutually exclusive subsets and a third for the other of the two mutually exclusive subsets).

I've said enough. Again, no ill will intended to anyone. Just trying to get us all on the same page, if it's possible.

President Lethe 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. To begin with I'd like to say to Nohat that you have my sincere apology if you took my previous postings to be unduly combative. I had read some of your previous posts to other people, and allowed my impression of those posts to color my interactions with you. That said, I think you are entrenched in a position, and, in order to defend that position, you are giving undue weight to the few sources that back up your position, occasionally misrepresenting them, and not giving enough weight to the overwhelming amount of reputable sources that show you to be incorrect. President Lethe, I have found your arguments persuasive and think we can all come to consesus on this. My problem is with the opening paragraph, which currently reads:

"Acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, such as NATO, laser, and LED, written as the initial letter or letters of words, and pronounced on the basis of this abbreviated written form. Of the two words, acronym is the much more frequently used and known; and some dictionaries, speakers, and writers use it in describing all abbreviations formed from initial letters. However, this is a contentious point, and there are also some (including the Oxford English Dictionary and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language) who differentiate between the two terms, restricting acronym to pronounceable words formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the constituent words—such as NATO (pronounced [neɪtoʊ]), from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, or radar (pronounced [reɪdɑɹ]), from radio detection and ranging—and restricting initialism to abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters—such as TLA (pronounced [ti.ɛl.eɪ]) or XHTML (pronounced [ɛks.eɪtʃ.ti.ɛm.ɛl])."

Actually, my problem is only with the first couple sentences. I will take them one at a time. 1) The inclusion of the abbrevation LED is problematic. Since LED, by most definitions, is not an acronym (I'm assuming we agree that LED is not pronounced as a word; I work in a scientific field where this is used frequently and have never heard it pronounced "lead") we are in an uncomfotable position of using an opening sentence which runs counter to the primary definition given in every dictionary. This is, at best, confusing to the reader. At worst, this seems absurd. Further, if we are intending to use the primary definition throughout the article, why would we start this way? What is gained? There are any numbers of indisputable acronyms that could be substituted for this.

2) The next two sentences are the real problem for me. First, "...some dictionaries, speakers, and writers use it in describing all abbrevations formed from initial letters.". Are there "some dictionaries"? I have only seen one dictionary, MW Collegiate, which lists this as a secondary definition. If multiple reputable dictionaries can be cited, then I have no problem; if not, then the sentence needs to be modified to reflect this. Now, "However, this is a contentious point, and there are also some..." is also a problem. Is this "a contentious point"? If so, please cite prominent adherents who hold this opinion. I tried my best yesterday to do this, and was unable to find any evidence to buttress this assertion. I went to a Border's (large American chain bookstore), took down every dictionary and every book on English grammer that they stock, and was unable to find a single source that said this is a contentious issue. This begs the question: if, as is seemingly the case, every dictionary lists the "restrictive" definition as it's primary definition, and only one dictionary lists the "other " definition at all, and every book on English grammer that can be found at a Border's agrees with the "restrictive" definition, then why is this an issue that deserves to be in the introductory paragraph? I am not in any way suggesting that the secondary definition in MW Collegiate should be buried, but it should be given its proper weight. The fact that the overwhelming majority of reference books say otherwise should be noted and the article should reflect the preponderance of evidence.

3)"However, this is a contentious point, and there are also some (including the Oxford English Dictionary and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language) who differentiate between..." It is equally imprecise and misleading to use "some" in this instance. Some implies a few, or that there are many others that say otherwise. This is incorrect. Until someone provides evidence otherwise, it should read "all reputable dictionaries", or, even, just "all". Every single dictionary, even the one Nohat likes to point to, uses the more "restrictive" definition as it's primary def. At the very least it needs to be made clear to the reader that the list of dictionaries holding this view is exhaustive (OED, Websters Universal College, MW desk , Random House Webster's, Oxford American, Random House Webster' College, The American Heritage, etc.). As it stands now, there is an implied equivalence between the two views which is not borne out by the preponderance of sources. Being NPOV means giving due weight. Because it is 8 p.m. on a Friday night I am going to stop without giving a new definition. On the whole I think that the article is excellent, and I am not married to any of my suggestions. My main concern is that due weight be given, assertions be supported by citations, and the article reflect the preponderance of evidence. I look forward to your thoughts, President Lethe.Levi P. 03:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Having looked through the talk page archive, and seeing that Nohat has been carrying on the (not so) good fight for around two years, I have decided to remove my hat from the ring. I have seen no evidence that he intends to let the article properly reflect the consesus found amongst dictionaries, encyclopedias and books on English grammer. In fact, he has asserted that these reference works should not have a controlling say in this argument. Since I do not intend to hover over this article in perpetuity ( as the Eternal Bard has said: "Tis' too starved an argument for my sword"), I might as well bow out now. I will suggest that Nohat take a step back, take a breath, and read the pertinent guidelines regarding no original research, due weight, and citing reputable sources. Wikipedia is the poorer for his diligent misunderstanding of these guidelines. Levi P. 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I read Levi P.'s reply to me last night, but am answering now because I was in the middle of some work then. Although L.P. has since posted another message, the "bow out" one, I'll respond here to both of them.

Levi P., you say that "Since LED, by most definitions, is not an acronym [...] we are in an uncomfotable position of using an opening sentence which runs counter to the primary definition given in every dictionary." Really, the only reaction to your sentence that seems logical to me is to figure that you somehow missed the second and third words of that opening sentence: the sentence begins "Acronyms AND INITIALISMS" (emphasis mine). The title of the article is "Acronym and initialism", not just "Acronym". It's about both. It doesn't matted whether LED (I prefer L.E.D.) is pronounced [ɛl.i.di.] or [lɛd]: it fits somewhere in the "acronyms and initialisms" category. I hope that pointing out the 'dual' nature of what this article is about takes care of your first objection.

Your second objection is partly to this wording: "some dictionaries, speakers, and writers use [the word acronym] in describing all abbrevations formed from initial letters." You asked whether there are "some dictionaries", and say you've found only one. I don't know the answer; I'll try to have a look, too. Mind you, I think we should include more than just dictionaries; if we can find two published books on the English language—especially if they're in a public library, or in a book store, in an English-speaking country, we know there's more than one book lending support to such a definition. You say that, if a second book with this broad definition of acronym isn't found by us editors, the sentence must be changed. A specific person's not having found evidence is not the same thing as the nonexistence of evidence. Still, perhaps you're right in some sense, and perhaps it would be better for the article simply to go ahead and say which book(s) support(s) that broad definition. But there's another point here (and I know it may become harder because of the matter of 'original research'): regardless of what any published book on English usage says, it's been my firm experience that almost anybody I would ask "What kind of word is the word F.B.I.?" would say "It's an acronym." Check out websites, speech on the street, whatever you want: tons of people call all these things acronyms. I don't like that they do it; I find it more useful (as I've said repeatedly) to have acronym and initialism as two mutually exclusive subsets of abbreviation (and I do believe that the article, after its descriptive introduction, should adopt those definitions for the expediency of its own discussion of the general topic); but I can't deny that so many everyday users of English constantly say things like "VHS is an acronym that stands for 'video home system'."

You're also concerned about the wording "contentious point". My view of contention is not that we have to find a source saying "There is contention about A and B": my view is simply that we need one source saying "We prefer A" and another source saying "We prefer B"—and the existence of the two opposing sources is our evidence of contention. We don't need a third source saying "Some prefer A over B; others prefer B over A".

Then you begin a question with these words: "if, as is seemingly the case, every dictionary lists the 'restrictive' definition as it's primary definition". About this bit I have just a small point, but it may be significant: check each dictionary's front matter for details on how definitions are ordered. Some dictionaries list the most common modern usage first; some list the editors' preferred usage first; some list the earlier (in terms of the history of the vocabulary) definition first. If a dictionary lists the restrictive definition of acronym first, it may simply mean that the word's first meaning (in terms of the history of the word) was the more limited one.

Anyway, your full question was "if, as is seemingly the case, every dictionary lists the 'restrictive' definition as it's primary definition, and only one dictionary lists the 'other ' definition at all, and every book on English grammer that can be found at a Border's agrees with the 'restrictive' definition, then why is this an issue that deserves to be in the introductory paragraph?" It deserves to be there because, I assure you, most people who even use the word acronym (1) tend to use it broadly (saying BBC is an acronym), not narrowly, and (2) don't know the word initialism. Yes, O.K., I'm assuring you only on the basis of my personal experience; I admit that.

"I am not in any way suggesting that the secondary definition in MW Collegiate should be buried, but it should be given its proper weight." You're right. It does seem to me, however, that you're not giving proper weight to the wording of the sentence. The sentence says that "some dictionaries, speakers, and writers use [the word acronym] in describing all abbreviations formed from initial letters." It doesn't just say "some dictionaries" (you say you've found only one, and that it actually supports both definitions); it says "some dictionaries, speakers, and writers". (Maybe it should say "many speakers and writers, and at least one dictionary, [...]".)

"The fact that the overwhelming majority of reference books say otherwise should be noted and the article should reflect the preponderance of evidence." But the point in the descriptive part of the article isn't just to say what reference books say; it's also to cover majority usage (which dictionaries tend to be some years behind on: get yourself a reputable dictionary that actually does include slang and I still bet you won't find it telling you that "I'd hit it" means "I am willing to have sexual intercourse with that person"). If we had the time to start surveying the other books at Borders, and we could find every book in the store that used the word acronym, and we could tally up the ways in which the word was used, we'd find most usages were broad, rather than limited. I think it's a poor choice of usage; but it is the fact, and it deserves mention. Still, you're right that we'd be on firmer ground if we had some more non-original research to back up this broader definition of acronym.

You say that it is imprecise and misleading to say that "some" sources make a mutually exclusive distinction between acronym and initialism. I disagree with you that "Some implies a few"; but I agree that it's an imprecise word. You say that the word some implies "that there are many others that say otherwise": remember that the wording is "some dictionaries, SPEAKERS, AND WRITERS" (emphasis mine). "This is incorrect." Not really.

"Until someone provides evidence otherwise, it should read 'all reputable dictionaries', or, even, just 'all'." I'm glad that you seem to do away with making judgements about dictionaries' reputations. But "100% of dictionaries consulted by this Wikipedian" is not inherently equal to "100% of dictionaries that exist".

"At the very least it needs to be made clear to the reader that the list of dictionaries holding this view is exhaustive (OED, Websters Universal College, MW desk , Random House Webster's, Oxford American, Random House Webster' College, The American Heritage, etc.)." I'm willing to accept wording to the effect of "all [insert number] English-language dictionaries surveyed for this article include [the more limited definition of acronym]".

"As it stands now, there is an implied equivalence between the two views which is not borne out by the preponderance of sources." Again, the sources aren't just the dictionaries.

"Being NPOV means giving due weight." You're right.

"My main concern is that due weight be given, assertions be supported by citations, and the article reflect the preponderance of evidence." Same here. I think the citations idea is especially good; perhaps a footnote could follow the "all dictionaries surveyed" bit and then list them.

I would like to find some non-original research to support the descriptive part of the article that says that many users of English (users of English, not just dictionaries) say TNT is an acronym. Then, that descriptive statement would be on firmer footing. The statement agrees with my own experience (experience that I have found unpleasant); but I admit I haven't read a single source actually explicating this fact in straight-forward statements to the effect of "most native speakers of English say an acronym is any abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words, regardless of pronunciation". I do believe that, in a discussion of linguistic usage, we've a duty to talk about more than just what the dictionaries recommend, even if we believe that the dictionary recommendations are sound.

Those are my thoughts in response to Levi P.'s first response.

To your latest note, Levi P. I'm sorry to see you go. Still, I understand the need to pick one's battles at Wikipedia. Although I haven't really enjoyed all of your and Nohat's dispute, I'm happy to see you again, any old time. I've found agreeable and disagreeable points in what each of you has said. I still have faith that we might reach a worthy consensus and make this article even better. We'll see how long I stick around here.

Anyway, I'll try to gather some sources and present it all at this Talk page, so that we all have the same stuff in front of us to think about. Not sure when it'll be. Maybe some postings soon, maybe others later.

Bye for now. President Lethe 00:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Having been through this argument before, you may find the list of links I provided at the end of Talk:Acronym/Archive_2#Sorry_I_brought_it_up to be elucidating. There are a number of citations of web pages that specifically define acronym acknowledging and using the more broad definition, a number of links to Google searches showing that a not-insignificant number of people say things like "TNT is an acronym", as well as a large number of citations in published books that use the broad definition of acronym in context in a un-self-conscious way. There is no lack of descriptive evidence of usage of the broad definition. Nohat 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read a portion of the "Sorry I brought it up" postings. Too much emotion in some of the postings for me to want to sit through all of them right now.

Some of citations in that older discussion are indeed useful in helping us clarify that more than one dictionary says BBC can be called an acronym: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate and the 2000 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (The American Heritage defintion of acronym at Dictionary.com is silent on the dispute, saying only that an acronym is "A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging." Of course, it's not exactly helpful that every single example given with this definition is an example of the more limited definition.)

Some of the other citations, while examples of usage on the Internet, might, it seems to me, constitute original research if they were cited in a Wikipedia article. Why? The reason is that just grabbing a webpage and then listing it as a source, without some regard for its reliability, is like interviewing people on the street and then summarising the interviews in a Wikipedia article: it constitutes original research. I'm talking about such sources as [5] and [6], which seem to amount to personal webpages, or personal postings at websites. As sources to cite, these, I believe, should be considered no more reliable than personal blogs, postings at message boards, and comments overheard on the sidewalk.

Anyway, Nohat's pointing out some of these sources helps us ascertain the weight that should be given to describing the broader definition of acronym in the introduction in addition to the narrower definition.

I do find it interesting that the word's roots basically mean "heads (initial letters) of words": in a sense, this supports the idea that NBC is an acronym. Still, as I've said repeatedly, I think those who made exclusive definitions for acronym and initialism had a useful idea—and I think it would be useful in writing a strong article. (It's kind of like girl: it used to mean a child-aged human being of either sex; but whoever decided to use it as the exclusive opposite to boy had a useful idea.)

Hm. Well, I sort of feel as if I'm talking to no-one now: Levi P. has left; Nohat already agrees that the broad acronym definition should get some mention at the start of the article; and, since Nohat's first message to me, little has been said to my stance that the remainder of the article should follow the "acronyms and initialisms are both abbreviations; but acronyms are not initialisms, and initialisms are not acronyms" setup.

Night. President Lethe 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Syllabaries

There was a sentence that read

In English-language discussion of syllabic languages, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, acronym describes short forms that take the first character of each (multi-character) element.

Asserting that "all languages are 'syllabic'" (I think it's better to say all spoken languages are syllabic: What about sign language? What about computer languages?), Nohat changed it to

In English-language discussion of languages with syllable-based writing systems, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, acronym describes short forms that take the first character of each (multi-character) element.

I then changed it to

In English-language discussion of languages that employ syllabaries rather than alphabets, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, acronym describes short forms that take the first character of each (multi-character) element.

Nohat reverted my change, commenting that "Chinese is not a syllabary".

In the case of some of the languages in that list, I was wrong to say "rather than alphabets", because some of them do use alphabets (sometimes in combination with syllabaries). But (1) I didn't say that the written Chinese language 'was a syllabary', and (2) a subset of Chinese's approximately 50,000 characters is indeed a syllabary (or at least that's what I've read in multiple sources, at least some of which, I think, we'd agree, are 'reputable'). So, does written Chinese employ a syllabary? Yes. Not every single character used in written Chinese has to represent a syllable in order for written Chinese to be said to employ a syllabary. Punctuation marks used in written English aren't part of the English alphabet: but we still say that English is a language that employs an alphabet.

Anyway, the alphabet used in English also can be said to form part of a "syllable-based writing system": these characters are combined in groups that represent spoken syllables.

Perhaps there's another, more precise and accurate way of wording this bit. The concept itself seems easy enough to understand; I think we should be able to agree on some precise, accurate wording.

Suggestions?

President Lethe 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your change was that it was implying that the writing systems employed by Chinese and Japanese were syllabaries and that the symbols used to write acronyms in those languages were from syllabaries. What I meant by "syllable-based writing system" is that the writing system is based on syllables--each character represents one syllable. This contrasts with alphabets because each character in an alphabet represents something smaller than a syllable. It contrasts with syllabaries because the mapping is many-to-one--each character represents one syllable, but each syllable is represented by possibly many different characters, whereas in syllabaries, each syllable is represented by exactly one character. Perhaps we should replace "syllable-based writing system" with "writing systems in which characters represent syllables". Nohat 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Nohat. Thanks for your reply.

• The distinction about 'many-to-one versus one-to-one' is something I was unaware of, I confess.

• It makes sense to have two different words to define the two different things ('many to one' and 'one to one' systems); I am curious to investigate whether all 'reputable' sources make this distinction about the word syllabary.

• I think your suggestion for new wording is good. But perhaps some might misinterpret it as including, again, alphabets—for we can put together three characters to represent the syllable cat (and this is characters representing syllables). ... Maybe "writing systems in which a single character can represent a complete syllable" ... ?

President Lethe 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, an alphabet is a writing system where each symbol represents one phoneme, with varying numbers of exceptions depending on language. But even in a language like English, where the letters often have little correlation to the phonemes, they still do in some fundamental way. A syllabary is a system like Katakana, where there is one symbol for each syllable. The system used by Chinese consists primarily of logograms, which represent not syllables (which are a phonological construct), but words (which are instead a morphological construct). It just so happens that in Chinese, all the words which are written with a single character are single syllables, but that is just a coincidence. The same symbols which are used in Japanese often correspond to multi-syllable words. The key here is that (generally speaking), the fundamental unit of the Chinese writing system is a unit of meaning, the morpheme, rather than a unit of sound, the syllable. That is why it is misleading to describe the Chinese writing system as a syllabary. Nohat 05:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Again, I didn't describe the entire Chinese writing system as a syllabary, and didn't propose to.

2. Your posting yesterday about the Chinese writing system was understood.

3. What about the suggestion to use the wording "writing systems in which a single character can represent a complete syllable"? (See third bullet point in my previous post in this section.)

President Lethe 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to be informative for you and others who are reading this page because I felt my previous comment was incomplete. It was not my intent to attack you. Your proposed wording is OK, but just seems to my eye a bit overwrought. How about instead "writing systems in which each character can represent a whole syllable or word"? Nohat 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sorry I misunderstood why you posted more today on the alphabet/syllabary/&c. question. I know what you mean; sometimes I want to add more to my earlier points. I didn't really take it as an attack; I just thought you weren't getting my point.

I don't see much difference between my suggested wording and yours. In that sense, either is fine with me. But there is one bit of your wording that I'm not sure of: your version is "writing systems in which each character can represent a whole syllable or word" (emphasis mine). As I read this, it means that, for example, each (every single) character in the Chinese system, each character in the Japanese system, &c., can have this role (representing an entire syllable or word). I don't know enough about these languages and their writing systems to judge this: but I believe that, if any of those languages' writing systems includes a single character (and I do mean something other than a numeral or a punctuation mark) that constitutes less than a whole syllable or a whole word, then your wording wouldn't be an accurate representation of those writing systems. To avoid this possibility is why I suggested "a single character" instead of "each character". Still, if none of the writing systems described includes an exception to your "each character" wording, then your wording seems fine.

President Lethe 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nohat's Next Move: Lobster is a Fish

Nohat is a renegade, a revolutionary, and if we follow him, there's no telling what spoils we may all enjoy. He lives and dies by the motto: "the only arbiter of correct usage is usage itself". So firmly does he hold this conviction that he is not the least concerned that his wikipedia account of "acronym" is flatly at odds with all other works of reference, such as the Oxford English Dictionary. Having little need for others' opinions, he boldly and defiantly ignores these "outdated dictionary definitions" in favor of his back of the envelope google calculations of word usage. Further, he does not shy from threatening and derogating all who oppose him in his quest to "educate" those who would impose "prescriptivism" from "on high by the almighty usage arbiters". Nohat is bringing wikipedia to the next level of philosophical enlightenment, in which wikipedia entries reflect not the understanding of experts, but the ideological musings of fearless renegades.

Make no mistake that this is not merely about acronyms. Having staked out this territory, our next move will be to take back other definitions "for the people". For example, I will shortly join Nohat by updating the entry on Lobsters to indicate that a Lobster Is A Fish. Nevermind the fact that humans are more closely related to fish than lobsters, and so lobsters are more justified in calling Humans fish. Why should we listen to biologists "on high"? The fact is most cook books and restaurants regard lobsters as fish, and even the British finally conceded this to France in the 1880s: http://www.harpswell.info/info/harpswell/lobster_fish.htm

Experts tend to need to make finer distinctions than nonexperts. While a cook may regard a lobster as a fish without issue, it would be ridiculous for a biologist to give up the hard won distinctions of evolutionary biology when examining lobsters. While there is no urgent need to correct all the cook books in the world, it is quite clear that modifying the biology books to reflect the definition "of the people" would be disasterous. And this is what we renegades are after… disaster. Wikipedia is not a cook book; it is an encyclopedia that its readers expect to reflect the finer distinctions of experts. Boy will they be surprised to find that the account of acronym entirely disregards expert opinion! And they'll have just one trite philosopher to thank for it.

--Lobsterface

A cook would never regard a lobster as a fish. In fact, no one would regard a lobster as a fish unless the operating definition of "fish" is just "animal that lives in the water". That may have once been a reasonable definition, but it no longer is one in common use, so anyone using that definition is going to have trouble communicating. Considering the word at hand, there is evidence that multiple definitions are in common, contemporary use, so examples of cases where the meanings of words shifted over time aren't germane. Nohat 23:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which: Today, I happened to look up two words (acronym and initialism) in the 2nd edition (2003) of Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. Here are the relevant parts of the definitions, minus such things as syllable breaks and pronunciation, as accurately as I could transcribe them on quite a small bit of paper (complete with italicized punctuation not part of the stuff that is properly italicized):

acronym n. 1. a word formed from the inital letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loram from long-range navigation. 2. an acrostic. —v.t. 3. to make an acronym of: The committee's name has been acronymed MIKE. [1940–45, ACR- + ONYM]]

initialism n. 1. a name or term formed from the initial letters of a group of words and pronounced as a separate word, as NATO for North Atlantic Treaty Organization; an acronym. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation. 3. the practice of using initials or forming words from initials. [1895–1900; INITIAL + ISM]

The dictionary's front matter says that the order of a word's definitions generally runs from common to uncommon, and from general to specific.

It is my impression that the word word in these definitions describes things specifically not pronounced as the names of the constituent letters: every example before FBI is pronounced as a word rather than as the names of the constituent letters.

This particular dictionary's first definition of initialism actually explicitly says that NATO (pronounced as a word, not as the names of the constituent letters) is an initialism. But, moving from general to specific, it offers a narrower definition that is restricted to an abbreviation ("a set of initials", as opposed to "a word") that is pronounced as the letter names.

So, at least one interpretation of this dictionary (a (Merriam–)Webster, the 'brand' that Nohat may originally have been using to support a certain view (it's just my vague recollection, and I haven't the patience to check the old discussions here)) is that acronyms are words (NATO, but not F.B.I.) and that initialisms are abbreviations pronounced as letter names (F.B.I., but not NATO).

President Lethe 04:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Lobsterface: Here comes Levi1 dropping in as deux ex machina to scream: holy Christ, someone can read and understand the written word! Wait... you mean lobsterface camera oxford pulley nohat in essence rock boulders ofen loc andrew and friby? Wait... one more time... if I lobster trap flash my all up in his god is too jelly locken trap hungry! Again, you mean, I can't just use what ever term I want, and having been used, it doesn't become correct? But this isn't what Nohat has been screaming for TWO YEARS. In fact, he said NO ONE has been able to disprove his brilliantly recondite calculus...Wait, let me try one more time, if you like lobsters, and I like describing how people use language, then that makes us...second cousins?Levi P. 05:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

President Lethe, I don't mean this unkindly, but did you not read my previous posts where I qouted nearly two dozen reference works citing what you just said above ( that acronym is a subset of abbrevation)? Please re-read my previous posts- it shouldn't take much parsing to see the overwhelming point made by reputable reference works. Nohat's "points" still, after two years, lack citation. Again, Nohat should cease to synthesize his own arguments, and quote prominent adherents, if they exist. If not, I will correct this article. Nohat, again, I give you the OED, among a DOZEN others. Are you still going to come back with some 1st person Google research and your own OPINION vs.a dozen reference works? I grow weary. Again, LAY YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE... IF NOT, as they say say in A.C, then f... or, for the love of Christ, at least make sense. Levi P. 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are laboring under a misconceptions of how things work here. When a point is disputed, we don't have some grand "battle of the sources" to decide who is correct. The neutral point of view policy requires that we represent all sides of a disputed point. This is Wikipedia, and we are not here to decide contentious issues: we are not here to decide the matter of what is and what isn't an acronym or an initialism. All we can do is report how people use the word and, if people have opinions on what the word means, we should report those opinions and attribute them to whoever holds them.

The true meaning of a word is not something that is written down in a book. The true meaning of a word is the sum of what everyone who knows the word believes it to mean. All that a book can provide is someone's estimation of the true meaning of a word. As a result, if the meaning of a word is contentious, as is the case with acronym, we cannot simply defer to "most dictionaries" as the final arbiter of what a word means. A declaration about what a word's true meaning is is not a fact that can ever be verified, so we cannot make claims of that sort. All we have on the issue of the facts of usage, and the opinions people hold on that usage. We are obligated to report that there is disagreement, what the different sides of the arguments are, and who holds them. This is the nature of the neutral point of view policy.

I am not interested in having an argument about what is and is not an acronym. That argument is completely irrelevant to this discussion page. I ask you kindly to take your inflammatory posturing and pugnatious attitude elsewhere if you want to argue about definitions. We are only here to discuss verifiable facts.

It is a verifiable fact that the word acronym is used to describe abbreviations like FBI. I understand that many people, such as yourself, believe that this usage is incorrect. However, this does not change the fact that the word is substantially used in that way. This is borne out not only by the countless actual examples of the word being used in this way and the fact that Merriam-Webster recognizes this meaning of the word, but it is also implicit in the fact that numerous usage guides take the time to point out that they disagree that this is a valid use of the word. The mere fact that there is disagreement means that the issue is not a settled one, and if we didn't make that clear, it would be a violation of the neutral point of view policy.

We would we do ours readers a great disservice if we did not report all the facts. Currently, this article presents all the facts and opinions on the issue and lets the readers decide for themselves. I think the article should stay that way. If there are specific statements made in the article that you think remain insufficiently cited, then you are welcome bring up the specific questionable statements, and we can cite them with sources and ensure that the wording agrees with the sources. But if you just want to dispute the general idea that the word "acronym" can be used to refer to abbreviations like FBI, then I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Nohat 08:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that after at least two years of reverting people who have taken the time to edit the article you say that you are not interested in "having an argument about what is" an acronym. Further, it beggars belief that you think this argument is "irrelevent". Are we not charged with defining "acronym" in this entry? How is it that when I provide citations for numerous books on grammer clearly stating the definition of "acronym" you take from that some "disagreement"? How are you imputing "disagreement" in these definitions? There are many controversies ( if that is not too strong a word) in grammer. One can pick up any book dealing with the subject and find differing opinions on , for instance, when to use "that", and when to use "which". The books clearly state that there are differing opinions on this matter. This, again, is not the case with acronym. It is defined, and quite clearly. I will ask you again: can you cite any prominent adherents (plural) who hold your opinion? If you can, please do so. An entry in an encyclopedia should not read like a litany of people's various confusions. People are not interested in your view of the prescriptivism/descriptivism debate. There is a page for that; the "acronym" entry is not another front on this battle. As Lobsterface implies, need we go into every WP entry and, in the first paragraph, list every confusion under which some people labor? There is a reason for the "due weight" WP policy. It is so marginal ideas are given their due weight. We should not suggest an equivalency that is not borne out by the pertinent material. Further, If this is such a "controversial" topic then why are you unable to cite prominent adherents who say it is controversial? Why are the reference works silent on this raging controversy? If no other reference work deigns this "controversy" worthy of discussion, then why should we? Levi P. 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. I thought this was somewhat settled.

I think it might help if we would all exercise restaint in commenting on others' attitudes.

Here's a dictionary that more clearly implies that F.B.I. could be an acronym: page 12 of the eighth edition (1991; eighth reprint, 1994) of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English has this as its entire definition of the word:

acronym /ˈækrənɪm/ n. a word, usu. pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato). [Gk akron end + -onum- = onoma name]

It says acronyms are "usu[ally] pronounced" as words; in dictionary speak, usually carries not always with it.

Most the parts that I've read in the article do strike me as fine as they are. I think Nohat's suggestion of more citations is good; I also think it will support Levi P.'s argument about the matter of "weight". The question of "weight" also supports the idea that this Talk page should be used for gathering, presenting, and comparing the 'evidence'.

Let's all try our best to be nice.

President Lethe 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To continue quoting sources, though I won't do this all in one sitting.

• Page 609 of the eighth edition (1991; eighth reprint, 1994) of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English has this as its entire definition of initialism:

initialism /ɪˈnɪʃəˌlɪz(ə)m/ n. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation for a name or expression, each letter being pronounced separately (e.g. BBC) (cf. ACRONYM).]

• Neither word has an entry in The New Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form (1964).

• The second edition (1965) of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (a book both descriptive and prescriptive), by H. W. Fowler, revised and edited by Sir Ernest Gowers, has no "initialism" entry. The "acronym" entry (page 8) directs the reader to the "curtailed words" entry (pages 116–117), the relevant part of which reads

Another way of forming curtailed words is to combine initial letters, a method now so popular, especially in America, that a word—acronym—has been coined for it. The first world war produced a few—Anzac (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), Dora (Defence of the Realm Act), Wrens (Women's Royal Naval Service), and the second a great many; among them Asdic (Allied Submarine Detection Investigation Committee), Cema (Council for Encouragement of Music and the Arts, now the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is not amenable to this treatment), Ensa (Entertainments National Service Association), Fany (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry), Fido (Fog Investigation Dispersal Operation), Naafi (Navy Army and Air Force Institutes), Octu (Officer Cadet Training Unit), Pluto (Pipe Line under the Ocean), Radar (Radio Detection and Ranging), Reme (Royal Mechanical and Electrical Engineers), Shaef (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force), Wracs (Women's Royal Army Corps), and Wrafs (Women's Royal Air Force). The process has since continued: the United Nations Organization itself is Uno and some of its branches have lent themselves to this form of abbreviation, e.g. Unrra and Unesco. The Western Alliance has given us Gatt (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and Shape (Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe); the initials of the organization most frequently referred to and with the most cumbrous title (The Organization for European Economic Cooperation) are unfortunately unpronounceable. But European economic cooperation on a smaller scale has produced Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg), and Efta (European Free Trade Area). Some of our trade unions admit of this labour-saving device, e.g. Aslef (Association of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen), Natsopa (National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants) and Nalgo (National Association of Local Government Officers). Neddy for the National Economic Development Council and Nicky for the National Incomes Commission were irresistible, and we always welcome any opportunity of giving pet names of this sort to the new inventions of atomic or electronic science, e.g. Hector (Heated Experimental Carbon Thermal Oscillator Reactor) and Ernie (Electronic Random Number Indicating Equipment).

Every example offered, except OEEC, is pronounced as a word.

• The original, 1969 version of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has no entry for initialism; page 12 has this (I've removed syllable breaks, pronunciation, and adjectival forms):

acronym n. A word formed from the initial letters of a name, as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, as radar for radio detecting and ranging. [ACR(O)- + -ONYM.]

• The 1995 version of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language has multiple mentions.

The first is on page 108, which says that "The world of World English (WE), and especially of English Language Teaching (ELT) is full of acronyms (p. 120)." The abbreviations that follow that sentence are EAP, ESP, EFL, EGP, EIL, ENL, L1, EOP, ESL, EST, L2, L3, LSP, MT, NL, NNL, NNV, TEFL, TEIL, TESL, and TESOL.

The next mention is on page 120; under the heading "Abbreviations" is a box called "Types of abbreviation", which reads

Initialisms

Items which are spoken as individual letters, such as BBC, DJ, MP, EEC, e.g., and USA; also called alphabetisms. The vast majority of abbreviations fall into this category. Not all use only the first letters of the constituent words: PhD, for example, uses the first two letters of the word philosophy, and GHQ and TV take a letter from the middle of the word.

Acronyms

Initialisms which are pronounced as single words, such as NATO, laser, UNESCO, and SALT (talks). Such items would never have periods separating the letters—a contrast with initialisms, where punctuation is often present (especially in older styles of English). However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both.

Clipping

A part of a word which serves for the whole, such as ad and phone. These examples illustrate the two chief types: the first part is kept (the commoner type), as in demo, exam, pub, Gill), and the last part is kept (as in bus, plane). Sometimes a middle part is kept, as in fridge and flu. There are also several clippings which retain material from more than one part of the word, such as maths (UK), gents, and specs. Turps is a curiosity, in the way it adds an -s. Several clipped forms also show adaptation, such as fries (from French fried potatoes), Betty (from Elizabeth) and Bill (from William).

Blends

A word which is made out of the shortened forms of two other words, such as brunch (breakfast + lunch), heliport (helicopter + airport), smog (smoke + fog), and Eurovision (European + television). Scientific terms frequently make use of blending (as in the case of bionic), as do brand names (a device which cleaned your teeth while you used the phone might be called Teledent) and fashionable neologisms (p. 130).

Awkward cases

Abbreviations which do not fall clearly into the above four categories. Some forms can be used either as initialisms or acronyms (UFO—'U F O' or 'you-foe'). Some mix these types in the one word (CDROM, pronounced 'see-dee-rom'). Some can form part of a larger word, using affixes (ex-JP, pro-BBC, ICBMs). Some are used only in writing (Mr, St—always pronounced in full in speech).

Facetious forms

TGIF Thank God It's Friday

CMG Call Me God (properly, 'Companion of St Michael and St George')

KCMG Kindly Call Me God (properly, 'Knight Commander of St Michael and St George')

GCMG God Calls me God (properly, 'Grand Cross of St Michael and St George') and above all

AAAAAA Association for the Alleviation of Asinine Abbreviations and Absurd Acronyms (actually listed in the Gale Dictionary described on the facing page).

David Crystal, the author of this Cambridge work, produces a really enjoyable, informative volume; he also makes a distinction between acronyms and initialisms—but, in defining acronyms, he says that they are initialisms (which he has just defined as being pronounced as the letter names). Note, however, that he finishes the acronym description by saying that "some linguists" call both forms acronyms. Incidentally, the dictionary shown in the photo on page 121 is the Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary, whose title seems to indicate some kind of distinction.

The final mention in that book is on page 302, in an article about regional variation (not specifically about abbreviations), which includes the sentence "It also helps to have a knowledge of acronyms (ERA = Earned Run Average)."

I know some of the books I've quoted today are decades old. As I said weeks ago, I don't have as much access as I'm used to.

Anyway, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, definitely a descriptive book, acknowledges the varying definitions of acronym but also tries (not always successfully) to maintain a distinction.

I think the word alphabetisms deserves mention in our Wikipedia article.

Turps, by the way, for those who don't know, is short for turpentine.

Enough for now. On with life.

President Lethe 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Initialization redirects to Booting

This isn't right. There is no article for Initialisation (BrE variation) and Initialization redirects to Booting. I had to find information on initialisations by searching for acronyms.

I suggest adding a redirect at Initialisation to Initialization and creating a disambiguation page at Initialization. Comments? BigNate37 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "initialisations" with "initialisms". Nohat 01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you appear to be right. Whoops! BigNate37 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

initialism?

initialism? - this is a word?

OAD claims it is. I have not researched the origins or age of this word yet, but will. I believe the full definition of acronym or acrostic would cover this. Using this word does not see precise to me, but terse and pedantic.

However, I suppose this word could have crept up into standard usage without me noticing.

Latr Dayz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.102.49 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 August 2006.

Hi, 71.32.102.49. Please, sign your posts on Talk pages. Yes, initialism is a word. Yes, it's a word in standard English. Yes, it's a standard word among some users of English. Yes, among some of those users, it has a precise meaning. See, for example, the footnotes associated with the first paragraph of this article. — President Lethe 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this right?

I would query the following statement from the article:

"Because acronyms so closely relate to the common vernacular, they facilitate widespread usage, which makes it possible for them to enter the lexicon without people knowing their etymology. An example of this is the use of B.C. and A.D. in dating events."

I suggest that almost all words enters the lexicon without "people" (i.e. non-specialists) knowing their etymology, and that, in fact, more people know the origin of initialisms and acronyms such "B.C." and "A.D.", compared to the "average" word in common use. If true then this kind of invalidates the statement. Maybe someone knowledgeable about this has a view? Matt 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

This is one of those times where policy can make things easier for us. In this case, any statements like this need to be verifiable, and preferrably cite a source. If one can't find anything to back up that statement, the right thing to do (IMO) is remove it. --DragonHawk 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any other comments, I'm going to delete the whole "Bias" paragraph for the following reasons:

1. I don't buy the opening sentence, which implies that the etymology of acronyms is less likely to be known than etymologies of words generally.
2. Once that sentence is removed, the rest of the paragraph is just making a specific comment about the use of BC and AD that IMO belongs in the articles about those abbreviations rather than here.

However, if anyone objects and wants to put it back then please go ahead. Matt 13:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Clean up some of the examples?

LED is sometimes pronounced, but SAT never is... The page indicates the opposite.

Remove Fictional Section

Can we remove the fictional section or at least give it its own page.It just encorages people to add their own favourites. Eventually the page will get out of hand Graemec2 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagging on Wikipedia

An anon user (IP: 70.112.130.50) added this to the introduction of the article:

VMX ia also a graffiti writer in Austin, Texas. It stands for Visible Man X. Boyee.

It seems VMX now wants to tag in cyberspace. I have removed it.Eco84 | Talk 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

(moved from my talk page).

Can you please look carefully at the reverts you are making to Acronym and initialism. The introduction which you keep reverting to contains assertions which, as thoroughly explained and referenced elsewhere in the article, are not universally agreed upon. An introduction which from defines disputed terminology without contextualizing those definitions is not very NPOV. Nohat 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert your last change. Also, please discuss articles in article talk pages. Edit summaries are for edit summaries, not for discussion of disagreements. I have no idea what exactly you are opposed to now.

My previous edit of your addition was removal of dubious phrase "Unlike abbreviations, ... , pronounced differently". First, wikipedia's article abbreviation says that acronyms are a type of abbreviations. Second, the abbreviation sysop is also pronounced differently from the full term, therefore pronouncing is not a distinctive feature of acronyms/initialisms (unless there is a yet another school of thought which says that "sysop" is an acronym or initism). `'mikkanarxi 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"sysop" is an acronym in its original sense: "a word formed from the first character, or the first few characters, of the words in a phrase

(e.g., system operator; RAdio Detection And Ranging; SMERtz SHpionam, from the Russian смерть шпионам, "death to spies").

Recognizing sysop as an acronym is not "yet another school of thought," but rather an invocation of the original meaning of acronym.

Calling every initialism an acronym turns that formerly elegant word's precision into meaningless mush.

A word treated as meaning anything begins to mean nothing at all. Wortschätzer 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was "Unlike abbreviations such as Mr., etc." indicating that acronyms are different from those kinds of abbreviations, not that acronyms aren't abbreviations. An errant comma confused the issue, I think. Nohat 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user vandalism

An anonymous user who keeps changing IP address in in the range 208.127.10.X keeps reverting to an older version of this page, complete with typos and a nonneutral intro, without discussing here on the talk page. Because the user keeps changing IP address, it is difficult to leave any messages or block the user. So instead I am going to semi-protect the page for a couple days. Hopefully this will encourage them to discuss changes on the talk page or register an account (which can be blocked if it violates the rules flagrantly). If anyone would prefer I unprotect the page, just say so here or on my talk page, and I'll be glad to do it, or you can point any other administrator at this comment, and I'm sure they will unprotect the page if I am not immediately available. Nohat 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article. Nohat 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

W.A.S.T.E.

In the section on fictious espionage orgs I was going to add a refernce to Pynchon's "Crying of Lot 49" and the organization W.A.S.T.E. ("We Await Silent Tristero's Empire") Which is an underground postal system. Please post objections if I shouldn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.206.149.1 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

NPOV Policy against Information Suppression

Please help us understand whether the text displayed in the first item in the References section of this article violates the Wikipedia admonition against Information Suppression.

Although the source material cited reads

Strictly, an acronym is a string of initial letters pronounceable as a word, such as "NATO". Abbreviations like "NBC" have been variously designated "alphabetisms" and "initialisms", although some people do call them acronyms. WDEU says, "Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction [between acronyms and initialisms] because writers in general do not"; but two of the best known books on acronyms are titled Acronyms, Initialisms and Abbreviations Dictionary (19th ed., Gale, 1993) and Concise Dictionary of Acronyms and Initialisms (Facts on File, 1988),

the Administrative Reversion of 11 Feb to the footnote detail removed everything from the referenced material except for that line

"'Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction [between acronyms and initialisms] because writers in general do not'"

to which the source itself would seem to have offered a gentle refutation immediately afterward by citing "two of the best known books."

While even "the best known books," and perhaps the reference itself, may not necessarily qualify as reputable sources, does it not seem that citing such a source and then quoting only that portion containing an internal exception represents a possibly inadvertent violation of Wikipedia policies against Information Suppression?

Wortschätzer 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the quotation with the complete original quotation from WDEU which quite clearly makes the claim that the distinction is not appropriate for general use. If you believe that the Mark Israel quotation is still relevant, you can add it back, in full or in part, wherever you think it is most relevant in the article. Nohat 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored Nohat's citation of Alt.Usage.English (Usage Disputes : Acronym). Wortschätzer 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)