How does the MLA Style book compare to Chicago’s? Other authoritative sources include the New York Times and Columbia?
My question on what about
[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”]“initialism” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as well as “acronym”, maybe that is why the former is being replaced, incorrectly, by the latter.
I can see why people would prefer to use the word “acronym” for any list of initials, but technically it’s not completly correct.[/quote]
I agree with Fluffy. The definition of acronym seems to be in a state of flux, and there is a case for either definition, IMO.
Definitions of words do change over time, and it’s always going to piss off some people. For example, I often feel like the only person in the world who actually remembers that “celibate” used to mean “unmarried” - and that was its only meaning. I actually remember how surprised I was the first time I heard it (mis)used. Now, both usages are in the dictionary and the new definition has superseded the old one in terms of popularity and general usage. My unsupported feeling is that the term acronym will eventually come to incorporate anything using initials (as already defined in Merriam-Webster), simply because “initialism” is both a) awkward and b) not widely used. Depends how much of a fuss the purists kick up though.
So you’re all right, IMO. Let’s call the whole thing off 
We can’t call it off. It’s too much fun.
DOS is clearly an acronym, WYSIWYG is something you can say as a word (instead of spelling out the letters) so it’s an acronym, ditto QWERTY. JPEG is a bit of a thorny one, but if you think of it in the same terms as X-ray then it’s a word therefore an acronym.
HTTP is not spoken as a word. You spell out the letters. It’s an abbreviation.
What about IMHO, LOL etc? You don’t say them anyway, do you? I’d class them as initialisms.
Come on, Clouseau. Your turn.
…
What about html and DJ? (These are spoken words, along with http in miltownkid’s dictionary of geekdom)
Another thing I’ve noticed is EVERY dictionary I’ve looked at lists something as being an abbreviation or acronym. It has no mention of these other terms (initialism, etc.) which makes them pretty useless if you ask me.
I think it’d be MUCH easier to have two groups. Abbreviations (which would be shortened forms of words or phrases) and acronyms (which would include both side’s definitions of acronym, and initialism, of course, which would put to rest).
Let’s look at the definition (not interpretation and explanation as was given by Bu Lai En) of acronym one more time:
Html is a word formed from the initial letters of other words.
CD is a word formed from the initial letters of other words (Oxford doesn’t seem to agree with me here, but they’ll change their tune).
DJ is a word formed from the initial letters of other words.
If for some reason you don’t know what a word is, look that up. You don’t need vowels to be a word and just because you’re pronounced the same way your spelled doesn’t mean you’ll never be listed in the dictionary as a NOUN.
I did notice Oxford’s addition of (e.g. laser, Aids), those are just the old school acronyms. There is a whole new breed that will quickly rewrite the books.
miltownkid eating language fascists for dinner too
I rest my case with that last post. I’m taking this discussion (battle) to the tiger’s tooth. I am going to singlemaningly go toe to toe with Oxford.
I will ask them what their present stance on acronym is, present mine and see what happens from there. When I complete an almost finished draft of my letter I’ll post it, before I send it (it must travel snail mail, they don’t accept inquiries through email).
Their Ask the experts site has no reference to acronyms. If you know of other reputable sources I should send my inquiry to let me know (via PM, email or this thread), I will send them a copy as well.
I’m curious to see what explanation these guys/gals will give me.
(this is the kind of stuff you do when you only work 3 hours a day 
)
[quote=“miltownkid”]
Cd IS a pronounceable word. People keep using NATO as an example and even that’s wrong (according to the fascists definition of pronounceable). If I were to “read” NATO, I’d say Nah-To, not Nay To. I’m no linguist, but scuba doesn’t seem to follow any “normal” reading rules either. Seems that the “correct” spelling should be scooba.[/quote]
Then perhaps someone should tell Juba that he’s writing his name wrong.
It should be J-O-O-B-A.
The word acronym comes from two roots: acro- (meaning summit or top) + -nym (meaning word). If saying a letter makes a word, then by rights the synonym for “alphabet” should be A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.J.K.L.M.N.O.P.Q.R.S.T.U.V.W.X.Y.Z. and I should stop teaching my kids that the correct way to read “cat” isn’t just saying [kaet], but also reading it as C-A-T. Hell, why bother with phonics anyway when you can just read the letters of a word to make it a word.
By the way, the only way to pronounce CD as a word is to say [sd]. To say it as an initialization it’s [sidi], but as there are no vowels, this is not the pronunciation of the sounds, but rather of the letters that make up the abbreviation.
[quote=“the song Initials (from Hair)”]LBJ took the IRT
Down to 4th Street USA
When he got there
What did he see?
The youth of America on LSD
LBJ IRT
USA LSD
LSD LBJ
FBI CIA
FBI CIA
LSD LBJ[/quote]
It’s not that simple, look it up.
And my sources told me: The word acronym comes from Greek: ακρον, akron, “limb” + ονομα, onoma, “name”). But I have no idea if it’s true or not.
[quote=“Gubo”]Brian, you might want to rethink citing the Chicago manual, which I happen to have in front of me. Please consult page 291 and page 464 of the 14th edition to witness their use of the terms “abbreviation” and “acronym”. They call IBM an acronym, as well as APL, COBALT, etc acronyms. Huh, “IBM”… It doesn’t quite roll off the tongue. Not a very “pronounceble beast,” I must say. Yet acronym it is.
How now, good sir. Who owned who?
Wow, I feel like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting. :p[/quote]
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The 14th editon you say? The 1993 edition? The one that has now been superceded by the 15th edition?
Once again, from the Chicago Manual of Style website:
[quote][b]Since 1993, we
Your dictionary defintion is vague. Did it have examples. My Oxford defintion is the same, but all the examples are pronouncable (and not just by reading out the letters).
If a dictionary definition is vague you go to other sources. Webster and the Chicago Manual of Style are about as authoritive as you get. But you don’t need to stop there. Those were just the first two examples I came across.
William Safire (whose columns about language are syndicated in the Taipei Times every Sunday)? He had a column about this. That was one oft he sources I was referring to on Sunday. I couldn’t find the colum, but look how he uses acronym in this column:
taipeitimes.com/News/edit/ar … /11/205551
I’m not saying he’s the final word on the issue, but he knows a lot more about it than you or I.
Brian
Gubo or someone seemd to suggest that although the word ‘acronym’ technically means something pronouncable like NATO or SARS, this is outdated and common usage of the word now means abbreviations or initialisations such as CD, HTML. After looking into this question a bit more, it seems that the opposite may be true. The words acronym, abbreviation, initialisation and truncation are currently in a state of being refined, but the direction is towards acronym meaning a pronouncable abbreviation, not away from it. Thus the Chicago Manual of Style’s change in the latest edition.
This Wikipedia article sheds some light on this, and also deals with words like JPEG.
Brian
I would also like to add two things at this point:
-
MK - your definitions may well support your argument, but you still haven’t provided a definition of word, which is the definition that both arguments hinge on and seem to differ in.
-
There’s a difference between being a language fascist and trying to do something to stop the language devolving into a combination of drooling and caveman-like grunts, as much like pissing into the wind that may be.
OT
Wow. And you have the gumption to call us arrogant and condescending.
FWIW, I don’t see a problem with JPEG, DOS, or QWERTY. All are perfectly pronouncable. If you choose not to pronounce them as words and prefer them as letters, whatever, your choice.
And who’s being the fascist now? Decrying “initialism” because you don’t agree with it? I thought you were all about the linguistic flexibility?
I don’t see any crumbling in either side of the argument, just enough gray area in both definitions that neither wins outright. Much most of life, and much like what seems to be your rule for legitimacy in language - if people use it, it’s right.
Oh, and as for being selective with references - come on, it’s not like either side is innocent of that. It’s a normal part of presenting an argument - where’ve you quoted a source here that disagreed with you?
I know it’s vague. Every definition I’ve seen is vague and that’s the problem. Why is it EVERY person I ask says html and other such words are acronyms? The definition I posted had examples, but the examples don’t rule out the use of html (I’ll just stick with that for now). I said find a definition YOU like (from a serious source of course) if you didn’t like my Oxford definition.
I’ve already admitted I understand where your camp is coming from, but the opposite camp seems fixed on being correct, so let me map it out.
First what is an acronym (a new fresh definition for ya)?
Definition of html:
And all us nerds know html was made up from Hypertext Mark-up Language. And a noun is definitely a word…
So it is a WORD formed by combining initial letters of a series of words.
Textbook definition of acronym (I think it’s quite clear).
And, if I wanted to get even more technical, I could show you how and why LOL and ROTFL are acronyms. I have yet to see a definition that says anything about it being pronouncable.
Besides me being technically correct, I’m also pretty sure I’m popularly correct. Only English snoots (no offense snoots) roll around thinking they’re all high and mighty because they know the difference between an acronym, truncation, initialism, etc.
[url=ABC's vs psuedo ABCs? - #6 by Bu_Lai_En Bu Lai En was once untainted[/url] by language police propaganda. 
[quote=“Tetsuo”]1) MK - your definitions may well support your argument, but you still haven’t provided a definition of word, which is the definition that both arguments hinge on and seem to differ in.
- There’s a difference between being a language fascist and trying to do something to stop the language devolving into a combination of drooling and caveman-like grunts, as much like pissing into the wind that may be.[/quote]
I asked YOU to look that up. I have already on a number of occasions (for myself).
But I don’t even need to get into the discussion of what a word is, because …
HTML IS A WORD
I already said that. The definition of acronym could be written in a fashion to excludes WORDS like html and DJ, but it isn’t. I almost want to say more, but I’ll stop there.
OUCH! 
My bad. Missed that.
This, I think, sides more with this side that yours, in that H T M L are four single, distinct elements.
Definition 2a (1) here also seems to side with this side, in that HTML, as pronounced, can be broken down into H T M L, all of which can be used independently of one another.
Anyway, this is turning into another Holy War. I don’t think any side is less hung up on being right than the other, and I really don’t see either side likely to give way. I say we all go grab a cuppa and have a nice sleep.
…