Actually HTM is valid too, although significantly less common than HTML. 
But the problem with that is that the âlinguistic wildâ varies according to where you are. Words, standards, and definitions that are valid in one dialect of English may well be considered unacceptable in another. I think this is probably where the bulk of this sort of argument comes from - different linguistic wildernesses 
Hang on a minute. This whole thread is bullshit. Itâs a bunch of pedants of different stripes arguing over pointless shit that only pedants care about and that makes not an iota of difference to the real world.
Thank you! 
Well, it was actually kinda fun to read at first cuz MTK posted it, and we all like MTK. Then it just got butchered. And then I got confused. And everyone wanted to be right. And everyone started quoting each other and I couldnât keep up no moâ.
[quote=âGuboâ]I describe things as they are, as real people in the real world refer to terms such as HTML. They call them words, and they call them acronyms.
Some of you seem uncomfortable with this and take a rather condescending attitude by suggesting that common usage is somehow mundane or substandard, and that the People are too lazy to unearth terms such as truncation and initialism, or that they are unwise in not applying a bizarre litmus test of pronounceability before they proclaim a word an acronym or an initialism.[/quote]
To take this in a different direction, the above raises an interesting point. Since when was ignorance of a rule by the common person grounds for dismissing it? Or to put it more succinctly, as I saw somewhere (and I wish I could remember where so I could give credit), when did ignorance become a standard? I doubt youâll find many people who understand or even know the laws of thermodynamics - does that mean we should do away with them? Could you find a âman on the streetâ who could explain why the Earth spins around its axis? Who could knows why the plural of âsheepâ is âsheepâ? Who knows why a negative number multiplied by a negative number is a positive number? What about an average bloke who knows the terms for the tenses expressed by âhas beenâ and âwill have goneâ?
Actually, a better example is this: just because most people just say âcowâ instead of âherefordâ or âhartfordshireâ or âjerseyâ(sp?), does that mean people who do call them the more specific names are wrong just because most people donât?
Just because a lot of people donât know a rule or the terms for something doesnât mean we should get rid of the rule or terms.
Gaaaaah Tetsuo!!! :ohreally: 
Different argument 
Actually, I posted that before I saw your response above, and it made me look like a twat :s
[quote=âmiltownkidâ]Definition of html:
And all us nerds know html was made up from Hypertext Mark-up Language. And a noun is definitely a wordâŚ[/quote]
MTK, html is not a mere word, itâs a whole language, and therefore much too great to be encompassed within the narrow confines of acronymity.
BTW, a good reminder of the crucial distinction between acronyms and other forms of abbreviation is that ânon-acronymity confers anonymityâ, or the NACA (pronounced âknackerâ) Rule of Abbreviation.
OT
But, what about DJ? I donât think DJ is âtoo great to be encompassed within the narrow confines of acronymityâ. (The DJ I refer to is, of course, disc jockey).
Where are there rules and how can I get a copy?
This is the trend I see. I do agree that once upon a time in the 60s, acronym meant exactly what the naysayers are saying, but because of a weak definition, rampant misuse and these new words that comprise of only consonants (and are read as they are spelled) it (acronym) has come to mean more than what it was designed for.
So you naysayers either need to spread your gospel far and wide, or watch a once unusual word saved for unique combinations of letters go the way of celibate (Iâm assuming the information Daasgrl gave me was correctamundo)âŚ
So are you now accepting that youâre not ârightâ, but merely have a different opinion that is not necessarily wrong? You didnât start out that way, and if you continue to insist that your way is the only way then people are going to continue arguing with you - because itâs all just opinion.
Also, you finally seem to be acknowledging the point I made pages ago about the only real argument here - what is a word? If HTML is a word then itâs an acronym. I donât agree that itâs a word, so I donât think itâs an acronym.
To me, the crucial distinction is that when saying a word you say the phonemes that the letters represent. If you pronounce the letters individually, ie you spell it out, then itâs not a word. If I call you Emm Eye Ell Tee Owe⌠Dee then your name is not a word. Qwerty, dos, linux are words. HTML, DJ, QP345X-7 are abbreviations although I just made the last one up.
DJ is interesting, because you sometimes hear it abbreviated to âdeejâ, so I guess it becomes a word then. X-rayâs another funny one. Nothing wrong with any of this. The boundaries are always going to be a bit blurry and usage does change with time. Thatâs what makes the language dynamic and interesting.
If you donât want to differentiate between different kinds of abbreviations then fine, thatâs your prerogative. But thereâs a perfectly good word you can use for all of them - abbreviation. If you want to have subdivisions within abbreviation then whatâs the point of inventing your own classification system? We have one that works just fine, except that youâve decided to redefine âwordâ to support your argument.
Language is imprecise, most of the time. Sometimes precision is important, so we invent special words with precise meanings for the occasions when clarity is important. If you go and take away the special meaning of the word then we are left with a situation for which no word exists. So someone is going to have to invent a new word to describe a situation for which a word used to exist.
Youâre not going to reduce the number of words, or make the differences go away. Youâre just going to make life difficult and confusing for people who care, all because you donât care. Selfish bastard.
Yes, but thatâs what pedants in all fields - religious, political, scientific - do. Just because the average person doesnât care doesnât mean it isnât a discussion worth having. Someone might learn something.
Actually, if the right sort of people care about these things (like the ones who write the style guides and dictionaries) it does make a difference to the âreal worldâ and what Joe Average finds when he looks in the dictionary to discover the meaning of âacronymâ and âwordâ. But you need a critical mass of sub-pedants to create the great uber-pedants 
Iâm critical. Can I be a sub-pedant? Whenâs the mass? We can declare a holy war on the unbelievers. This is all getting very acronymious.
I have decided that the various nasties that keep trying to infect my computer should all be called viruses. Who needs all those other fancy names like trojan, worm, malware, etc.? It doesnât make any difference to me, I just need to know that theyâre bad and need to be fixed.
Also, all foreigners in Taiwan shall henceforth be known as âEnglishâ. It doesnât make any difference at all to the casual observer whether the observee is from Nantucket, Manjimup, or Rourkeâs Drift. The appelation âEnglishâ is quite sufficient.
Dibs on uber-pedant #1.
Youâre all wrong, they are smallisms, except some of those with letters, those are letterizations, the others are littleisms. Happy to clear that up for you.
Heh
No. I AM right. My point is the naysayers are wrong for calling me wrong. You naysayers are wrong when you say html is not an acronym, because by all definitions it is.
I DID start out that way. I never said my way is the only way. Go reread if you like. Itâs the people that are telling me Iâm wrong for calling html an acronym that Iâm discussing this with.
HTML IS A NOUN THUS IT IS A WORD.
DJ IS A NOUN THUS IT IS A WORD.
Whatâs so hard to accept about this? Nothing else needs to be said about that. Check all your recent dictionaries.
I did NOT redefine word to support my argument. The definition of word is very clear. Iâm not trying to invent my own system. Iâm on a quest for clarity and standard. Can someone reference a site that clearly explains all this?
Iâm battling misinformation, whatâs selfish about that? Either the original definition of acronym needs to be changed, or youâll just have to be happy with me being right.
(Do I hear a bell? 'Cause someoneâs getting 5cH0ol3D!)
[quote]
No. I am right. My point is the naysayers are wrong for calling me wrong. You naysayers are wrong when you say html is not an acronym, because by all definitions it is. [/quote]
You didnât read my definitions, did you?
Sure this discussion is pendantic. Yes, many people say acronym for words (like HTML) which technically are not. Like I said on Sunday, I was quite surprised to learn that an acronym had to be pronouncable, hence my mistaken use two years ago that you found. Iâll probably go on to call them acronyms in the future too.
A lot of words are commonly misused, and it is generally acceptable, becuase the main purpose of language is to communciate. An example would be the word âchronicâ. I once thoguth this to mean âreally badâ, and still hear it used this way a lot. But technically, âchronicâ means (of a disease etc) âlasting for a long timeâ. While itâs fine to misuse this word in everyday conversation, it is not acceptable for a doctor to misuse the word ina medical context. Thus, talking about the word âacronymâ in a linguistic context, we should consider the meaning given by expertsd (which I have provided in previous posts) not the common everyday usage. Thereâs nothing condescending about this.
MK you seem fixated on the definition of âwordâ to define what an acronym is, because if an abreviation like HTML is a word, it could fit into your dictionary definition as being an acronym. This is false logic. A dictionary definition describes the meaning of the word. It does not mean that it is always right to use that word to describe everything that technically fits that defintion. As an example, a word taken almost at random from my dictionary:
jerboa: small rat-like animal of Asia and the N African deserts with long hind legs and the ability to jump well
This does not mean that every small rat-like animal of Asia and the N African deserts with long hind legs and the ability to jump well, is a jerboa. To find out which are, we look up a more detailed authoritive source.
Your (Oxford) definition of acronym:
a word formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. laser, Aids).
This does not mean that every word formed from the initial letters of other words are acronyms. To find out which are, we look up a more authoritive source (such as the two I provided). They will tell you that an acronym has to be pronounceable. (Also note that the two examples in your Oxford Dictionary are pronounceable - this is no accident).
Brian
I wonder how many people insist on calling this a dice ?
Oh Fluffffy! Donât embarrass yourself on this thread in front of smart people. Thatâs a die. Dice would be two or more.
Sorry guys, Fluffy wandered into the wrong forum. Come on Fluffy, letâs go play elsewhere.