Just because the conversation is over your head is no reason to start talking dirty.
OOC
This perfectly illustrates the highbrow’s condesending attitudes towards the People. You surrround yourself with fancy words and secret codes, load up on arcane knowledge known by few. This allows you to separate yourself from the Masses. Maybe it makes you feel proud and secure. I don’t know. What I do know is I once had a similar attitude until I realized that the wise man sees the world as it is, and works from there.
I don’t think I’m wise, and I admit I am a non-diplomatic debator and do come across as arrogant. But I’m not the one standing up here calling 99% of the world a sack of ignorant fools, now am I?[/quote]
This is a perfect example of why some people have different words for things that are different. I am ignorant of many things, not ashamed to admit it, and thus leave myself receptive to learning. This doesn’t make me stupid, and I’m glad that there are different words to enable us to distinguish between the two - if we can be bothered to think about them.
Gubo appears to think that ignorant=stupid, which demonstrates his ignorance. Then he gets all upset, and claims that the ignorant masses are correct and that anyone who has more sophisticated tools than him is highbrow and condescending. Thus he closes his mind to learning the truth.
This is, if I may venture an opinion, stupid. It has nothing to do with whether html is a word, which is debatable, it’s a reflection of Gubo’s attitude to learning.
Consider this:
The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat, until an elite few questioned that view and set out to discover the truth.
The masses once elected, in a popular election, as their leader a man named Adolph Hitler.
The People’s Republic of China, and the subsequent deaths of several tens of million due to central control of food production, came about due to the support of vast numbers of uneducated people.
According to a recent survey in the UK, a startling majority of people believe that the Palestinian people are refugees from Afghanistan.
Female genital mutilation is not carried out by state-sponsored programs enforced against the will of ‘the people’. It’s something the ignorant masses in some places do to each other without ever questioning why.
And if one more Taiwaneser who doesn’t know any better points and says “Look, an American” I shall scream. Ignorance is a blight on humanity.
Sorry Gubo, I don’t mind you being non-diplomatic and arrogant-sounding, but hiding behind the ignorance of the majority is not an argument. And calling people arrogant and condescending, just because they’re right, is the mark of a fool. So bugger off to some communist country, will you?
When you get there, instead of perpetuating uninformed conformity, why don’t you try and educate people about something important and see how far you get.
So can we sum up by saying that the real issue here is “what is a word?” Everyone seems to agree that an acronym is a word? Did I get that much right?
I believe that MK’s definition is “pretty much any string of letters that denotes something to most people”.
Personally I prefer a more strict definition that the word must be pronouncable without simply spelling the ‘word’ letter by letter.
I think my version is more widely accepted at this community, but Gubo believes that MK’s is more widely accepted among the majority of people - who have never thought about it.
The fact that they have never thought about it doesn’t necessarily make them wrong, but being widely accepted by people who don’t know any better doesn’t make a ‘fact’ true.
And the references all seem to be a bit vague about what is a word really.
Discuss.
Just add a few vowels to HTML to make it pronouncable. Try o and ai for example. Hotmail. There you go.
Hmm…
The average person thinks Stragbasher is Welsh, well I do and I’m average. But he says he is not, but offers no proof or definitions. Am I wrong just because 1 person (Stragbasher) says he’s not Welsh ?
Would you like a bag of apples, or will it just be the oranges?
Gubo, sorry, you’re not stupid. You’re a bloody loony.
You’re so obsessed with your proletariat politics that you can’t keep them out of a simple discussion about the technicalities of language. Labels are labels, whether it’s names of fruit, categories of abbreviation, or what you call people. The principle is the same.
For a long time, the common people in my country referred to people like Miltown Kid as ‘n-i-g-g-e-r-s’. But they didn’t spell it out like the autocensor forces me to here, they just said the word. In just the same way, a lot of Taiwanese neither know nor care where you and I are from. They have a convenient, inaccurate label for all of us monkeys and don’t care which zoo we escaped from. I say bollocks to ignorant people assigning inaccurate labels to people and things they don’t know about.
Instead of resisting percieved elites, dividing the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’, the people should educate their way out of ignorance and into the ability to reason. Progress is not made by destroying civilisation. People improve their lives by knowing more and learning to manage their lives successfully, instead of blaming others for oppressing them.
And that process starts by learning to think clearly. Phhht is not a word, it’s the sound made by hot air escaping from your bottom. Recognise it as such and get on with things that are important, instead of trying to defend a debunked point of view just because you see it as symbolic of some non-existent class struggle.
No-one is going to be burned at the stake just because they don’t have a detailed knowledge of the rules of proper English. It doesn’t matter to most people and will never make any difference to them. So why are you going on about it? It matters to me, Brian, Tetsuo etc., because it’s the stuff of our trade. We deal in this stuff, we teach this stuff, and it’s reasonable for us to care about it. But it doesn’t matter to the ordinary folks in the street so please leave them out of it until they want to come and talk about it.
And SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT DOS AND QWERTY!! In case you hadn’t noticed, no-one is arguing about those except you. Why? Because they meet EVERYONE’s requirements to be both words and acronyms. If you actually took any notice of what people were saying, instead of just latching on to the bits that suport your paranoid delusions, you might have been aware of that.
The only unresolved bit is whether alphanumeric strings that are spelt out when spoken should be accepted as words.
Acceptable: NATO, DOS, NASA
Not agreed: FBI, HTML, R2D2, SFWTRTMNBT
Now get off your political hobby horse, and explain why a word is a word if you can’t say it.
You mean this one?
[quote]Main Entry: ac
If you mean this:
[quote]Q.How should we handle file extensions like PDF (portable document format, an Adobe Acrobat file)
Yeah, that’s a pet peeve of mine, too: seeing AIDS written as “Aids” or “UNICEF” written as “Unicef”. I consider it bad editorial practice, but it seems quite common, at least outside the US.
Would you consider SQL a word? Would its pronunciation as “es kew el” or “sequel” make a difference in that evaluation?
I pronounce “HTML” as “aitch tee em el”, which to me signifies that it’s not a word, but rather a representation of four words. I have yet to hear anyone pronounce it “hitmul” or spell it “Html” ot “html” (UNIX lower-case conventions notwithstanding).
But I would consider “scuba” and “radar” to be single words. The fact that “scuba” and “radar” are both uncapitalized, are pronouncable as words under English spelling rules, and are used in everyday writing and speech as words, suggests to me that they’re words in their own right.
I see there’s now a side discussion at hand. I’ll choose to be an observer of that one and stick with the original topic. 
Me and (for the 3rd time now) Merriam-Webster.
Now, Stragbasher (and others) choose. Are you telling me Merriam-Webster is incorrect (so far you have all been saying yes, the Merriam-Webster is incorrect)? If that’s the case, I will no longer use Merriam-Webster is my argument.
[quote=“Merriam-Webster”]Acceptable: NATO, DOS, NASA
Not agreed: FBI, HTML, R2D2, SFWTRTMNBT
Now get off your political hobby horse, and explain why a word is a word if you can’t say it.[/quote]
I’d just like to point out the in the Merriam-Webster definition they use FBI as an example of an acceptable acronym. A friend gave me some fancy grammatical explanation about why FBI is a word. It had something to do with it being grammatically correct to say (for example) “The FBI can’t catch him.” It has something to do with the use of “the”.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]No it doesn’t, becuase your oxford dictionary doesn’t list every requirement necessary to be an acronym.
You read my jerboa analogy. There are other animals that fit the dictionary defintion of a jerboa, this does not mean that they are jerboas because the dictionary doesn’t list all the reqirements for being a jerboa.[/quote]
First, Oxford does list every requirement for a word to be an acronym. You just don’t agree with them. You gave me a definition from something you claim to be Webster (obviously not Merriam-Webster, if there is another let me know because I’m new to all this language stuff) and a link to a Q&A page on the Chicago Manual of Style that which agrees with you, but that’s THEIR definition, not THE PEOPLE’S definition (which is the point I think Gubo is trying to make.
I’ve never even heard of the Chicago Manual of Style before this discussion got started and it’s not the place I or anyone else (besides serious editors and publishers I assume) would look for answers to questions such as these. The ONLY person on this forum I know of that can use that definition in this argument is Omni (sorry about the abbreviation 
). I don’t think it’s fair to site that source in your argument when (I imagine) your posting style doesn’t come close to the requirements necessary to be stamped Chicago Manual of Style approved (so to speak).
Second for your jerboa analogy. There exist higher sources than dictionaries to provide definitions of those. If we were arguing about those we’d look for a agreed upon authority on jerboas.
I don’t even understand what the argument is. There are (for now) people who wish to stick to the style guide definition (that’s their new definition). You haven’t shown me why you’ve chosen it over what I believe is the more popular of the two (except that someone else told you so it must be that way). The definition of acronym has ALWAYS been the vague Oxford definition you don’t agree with. NOTHING has changed (except higher ups are choosing to be different). Using the WIDELY ACCEPTED definition of what an acronym is, seeing HTML (or html) as being an acronym is as easy as 1+2=3 (now I’ll provide a mathematical proof).
Oxford definition of acronym: [a word] [formed from the initial letters of other words].
[a word] + [formed from the initial letters of other words] = acronym (correct?)
Lets look at HTML, DJ or something we can all agree on being a word comprised of only letters (Oxford and M-W agree that html is a word, so I’ll stick with that, your new argument will have to be that html is not a word 
).
[html is a word (as defined by Oxford and M-W)] + [html is formed from the initial letters of other words (Hyper Text Markup Language)] so I say it ='s acronym
Do you REALLY want to debate whether html is a word or not?
Also, if I made an abbreviation for VVN (pronounced Vivian of course) would you be willing to call that an acronym?
A friend just pointed out to me that the Chicago MoS would be secondary to the various (he said there are like 10 different Oxfords with no connection with each other, don’t know if he was exaggerating or not) Oxfords and M-W. He said that the definitive source for answers to questions like this would be the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary (which I don’t have access to at the moment).
[quote=“Bu Lai En”][quote]Q.How should we handle file extensions like PDF (portable document format, an Adobe Acrobat file)
MK, I think this is the key point you’re missing. Html, may fit the defintion but that does not mean it is an acronym.
Once again:
All acronyms are words formed from the intial letters of other words.
This does not mean that all words formed from the initial letters of other words are acronyms.
Just as the dictionary says:
Cyanide is a highly poisonous chemical compound
This does not mean that all highly poisonous chemical compounds are cyanide.
Do you understand this, and would you care to comment?
Once again, I would like you to state succinctly just why you think that HTML is an acronym.
Brian[/quote]
I said it in my last post but I’ll say it again. If the dictionary isn’t the highest source for definition of topics about language what is? One can easily source another book about chemical compounds and find a more exact definition. Your exact definition comes from a book that “remains the essential reference for authors, editors, proofreaders, indexers, copywriters, designers, and publishers in any field.”
Guess what? I (by trade) am none of those. You can tell me I’m wrong based on what the Chicago MoS says. I would respond with a serious “Who?” The next logical place for me (or anyone) to go is a dictionary, where my understanding of acronym has been proven to be right.
Guess what an inferior or minor definition is. A definition 
. They choose to include both for a reason. If they concluded that I was 100% wrong (as you all have tried to do), it would have not been added. There was no need to look up their use of ‘also’. It was very clear in the definition.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Once again:
All acronyms are words formed from the intial letters of other words.
This does not mean that all words formed from the initial letters of other words are acronyms.[/quote]
If (all) [acronyms] [are (=)] [words] + [formed from the initial letters of other words]
THEN (all) [words]+ [formed from the initial letters of other words] [are (=)] [acronyms].
I swear you just said the same thing backwards and said it’s not true. Are you confusing me or yourself? :s
What is the “God” reference for the English language and its usage? Oxford Unabridged? What we have here are two set of equal references used to support contradictory positions. What it boils down to is the Chicago Manual of Style a more authoritative source on this topic than the Merriam-Webster dictionary? The answer I believe is no, they are equally authoritative. We need to appeal to a higher reference source here.
So now that beating each other is coming to a standstill, we shift tactics and talk about why is the abbreviation, acronym, initialism distinction important enough for people to care about? I think here, it’s more important to realize that one doesn’t forget the forest when seeing the trees. If knowing these distinctions helps one understand the language better, improve one’s usage of the language, touch upon a practical aspect of a person’s life, then it’s worthy of making the distinction and remain precise. If the (personal) answer is that no, this has absolutely no positive affect, then move on. Agree to disagree.
Would you consider SQL a word? Would its pronunciation as “es kew el” or “sequel” make a difference in that evaluation?
I pronounce “HTML” as “aitch tee em el”, which to me signifies that it’s not a word, but rather a representation of four words. I have yet to hear anyone pronounce it “hitmul” or spell it “Html” ot “html” (UNIX lower-case conventions notwithstanding).
But I would consider “scuba” and “radar” to be single words. The fact that “scuba” and “radar” are both uncapitalized, are pronouncable as words under English spelling rules, and are used in everyday writing and speech as words, suggests to me that they’re words in their own right.[/quote]
Fresh meat 
(you guys are almost as fun as Halo 2 
)
Using your breakdown of HTML (or html as I like to write it), is it fair for me to say enjoy isn’t a word, because I can break it down to (en joy) or that NATO isn’t a proper acronym because it can be broken down to (Nay Toe, two separate words)?
I asked one person if html was an acronym and they said “No” (he was the first), when I asked why he told me “Because the H T M L doesn’t stand for anything”. When I told him what they stood for he went “Yeah, I guess it is an acronym then”.
I feel I am riding the winds of change. I’ll also quite confidently say they’re blowing my way.
(wait, no I’m not. Nothing has changed. There’s been a weak definition of acronym since it’s inception, thus allowing me to call html and other (not readable, pronounceable or otherwise) WORDS acronyms)
The logomachy between Gubo and Stragbasher reminds me so much of the Black Knight taking on King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with Gubo as the Black Knight and Stragbasher as King Arthur:
Black Knight (after King Arthur has repelled his assaults by cutting off both his arms and a leg): “Right, I’ll do you for that!”
King Arthur: “You’ll what?”
Black Knight: “Come here!”
King Arthur: “What are you gonna do, bleed on me?”
Black Knight: “I’m invincible.”
King Arthur: “You’re a looney.”