Acronym vs. Abbreviation (and is HTTP a word?)

[Bu_Lai_En]

[quote]Bu Lai En wrote:
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.

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]. [/quote]

No way. This is where you’re making the mistake. THis is fallacious logic. Like saying:

All mammals are animals
THEN all animals are mammals.

Plain wrong.

Look, this is quite simple really.

The dictionary says:

acronym: words formed from the intial letters of other words
This does not mean all words formed from the intial letters of other words are acronyms.

If it did, then uysing exactly the same logic, you could say
cyanide: a highly poisonous chemical compound
Therefore all highly poisonous chemical compounds are cyanide.

Quite clearly wrong.

Do you agree, or do you think it would be fair to say that anthrax is cyanide?

You misinterpret a dictionary defintion to misdefine the word ‘acronym’. Where the dictionary defintion doesn’t spell out the differences, you have to go to ohter sources. Find me an authoritive source that explains the difference between acronyms and abbreviations with examples of each. They’ll all say that the difference is that an acronym has to be a pronounceable word.

Brian

[bob]

Sometimes initialisms sound kind of like acronyms because the names of consonants always includes a vowel, note ef bi ai (FBI). Sounds a little like an acronym because of the vowels. Eitch ti em el (Hotmail) doesn’t sound like a word, so we better stick with initialism in either case to avoid confusion.

That is how I would explain it, if we ever got this far, proletarian considerations notwithstanding

[bob]

It’s all about vowels. NATO is an acronym because you don’t sound out the vowel sounds as you say the word. FBI you do, so FBI is not an acronym. It is a useful distinction.

[miltownkid]

@Yellow Cartman

Agree to disagree.

I already have. I’m actually interested in the other side’s position. I guess I have it in the Chicago MoS. Some people just seem hell bent on telling me I’m wrong and that I’m doing a disservice to the English language by propagating an incorrect definition. This I feel is an incorrect view to have and is why I’ve taken time out of my Halo 2 life to make my point as clear as possible.

Even after finding that M-W lists my interpretation as a correct (although minor) definition they feel it should be pointed out that I am “kind of” wrong.

I have been wrong over and over in life (and will continue to be so), but in this case I am NOT wrong!. This time I chose not to watch people twist around my words, talk about my miltown fo’ shizzle dictionary, make claims of (I’m assuming my) ignorance in a public forum about a topic that they have done little to convince me I’m wrong (or ignorant) about.

To sum things up again you have:
The Chicago MoS (written for publishers and the like) and people that agree with the Chicago MoS (who are probably publishers or was convinced by someone who is or was convinced by one)

I haven’t seen any other argument that I can remember (that wasn’t an attempt to put holes in mine).

I just went through 19 online dictionaries: 15 (including the Oxford one) being the same Oxford one I’ve been quoting, 1 making note of pronunciation (which still isn’t very clear), 2 saying see abbreviation and 1 sitting on the fence (wikipedia). I’ll gladly take the time to post them all if you like (with their links and definitions), if you think it’s necessary.

I think I liked the way this link put it best (thanks YC ).

@Acronym Server

An acronym is a label formed from the beginnings of words (Greek: acro [head] and nym [word]) – or very rarely, from letters in the middle of words. There is no requirement that an acronym be pronounceable as a normal word (this is a curious myth perpetuated by American dictionaries): IBM is just as much an acronym as LASER.

I’m curious to find when this pronounceable propaganda got started. It would make for interesting language history.

[Jefferson]

Heh

[bob]

Or we could drop all the posturing and admit that this is complicated stuff.

Acronyms are words, and in this language words occur in certain patterns that make them pronouncable “as words”. HTML isn’t an acronym because it doesn’t sound like a word. It sounds like a string of letters because it “is” a string of letters, ie, the vowel in the name of the consonant is pronounced. If we are going to call HTML an acronym we might as well call the alphabet an acronym.

[OutofChaos]

@miltownkid

@Acronym Server

An acronym is a label formed from the beginnings of words (Greek: acro [head] and nym [word]) – or very rarely, from letters in the middle of words. There is no requirement that an acronym be pronounceable as a normal word (this is a curious myth perpetuated by American dictionaries): IBM is just as much an acronym as LASER.

Example from the middle of the words:

loran: Acronym for long-range radio navigation. A long-range radio navigation position-fixing system consisting of an array of fixed stations that transmit precisely synchronized signals to mobile receivers. Note: A loran receiver measures differences in the times of arrival of the signals from the various stations. A fixed difference in the time of arrival of the signals from any two stations will define a hyperbolic arc on which the receiver must lie. Three or more stations are needed to remove ambiguities in the position of the receiver. Synonyms long-range aid to navigation system, long-range radio aid to navigation system.

These definitions were prepared by ATIS Committee T1A1. For more information on the work related to these definitions, please visit the ATIS website.
This HTML version of Telecom Glossary 2K was last generated on February 28, 2001. References can be found in the Foreword

OOC

[miltownkid]

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]No way. This is where you’re making the mistake. THis is fallacious logic. Like saying:

All mammals are animals
THEN all animals are mammals.

Plain wrong.[/quote]
I see your point, but that’s not what I did with it. My proof was never ALL acronyms are words THUS, ALL words are acronyms (even though it’s technically true in this case)

I never told you guys, but miltownkid is actually an acronym :raspberry:

Using your mammal/animal example I’ll show you what I did (because you don’t seem to get it). I never did an A B comparison. I first found a definition to one thing. I used acronym, but in this case I’ll mammal since it’s the more specific of the 2.

Then I broke the definition into all the requirements that a thing must meet to be labeled a mammal.

Then I took a thing I felt was a mammal (but someone else told me wasn’t) and saw if it fit all the requirements to be a mammal.

Let’s do it again so you can see how the process works.

[mammals] [are (=)] [any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded] + [higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes)] + that [nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands] ,+ [have the skin usually more or less covered with hair], and+ [include humans]

Then I took my example, I’ll use a cat (I miss my cats ).

[cats are warm blooded] + [cats are higher vertebrates] + [cats nourish the young with titty milk] + [from my experience, pussies are hairy] + [my cat seemed human, but wasn’t. Luckily, that’s not a requirement] (add it all up)='s mammal.

This, all A = C so all C must = A crap (which I know to be untrue from skoo’, yeah I got me some) is something you brought to the table, not me.

Are you trying to say I’m so dense as to believe:
All forumosa posters use computers SO all computer users must post on forumosa? :loco:

[miltownkid]

@Gubo

I am simply pointing out that in this particular case, the word “acronym” has evolved to encompass more than its original meaning. I happen to be one of the millions who is on this evolutionary path.

I was willing to take that stance before, but not anymore. The definition of acronym has NEVER changed (this Chicago MoS is new stuff). Html, IBM, FTP and any others comfortably fall under the original definition of acronym.

[Big_Fluffy_Matthew]

Oooooo… just looked on wikipedia, and got another complication, The use of a word has indeed changed, but not the one we thought, Initialism (first used 1899) used to mean any abbreviation formed from initials, so NATO and FBI were (would have been ?) considered initialisms, not acronyms. But in 1943, because there was so many of them the word acronym was coined to distinguish those prounced as a word and those pronouced as a series of letters. Now I’m even more confused as to what’s going on :loco:

I think I’ll just call them bob.

[Jefferson]

Hmm…

[Big_Fluffy_Matthew]

The word acronym has replaced itialism in some cases, maybe the take over is continuing past its original remit (maybe because acronym is easier to spell and say), but I still say it hasn’t quite taken over yet, and the dictionaries still say otherwise and Miltonkid is a hand-fondler.

[miltownkid]

@Big Fluffy Matthew

The word acronym has replaced itialism in some cases, maybe the take over is continuing past its original remit (maybe because acronym is easier to spell and say), but I still say it hasn’t quite taken over yet, and the dictionaries still say otherwise and Miltonkid is a hand-fondler.

What dictionaries? Where?

I’ve laid down all my arguments as clear as crystal. My sources as well. What do you have for me? The definition has remained the same and html falls within the definition. Are you telling me you disagree with this? (remember, the only way you can disagree with this is to tell me html is NOT a word, I’m more than happy to continue from there).

I doesn’t need to take anything over. Acronym rules the day.

(it’s funny that initialism comes up as a mispelled word in my checker, and I’m leaving it that way)

[Tetsuo]

You know the core problem here - there is no “uber-reference” for the English language. There is nothing that sets the rules out in the absolute authoritative sense. Hence the disagreements between even the most highly respected authorities.

And no, Gubo, what scares me at least isn’t that you’re a trained professional who disagrees, it’s that you’re being so wilfully arrogant and condescending when faced with an opposing argument you can’t completely dismiss and an opposition that won’t bow down to The Mighty Mouthpiece of The People.

[Jefferson]

Past…

[Yellow_Cartman]

@Tetsuo

You know the core problem here - there is no “uber-reference” for the English language. There is nothing that sets the rules out in the absolute authoritative sense. Hence the disagreements between even the most highly respected authorities.

True.

Which leads to…

@Tetsuo

And no, Gubo, what scares me at least isn’t that you’re a trained professional who disagrees, it’s that you’re being so wilfully arrogant and condescending when faced with an opposing argument you can’t completely dismiss and an opposition that won’t bow down to The Mighty Mouthpiece of The People.

Which could be re-written as:

And no, stragbasher, Bu Lai En, Tetsuo et all, what scares me at least isn’t that you’re trained professionals who believe in high standards and principled positions, it’s that you’re being so wilfully arrogant and condescending when faced with an opposing argument you can’t completely dismiss and an opposition that won’t bow down to The Mighty Mouthpiece of The Elite.

[Jefferson]

Int…

[bob]

Initialism is a useful distinction. There is nothing elitist about it.

[miltownkid]

@Tetsuo

You know the core problem here - there is no “uber-reference” for the English language. There is nothing that sets the rules out in the absolute authoritative sense. Hence the disagreements between even the most highly respected authorities.

The funny thing is, I haven’t seen any disagreement between the most highly respected authorities. Only this style guide, which purpose isn’t even to define words. It’s all about style (as they see fit).

Now don’t go the way of the grunter (as I remember someone putting it). Words have definitions for a reason and there are right and wrong definitions.

[Yellow_Cartman]

[quote=“bob”]Initialism is a useful distinction.[/quote] It is, but quite uncommon.

This would be a very good question to pose to Mr. William Safire in his On Language column. My guess is that the usage of initialism is rare.

[quote=“bob”] There is nothing elitist about it.[/quote] If this term is used only by the Ph.Ds, professional linguists, etc of the world, then no, it is elitist.

EDIT: I would also add, there’s nothing wrong with elitism either.