# Use of abbreviations "sb", "s.o", "sth" in forum posts



## DonnyB

Would it be possible, please, to show a little more latitude and tolerance over the use of abbreviations such as "sb" "s.o" and "sth" in posts in the English Only forum?  I notice a number of people using these in their posts in _apparent_ contravention of Rule 11, although that doesn't _specifically_ prohibit them.  I believe they're picking them up from sources such as dictionaries and grammar textbooks where they're widely used as a way of saving space when using illustrative examples, which is largely what the forum members concerned are doing.  In most if not all cases it's obvious what the terms *mean*, so the question seems to me to boil down to one of usage and etiquette.  My comments there apply to the English Only forum, but the type of abbreviation to which I refer is used in other European languages in the same way and perhaps in the corresponding forums as well.  I'd be interested to know what their policy is on this.

If the verdict is that they should *n**ot *be used, then could I please ask for this to be handled by the moderators alone.  I keep coming across harshly worded posts from experienced members in which _no attempt whatever _has been made to answer the question which was asked, but the hapless member concerned has been pulled to pieces solely for using a "non-standard" or "not acceptable" abbreviation.  To make matters worse, a completely misleading explanation is sometimes given to back up the objection (_Native speakers *never* use "sth"_).  I really don't feel this sort of thing sits at all well with our stated objective of being respectful, helpful and polite.

Thanks!


----------



## newg

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## ewie

I agree too


----------



## JamesM

I think you have an excellent point, DonnyB, particularly in your last statement.  I've opened a thread in the Moderators forum to discuss this.  Thanks for speaking up.


----------



## dreamlike

At long last.... someone notices something that should have been noticed a long time ago.  This particular point of our rules have always seemed somewhat bold to me. I've seen native speakers and reputable dictionaries alike (OALD and Camridge, to name only two) use these abbrevations.


----------



## JamesM

I haven't seen native speakers use them, dreamlike.  I do agree that they appear in some dictionaries.  I suspect they are used to save printing space.  It is not an abbreviation that I would expect to see in any document or note here in the U.S.  

I think the important point is that the use of them is no reason to jump down someone's throat.


----------



## DonnyB

JamesM said:


> I haven't seen native speakers use them, dreamlike.  I do agree that they appear in some dictionaries.  I suspect they are used to save printing space.  It is not an abbreviation that I would expect to see in any document or note here in the U.S.


While I'd tend to agree that here in the UK, too, they're not in _common general use_, they are familiar to anyone learning a language, which surely is a good proportion of the forums' target audiences? I'm currently learning Italian and my tutor uses them extensively, together with their Italian equivalents to teach grammatical structures, and so we copy them into our notes - and I've certainly seen them used on language-based Internet sites.  So I can fully understand, and sympathize with, puzzled forum members who are being told unequivocally that it's "*wrong*" to use them.  I don't think this seemingly intransigeant policy is altogether very fair.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I agree with Donny's objection to the way in which some members seem to 'police' the forum with abrupt or even harsh remarks, especially when the 'perpetrator' is a newcomer who isn't yet familiar with the way we do things — and may be put off coming back. A helpful answer with an added gentle comment about what we don't do (and why) is much better.

On the subject of "sb", "sth" and the like, I do think it's valid to point out (helpfully!) to non-natives that although such abbreviations are valid in in dictionary entries, or when writing in note form, we don't normally use them in full sentences. I wouldn't like to encourage learners to think that it's normal to write, for example, "Sb said sth about that n., and its corresp. adj, being pron. differently in N. Amer." (though all those abbr. are used in some dictionaries ).

There's a time and place for everything.

Ws


----------



## JamesM

As an aside, if you encounter a post that is *not* respectful, helpful and polite, _please_ press the Report-A-Post button (the little red triangle in the footer of the post to the left) to notify the moderators.  We scan the Reported Posts frequently, while we may not even catch a post on the thread.  There are just too many threads for us to read every post on every thread every day. 

Thanks.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Seconded. All acts of aggressive pseudo-moderation are to be reported without hesitation by means of the *∆*.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Postscript to my #8: I've just come across a thread of a couple of days ago, which I suspect may have been the trigger for the present thread. I see, Donny, that you had already provided exactly what I was suggesting above: a friendly, helpful explanation of the difference between dictionary/grammar-book usage and everyday written/spoken English.

Ws


----------



## dreamlike

JamesM said:


> I haven't seen native speakers use them, dreamlike.


They do appear with some frequency when I'm _chatting _with my BrE-speaking friends. This may be a question of age, since they are mostly my peers. I'm pretty sure I've seen these used by native speakers on internet boards as well, though. 



Wordsmyth said:


> IOn the subject of "sb", "sth" and the like, I do think it's valid to point out (helpfully!) to non-natives that although such abbreviations are valid in in dictionary entries, or when writing in note form, we don't normally use them in full sentences. I wouldn't like to encourage learners to think that it's normal to write, for example, "Sb said sth about that n., and its corresp. adj, being pron. differently in N. Amer." (though all those abbr. are used in some dictionaries ).


I'd never dream of using them in full sentences, that's stretching things a bit.  Just as an aside, 'sth' and 'sb' are quite popular with Polish EFL teachers, whether school or academic.


----------



## merquiades

Foreign language manuals in Europe use these abbreviations quite frequently:  sth, sb, so... probably because it saves having to repeat them over and over again:  give sth to so, lend sth to so... etc., especially when there is a long list of them. I never use them and don't think it's a good idea for people to believe it's fine to write them whenever, wherever but I would never correct them in a forum if that isn't specifically part of the question.
I have noticed for a long time that in English Only, compared with other forums, there are often unfriendly agressive comments made by foreros but I don't know how that can be helped.  Most aren't really "against the rules" per se, it's just the tone that is aggravating.


----------



## JamesM

The best way to help is to report the post, merquiades.  Feel free to press that red triangle whenever you see unfriendly or aggressive comments.  They are not in keeping with our mission here and we want to do our best to maintain a friendly atmosphere.


----------



## dreamlike

merquiades said:


> I have noticed for a long time that in English Only, compared with other forums, there are often unfriendly agressive comments made by foreros but I don't know how that can be helped.  Most aren't really "against the rules" per se, it's just the tone that is aggravating.


I'm under the same impression. I tend to come across grumpy nit-pickers every single day in the English forum, by the tone of their posts I can tell that they've been leading very miserable lives....... thankfully, they're largely outnumbered by cordial and normal members.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

merquiades said:


> I have noticed for a long time that in English Only, compared with other forums, there are often unfriendly agressive comments made by foreros but I don't know how that can be helped.  Most aren't really "against the rules" per se, it's just the tone that is aggravating.





dreamlike said:


> I'm under the same impression. I tend to come  across grumpy nit-pickers every single day in the English forum, by the  tone of their posts I can tell that they've been leading very miserable  lives...


I couldn't agree more. And EO is, as far as I know, the only forum plagued with this disease.





JamesM said:


> The best way to help is to report the post,  merquiades.  Feel free to press that red triangle whenever you see  unfriendly or aggressive comments.  They are not in keeping with our  mission here and we want to do our best to maintain a friendly  atmosphere.


I did it once, to absolutely no avail. Non-natives seem to be second-class foreros there.
Actually I stopped reading / posting in EO for this very reason.


----------



## JamesM

I'm sorry to hear that, JeanDeSponde.  We are discussing this issue now among the English Only moderators and we hope you will see some improvement in tone in the forum in the near future.


----------



## DonnyB

JamesM said:


> We are discussing this issue now among the English Only moderators and we hope you will see some improvement in tone in the forum in the near future.


I've just used the red triangle to report a patronisingly sarcastic post by a moderator  and I'm pleased to say I see it was very promptly edited to conform better to the standards we all expect.  So the red triangle does definitely seem to be the way to go. 
Thanks, James.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

DonnyB said:


> ... an harshly-worded sarcastic post by a moderator


I can't believe it.





DonnyB said:


> ...and I'm pleased to say I see it was very  promptly edited to conform better to the standards we all expect.


The times they are a-changing...?...


----------



## cyberpedant

It would seem to me that the use of these abbreviations is more or less universal in the English "texting" communities (cell phone users). An English native newb—especially one who hasn't read the rules (100%?)—would consider them to be perfectly understandable. Non-natives might find them incomprehensible—and there's the rub. A link to a list—I believe I've seen a few—might be helpful in case the prohibition is dropped.


----------



## JamesM

cyberpedant said:


> It would seem to me that the use of these abbreviations is more or less universal in the English "texting" communities (cell phone users). An English native newb—especially one who hasn't read the rules (100%?)—would consider them to be perfectly understandable. Non-natives might find them incomprehensible—and there's the rub. A link to a list—I believe I've seen a few—might be helpful in case the prohibition is dropped.




Text (SMS) abbreviations are not allowed in English Only.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  If I am learning French and I read the French Only forum, I don't want to learn SMS abbreviations in French, thinking that I'm learning standard French.  These are, after all, language forums primarily read by language learners.


----------



## dreamlike

JamesM said:


> Text (SMS) abbreviations are not allowed in English Only.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  If I am learning French and I read the French Only forum, I don't want to learn SMS abbreviations in French, thinking that I'm learning standard French.  These are, after all, language forums primarily read by language learners.


But what's wrong with knowing SMS abbreviations? Let's say I'm learning French and happen to come across some French SMS abbreviations on WR. This doesn't automatically mean that I'll incorporate them into my speech and writing.


----------



## Egmont

dreamlike said:


> But what's wrong with knowing SMS abbreviations? Let's say I'm learning French and happen to come across some French SMS abbreviations on WR. This doesn't automatically mean that I'll incorporate them into my speech and writing.


Nothing is wrong with knowing SMS terms. The English Only forum rules allow them when they are under discussion as such. The problem arises when they are used in a post, which is not a text message, with no indication that they are SMS terms. When that happens, English learners may infer that they are part of standard usage.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Egmont said:


> _[...] _When that happens, English learners may infer that they are part of standard usage.


 ... and that does indeed happen. I can remember more than one occasion where a learner (at a lower level than your excellent English skills, dreamlike ) has expressed surprise when told, in this forum, that abbreviations such as _sb_ and _sth_ (or indeed certain text-speak forms) ar not used in normal English writing.


dreamlike said:


> But what's wrong with knowing SMS abbreviations? Let's say I'm learning French and happen to come across some French SMS abbreviations on WR. This doesn't automatically mean that I'll incorporate them into my speech and writing.


 But that assumes that you recognise that they *are *SMS abbreviations in the first place. I suppose you might assume that strings of several consecutive consonants are unlikely to be real words — but then a learner of Polish would really come unstuck!

Ws


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Wordsmyth said:


> [...] abbreviations such as _sb_ and _sth_ (or indeed certain text-speak forms) ar not used in normal English writing.


SMS abbreviations are not accepted in a post because they are very difficult to read and unnecessary because text-length is not limited.
On the contrary _sb_ or _sth_ are accepted abbreviations _in texts about language or grammar _because they allow for greater clarity and concision.
They are not caused by laziness, and are largely used e.g. in dictionaries, including Wordreference dictionaries.


----------



## dreamlike

At first I thought it's a bit patronizing to think that a learner could conceive of these abbreviations as being 'part of standard usage', but since there were such cases.... I guess that treating them with scepticism is justified. 

Thank you your kind words, Wordsmyth!


----------



## JamesM

JeanDeSponde said:


> SMS abbreviations are not accepted in a post because they are very difficult to read and unnecessary because text-length is not limited.
> On the contrary _sb_ or _sth_ are accepted abbreviations _in texts about language or grammar _because they allow for greater clarity and concision.
> They are not caused by laziness, and are largely used e.g. in dictionaries, including Wordreference dictionaries.



This is true.  However, would you accept "qqn" in standard French?  It is common in French language books and French dictionaries and I have seen it in casual French writing but I certainly wouldn't recommend it anywhere standard French is required.  It is the same thing.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

I would certainly not use "qq" or "sb" in non-casual writing, and I would certainly not recommend them — except when posting in WRF (sorry, in Wordreference forums) to explain an expression or a point of grammar.
I would not write "Is there sth I can do to improve my English?" in a post, as I don't chatspeak.
But I would certainly write "Should I say _to give sth sb_ or _to give sb sth_?", all the more so if many variations on the theme are to be presented. The context is "academic" in a sense, as is a dictionary entry.

I found this old thread on the very same topic. There seems to be a large confusion between _academic_ and _chatspeak_ use of those abbreviations (and Panjandrum's #22 beat me by seven years...)
Anyway, prohibiting a dictionary-like use in a word-oriented forum looks like a religious issue to me. So reason has to be put aside — _thou shalt not..._


----------



## JamesM

I don't think "academic" is quite analogous, JeanDeSponde.  When we say we haven't seen these, we are including years of English composition and grammar classes.  Our teachers don't write up on the board: "donate = give sth. to sb. for charitable purposes".   They don't appear in our academic writing.  They don't appear in our textbooks.  I don't think you will find them in our monolingual dictionaries, either, as regular abbreviations in the definitions of words.  Imagine, if you can, that everyone BUT native French speakers used "qqn" in all ESL French books but you had never seen it used by any French native, whether teacher or student.

So it is quite a divide, not just a preference to exclude certain "academic" abbreviations out of religious fervor.

To quote another post by Panjandrum in that same thread:



> Our point is that the environment you describe is completely artificial. Outside the closed hothouse world of the English learner, the abbreviations you are so fond of are completely alien.


----------



## Wordsmyth

JeanDeSponde said:


> _ [...]_ But I would certainly write "Should I say _to give sth sb_ or _to give sb sth_?", all the more so if many variations on the theme are to be presented. The context is "academic" in a sense, as is a dictionary entry._ [...] _


 There's one difference, however, between dictionaries and this forum. If I were a beginner, learning English, and I came across _"give sb sth", _and I didn't understand it, I could look in the dictionary's list of abbreviations used, to find the meanings. That doesn't apply to WRF posts. As for the case of many variations on a theme, I don't see a problem with writing _something_ and _somebody_ in full — once. Thereafter, it's quick to copy/ paste, then modify the text for the variations.


JeanDeSponde said:


> _ [...]_ Anyway, prohibiting a dictionary-like use in a word-oriented forum looks like a religious issue to me. So reason has to put aside — _thou shalt not..._


 But there is no such prohibition! If you can find one in the rules and guidelines, JDS, I'd be interested in knowing where. As Donny's original post #1 shows, some members seem to present it unfairly as a _'thou shalt not'_, rather than giving a helpful explanation of when it should or shouldn't be used (based on reason).

Ws


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Wordsmyth said:


> Anyway, prohibiting a dictionary-like use in a word-oriented forum looks  like a religious issue to me. So reason has to put aside — _thou shalt not..._
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no such prohibition! If you can find one in the rules and guidelines, JDS, I'd be interested in knowing where.
Click to expand...

Panjandrum's last comment (and _thread closing_ comment) was





> It is very clear from the comments on this thread that those who are  directly involved in the forum and in responding to the questions asked  here find these particular abbreviations to be non-standard and  unacceptable.


Anyway, the main topic of the post is  not "why can't we...?", but "why would you rather accept that plain foreros enforce the rule _thou shalt not sb or sth_ rather than enforce the rule _be polite_...?
Form above content.


----------



## JamesM

I think we can have both.   That's the goal, at least.  We can be polite and I hope you see more of that in the future.  There's a concerted effort to make that happen, thanks to this thread.  I appreciate that the issue was brought up here.


----------



## learnerr

The question is whether the opposition to these abbreviations is caused by the desire to avoid any misservice to learners, or because they hurt the feelings of the opposing people ("I always shudder internally whenever a friend uses them online"). The second is understandable, but avoiding this hurt is not a good goal to try to achieve. The first is probably impossible (how does one protect learners from every kind of mistake that _non-natives_ make in forum posts? this undertaking is way too massive…)


----------



## JamesM

These particular abbreviations fall into a different category from any other abbreviation.  They are not like "etc." or "no." or even "w/o".  These are all recognizable by any native English speaker with even the most basic education.   

The odd disconnect here is that we have abbreviations that are completely normal for English learners and completely foreign to native English speakers.  The only people who would encounter them would be those who either taught English as a second language or studied multiple languages and were aware of ESL texts.  So it is primarily an important point of information for English learners that these abbreviations would not be recognized by the majority of native English speakers, other than their use in SMS.  It is as surprising to those of us who have English as our first language that there are abbreviations we have never seen as it is surprising to non-native English speakers that they are not common and standard.

That said, there is sometimes a knee-jerk reaction to them that is neither kind nor helpful.   This is contrary to the forum's mission and guidelines and we want to minimize or eliminate that type of response to these abbreviations.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

JamesM said:


> The only people who would encounter them would be those who either taught English as a second language or studied multiple languages and were aware of ESL texts.  So it is primarily an important point of information for English learners that these abbreviations would not be recognized by the majority of native English speakers.


Sorry about that — what does "ESL" mean...?
Now, who's mainly opening threads on the English Only forum: natives, or ESLs?... (OK, I know what ESL means)
Why keep on telling them "you think you know, but you're stupid"...?


----------



## JamesM

JeanDeSponde said:


> Why keep on telling them "you think you know, but you're stupid"...?



That is not the intended communication, in most cases.  If you think that is the intended communciation, report it.  Besides, it is not a case of "keep on telling them".  The issue is usually a one-time thing with new posters.  Everything can get repetitious when you've been on the forum for a while.


----------



## Wordsmyth

JeanDeSponde said:


> Panjandrum's last comment (and _thread closing_ comment) was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very clear from the comments on this thread that those who are directly involved in the forum and in responding to the questions asked here find these particular abbreviations to be non-standard and unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> _[...]_
Click to expand...

 Yes, but a little earlier in the thread Panj also said: 





> It is clear from the examples and from what I know of those who have posted them that these particular abbreviations are not considered chatspeak - they are standard within their particular learning context. They are evidently used in teaching materials as well as by students.


 So I take his closing comment to refer to these abbreviations being non-standard and unacceptable *when used outside that particular learning context* (i.e. space-limited dictionaries and grammar reference books). Also, the comment was a summary of opinions of a certain cross-section of members — not a prohibition.


JeanDeSponde said:


> _[...] _Anyway, the main topic of the post is not "why can't we...?", but "why would you rather accept that plain foreros enforce the rule _thou shalt not sb or sth_ rather than enforce the rule _be polite_...?
> Form above content.


 I'm not sure whether the _"you"_ in that question is _me_ or the _impersonal you_, but either way I certainly wouldn't accept that forum members (plain or fancy ) enforce _"thou shalt not"_ rather than be polite. So I can't answer the question "Why would you ...?", because I wouldn't.

One thing that seems to run through this thread, and the other one, is a desire by some people to have a black-and-white rule: either allow _sb/sth_, or don't allow them under any circumstances. Those people might like to take Panjandrum's advice (in the other thread) on the subject of acceptable abbreviations: 


> A very limited set of abbreviations is accepted here.
> Please read the sticky at the top of the forum.


 ... read the sticky! ... in which we see "*If you use other abbreviations, you must define them with the first use*_". _So anyone who feels an overwhelming urge to use _sb/__sth_ in a forum post can do so, as long as those abbreviations are defined there. That makes sense to me, because it mirrors what we find in any dictionary: the ability to look up the definition of an abbreviation as used in that particular publication.

Ws


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Wordsmyth, my "you" was almost impersonal. (Poorly) restating what DonnyB said, it meant "you, the moderation, let foreros forbid _sb, sth_, to the detriment of the rule _be polite_."

I think you overestimate Panj's tolerance: his final comment was a "I  hear what you said, now anyway nothing is allowed here outside  the approved list."
Be it in WRF's "particular learning context" or not:





panjandrum said:


> I believe that these are regularly used by language students, but not by normal people.
> So I consider them to be unacceptable in these forums - just as chatspeak is unacceptable.


Hence the rule which has been enforced since then by moderators and, er, would-bes.

Including _sb, sth_ in the approved list could seem to be the simplest solution, but then their use should be restricted to "particular learning contexts" because none of us want chatspeak — and those contexts would need to be defined. Not so simple.


----------



## DonnyB

JeanDeSponde said:


> Including _sb, sth_ in the approved list could seem to be the simplest solution, but then their use should be restricted to "particular learning contexts" because none of us want chatspeak — and those contexts would need to be defined. Not so simple.


I must admit this would be my preferred solution.   With, I think, the sole exception of OP, *none *of the abbreviations on that list are likely to be familiar to or even recognizable by "normal" native speakers, not used anywhere outside the forum.  I'd never seen AE or BE used before I became a member here, in fact.  They're "approved" solely on the basis of saving time and space because they're so frequently used _within the contexts of the forum _and surely that's precisely the rationale behind the use of *sb* and *sth*.

The other objection being voiced, which seems to be that we don't want to permit the use of chatspeak, is undermined in my view by the inclusion of OP on the list.  That is going to be familiar I imagine to anyone who's ever taken part in a forum, online chat or discussion group - although I have occasionally come across newbies asking what it means, which suggests to me that it's not instantly recognizable by "normal" native speakers.

I'm not suggesting we undermine the basic principle of encouraging the use of "correct" English in the framing of questions, merely advocating that we start to take a more pragmatic and flexible approach to it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I take your point(s), JDS. It would be interesting to know Panj's present position, seven years down the line and in light of the arguments in this thread.


DonnyB said:


> _[...]_ I'm not suggesting we undermine the basic principle of encouraging the use of "correct" English in the framing of questions, merely advocating that we start to take a more pragmatic and flexible approach to it.


 I heartily agree with that, Donny. Whilst I'm all in favour of discouraging chatspeak, I feel that the use of abbreviations is an area where common sense should prevail. I think there's a lot of value in the much-overlooked caveat about defining abbreviations when they may not be recognised in everyday language. It's a principle that's applied in most professional contexts.

Ws


----------



## JamesM

Not speaking as a moderator but just as a WordReference forum participant, I don't have a problem with adding sb, sth and so. to the approved list.  As long as we can point the confused (probably native) participant to the list of approved abbreviations, along with an explanation, I think that makes sense.  I'd like to see some sort of punctuation to distinguish "so", the abbreviation, from "so", the word.  Sb and sth don't have that problem.

I will bring this up in the moderators' discussion about this topic.  Changes happen essentially by consensus here, so I'm sure there will be discussion before there is a consensus.


----------



## dreamlike

I can't help but to say (and I don't mean to sound bold in any way!) that some of us may be insulting the intelligence of 'the confused natives', or the confused natives do that themselves, because abbreviations such as 'sth' and 'sb' are easily decipherable. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their meaning on one's own, as I did when I first came across them in an Oxford textbook. This is just to say.


----------



## JamesM

Well, if no one's confused, it won't be a problem.  If they are, we could refer them to the list.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I'd say the key words in your #41, James, are "along with an explanation". I think we're all agreed that we wouldn't expect to see _sb/sth/s.o_ in 'normal' writing, and that should be made clear to learners if those terms are to be included in the 'acceptable' list.

On the broader topic of the contents of that list, I sincerely hope that nobody will start applying it strictly — otherwise we'll always have to write North Atlantic Treaty Organization, British Broadcasting Corporation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Short Message Service, etc et cetera, in spite of the fact that NATO, BBC, FBI and SMS are far better known than RHU (which is in the list). And if ever I post in a thread that refers to the KGB, I'm certainly not going to write Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti!

Perhaps the guideline should be rewritten to allow the use of established, widely-known abbreviations (especially where the abbreviation of a name is better known than the full version). Or perhaps there shouldn't be a restricted list at all, but just a caution to use abbreviations sensibly, and to define them where necessary.

Ws


----------



## JamesM

I understand what you're saying, Wordsmith, but the catch is in what is considered "established and widely-known".  Many would argue that the abbreviations that are the subject of this thread are established and widely-known.  I am doing my best to listen to these concerns as a fellow user.  I would ask that suggestions that are offered be considered with a view to how a moderator would possibly enforce them.  It is one of our most difficult and time-consuming duties.

Appealing to common sense is always an invitation for problems.  The definition of common sense may have some general overlap but there is a great deal of variation from person to person regarding what is sensible and what isn't.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Yes, I could see that one coming. But I don't think it's feasible to make all the guidelines devoid of interpretation: some require a judgement of what is "useful", or what is "offensive", or what is "standard English", etc. So interpreting "established and widely-known" would be much the same. 

Far be it from me to suggest complicating the lives of moderators (whose efforts, in my view, are admirable) — but the current 'abbreviations' guideline already poses the problem of how to enforce it. As it's written, we shouldn't use _SMS_ without first defining it, and yet the guidelines themselves contain _"SMS" _with no definition. I don't think anyone would dispute _SMS_ as "established", yet under the present 'rule' it would be forbidden, unless defined. I don't think there'd be many disputed cases, but you're in a better position than I am to judge that, so ... your call, of course.

With the abbreviations _sb/sth/s.o_, it's not really a question of total acceptance or a total ban, but of the context in which they are acceptable — and it seems to me that that's going to need some carefully weighed words, if time-wasting niggles are to be avoided. I also see a risk of moderators being approached with numerous other dictionary-type abbreviations as candidates for inclusion in the 'white-list'.

I'm not trying to be negative (honestly!), but it just strikes me that monitoring posts for compliance with an 'accepted' list involves more work (and potentially more disputes if the list isn't entirely realistic) than enforcing a generally worded guideline. Anyway, ... food for thought.

Ws


----------



## JamesM

These are all good points.  Thanks for taking the time to express them.  My experience as a moderator is that we spend very little time interacting or moderating the reasonable users.    Ninety-nine percent of the participants here make great contributions and somehow work out how to deal with some of the unique (possibly quirky) rules we have.  

With that one percent it can be an endless discussion if anything is subject to interpretation.  I have personally spent weeks in an ongoing conversation regarding the interpretation of one word of a rule.  So I think we end up becoming a little gun-shy after a while and try to design things with as little wiggle room as possible, anticipating the occasional drawn-out dialogue about what constitutes four lines of a poem or what constitutes a change in topic vs. expansion of the same topic.  

I know that kind of rigidity can pinch all the users for the sake of being able to deal with the occasional problem.  I also know that's not fair, but sometimes the amount of time one user will demand of a moderator is also unfair.  We are volunteers who have day jobs and families and responsibilities beyond this board.  We volunteer because we want to see this board thrive and continue.  We believe in its mission and its usefulness.  We want to make the best use of the limited time we have to moderate by making it as clear as possible what the expectations are.  In the end, that may end up causing its own set of problems.

I appreciate everyone's contributions to this discussion.  It's good to re-visit these things and re-examine them, especially when they are a chronic pain in the neck for the regular contributors here.  We have l-o-n-g discussions in the moderators forum about these issues, which is another responsibility for us here.  This issue is under discussion now with the EO moderators and some changes have already been made.  If nothing else, we hope that you see an improvement in tone and atmosphere.  Feel free to report anyone, including moderators, if we are not expressing ourselves in keeping with the mission of WordReference.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Well said, James. It's important that everyone recognise the challenges and obligations faced by moderators, and the contributions they make to keeping the ship on an even keel.

Ws


----------



## learnerr

JamesM said:


> Not speaking as a moderator but just as a WordReference forum participant, I don't have a problem with adding sb, sth and so. to the approved list.  As long as we can point the confused (probably native) participant to the list of approved abbreviations, along with an explanation, I think that makes sense.  I'd like to see some sort of punctuation to distinguish "so", the abbreviation, from "so", the word.  Sb and sth don't have that problem.


Just a point here (to confused natives ): for many people outside English-speaking countries, such abbreviations are, I believe, natural only inside use-guides for verbs and, marginally, in plain sentences whose meaning is close to that of a use-guide (for example, where the meaning of the verb is explained, not where the verb is used). It is so easier than to write: the object; the indirect object; the object of the preposition "in" controlled by this verb ("controlled" is perhaps not the best verb, but the non-native cannot currently remember the right one); etc. Outside such contexts, such abbreviations are very bizarre for me, and I think for many others from many countries as well, so the sarcastic plain sentences made with these abbreviations do not touch the point, I think.


----------



## JamesM

Oddly, we _do_ use v., n., i.o, d.o., prep., adv., adj. in our books here (in the U.S.).  All of those are familiar.  The completely new ones are sb., so., and smth.   I have no idea why we use the others and don't use sb., so. and smth.  I suppose it's because they are not actually parts of speech.


----------



## learnerr

JamesM said:


> I suppose it's because they are not actually parts of speech.


i.o. (indirect object) and d.o. (direct object) are not either (they are parts of a sentence, or rather parts of a clause), but I get what you mean.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I see, James, that _sth_ has become _smth_ in your last post. Might that suggest that such abbreviations aren't as standard as some people think? 

Similarly, I've seen _v_, but also _vb_; and _t/tr/tran/trans — _which gives eight possible combinations ranging from _vt_ to _vb trans.
_
(Another consideration for 'white-lists'?)

Ws


----------



## JamesM

Yes, you're right.  I've seen smth, sth and a few others.  That's why a list might be useful.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

JamesM said:


> Appealing to common sense is always an invitation  for problems.  The definition of common sense may have some general  overlap but there is a great deal of variation from person to person  regarding what is sensible and what isn't.


Our French forums are full of _qqun, qqch, COD, COI_ etc.
(Of course those abbreviations are never used in normal speech, and hardly acronyms)
It hardly cause any trouble as far as I remember. Sometimes an explanation is requested, and given. 
So common sense here is seamless.





JamesM said:


> With that one percent [of nitpickers] it can be an endless  discussion if anything is subject to interpretation.  I have personally  spent weeks in an ongoing conversation regarding the interpretation of  one word of a rule.  So I think we end up becoming a little gun-shy  after a while and try to design things with as little wiggle room as  possible [...]
> I know that kind of rigidity can pinch all the users for the sake of being able to deal with the occasional problem.


Sometimes too tight a rule is causing more trouble than a loose, subjective one...?


----------



## JamesM

Isn't that pretty much what I said, JeanDeSponde?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

I thought you said that common sense could be a problem, and I said that in F forums it is not.
And I said that wiggle room could ease things up, while you seemed to doubt it.


----------



## JamesM

Excuse me, but are you trying to be rude?  I did not say that common sense could be a problem.  I said that different people define common sense differently.

I also said that writing rules tightly "may end up causing its own set of problems."  I also said "I know that kind of rigidity can pinch all the users for the sake of being able to deal with the occasional problem. I also know that's not fair..."

I think I'm being fairly clear that I think this is something that should change.  I don't understand what appears to be a trolling tone in your responses.  To me it seems like you are arguing with someone who agrees with you.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

James, I had absolutely no intention (nor reason) to be rude. I apologize if my choice of words hurt you.
I have read your "appealing to common sense is always an invitation  for problems" as not equivalent to "different people define common sense differently".
This why I mentioned that French forums didn't have problems with abbreviations.
As for my alleged "trolling tone", I'll take it as a tit for tat...


----------



## Parla

I'm likely a lone voice, but I'd vote for continuing to exclude "sb", "smth", et al. from acceptable WR abbreviations. I've been a working writer and editor (magazines, books, other media) for more decades than, well, I care to contemplate; I've also run classes and workshops. Over the years, I've consulted and referenced many English-language dictionaries and style guides, both American and British. I _never _encountered the above before arriving in the forum a bit more than three years ago. In my view, they're in a class with teenage texting talk. _Please_ don't accept them as standards for those struggling to learn proper English.


----------



## merquiades

Parla said:


> I'm likely a lone voice, but I'd vote for continuing to exclude "sb", "smth", et al. from acceptable WR abbreviations. I've been a working writer and editor (magazines, books, other media) for more decades than, well, I care to contemplate; I've also run classes and workshops. Over the years, I've consulted and referenced many English-language dictionaries and style guides, both American and British. I _never _encountered the above before arriving in the forum a bit more than three years ago. In my view, they're in a class with teenage texting talk. _Please_ don't accept them as standards for those struggling to learn proper English.


----------



## shawnee

Parla said:


> I'm likely a lone voice, but I'd vote for continuing to exclude "sb", "smth", et al. from acceptable WR abbreviations. I've been a working writer and editor (magazines, books, other media) for more decades than, well, I care to contemplate; I've also run classes and workshops. Over the years, I've consulted and referenced many English-language dictionaries and style guides, both American and British. I _never _encountered the above before arriving in the forum a bit more than three years ago. In my view, they're in a class with teenage texting talk. _Please_ don't accept them as standards for those struggling to learn proper English.


Add me to the list of admirers of this post.


----------



## ajo fresco

Parla said:


> I'm likely a lone voice, but I'd vote for continuing to exclude "sb", "smth", et al. from acceptable WR abbreviations. I've been a working writer and editor (magazines, books, other media) for more decades than, well, I care to contemplate; I've also run classes and workshops. Over the years, I've consulted and referenced many English-language dictionaries and style guides, both American and British. I _never _encountered the above before arriving in the forum a bit more than three years ago. In my view, they're in a class with teenage texting talk. _Please_ don't accept them as standards for those struggling to learn proper English.



You are not alone, Parla.  I agree with you 100%.


----------



## DonnyB

Parla said:


> I'm likely a lone voice, but I'd vote for continuing to exclude "sb", "smth", et al. from acceptable WR abbreviations. I've been a working writer and editor (magazines, books, other media) for more decades than, well, I care to contemplate; I've also run classes and workshops. Over the years, I've consulted and referenced many English-language dictionaries and style guides, both American and British. I _never _encountered the above before arriving in the forum a bit more than three years ago. In my view, they're in a class with teenage texting talk. _Please_ don't accept them as standards for those struggling to learn proper English.


Well, as a bit of a linguist and learner of four other languages, I'm very happy to agreee to disagree with you over the extent to which they're used outside the confines of the EO forum.  

However, I stand by the comment I made in my original post, that one of the biggest problems this is currently causing in the EO forum is that too many members have been focusing on enforcing the rules rather than on answering the questions.  I see from the subsequent discussion on this thread that I'm not alone in this concern, but I'm afraid I'm still having to report posts on a regular basis where experienced members are taking it upon themselves to post solely in order to nitpick over the phrasing of questions asked by new members, including for instance a single piece of "teenage texting talk". 

Do you not perhaps concede that our continued rigid insistence on traditional "standards" is part of this problem?


----------



## Egmont

Parla said:


> I'm likely a lone voice, but I'd vote for continuing to exclude "sb", "smth", et al. from acceptable WR abbreviations. I've been a working writer and editor (magazines, books, other media) for more decades than, well, I care to contemplate; I've also run classes and workshops. Over the years, I've consulted and referenced many English-language dictionaries and style guides, both American and British. I _never _encountered the above before arriving in the forum a bit more than three years ago. In my view, they're in a class with teenage texting talk. _Please_ don't accept them as standards for those struggling to learn proper English.


Add me to the list of those who agree. As a university teacher who tries to work online as much as possible, I spend time texting, in chat rooms, and in discussion forums with native speakers in the 18-22 age group. They never use these abbreviations, even there, and I can tell that they do not dress up their normal mode of communicating because I'll read what they write. I find these abbreviations jarring. I doubt I am the only one who does. We should discourage them, not support their use by putting them on an "approved" list.


----------



## dreamlike

It's just a sequence of letters, why should we be so vehemently opposed to it, as though it were a matter of life and death?


----------



## Egmont

dreamlike said:


> It's just a sequence of letters, why should we be so vehemently opposed to it, as though it were a matter of life and death?


I think most of us here, given a choice between (a) managing the use of these abbreviations according to our desires and (b) eliminating world hunger (or cancer, strife in the Middle East, etc., etc., take your pick), would have no difficulty putting the two things in their proper perspective. Still, if we support the mission of WRF - if we didn't, we wouldn't be here - why shouldn't we try in our own small ways to improve it? 

Should the police stop giving out traffic tickets just because they haven't caught all the murderers and rapists yet?


----------



## dreamlike

I see your point, but I'm a bit suprprised to learn that you haven't come across it when chatting with people around my age. I think they appear with some frequency among my native friends. Besides, these abbreviations, however jarring they may appear to be, have been formed in accordance with the rules of forming abbreviations, so I don't see anything wrong with them. I think they're no different from, say, "e.g". Having said all that, I'm not one to attach importance to a few letters, so I may not understand your opposition here.


----------



## JamesM

dreamlike said:


> I see your point, but I'm a bit suprprised to learn that you haven't come across it when chatting with people around my age. I think they appear with some frequency among my native friends. Besides, these abbreviations, however jarring they may appear to be, have been formed in accordance with the rules of forming abbreviations, so I don't see anything wrong with them. I think they're no different from, say, "e.g". Having said all that, I'm not one to attach importance to a few letters, so I may not understand your opposition here.



I don't think there are any rules to them, dreamlike.  I have seen sb, sbd, sby, smb, st, sth, smth, sthg, smo, and smn here in WordReference.   Are all of them acceptable?  What rule was followed?

Why not also allow "u"?  It is a common substitution for the word "you".  How about "r" for "are? "b4" for "before"? "ne1" for "anyone"?  These are all common and all readable by most people who text in English, even native speakers.   Why not accept them as well?  Y not b ritng lk I wanna if yunnastan me?

The primary difference between any of them and e.g. is that e.g. is considered standard English and they aren't.  Perhaps they will be someday.

"Sb" and "sth" (and their variants) are in what seems to be a unique class.  They are well known by non-native speakers and are used in English classes and books so they may seem to be standard fare for native English speakers.  They aren't.


----------



## dreamlike

These variations you have listed, James, indeed look dire.  So far, I've been lucky enough not to stumble upon them.


----------

