# Acronyms (derived from Fornication Under.... thread)



## Kelly B

From what I've read, that story (as well as the one that suggests the word originated from a sign hung on the necks of adulterers saying "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge") are both recent inventions. The word dates from before 1600, but acronyms themselves are a much more recent invention.

<Moderator note: This thread was split off from a thread on the etymology of the resulting word. This thread is intended for the discussion of the nature of acronyms.


----------



## danielfranco

Apparently, the acronym was coined the very same day someone reported that "O. K." meant "zero killed". It seems to me an appropriate retort.


----------



## James Brandon

Just a passing remark: acronyms are not new at all. 

FD Fidei Defensor, Defender of the Faith, title of the English monarch since Henry VIII, found on coins 

SPQR Back to the Romans, Senatus Populusque Romanus, the Senate and People of Rome (found on the legions' insignia)

AEIOU Motto of Austrian Empire long before the Austro-Hungarian construct

And of course:

INRI, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (Latin acronym)

As for the origin of the F word, there are many folk etymologies around...


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Just a passing remark: acronyms are not new at all.
> *FD
> SPQR
> AEIOU
> INRI*


With the possible exception of INRI, I defy you to pronounce those.
An acronym is a "word".




			
				Francis Nugent Dixon said:
			
		

> OK - Do we all agree that the word is of North European origin (possibly Scandinavian), probably during the Middle Ages, and that all the other stories are rubbish ?



Of course. However I'm always fascinated by the inventiveness of people who try to come up with things for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
(Oh sorry, I've drifted into religion again!)


----------



## James Brandon

Maxiogee, 
Let's go back to basics.

The Oxford Concise Dictionary says: an acronym is "a word formed from the intial letters of other words." You imply that, to be an acronym, an acronym has to be _pronounceable_; hence, if it is _not_ pronounceable, it is not an acronym. This is your interpretation. 

So, we must look at the definition of the word "word", to go back to the OCD's definition of what an acronym is. According to OCD, a word is "a single distinct meaningful element of speech *or* writing, used to form sentences with others". By that token, _any_ acronym is a word and the point you are making is not valid or relevant. 

E.g."SPQR was used on Roman insignia to identify units of the Roman army." SPQR fulfils all the functions of a word as defined by the OCD and is made up of initials, hence it is an acronym. 

QED - to use another one.


----------



## Francis Nugent Dixon

I used to get giggles from my students when I made reference to "TLA's" in my courses.

A TLA is a "Three-Letter-Acronym", although if you apply the rules of the Oxford Dictionary, it is NOT !


----------



## James Brandon

Why? A TLA (eg BBC) would still be an acronym, if it is a word made up of the initials of other words? The OCD's definition does not specify how many words you ought to use to make up another word (the acronym). Eg AA, OECD, NATO, WTO... Long ones and short ones...

But, of course, an acronym has to be recognised as a word, which would imply that made-up acronyms whose meaning is only known to the user may not qualify, although even that is not that clear; IYSWIM. (Guessed this one?)


----------



## suzi br

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Maxiogee,
> Let's go back to basics.
> 
> The Oxford Concise Dictionary says: an acronym is "a word formed from the intial letters of other words." You imply that, to be an acronym, an acronym has to be _pronounceable_; hence, if it is _not_ pronounceable, it is not an acronym. This is your interpretation.
> 
> So, we must look at the definition of the word "word", to go back to the OCD's definition of what an acronym is. According to OCD, a word is "a single distinct meaningful element of speech *or* writing, used to form sentences with others". By that token, _any_ acronym is a word and the point you are making is not valid or relevant.
> 
> E.g."SPQR was used on Roman insignia to identify units of the Roman army." SPQR fulfils all the functions of a word as defined by the OCD and is made up of initials, hence it is an acronym.
> 
> QED - to use another one.


 
I have to say that Maxi is not alone in limiting the use of the label acronym to a pronouncable word.  

You can, of coures, plough ahead using acronym in your own idiosyncratic way - but I am going to caryy on using ACRONYM for a pronouncable word and not just a set of initial letters.


----------



## Outsider

The Merriam-Webster online accepts both definitions. Notice their examples:



> *acronym
> *
> a word (as *NATO, radar, or snafu*) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as *FBI*) formed from initial letters


Besides, some acronyms are not normally pronounced as words, even though they could be: UFO (no one says "Yufo"), SCOTUS (I don't think people say "Scotus").


----------



## James Brandon

OCD is not explicit in this respect, but Merriam-Webster is (thank you Outsider for checking a _dictionary_) - i.e. an acronym can be pronounceable or a mere set of letters used as _abbreviation_. The idea that an acronym _must_ be pronounceable or else it is...what? This idea is not backed up by expert advice, as they call it.


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Maxiogee,
> Let's go back to basics.
> 
> The Oxford Concise Dictionary says: an acronym is "a word formed from the intial letters of other words." You imply that, to be an acronym, an acronym has to be _pronounceable_; hence, if it is _not_ pronounceable, it is not an acronym. This is your interpretation.
> 
> So, we must look at the definition of the word "word", to go back to the OCD's definition of what an acronym is. According to OCD, a word is "a single distinct meaningful element of speech *or* writing, used to form sentences with others". By that token, _any_ acronym is a word and the point you are making is not valid or relevant.
> 
> E.g."SPQR was used on Roman insignia to identify units of the Roman army." SPQR fulfils all the functions of a word as defined by the OCD and is made up of initials, hence it is an acronym.
> 
> QED - to use another one.



Of what word is Q the initial in SPQR? 
According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary FD, INRI and SPQR are *abbreviations*.
Your earlier contribution of AEIOU is not given at all in the dictionary.
(I'd stick my tongue out in a retaliatory response, but I'm laughing too much —> QED is also an abbreviation, according to your source book!)


----------



## Brioche

SPQR = sono pazzi questi Romani. = they're nuts, these Romans.


----------



## James Brandon

SPQR - Q is "que" and means "and", if you did Latin at school (or in church). As for AEIOU, will check it and will let you know ASAP. I grant you, Q in SPQR is not an initial letter, if that is what you are arriving at...


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> SPQR - Q is "que" and means "and", if you did Latin at school (or in church). As for AEIOU, will check it and will let you know ASAP. I grant you, Q in SPQR is not an initial letter, if that is what you are arriving at...



It is indeed - I did do Latin, and recollect Senatus Populusque Romanus.


----------



## James Brandon

Those who argue that an acronym must be a set of (initial) letters that can be pronounced as if the acronym in question were a (regular) word do have a point, in fact, as further investigation will prove... According to this view, NATO would be an acronym but FBI, which can only be pronounced F-B-I as three separate letters would not. 

I have checked older editions of the Oxford Concise Dictionary and they support the view that, "usually", an acronym should be, phonetically, like any word. However, more recent editions of the OCD no longer mention this at all, thus ditching the position. I have also checked a Robert (all-French) Dictionary of 20 years ago, and it does support the view that "un acronyme" (in French) must indeed be phonetically a unit, just like any word. 

So, as often here, both Maxiogee and I are (and were) right. As you can see, I am trying to be fair here, for what it is worth!

What I think has happened on this one is that: (a) The word acronym has tended to be (mis-) used to mean any set of initial letters (including some, like SPQR where, in fact, one of the letters is not an initial letter at all, but this is not so frequent); (b) The criterion that it should be pronounceable like any word is debatable and a little subjective (see the example of UFO mentioned by one contributor); (c) There is no convincing word, in English at any rate, for a set of initial letters that would not be an acronym in the stricter / older sense of the word acronym (eg BBC, QED, etc.). Abbreviation is OK but rather vague (eg Cont. for Continued is a regular abbreviation); (d) Ultimately, the inflation in the production and use of acronyms, in the broader sense, many of them unpronounceable, has also, probably, altered the meaning. All guesses on my part, however.

So, my feeling is that the more restrictive meaning of acronym has been dropped over time, whether that is good or not.


----------



## James Brandon

As for AEIOU, it has various meanings and here is one:

_Austriae est imperare orbi universo_ - "It is Austria's destiny to rule the world" 

I am sure Austrians would have heard of it.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.E.I.O.U.

And it has been given a new lease of life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeiou_Encyclopedia


----------



## suzi br

ho hum

another example of language change.   

Just when I thought there were some fixed points I could hang on to my old defintion of acronym is being ditched!


----------



## cuchuflete

To add to the muddle, we might ask what is pronounceable.

How many times have we heard what sounds like a word,
"Queue-eetoo"?  It's usually the abbreviation of a ship's name, but one might even sink to using it to signal a monarch.


----------



## la reine victoria

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> To add to the muddle, we might ask what is pronounceable.
> 
> How many times have we heard what sounds like a word,
> "Queue-eetoo"? It's usually the abbreviation of a ship's name, but one might even sink to using it to signal a monarch.


 

I hope "sink" is a pun related to ships and not a reference to one's self, dear Cuchu.

"Coo-ee Queenie!" would be more likely to attract Her Majesty's attention.

"Queue-eetoo?" sounds more like an oriental way of asking, "Are you in the queue too?"



LRV


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> So, as often here, both Maxiogee and I are (and were) right. As you can see, I am trying to be fair here, for what it is worth!



James,

How very gracious and inclusive of you.

However, I'm not done quibbling with you just yet.
You quoted the OCD's definition of a word "a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used to form sentences with others", and seem to see that as implying that non-pronouncability is not a bar to 'wordness'. How then would you term a rugby *15*, or a football *XI*, or a *3/4*-length skirt? 
—> these are distinct and meaningful elements of writing, but I'm sure we'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would call those items in green "words".


----------



## suzi br

hmm - are you not arguing both ends against the middle?  

The words in green are SHORT for words that the reader / speaker says "in full" when they use them, you've lost me, maxi!


----------



## maxiogee

Do you really see "15" as a "word"?
I see "fifteen" as a word - the word for the number "15".
They are not, to me, words, but mathematical symbols - even the XI.


----------



## James Brandon

Maxiogee,

With all due respect, "15" is a mathematical symbol, maybe, but it is also another way of writing "fifteen", and "fifteen" is described in the Oxford Concise Dictionary as an _adjective_ and a _noun_ - both, clearly, are _words_. 

There is the way that the information is presented (XV or 15 or fifteen) and there is the meaning that it carries. And we were not talking about _numerals_ per se, anyway, we were talking about _acronyms_ made up of letters.

Because you have not been able to accept what I said about the meaning of "acronym", you are now basically rejecting the - sensible - definition of the word "word" that the OCD is suggesting. 

This is an interesting thought process, but not an entirely rational or reasonable one, I'm afraid. Quibbling it is. But feel free to indulge in some more of it, if it makes you feel better. Adding fuel to The Thread will please many readers, no doubt.


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Because you have not been able to accept what I said about the meaning of "acronym", you are now basically rejecting the - sensible - definition of the word "word" that the OCD is suggesting.



I'm not unable to accept what you said about the meaning of acronym, I'm querying your, and the OCD's definition of it as a "word" - to do that i need to establish what I think of as a word.

Fifteen is a word, 15 is not.
Radar is a word, BBC is not.

They are all single distinct meaningful elements of (speech or) writing, used to form sentences with others. But I dispute that that makes them all words. It is permissible to disagree with a dictionary.

Let's look at other dictionaries:-
Collins Students Dictionary…
word a sound, or combination of sounds (or the written symbols) forming a unit expressing an object, action, idea etc in a language.
The Chambers Dictionary…
word the smallest unit of language that can be used independently, such a unit represented in writing or printing, usu separated off by spaces.
Collins English Dictionary…
word one of the units of speech or writing that native speakers of a language usually regard as the smallest isolable meaningful elements of that language, although linguists would analyse these further in morphemes.
Collins New English Dictionary…
word the spoken or written sign of an idea; a term; a vocable; oral expression; tidings; message; order; a password; a watchword; promise; (it goes on similarly at some length before ending the sentence.)
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary…
word some that is said.
WordReference English Definition…
word a unit of language that native speakers can identify
The Penguin English Dictionary
word unit of language expressive of some object, idea or relation; written or printed representation of this; what is said; short speech or conversation; message, news, password, affirmation, promise, recommendation.
The Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus and Wordpower guide
word single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used to form sentences with others.

So you see, you pays yer money and you takes yer choice.
If these sources - all earnest endeavours totally concerned with the building blocks of English - cannot between them agree on a definition of what a word is, who am I to say that a word must be pronounceable. However, I note that I am not alone in my belief.

Let's not leave it there, of course. We really, having waded this far through the lexicological shallows, see what they say about "language", as so many of them seem to see words as the pieces from which a language is constructed:-

Collins Students Dictionary…
language the system of human communication of knowledge, ideas, feelings, etc using sounds and words.
The Chambers Dictionary…
language human speech, a variety of speech or body of words and idioms, esp that of a nation; mode of expression; diction; any manner of expressing thought or feeling;
Collins English Dictionary…
language a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc, by the use of spoken sounds or conventional symbols.
Collins New English Dictionary…
language speech; tongue; expression of ideas by words or written symbols; mode of speech peculiar to a nation (it goes on similarly at some length before ending the sentence.)
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary…
language the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a considerable community.
WordReference English Definition…
language speech
The Penguin English Dictionary
language system of vocal sounds by which a group of persons can communicate.
The Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus and Wordpower guide
language method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

So, you see, they across both terms the consensus claims speech and vocability to be the vital element, and name speech first as the mode of communication. These are just the dictionaries to hand at the moment - I'm sure we could all find others, which would have yet further views on this.

Suffice to say, you haven't convinced me.

You also claimed that certain things were acronyms and quoted the definition from the OCD, "a word formed from the initial letters of other words.", and I didn't disagree with that - what I did disagree with was that three of the examples you quoted were acronyms, an assertion with which the OCD agreed. If you are going to call witnesses for the defence, make sure that it is not a hostile witness.


----------



## grasshopper

Outsider said:
			
		

> The Merriam-Webster online accepts both definitions. Notice their examples:
> 
> Besides, some acronyms are not normally pronounced as words, even though they could be: UFO (no one says "Yufo")


I sometimes listen to a radio show where they talk about unexplained phenonema and the like, and I've noticed that the "experts" on UFOs (usually Americans) often refer to unidentified flying objects as "yufos".


----------



## James Brandon

This Thread will soon need to be moved, I venture, to the Culture Pages of this web forum, since the discussion has moved from a specific issue (what is an acronym?) to a much broader one (what is language?). 

Indeed, Maxiogee, you can quote dictionaries and find a range of definitions. That's because dictionaries are written by lexicographers and linguists, and they are people like you and me, and they don't always agree among themselves. There is no doubt that there are good and bad dictionaries - some of the definitions you quoted are remarkably mediocre and obscure.

To go back to the issue of what a word is, I would go for The Chambers Dictionary: "The smallest unit of language that can be used independently, such a unit represented in writing or printing, usually separated off by spaces." 

In fact, I would not insist on the fact it must be printable or available in written form, or on the fact that it needs to be pronounceable (vocalisation). What matters, I think, is that it is "the smallest unit of language" that carries meaning. 

By this token, BBC or 15 are indeed words. Eg BBC: Everyone knows what it means and has heard of the BBC, or virtually everyone. Granted, it is made of initial letters and may be (or may not be) an acronym, depending on the (stricter or looser) definition of acronym one chooses - but it is a meaningful unit of language, hence a word. 

You may argue that it is a symbol (of other words), and you may have a point. But words have no reason to exclude conventional linguistic symbols, I would have thought. 

To put it differently, a word is a combination of letters (in an alphabetical language at any rate) that carries meaning. And that's why making up any old acronym wouldn't make that invention/private joke a word. IYSWIM


----------



## James Brandon

And a footnote on dictionaries: I know that they are not Holy Scriptures. Having said that, it helps to look up definitions in a dictionary, provided it is a generally good one. That's why I referred to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, which is, for all intents and purposes, pretty much the dictionary of reference, I would say, at any rate here in the UK. And I did not refer to the OCD because it supported one view or another, ultimately, but because I tend to believe it is the best English-English dictionary on the market. Then again, one may agree or not, of course.


----------



## cuchuflete

* Fifteen is a word, 15 is not.

*One of the staggering puglists wrote that.

Maybe he was right, and maybe not.  It doesn't matter.

When spoken {note to both sides of the brawl- words exist in speech even among the illiterate} the sound is identical, no matter how one may choose to sketch its symbolic representation in the sand, on the cave wall, or on a computer screen.

Coming back in from that thicket, do the acronymists of the world, good fellows each and every one of them, have an opinion about the sounds of acronyms?  

UFO is, in Spanish, often pronounced as a word, rather than just the sequential names of its component letters. Ovni (sounds a little like ahvknee in English) is not said as Oh Vee en ee.  Does that make it an acronym, while UFO (spoken You Eff Oh) is off in space, enjoying abbreviated sojourns?

More importantly, who is going to win the world cup of acronyms, the spoken or the written contingent?


----------



## Outsider

Here's another argument against these minute distinctions between pronounceable and unpronounceable acronyms (nevermind whether they're 'words', please!): if you stick to the strict definition, then many acronyms in English cease to be acronyms when you translate them into other languages. For example:

*UNESCO*: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (<-- you can and do pronounce it as a word)

but in Spanish it's *O*rganización de las *N*aciones *U*nidas para la *E*ducación, la *C*iencia y la *C*ultura, and "Onuecc" doesn't really make up a decent word in Spanish.

P.S. Cuchuflete beat me to it. Oh, well, it's more fodder...


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider,
I fully agree, and your example is excellent.  Most people in the US accept Farc as an acronym.  What they think of its politics is another matter.  If translated to EN, it would loose acronym status, as the letters would have to be moved around:RAFC.

NASA and NATO are "words" in English.  Are FBI and CIA?
When three letter names in combination are spoken enough millions of times to be easily recognized as the name of an organization, will Oxford, Chambers, Funk&Wagnells, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Splatt come to some agreement?  FIFA has the answer!


----------



## James Brandon

The issue of whether "an acronym" is (and should be) pronounceable (as any word) or not cropped up at an early stage in the Thread. The reason the definition of the word "word" came up in the course of the discussion is that the Oxford Concise's definition of "acronym" that I quoted did include, rather inevitably, a reference to the word "word". 

What can be and cannot be pronounced "as a word" is debatable, also from one language to another, and that is also why the definition of "acronym" has never been 100% failsafe, as it were - and the Spanish/English examples given show this very well.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> Here's another argument against these minute distinctions between pronounceable and unpronounceable acronyms (nevermind whether they're 'words', please!): if you stick to the strict definition, then many acronyms in English cease to be acronyms when you translate them into other languages. For example:
> 
> *UNESCO*: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (<-- you can and do pronounce it as a word)
> 
> but in Spanish it's *O*rganización de las *N*aciones *U*nidas para la *E*ducación, la *C*iencia y la *C*ultura, and "Unuecc" doesn't really make up a decent word in Spanish.
> 
> P.S. Cuchuflete beat me to it. Oh, well, it's more fodder...



This is the very meat of my contention. It is why some abbreviations are only abbreviations, and those abbreviations which are acronyms *are* acronyms.

I don't see BBC as an acronym, it is just the initials of an organisation. If we translate the full name of British Broadcasting Corporation into Spanish, we get the words Difusión Corporación Británico - or some other ordering of them - still initials. If we translate it into French we get Société Radiodiffusion Britannique, still initials. 
However, certain sets of initials are, by accident or design, pronounceable. That they are not pronounceable when translated directly into another language doesn't lessen the fact that they are words in English (or in whichever language they were created).

Your comment on UNESCO is very apt. No, it is not, when translated into Spanish, pronounceable easily. But it has already been cheated on in English. The "and" had been omitted from the formula. The body would be free to re-order the words in its name in Spanish (or any other language) to suit, should they so wish.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> 1> I don't see BBC as an acronym, it is just the initials of an organisation.
> 
> 
> 2> However, certain sets of initials are, by accident or design, pronounceable.



I don't know if there is any conflict between 1 and 2.  I don't know if those pronounceable sets of intials, by dint of being pronounceable, are "words".

If something so easily pronounced (though sometimes hard to swallow...) as FBI is a word, than what keeps it from being an acronym?  

I have forgotten, very conveniently, the myriad definitions of "word".  Try this: A commonly recognized sound, that designates an object, idea, emotion, theory etc.  The sound may be committed to written symbols.  FBI, FIFA, and QE II all qualify.


----------



## Outsider

*Maxiogee*, what are the practical advantages of your strict definition of "acronym", compared to the looser definition that James and I advocate?


----------



## maxiogee

It distinguishes between pronounceable (in a way other thyan just naming the letters) and the unpronounceable. To tell someone that x is an acronym informs them that it is pronounceable, to tell them that y is an abbreviation tells them that they ougth not try to pronounce it as a word — no-one would try to say kya, seeah, or sigha for CIA - but those are a series of letters often vocalised when they occur in 'real' words - acacia, for example.

If someone hears FBI, they will realise on hearing that it is a string of three letters, even if they do not know what it means. If they hear younesco, they won't know what it is, until told that it is an acronym - "a word made up" - this will let them know that they need to deconstruct what they hearfd if they are to write it.

Words don't need to have "practical advantages" - they just are there as expressions of things or ideas. An acronym is one idea, an abbreviation is a related one.


----------



## James Brandon

Just a few points here... First of all, the question is not whether a set of initial letters is pronounceable or not (BBC is as pronounceable as NATO, but differently). The issue is whether an abbreviation is more (or less) _easily_ pronounceable. This puts it in perspective. No one can say that FBI is not pronounceable, whether that makes it an acronym or not.

Second, Maxiogee seems to imply that, if an abbreviation is pronounceable in the manner of a standard word, it carries more meaning than if it is not. I can't see why. NATO is an acronym in the narrower sense; BBC is not. Both carry as much meaning, i.e. are instantly recognisable. Ultimately, both derive their meaning from the meaning of the words whose initial letters they combine, not from anything else. 

Third, there is the issue of what is Vs what should be. If I "support" the looser definition of acronym, it simply is because it appears to have become the accepted definition (which was what I was trying to establish). Maxiogee appears to stick to what he thinks ought to be - i.e. a linguistic distinction between acronym in the narrower sense and a mere abbreviation. In the last analysis, I would regret the erosion of the original and narrower meaning of acronym if it were meaningful, but I am sceptical about that. In other words, it is not a big loss and not worth fighting over...

A couple of examples - The Royal Air Force is the RAF. Most people pronounce it R-A-F (hence, "an RAF plane"). So, it would not be an acronym in the narrower sense. Yet, in my experience, most ex-RAF personnels, particularly those who served during WWII, pronounce RAF as if it were a word, where it rimes with cat (/raef/), hence "a RAF plane". Is RAF an acronym or not?

IRA - In English, pronounced I-R-A; in French, IRA, since French phonetics make this easier.

ETA - In English, pronounced as a Spanish-sounding acronym, whereas, really, it ought to be pronounced E-T-A. 

This goes to show the whole distinction is a fake one, so that dropping the narrower sense of acronym can't be such a dreadful loss. As often with language and usage, there comes a point where sticklers for accuracy (and I am often one of them!) are merely being pedantic.


----------



## A90Six

I agree with maxiogee that pointing out that something is either spelt out when spoken or spoken as a word can be extremely useful for those learning the language.

Both are abbreviations. One is an acronym, the other an initialism.

I think that when people use initialisms, such as CIA, FBI, BBC or RAF, the majority will know the words each letter represents, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, etc. Whereas, if an acronym is used, for example, NAAFI, radar or pelicon (crossing), it takes on the meaning in its own right. Few will realise it is an acronym and fewer still the original text from which it was created.


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Second, Maxiogee seems to imply that, if an abbreviation is pronounceable in the manner of a standard word, it carries more meaning than if it is not.



If anything I have said has led you, or others, to that conclusion then I am sorry. That has not been the point of my distinguishing between an acronym and an abbreviation.
The sole distinction I have tried to make, and to explain, is that pronunciability - as a word - and not as a string of distinct letters - is what marks an acronym from an abbreviation.
That was why I pointed out that the OCD said that what you had called acronyms were actually abbreviations.

The "wordness" of an acronym is my only point.
I did not know that people were seeing other points in what I wrote.


----------



## maxiogee

A90Six said:
			
		

> Whereas, if an acronym is used, for example, NAAFI, radar or pelicon (crossing),



You've got me there. I didn't know pelican crossing was acronymic. Can you expand on that, please?


----------



## ireney

Random thoughts.

  In case of acronyms, it seems to me, that, when the initials could not be pronounced in any other way than as the names of the individual letters, someone has gone through the trouble of including some more (N.AT.O.).
   I am also currently thinking of E.U. it's immediate predecessor and the Greek language. You see, the European Economic Community in Greek became E.O.K. something easily pronouncable in Greek as one word. E.U. is E.E. Since nobody wants to sound like being at a loss for words and, frankly, Epsilon Epsilon doesn't save you much time either, we call in European Union. We _write_ E.E. most of the times, but read it European Union. The first one was an acronym (in Greek). The second initials.

While no acronym OR initials are, technically speaking _a_ word, some of them (like B.B.C. or N.AT.O or U.F.O. ) have come to mean a specific 'thing' and people would some times be more confused if they heard the whole thing ("Unidentified flying object? Oh, you mean U.F.O.!") and so the acronyms OR initials have become "independent" words (some times carrying double meaning; I can never think of F.B.I. without thinking of Physics and twisting my fingers to show something or another on a magnetic field -I was awful at physics- and it  seems  it can mean other things too .
A Greek case showing this clearly is K.K.E. (the Greek communist party). While these initials are normally and officially pronounced as Kappa Kappa Epsilon, they are often, for brevity's sake, pronounced as KouKouE (you have to admit that most Greek letters' names are a bit on the long side). This last, unofficial pronunciation has even 'produced' derivatives in colloquial Greek such as "Koukoues" (member of the Greek communist party)

Now, all acronyms are abbreviations; it's simple, anything shorter than its original form is abbreviated. All abbreviations are not acronyms though.

As to what is pronounceable I have only this to say: Of _course_ individual letters are pronounceable. They are even pronounceable without the extra sounds (e.g. you can indeed pronounce B without the extra "e" of "Be")

Oh, and a last thing: Ancient Greeks wrote 15 as αε (AE) now is this a number or a word eh?


----------



## Outsider

Remember when the euro was still being called the ECU (European Currency Unit)? That was always funny in Portuguese, where "ecu" sounded like _"é cu"_ ("it's ass"). All our politicians cautiously tried to imitate the French/English pronunciation. 
I hope this little acronym-related anecdote isn't too off topic.


----------



## James Brandon

I quote Maxiogee: "The sole distinction I have tried to make, and to explain, is that pronunciability - as a word - and not as a string of distinct letters - is what marks an acronym from an abbreviation. That was why I pointed out that the OCD said that what you had called acronyms were actually abbreviations."

It would indeed be neat if there was a clear distinction between "_initialism_" and "_acronym_". But, in practice, there is not. Cf the example of RAF I quoted. It would also be neat if the OCD had indeed _said_ that what I called acronyms are actually mere abbreviations. This is not the case. 

In its 1990 edition, OCD says: "An acronym is a word that is usually pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words." In more recent editions, already quoted by me, the idea is dropped altogether. I quote one of my posts earlier in this Thread, referring to the most recent edition of the OCD: "The Oxford Concise Dictionary says: _an acronym is "a word formed from the initial letters of other words.""_ There is no mention of pronounceability here...


In other words, the distinction is intellectually pleasing but, in many cases, linguistically irrelevant.


----------



## A90Six

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You've got me there. I didn't know pelic*o*n crossing was acronymic. Can you expand on that, please?


*Pe*destrian *li*ght *con*trolled crossing, using all first syllables in this case. But you see my point, acronyms can slide in without people realising their true meaning, because they sound like a word. Whereas, had it been named a PLC crossing, curiosity would cause people to find its expanded meaning.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> Random thoughts.
> 
> In case of acronyms, it seems to me, that, when the initials could not be pronounced in any other way than as the names of the individual letters, someone has gone through the trouble of including some more (N.AT.O.).



ireney, while your point is valid that extra letters are sometimes added, over and above the initials of each word - the 'T' of NATO is not the 't' of Atlantic, but the initial 'T' of Treaty. The organisation's English name is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.


----------



## A90Six

James Brandon said:
			
		

> I quote Maxiogee: "The sole distinction I have tried to make, and to explain, is that pronunciability - as a word - and not as a string of distinct letters - is what marks an acronym from an abbreviation. That was why I pointed out that the OCD said that what you had called acronyms were actually abbreviations."
> 
> It would indeed be neat if there was a clear distinction between "_initialism_" and "_acronym_". But, in practice, there is not. Cf the example of RAF I quoted. It would also be neat if the OCD had indeed _said_ that what I called acronyms are actually mere abbreviations. This is not the case.
> 
> In its 1990 edition, OCD says: "An acronym is a word that is usually pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words." In more recent editions, already quoted by me, the idea is dropped altogether. I quote one of my posts earlier in this Thread, referring to the most recent edition of the OCD: "The Oxford Concise Dictionary says: _an acronym is "a word formed from the initial letters of other words.""_ There is no mention of pronounceability here...
> 
> 
> In other words, the distinction is intellectually pleasing but, in many cases, linguistically irrelevant.


To me, BBC is an initalism; radar is an acronym.

RAF as an intialism is pronounced, ArAyEf (/A:reIEf/). RAF as an acronym is pronounced, RAF (/raf/) - assonant with cat and ryhmes with gaffe.

RAF falls easily into either camp. For this very reason it is useful in writing to be able to distinguish between two.

RAF is generally pronounced as an initialism, but to the select few who have been in the RAF it is often pronounced as an acronym.

The distinction would seem to have a relevance - to me at least.


----------



## maxiogee

James Brandon said:
			
		

> I quote Maxiogee: "The sole distinction I have tried to make, and to explain, is that pronunciability - as a word - and not as a string of distinct letters - is what marks an acronym from an abbreviation. That was why I pointed out that the OCD said that what you had called acronyms were actually abbreviations."
> 
> It would indeed be neat if there was a clear distinction between "_initialism_" and "_acronym_". But, in practice, there is not. Cf the example of RAF I quoted. It would also be neat if the OCD had indeed _said_ that what I called acronyms are actually mere abbreviations. This is not the case.


I don't know what edition of the OCD you are using. My copy, the tenth edition, copyrighted 1999 uses the following form. Following each word's main entry is its pronunciation (if given), any inflexions used if it is a verb. Then comes the part of speech it is, then any 'labels' the word has, regional, formality or subject etc. and then the definition

says of your acronyms:

*FD abbrev.* Defender of the Faith
*INRI abbrev.* Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (the inscription over Christ's head at the Crucifixion). 
— ORIGIN from the initials of the L. _Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum_.
*SPQR abbrev. 1* _historical_ the Senate and people of Rome. *2* small profits and quick returns.
— ORIGIN sense 1 from L. _Senatus Populusque Romanus_.

So you see, it does "say" that they are abbreviations.



> In its 1990 edition, OCD says: "An acronym is a word that is usually pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words." In more recent editions, already quoted by me, the idea is dropped altogether. I quote one of my posts earlier in this Thread, referring to the most recent edition of the OCD: "The Oxford Concise Dictionary says: _an acronym is "a word formed from the initial letters of other words.""_ There is no mention of pronounceability here...



So it used to require pronounceability for them, and now it doesn't. That still doesn't give them the confidence to call your words acronyms. In point of fact they seem remarkable reticent to grant that soubriquet - they list NATO, UNESCO, NAAFI as abbreviations, but I think most people would accept that they are acronyms.


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:
			
		

> ireney, while your point is valid that extra letters are sometimes added, over and above the initials of each word - the 'T' of NATO is not the 't' of Atlantic, but the initial 'T' of Treaty. The organisation's English name is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.



Ah yes! I promise not to try to remember what initials stand for when really vexed and slightly inebriated


----------



## James Brandon

I have not checked every abbreviation/ acronym/ initialism in the OCD in its various incarnations of the last 15 years in order to see what word they use to refer to them. What I did was check the definition of "acronym" in a few dictionaries. 

As the examples quoted here and there illustrate very clearly, the distinction between _acronym_ and _initialism_ is a muddled one at best. That's all, really. 

Maybe the distinction is useful and ought to have been preserved, but it appears that it has faded away with the inflation in abbreviations of all kinds in various languages. 

If I quote Maxiogee quoting OCD: INRI is described as an abbreviation, whereas it could be an acronym in the stricter sense. Ditto NATO. RAF could be either. And so on.

I believe that "acronym", originally, was meant to be used only for sets of initials that had genuinely become ordinary words, i.e. where the letters are no longer capitalized. Eg laser. This is my own conclusion.


----------



## maxiogee

So, from what was "just a passing remark" in which you said that FD, SPQR, AEIOU, and of course, INRI were acronyms, it seems you have come around to my way of thinking. It needs to be a word to be an acronym. "Words" do not have capital letters in the middle of them - usually!  —> but that's a whole other discussion which we came close to at one point. 
I don't think I'm ready to go there at the moment.


----------



## James Brandon

Confusion and more confusion, Maxiogee. At times, I feel you don't actually read what people write, and what the quotations say. And you use the word "word" in a bizarre way. 

Your - ultimate - argument is that a set of initials cannot be a word unless it can be pronounced as a single, regular word (eg NATO), in which case it is an acronym in the narrower sense, as per your definition. Even then, I am not sure you consider it to be a word! 

The fact of the matter is that initialisms, abbreviations and acronyms are words. An acronym is a kind of word, just like a noun or an adjective is. It is not a non-word. And an abbreviation is not a non-word. Or else, what are they? Bananas?

Good night.


----------

