Talk:Acronym and initialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Linguistics, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Linguistics. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Archives

Mixed dates 5 Oct 2004 - 15 Feb 2007

Contents 1 Acronyms that no longer stand for anything 2 fictional espionage organizations 3 External links 4 Nomenclature 4.1 Nonclamature 5 Case: small caps 6 Reference to answers.com 7 Requested move 8 What about multiletter acronyms? 9 Slashes 10 Wilton quote 11 Delete the Examples section 12 Shortcut? 13 Word formation 14 LED

[edit] Acronyms that no longer stand for anything

How does one call them? Examples are AOL (formerly America Online), SOAP (formerly Simple Object Access Protocol) and VLC (formerly VideoLAN Client). - Sikon 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pseudo-acronym article asserts these should be called "orphan acronyms", but the sourcing is pretty weak and smacks of original research. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They supposed to be called obsolete acronyms121.44.24.216 10:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Source? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this (at least partly) covered under Usage, Case in the para starting "Some acronyms undergo assimilation into ordinary words..."?

Interesting question. I worked for a company (acquired by GE a little over a year ago)named IDX It was hard to explain to customers and others that IDX was not an acronym for anything. This may be a one-time situtation, but I wonder if there are other "pseudo acronyms" or "false acronyms." --Russell 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How about ISO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.81.14 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fictional espionage organizations

There's really no reason that this much of this article should be taken up with a list of fictional espionage organization. This seems to be screaming for its own article.

Objections? —mako (talk•contribs) 13:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Create an article Fictional espionage organizations, move the big list there, and add just a note here, e.g., "The names of fictional espionage organizations are often acronyms or backronyms." —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll split that article out now. mako (talk•contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: For interested readers, FYI: The spun-off article is now called List of fictional espionage organizations. — Lumbercutter 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

On 21:16, 2 May 2007, I deleted the External Links section. On 04:36, 5 May 2007, somebody at IP address 203.82.183.148 added them back in. So I guess there's some disagreement. • Here's why I think the EL section should be deleted: Wikipedia is not a web directory. The EL section was just a list of acronym indexes. It contained no assertions of notability. Such a section is just a spam/cruft magnet. It will grow without bound as everyone adds their own personal favorite sites. Any assertion that a site is "the best" or "the biggest" lacking attribution to a reliable source is original research. If someone wants to find acronym sites, they can Google for "acronym sites or just "acronym". • So that's my rationale. Objections? Suggestions? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

The introduction says 'There is sharp disagreement on the difference in meaning between the terms acronym and initialism; see the "Nomenclature" section below. Another term, alphabetism, is sometimes used to describe abbreviations pronounced as the names of letters.' Who is it that disagrees that initialisms are those pronounced as separate letters and that acronyms are those that are pronounced as words? I know that some people use the word acronym to mean initialism, in the same way that a lot of words are often misused (a lot of people say sarcasm when they mean irony, for example), but that doesn't change the dictionary definitions of the words initialism and acronym.

Can't we just define the terms as they are in dictionaries?--Jcvamp 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reputable linguistics text would tell you that an acronym is pronounced as a word and an initialism/abbreviation is pronounced as letters. However, that same linguistics text will tell you that no language is static and that meanings of words can change over time, based on how they are used. I think the phrase "sharp disagreement" is inaccurate do describe the difference in meaning. Perhaps the sentences in the intro section should instead focus on the disparity in the popular usage of the terms, and read something like this:

While linguistics scholars have set definitions for both acronyms (letters pronounced as words) and abbreviations (or alphabetisms, letters pronounced as individual letters), there is a disparity in the popular usage of the terms. (See "Nomenclature" below.)

As such, the first paragraph of the nomenclature section would need some editing. Thoughts? Cmw4117 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sharp disagreement" is a bad phrase, how does one distinguish a "sharp" disagreement with a (presumably) "blunt" disagreement? My dictionary gives the specific meaning and then says "also..." giving the generic usage. I suggest: "originally acronym was used only for those abbreviations which were pronounced as words, however the word is increasingly used more generically to denote initialisms as well." Thehalfone 11:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think the article on bandwidth provides a useful reference. There the original technical meaning is emphasized without belittling derived colloquial uses.

I do sympathize with the idea that the meaning of words changes in practical use, but I also like the idea of using different well-defined terms for different things. Usually, a language develops into something richer than before, but here I see a backwards case where the idea of acronyms as 'pronouncable abbreviations' is being lost, and people simply use the word in place of 'abbreviation' or 'initialism'. TeknoHog 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are by no means consistent in how they define the term -- witness the six citations, four of which are dictionaries (and another an "encyclopedia of English"), including an Oxford dictionary. Any claim that "linguistics scholars" will always agree that "acronyms are always pronounceable" is thus demonstratively false by the citations already present in the article, no? While I, too, dislike ambiguity, and wince as language sometimes devolves instead of evolving, I really don't see how we can make the claim that a particular usage is "improper" here. • That said, if the wording can be cleaned up while still maintaining an unbiased discourse, I'm all for it. To that end, I've removed "sharp" from "sharp disagreement"; I don't think it was helpful there. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see I've just jumped into this by rewriting the introduction before reading this. Well, if my view doesn't reflect usage, please revert. Pol098 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that since reputable sources agree that 'acronym' doesn't necessarily only mean abbreviations made from initials that can be pronounced as words, the introduction to the article shouldn't make that assertion. Certainly some people do make that assertions, but others do not, and maintaining NPOV mandates that we not take sides on the issue and just report what those who do take sides claim. Nohat 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As an additional note, this article used to go into some detail on the disagreement on definitions in the introduction, but this was deemed to skew the focus of the article onto the disagreement, so instead the introductory paragraph mentions both names, describes the union of the sets of things that people would tend to group into those categories, and then attempts later to sift the meanings apart in the 'nomenclature' section. If anyone has a better idea on how to word the first paragraph, I'm all for it, but it can't make assertions about any particular set of definitions being correct. Nohat 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nohat's comment above sums it up perfectly, IMO. Re what the issues are, and how this article should treat them.
• I just want to note, additionally, that one idea found further above, that there was a chronological process wherein the terms acronym and initialism began as "officially" defined and then "got corrupted", in so many words, is a nice idea that does not match reality. In reality a wild language is just a collection of conventions, some competing or overlapping. English in particular doesn't even have an "officiating" body such as la Real Academia Española or l'Académie française. The truth is probably that initialism was coined without regard for the pronunciation distinction, then acronym was coined at some point with the intent of making the pronunciation distinction, and the terms have co-existed ever since in a state of varying, overlapping usage.
• But anyway my main point for posting here is just to say that Nohat is right and the basic design for the lead and the nomenclature section are now, and should stay, structurally as he described, give or take further tweaking.
• — Lumbercutter 20:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be helpful: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/essay_-_what_is_a_word.pdf It says that the British tradition is to use initialism for abbreviations where the first letters must be spoken, and acronym where they do not. In the American tradition the line is not so clearly drawn and acronym is acceptable for both. Interestingly, in the British tradition acronyms such as Nato are Aids not all capitalised. We could alter the nomenclature section to reflect this? 81.96.204.233 14:39, 25 October 2007 (GMT)

Re cap-scheme differences and punctuation differences as ways of orthographically reflecting the pronunciation: these are already covered under #Orthographic_styling, so I think that the most that we should discuss them in the #Nomenclature section should be as a cross-reference to the main discussion—maybe one sentence in parentheses, such as "(The pronunciation difference is sometimes reflected orthographically, as discussed under [[#Orthographic styling]].)" — Lumbercutter 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonclamature

Tch tch, haven't you heard of "non-CLA-mature." That's a person who refuses to use Conjugated Linoleic Acid because they are too grown up to believe in foolish weight loss fads.

Sorry. --Russell 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

☻

— Lumbercutter 13:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case: small caps

Why no mention of the (once?) common typographical convention of setting all-cap acronyms/initialisms in "small-cap" font? This is begging for inclusion and a cross reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_caps, which specifically links to the Initialism entry because of its mention of this convention.

I agree. 205.228.73.12 09:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I just added it. Pasted the info from Small caps with only minor changes. — ¾-10 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to answers.com

I removed the reference to False etymology at answers.com because it's the wiki page for false etymology. The wiki page is linked earlier in the section, and that statement has 2 other references, so it seemed unnecessary.

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about multiletter acronyms?

What about constructions like SIGINT (SIGnals INTelligence) and the like, beloved of the military? Do they have a name? Are they acronyms? Pol098 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See Abbreviation#Syllabic abbreviation. Without a doubt they are etically in the same pot as both English acronyms and Chinese acronyms (such as the example given in this article under Nomenclature [Beijing University—Beijing Daxue (literally, North-Capital Big-School 北京大学)—is widely known as Beida (literally, North-Big 北大).]) However, emically, English has no widely-convened-upon unifying name that both "regular" acronyms (such as Nato) and syllabic abbreviations would fall under as subtypes. (Except abbreviation, the most general word. I mean an intermediate-level name). One thing that collaborative Wikipedia-writing often points up is that you can't have etic discussions using only emic terminology without massive circumlocuting. That's nobody's fault—just the nature of reality. — Lumbercutter 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The earliest definitions in the 1940s in the journal American Speech state "term for words made of the initial letters or syllables of other words" and the Oxford English Dictionary agrees. The journal gives examples such as COMINFORM for COMmunist INFORMation Bureau, UNIVAC, BALREQ (Balance Request). So yes SIGINT is an acronym.Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. This aspect of acronym formation should be covered more systematically in this article in future (I lack time to undertake it currently). Currently the article has a "German" heading that discusses such acronyms in WWII-era German. But I think that there is a correlation-vs-causation issue here: I question whether this was a German-language trend so much as a military-and-government trend. English and Russian have done a lot of this too, in military and government contexts. Militaries and governments simply have a need in their natural course of communication to form acronyms that are more memorable and pronounceable than the consonant-heavy alphabet soup that they get stuck with when they don't use whole syllables. Chemical Engineer's example of Benelux is another good example, as are Delmarva, FoMoCo, various oil company names, and even "sig figs" (which is not usually considered nominally an acronym, but functionally is one). The fundamental logic of this type of acronym is present in many languages—and it does not intrinsically have to be limited to military-and-government usage, either, although it currently tends to be. — ¾-10 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The main driver for creating acronyms must be the need to refer to complex phrases often but accurately - this is true of science as well as military, e.g. DNA, ATP, PCB, redox. However other factors come in such as humour, marketing (which can apply to a scientist promoting and idea) or jargon (to baffle outsiders). Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. Main reason that military, government, and business (I forgot to include business earlier) started needing so many acronyms in the 20th century (as opposed to before that) is because of technological change (and the social ramifications resulting from it [complex organizations, standardized processes, etc]); and the main driver behind the technological change is science. — ¾-10 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slashes

So far the article talks about the dot and upper/lower case variants, but does not even metion the use of the slash character, as in w/o for "without", N/A for "not applicaple", etc. This notation form seems to be used in English language only - maybe only in American English? Anyway I've never seen it in French or German. 195.33.105.17 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I just added it under "Showing the ellipsis of letters". I mentioned N/A. (Didn't mention w/o for "without" because I think most people would classify that as a non-acronymous abbreviation.) If anyone thinks of more examples, feel free to augment. — ¾-10 00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilton quote

There's no closing quotation mark on the Wilton quote. I'd put one it, but I'm actually not sure where it ends.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Examples section

I'm thinking we way want to just delete the "Examples" section from the article. It doesn't really flow with the rest of the article. Any examples used to illustrate specific points would serve much better by introducing them as examples in prose, not by tacking them on to a list at the end. See also WP:LIST. This list can never be complete (such a list would be too big for a dedicated page, let alone as part of this article), but it also has no objective criteria for inclusion. It also tends to act as a magnet for people who want to add still more examples. Assuming any worthwhile examples get incorporated into prose mention, does anyone have objections to removing the "Examples" section? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your logic above, but then when I look at the section as currently written, I think that it makes a good comparison of the variations in usage and pronunciation logic. What about changing the heading of the section from "Examples" (which, as you said, invites people to treat it like an exhaustive list or a place for their own pets, neither of which it can be or should be) to "Comparison of types"? — ¾-10 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the table is a useful summary of the paradigms and variations. Although the information might duplicate that of the prose, such duplication is not necessarily redundant. Summary tables are sometimes as helpful for visualisation as graphs or diagrams. A better section-title and a sentence or two explaining the table's purpose should cut down on the listcruft. jnestorius^(talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As an engineer, I like tables rather than having the same information in flowing text. I actually think that illustrating these sorts of acronyms by example is splendid. It expanded my appreciation of the subject and is the sort of thing I would find welcome in an encyclopedia. However, it should not be an invitation to expand. They are about the right number for each example.Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I made changes based on this discussion. I kept the big anti-listcruft warning comment that anyone will see if they click "edit" to go add their pet example. — ¾-10 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut?

In the examples section there is a sub-section "Pronounced as the names of letters but with a shortcut" and I don't think any of the examples are a shortcut. In fact in NAACP for example, it is more syllables to say "double", than to just say "A." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MTHarden (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word formation

From the article: "As a type of word formation process, acronymy-initialisms are often viewed to be a subtype of shortening processes (other shortening processes being clipping and backformation)." (permalink) I tried to clean that up to what I thought it said, but that got reverted back. Since apparently this has to be phased exactly that way, I'm now asking for some way to verify it. I'm particularly confused by "acronymy-initialisms"; what does that mean? But the rest of it, too. What's a reliable source for it? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt have to be exactly that way. My objections were the following: (1) usually one talks about several different types of word formation processes, so its unusual to speak of "the word formation process" (I think I understand what you mean but usually that is just called word formation), (2) "initialisms are created as a type of shortening" can be put in simpler terms: "initialisms are a type of shortening", (3) "similar to" can mean these are also types of shortening but it could also mean that these are not types of shortening but are similar to initialisms in other respects (basically what I meant to say is that there is category of shortening word formation processes and that acronymy, clipping, & backformation are subclassess of the superordinate shortening category). Also I prefer "shortening process" to just "shortening" but perhaps this is just stylistic. I wanted to say acronymy is often viewed... but I didnt want to imply that I'm speaking of acronyms to the exclusion of initialisms. I havent come up with a better way to phrase than hyphenating acronymy and initialisms, this doesnt work because initialism refers to the word and not the creation of the word. If this is clear and you can make it sound better, please do so.

For sourcing, considering acronymy to be a word formation process is completely uncontroversial. Just cite any book on English word formation or a linguistics dictionary. For the view that acronymy is a type of shortening process, this is the view of John Algeo. I think that we can cite something by him and also probably an article in American Speech by Cannon (which should be consulted for this article anyway). I just wanted to mention his view since he is respected and is one of the first people who really looked at this type of word formation process (which has historically been ignored or marginalized by others). – ishwar  (speak) 05:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LED

I've heard LED pronounced as both "led" and "el ee dee" - move to context section?