acronyms and abbreviations

[cellio]

Dani and I had an interesting conversation about abbreviations and acronyms (pronouncable abbreviations) tonight, prompted by the assertion that the location of a web page is a "u-r-l", not an "url" (rhymes with a man's name). We both consider that obvious, but we both know people who think it's "url". A similar case applies to "s-c-a" (not "sca"), the historical organization we belong to.

So, I asked, what characterizes an acronym? I'm not sure; Dani's take is that an acronym has to "sound like a word" (in English, in our case). (But "url" does, so it's not just that -- but I didn't drill into that.) What does "sounds like a word" mean? I guess it's a comfortable sequence of phonemes, the sort of utterance that would make you say "I don't know what that word means" as opposed to "have you been drinking?". NASA, NARAL, and UNICEF are examples of this. We tried to think of three-letter acronyms; neither of us were sure whether NOW is usually "n-o-w" or "now". (I've heard both and neither makes me twitch.)

I opined that the longer an abbreviation is, the more incentive there is to pronounce it if you can No one wants to say "n-a-s-a" if "nasa" will do; the former is too many syllables. ("I-e-e-e" is cumbersome in a different way, hence "i-triple-e".) With a three-letter abbreviation the cost of spelling it out isn't so high, though Dani thinks there are fewer of them that are going to sound like words. "Ibm" would never be mistaken for a word in the English language; "doj" (sounds like "dodge") would be but we say "d-o-j". So I'm not sure what's going on with three-letter cases.

There was an amusing bit of dialogue:

Me: S-O-S.
Dani: Yeah, but that's interesting because it is a sequence of letters in Morse Code.
Me: That was the first of the two applications of that abbreviation I had in mind.
Dani: (pause) Ok, but you're one of only ten people who remembers Son Of Stopgap.
Me: There've got to be at least 50. :-)
Dani: Stopgap, on the other hand...

And yes, I pronounce it "s-o-s" either way; while "sos" doesn't sound unreasonable as a word, it feels completely wrong as a pronounced reference to an early text editor. (Which, by the way, I suspect is remembered by thousands of people.)

Addendum: Combined forms. "H-vac", not "h-v-a-c", but "b-a-t-f", not "bat-f".

Comments

[ariannawyn.livejournal.com]

FWIW Johan always said h-v-a-c, not h-vac.

Logically one would expect people to pronounce an abbreviation if it reduces the number of syllables or makes it easier to pronounce. I was not familiar with "i-triple-e" but it makes sense: though it's not fewer syllables, i-e-e-e is hard to say, involving either all those glottal stops that Americans hate or slurring the whole thing together into incomprehensibility. :-)

I find it amusing listening to radio and TV people try to get around w-w-w when listing web addresses. Nine syllables (ok, six if you're lazy and say "dub-ya") is a mouthful, so I'm surprised that no standard shortened form has developed (outside of people skipping it entirely and just saying "website.com.")

In the end, I guess it's probably a combination of what "catches on" and what sounds melodious to the speaker that determines how things are said.

[cellio]

Logically one would expect people to pronounce an abbreviation if it reduces the number of syllables or makes it easier to pronounce.

I think the operative feature is "easier to pronounce", which usually means fewer syllables but can mean other things too (like in "i-triple-e"). (Another case of that I thought of: AAAI, an artificial-intelligence group, is "a-triple-i". Again, glottal stops would be a hassle.)

I find it amusing listening to radio and TV people try to get around w-w-w when listing web addresses.

Yup. I've been hearing a fair bit of "dub-dub-dub" lately. I usually just say "w-w-w" when giving someone a URL, but I don't speak professionally or do it hundreds of times a day the way help-desk people might, so that might make a difference. The pedant in me refuses to just omit it; that browsers will fill it in for you does not make it correct. The URL is "http : //www .website.com" (I inserted spaces to keep LJ from linkifying that), not "website.com". It's sort of like saying that my physical address is "(street), Pittsburgh" -- yes, if you write that on an envelope (with my name) the post office will probably resolve it correctly, but it's not my address.

[ariannawyn.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, shouldn't that be triple-a-i?

a-triple-i would logically resolve to aiii.

[cellio]

Gah. Typo. Yes, I meant "triple-a i".

[magid.livejournal.com]

Why is it worse to cut off the 'www' than it is to cut off the 'http://'?

[cellio]

It's not worse. I say "h-t-t-p (pause) w-w-w dot ...". Because it could be https or ftp or something else.

[lensedqso.livejournal.com]

I generally do too unless I'm talking to a really non-technical person; most of them seem to find the http confusing.

On a related topic, most of the official corporate style guides at various companies I've worked at in the past several years specify writing www.whatever.com when including URLs. It really bugs me. I don't particularly mind when people drop the http in conversation, but I think the whole url should be included in formal form within written documents.

[jerusha.livejournal.com]

I usually say "h-t-t-p-colon-slash-slash-www-dot-website-dot-com". If I think my listener is unfamiliar with the web addressing convention I'll pronounce "double-you-double-you-double-you". If I expect the listener is familiar with web addresses I'll shorten that to "wuh-wuh-wuh" (/u/ in this case to rhyme with "but".

[magid.livejournal.com]

Oh, and if it's always 'www', it's more like everyone having the same number, or part of number, in their address, which can then be assumed. I'd see it more like the initial 1 in dialing a phone number (though, yes, there are phones that require dialing it, but for identification purposes, no one ever mentions it).

[cellio]

The link to this post begins "http://cellio.livejournal.com", and adding in the "www" causes a 404.

[jducoeur]

Many years ago, someone was trying to promulgate "triple-dub" as the best pronunciation of "www": short, distinct and easy to pronounce. It's never really caught on, but I still use it from time to time...