acronyms and abbreviations
May. 11th, 2006 11:32 pmSo, 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".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:40 am (UTC)It makes sense to me *shrug* :)
but yeah, I say s-c-a and scadian, but not 'sca'.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 04:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 04:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 09:12 am (UTC)I think that the distinction between an acronym and an abbreviation formed from initial letters is lost.
The definition I linked calls both NATO and FBI acronyms, and I would, too. I think the pronounceability factor doesn't affect whether or not it's an acronym, in current usage (or rather, in my current usage, though I think it's shared).
As for pronouncing them, I think it's going to depend on the letters involved. The pronounced version likely needs to feel shorter than pronouncing individual letters, but it also has to have enough vowel sounds to sound like a word.
About your addendum...I don't see many of those up here...not sure why. But I think they mainly tend to work as initial letter + pronounced word. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is that our version of C-SPAN is the "Cable Public Affairs Channel," CPAC pronounced CEE-pak. Maybe there's something about the letter name being an accented syllable in the acronym. *shrug*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 11:52 am (UTC)SQL (I've heard it both S-Q-L and "Sequel") and JPEG (I think of it as "J-peg")
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 12:01 pm (UTC)And for the record, I do say "sca" (you can take the kid out of the Midrealm, but...).
"Sca"
Date: 2006-05-12 12:43 pm (UTC)And if you find the answers to your questions, lemme know, because now it's bugging me too! ;-)
And "url" is just WRONG! *g*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 01:02 pm (UTC)Does MRI qualify as an acronym? It's a made up name because they didn't want to scare people by keeping NMR and scaring people with the nuclear connotation. I guess it does technically expand out to magnetic resonance imaging, but the common usage is MRI or NMR or nuclear magnetic resonance (at least from the scientific side).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 01:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 01:25 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:22 pm (UTC)The pronounced version likely needs to feel shorter than pronouncing individual letters, but it also has to have enough vowel sounds to sound like a word.
Yup. I was speculating last night that the vowel needs to be in the middle (for a three-letter acronym), but Dani counterproposed a hypothetical INK that we would pronounce "ink", not "i-n-k".
I agree with you on "c-pac", and I say "c-span".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:25 pm (UTC)I think "j-peg" is like "h-vac", structurally. (I don't think I've ever heard someone say "j-p-e-g", though another commenter has heard "h-v-a-c".)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:38 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 02:56 pm (UTC)a-triple-i would logically resolve to aiii.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 03:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 04:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 04:39 pm (UTC)Is it? Everyone I know who's into computers (as opposed to the librarians I work with) says "fak." (In fact, c. ten years ago or so one of my spouse's colleagues (math/CS prof) was amused at my usage of "F-A-Q," saying that he'd never heard anyone pronounce it that way before :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 04:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 05:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 05:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 05:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-12 09:52 pm (UTC)Even though, as you say, it was made up to prevent people from being scared, I think it does count as an acronym, as opposed to, say, "cat" or "biff" which have backronyms associated with them, but really aren't.
When I was a practicing Chemist (or practicing to be a chemist?) we only ever said NMR.
I just thought of another pronounced 3-letter acronym: gif. A former cow orker and I used to get into arguments as to whether it was pronounced with a hard or soft g, but neither one of us would dream of saying g-i-f.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-13 12:41 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-13 12:48 am (UTC)Most of the graphics formats seem to be pronounced as words rather than as initials. GIF, TIFF, JPEG, SWF, etc. About the only exception I can think of is SVG, but there isn't really a word equivalent for it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-13 12:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-13 12:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-15 02:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-15 03:02 am (UTC)Another random data point: I spelled out LLL-CRG, even though one could, in principle, pronounce CRG as "curg".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 01:06 pm (UTC)I hadn't previously come across this use of acronym: the distinction I'd make (and Chambers backs it up) is that an abbreviation is any kind of shortening (e.g. demo for demonstration), acronym is specifically abbreviation to the initial letters (or syllables, which was news to me). Your distinction - that an acronym has to be pronounceable - is useful, but is it currently correct?
And, for what it's worth, I think a lot of what you are talking about is usage. Yes, some examples would be really hard to reduce to words, and they get spelled ouy, and some are cumbersome as initials and more likely to be translated into "words". But that "Real DB professionals say Sequel" is meaningless unless most ordinary people say SQL, and so on...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 05:14 pm (UTC)But that "Real DB professionals say Sequel" is meaningless unless most ordinary people say SQL, and so on...
In this case it came up because I said S-Q-L and someone corrected me, in one of those "you want to sound credible with the people you're working with, right?" moments. But yes, I take your broader point; usage does vary quite a bit. I was trying to figure out if there's any rhyme or reason to it, either for a particular person (ok, for me) or more broadly. Looks like the answer to that is "no".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-23 08:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-23 08:08 pm (UTC)