Acronyms - Split from: Swear words - the skeptic's final taboo? [Archive]

Southwind17

22nd September 2007, 02:22 AM

An acronym must be pronounced as if it was a word; there is no requirement that it be a word in any dictionary. Is NORML an acronym?

I'm not sure - what do you say? It might depend on how close the pronunciation of the so-called acronym is to the word that it seeks to emulate. Some people, for example, probably the more literate amongst us, might argue that "NORML" is not an acronym, because it omits the 'a' or 'e' sound after the 'M', and hence has different, albeit close, pronunciation.

Personally, I wouldn't have a major problem with "NORML" because it's at least a play on the word "NORMAL". "JREF" (pronounced "Jayref"), in contrast, whilst easily pronounceable, does not seek to emulate or play on an accepted word. "Jayref", to my mind, is no different from, say, "keygog", "pigslap", "tinvolgawamplechop", etc. none of which, I doubt you, or even Cuddles, will agree, is a word, but simply a seemingly random collection of letters assembled in a pronounceable order. The fact that such letters may be derived from the initial letters of other words or names, as in "JREF", is irrelevant.

The Atheist

22nd September 2007, 02:32 AM

Is NORML an acronym?

No, it's a way of life.

Tokenconservative

22nd September 2007, 05:23 AM

Am I the only one that pronounces JREF as jayref? WTF certainly isn't an acronym, but I would say JREF is.

Yeah, WTF? I say it that way!

Tokenconservative

22nd September 2007, 05:26 AM

Interesting one, I've never heard anyone pronounce that as 'WHO', only ever 'double-u aitch oh'. Does it still count as an acronym if it's never pronounced as the word?

I've never heard of initialism, either. I think I'd just refer to an abbreviation.

Whooooo are youuuuu?

Tokenconservative

22nd September 2007, 05:27 AM

No, it's a way of life.

Not. Go visit the paranormal forum...

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd September 2007, 05:28 AM

I'm not sure - what do you say? It might depend on how close the pronunciation of the so-called acronym is to the word that it seeks to emulate. Some people, for example, probably the more literate amongst us, might argue that "NORML" is not an acronym, because it omits the 'a' or 'e' sound after the 'M', and hence has different, albeit close, pronunciation.

Personally, I wouldn't have a major problem with "NORML" because it's at least a play on the word "NORMAL". "JREF" (pronounced "Jayref"), in contrast, whilst easily pronounceable, does not seek to emulate or play on an accepted word. "Jayref", to my mind, is no different from, say, "keygog", "pigslap", "tinvolgawamplechop", etc. none of which, I doubt you, or even Cuddles, will agree, is a word, but simply a seemingly random collection of letters assembled in a pronounceable order. The fact that such letters may be derived from the initial letters of other words or names, as in "JREF", is irrelevant.

Or...hut sut ralston on the rilla ra and a bralla bralla suet?

Southwind17

22nd September 2007, 05:46 AM

Or...hut sut ralston on the rilla ra and a bralla bralla suet?

That's more than one 'word', so fails the acronym test immediately. ;)

tkingdoll

22nd September 2007, 09:31 AM

Oops - the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' spring to mind, but certainly not the word 'initialism'. Indeed, it doesn't even appear in my dictionary (The Chambers Dictionary - 1998 edition). Under what authority do you make this claim tkingdoll? ... and Cuddles, you might like to think that JREF is an acronym, just because you've verbally moulded into two syllables that roll nicely off the tongue, but what other English words begin with the letters 'JR'?

I make the claim because I am right. Go and do some proper research.

The authority I possess is that it's my job to know the meanings and usage of words. Some of the biggest companies in the world pay me to know what I'm talking about. Even if it wasn't my job, I am still right.

Couple of references for you for starters:

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

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/initialism

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/initialism

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-INITIALISM.html

I've never seen anyone have such a weird defensive reaction to being corrected. I thought my post was friendly enough and that if you had taken the time to correct someone else then you might be the sort of person who likes to learn.

Clearly not.

tube

22nd September 2007, 12:10 PM

Good work tkingdoll. I thought I was the only person on the planet for whom this was an interesting issue. Your links totally have the issue covered, but I feel compeled to add that I became aware of this through reading Michael Quinion. His treatment is found here:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/asye.htm

Now that Van Halen is back together, I wonder if they are going to release an album entitled "Ship High in Transit"...

The Atheist

22nd September 2007, 01:35 PM

Not. Go visit the paranormal forum...

Tokie

WTF?

Paranormal? In what possible way?

zooterkin

22nd September 2007, 02:00 PM

Personally, I wouldn't have a major problem with "NORML" because it's at least a play on the word "NORMAL".
"JREF" (pronounced "Jayref"), in contrast, whilst easily pronounceable, does not seek to emulate or play on an accepted word.

I think you're adding an unnecessary requirement. Neither 'NATO' nor 'OPEC' were plays on original words.

"Jayref", to my mind, is no different from, say, "keygog", "pigslap", "tinvolgawamplechop", etc. none of which, I doubt you, or even Cuddles, will agree, is a word, but simply a seemingly random collection of letters assembled in a pronounceable order. The fact that such letters may be derived from the initial letters of other words or names, as in "JREF", is irrelevant.

That surely is the point, that the word is derived from the initials, and is used as a word to refer to the object in question. I'm still in two minds about "JREF", though I'm tending to think that 'Jay-ref' probably counts as a word. I know I've always said it that way, never spelt it out.

Acronyms do sometimes have unexpected pronunciation. There's one used in the industry I'm in, which is spelt "WBEM" but pronounced "Webbum". Written down, you'd probably say it wasn't a word, but it's not read out as letters.

To clarify my earlier comment, I wasn't disagreeing with Teek's comment, just stating that I'd never heard the term initialism, and that I'd use the more general term abbreviation.

This is exciting, the first time I've been split!

The Atheist

22nd September 2007, 02:38 PM

I make the claim because I am right. Go and do some proper research.

Of course you are.

Good subject all round, acronyms & initialisms.

Pushing the envelope on them was that cosmetic crowd with the FCUK label. It failed quite miserably over here, fortunately. Walking past ads for it with a four year screaming, "daddy, it says ####" is quite funny, but some of the old ladies at the shops are in danger of stroke. I never quite know whether they're more disgusted at her saying the word or me laughing at it. Probably the latter.

I go with JREF being an either/or. I pronounce it Jayref and always have. As to what else starts with "jr", how many words start with "xr"? QANTAS get away with it, acronyms don't need to follow rules, they need to be prounceable.

Wolfman

22nd September 2007, 10:40 PM

Wow, has Southwind ever gotten off to a great start -- demonstrating ignorance (claiming that "initialism" isn't real, or isn't a legitimate argument, when the most cursory internet search would provide tons of references), and an aggressive self-defensiveness entirely out of proportion to the issue being discussed.

For the record, Southwind, there is no requirement that an acronym be based on pre-existing words, or any other such nonsense. There is a very simple criterium. Can it be pronounced as a word? Not "Can it be pronounced as a word that already exists in English?" Not "Does it use letter combinations that are commonly found elsewhere in English?"

Let me make this simple. We have a category called "abbreviations". Under that category, we have two sub-categories (as demonstrated more than adequately by Teek): initialisms, and acronyms.

An initialism is an abbreviation where you read the individual letters. In this case, if someone read JREF as "Jay, Are, Ee, Eff", then it would be an initialism.

An acronym is an abbreviation where it is read as a word. In this case, if someone read JREF as "Jay-ref", then it would be an acronym.

Those are the categories. The question of if English has other words that begin with "JR" is irrelevant, as is the question of whether there are other English words similar to "jay-ref". If I read it as "jay-ref", then it is not an initialism.

Now, if you want to continue making you're argument -- without continuing to appear like the complete idjit that you've appeared thus far -- then I offer you the following challenge.

Southwind's Challenge

Given that myself, and many others here, do pronounce JREF as "jay-ref", into which category -- initialism or acronym -- would that abbreviation fall? It very clearly is not an initialism. So, unless you are able to offer up some magical third category of abbreviation (which seems doubtful considering you weren't even aware that initialism was a category), it is by default an acronym.

You seem to suffer from the delusion common among those who think they know more than they do. They come up with their own personal definitions, and then think that everyone else must abide by those definitions. According to your personal definition, "jay-ref" is not an acronym...but that does not make it true. That just makes it your own (woefully inadequate) opinion.

Southwind17

23rd September 2007, 02:41 AM

OK - I'll humbly concede that 'initialism' is indeed a word, and that an acronym does not have to be a recognized or accepted word. It's just that I'd never heard of 'initialism', so I'll consider myself more educated now. That's that part put to bed. Moving on ...

An acronym which does not form a pronounceable word (such as JREF) is an initialism.
Acronym = a type of abbreviation which forms a pronounceable word (e.g. NATO)

It seems we have a contradiction here. An acronym either forms a pronounceable word or it doesn't. Which is it to be? Your clarification will, hopefully, end the debate regarding the letters "JREF".

I make the claim because I am right.

You might be right regarding the word 'initialism', but are you right re. the above?

The authority I possess is that it's my job to know the meanings and usage of words. Some of the biggest companies in the world pay me to know what I'm talking about. Even if it wasn't my job, I am still right.

I do find it amusing when people think that the depth of their authority, knowledge and/or experience can necessarily be measured by the size of their pay cheque. Recognized qualifications in the field to which they profess to know all would be more convincing. OOI what is your job?

I've never seen anyone have such a weird defensive reaction to being corrected. I thought my post was friendly enough and that if you had taken the time to correct someone else then you might be the sort of person who likes to learn.

Perhaps we can open a debate over the meaning of the word 'friendly' then. To respond with:
Oops. If you're going to correct people, at least make sure you're completely right.
does, to my mind, come across as a little condescending. The words 'friendly' and 'condescending' sit together a little uneasily with me.

I think you're adding an unnecessary requirement. Neither 'NATO' nor 'OPEC' were plays on original words.

I didn't mean that an acronym has to be a play on an original word, just that, as such, it added more credence to "NORML" qualifying as an acronym.

Given that myself, and many others here, do pronounce JREF as "jay-ref", into which category -- initialism or acronym -- would that abbreviation fall? It very clearly is not an initialism. So, unless you are able to offer up some magical third category of abbreviation (which seems doubtful considering you weren't even aware that initialism was a category), it is by default an acronym.

Contrary to you assuredness I would now say that it is, indeed, an initialism. I do not believe that "JREF", pronounced 'Jayref' can be classed as a word. Just about any combination of four letters can be manipulated by the tongue to form a pronunciation. That would make all such combinations of letters acronyms. Are "IBM", pronounceable as 'Ibem' or "UCLA", pronounceable as 'youcla' acronyms?

Let's not forget please that the purpose of my initial post was simply to point out that "WTF" is not an acronym. On that we are, I believe, agreed.

tkingdoll

23rd September 2007, 01:37 PM

Wolfman, he's been correcting people in other threads too, I think it's his mission or something.

Southwind - The first sentence you quote might be read with the word 'acronym' replaced with 'abbreviation' if you prefer, but semantically it's correct as initialisms are a derivative of acronyms.

Regarding which 'JREF' is, we've covered that. It's either. Or, if you like, Wikipedia has this to say:

There is no agreement on what to call abbreviations whose pronunciation involves the combination of letter names and words, such as JPEG ([dʒeɪ.pɛg]) and MS-DOS ([ɛm.ɛs.dɔs]). These abbreviations are sometimes described as acronym–initialism hybrids, although most would group them under the broad meaning of acronym.[citation needed]

That's about all I can be bothered to say about this, other than to laugh at you demanding to know on what authority I claim to know about words, then insisting that being a paid professional is not authority enough. The rest is none of your business unless you are a large company with money to spend on copywriting, in which case I'd be happy to set up a meeting at your expense.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd September 2007, 01:54 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd September 2007, 01:57 PM

Contrary to you assuredness I would now say that it is, indeed, an initialism. I do not believe that "JREF", pronounced 'Jayref' can be classed as a word. Just about any combination of four letters can be manipulated by the tongue to form a pronunciation.
Then you must agree that posh,* laser, and radar are also not acronyms. And yet, astonishingly, they have become actual words.

It seems we have a contradiction here. An acronym either forms a pronounceable word or it doesn't. Which is it to be?
Both.

~~ Paul

* Assuming you believe the story.

tkingdoll

23rd September 2007, 02:03 PM

This would be the only conversation I've ever had in which someone talked about initialisms. They are all just acronyms. Either that, or a computer noobie speaks in initialisms, then tends more and more toward acronyms while learning the lingo.

Is alphabet an acronym? How about LaTeX?

~~ Paul

Read the references I posted, please.

Or are we in some weird twilight zone where if people haven't heard of something, it's therefore not true?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd September 2007, 03:52 PM

Or are we in some weird twilight zone where if people haven't heard of something, it's therefore not true?
There is no truth in the dictionary, only usage. In Merriam, the definitions of acronym and initialism are indistinguishable, and I suggest that the same is true in ordinary usage. Only those of us who like to discuss this sort of thing make any distinction. :D

And the distinction is almost impossible to make. Is jpg an acronym or an initialism?

~~ Paul

Gnu Ordure

23rd September 2007, 04:23 PM

Teek/WolfMan/The A,

I'm going to take Southwind's side here, partly because he's a newbie and I think you're being a bit harsh on him, and partly because I think he has a point.

I think using the term 'initialism' to 'prove' you are right is disingenuous.

I appreciate the word exists; but it's archaic. Hardly anyone uses it, or knows what it means.

Feel free to call me ignorant. But I'm more than 50 years old, I've got A levels in English, I was an English teacher for 5 years, I've read approximately 461,692 books.... but I never heard the word 'initialism' before today.

And neither had Southwind, nor Zooterkin, nor Paul.

(I don't know how many A-levels they've got, but I bet it's lots).

To start again, with Teek's OP :

Acronym = a type of abbreviation which forms a pronounceable word (e.g. NATO)
Initialism = a type of abbreviation which does not form a pronounceable word (e.g. JREF, WTF)

The first on-line dictionary I went to disgrees with this; dictionary.com defines 'initialism' thus :

1. a name or term formed from the initial letters of a group of words and pronounced as a separate word, as NATO for North Atlantic Treaty Organization; an acronym.
2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.

OK ? According to that, 'Initialism' is both - words and initials.

However, to support Teek's case, the second dictionary I found says (my bolding) :

n. An abbreviation consisting of the first letter or letters of words in a phrase (for example, IRS for Internal Revenue Service), syllables or components of a word (TNT for trinitrotoluene), or a combination of words and syllables (ESP for extrasensory perception) and pronounced by spelling out the letters one by one rather than as a solid word.

Quite clearly, 'initialsms' here are only non-pronounceable words.

Why the discrepancy ?

I believe the answer lies in the process (language being dynamic and all).

'Initialism' came first, c 1900.

For forty years,, 'initialism' covered both pronounceable and unpronounceable abbreviations (NATO and FBI).

Circa 1940, the word 'acronym' was coined to specify the pronounceable abbreviations (NATO).

Therefore, it would seem reasonable to describe 'acronyms' as a sub-set of 'initialisms', at that point in time.

Common-sense might have suggested that, also at that point in time, another word should be invented as the counter-part of 'acronym' - ie a specific word for unpronounceable abbreviations - subsumed under the heading 'initialism' - But it didn't happen.

What happened was that 'initialism' itself, originally the general term, was re-defined as the more specific "unpronounceable abbreviation'. Hence the second definition I quoted above.

Hence Teek's OP.

But it didn't stop there, that's the point.

'Acronym' was a greedy bastard. Once he had a foot-hold, he went the whole hog, and took over the definition of 'unpronounceable abbreviation' as well.

Acronym usurped Initialism.

Initialism slunk off, nobody talked about him, and he was only kept going by a few specialists.

Meanwhile, Acronym's on-line definition now proudly boasts :

a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words

No mention of pronunciation.

Acronym won.

The Atheist

23rd September 2007, 04:29 PM

There is no truth in the dictionary, only usage. In Merriam, the definitions of acronym and initialism are indistinguishable, and I suggest that the same is true in ordinary usage.

Merriam? Who the hell is she?

We were discussing English, not that strange, hybrid pidgin in use in USA. English has no letter "zee", for instance, so even the alphabets are different across the Atlantic. Oxford makes the distinction quite clearly, even giving the classic BBC as an example of an intialism. Try to pronounce that sucker as a word!

Oxford Dictionary + Grammar Tyrant = Truth.

Only those of us who like to discuss this sort of thing make any distinction. :D

And those of us who are right. ;)

And the distinction is almost impossible to make. Is jpg an acronym or an initialism?

~~ Paul

Either, either.

When it's "jaypeg", it's an acronym, when it's "jay pee gee", it's an intialism.

Gnu Ordure

23rd September 2007, 05:02 PM

Oxford makes the distinction quite clearly, even giving the classic BBC as an example of an intialism. Try to pronounce that sucker as a word!

er .. the Beeb (http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Beeb) ?

tkingdoll

23rd September 2007, 05:13 PM

Gnu, my 'OP' is no such thing, this thread is a mod split. Southwind corrected someone, but in doing so was not entirely accurate himself. When people correct others' mistakes, it's usually fair to say that they are the sort of person open to learning new things, so I pointed out his error in response to him doing the same to someone else. I thought he might be interested as he seems to like words.

The mods split the thread as it was drifting. But please don't think I started an entire thread about this. I just saw someone correcting someone else and set them right in return.

I don't care whether 'initialism' is in common usage or rarer than a monk's condom, it's still the correct word. However, I would never have brought it up if Southwind hadn't incorrectly told someone that 'WTF is not an acronym but an abbreviation' or whatever it was.

An acronym is a type of abbreviation. So is an initialism. The point of my correction was to make that distinction. Anything that is an acronym is also an abbreviation. It can't be one or the other.

Am I clear? Can we end this completely pointless split thread now?

tkingdoll

23rd September 2007, 05:14 PM

There is no truth in the dictionary, only usage. In Merriam, the definitions of acronym and initialism are indistinguishable, and I suggest that the same is true in ordinary usage. Only those of us who like to discuss this sort of thing make any distinction. :D

And the distinction is almost impossible to make. Is jpg an acronym or an initialism?

~~ Paul

FFS Paul, read my posts. I already stated that there is no word to describe a mix of both. I can't believe anyone would demonstrate an aversion to learning a new word. I thought you of all people would be interested to learn the distinction.

I could probably list 50 words you've never heard of. You could probably do the same in return. Those words and their definitions exist regardless of the fact that we were not previously familiar with them as individuals.

This is my last post on this topic because frankly it's baffling me. I will assume you are familiar with that word and therefore accept it exists.

Minadin

23rd September 2007, 05:41 PM

Am I the only one that pronounces JREF as jayref? WTF certainly isn't an acronym, but I would say JREF is.

I pronounce JREF the same way you do, but for other words / abbreviations it's different; I think it may be a personal preference. For instance, I have heard several people pronounce NIST as 'nist', but I have always spelled it out in pronouncing it N.I.S.T.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd September 2007, 06:07 PM

Oxford makes the distinction quite clearly, even giving the classic BBC as an example of an intialism. Try to pronounce that sucker as a word!
No trying required. It's pronounced bee-back.

FFS Paul, read my posts. I already stated that there is no word to describe a mix of both. I can't believe anyone would demonstrate an aversion to learning a new word. I thought you of all people would be interested to learn the distinction.
Oh, I am fascinated to learn the distinction. I just don't think it matters much, since I've never run across it in my 40 years in the acronym-infested computer biz.

This is my last post on this topic because frankly it's baffling me. I will assume you are familiar with that word and therefore accept it exists.
Perhaps by coming into this conversation late, I failed to take it seriously. :D

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd September 2007, 06:13 PM

Let us ponder, if you will:

XML

SQL

INVU

FCUK

~~ Paul

Gnu Ordure

23rd September 2007, 06:22 PM

This is my last post on this topic because frankly it's baffling me.

I'm baffled too, Teek.

I'd be willing to continue the conversation, to maybe resolve the bafflement ...

(That's why I come to this Forum, mainly... to resolve my bafflements ...)

I don't care whether 'initialism' is in common usage or rarer than a monk's condom, it's still the correct word.

Teek, are you sure about this ?

It doesn't matter what the 'common usage' is ?

There's still a 'correct word', over and above the 'common usage' ?

So who's in charge of this 'correct word' ?

Do you see what I mean ?

gtc

23rd September 2007, 06:25 PM

Incidentally, "WTF" is not an acronym, it's an abbreviation, as is "JREF". An acronym is a word formed from initial letters, such as "OPEC". Spot the difference?

I would pronounce JREF as 'jay-ref' is that an acronym or an abbreviation?

jsfisher

23rd September 2007, 07:12 PM

Incidentally, "WTF" is not an acronym, it's an abbreviation, as is "JREF". An acronym is a word formed from initial letters, such as "OPEC". Spot the difference?

It can be either word or abbreviation according to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=acronym):

a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) 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

The Atheist

23rd September 2007, 07:19 PM

So who's in charge of this 'correct word' ?

Me. (http://www.charman.co.nz/grammar.htm)

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 01:46 AM

This is my last post on this topic because frankly it's baffling me. I will assume you are familiar with that word and therefore accept it exists.

A copywriter baffled by grammar! Dug out those qualification certificates yet?! Shame you've elected to duck out when the going's just starting to get tough. Got some copywriting to do, I suppose. But just for the benefit of those of us prepared to see a debate through:

Wolfman, he's been correcting people in other threads too, I think it's his mission or something. Southwind - The first sentence you quote might be read with the word 'acronym' replaced with 'abbreviation' if you prefer, but semantically it's correct as initialisms are a derivative of acronyms.

Interpretation: "Hey, Wolfman. Can I call you that? Listen buddy, let’s link arms on this one. Southwind’s spotted an error in my earlier post, and given that I condescendingly chastised him earlier for not being abolutely correct, well, bit awkward for me now. Did you spot how I wriggled out of it though, by glossing over the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation, notwithstanding that it’s key to the discussion? Neat eh. I reckon Southwind will fall for it though.

"Southwind’s also embarrassed me by forcing me to reveal to the entire Forum that I’m not properly qualified to comment authoritatively on these matters, doubly embarrassing, actually, as I’m a copywriter, you know, and big companies, that’s right, not small ones, only big ones, pay me shed loads of money to be spot on.

"I don’t care that Southwind has realized that he might have been wrong on some parts of this thread, and humbly admitted it, or that he was right regarding the main thrust of his initial post. That leaves me with nothing to attack, and I’m miffed that he’s shown me up. I’m gonna go after Southwind instead, and with your help, buddy, well, we can attack him from two sides eh! Hey, buddy, I’ve been reading over some of Southwind’s previous posts. I know they have absolutely no relevance to this one, but the more dirt we can dig up the better the chances that I, sorry buddy, we, come out of this smelling of roses.

"Jeez, I’m glad we’re nearing the end of the month buddy. Pay cheque should land soon. I sure need that reassurance that I’m right about everything I write.

Then you must agree that posh,* laser, and radar are also not acronyms. And yet, astonishingly, they have become actual words.

No, I do not agree, and am, therefore, not astonished, as you are. There’s an important distinction between “JREF” and the examples you quote. Your examples are all pronounced phonetically, i.e. using the phonemes represented by each letter or combination of letters in the word, following long-established principles. I am not aware of any English word beginning with the letter ‘J’ where such ‘J’ is pronounced “Jey” other than where such sound is created by the introduction of the letter ‘A’ after the ‘J’. As soon as you start pronouncing words and letters differently from how the authoritative dictionaries dictate then, as I said earlier, any combination of letters can be formed into a 'word'.

And on that note:

Teek/WolfMan/The A, Meanwhile, Acronym's on-line definition now proudly boasts :
Quote:
a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words

No mention of pronunciation.

Let me see if I can help here:

word, the smallest unit of language that can be used independently
language, an artificial system of signs and symbols, with rules for forming intelligible communication

Under what ‘rule’ of the English language does the pronunciation ‘jeyref’ for ‘JREF’ fall? It must be a rule that applies only to this particular ‘word’!

sphenisc

24th September 2007, 05:36 AM

Southwind's Challenge

Given that myself, and many others here, do pronounce JREF as "jay-ref", into which category -- initialism or acronym -- would that abbreviation fall? It very clearly is not an initialism. So, unless you are able to offer up some magical third category of abbreviation (which seems doubtful considering you weren't even aware that initialism was a category), it is by default an acronym.

Abbreviations such as "Mass." for Massachusetts, or, orginally, "bus" for omnibus are neither initialisms nor acronyms. It's up to you whether you regard this as magical or not.

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 08:02 AM

Abbreviations such as "Mass." for Massachusetts, or, orginally, "bus" for omnibus are neither initialisms nor acronyms. It's up to you whether you regard this as magical or not.

I agree re. "Mass.", which is a common or garden abbreviation, and I would tend to agree also re. "bus", which has, according to my dictionary, become a word in it's own right, presumably through widely-accepted usage over time. I believe you're correct that it started as an abbreviation for "omnibus". Regardless, none of this seems 'magical' to me (does it to you?), and I'm struggling to see any relevant comparison with the abbreviation "JREF". Have I written something above contrary to your assertion here, on which we seem to be agreed?

I've made my view perfectly clear previously regarding the tongue-twisting of letters to form so-called 'words', thereby disqualifying them from being classed as acronyms. Neither of your two examples are examples of this.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 08:41 AM

No, I do not agree, and am, therefore, not astonished, as you are. There’s an important distinction between “JREF” and the examples you quote. Your examples are all pronounced phonetically, i.e. using the phonemes represented by each letter or combination of letters in the word, following long-established principles. I am not aware of any English word beginning with the letter ‘J’ where such ‘J’ is pronounced “Jey” other than where such sound is created by the introduction of the letter ‘A’ after the ‘J’. As soon as you start pronouncing words and letters differently from how the authoritative dictionaries dictate then, as I said earlier, any combination of letters can be formed into a 'word'.
Aha. So if I pronounced it "je-ref" (as in giraffe), then it would be an acronym. As it stands, it's a semi-acronym, since only part of it is pronounced phonetically.

No, wait, that's not right. You require that I pronounce it according to "long-established principles." That means no matter how I pronounce "jref," you won't call it an acronym because no principle allows me to say "jay-ref" or "je-ref" when the "r" immediately follows the "j".

How about jhvh, the variant of yhwh? Can I pronounce it "yah-ref" and call it an acronym? No, then it would have to be spelled "jhref," I guess.

Also, doesn't each letter get to stand for the pronunciation of its own name? Isn't that an established rule? Otherwise, how do you pronounce "J"?

I've made my view perfectly clear previously regarding the tongue-twisting of letters to form so-called 'words', thereby disqualifying them from being classed as acronyms. Neither of your two examples are examples of this.
Where's the definition of acronym that requires it to be pronounced using standard phonetic rules? Not in Merriam-Webster.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 08:48 AM

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:j
Pronunciation:'ja [with bar over the a]

LibraryLady

24th September 2007, 08:56 AM

Initialism appears in my dictionary. Well, I'm at work so there're a lot of dictionaries, but the Meriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition has it at the top of the first column on page 644.

Just so's you know. :)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 09:05 AM

Yes, and look at the definition of initialism in Merriam:

an acronym formed from initial letters
What the heck? Whadya mean it's an acronym?

~~ Paul

sphenisc

24th September 2007, 09:30 AM

Aha. So if I pronounced it "je-ref" (as in giraffe), then it would be an acronym. As it stands, it's a semi-acronym, since only part of it is pronounced phonetically.

No, wait, that's not right. You require that I pronounce it according to "long-established principles." That means no matter how I pronounce "jref," you won't call it an acronym because no principle allows me to say "jay-ref" or "je-ref" when the "r" immediately follows the "j".

How about jhvh, the variant of yhwh? Can I pronounce it "yah-ref" and call it an acronym? No, then it would have to be spelled "jhref," I guess.

Also, doesn't each letter get to stand for the pronunciation of its own name? Isn't that an established rule? Otherwise, how do you pronounce "J"?

Where's the definition of acronym that requires it to be pronounced using standard phonetic rules? Not in Merriam-Webster.

~~ Paul

Then there's XTC, slang for ecstasy - with letters which aren't even in the original word - isn't language fun!! :)

drkitten

24th September 2007, 09:36 AM

Yes, and look at the definition of initialism in Merriam:

What the heck? Whadya mean it's an acronym?

The OED does contrast initialisms with acronyms -- but the OED's list of examples also explicitly include partial acronyms. [1983 Verbatim Spring 2/2 Paulies play puck (ice hockey) or hoop (basketball, also acronymed to b-ball).]

If b-ball (BEE-ball) is acceptable as an acronym, so should JREF (JAY-ref) be.

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 09:49 AM

Aha. So if I pronounced it "je-ref" (as in giraffe), then it would be an acronym. As it stands, it's a semi-acronym, since only part of it is pronounced phonetically.

Only to the same extent as if I pronounced "RICS" "rickshaw". Do you know anybody who pronounces "JREF" as 'giraffe', incidentally? Semi-acronym! I don't suppose you've just invented that 'compound word', have you?!

No, wait, that's not right.

You said it!

You require that I pronounce it according to "long-established principles." That means no matter how I pronounce "jref," you won't call it an acronym because no principle allows me to say "jay-ref" or "je-ref" when the "r" immediately follows the "j".

Exactly! Are you saying that every combination of four letters constitutes an acronym, just because you can somehow loosely get your tongue around it and generate a remotely resembling utterance? Which dictionary do you defer to?!

How about jhvh, the variant of yhwh? Can I pronounce it "yah-ref" and call it an acronym? No, then it would have to be spelled "jhref," I guess.

Sorry, lost me.

Also, doesn't each letter get to stand for the pronunciation of its own name? Isn't that an established rule? Otherwise, how do you pronounce "J"?

A letter doesn't have a 'name', just a sound. We're talking 'word' pronunciation here (an acronym forming a pronounceable word), not letter pronunciation. But if you think so, go ahead with "JREF", see what you come up with (jeez - talk about self-defeating argument!).

Where's the definition of acronym that requires it to be pronounced using standard phonetic rules? Not in Merriam-Webster.

Check out the definition of 'word', as I did. You're moving along too slowly here - keep up please.

Initialism appears in my dictionary. Well, I'm at work so there're a lot of dictionaries, but the Meriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition has it at the top of the first column on page 644.

Just so's you know. :)

Me thinks you've not been reading all the posts! ;)

Yes, and look at the definition of initialism in Merriam:

What the heck? Whadya mean it's an acronym?

... and you too

Read all the posts then you might be back with the program.

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 09:52 AM

The OED does contrast initialisms with acronyms -- but the OED's list of examples also explicitly include partial acronyms. [1983 Verbatim Spring 2/2 Paulies play puck (ice hockey) or hoop (basketball, also acronymed to b-ball).]

If b-ball (BEE-ball) is acceptable as an acronym, so should JREF (JAY-ref) be.

There's logic to "b-ball"; not "JREF", though. Spot the glaringly obvious difference?

"b" - basket; "ball" - ball
"J" - James"; "REF" - ugh!

sphenisc

24th September 2007, 09:56 AM

A letter doesn't have a 'name', just a sound.

What sound do the first two letters of this sentence make (individually) and what are their names?

[cite : Sesame Street]

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 10:03 AM

What sound do the first two letters of this sentence make (individually) and what are their names?

[cite : Sesame Street]

Please don't tell me this goes to the core of your argument. How about a consolidated response addressing all points raised/refuted?

If you insist though, again, apply your reasoning to "JREF". What do you come up with?!

zooterkin

24th September 2007, 10:08 AM

A letter doesn't have a 'name', just a sound. .

I know sphenisc has just addressed this, but since Southwind17 seems to defer to dictionaries:

What do you call the letter 'H'? And when do you ever use that as its sound?

from the OED:

aitch: Name of the letter H.

ETA: I see you've just responded. The point is, if you are going to make assertions which are clearly absurd, why should anyone take the time to address the rest of your arguments?

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 10:11 AM

I know sphenisc has just addressed this, but since Southwind17 seems to defer to dictionaries:

What do you call the letter 'H'? And when do you ever use that as its sound?

from the OED:

aitch: Name of the letter H.

OK - conceded - my mistake. Doesn't alter anything though, except strengthen my argument - see my last post.

zooterkin

24th September 2007, 10:21 AM

There's logic to "b-ball"; not "JREF", though. Spot the glaringly obvious difference?

"b" - basket; "ball" - ball
"J" - James"; "REF" - ugh!

Um, no.

I can see the similarity, that one letter is sounded out by using its name, and the rest of the acronym is read as spelt. What's wrong with 'ref' as a word, anyway? You'll hear it most Saturday afternoons (usually preceded by "where's your white stick", or worse).

The OED definition of 'initialism', by the way, says that each letter or part is pronounced separately (contrasted with acronym); which, in conjunction with the example above, I would say means that that JREF is an acronym.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 10:24 AM

Only to the same extent as if I pronounced "RICS" "rickshaw". Do you know anybody who pronounces "JREF" as 'giraffe', incidentally? Semi-acronym! I don't suppose you've just invented that 'compound word', have you?!
I didn't say to pronounce it like giraffe. I said to pronounce the "J" like "je" in giraffe, ending up with je-ref.

A letter doesn't have a 'name', just a sound. We're talking 'word' pronunciation here (an acronym forming a pronounceable word), not letter pronunciation. But if you think so, go ahead with "JREF", see what you come up with (jeez - talk about self-defeating argument!).
You mean the letter "J" doesn't have a name? So when you recite your alphabet you say:

ah be se de ff gu ...

You might do that in Greek, but most of us English speakers say the name of the letter, which the dictionary appears to consider a way to pronounce the letter.

So if you're not going to allow "jay-ref" to be thought of as a word, then do we have to retire X-ray? Or is it grandfathered?

... and you too

Read all the posts then you might be back with the program.
Sorry, reread the entire thread, but it didn't help. Why does Merriam define initialism in terms of acronym, which in turn is defined in terms of word?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 10:29 AM

What do we call it when the wordish thing consists of the initial letters of words and is pronounced like another word even though not spelled quite right?

fcuk

What do we call it when you say the individual letters, but it ends up sounding like word(s)?

INVU

And what about when it can be said as individual letters, but there is also an accepted pronunciation that is not phonetic (except in Hebrew)?

SQL

~~ Paul

baron

24th September 2007, 10:40 AM

zooterkin

24th September 2007, 10:48 AM

What do we call it when the wordish thing consists of the initial letters of words and is pronounced like another word even though not spelled quite right?

fcuk
It is? I would spell that one out, as does everyone I know. It's an initialism.

What do we call it when you say the individual letters, but it ends up sounding like word(s)?

INVU

It's an initialism, or else a Two Ronnies sketch ("FUNEX?). If you said 'invu', then it would be an acronym.

And what about when it can be said as individual letters, but there is also an accepted pronunciation that is not phonetic (except in Hebrew)?

SQL

Probably an acronym; I've never been fully indoctrinated on that specific example, I still say 'ess cue ell'.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 10:57 AM

It is? I would spell that one out, as does everyone I know. It's an initialism.
You know a bunch of polite people, then.

It's an initialism, or else a Two Ronnies sketch ("FUNEX?). If you said 'invu', then it would be an acronym.
Even if I say "i envy you"?

Probably an acronym; I've never been fully indoctrinated on that specific example, I still say 'ess cue ell'.
Many people say "sequel". That's a word, only it ain't normally spelled s-q-l except in Hebrew.

I love this stuff.

~~ Paul

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 12:06 PM

The meaning of a word is defined by common usage. JREF and WTF are both generally known as acronyms, even though WTF is technically an initialism. JREF is an acronym regardless, as it can be pronounced as a single word if desired.

Isn't it irritating when a late comer waltzes in with an apparent air of authority, who can't even be bothered to read the entire thread, and then shows themselves to be clueless as a result, if not otherwise!

"Common usage"; "WTF" an acronym! Which planet are you from?

The Atheist

24th September 2007, 12:35 PM

Even if I say "i envy you"?

In English, we refer to that as a "sentence".

Many people say "sequel". That's a word, only it ain't normally spelled s-q-l except in Hebrew.

Nominated for pithiness!

:dl:

I love this stuff.

~~ Paul

Me too!

My notebook of which regime will best suit each type of abuser is being filled quickly. The ovens are being warmed as we type.

baron

24th September 2007, 12:50 PM

Isn't it irritating when a late comer waltzes in with an apparent air of authority, who can't even be bothered to read the entire thread, and then shows themselves to be clueless as a result, if not otherwise!

I did read the whole thread. How else would I have chuckled at your blustering nonsense and laughed out loud at your pathetic backpeddling?

"Common usage"; "WTF" an acronym!

That's what I said.

Which planet are you from?

Not the planet Idiot, which would explain why we've never met.

The Atheist

24th September 2007, 12:56 PM

Isn't it irritating when a late comer waltzes in with an apparent air of authority, ... ... and then shows themselves to be clueless as a result, if not otherwise!

Some people could feel that way about a n00b coming in with an apparent air of authority....

Anyway. Mate, are you an insomniac? You appear to have been posting all night.

Can I suggest this is about the time you should quietly give up on this particular fight? You seem like an ok bloke (for an Aussie, of course) and I think you've just encountered the fact that people here tend to be a bit more scathing and unforgiving - only in an argumentative sense, I don't see much grudge-holding - than lots of places. There is also short shrift given to idiots and we've had quite a spate of people recently whose life mission appears to be teaching people about the correct end of the egg to break, but who have, alas, graced our fair fair shores only very temporarily, either giving up when confronted by a barrage of derision, or resorting to suicide by mod.

And I know tkingdoll's a meanie, but one of your posts to her was a bit OTT.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th September 2007, 02:07 PM

"Common usage"; "WTF" an acronym! Which planet are you from?
I'm confused. Are you arguing that the dictionary is the authority on meaning, or that it is not?

And remember, I've read the entire thread twice.

~~ Paul

Southwind17

24th September 2007, 11:34 PM

What's wrong with 'ref' as a word, anyway?

'Ref' is already an abbreviation.

The OED definition of 'initialism', by the way, says that each letter or part is pronounced separately (contrasted with acronym); which, in conjunction with the example above, I would say means that that JREF is an acronym.

That's a very simplistic and ill-considered analysis. Because a piece of fruit is not an apple doesn't necessarily make it a banana!

I didn't say to pronounce it like giraffe. I said to pronounce the "J" like "je" in giraffe, ending up with je-ref.

Err, I think you did ...

Aha. So if I pronounced it "je-ref" (as in giraffe), then it would be an acronym. As it stands, it's a semi-acronym, since only part of it is pronounced phonetically.

The meaning of a word is defined by common usage. JREF and WTF are both generally known as acronyms, even though WTF is technically an initialism. JREF is an acronym regardless, as it can be pronounced as a single word if desired.

You're the ONLY person in this thread who has claimed that 'WTF' is an acronym. What does that tell us about your ability to contribute meaningfully?

It is? I would spell that one out, as does everyone I know. It's an initialism.

Agree. I've never heard anybody use other than the initial letters to say this.

It's an initialism, or else a Two Ronnies sketch ("FUNEX?).

Agree.

If you said 'invu', then it would be an acronym.

Agree.

Probably an acronym; I've never been fully indoctrinated on that specific example, I still say 'ess cue ell'.

As would I, but if you say 'ess cue ell' then it's an initialism, not an acronym. I think you're getting confused now.

Even if I say "i envy you"?
In English, we refer to that as a "sentence".

Hear, hear.

Nominated for pithiness!

Seconded.

I did read the whole thread. How else would I have chuckled at your blustering nonsense and laughed out loud at your pathetic backpeddling?

I assume by back-peddling you're referring to my acknowledgement that the word 'initialism' does indeed exist, and/or that letters have names. I wouldn't call that back-peddling, just courage to admit that I'm wrong, when shown to be so. It seems that many people here suffer from serious bouts of self-attributing bias. Many people have shown themselves to be incorrect on certain aspects of what's been debated here, but I don't recall any other concessions. Most just conveniently snook off until the dust settles, then reappear with a second wind. We can't all be right on everything, but people should at least have the balls to admit it when they're wrong.

Actually, on that note, I might be inclined to retract my concession re. ‘initialism’ given what Gnu Ordure wrote earlier. I don’t recall anybody challenging him constructively over what he asserted. Tkingdoll responded superficially, but look what’s happened to her! Also, I’ve just noticed that ‘initialism’ when typed into a Word document gets flagged as a typo. That’s interesting!

Some people could feel that way about a n00b coming in with an apparent air of authority....

They sure could, but then they should realize that being a long-standing member of this forum is certainly not a pre-requisite to holding and expressing a valid opinion, on any subject. We're going to start 'weighting' people's arguments and counter-arguments now are we, proportional to how many posts they've made? Where would that place the likes of 'DOC' and 'Kumar'?!

Anyway. Mate, are you an insomniac? You appear to have been posting all night.

You assume too much, mate!

Can I suggest this is about the time you should quietly give up on this particular fight?

Is that what you do, capitulate when you're out-numbered? Not my style, mate. I'm happy to punch above my weight.

You seem like an ok bloke (for an Aussie, of course) and I think you've just encountered the fact that people here tend to be a bit more scathing and unforgiving - only in an argumentative sense, I don't see much grudge-holding - than lots of places.

I've learned this previously. OK with me.

And I know tkingdoll's a meanie, but one of your posts to her was a bit OTT.

If people ignominiously duck out of a debate just out of convenience they shouldn't expect to have the last say and deserve a little flack, especially when they exude arrogance (call that being a meanie, if you prefer).

I'm confused.

I see that.

Are you arguing that the dictionary is the authority on meaning, or that it is not?

It depends on the dictionary in mind, but as a point of principle, yes, I am. My old Chambers dictionary states on the cover "The AUTHORITY ON ENGLISH TODAY". I'm not sure under what jurisdiction the publisher could legitimately say that at the time of publication, but you get my drift. The definition of 'dictionary' in that very dictionary is: a book containing the words of a language alphabetically arranged, with their meanings, etymology, etc. What do you believe dictionaries are for?

And remember, I've read the entire thread twice.

You have? Did you pay as much attention the second time as the first? In your post #58 you pulled me up on something I'd openly conceded to only two posts earlier in my post #56, AND you claimed to have read the entire thread in that very post!

I've raised a number of recent questions in response to some of the counter-arguments offered, which have been conveniently disregarded. Perhaps the relevant posters, or anybody else for that matter, would care to address them?! See posts #44, #51 and #54.

zooterkin

25th September 2007, 12:55 AM

'Ref' is already an abbreviation.
And? I'm sorry, I just don't see what point you're making regarding the comparison between 'b-ball' and 'jay-ref'. And there's the excellent example that Paul A. gives of 'X-ray' which covers using the letter's name.

That's a very simplistic and ill-considered analysis. Because a piece of fruit is not an apple doesn't necessarily make it a banana!

We're not talking about fruit. Unless you want to introduce a new category, 'JREF' is either an acronym or an initialism. Initialism is defined, in the OED, as having each letter pronounced separately, and is specifically contrasted with acronym. Since that's not the case for 'JREF', when pronounced as 'jay-ref', then it's an acronym.

As would I, but if you say 'ess cue ell' then it's an initialism, not an acronym. I think you're getting confused now.

No, but not as clear as I meant to be. Pronouncing it 'Sequel' makes it an acronym, given what I've said above. However, I choose not to as it seems to be a shibboleth and I didn't see the need to join the in-group that used it (and according to the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sql), it's not the official pronunciation). I suppose you could create a name for acronyms that are not pronounced as they are spelt, but I'm not sure how useful that would be (and there are plenty of words in English (especially names) which have non-obvious pronunciation). Another one from work is 'HPIEFPL', which is pronounced 'highfell' (the 'P' is silent).

sphenisc

25th September 2007, 03:27 AM

What do we call it when you say the individual letters, but it ends up sounding like word(s)?

INVU

This is know as "Swedish made Simple", according to The Two Ronnies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWMcRlE1mQ

sphenisc

25th September 2007, 06:01 AM

backpedaling

back·ped·al (bkpdl)
intr.v. back·ped·aled or back·ped·alled, back·ped·al·ing or back·ped·al·ling, back·ped·als
1. To move the pedals of a bicycle or similar vehicle backward, especially to apply a brake.
2. To move backward by taking short quick steps, as in boxing or football.
3. To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude:

baron

25th September 2007, 06:21 AM

You're the ONLY person in this thread who has claimed that 'WTF' is an acronym. What does that tell us about your ability to contribute meaningfully?

As you are incapable of understanding a basic sentence, I repeat ~

JREF and WTF are both generally known as acronyms, even though WTF is technically an initialism.

And again -

WTF is technically an initialism

I've highlighted the important words to make it easier for you. Are you any nearer understanding my point?

I assume by back-peddling you're referring to my acknowledgement that the word 'initialism' does indeed exist, and/or that letters have names. I wouldn't call that back-peddling, just courage to admit that I'm wrong, when shown to be so.

Under that criterion you're surely the bravest poster in this thread.

Also, I’ve just noticed that ‘initialism’ when typed into a Word document gets flagged as a typo. That’s interesting!

Interesting in what sense? It's because initialisms are usually referred to as acronyms under common usage. Gee, it's almost like I already said this and you insulted me for daring to venture my opinion.

baron

25th September 2007, 06:22 AM

backpedaling

:blush:

Southwind17

25th September 2007, 07:46 AM

And? I'm sorry, I just don't see what point you're making regarding the comparison between 'b-ball' and 'jay-ref'. And there's the excellent example that Paul A. gives of 'X-ray' which covers using the letter's name.

You think 'X-ray' is an excellent example of an acronym? According to my dictionary 'X-ray' is a word in its own right - not even a hint of it being an acronym, which makes perfect sense, because an acronym is: a word formed from or based on the initial letters or syllables of other words. Do you get that?

That actually clarifies the position re. 'b-ball' too. It isn't an acronym. What five words do the initial letters 'b', 'b', 'a', 'l' and 'l' stand for? Don't you realize that by categorizing 'JREF' with 'b-ball' and 'X-ray' you're actually arguing my case for me?

I'm not sure you really understand this debate, seriously.

We're not talking about fruit.

I realize that, but if you can't follow a simple analogy using commonplace fruitage we're likely to be on this thread for a long time to come!

Unless you want to introduce a new category, 'JREF' is either an acronym or an initialism.

'New category' of what? 'JREF' is a plain and simple abbreviation. Abbreviations don't necessarily have to be sub-categorized into initialisms and acronyms. If initialisms are still to be applied and referred to, which as we've found is debatable, then 'JREF' is an initialism, NOT an acronym. Otherwise, abbreviation, period.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 08:04 AM

Err, I think you did ...

Aha. So if I pronounced it "je-ref" (as in giraffe), then it would be an acronym. As it stands, it's a semi-acronym, since only part of it is pronounced phonetically.
I think it's clear that "as in giraffe" refers to the "je-" portion, since "-ref" does not sound like "-raffe".

You're the ONLY person in this thread who has claimed that 'WTF' is an acronym. What does that tell us about your ability to contribute meaningfully?
Yes, WTF is an initialism, which is a form of acronym. And I don't believe I'm the only person who thinks so.

In English, we refer to that as a "sentence".
Yes, "I envy you" is a sentence. But what is INVU? Certainly it is not a sentence, so it must be some form of acronym that happens to be pronounced like a sentence. Let's not confuse the sequence of letters with the thing it sounds like when spoken.

It depends on the dictionary in mind, but as a point of principle, yes, I am. My old Chambers dictionary states on the cover "The AUTHORITY ON ENGLISH TODAY". I'm not sure under what jurisdiction the publisher could legitimately say that at the time of publication, but you get my drift. The definition of 'dictionary' in that very dictionary is: a book containing the words of a language alphabetically arranged, with their meanings, etymology, etc. What do you believe dictionaries are for?
Dictionaries record usage. They are not the authority on meaning. If everyone calls WTF an acronym, then it's an acronym. And hey, what do you know, my Merriam-Webster dictionary agrees with that.

Main Entry:initialism
Pronunciation:i-*ni-sh*-*li-z*m
Function:noun
Date:1899

: an acronym formed from initial letters

You have? Did you pay as much attention the second time as the first? In your post #58 you pulled me up on something I'd openly conceded to only two posts earlier in my post #56, AND you claimed to have read the entire thread in that very post!
Yes, that was a mistake. However, that does not imply that I hadn't read the thread.

You think 'X-ray' is an excellent example of an acronym? According to my dictionary 'X-ray' is a word in its own right - not even a hint of it being an acronym, which makes perfect sense, because an acronym is: a word formed from or based on the initial letters or syllables of other words. Do you get that?
Oh for crying out loud. The point about X-ray is that it is an example of an actual English real word with a letter that is pronounced as its name: X. Therefore, the argument that I cannot pronounce JREF as "jay-ref" because the "jay-" does not follow rules of English pronunciation has been contradicted. That is, unless each letter requires a separate rule.

That actually clarifies the position re. 'b-ball' too. It isn't an acronym. What five words do the initial letters 'b', 'b', 'a', 'l' and 'l' stand for? Don't you realize that by categorizing 'JREF' with 'b-ball' and 'X-ray' you're actually arguing my case for me?
But ref is a word, too! So JREF can be pronounced "jay-ref" because the J is pronounced like its name and "ref" is a word. Just like X-ray and b-ball. The fact that ref is an abbreviation is no more to the point that the fact that posh is an acronym in poshness.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 08:14 AM

Another one from work is 'HPIEFPL', which is pronounced 'highfell' (the 'P' is silent).
Only a psychiatrist would put up with such nonsense.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 08:23 AM

We need a reference list.

Baum SV.. The acronym, pure and impure. Am Speech. 1962;37(1):48–50.

Cannon G.. Abbreviations and acronyms in English word-formation. Am Speech. 1989;64(2):99–127.

Baum SV.. From “awol” to “veep”: the growth and specialization of the acronym. Am Speech. 1955;30(2):103–10.

Baum SV.. Formal dress for initial words. Am Speech. 1957;32(1):73–5.

Heller LG, Macris J.. A typology of shortening devices. Am Speech. 1968;43(3):201–8.

Richard GS. An analysis of the acronym [dissertation]. Providence, RI: Brown University, 1968.

zooterkin

25th September 2007, 09:17 AM

You think 'X-ray' is an excellent example of an acronym?
Would you care to point to where I said that?

According to my dictionary 'X-ray' is a word in its own right - not even a hint of it being an acronym, which makes perfect sense, because an acronym is: a word formed from or based on the initial letters or syllables of other words. Do you get that?

Yes, I do.

That actually clarifies the position re. 'b-ball' too. It isn't an acronym. What five words do the initial letters 'b', 'b', 'a', 'l' and 'l' stand for?

Initial letters or syllables. It's a combination of the initial letter of 'basket' and the initial syllable of 'ball'.

Don't you realize that by categorizing 'JREF' with 'b-ball' and 'X-ray' you're actually arguing my case for me?

I'm doing no such thing. You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension, I suggest you read a little slower before you post. Or should I leave a couple of blank lines before making separate points?

If initialisms are still to be applied and referred to, which as we've found is debatable, then 'JREF' is an initialism, NOT an acronym.

Only if the letters are sounded out by name, which we have established that at least some people here do not do.
'New category' of what? 'JREF' is a plain and simple abbreviation. Abbreviations don't necessarily have to be sub-categorized into initialisms and acronyms.

There are other sorts of abbreviation, but here we have been talking about abbreviations made from the initial letters of the words of a phrase. If the letters are read out, then it's an initialism (though I and several others have commented that this is not a word they would have used, at least before this thread happened, the term exists and is well defined). If the letters are read as a word, then it's an acronym. If you are proposing some third category, please define it.

drkitten

25th September 2007, 09:46 AM

That actually clarifies the position re. 'b-ball' too. It isn't an acronym.

Good. Now I can write you off as a self-important poseur with no regrets.

You say that "b-ball" isn't an acronym. The Oxford English Dictionary, which is compiled by the top lexicographers in the world, lists it as an example. I know whom I would believe....

Don't you realize that by categorizing 'JREF' with 'b-ball' and 'X-ray' you're actually arguing my case for me?

So, evidently, is the OED. Except that they state that you're wrong.

Well, it was nice credibility while you had it.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 09:49 AM

If you are proposing some third category, please define it.
I'll propose one. :D The category consists of those acronyms, initial letters or blends, that are neither pronounced as a word using regular phonemic rules nor read as initials. For example, JREF.

Furthermore, I propose that there is a continuous spectrum from one category to another.

Therefore, I propose we just call everything acronyms.

~~ Paul

Southwind17

25th September 2007, 10:34 AM

I'll propose one. :D The category consists of those acronyms, initial letters or blends, that are neither pronounced as a word using regular phonemic rules nor read as initials. For example, JREF.

Furthermore, I propose that there is a continuous spectrum from one category to another.

Therefore, I propose we just call everything acronyms.

~~ Paul

I'll happily go along with this. I think we're just going around in circles otherwise.

If anybody does wish to continue the debate, however, I'll equally happily summarize my assertion and reasons therefore, to try to bring things back to the point.

Gnu Ordure

25th September 2007, 11:14 AM

Paul said :

Yes, WTF is an initialism, which is a form of acronym. And I don't believe I'm the only person who thinks so.

This doesn't seem right, Paul.

If we are happy with Teek's original definitions :

Acronym = a type of abbreviation which forms a pronounceable word (e.g. NATO)
Initialism = a type of abbreviation which does not form a pronounceable word (e.g. HIV, WTF)

.. then acronyms and initialisms are separate mutually-exclusive categories under the general heading "Abbreviations composed of Initials" (for which there is now no separate name).

Neither is a 'form' of the other.

I still think though that the answer to the problem varies according to whether we want to reference specialist or common usage.

I was wrong in my first post to describe ' initialism' as 'archaic'; it's not, but it is a specialist word, used technically by lexicographers and etymologists.

It's not common usage.

If I asked people in the street to say what kind of word FBI is, first they might say "It's an abbreviation". If I then ask what kind of abbreviation, the common answer will be "It's an acronym".

And if I type FBI into an acronym-dictionary, it's there - described as an acronym - which supports this common usage.

Lexicographers would rightly disagree.

But none of us is a lexicographer - so it would seem appropriate to go with the common usage.

So imho, all abbreviations composed of initials, however pronounced, can be referred to as 'acronyms'.

Gnu.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 11:17 AM

I'll happily go along with this. I think we're just going around in circles otherwise.
This was not the sort of debate one needs to take too seriously. :D

Now the exact difference between a syllepsis and an ordinary zeugma, that's important!

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 11:21 AM

If we are happy with Teek's original definitions :

Acronym = a type of abbreviation which forms a pronounceable word (e.g. NATO)
Initialism = a type of abbreviation which does not form a pronounceable word (e.g. HIV, WTF)

.. then acronyms and initialisms are separate mutually-exclusive categories under the general heading "Abbreviations composed of Initials" (for which there is now no separate name).

Neither is a 'form' of the other.
I'm not happy with the mutual exclusivity of the terms, and neither is Merriam-Webster. In particular, I don't think anyone makes the distinction in normal conversation, except perhaps at a linguistics conference. Also, since we can site acronyms that don't fit either of those definitions, I thinks we's got a continuum.

It's not common usage.
Agreed.

~~ Paul

Southwind17

25th September 2007, 12:22 PM

Gnu Ordure

25th September 2007, 12:27 PM

sphenisc

25th September 2007, 12:43 PM

I'm not happy with the mutual exclusivity of the terms, and neither is Merriam-Webster. In particular, I don't think anyone makes the distinction in normal conversation, except perhaps at a linguistics conference. Also, since we can site acronyms that don't fit either of those definitions, I thinks we's got a continuum.

I think that's a false dichotomy, given that there are options other than a dichotomy and a continuum. I also think the underlying dichotomy is false. which makes the whole thing a hyper-false meta-dichotomy .... or something like that.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 01:41 PM

Is there not a danger, though, of dumbing down, and losing the richness of a language. After all, most rules and distinctions are there for a reason, possibly one that we no longer fully understand, admittedly. The good old split infinitative as another example. I can't explain why it's wrong to split it, but I know there are legitimate reasons not to. Just because most people don't now understand or appreciate the reason for a particular aspect of language or grammar surely isn't a valid reason to write it off, is it?
Absolutely, and I think the linguists should continue to discuss the differences between an acronym, initialism, blend, abbreviation, alphabetism, and portmanteau form.

And with that, I give you: FNMA, pronounced Fannie Mae.

And GNU and VISA, because we all love recursion.

And Gaim, because it is so deep.

The split infinite rule was made up by somebody who had nothing better to boldly solecismize that day.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 01:42 PM

I think that's a false dichotomy, given that there are options other than a dichotomy and a continuum. I also think the underlying dichotomy is false. which makes the whole thing a hyper-false meta-dichotomy .... or something like that.
We need to use hemi-demi-semi- in there somewhere.

~~ Paul

The Atheist

25th September 2007, 01:51 PM

Is there not a danger, though, of dumbing down, and losing the richness of a language.

Aha. I can see potential yet for you to join the team. Here you go (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88046&highlight=english).

Yes, "I envy you" is a sentence. But what is INVU? Certainly it is not a sentence, so it must be some form of acronym that happens to be pronounced like a sentence. Let's not confuse the sequence of letters with the thing it sounds like when spoken.

I was being facetious, but you raise a fair point - acronyms which sound like a sentence shall have a new name. As the proponent, I think it's only fair you should have that honour.

Henceforth, "i envy you", when describing the intitials INVU, shall be classed as an anagnostopoulism. (or maybe we should try paulism, being a little easier to speel)

drkitten

25th September 2007, 02:30 PM

Is there not a danger, though, of dumbing down, and losing the richness of a language.

Not really. Language changes, and all that prescriptivists really manage to do is annoy people.

After all, most rules and distinctions are there for a reason, possibly one that we no longer fully understand, admittedly.

Actually, no. Most rules aren't there for a reason; in fact, linguistically speaking, most rules aren't there at all. What are there are emergent patterns that some pedant has spotted and tried to universalize.

The good old split infinitative as another example. I can't explain why it's wrong to split it, but I know there are legitimate reasons not to.

Yeah, that's actually a very good example -- but it completely disproves your point. The reason why we don't split infinitives is because other languages don't, and because some influential langauge mavens in the 19th century decided that we should be more like them.
See the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive) for some of the background.....

Like most linguistic prescription, disapproval of the split infinitive was originally based on the descriptive observation that it was not in fact a feature of the prestige form of English which those proscribing it wished to champion. This is made explicit in the anonymous 1834 text, the first known statement of the position, and in Alford's objection in 1864, the first truly influential objection to the construction, both cited above.

A second argument is summed up by Alford's statement "It seems to me that we ever regard the to of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb."[...] If we work with the concept of a two-word infinitive, this can reinforce an intuitive sense that the two words belong together. For instance, the usage writer John Opdycke argued that to go is "logically" one word because its closest French, German, and Latin translations are each one word.

Why should English usage be based on French, German, and Latin models? Last time I checked, I wasn't writing in Latin....

Just because most people don't now understand or appreciate the reason for a particular aspect of language or grammar surely isn't a valid reason to write it off, is it?

I'd suggest that as a working hypothesis, "yes, it is." Especially when the presumption should be that any particular aspect of language doesn't have a reason in the first place.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th September 2007, 05:22 PM

Henceforth, "i envy you", when describing the intitials INVU, shall be classed as an anagnostopoulism. (or maybe we should try paulism, being a little easier to speel)
How nice! Thank you. I was going to suggest Greekism, but that's an entirely different subject.

~~ Paul

The Atheist

25th September 2007, 08:34 PM

Not really. Language changes, and all that prescriptivists really manage to do is annoy people.

Which is the entire point. Although I do prefer the term "grammarian".

Actually, no. Most rules aren't there for a reason; in fact, linguistically speaking, most rules aren't there at all. What are there are emergent patterns that some pedant has spotted and tried to universalize.

Not. Even. Close.

Yh5h kdjhf hh5fFg :::: uffRR/8g iiS3q----r/4

Thanks

The reason why we don't split infinitives is....

Pssst.

We do.

Why should English usage be based on French, German, and Latin models? Last time I checked, I wasn't writing in Latin....

Bravo!

To ensure that you keep writing in English, rather than 'Strine, say, we need to have both rules.

The Atheist

25th September 2007, 11:44 PM

Ha! I've just remembered a good one, during a discussion:

Y2K.

Most often classed as an initialism, but often referred to as "yatooka".

GreedyAlgorithm

25th September 2007, 11:57 PM

Oh hey neat, more debates with silly prescriptivists! It's all fun and games until you become the French government. I suggest you also provide rules for which species are and are not Earth-norm acceptable, which body parts can and cannot be covered indoors and outdoors, and the proper locations of all utensils during a meal.

I'll even give you a helpful hint on how to accomplish these tasks! First observe what is currently the case, with full expectation that there is an extant underlying set of rules that everyone/thing is following with greater or lesser degrees of error. Then using SCIENCE! figure out what the underlying rules must be, and announce them to the world, and then announce them to the next generation who will sadly be irretrievably corrupting the rules. Over and over.

The Atheist

26th September 2007, 12:27 AM

Southwind17

26th September 2007, 01:39 AM

Paul said :

Therefore, I propose we just call everything acronyms.

Southwind replied :

I'll happily go along with this.

Yes, Southwind, but the starting point for this was your quote in the OP:

Incidentally, "WTF" is not an acronym, it's an abbreviation

So, to clarify, you're now happy to call WTF an acronym ?

Sorry, no, not 'WTF', but 'JREF', i.e. initialisms that are sensibly pronounceable. The main thrust of this thread is the question of whether 'JREF' is an acronym or not, not 'WTF'. I figured 'sensibly pronounceable initialisms' was essentially what Paul was alluding to when he said 'everything'. Other than Baron, I don't believe that anybody here has disputed that an acronym has to be a 'word'. 'WTF' is clearly not a word.

You have in fact changed your mind ? (Nothing wrong in that, of course).

No, see above.

But if so, may I remind you that when Baron entered this discussion yesterday with this very point, supporting his case with same concept of 'common usage' that I just used, you insulted him for being clueless, and finished:

"Common usage"; "WTF" an acronym! Which planet are you from?

Not so (see above), so no reminder necessary, thanks.

And yet today you agree with him.

I do? You ask a question, second guess the answer, because you're trying to appear smart, then make an assertion. I understood this forum to be 'a place to discuss ...' It's not meant to be a courtroom Gnu, whereby you can play attorney, ask leading questions and posit answers yourself to develop a damning but false scenario to try to win over the jury.

You are now both on the same planet.

No, I'm still on Earth. Baron, however, remains elusive.

So did you go to his, Southwind ?
Or did you come back to Earth ?

Neither - I stayed well and truly put. You're not suggesting that you agree with Baron, are you?!

Allow me to make a suggestion please. Next time you ask a question, the answer to which necessarily dictates the validity of the next question you have in mind, please wait for a response. That's the nature of discussion (yes, and I'm sure somebody will dispute this, but you get my point, hopefully). Don't worry, I might have done it myself before, but it's not clever, really, except in the courtroom.

zooterkin

26th September 2007, 02:44 AM

I figured 'sensibly pronounceable initialisms' was essentially what Paul was alluding to when he said 'everything'.

Then I suggest you go back and read that post again more carefully, and reconsider whether you do in fact agree with what it suggests. You need to read it in context with the post to which it replied.

Southwind17

26th September 2007, 03:25 AM

OK - I think I see your point. Does it alter anything, though, other then maybe help explain why Gnu asked the question. He certainly didn't seem sure, or was he just fancying a dig?!

Tokenconservative

26th September 2007, 06:00 AM

That's more than one 'word', so fails the acronym test immediately. ;)

SNAFU?

FUBAR?

HMFIC?

TEOTWAWKI?

Tokie

Southwind17

26th September 2007, 06:03 AM

???

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th September 2007, 06:27 AM

Ha! I've just remembered a good one, during a discussion:

Y2K.

Most often classed as an initialism, but often referred to as "yatooka".
Nope, sorry, not an initialism. The word two does not start with the letter "2", nor does the word thousand start with the letter "K". :D

~~ Paul

zooterkin

26th September 2007, 07:25 AM

OK - I think I see your point. Does it alter anything, though, other then maybe help explain why Gnu asked the question. He certainly didn't seem sure, or was he just fancying a dig?!

What do you mean, it doesn't alter anything? It means you were saying you agreed that 'WTF' was an acronym, when you earlier (and later) stated it wasn't. As I said earlier, quite seriously, it might be an idea to spend a bit more time reading the posts before you reply to them.

Southwind17

26th September 2007, 09:43 AM

What do you mean, it doesn't alter anything? It means you were saying you agreed that 'WTF' was an acronym, when you earlier (and later) stated it wasn't. As I said earlier, quite seriously, it might be an idea to spend a bit more time reading the posts before you reply to them.

Er, no. Jeez - you sound like an irate step-parent! You believed that I agreed that 'WTF' is an acronym, but I've since made it clear that I don't. Can we move on now?

Southwind17

26th September 2007, 09:45 AM

Ah - nitpicking dilettante - I get it now!

Gnu Ordure

26th September 2007, 12:13 PM

No problem, Southwind, you mis-read Paul's post and accidentally contradicted yourself. I asked you about it, you've clarified it.

Sorry you don't like my debating style. Some people do, some don't.

You're not suggesting that you agree with Baron, are you?!

It seems to me that Baron, Paul (posssibly Zoot as well) and I are basically in agreement:

Baron said :
The meaning of a word is defined by common usage. JREF and WTF are both generally known as acronyms,
I said:
So imho, all abbreviations composed of initials, however pronounced, can be referred to as 'acronyms'.
Baron said :
It's because initialisms are usually referred to as acronyms under common usage.
Paul said:
If everyone calls WTF an acronym, then it's an acronym.

I repeat my point above:

If I asked people in the street to say what kind of word FBI is, first they might say "It's an abbreviation". If I then ask what kind of abbreviation, the common answer will be "It's an acronym".

And if I type FBI into an acronym-dictionary, it's there - described as an acronym - which supports this common usage.

The Atheist

26th September 2007, 02:04 PM

Nope, sorry, not an initialism. The word two does not start with the letter "2", nor does the word thousand start with the letter "K". :D

~~ Paul

Actually, that's a very good point - I was thinking about the way it was pronounced, but we might have to come up with a new word to describe it. I've tried a couple but the profanity filter blocks them out.

Gnu Ordure

26th September 2007, 05:40 PM

we might have to come up with a new word to describe it.

More new words ! More new words now !

Let me ask you a question, the A.

Say you received an e-mail saying "IMHO, the world is flat", and you had to read it out to someone over the phone; what would you say ?

I presume you wouldn't say "Imho, the wo ..." ?

You might say "Eye Emm Aitch O, the wo ..." ?

Or you might say "In my humble opinion, the wo..".

I would do the third option. Likewise, if I read out the sentence "The woods are full of wildlife such as birds, insects, rabbits, etc", I would pronounce 'etc' as 'et cetera'.

Likewise 'eg' is pronounced 'for example' (though you can say ee-gee as well).

In which case, IMHO would be a different category of acronym, pronounced not as a word, nor as a sequence of initials, but as the full set of words it is abbreviating (or the translation, if it's Latin).

In other words, the abbreviation exists only in the written word, not in the spoken.

Moreover ...

There should a special word for acronyms that have actually made the transition. All acronyms are born with the potential to become words. Most remain abbreviations. But a few, like radar, and scuba(diving), become words in their own right. Surely their achievement should be recognized in some way, lexicographically-speaking ?

The Atheist

26th September 2007, 08:53 PM

More new words ! More new words now !

Let me ask you a question, the A.

Say you received an e-mail saying "IMHO, the world is flat", and you had to read it out to someone over the phone; what would you say ?

I presume you wouldn't say "Imho, the wo ..." ?

You might say "Eye Emm Aitch O, the wo ..." ?

Or you might say "In my humble opinion, the wo..".

Bad example, I really try to avoid those trite little chatty things as much as humanly possibly, so I'd ignore it completely.

I would do the third option. Likewise, if I read out the sentence "The woods are full of wildlife such as birds, insects, rabbits, etc", I would pronounce 'etc' as 'et cetera'.

Likewise 'eg' is pronounced 'for example' (though you can say ee-gee as well).

Same with etc, but I usually say e.g. as e g.

There should a special word for acronyms that have actually made the transition. All acronyms are born with the potential to become words. Most remain abbreviations. But a few, like radar, and scuba(diving), become words in their own right. Surely their achievement should be recognized in some way, lexicographically-speaking ?

I think that's more to do with the generality of use - Paul's SQL is an excellent example where most people would say SQL, while most people who use it daily may say "sequel". Plus, some will never become words, unless it's in some bastardised fashion, like the silent Ps in the one above.

Radar is also a bad example, because it's a hybrid - I'm fairly sure that the first A is the one from radio rather than an initial of something else. Wiki agrees. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar) Scuba, however is one of the best words ever invented - a two-syllable acronym which creates a nice, simple word and describes a whole sentence worth of English without having to invent any extraneous bits.

Gnu Ordure

26th September 2007, 09:56 PM

Bad example, I really try to avoid those trite little chatty things as much as humanly possibly, so I'd ignore it completely.

I sympathize, but you still know what IMHO means, don't you ?

So how would you read it aloud ?

Radar is also a bad example, because it's a hybrid

You're such a purist, aren't you, The A ? Most dictionaries say you can use more than the first letter from a word, and miss out unwanted initials.

eg

ac·ro·nym (āk'rə-nĭm') Pronunciation Key

n. A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging.

Anyway, here's some pure acronyms for you to enjoy:

A Contrived Reduction Of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics

Abbreviated Code Rarely Or Never Yielding Meaning

Annoyingly Cryptic References or Names You Make

A Concise Recollection of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics

A Concise Reduction Obliquely Naming Your Meaning

A Crazy Reminder Of Names You Misplaced

Alphabetically Coded Reminder of Names You Misremember

A Clever Re-Organisation Nudges Your Memory

Gnu.

Southwind17

26th September 2007, 09:58 PM

Scuba, however is one of the best words ever invented - a two-syllable acronym which creates a nice, simple word and describes a whole sentence worth of English without having to invent any extraneous bits.

'A whole sentence worth of English'? Are you certain A? Genuine question - honestly ;)

The Atheist

26th September 2007, 10:34 PM

'A whole sentence worth of English'? Are you certain A? Genuine question - honestly ;)

Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. I'd say so.

The Atheist

26th September 2007, 10:41 PM

I sympathize, but you still know what IMHO means, don't you ?

Yes indeed, although it seems to be one of those self-negating terms. Dr Adequate's IMNAAHO [at all] is much better.

So how would you read it aloud ?

Honestly, I just wouldn't, I'd say, "This bloke reckons the earth is flat."

You're such a purist, aren't you, The A ? Most dictionaries say you can use more than the first letter from a word, and miss out unwanted initials.

Purity of mind, action and body ;)

Clever acronyms too!

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 01:49 AM

Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. I'd say so.

I thought a sentence must contain a subject and a verb. Where's the verb?

The Atheist

27th September 2007, 03:00 AM

I thought a sentence must contain a subject and a verb.

Not always.

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 03:25 AM

Not always.

So 'Green field' is a sentence then?

six7s

27th September 2007, 03:58 AM

I thought a sentence must contain a subject and a verb. Where's the verb?

Where does the 'must' come from?

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 04:12 AM

Where does the 'must' come from?

You're a Kiwi, yes? I think its just condensed moisture in the air!

The Atheist

27th September 2007, 04:46 AM

You're a Kiwi, yes? I think its just condensed moisture in the air!

:dl:

The Atheist

27th September 2007, 04:48 AM

So 'Green field' is a sentence then?

Depends. If that's all that's in the sentence, then yes. If not, no.

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 05:06 AM

Depends. If that's all that's in the sentence, then yes. If not, no.

So, how might I use the sentence 'Green field.' in a passage of text (other than possibly in response to a question)? Can you give an example?

zooterkin

27th September 2007, 05:32 AM

So, how might I use the sentence 'Green field.' in a passage of text (other than possibly in response to a question)? Can you give an example?

Why the restriction? Are you accepting that 'Green field.' works as a sentence when it's the answer to a question?

What is your definition of 'sentence'?

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 05:52 AM

Are you accepting that 'Green field.' works as a sentence when it's the answer to a question?

What is your definition of 'sentence'?

No, but I figured somebody might come back and suggest that, so I thought I'd try to pre-empt it. I'm simply asking to see 'Green field.' used as a 'sentence' in a passage of text. I can't think of an example where the context permits, other than in response to a question. In fact, I'm strugling even then. 'Red', for example, could be a legitimate response to a question, but it isn't a sentence.

I understand that a 'simple' sentence has to contain at least a subject (noun) and a verb.

Gnu Ordure

27th September 2007, 07:03 AM

Hey, Southwind, the exact definition of 'sentence' notwithstanding, how about a response to my last post ?

(No verbs in that sentence, by the way.

Or that one.

Or this one.)

Gnu.

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 07:26 AM

Hey, Southwind, the exact definition of 'sentence' notwithstanding, how about a response to my last post ?

(No verbs in that sentence, by the way.

Or that one.

Or this one.)

Gnu.

I suspect your sentence structure is somewhat suspect, that's why! I'll consider it further and get back to you.

You don't need me to remind you that you can't start a sentence with 'Or' do you?! ;)

Gotta dash now Gnu - will review this evening or tomorrow and get back to you. I don't want you thinking I'm avoiding your arguments, as some people do!

Later

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 08:01 AM

Hey, Southwind, the exact definition of 'sentence' notwithstanding, how about a response to my last post?

Sorry Gnu, which post do you mean - #110? You just looking for praise, or what?! ;)

Gnu Ordure

27th September 2007, 08:24 AM

Sorry, Southwind, I meant the last one I addressed to you, 106.

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 08:42 AM

Sorry, Southwind, I meant the last one I addressed to you, 106.

Not sure what kind of response you're expecting Gnu. I don't agree with the 'common usage' argument. The majority of people living in cities that I've lived in can't even write, let alone understand grammar (OK - slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean).

You might have noticed that many people these days can't pronounce the word 'nuclear', even TV presenters. 'Nukiller' seems to be the utterance. Does that mean we should change the pronunciation accordingly?!

Gnu Ordure

27th September 2007, 10:43 AM

I was expecting you to ask me what planet I'm on !!!

I was merely pointing out that contrary to your assertion that Baron is

.. the ONLY person in this thread who has claimed that 'WTF' is an acronym.

... in fact a number of people agree with him, myself included, and have said so. So maybe Baron isn't so crazy after all.

As for the common-usage issue, well, that's a whole argument in itself, which I imagine has taken place on this Forum many times.

One side believes the dictionaries and grammar books dictate usage.

The other believes that people dictate usage, and the books merely reflect that.

And when I say 'people' there, I obviously exclude grammarians and lexicographers, who are not people at all, but pitiless fascist robots who want to control the way we talk and therefore the way we think.

So you can probably guess which side I'm on.

drkitten

27th September 2007, 11:05 AM

You might have noticed that many people these days can't pronounce the word 'nuclear', even TV presenters. 'Nukiller' seems to be the utterance. Does that mean we should change the pronunciation accordingly?!

Um.... yes? [bewildered]

There's a reason that new editions of dictionaries come out, you know. Language changes. If they didn't need changes, we'd still be using Dr. Johnson's original edition....

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 11:13 AM

I was expecting you to ask me what planet I'm on !!! ... in fact a number of people agree with him, myself included, and have said so. So maybe Baron isn't so crazy after all.

I never said he was crazy, but I doubt he's alone on his elusive planet. In fact, I'm sure he's not, now!

One side believes the dictionaries and grammar books dictate usage.
The other believes that people dictate usage, and the books merely reflect that.
And when I say 'people' there, I obviously exclude grammarians and lexicographers, who are not people at all, but pitiless fascist robots who want to control the way we talk and therefore the way we think.

I'll bet you've paid these pitiless, fascist robots though for one of their weighty tomes eh!

So you can probably guess which side I'm on.

I'm sure I can. So what's your stance on Iran's nukiller standoff?!

The Atheist

27th September 2007, 01:23 PM

I understand that a 'simple' sentence has to contain at least a subject (noun) and a verb.

Maybe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentence) you (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717879) should (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentence?view=uk) simply (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sentence) look (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71826&dict=CALD) it (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=sentence&matchtype=exact) up (http://www.bartleby.com/61/91/S0269100.html) in (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=sentence*1+0&dict=A) a (http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Sentence) dictionary.

The Atheist

27th September 2007, 01:24 PM

And when I say 'people' there, I obviously exclude grammarians and lexicographers, who are not people at all, but pitiless fascist robots who want to control the way we talk and therefore the way we think.

:bgrin:

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 01:58 PM

Maybe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentence) you (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717879) should (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentence?view=uk) simply (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sentence) look (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71826&dict=CALD) it (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=sentence&matchtype=exact) up (http://www.bartleby.com/61/91/S0269100.html) in (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=sentence*1+0&dict=A) a (http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Sentence) dictionary.

It's that easy? Can I simply look up 'acronym' too, then? Please don't tell me it wasn't really open to debate!

The Atheist

27th September 2007, 02:18 PM

It's that easy? Can I simply look up 'acronym' too, then? Please don't tell me it wasn't really open to debate!

Not necessarily, but dictionaries are a useful start. If several all agree with each other, you're definitiely on track, then, if I agree with it as well, you're a winner!

fishbob

27th September 2007, 04:46 PM

We here at the Society for the Prevention of Acronyms ( Official Motto: What the hell does that mean?) do not like initialisms either.

Gnu Ordure

27th September 2007, 09:14 PM

The majority of people living in cities that I've lived in can't even write, ....

That doesn't matter, Southwind. Language preceded writing by thousands of years.

Language preceded dictionaries.

More importantly, language preceded grammarians, who probably arrived on Earth years later courtesy of some bacteria-ridden meteorite.

Unlike real people.

... let alone understand grammar

This is the essence of their evil plan, Southwind.

It's not necessary to consciously know the rules of grammar in order to speak a language.

But the grammarians want you to believe that you do need to know. You must learn their rules in order to speak properly. And they control the rules.

It's all a filthy lie.

For example, Southwind, I would bet you (and most people) don't consciously know the rule regarding the order of adjectives of quality.

For example, if one wishes to describe a noun using three adjectives which describe its age, colour, and size, what is the correct order for those adjectives ?

There are six possibilities, only one is correct.

Do you know it, immediately, without thinking ?

Most people would not. They'd have to consider it.

But a child of ten would still say "a lttle old black book', without thinking.

Any of the five alternatives sounds wrong.

Size precedes age which precedes colour.

We all do know these rules, but we're not necessarily aware of them.

So grammar exists without grammarians.

So ignore them.

Or exterminate them.

Whichever.

Gnu.

Southwind17

27th September 2007, 10:58 PM

Not necessarily, but dictionaries are a useful start. If several all agree with each other, you're definitiely on track, then, if I agree with it as well, you're a winner!

Unfortunately, dictionaries don't help here. Sentence structure is too complex to expect a dictionary definition to capure it. It's a little like looking up 'combustion engine' and expecting to understand exactly how it works from the definition.

Here's an idea A: You write three simple sentences to form a short paragraph, any sentences you like, that don't contain a subject and a verb each, that I can show to my two 7-year old kids to read, such that they understand the paragraph without question or puzzlement.

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 12:26 AM

Unfortunately, dictionaries don't help here.

Yes they do.

A sentence is a complete piece of language which starts with a capital letter and ends with a full stop. (Yanks like to call them periods, but our women must be stroppier than theirs.)

The trouble is that because an answer to a question counts as a sentence, it can be as little as a single letter.

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 12:28 AM

This is the essence of their evil plan, Southwind.

You've been talking to brodski, haven't you?

I'm reserving you a spot in the same truck as him and that other revolting person, Foolmewunz.

Punishment regime!

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 12:47 AM

A sentence is a complete piece of language which starts with a capital letter and ends with a full stop. (Yanks like to call them periods, but our women must be stroppier than theirs.)

The trouble is that because an answer to a question counts as a sentence, it can be as little as a single letter.

I don't get you A. You 'claim' to be the Grammer Tyrant, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually understand even the basics. You honestly believe a 'sentence' can be a single letter? I'm wondering whether to ask you to keep an eye out for Baron!

So you're declining the challenge, yes? Would be a shame, cos I reckon that would prove it one way or the other. And the kids were so looking forward to it too!

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 01:43 AM

I don't get you A. You 'claim' to be the Grammer Tyrant, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually understand even the basics. You honestly believe a 'sentence' can be a single letter? I'm wondering whether to ask you to keep an eye out for Baron!

There's a very simple answer to all of this.

You are given a multi-choice question, to which your answer can be A, B or C.

You pick C and your complete answer to the question is made up of that one letter. "C."

If that's not a sentence, please give some kind of rational explanation as to what it is. Also, please do note that the dozen or so dictionaries I pointed you to earlier, all make the same note as I just did.

Which if these are not sentences and why?

"Me too!"

"Thanks"

"No way"

"Bloody hell!"

"Left!"

"look out!"

Cheers (that's cheers to you, not part of the list ;) )

So you're declining the challenge, yes? Would be a shame, cos I reckon that would prove it one way or the other. And the kids were so looking forward to it too!

What challenge? As I said, I gave you a dozen dictionaries which all agree with each other; a sentence is a complete piece of language. It can be a question, an answer, an expletive, an ejaculation, or a single letter. Seems to me the only person unable to grasp that at this stage is you.

Hokulele

28th September 2007, 02:04 AM

Here's an idea A: You write three simple sentences to form a short paragraph, any sentences you like, that don't contain a subject and a verb each, that I can show to my two 7-year old kids to read, such that they understand the paragraph without question or puzzlement.

Well, back before aluminum siding; all that effort . . . Painting? Nah, no need for that now.

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 03:24 AM

There's a very simple answer to all of this.

Too simple, in fact, which should have alerted you, a sceptic, presumably, to other possibilities (see below).

You are given a multi-choice question, to which your answer can be A, B or C.

You pick C and your complete answer to the question is made up of that one letter. "C."

If that's not a sentence, please give some kind of rational explanation as to what it is. Also, please do note that the dozen or so dictionaries I pointed you to earlier, all make the same note as I just did.

Er ... rational explanation ... let me see now ... er ... could it possibly simply be a 'letter', I wonder! I can, to a degree, accept somebody incorrectly suggesting that a single word might constitute a sentence, but a single letter!!!

I'm not sure you considered my earlier post carefully. I repeat:

Unfortunately, dictionaries don't help here. Sentence structure is too complex to expect a dictionary definition to capture it. It's a little like looking up 'combustion engine' and expecting to understand exactly how it works from the definition.

This is a question of grammar, i.e. sentence structure, not word meaning. May I suggest you consult a book on grammar instead of a dictionary.

Every sentence must (no, not 'mist'! :D) have a subject (noun/pronoun) and verb (predicate). That way it conveys a complete thought, which is the crux of a sentence. Sometimes the predicate isn't actually stated, but is, nonetheless, understood in the meaning, e.g. “Call the doctor.” (You/somebody (subject) call (predicate) the doctor). This is called an imperative sentence.

I think you are of the misunderstanding that all letters, words and combinations of words expressed in oral or written communication are necessarily sentences, possibly based on your various dictionary definitions, which can only hope to generalize, at best. There are many other categories that you are either overlooking are unfamiliar with, such as phrases and clauses, to name but two. A phrase, for example, is a group of related words that does not express a complete thought and does not have a subject and predicate pair, e.g. 'at the beach'. Without the addition of other words this phrase makes no sense (don’t forget, if spoken as a response to a question, such as “Where have you been?”, “At the beach” is an imperative sentence. The subject is not stated, but is understood: “[I was] at the beach.”)

Which if these are not sentences and why?

"Me too!"

"Thanks"

"No way"

"Bloody hell!"

"Left!"

"look out!"

Cheers (that's cheers to you, not part of the list ;) )

What challenge? As I said, I gave you a dozen dictionaries which all agree with each other; a sentence is a complete piece of language. It can be a question, an answer, an expletive, an ejaculation, or a single letter. Seems to me the only person unable to grasp that at this stage is you.

I would suggest that these are a mixture of imperative sentences: (“Thanks” = [I (subject) offer (predicate)] thanks!”, “look out!” = “[You (subject)] look (predicate) out!”, “Left!” = “[You (subject) turn (predicate)] left!” and exclamations: (Bloody hell! – does not covey a complete thought).

OK, now that we’ve cleared that up, please give me an example of where you would meaningfully say or write ‘self-contained underwater breathing apparatus’ other than in response to a question such as “What does ‘SCUBA’ stand for?”. The answer to every question is, in essence, an imperative sentence: “[The answer (subject) is (predicate)] self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.”

I can’t believe I’m sitting here trying to explain this basic concept to a self-confessed grammatist! I would suggest that you either humbly retract your assertions (seriously - pause for thought - right now!) or get some serious swatting in before continuing taking this debate further. You're in serious danger of completely undermining whatever credibility your 'Grammar Tyrant' tag is supposed to infer. ;)

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 04:02 AM

OK, now that we’ve cleared that up, please give me an example of where you would meaningfully say or write ‘self-contained underwater breathing apparatus’ other than in response to a question such as “What does ‘SCUBA’ stand for?”.

Asked & answered.

You're in serious danger of completely undermining whatever credibility your 'Grammar Tyrant' tag is supposed to infer. ;)

Given that you're possibly the only person on the planet who disagrees with me, I'll take my chances.

sphenisc

28th September 2007, 04:03 AM

Some thoughts on grammar from Sarah Churchwell...

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2753347.ece

No, I'd never heard of her before, either.

logical muse

28th September 2007, 04:05 AM

... you're definitiely on track, ...

Sorry TA, I know it's just a typo, but I couldn't pass it up. :)

Check out the link in my sig. :D

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 04:09 AM

Asked & answered.

SHOW ME THE SENTENCE! PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!

Given that you're possibly the only person on the planet who disagrees with me, I'll take my chances.

Which planet might that be then? (only kidding - we've flogged that one to death). Seriously, you've conducted a poll have you? May I see the results?

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 04:15 AM

Some thoughts on grammar from Sarah Churchwell....

Gordon Bennett. A lecturer in American culture at East Anglia University. Just screams authority.

Sorry TA, I know it's just a typo, but I couldn't pass it up. :)

Check out the link in my sig. :D

Grrrrrrrr. I hate tyops.

SHOW ME THE SENTENCE! PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!

Ok.

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 04:17 AM

Ok.

Is that it, or is there more to come?

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 04:33 AM

Allow me to re-phrase; I think I see the little word game you're playing here:

In what context could you legitimately say or write 'Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus', and nothing more, other than in response to a question?

There, simple question; simple answer?

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 04:49 AM

In what context could you legitimately say or write 'Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus', and nothing more, other than in response to a question?

Christian Lambertsen, sitting in his office, suddenly writes down:

Self contained underwater breathing apparatus.

Calls to his assistant and asks what he thinks of it.

zooterkin

28th September 2007, 05:30 AM

There, simple question; simple answer?

Was that a sentence?

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 05:34 AM

Christian Lambertsen, sitting in his office, suddenly writes down:

Self contained underwater breathing apparatus.

Calls to his assistant and asks what he thinks of it.

Oh dear! You don't even understand basic punctuation either. This is going from bad to worse for you TA. Even I'm starting to feel a little embarrassed now! Not to mention that you've completelely lost the plot. The entire sentence is:

Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You've added 20 words above, including proper nouns.

Would you like to try again, or duck out as graciously as you possibly can at this point - damage limitation?

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 05:37 AM

Was that a sentence?

You tell me. You've been reading the thread, I presume.

drkitten

28th September 2007, 08:29 AM

Here's an idea A: You write three simple sentences to form a short paragraph, any sentences you like, that don't contain a subject and a verb each, that I can show to my two 7-year old kids to read, such that they understand the paragraph without question or puzzlement.

Easily done. I'll give you three times that, as a complete short story...

"[Thump.] Hear that? On the roof? Coming down the chimney? Santa Claus! Christmas! Hurray! Time to open presents! The more, the merrier!"

drkitten

28th September 2007, 08:57 AM

I can’t believe I’m sitting here trying to explain this basic concept to a self-confessed grammatist!

Unfortunately, it would help your explanations of the basic concepts if you got the terminology right.

Every sentence must (no, not 'mist'! :D) have a subject (noun/pronoun) and verb (predicate).

That's a very traditional way of looking at grammar, but even traditional grammarians recognize that it's wrong, for many reasons, including the one you immediately cite:

That way it conveys a complete thought, which is the crux of a sentence.

The problem is that most thoughts that need conveying do not need to be complete, because they come with context. That's why sentence fragments are acceptable as answers to questions (when context is explicitly established), but also why they are acceptable in response to implicit contexts.

"So, I saw that guy who you used to date college."
"Harry Waxman."
"Yeah, him. At the Quick-E-Mart. The manager, if you will believe it."
"Him? The manager?"

Sometimes the predicate isn't actually stated, but is, nonetheless, understood in the meaning, e.g. “Call the doctor.” (You/somebody (subject) call (predicate) the doctor). This is called an imperative sentence.

This is where your terminology starts to go astray. Yes, "call the doctor" is an imperative sentence -- but not every acceptable fragment is an imperative. The distinction between "declarative" and "imperative" is that a declarative sentence expresses a thought that is supposed to be true about the world, while an imperative gives instructions. And grammatically speaking, the only legitimate part to elide from a (full) imperative sentence is the implicit "you."

In the passage above, "The manager, no less." does not have a subject, but is still a declarative expression, not an imperative one.

Without the addition of other words this phrase makes no sense (don’t forget, if spoken as a response to a question, such as “Where have you been?”, “At the beach” is an imperative sentence. The subject is not stated, but is understood: “[I was] at the beach.”)

This is simply wrong. "At the beach" is not an imperative sentence, as it gives no instructions. if it is a sentence (as you accept, because it expresses, in context, a complete thought), then it is a declarative one despite having neither subject nor verb.

I would suggest that these are a mixture of imperative sentences: (“Thanks” = [I (subject) offer (predicate)] thanks!”, “look out!” = “[You (subject)] look (predicate) out!”, “Left!” = “[You (subject) turn (predicate)] left!” and exclamations: (Bloody hell! – does not covey a complete thought).

No. "Thanks" is an interjection -- but nevertheless expresses a complete thought, thus fulfilling your definition of sentence. "Left!" is not grammatically corredt as a (complete) in imperative sentence -- it is again an interjection -- because verbs cannot be elided ("Turn left" would be grammatically complete).

Of course, the non-prescriptivist answer to this is simply to note that language permits -- even encourages -- incomplete expressions. Things just happen. The hell with it.

drkitten

28th September 2007, 09:03 AM

Easily done. I'll give you three times that, as a complete short story...

"[Thump.] Hear that? On the roof? Coming down the chimney? Santa Claus! Christmas! Hurray! Time to open presents! The more, the merrier!"

And here's volume II of the story.

"What? September 28? Oh, sorry, kids. My bad."

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 09:19 AM

drkitten

28th September 2007, 09:27 AM

Thanks for these drkitten; I'll study them later when I've time to digest them. Meantime, how does it help us establish whether 'Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus' is a sentence or not?

It helps us because it illustrates that the definitions of "sentence" that you've been using are inadequate to the task.

Produce a definition of "sentence" that I can't immediately demolish, and I will be happy to analyze "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus" under that definition.

AgeGap

28th September 2007, 10:01 AM

If scuba can be debreviated (don't look it up, I belive it to be a first usage) to self-contained underwater breathing apparatus, can anyone abreviate 'Madman argues Global Zionism'.

Your help in this matter will be appreciated. Thank you.

Southwind17

28th September 2007, 11:23 AM

It helps us because it illustrates that the definitions of "sentence" that you've been using are inadequate to the task.

Produce a definition of "sentence" that I can't immediately demolish, and I will be happy to analyze "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus" under that definition.

I don't recall attempting to define a sentence. I remember saying that a simple sentence must contain a subject and a verb, and I think I gave a loose or partial description of an imperative sentence. I don't recall going beyond that though.

TA, however, specifically defined a sentence as: "a complete piece of language which starts with a capital letters and ends with a full stop." Perhaps we should focus on his definition, as it, I believe, largely governs his assertion that 'Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.' is a sentence. I believe it also governs his assertion that 'C' (or should that be 'C.') is a sentence. Interesting that his definition doesn't work, though, with 'c', or even 'c.'!

Perhaps you would care to 'immediately demolish' (or 'demolish immediately') his definition (if it's possible, that it, to 'demolish' a definition) , unless, of course, you agree with it.

Alternatively, you could demolish your air of pomposity and simply enlighten us with the answer that we're desperately seeking here. I don't claim to be an expert on grammar, but I try to apply what I know, or learn. TA, in contrast, purports to be a guru, and when he makes what to me seems to be a blunder I'm more than happy to seek clarification. He's failed to impress me so far with his justification and reasoning. On the contrary, in fact. You seem to know the answer, but prefer that we earn the right to access your world of wisdom before revealing it. I'd rather you just cut to the chase on this occasion.

The Atheist

28th September 2007, 11:47 AM

TA, in contrast, purports to be a guru,...

You need to check the difference between guru & tyrant while you're at it.

drkitten

28th September 2007, 11:49 AM

Alternatively, you could demolish your air of pomposity and simply enlighten us with the answer that we're desperately seeking here. I don't claim to be an expert on grammar, but I try to apply what I know, or learn. TA, in contrast, purports to be a guru, and when he makes what to me seems to be a blunder I'm more than happy to seek clarification. He's failed to impress me so far with his justification and reasoning. On the contrary, in fact. You seem to know the answer, but prefer that we earn the right to access your world of wisdom before revealing it. I'd rather you just cut to the chase on this occasion.

Fair enough; the "chase" is that there's a reason that linguists tend not to talk about "sentences" if they can avoid it, in part because grammarians have done such a marvelous job of poisoning the well (in part due to arguments like the present).

The idea that you are trying to express is a "clause," which is generally defined as a linguistic expression containing both a subject and a predicate (= verb + arguments). Some languages have rather formal contexs under which a subject can be elided (for example, pronouns can be dropped in so-called "PRO-drop" languages, although a strong Chomskian maintains that they're still actually there, just inaudible). A "sentence" is a clause containing a "finite" verb (e.g. it has tense).

"SCUBA" arguably incorporates a clause ("breathing" takes no arguments, hence is a verb +objects all by itself, with an implicit subject -- I'm not happy with this analysis, though; I prefer to think of "SCUBA" as a noun phrase, which is much closer to its actual use), but of course has no tense, so it's not a "sentence" under strict definition.

However, that's not the concept you were trying to express in post 123:

I'm simply asking to see 'Green field.' used as a 'sentence' in a passage of text.

Simply put, people don't speak (or write) in "sentences," strictly defined, and only grammarians try to make them do so. With limited success. At best. Case in point.

And that was TA's original point, not that SCUBA was grammatically a sentence, but that it expressed a complete-in-itself thought:

Scuba, however is one of the best words ever invented - a two-syllable acronym which creates a nice, simple word and describes a whole sentence worth of English without having to invent any extraneous bits.

genesplicer

28th September 2007, 01:12 PM

"crap", in English, apparently dates from (at least) the 15th century. It
originally meant any detritus or discarded matter. Its scatological meaning
apparently came much later.

The scatological usage came about in the mid-19th century, and is due to the fact that most inventions are named either for what they do, who invented them or who markets them. For example, radios were once referred to as "Marconis" because Marconi was the inventor's name. Victrolas were marketed by the Victor Talking Machine Company. Printers print, computers compute.

The toilet (Or at least one popular version) was invented by Thomas Crapper. Many people referred to the device by the inventor's name. If it had been Nelson, no problem. However, since his name ended in "er", many assumed that it was a name based on use, not inventor. So, crappers must be used for crapping...

More new words ! More new words now !

I presume you wouldn't say "Imho, the wo ..." ?

You might say "Eye Emm Aitch O, the wo ..." ?

Years ago I had a t-shirt that read "The Alphabet, in alphabetical order" and had all the letters written out like above, starting with "Aitch". I'd like another. It made folks stop and wonder...

Southwind17

30th September 2007, 02:25 AM

The idea that you are trying to express is a "clause," which is generally defined as a linguistic expression containing both a subject and a predicate (= verb + arguments). Some languages have rather formal contexs under which a subject can be elided (for example, pronouns can be dropped in so-called "PRO-drop" languages, although a strong Chomskian maintains that they're still actually there, just inaudible).

According to Towson University’s English Department sentences and clauses are not mutually exclusive. Some clauses form sentences; others do not. Some quotes from their website:

A noun or pronoun functions as the sentence subject when it is paired with a verb functioning as the sentence predicate.

Every sentence has a subject and predicate.

A subject can be a noun or pronoun that is partnered with as action verb.

(all emphasis is Towson’s)

Words and phrases can be put together to make clauses. A clause is a group of related words that contain a subject and a predicate.

Clause 1: Webster took the train.
Clause 2: After Webster took the train.

Only one of these clauses is a sentence. (my emphasis)
Clause #1 gives a thought or an idea that is COMPLETE, that can stand by itself, independent of other words (Towson’s emphasis).
However, clause #2 gives an INCOMPLETE thought or idea, one that cannot stand by itself, one that needs some more words to make it whole (Towson’s emphasis).

I use Towson University here because their website explanations seem straight forward and clear, and for no other reason (other than it being a university). I’m not suggesting they’re the leading authority on linguistics, but I expect they’re correct in this case.

A "sentence" is a clause containing a "finite" verb (e.g. it has tense).

Towson does not make this distinction.

"SCUBA" arguably incorporates a clause ("breathing" takes no arguments, hence is a verb +objects all by itself, with an implicit subject -- I'm not happy with this analysis, though; I prefer to think of "SCUBA" as a noun phrase, which is much closer to its actual use), but of course has no tense, so it's not a "sentence" under strict definition.

I don’t believe this is reasonably arguable. I agree entirely with your reasoning.

So, for the benefit mainly of TA you have concluded that:

”SCUBA” [is] not a “sentence” under strict definition.

which supports my original assertion. I could stop at this point, but you then went on to apply an interpretation to my 'Green field.' comment:

However, that's not the concept you were trying to express in post 123:

I used the example ‘Green field.’ as an analogy to ‘SCUBA’ as I saw no grammatical difference in their compositions (an adjective (Green/Self-contained) followed by a noun (Field/Underwater Breathing Apparatus)).

and you continued ...

Simply put, people don't speak (or write) in "sentences," strictly defined, and only grammarians try to make them do so. With limited success. At best. Case in point.

And that was TA's original point, not that SCUBA was grammatically a sentence, but that it expressed a complete-in-itself thought:

OK, let’s test this assertion. Let's go back to where we started (BTW - I disagree with your use of full stops here; commas work far better (you know which one's I mean, and if you're honest with yourself, I reckon you'll agree with me ;)):

TA wrote:
Scuba, however is one of the best words ever invented - a two-syllable acronym which creates a nice, simple word and describes a whole sentence worth of English without having to invent any extraneous bits. (my emphasis)

I queried that?
'A whole sentence worth of English'? Are you certain A?

TA responded:
Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. I'd say so.

I asked:
In what context could you legitimately say or write 'Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus', and nothing more, other than in response to a question? (emphasis added)

TA responded:
Christian Lambertsen, sitting in his office, suddenly writes down:

Self contained underwater breathing apparatus.

Calls to his assistant and asks what he thinks of it.

If you’re correct that TA’s original point was that ‘SCUBA’ expresses a ‘complete in-itself thought', why did he have to add 20 additional words to demonstrate such point? Allow me to re-quote him:
Scuba ... describes a whole sentence worth of English without having to invent any extraneous bits. (my emphasis)

And please don’t forget that TA also offered ‘C.’ as a 'sentence' in support of his argument. What ‘complete in-itself thought’ does that conjure up in your mind?

I really welcome and appreciate your contribution here drkitten, but TA, a self-proclaimed grammatist, dug himself into a hole that he couldn’t get himself out of. In my opinion, not only did he fail to put forward an argument of any substance but he proceeded almost to prove himself wrong. He also demonstrated that his punctuation skills also leave a lot to be desired. ‘The Grammar Tyrant’ – why do you fight his corner drkitten?

BTW – ‘elided’ is a new word for me. I’ll try to use it.

jimbob

1st October 2007, 02:53 PM

jsfisher

1st October 2007, 08:53 PM

six7s

1st October 2007, 09:09 PM

But, do you prefer FORTRAN, ForTran, Fortran, or fortran?

--

C

Southwind17

1st October 2007, 11:52 PM

Does anyone else find the Guardian Style guide slightly eccentric?

If the initias are said seperatly then they are capatalised (WHO) If it is pronounced as a word then only the initial letter is capitialised (Nato, Nasa)

I dion't know when they decide to change to all lowercase (laser, radar)?

I prefer either LASER, or laser, but not Laser.

I think it's incorrect to convert formerly capitalized acronyms such as 'NATO', to 'Nato'. 'NATO' is a proper noun, presumably created by the organization itself. 'NASA' is another good example. So far as the creation of proper nouns is concerned anything goes these days regarding capitalisation, punctuation, etc. iPod is another good example. It would be entirely wrong to refer to it as 'Ipod' or 'IPOD', for example.

'Laser' (or 'LASER', if you prefer) might be different. Whilst it began life as an acronym, and, technically, still is, it is almost exclusively recognized as a common or garden word in its own right now. Remember that many English words originated from a combination of two or more words from another language. As such they could, in a sense, be thought of as acronyms, but we don't capitalize parts of them. Consequently, 'laser' (or 'LASER'), 'radar' et al should be treated like other improper nouns and be written totally in lower-case letters (unless they begin a sentence, of course).