Correctamundo.
MG - Muchas gracias.
Acronyms? You think you’ve seen acronyms?
Joe
Slightly tangential question here: am I weird in thinking that “acronym” is used for something that is pronounceable as a word, while “abbreviation” is used for those lovely messes of initials that don’t lend themselves to pronouncing as a word? I mean that “N.A.T.O” is what I’d think of as an acronym, while things like “FTW” are not. N.B. (oh hell, there’s an inadvertent one to add to the fun), it’s a genuine question. I am *not *saying that using “acronym” for what I think of as “abbreviation” is wrong, merely wondering if this is a North American usage, or whether it’s yet another of those stuff-you learn-at-school-that-is-not-true things.
I wish I had not picked on “N.A.T.O.” as an example, as I am now wondering why we say “nayto” but do not say “mod” for the Ministry of Defence, but say “em-oh-dee”. Oh no, in seeking clarification, I have only provided myself with things to ponder in the wakefulness of the night. Images of the Secretary of State for Defence as a 1960’s youth on a scooter will bedevil me. :eek:
<teach me to read the thread to the bottom before hitting SUbmit>
or should that be tmtrttbbhs?
No, you’re not weird–you’re just the type of person who wants clear delineation between words. I’ve seen a lot of places define it as such. But, in real life (IRL), most people don’t use it as such.
The way I was taught was that an acronym was formed from initial letters, while an abbreviation could be formed from anything. Thus, an acronym was a subset of abbreviations. NATO is an acronym and an abbreviation, while, say, oz, lb. km, etc, are merely abbreviations.
As for why some acronyms are pronounceable and others aren’t–it’s complicated. In the example you gave, it’s mostly because “mod” is a real word, while “nato” isn’t. There are other acronyms that are also real words, but they usually were created for the purpose of using that word. Barring that, they at least have something to do with the subject in people’s minds–“mod” has a lot of definitions, and none have much to do with what MoD means.
Plus, let’s not forget that the lowercase O is only there for disambiguation purposes. The word “of” doesn’t usually make it into an acronym.
Yeah, I’ve heard that, which is why I also threw “abbreviation” and “initialism” into the OP. I couldn’t remember if it was part of the definition of acronym or what, and I was too lazy to look it up!
I am Rhythmdvl … SLAYER of acronyms!
Part of what I do is add readability to otherwise impenetrable documents, documents that often arrive with hundreds – *hundreds – *of acronyms. It’s as if somewhere out there is an insane wizard going from author to author, spelling them into believing that *any *multi-word noun that’s used more than once must be acronymized.
He feeds off the negative energy of capital letters, growing stronger and more powerful, looking to turn the next policy brief or report into a sea of incomprehensible alphabet soup.
But begone ye foul demon! I stand before you and denounce your practice. Acronyms have their use, but not to feed your gluttonous desire for jargon and obscurity! BACK, ye foul sticklers for convention. If redefining an acronym that hasn’t been used in ten pages improves readability, so be it! No sharp-edged documents will leave here to foist confusion upon my readers, READABILITY SHALL RULE THE DAY!
ETA: Best (and most appropriate) use of Gotcha Ya in a while!
(yes, that was an acronym, wasn’t it?)
I’m a nurse who works for the government. Fortunately, all my friends are also medically trained—who else could stand a nurse?
When I have to chart results of a ROI telling me meds were d/c’d, my HA and my RNC know what’s up. And most everyone in my world knows what I did.
And everyone who isn’t in your world, too knows too. Duh. It’s obvious that when you have to chart results of a return on investment telling you the Mediterranean Sea was District of Columbia’d, your Hans Augusto and your Republican National Committee know what’s up.
bup–that was beautiful! :: sniff ::