Indeed. But, per your remarks, I was addressing “actual use” in hip-hop.
Wow. 17 years later, and now I understand why the navy workmen in Grim Fandango were giant bees.
“Emcee” is a pronounciation of an abbreviation as if it were a word, which is an acronym. It seems close enough to me.
Not all acronyms are perfect abbreviations; it’s “sonar,” not “snr,” and “radar,” not “rdar.” If in time it started being called “raydar,” I would argue that is still essentially an acronym.
I agree "“Pakistan” is only partially an acronym, like “sabermetrics.”
Then we get into words that use way more than just the first sound, “amphetamine” and about ten million other medical words being examples.
FYI, the OED’s first cite for M.C. is 1790; first for emcee is 1933.
Exactly this.
There is no other compact term for what a Master of Ceremonies does. (They aren’t always the host/ess, they’re more a presenter, and they are only incidentally any kind of star in their own right.
Emcee as a verb is a perfectly good construct that arose to fill a relatively new niche.
Another example: “effing”, a euphemism for “fucking”.
I’m not sure if “gee” counts, it’s a euphemism for “Jesus”.
How about “delta vee” to indicate a change in velocity?
From the movie Hot Shots, the name of the carrier was the S.S. Essesss.
Here are two reverse examples: EZ for “easy” and MT for “empty”.
Forgive me, I know this is hopelessly pedantic for some, but–
“Emcee” is not the pronunciation of an abbreviation as a word. It is the pronunciation of the letters of the abbreviation; that is, an initialism.
It’s the difference between “you-kay” and “uck,” and between “en-ay-es-ay” and “nassa.” One is properly pronounced as initials, the other as an acronymic word. An important functional difference in actual communication.
My copy is the Compact Edition, so based on the first edition. It doesn’t list M.C. at all. Master of the Ceremonies goes back to 1662 but the abbreviation M.C. is not referred to. There’s no entry for emcee, either. Could you give some context for what’s in the later edition?
And how’s this for you nitpickers: In my experience, newspapers, magazines, and books writing about entertainment normally referred briefly to a Master of Ceremonies as emcee rather than MC or M.C., until the hip-hop era when the new usage became common.
I agree: There is a difference.
Vocologue has been suggested, but it’s not widely used. I think what Peremensoe said–“a transcription of an initialism”–is good enough. It’s not like these words are the center of a lot of discussion.
I don’t like “emcee” either, but feel free to use “compere” if you want to conveniently skirt the issue entirely.
How interesting, thanks.
Do we know each other? I have been a typesetter (and magazine publisher); and I am a DEEJAY and know all about Vee Jay Records!
Hello, friend 
This is the point (and answer to the OP). What other verb would you use? Why would emcee be any less deserving of word status than okay?
frisbee
The 1790 reference actually uses “M:C:” as the abbreviation for Master of Ceremony. It switched to “M.C.” in the 1800s and “MC” makes it’s appearance in the 1900s. First cite for MC is 1968:
The current edition has a cite for “maister of the ceremonies” c1610 (almost a Game of Thrones version).
I was a deejay also, and have a large LP collection, so Vee Jay Records was the natural first brand name example I thought of. The em and the en, however, are merely random facets of my overall encyclopedic knowledge.
MM - Eminem
I’m confused - what’s wrong with that? He was implying that MC Hammer was near the beginning of the hip-hop era, but he actually came later - is that it?
Yeah… I was being a little tongue-in-cheek, but the point would be that people who care about hip-hop as a serious art form and force of cultural import tend to see Hammer as a shallow profiteer, even an embarrassment. They would be writhing to see him cited as a pioneer, though he certainly served as an entry-level popularizer for many.