5 ms·

I hope it doesn't sound too pedantic, but the 'C' in VC stands for capital, so saying money or capital after VC is redundant. The only reason I was driven to wr

I hope it doesn't sound too pedantic, but the 'C' in VC stands for capital, so saying money or capital after VC is redundant. The only reason I was driven to write this is because of how many times it was written.

adventured 10y ago
That's not necessarily correct. When the parent writes: > A great example of a company taking on VC money VC can stand for "venture capitalist" in that context. So "VC money" equating to venture capitalist money, would in fact be a proper use. Further, venture capital is a specific type of money. One could also correctly say: bond money, debt money, home equity money, (the) bank loan money, among others and they act as an elaboration of the type of money in question as all context of money is not the same. If I say: the bank loan, that's not necessarily the same as: the bank loan money. The same can be true for venture capital. If I say: the venture capital (eg: we need to discuss the venture capital situation), it can mean the broader arrangement (such as the VC terms) or situation of fund raising, rather than being about the venture capital cash specifically.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I just happen to disagree, and I believe when one says I took VC that means 'I took venture capital', not 'I took venture capitalist money.' There is a wiki entry[0] for VC, and when referring to venture capitalists it is spelled out, not abbreviated VC. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital
  - sirclueless 10y ago
    "I took VC" probably parses out to "I took venture capital" in this same context, but it's a strange phrase and less common than "I took VC money." I think this is because "VC" is only one type of investment, and for other similar forms of investment the phrase is nonsensical. For example, PE means "Private Equity" but you can't say "I took PE." (Equity means ownership, and taking money from an investor means giving up ownership, not taking it.) "I took VC" is basically abusing the dual meaning of "Capital" as the thing an investor provides in exchange for equity and the thing a business uses to operate.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      I like your explanation the best and I actually dislike the abundant use of acronyms. It seems use of acronyms on HN is often a kind of signaling rather than a convenience.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I've been in SF since 2000, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "I took VC", and Google doesn't show much in the way of that. What's your source?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Nomentatus 10y ago
We avoid redundancy to speed up communication, but some redundancies can greatly speed up communication by removing perceived ambiguities that stall comprehension. These are good. Avoiding redundancy isn't a goal in itself, and hasn't always been an explicit goal at all. Who would understand "V" standing by itself, instantly, without pausing? Nobody. (In fact, I'm still thinking about whether venture money - which could include self-issued digital coin? - is the same thing as Venture Capital.) In the middle ages, when literacy (and therefore large vocabularies) were uncommon, it was considered good form to include three redundant synonyms or phrases all in a row, creating emphasis, giving the reader the best chance of understanding the writer correctly, and demonstrating that the author understood his language well and probably meant what he was saying. (Not "she" so much, then.) It's now considered good form in technical writing to start with examples or present them as soon as possible, but examples are, by definition, semantically redundant. Should we axe them all? Absolutely not, since that would greatly slow, and sometimes prevent, comprehension.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I didn't realize I criticized a YC company founder; that was a mistake, but I stand by my sentiments (it made my eyes go crossed).
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    This could reflect a personal difference in abstraction. I'm not saying this is what should be the case, but for me "VC" might as well be it's own word with it's own associations and connotations. If you're used to mentally expanding contractions for precision - as lots of programmers and analysts are - then I can see that "VC money" would be a stumbling block. Not something I thought about enough before your second comment. Generally the plebes win such struggles: in this case, I'm with the plebes.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      Well, I'm old and joined my first VC-backed start-up in '03. I am well-acquainted with these terms, and have had many in person discussions about VC, cap tables, and equity. These days, I read cash flow, income and balance statements in the thousands per year.
ScottBurson 10y ago
Yesterday I used my PIN number to withdraw $200 dollars from my bank. (We all have our little pet peeves :-)

adventured 10y ago

That's not necessarily correct. When the parent writes: > A great example of a company taking on VC money VC can stand for "venture capitalist" in that context. So "VC money" equating to venture capitalist money, would in fact be a proper use. Further, venture capital is a specific type of money. One could also correctly say: bond money, debt money, home equity money, (the) bank loan money, among others and they act as an elaboration of the type of money in question as all context of money is not the same. If I say: the bank loan, that's not necessarily the same as: the bank loan money. The same can be true for venture capital. If I say: the venture capital (eg: we need to discuss the venture capital situation), it can mean the broader arrangement (such as the VC terms) or situation of fund raising, rather than being about the venture capital cash specifically.

narrowrail 10y ago
I just happen to disagree, and I believe when one says I took VC that means 'I took venture capital', not 'I took venture capitalist money.' There is a wiki entry[0] for VC, and when referring to venture capitalists it is spelled out, not abbreviated VC. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital
- sirclueless 10y ago
  "I took VC" probably parses out to "I took venture capital" in this same context, but it's a strange phrase and less common than "I took VC money." I think this is because "VC" is only one type of investment, and for other similar forms of investment the phrase is nonsensical. For example, PE means "Private Equity" but you can't say "I took PE." (Equity means ownership, and taking money from an investor means giving up ownership, not taking it.) "I took VC" is basically abusing the dual meaning of "Capital" as the thing an investor provides in exchange for equity and the thing a business uses to operate.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    I like your explanation the best and I actually dislike the abundant use of acronyms. It seems use of acronyms on HN is often a kind of signaling rather than a convenience.
- wpietri 10y ago
  I've been in SF since 2000, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "I took VC", and Google doesn't show much in the way of that. What's your source?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Nomentatus 10y ago

We avoid redundancy to speed up communication, but some redundancies can greatly speed up communication by removing perceived ambiguities that stall comprehension. These are good. Avoiding redundancy isn't a goal in itself, and hasn't always been an explicit goal at all. Who would understand "V" standing by itself, instantly, without pausing? Nobody. (In fact, I'm still thinking about whether venture money - which could include self-issued digital coin? - is the same thing as Venture Capital.) In the middle ages, when literacy (and therefore large vocabularies) were uncommon, it was considered good form to include three redundant synonyms or phrases all in a row, creating emphasis, giving the reader the best chance of understanding the writer correctly, and demonstrating that the author understood his language well and probably meant what he was saying. (Not "she" so much, then.) It's now considered good form in technical writing to start with examples or present them as soon as possible, but examples are, by definition, semantically redundant. Should we axe them all? Absolutely not, since that would greatly slow, and sometimes prevent, comprehension.

narrowrail 10y ago
I didn't realize I criticized a YC company founder; that was a mistake, but I stand by my sentiments (it made my eyes go crossed).
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  This could reflect a personal difference in abstraction. I'm not saying this is what should be the case, but for me "VC" might as well be it's own word with it's own associations and connotations. If you're used to mentally expanding contractions for precision - as lots of programmers and analysts are - then I can see that "VC money" would be a stumbling block. Not something I thought about enough before your second comment. Generally the plebes win such struggles: in this case, I'm with the plebes.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    Well, I'm old and joined my first VC-backed start-up in '03. I am well-acquainted with these terms, and have had many in person discussions about VC, cap tables, and equity. These days, I read cash flow, income and balance statements in the thousands per year.

ScottBurson 10y ago

Yesterday I used my PIN number to withdraw $200 dollars from my bank. (We all have our little pet peeves :-)