7 ms·

> A small nitpick - BMW is not an acronym BMW is an acronym for Bayerische Motoren Werke in German (or Bavarian Motor Works in English).

Jedd 7y ago
> BMW is an acronym for Bayerische Motoren Werke To reiterate, an acronym must be able to be pronounced as a word.
- tyingq 7y ago
  I can't find any support for that restriction on the various dictionary sites.
- gwd 7y ago
  Language is 1) defined by its speakers, and 2) should be practical. It's just silly to invent a new word, "initialism", to distinguish between things you pronounce as a word and things you pronounce letter-by-letter. "NASA" and "FBI" are the same type of thing in most people's heads; there's no need to have a separate, awkward word for the second thing.
  - mplanchard 7y ago
    It’s not a newly invented word. Google books shows both “initialism” and “acronym” to have been in use since the 1800s. Saying we shouldn’t have more specific words because many people don’t know their meaning doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
    - gwd 7y ago
      > Saying we shouldn’t have more specific words because many people don’t know their meaning doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I didn't say it was because people didn't know their meaning; I said it was because as far as most people are concerned, they're the same thing. I know what "initialism" means, but I choose not to use it, because as far as I'm concerned "NASA" and "FBI" are fundamentally the same thing. It's a waste of brain cells to figure out when to say "acronym" vs "initialism". As an example where I think such a distinction is important, I do consistently write "MiB" when I'm talking about 2^20 bits. I only saw it the first time maybe 10 years ago, but it immediately seemed to be to be both practical and useful to make that distinction. On the other hand, I never correct or ask clarification of people who use "MB", unless the difference becomes important. (Nor do I say "mebibyte", which is the proposed pronunciation of "MiB", because it's impossible to pronounce fluently.)
    - gwd 7y ago
      Actually according to Wikipedia: > ... the first known published use of the term in English [is] from 1940 That published use is as follows [1]: > Pee-gee-enn. It's an acronym [Ger. Akronym], that's what it is. That's what they call words made up of initials. In other words, the very first recorded use we have of the word "acronym" is actually what some people insist on calling an initialism. I don't know who, afterwards, decided that "acronym" had to mean that it had to be pronouncable, or why, but I didn't vote for them. [1] https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1844 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1844
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Indeed. It is all about the produced sound. There's a format for that, but I'm not accustomed to it, so say phonetically there's "Ef Bee Eye". You could call the organization "Efbee Eye" or whatever, but why would you? "FBI" and "Feds" both work; they're both well accepted as it is.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    1. I'm not 100% convinced language is, or more importantly should be, defined by the speakers -- or rather be defined indiscriminately by all speakers, regardless of their qualifications or credentials. It tends to result in a convergence of similar words, weakening the strength of language and variety of expression available for people who understand the (original) distinctions. 2. I'm an English language speaker (and writer) and you seem to be discounting my right to define language. Or just to maintain the definition of certain words because they contradict a weakened but popular & recent redefinition. 3. I'm not advocating initialism - it's not a word I recall ever using. But I'm not sure it's reasonable to claim that it's silly to invent new words to describe new things. I'd advocate abbreviation for an abbreviation you can't pronounce as a word, and acronym for an abbreviation you can.
    - gwd 7y ago
      > I'm an English language speaker (and writer) and you seem to be discounting my right to define language. Fair enough -- you have a vote; but when you "vote" for something from a minority usage point of view, you should make it clear that you are advocating for minority usage, and why. What you did instead was to assert that the "right" way to use the word was X, when in fact the initial usage was Y, and most people still use it as Y. I don't object to people thinking carefully about how a language should work and then advocating for it; that's what I do myself. Nor do I object to correcting common "minority" usages that I think are going in the wrong direction. But a lot of people advocate changes which are more "pure" but are clunky and unhelpful. For example: * Using 'they' as a singular of unknown gender; i.e., "I have an appointment with Dr. Smith; when will they be free?" English has need for such a usage; 'they' is simple and understandable; and it's been in use since the 1400s. I'm a fan. * Using "literally" as a meaningless intensifier; i,e., "My head literally exploded." I strongly object to this usage, and I will continue to object to it as long as it's practical to do so, even if I become a minority. The reason is that we already have hundreds of intensifiers, but we don't have very many ways to say, "I am not exaggerating or speaking metaphorically, this actually happened." * Switching from "negative agreement" to "double negative == positive". In French, to say you've never done something, you say "Je n'ai jamais faire rien", which literally translated would be "I not have never done nothing". But it's not called a "triple negative", it's called "agreement": if any part of the sentence is negative, the whole sentence has to have negative forms. If you go back to Henry VIII's time, that was the officially correct way to say things in English too. but at some point, some people came in and said, "Well, if we make all negatives contradict the other negative, we can say things like 'It's not nothing.'" Then educated people got rid of agreement, and started telling less educated people, who were speaking the same way English had been spoken for hundreds of years, that they were speaking English "wrong". I think the new way is better, but I think it was kind of a jerk move to change it. > I'm not advocating initialism - it's not a word I recall ever using. But I'm not sure it's reasonable to claim that it's silly to invent new words to describe new things. I'd advocate abbreviation for an abbreviation you can't pronounce as a word, and acronym for an abbreviation you can. I didn't say it's silly to invent new words to describe new things. I'm saying that for most people, NASA and FBI are not different things. FBI is a word pronounced "effbiyaye". If people really thought of FBI and NASA as different things, then it would be easier to give them different words. On the other hand, when people hear "abbreviation", they think more like "st" for street (or saint), "dr" for doctor, and so on. FBI is more like NASA than "st" or "dr". So it makes sense to call FBI and NASA by the same word. If you personally think that making that distinction is useful, then by all means do so in your own writing. And if you think it's important for people in general to make that distinction, then go ahead and advocate for it. I'll continue to advocate against it, and people on the whole will decide. :-)
- ivanche 7y ago
  It is pronouncable as a word, just not in English. It sounds approximately like 'beh-ehm-weh'.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    I suppose something like Beh-Ehm-Dubya? Though I just learned "dubya" is Texan accent.

Jedd 7y ago

> BMW is an acronym for Bayerische Motoren Werke To reiterate, an acronym must be able to be pronounced as a word.

tyingq 7y ago
I can't find any support for that restriction on the various dictionary sites.
gwd 7y ago
Language is 1) defined by its speakers, and 2) should be practical. It's just silly to invent a new word, "initialism", to distinguish between things you pronounce as a word and things you pronounce letter-by-letter. "NASA" and "FBI" are the same type of thing in most people's heads; there's no need to have a separate, awkward word for the second thing.
- mplanchard 7y ago
  It’s not a newly invented word. Google books shows both “initialism” and “acronym” to have been in use since the 1800s. Saying we shouldn’t have more specific words because many people don’t know their meaning doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
  - gwd 7y ago
    > Saying we shouldn’t have more specific words because many people don’t know their meaning doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I didn't say it was because people didn't know their meaning; I said it was because as far as most people are concerned, they're the same thing. I know what "initialism" means, but I choose not to use it, because as far as I'm concerned "NASA" and "FBI" are fundamentally the same thing. It's a waste of brain cells to figure out when to say "acronym" vs "initialism". As an example where I think such a distinction is important, I do consistently write "MiB" when I'm talking about 2^20 bits. I only saw it the first time maybe 10 years ago, but it immediately seemed to be to be both practical and useful to make that distinction. On the other hand, I never correct or ask clarification of people who use "MB", unless the difference becomes important. (Nor do I say "mebibyte", which is the proposed pronunciation of "MiB", because it's impossible to pronounce fluently.)
  - gwd 7y ago
    Actually according to Wikipedia: > ... the first known published use of the term in English [is] from 1940 That published use is as follows [1]: > Pee-gee-enn. It's an acronym [Ger. Akronym], that's what it is. That's what they call words made up of initials. In other words, the very first recorded use we have of the word "acronym" is actually what some people insist on calling an initialism. I don't know who, afterwards, decided that "acronym" had to mean that it had to be pronouncable, or why, but I didn't vote for them. [1] https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1844 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1844
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Indeed. It is all about the produced sound. There's a format for that, but I'm not accustomed to it, so say phonetically there's "Ef Bee Eye". You could call the organization "Efbee Eye" or whatever, but why would you? "FBI" and "Feds" both work; they're both well accepted as it is.
- Jedd 7y ago
  1. I'm not 100% convinced language is, or more importantly should be, defined by the speakers -- or rather be defined indiscriminately by all speakers, regardless of their qualifications or credentials. It tends to result in a convergence of similar words, weakening the strength of language and variety of expression available for people who understand the (original) distinctions. 2. I'm an English language speaker (and writer) and you seem to be discounting my right to define language. Or just to maintain the definition of certain words because they contradict a weakened but popular & recent redefinition. 3. I'm not advocating initialism - it's not a word I recall ever using. But I'm not sure it's reasonable to claim that it's silly to invent new words to describe new things. I'd advocate abbreviation for an abbreviation you can't pronounce as a word, and acronym for an abbreviation you can.
  - gwd 7y ago
    > I'm an English language speaker (and writer) and you seem to be discounting my right to define language. Fair enough -- you have a vote; but when you "vote" for something from a minority usage point of view, you should make it clear that you are advocating for minority usage, and why. What you did instead was to assert that the "right" way to use the word was X, when in fact the initial usage was Y, and most people still use it as Y. I don't object to people thinking carefully about how a language should work and then advocating for it; that's what I do myself. Nor do I object to correcting common "minority" usages that I think are going in the wrong direction. But a lot of people advocate changes which are more "pure" but are clunky and unhelpful. For example: * Using 'they' as a singular of unknown gender; i.e., "I have an appointment with Dr. Smith; when will they be free?" English has need for such a usage; 'they' is simple and understandable; and it's been in use since the 1400s. I'm a fan. * Using "literally" as a meaningless intensifier; i,e., "My head literally exploded." I strongly object to this usage, and I will continue to object to it as long as it's practical to do so, even if I become a minority. The reason is that we already have hundreds of intensifiers, but we don't have very many ways to say, "I am not exaggerating or speaking metaphorically, this actually happened." * Switching from "negative agreement" to "double negative == positive". In French, to say you've never done something, you say "Je n'ai jamais faire rien", which literally translated would be "I not have never done nothing". But it's not called a "triple negative", it's called "agreement": if any part of the sentence is negative, the whole sentence has to have negative forms. If you go back to Henry VIII's time, that was the officially correct way to say things in English too. but at some point, some people came in and said, "Well, if we make all negatives contradict the other negative, we can say things like 'It's not nothing.'" Then educated people got rid of agreement, and started telling less educated people, who were speaking the same way English had been spoken for hundreds of years, that they were speaking English "wrong". I think the new way is better, but I think it was kind of a jerk move to change it. > I'm not advocating initialism - it's not a word I recall ever using. But I'm not sure it's reasonable to claim that it's silly to invent new words to describe new things. I'd advocate abbreviation for an abbreviation you can't pronounce as a word, and acronym for an abbreviation you can. I didn't say it's silly to invent new words to describe new things. I'm saying that for most people, NASA and FBI are not different things. FBI is a word pronounced "effbiyaye". If people really thought of FBI and NASA as different things, then it would be easier to give them different words. On the other hand, when people hear "abbreviation", they think more like "st" for street (or saint), "dr" for doctor, and so on. FBI is more like NASA than "st" or "dr". So it makes sense to call FBI and NASA by the same word. If you personally think that making that distinction is useful, then by all means do so in your own writing. And if you think it's important for people in general to make that distinction, then go ahead and advocate for it. I'll continue to advocate against it, and people on the whole will decide. :-)
ivanche 7y ago
It is pronouncable as a word, just not in English. It sounds approximately like 'beh-ehm-weh'.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  I suppose something like Beh-Ehm-Dubya? Though I just learned "dubya" is Texan accent.