> That isn't universally accepted as part of the definition of 'acronym'. That's the general sentiment of this thread -- that it's not universally accepted. I

> That isn't universally accepted as part of the definition of 'acronym'. That's the general sentiment of this thread -- that it's not universally accepted. I'd refer to the Oxford English dictionary, but your citation from the Merriam-Webster contains what I understand is the defining feature: > "a word ..." With three examples of words (ie. pronounceable strings). The addenda of 'also: ... other things' is a bit of a cop-out. This is the distinction between a dictionary that strives to provide definition of language, versus recording popular (mis)uses.