You seem to be claiming two somewhat contradictory positions: 1. that I can not conveniently claim acronyms should be words and abbreviations are a superset t

You seem to be claiming two somewhat contradictory positions: 1. that I can not conveniently claim acronyms should be words and abbreviations are a superset that also includes non-words -- because the alleged original meaning of acronym was as a synonym for abbreviation, and 2. the initial meaning of 'literal' as something that was strictly true, but which has since moved via common usage to simply be yet another synonym for metaphorically, but you don't want it to change. FWIW I also rail against literally being used for things that aren't literal, I don't dislike 'not unlike' and similar despite Orwell's (et al) protestations, I'm happy to co-opt 'they' as a third person personal pronoun (or restructure sentences to avoid needing to uncomfortably alternate and track he and she), I vehemently defend the difference between alternate and alternative, myriad is not a collective noun (don't precede with an article, or follow with a preposition), I never use decimate as a synonym for devastate, etc. I suspect most misuses are from people who've heard or seen a word they weren't familiar with, failed to understand or research the meaning or part of speech, believe using it will imbue some much needed gravitas to their communication, and then expect the world to adopt their befuddlement. As we seem to agree, the ultimate outcome of all this is a weakened language for sophisticated users. When I need to describe an abbreviation that's pronounceable, I evidently now need to call it an abbreviation that's pronounceable. This is a retrograde step for me, despite the word 'abbreviation' already being appropriate, well known, and understood by world+dog. > On the other hand, when people hear "abbreviation", they think more like "st" for street (or saint), "dr" for doctor ... How comprehensive was the survey group behind this claim?