5 ms·

I freaking hate prescriptive linguistics. The people who love to prescribe are so often prescribing incorrectly. I couldn't get past the first one in this artic

I freaking hate prescriptive linguistics. The people who love to prescribe are so often prescribing incorrectly. I couldn't get past the first one in this article: > Acronym: this is a word, like radar or NATO, not a set of initials, like the BBC or the IMF. Wikipedia: > In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a word (such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words (such as SOund Navigation And Ranging). The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known. The term acronym is widely used to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters. First off, the word was created by a corporation; secondly, the term is widely used and understood to apply to words like "BBC" ("Three Letter Acronym"); thirdly, the "correct" alternative is not widely used or understood. So if you use the correct terms your communication would actually be less clear, which is, as I understand, the point of studying grammar/linguistics in the first place. For more on this exciting subject, see David Foster Wallace's excellent "Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage": http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html

vollmond 17y ago
And on top of that, how is NATO not a set of initials? Doesn't it stand for North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
- smanek 17y ago
  'NATO' and 'SCUBA' are pronounceable. The Economist contends that'BBC' and 'IMF' aren't acronyms since you can't pronounce the words they form (you just sound out the letters).
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - sounddust 17y ago
    It seems that they have never actually followed their own advice, however. Search for initialism at economist.com: 0 results (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+initialism http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+initiali...) the acronym for CCTV has become an oft-used pejorative (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13707736 http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_i...) Institute of National Remembrance (IPN, in its Polish acronym) (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11529044 http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story...) etc., etc...
    - Xichekolas 17y ago
      I was thinking the same thing. One of the rules is that 'agreed' goes with 'on', 'to', or 'about'. But the Economist is the only place I can think of where I have seen something like: "Only after a short truce was agreed were the envoys..." http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7843331 http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.c... "A peace pact of sorts was agreed just days before the auction..." http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12267585 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?stor...
smanek 17y ago
Yeah ... I don't know how I feel about it either. I like to imagine that I have a pretty good grasp of English - but I'm pretty sure I violate about half those rules on a regular basis. In any case, it's informative to see the style guide of one of the best periodicals in existence. Also, there are some really hilarious jokes hidden in there if you're into easter eggs ;-)
sounddust 17y ago
Agreed; there are some people who cannot grasp the concept of evolving language, often forgetting that much of the language we use today was considered "incorrect" as recently as ten years ago. The irony of this prescription is that many of the writers whom we consider the most influential and talented are often those who do not constrain themselves to these rules (and in doing so, often develop new phrases and structures that become part of regular language). Some of the advice given in this article is simply wrong. As an alternative to this article, I'd suggest Paul Brians' site, (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html) which points out legitimate errors while recognizing trends and usages which have become acceptable.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  The problem is that for every evolving "rule", you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) the clarity of the message. Ergo a language with loose rules is a language with loose communication capability. (Of course this is arguable too, since a language that is too rigid is unable to adapt to a fast changing world.) English is the start-up of the language world, apparently. :-)
  - Zancarius 17y ago
    > The problem is that for every evolving "rule", > you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) > the clarity of the message. -- I respectfully disagree. If we refused to accept colloquial usage of a word as valid, we would actually be reducing meaning therein. Would you advocate using archaic definitions of common words from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? How about we maintain this purported clarity by reverting to Middle English? I used to be anal toward the definition of words until I got a little older. Then I realized that, over time, language does indeed evolve. Here's a good example for you. "The web." If we didn't accept the "evolved" definition of this word as a synonym for "the Internet," then the statement "Catch Hacker News on the web!" would be nonsensical. You can be a purist to a degree, but to declare that such an approach improves clarity is a bit... misguided. :) (I'll grant that you did suggest it has the "potential to," but I want to assist in preventing others from making broad generalizations against the evolution of language, so this isn't necessarily directed to you.)
tallanvor 17y ago
To be fair, this is their style guide, and the editors can choose the rules they want for word usage in their magazine, and they are generally done so to help make sure their writers use a consistent style.
- hschenker 17y ago
  Very good point. I was about to jump into the prescriptivist-bashing fray - in fact, I upvoted subwindow's comment, and I can't take it back, since I don't have enough karma - until I took a look at the heading of the "article" and realized that it was in fact part of the Economist's style guide. It's clearly not meant to be accurate reflection of any up-to-date dictionary - look up pretty much any word in its list at www.m-w.com (e.g. "collapse" IS acceptable as a transitive verb) and you'll see they're way behind the times as far as common usage goes. Let them maintain their backward-looking editorial standards if they wish to do so for consistency's sake, and leave them be.
  - baddox 17y ago
    It may be their internal style guide, which is fine for them to have, but the submission title is still bogus.
run4yourlives 17y ago
>this is a word, Did you miss that part? Radar is said ray-dar, not r-a-d-a-r. Same goes with NATO, Scuba, etc etc. BBC on the other hand, is not pronounced bibibc. It's said b-b-c. Basically, most dictionaries require an acronym be a word itself, otherwise it's an abbreviation. You're correct though that this is not universal.
- WilliamLP 17y ago
  Okay so is 'SQL' an acronym? :) Also is "TLA" an acronym, or do its initials just lie?
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Technically, no. (I've never understood how anyone got sequel from S-Q-L.) And TLA is more correctly Three Letter Abbreviation. :-) But like I said, I know there is no hard and fast rule. Acronym has had its meaning changed through popular use, and there isn't much to harp about there. It's as futile as pointing out that "begging the question" is used incorrectly 99% of the time. For a style guide though, there's nothing wrong with insisting on a particular definition.
    - joeyo 17y ago
      > Technically, no. (I've never understood how anyone got > sequel from S-Q-L.) Sequel is quicker to pronounce than es-cue-ell, so it's very attractive for that reason. For similar reasons, I generally pronounce /etc as 'etsy'.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      The first version was called SEQUEL.
    - davidmathers 17y ago
      I've never understood how anyone got sequel from S-Q-L. They didn't. They got SQL from SEQUEL (Structured English Query Language). After the name was changed from SEQUEL to SQL people just kept saying "sequel" since it's easier to say than "s-q-l".
Zancarius 17y ago
> I freaking hate prescriptive linguistics. I tend toward being a little picky about grammar, but this particular style guide is a bit ridiculous. So, I have to agree. Here's one that strikes me as odd: > Demographics: no, the word is demography. Seems to me that demographics is commonly accepted as a valid study. The Economist claims this is a guide to "common solecisms." I wonder if their claim to solecisms is a solecism itself? > a nonstandard or ungrammatical usage, as "unflammable" and "they was." In their defense, they do highlight several words that are pet peeves of mine (among/between). Though, to outright claim that others are outright nonstandard or incorrect is a bit misleading.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  demographic is an adjective, like financial. True, people say financials when they mean financial (statement)s, but I share the Economist's dislike of this linguistic slop. Consider also that the written word still enjoys somewhat higher esteem in Britain, where the Economist is published; it is by no means uncommon to find corpses in the gutter of London's Fleet Street in the early dawn, driven to suicide by the shame of a misplaced apostrophe.
jongraehl 17y ago
Sure, but words mean things. I can't see the harm in knowing the most appropriate word for my meaning, even if most everyone is oblivious to the preference. There are items I find questionable too ("Brokerage is what a stockbroking firm does, not what it is."), but most of it is good. "Cassandra's predictions were correct but not believed." "Beg the question means neither raise the question, invite the question nor evade the answer. To beg the question is to adopt an argument whose conclusion depends upon assuming the truth of the very conclusion the argument is designed to produce." "Crescendo. This is not an acme, apogee, peak, summit or zenith but a passage of increasing loudness. You cannot therefore build to a crescendo." Yes!
hyperbovine 17y ago
I agree. That said, "performant" is not, has never been, and will never be a word. (This is not directed at you, parent poster, but I see that .. group of letters .. crop up all the time in HN stories and comments)
- IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
  That said, "performant" is not, has never been, and will never be a word. Well, it's certainly Not A Duck. It's pronounceable, it has a widely accepted spelling and definition… Seems like a word to me. Time to get over it, I think.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Mind, it might be an annoying, ugly, overlong, or otherwise undesirable word. I have a vendetta against "utilize", myself.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    'blint' is pronounceable but doesn't actually mean anything. The same is true of my username, for that matter. 'Performant' doesn't have any etymological basis, nor does it fill any real need; such words only serve to highlight their employers' lack of vocabulary. Children make up such portmanteau words on a regular basis, but this is generally the result of ignorance rather than originality and is generally curable with the help of a dictionary and thesaurus. English has such a massive vocabulary that if you need a new word and you're not writing a fantasy/sci-fi novel, then it probably means that you weren't paying attention.
  - arebop 17y ago
    Does it mean "fast" or "efficient" or something else? Both those words are shorter and more widely understood.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - IsaacSchlueter 17y ago

vollmond 17y ago

And on top of that, how is NATO not a set of initials? Doesn't it stand for North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

smanek 17y ago
'NATO' and 'SCUBA' are pronounceable. The Economist contends that'BBC' and 'IMF' aren't acronyms since you can't pronounce the words they form (you just sound out the letters).
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- sounddust 17y ago
  It seems that they have never actually followed their own advice, however. Search for initialism at economist.com: 0 results (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+initialism http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+initiali...) the acronym for CCTV has become an oft-used pejorative (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13707736 http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_i...) Institute of National Remembrance (IPN, in its Polish acronym) (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11529044 http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story...) etc., etc...
  - Xichekolas 17y ago
    I was thinking the same thing. One of the rules is that 'agreed' goes with 'on', 'to', or 'about'. But the Economist is the only place I can think of where I have seen something like: "Only after a short truce was agreed were the envoys..." http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7843331 http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.c... "A peace pact of sorts was agreed just days before the auction..." http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12267585 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?stor...

smanek 17y ago

Yeah ... I don't know how I feel about it either. I like to imagine that I have a pretty good grasp of English - but I'm pretty sure I violate about half those rules on a regular basis. In any case, it's informative to see the style guide of one of the best periodicals in existence. Also, there are some really hilarious jokes hidden in there if you're into easter eggs ;-)

sounddust 17y ago

Agreed; there are some people who cannot grasp the concept of evolving language, often forgetting that much of the language we use today was considered "incorrect" as recently as ten years ago. The irony of this prescription is that many of the writers whom we consider the most influential and talented are often those who do not constrain themselves to these rules (and in doing so, often develop new phrases and structures that become part of regular language). Some of the advice given in this article is simply wrong. As an alternative to this article, I'd suggest Paul Brians' site, (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html) which points out legitimate errors while recognizing trends and usages which have become acceptable.

run4yourlives 17y ago
The problem is that for every evolving "rule", you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) the clarity of the message. Ergo a language with loose rules is a language with loose communication capability. (Of course this is arguable too, since a language that is too rigid is unable to adapt to a fast changing world.) English is the start-up of the language world, apparently. :-)
- Zancarius 17y ago
  > The problem is that for every evolving "rule", > you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) > the clarity of the message. -- I respectfully disagree. If we refused to accept colloquial usage of a word as valid, we would actually be reducing meaning therein. Would you advocate using archaic definitions of common words from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? How about we maintain this purported clarity by reverting to Middle English? I used to be anal toward the definition of words until I got a little older. Then I realized that, over time, language does indeed evolve. Here's a good example for you. "The web." If we didn't accept the "evolved" definition of this word as a synonym for "the Internet," then the statement "Catch Hacker News on the web!" would be nonsensical. You can be a purist to a degree, but to declare that such an approach improves clarity is a bit... misguided. :) (I'll grant that you did suggest it has the "potential to," but I want to assist in preventing others from making broad generalizations against the evolution of language, so this isn't necessarily directed to you.)

tallanvor 17y ago

To be fair, this is their style guide, and the editors can choose the rules they want for word usage in their magazine, and they are generally done so to help make sure their writers use a consistent style.

hschenker 17y ago
Very good point. I was about to jump into the prescriptivist-bashing fray - in fact, I upvoted subwindow's comment, and I can't take it back, since I don't have enough karma - until I took a look at the heading of the "article" and realized that it was in fact part of the Economist's style guide. It's clearly not meant to be accurate reflection of any up-to-date dictionary - look up pretty much any word in its list at www.m-w.com (e.g. "collapse" IS acceptable as a transitive verb) and you'll see they're way behind the times as far as common usage goes. Let them maintain their backward-looking editorial standards if they wish to do so for consistency's sake, and leave them be.
- baddox 17y ago
  It may be their internal style guide, which is fine for them to have, but the submission title is still bogus.

run4yourlives 17y ago

>this is a word, Did you miss that part? Radar is said ray-dar, not r-a-d-a-r. Same goes with NATO, Scuba, etc etc. BBC on the other hand, is not pronounced bibibc. It's said b-b-c. Basically, most dictionaries require an acronym be a word itself, otherwise it's an abbreviation. You're correct though that this is not universal.

WilliamLP 17y ago
Okay so is 'SQL' an acronym? :) Also is "TLA" an acronym, or do its initials just lie?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Technically, no. (I've never understood how anyone got sequel from S-Q-L.) And TLA is more correctly Three Letter Abbreviation. :-) But like I said, I know there is no hard and fast rule. Acronym has had its meaning changed through popular use, and there isn't much to harp about there. It's as futile as pointing out that "begging the question" is used incorrectly 99% of the time. For a style guide though, there's nothing wrong with insisting on a particular definition.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    > Technically, no. (I've never understood how anyone got > sequel from S-Q-L.) Sequel is quicker to pronounce than es-cue-ell, so it's very attractive for that reason. For similar reasons, I generally pronounce /etc as 'etsy'.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    The first version was called SEQUEL.
  - davidmathers 17y ago
    I've never understood how anyone got sequel from S-Q-L. They didn't. They got SQL from SEQUEL (Structured English Query Language). After the name was changed from SEQUEL to SQL people just kept saying "sequel" since it's easier to say than "s-q-l".

Zancarius 17y ago

> I freaking hate prescriptive linguistics. I tend toward being a little picky about grammar, but this particular style guide is a bit ridiculous. So, I have to agree. Here's one that strikes me as odd: > Demographics: no, the word is demography. Seems to me that demographics is commonly accepted as a valid study. The Economist claims this is a guide to "common solecisms." I wonder if their claim to solecisms is a solecism itself? > a nonstandard or ungrammatical usage, as "unflammable" and "they was." In their defense, they do highlight several words that are pet peeves of mine (among/between). Though, to outright claim that others are outright nonstandard or incorrect is a bit misleading.

anigbrowl 17y ago
demographic is an adjective, like financial. True, people say financials when they mean financial (statement)s, but I share the Economist's dislike of this linguistic slop. Consider also that the written word still enjoys somewhat higher esteem in Britain, where the Economist is published; it is by no means uncommon to find corpses in the gutter of London's Fleet Street in the early dawn, driven to suicide by the shame of a misplaced apostrophe.

jongraehl 17y ago

Sure, but words mean things. I can't see the harm in knowing the most appropriate word for my meaning, even if most everyone is oblivious to the preference. There are items I find questionable too ("Brokerage is what a stockbroking firm does, not what it is."), but most of it is good. "Cassandra's predictions were correct but not believed." "Beg the question means neither raise the question, invite the question nor evade the answer. To beg the question is to adopt an argument whose conclusion depends upon assuming the truth of the very conclusion the argument is designed to produce." "Crescendo. This is not an acme, apogee, peak, summit or zenith but a passage of increasing loudness. You cannot therefore build to a crescendo." Yes!

hyperbovine 17y ago

I agree. That said, "performant" is not, has never been, and will never be a word. (This is not directed at you, parent poster, but I see that .. group of letters .. crop up all the time in HN stories and comments)

IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
That said, "performant" is not, has never been, and will never be a word. Well, it's certainly Not A Duck. It's pronounceable, it has a widely accepted spelling and definition… Seems like a word to me. Time to get over it, I think.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Mind, it might be an annoying, ugly, overlong, or otherwise undesirable word. I have a vendetta against "utilize", myself.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  'blint' is pronounceable but doesn't actually mean anything. The same is true of my username, for that matter. 'Performant' doesn't have any etymological basis, nor does it fill any real need; such words only serve to highlight their employers' lack of vocabulary. Children make up such portmanteau words on a regular basis, but this is generally the result of ignorance rather than originality and is generally curable with the help of a dictionary and thesaurus. English has such a massive vocabulary that if you need a new word and you're not writing a fantasy/sci-fi novel, then it probably means that you weren't paying attention.
- arebop 17y ago
  Does it mean "fast" or "efficient" or something else? Both those words are shorter and more widely understood.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - IsaacSchlueter 17y ago