5 ms·
I've never heard of that way of handling acronyms before. The site is WIRED UK. Maybe it's a UK thing? My first reaction was, "That's not how you write NASA;
by troymc 12y ago
I've never heard of that way of handling acronyms before.
The site is WIRED UK. Maybe it's a UK thing?
My first reaction was, "That's not how you write NASA; This author/editor is an idiot. How can I trust anything they've written here?" I doubt that's the reaction they want.
Now I just feel sorry for the author whose writing is forced to look weird to many readers.
Over time, maybe people will just come to recognize it as "a British thing" just like they recognize aluminium as the British spelling.
- lotsofcows 12y agoI feel sorry for USAian authors whose writing is forced to look weird to many readers...
- deciplex 12y agoYet 'USAian' looks weird everywhere.
- lotsofmangos 12y agoThat's probably down to the brightly coloured shorts.
- Crito 12y agoDoes "NASA" actually look weird to anybody? That's how NASA themselves write it... so do you Brits think that everything NASA publishes with their name on it looks weird? I say defer to however the organization in question writes it. That should surely lead to the least confusion and weirdness. It would certainly help UK news organizations with consistency: * "CARE International": http://www.theguardian.com/lend-with-care/entrepreneurs-seeking-a-hand-up http://www.theguardian.com/lend-with-care/entrepreneurs-seek... * "Care" _and_ "CARE": http://www.theguardian.com/lend-with-care/tackling-the-root-causes-of-poverty http://www.theguardian.com/lend-with-care/tackling-the-root-... * "Nasa" _and_ "NASA" (But "Ladee" rather than "LADEE"): http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/sep/07/nasa-launch-moon-probe-ladee-video http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/sep/07/nasa-la...
- lotsofmangos 12y agoYou dare accuse The Grauniad of inconsistency? (That'sh Private Eye's job. Ed) http://www.private-eye.co.uk http://www.private-eye.co.uk
- lotsofcows 12y agoIn logos I agree but in normal writing it always looks like unwanted emphasis too me. I think there's a cultural difference here, USAian papers kept up the many founts with underlining, etc thing long after it had become unfashionable in the UK. The norm is the norm - whatever you're used to. ...which is what my previous post was supposed to highlighting. Somebody took it personally :-(
- IvyMike 12y ago> people will just come to recognize it as "a British thing" When it comes to the English language, the English have a pretty valid claim.
- lotsofmangos 12y agoAluminium/aluminum is less British/American than you might think. Humphry Davy initially called it alumium, then aluminum, then it was decided by others to call it aluminium, which became the dominant spelling (which it still is, internationally). Then, just to confuse matters, Charles Martin Hall promotes it as aluminum on his marketing posters, but himself calls it aluminium on his technical documents, so some people think that the predominance of aluminum in North America may just be down to a typo. edit - Looking at the New York Times, I notice that while they write 'NASA' and 'NATO', they also tend to write 'Unicef' and 'Norad'. I wonder if they have a four letters or less capitalisation rule for acronyms.
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoWasn't it settled as aluminium to be consistent with spelling of other elements (~80 end 'ium'); selenium, rhenium, rhodium, sodium, ... In my perception, USA don't seem to care so much for consistency with others; cf use of imperial measures.