|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 02/16/06 00:12
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> Jim Moe wrote:
>
> > The primary difference is that an acronym is pronounced as a
> > word so it has the extra semantic "value"
That was indeed the purpose for which the term "acronym" was
originally coined. MEU2 (Fowler ed. Gowers) was in no doubt
about that. A pity that those formulating the examples in the HTML4
specification preferred not to consult respectable sources of English
usage - but, it seems, tossed in their own street usage instead.
> No. USB is also an acronym
USB is an abbreviation; and it's also an initialism, if you want a
more specific term to differentiate it from other kinds of
abbreviation.
There's been a tendency in recent decades (as indeed exemplified by
some of those examples in the HTML4 spec) to waste the term "acronym"
by applying it variously to initialisms and other kinds of
abbreviation, meaning that we soon will have no word left to mean what
the term "acronym" was originally coined to mean; instead, we'll have
three words which all mean pretty much the same thing. Which seems
rather a pity.
> and it is not pronounced as a word,
Which rules it out as an "acronym" in the respectable sense of that
term.
> Once again, acronym, by definition, is just a particular form of
> abbreviation.
Ah, but *which* particular form? Once again: an initialism is also a
particular form of abbreviation, but an initialism is not necessarily
an acronym ("radar" is - whereas, whatever nonsense the HTML4 spec
purveys at this point, "F.B.I." surely is not).
But now that the term has been so wasted, it's worthless in HTML,
since the original hope to use it as a pronunciation clue has proved
non-viable. And indeed the XHTML2 draft has evidently abandoned it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|