Initialisms

[Mick F]

What happened to NAAFI?
Seems to have all gone now.

NAAFI stands for Navy Army Airforce Institutes. I won't say what we used to say it stood for!

[Mick F]

NORWICH
Nickers off ready when I come home!

SWALK
Sealed with a loving kiss.

[De Sisti]

I sympathise. When I were a lad, it was expected that you first wrote it out in full with the abbreviation in brackets.

That's how it should always be.

[tatanab]

I sympathise. When I were a lad, it was expected that you first wrote it out in full with the abbreviation in brackets.

That's how it should always be.

That is the case when writing technical documents, but I do not see how you could apply that here with abbreviations commonly used through fora, mobile telephony etc. Many people here would not expect to have to explain AIUI or STI. Personally I would ban all abbreviations except those explicit to cycling. Not practical at all so I WHTLWI (will have to live with it).

[Mike Sales]

I sympathise. When I were a lad, it was expected that you first wrote it out in full with the abbreviation in brackets.

That's how it should always be.

That is the case when writing technical documents, but I do not see how you could apply that here with abbreviations commonly used through fora, mobile telephony etc. Many people here would not expect to have to explain AIUI or STI. Personally I would ban all abbreviations except those explicit to cycling. Not practical at all so I WHTLWI (will have to live with it).

At least everyone reading here can search online for anything they don't understand (and want to!).

[freiston]

Posting in threads on bulletin boards, text-messaging and other social media is different to more formal or traditional written communication. It's more like conversation but without all the non-verbal stuff that helps manage conversation and clarify context, intent, etc.. In any real conversation, there are plenty of verbal cues (that would not be employed in traditional written communication) fulfilling similar functions too.

My opinion is that abbreviations commonly used on bulletin boards etc. fulfil a similar function to the verbal and non-verbal cues in face-to-face conversation and that abbreviating such phrases as "IIRC" or "YMMV" assists in this function. Such commonly used abbreviations acquire a value in online communication which is beyond that of the original phrase before it was hackneyed, so to speak.

YMMV

[JakobW]

^ +1. Also, it's not like this is some shocking new development; I've been online for nearly three decades, and netspeak wasn't a new thing when I first started using message boards etc. IOW, do u even internet?

[tatanab]

^ I had to look that one up thinking "what's the Isle of Wight got to do with it?". It is about 18 years since I first came across textspeak abbreviations on the internet, and that is a new one for me. I think in general chatter these things are ok, but if looking for an answer to a question it is probably better to write in plain English so all can understand.

[Tangled Metal]

If you can't understand the meaning of a sentence from context because of double meanings of words then internet slang initilism will probably stump you. If initialism is a problem them look it up on urban dictionary. If you can't be bothered then accept you won't understand everything online and move on. It's simple to learn the key ones and who really cares about the others.

[Tangled Metal]

There's also...

SNAFU
FUBAR
ARAB
CF also Charlie Foxtrot
CROW

[Cyril Haearn]

^ +1. Also, it's not like this is some shocking new development; I've been online for nearly three decades, and netspeak wasn't a new thing when I first started using message boards etc. IOW, do u even internet?

30 years nearly, +1
I had to do with ISOs, Internet-Shaped-Objects from 1986
Viewdata, Teletext, Minitel

[soapbox]

Thanks to everyone for the helpful replies.
And no thanks to the unhelpful ones -I think I'll just put you on 'ignore'.

[nirakaro]

No, they aren't wrong, dictionaries themselves change with popular use/acceptance in modern language, thus they are correct in changing the meaning of acronym as people adapt and accept it in common use.
This is what nirakaro was saying.

Brucey did not say the dictionaries are wrong; indeed he put the word 'wrong' in quotes. I sympathise with him regarding usage. When two words have similar but distinct meanings it reduces the power of the language for precise expression when incorrect use becomes widespread.

We'll beg to differ on that, he clearly said they were including the wrong meaning, it's not 'wrong' or wrong if it is in fact the accepted use, it has therefore changed in meaning because of popularity.

I think you're misunderstanding Brucey's use of quotes. When he writes ['wrong'] rather than [wrong], he's attributing that opinion to other people, and distancing himself from it. He doesn't think it's wrong, neither do I, neither do you. But some people do. No need to beg to differ, you're in agreement.

[Brucey]

as someone pointed out upthread, I've been on both sides of this argument at various times. Ultimately language is indeed defined by usage, but all too often there is a net loss to the language when terms are misunderstood/misused and this becomes accepted.

In extremis, if you have definitions that are highly specific and unyielding, in one particular field of use, you can end up with two languages. Arguably 'legalese' is almost a separate language, to the extent that it is mostly unintelligible to normal folk, hence campaigns for plain English etc.

Often, groups of people manipulate the language, intentionally or otherwise. However, I think that changes in use or meaning of words and phrases are more likely to become accepted forms if they add something to the language rather than take something away (*). Folk are unlikely to be in agreement about this when considering the issue in isolation, but whilst dictionaries etc might guide an individual, when it comes to an entire population, it is impossible to be entirely prescriptive about language (as the antics of the acadamie Francaise might show you).

So 'misuse' of the term acronym could be argued to add or take away from the language. It might take away in terms of precision, but it might add in that more people are likely to understand (vaguely) what acronym means than initialism, which is (like many -isms) arguably in itself an ugly and inherently unclear term. Most people would understand that if you say abbreviation rather than acronym, that the thing which you are referring to might be an initialism anyway, so in most cases there isn't any real need for the word initialism. I don't ever remember anyone using the term in conversation. Also, some of the abbreviations used today are not only not acronyms, they are also not exactly initialisms either.

What a st8 we are in, eh...?

(*) For example I think it is just daft that some folk think that derailleur ought to be replaced by derailer. This adds nothing to the language, and arguably takes away from it. A derailer is a person or thing that derails, so you are in danger of replacing the well-used, well-understood term derailleur that has a specific meaning in English with a more general, less specific term. All for what, exactly? The worst case is that someone misspells derailleur (probably along with a load of other words too) but they are unlikely to be misunderstood in most cases. On the other side, where is the benefit?

cheers

[Cyril Haearn]

Derailleur, in German 'Entgleisungsschaltung', derailment changer
What is the English term?