Abbreviations

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Catman

Short bloke with glasses.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

Oh, really?

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

O'Reilly.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

Ivan, look more carefully at the definition you quote. It says "a
**word** formed from or based on the initial letters or syllables of
other words, such as /radar/." Then look up the definition of "word".

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

I have *no* fucking idea.

The lying cun^H^H^Htwat has been in my killfile for a loooong time and
I really don't understand the apparent need that people feel to extend
his stay here.

 

Tell him that I say that he must go to a top university. Why? The
first reason is that Oxbridge terms are shorter than normal
universities (that should appeal to his laziness). Another reason is
that they're so much more aesthetically pleasing. And he'll get to
cop off with posh birds.

 

I do too, fwiw.

Because we are weak.

 

<AOL>

And his ego compels him to announce that I'm not, at every available
opportunity. Truly, truly sad and strange.

 

Yeahbut he doesn't stop for lunch halfway across.

 

Wake up there at the back ;-) I've already covered that sub-set of
abbreviations called "elisions" for which the apostrophe is customarily
used, typified by "boatswain"/"bo's'n"/"bosun". And in any case
"bosun", or rather "bo's'n" isn't made up from "the **initial letters or
syllables** of
other words" so it isn't an acronym in Chambers' definition - unless, of
course, you are talking about Boys' Own Street Urchin Neologisms. So
leave my rapidly reducing, thinning hairs alone

If you want to raise the discussion to this level then I will challenge
Chambers' definition. What came first, words or abbreviations? The
abbreviation/acronym RADAR had no meaning, as a word, before the acronym
itself was coined. So to call it a "word" begs the question. It is,
however, unarguably an abbreviation.

In a discussion like this, especially with you, I would expect a degree
of non-pedantic short-cutting to be accepted. If instead of my off-the
cuff "an acronym is a pronounceable abbreviation" I had said "an acronym
is an abbreviation other than an elision constructed from the initial
letters and/or syllables of a group of words in such a way that the
abbreviation is pronounceable as a word following the customary
conventions of the language concerned" then our erudite audience would
have fallen asleep. But such an expanded definition is surely
unnecessary, because the word "abbreviation" embraces all sub-sets of
"combinations of lexical characters that represent groups of characters
constructed from the initial letters and/or syllables of a group of
words".

An abbreviation customarily pronounced as a word other than an elision -
that is an acronym - only has meaning in relation to the group of words
from which it was constructed. Only after it is accepted by the
population that will use it can you describe it as a "word". Take, for
instance, "HIV". This **could be** described as a "word" because it
**can** be pronounced as a word, but generally speaking you don't hear
it used that way. So although a non-native user of English might be
tempted to say "hiv" when they first come across it, it isn't an acronym
because it has no meaning to 99.99999% of the rest of the community of
users of the English language who customarily spell the abbreviation out
letter by letter, and are understood by 99.999999998% of the rest of the
language community.

This is all further complicated by some illiterates in the news media
spelling acronyms like real or proper nouns! I take particular
exception to "AIDS" being spellt "Aids" or "aids" because these lexical
strings already have age-old meanings as words in their own right. I
think this is caused by these twats unquestioningly hitting the OK
button in Mr Gates's spell-checker! GRRRRRRR!!!!

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

*bzzzztt*

 

My example was an analogy for "the majority". If you can't understand
that, it's *your* language skills which are poor.

 

Means darsy's found something he admits to liking.

 

<AOL2>

It pisses me off, cos as long as other folk keep taking his bait we
get these long tedious threads. And, I really can't understand the
psychology of someone who continues to hang around somewhere he is
universally disliked.[/QUOTE]

It's like the ghost of someone who died before they'd completed something.
He thought after Bear left "normality" would resume and he'd assume his
rightful place as a useful member of the community. He simply won't accept
that people still think he's a twat. Plus, it's probably the only attention
he gets. It's still more interesting than a lot of threads in here (Sir
Tony). Anyway, you can't really call it trolling when so much time and
effort is invested.

 

1. Because you seem incapable of ignoring the history (you'd get a lot
further imo if almost every post you make didn't have some reference
to past insults be they real or imagined)

2. Because people whose opinions I value think you have a worthwhile
contribution to make. When you then churn out what comes across to me
as pique, it makes me wonder why you chose to direct your supposed
intelligence in that manner.

3. Because I don't use a kill file. So I see all your posts. In some I
see evidence of what would from any other poster be useful
contributions. But then you shoot yourself in the foot. Move on.
Really, it does no good holding onto old anger.

4. Because instead of entering a discussion you use terms like this.
See above where you say .."without explaining why"

Glad that has been acknowledged.

That wasn't what was said.

<sigh>

 

<hides mouse, turns keyboard upside down>

 

Pardon? I don't understand the question

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

If you get a chance, watch The Apprentice[1]. There is a Des in the
blokes group and even Donald Trump said in last night's episode,
"Wouldn't you agree, every-one hates you?" to him.


[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364782/

 

I've got the last couple of nights worth on the Sky+.. plan to watch
them back to back on Saturday. It's very amusing stuff.

 

Listen, ****, no-one ever stated a "certain number"; that has been
fabricated in your head.

When language is used, and its meaning is understood it *is* correct.
There's absolutely no doubt about that.

Don't like it - take it up with the OED. I've already relayed your
opinion on this to my brother, who works there. He laughed his arse
off.