FPGA Central

"Richard Crowley" wrote :...
> ... Whenever I see the acronyn "PCM",
> I automatically activate my BS filter.

Correction. "PCM" is an initialism, not an acronym.
Acronyms are pronouncable (like "OPEC"), whereas
initialisms are not pronouncable (like "FBI").

"Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Richard Crowley" wrote :...
>> ... Whenever I see the acronyn "PCM",
>> I automatically activate my BS filter.
>
> Correction. "PCM" is an initialism, not an acronym.
> Acronyms are pronouncable (like "OPEC"), whereas
> initialisms are not pronouncable (like "FBI").

You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use acronym for either one.
In fact, I've never heard of the word initialism (and neither has the MS
spell-checker).

--
Jon Harris
SPAM blocker in place:
Remove 99 (but leave 7) to reply

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 06:08:46 GMT, Jon Harris wrote:

> "Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote :...
>>> ... Whenever I see the acronyn "PCM",
>>> I automatically activate my BS filter.
>>
>> Correction. "PCM" is an initialism, not an acronym.
>> Acronyms are pronouncable (like "OPEC"), whereas
>> initialisms are not pronouncable (like "FBI").
>
> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use acronym for either one.
> In fact, I've never heard of the word initialism (and neither has the MS
> spell-checker).

These are normally called TLAs (three letter abbreviations).

d

"Jon Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OV30f.4272$097.3614@trnddc01...
> "Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote :...
>>> ... Whenever I see the acronyn "PCM",
>>> I automatically activate my BS filter.
>>
>> Correction. "PCM" is an initialism, not an acronym.
>> Acronyms are pronouncable (like "OPEC"), whereas
>> initialisms are not pronouncable (like "FBI").
>
> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use acronym for either
> one. In fact, I've never heard of the word initialism (and neither has the
> MS spell-checker).
>
The muss spell-checker isn't the best authority but I can pronounce fubby
and puckem so suspect that this line of reasoning is an example of beiess.

Best of Luck - Mike

"Jon Harris" wrote ...
> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).

I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>
> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.

No good. It can't spell colour.

d

Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>
>> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>
> No good. It can't spell colour.

Huh? I get:

Main Entry: col·our
Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
chiefly British variant of COLOR
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:47 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:

> Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>>
>>> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>>> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>>
>> No good. It can't spell colour.
>
> Huh? I get:
>
> Main Entry: col·our
> Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
> chiefly British variant of COLOR

Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
understand there is an American variant, however.

Also the phonetic pronunciation is incorrect. The two vowel sounds are far
from the same.

d

Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:47 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>>>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>>>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>>>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>>>
>>>> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>>>> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>>>
>>> No good. It can't spell colour.
>>
>> Huh? I get:
>>
>> Main Entry: col·our
>> Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
>> chiefly British variant of COLOR
>
> Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
> understand there is an American variant, however.

Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your viewpoint is the
authoritative one.
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:10:56 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:

> Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:47 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>>>>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>>>>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>>>>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>>>>> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>>>>
>>>> No good. It can't spell colour.
>>>
>>> Huh? I get:
>>>
>>> Main Entry: col·our
>>> Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
>>> chiefly British variant of COLOR
>>
>> Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
>> understand there is an American variant, however.
>
> Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your viewpoint is the
> authoritative one.

Well, certainly original. I think we have to agree that a variant is that
which came after - not before.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:10:56 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:47 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>>>>>>acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>>>>>>initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>>>>>>over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>>>>>
>>>>>No good. It can't spell colour.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? I get:
>>>>
>>>>Main Entry: col·our
>>>>Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
>>>>chiefly British variant of COLOR
>>>
>>>Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
>>>understand there is an American variant, however.
>>
>>Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your viewpoint is the
>>authoritative one.
>
>
> Well, certainly original. I think we have to agree that a variant is that
> which came after - not before.

That would make ME a variant of OE, and British English a variant of ME.


>
> d

Don Pearce wrote:
>>>Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
>>>understand there is an American variant, however.
>>
>>Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your viewpoint is the
>>authoritative one.
>
>
> Well, certainly original. I think we have to agree that a variant is that
> which came after - not before.

You're on shaky ground here. In many cases the American spelling is the
original
and the Brits changed it later.


--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

"Eiron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Don Pearce wrote:

>>>> Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct
>>>> spelling. I understand there is an American variant,
>>>> however.
>>>
>>> Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your
>>> viewpoint is the authoritative one.
>>
>>
>> Well, certainly original. I think we have to agree that
>> a variant is that which came after - not before.
>
> You're on shaky ground here. In many cases the American
> spelling is the original and the Brits changed it later.

As the story goes, color is truely a variant of colour. Some
decades ago an American decided to cut the waste out of
traditional spellings of common words. Some of his ideas
like "color" made it all the way into the only accepted use
in the USA, while others like "nite" are understood by all
americans with any reasonable amount of training and IQ, but
the more wasteful spelling "night" is still acceptable and
commonly-used.

Remember that the UK is only about as big (land, population,
wealth) as two or three of the larger 50 US states, and the
relevance of their ideas about the so-called English
language sorta pops into focus. ;-)

They may own the name, but we own the market!

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:10:56 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:47 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>>>>>>acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>>>>>>initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>>>>>>over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>>>>>
>>>>>No good. It can't spell colour.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? I get:
>>>>
>>>>Main Entry: col·our
>>>>Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
>>>>chiefly British variant of COLOR
>>>
>>>Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
>>>understand there is an American variant, however.
>>
>>Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your viewpoint is the
>>authoritative one.
>
>
> Well, certainly original. I think we have to agree that a variant is that
> which came after - not before.

Both "colour" and "color" are variants. "Coloure" preceded them. The OED
shows the progression as ..., coloure, colour, color. Colour would seem
to be less highly evolved, but the British are moving in our direction.
They write "colorimeter", not "colourimeter".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>
> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.

MW has the following definition for initialism:

Main Entry: ini·tial·ism
Pronunciation: i-'ni-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
: an acronym formed from initial letters

An initialism is an acronym!

Stuart

Arny Krueger wrote:

> As the story goes, color is truely a variant of colour. Some
> decades ago an American

Noah Webster, of dictionary fame.

> decided to cut the waste out of
> traditional spellings of common words. Some of his ideas
> like "color" made it all the way into the only accepted use
> in the USA, while others like "nite" are understood by all
> americans with any reasonable amount of training and IQ, but
> the more wasteful spelling "night" is still acceptable and
> commonly-used.

For many of these, there are legal considerations. "Lite" may be heavy,
"creme" may be skim milk, "krispy" may be pliable, all without fraud.

> Remember that the UK is only about as big (land, population,
> wealth) as two or three of the larger 50 US states, ...

Two or three? Texas alone, at over a quarter million square miles, is
about the size of France or Iberia. Alaska is 2.5 times larger. Sum:
925,026 mi^2. (696,241 + 1,717,854 = 2,414,095 Km^2.) Spain, France,
Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Italy (including Sardinia), and Sweden
and and Norway (including all the fjords) have 2,608,147 among them. The
UK, at 130,478 Km^2, is between New York (126,915) and Iowa (144067).
This country, though not the biggest, is HUGE.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Stuart Welwood wrote:

...

> An initialism is an acronym! ...

but not every acronym is an initialism. Consider "multiply and
accumulate" --> MAC

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Stuart Welwood wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> An initialism is an acronym! ...
>
> but not every acronym is an initialism. Consider "multiply and
> accumulate" --> MAC

But your example *IS* both an acronym and an initialism
by the definition Mr. Welwood quoted. Other more complete
discussions make the distinction of pronouncability.

Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> "Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>
>> Stuart Welwood wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> An initialism is an acronym! ...
>>
>>
>> but not every acronym is an initialism. Consider "multiply and
>> accumulate" --> MAC
>
>
> But your example *IS* both an acronym and an initialism
> by the definition Mr. Welwood quoted. Other more complete
> discussions make the distinction of pronouncability.

Multiply And aCcumulate? Multiply and ACcumulate? Neither uses all initials.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>> "Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>
>>> Stuart Welwood wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> An initialism is an acronym! ...
>>>
>>>
>>> but not every acronym is an initialism. Consider "multiply and
>>> accumulate" --> MAC
>>
>>
>> But your example *IS* both an acronym and an initialism
>> by the definition Mr. Welwood quoted. Other more complete
>> discussions make the distinction of pronouncability.
>
> Multiply And aCcumulate? Multiply and ACcumulate? Neither uses all
> initials.


Bzzzzt! I wasn't paying attention. Yes, indeed.
An example of an acronym that is not an initialism.

Jerry Avins wrote:
...
> Both "colour" and "color" are variants. "Coloure" preceded them. The OED
> shows the progression as ..., coloure, colour, color. Colour would seem
> to be less highly evolved, but the British are moving in our direction.
> They write "colorimeter", not "colourimeter".
>
> Jerry

I can understand how you would want to think that, but of course "colorimeter"
is a composite of the Latin Color and greek Meter, such as scientists love to
make. The OED also tells us that the "ou" form in "colour" (which can be traced
back to the 14th-Century) arose from the attempt to represent the long "o" sound
of the accented second syllable of the Latin "colorem". Hence also colorization,
etc. The French still enjoy this accentuation, hence "couleur", etc.

Richard Dobson

"Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Jon Harris" wrote ...
>> You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>> acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>> initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>
> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.

Me too. My only point about the spell-checker was that initialism wasn't very
commonly used. If you look it up on M-W, you find: "an acronym formed from
initial letters"
So it doesn't appear to make the distinction between an acronym and an
initialism based on how it is pronounced.

"Jon Harris" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>> I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>> over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>
> Me too. My only point about the spell-checker was that initialism
> wasn't very commonly used. If you look it up on M-W, you find: "an
> acronym formed from initial letters"
>
> So it doesn't appear to make the distinction between an acronym and an
> initialism based on how it is pronounced.

www.m-w.com is the abridged, free version. If you want to
see the unabridged definition, you have three choices.
1) Lug that big book down from the shelf and dust it off.
2) Pay Merriam-Webster $30/year for a subscription
3) Click through a multi-page advertisment before you
get access to the unabridged dictionary lookup page.

The unabridged definition says:

"an acronym formed from initial letters ; especially : one (as RPG) that
is pronounced as separate letters"
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.co...?va=initialism