To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9469
9468  |  9470
Subject: 
Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun
Date: 
Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:14:50 GMT
Viewed: 
395 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:

And another pet hate is people who type an acronym, then write the meaning
after it! Why not just leave the acronym out altogether?

ROSCO

LMKWYT (Let Me Know Wh....Oh, poop)

Okay, if attorneys general, courts martial and Rolls Royce are plural forms,
shouldn't the plural of AFOL be AF'sOL?  Or are the rules different for
acronyms?

And speaking of acronyms, hasn't it already been argued that technically in
order to be an acronym the series of letters must form a word (usual example
being radar)?  Or do they all form new words-- it's just that some of them are
impossible to pronounce?

Maggie C.



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
 
(...) Hmm.. I've heard the phrase "so-and-so drives a Rolls," which is like saying "so-and-so drives a cars." Strange. I would argue that the plural of AFOL is AFOL, since "F" can stand for "Fans" as easily as it can for "Fan." I've often heard the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
  Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
 
(...) The point is to explain the acronym the first time you use it, then just re-use the acronym where it needs to be repeated. It's actually required by the guidelines for government writing in the UK (or was that an Official Secret? Damn, I can (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today
 
(...) Never let it be said that a Strine[1] was adverse to a little "linguistic laziness", but in this case, it actually changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Most people know what is actually meant, but it just doesn't make sense to me, when (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

85 Messages in This Thread:





























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR