 | | Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | 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: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) "radar" wasn't a word until the technology was invented. So does that mean it isn't an acronym? This is what Dictionary.com has to say about it: ----- ac·ro·nym (kr-nm) n. A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) Not a "real" word, but a word nonetheless, as opposed to a string of distinct letters. AFOL, if pronounced as a word ("I'm an AFOL") rather than spelled out ("I'm an A-F-O-L"), is an acronym by that definition. The convention was to say "WAC" (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) ACRONYM: A contrived reduction of nomenclature yielding mnemonics.... (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) As opposed to a certain really ominous subject that's inevitably christened "acrostic." Dave! (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) ACRONYM: Abbreviation by CROpping Names that Yield Meaning (24 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today)
|
|
(...) Oops, I should clarify that Rolls Royce is both the singular and the plural form. Maggie C. (who has once again sacrificed clarity for the sake of brevity) Oh yes, and I shall henceforth use AFOL as the plural of AFOL since your argument that (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) You raise an interesting etymological point--who determines the "proper" pluralization? We're all well aware of the LEGO/Legos issue; while a manufacturer may wish a certain plural form to be used, what happens if no one uses it (or if enough (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) What I had meant to say was that Rolls-Royce is the plural of Rolls-Royce (as opposed to Rolls-Royces). I can't recall where I heard/read this (probably from some snooty old guy like Edith Sedgwick's grandfather-- the one who would be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) Sure. I can see the point if you do this and you're gonna use it multiple times *within a single document* (lawyers do it all the time!), and you can even do it using a glossary. What I detest is people who use an acronym *ONCE* and follow it (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) The colloquial singular saying is "Roller"; therefore in this case one could possess many Rollers, if one was very affluent. I've never really heard anyone seriously refer to a collection of Rollers as "Rolls-Royce's"; what is perhaps more (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) I have a colleague who wrote a rather good book about the survey of India, where he specifically addressed the issue with respect to the plural of "Surveyor General." According to orthodoxy plural should be "Surveyors General," but he (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) But it's only at its best wiv a PROpper INGlish accent mate, nartymean?. (Coming to Gosport btw?) Anyway, I've got to hoover the floor... And another thing, it's "attendees" that really winds me up. It's not a word, and it's the wrong way (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff)
|
|
(...) I heard someone in outer London last month refer to it as needing to "dyson" the floor. !?! The man creates one silly innovation and suddenly he's a verb. [Re: Gosport, it looks like I'll be in the UK, but whether I can afford to get there, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
