home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!iscnvx!lange
- From: lange@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange)
- Subject: Re: Proper Use of Acronyms (was Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.212719.28951@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
- Reply-To: lange@lmsc.lockheed.com
- Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space, Sunnyvale CA USA
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
- References: <TSOS.185.722527671@uni-duesseldorf.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:27:19 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
- : In article <1992Nov19.184011.17265@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
- :
- : >I would question whether they speed up reading. The first few do. When only
- : >a few are used, they place no strain on the memory, and are easier to grasp
- : >than the long phrases they abbreviate. Who would want to have DNA spelled
- : >out all through "Double Helix"? When DDT was first used, it seemed to be
- : >a simplification. But when hundreds of initialisms are used in a single
- : >field, they become a nuisance. They slow down the reader. In the mind's
- : >ear, they must be spelled out. In the mind's eye, they must be looked up
- : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- : >in a glossary. They are not words; they are not language; they are not
- : >what people remember naturally.
- :
- : This is the crucial point. Acronyms and abbreviations are useful and
- : preferable if the reader can accept them as words; words that he/she
- : either has known before or could acquire easily while reading the pamphlet.
-
- Detlef has phrased very well what I was trying to say in earlier postings:
- Acronyms are as useful in speeding communication as any other
- symbology--only if the symbols are familiar. With that in mind,
- acronyms _are_ language, are words.
-
- How did I get myself into actually defending acronyms?!
-
- Thanks,
-
- Alex Lange
-