wow man. did you read the second definition? and the note i made about them??
why do so many people post flaming stuff without actually reading or comprehending posts???
what is going on in this world.
k. done. thanks.
edit: and, by the way, i was not - was never, never would - arguing that BTW was one or the other. not only does it not bother me whichever way people want to see it, i also do not really care. so, not sure how i got dragged into this. but, my fault for taking the bait.
I want to make sure that what we have here is not a flame war, but a fun war, And personally I hope it will continue in this spirit for awhile.
I Googled TLA, and this is what I got:
A three-letter acronym (TLA), or three-letter abbreviation, is an abbreviation consisting of three letters. These are usually the initial letters of the words of the phrase abbreviated, and are written in capital letters (upper case); three-letter abbreviations such as etc. and Mrs.
When I posted my over-the-top pedanticism, I thought it might demonstrate the Zen of some of our discussions. We sometimes get wrapped up in methods at the expense of the goals those methods are meant to assist us in achieving.
In particular, I wondered what caused the OP to complain about ‘BTW’
And with less focus: what is a succinct statement of the goal of audophilia?
And, BTW, a thought about the subject of our discussion: Abbreviations exemplify Lossy Compression.
Regards in Good Humor to all the thoughtful participants in this thread.
[Acronym or Abbreviations or Initialisms]: I found a great addition to our discussion, which, if there is any interest in one more posting on this Off-Topic topic, I will attempt to transcribe and transmit here. The author is a current lexicographer with real standing in the community of grammar nazis, plus a good sense of humor. He is the editor of an authoritative dictionary, a text on American Usage, and co-author of a book with the late Antonin Scalia.
Anybody interested, or should I just fuggetaboutit?
I believe our present controversy rises to the level of the debate about whether one space or two goes between the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next.
One or two people were curious about my references to Bryan Garner, For those not familiar with him, here’s, a link to Wikipedia’s biographical article.
“For my part, though I do not always agree with Mr. Garner or take his advice, I always take care to consult him, knowing that he is informed but not dogmatic.”
I have attempted to embed images of two short quotes from my copy of Garner’s Modern American Usage,2nd Editionin the body of this post. I have no idea if it will work. I have also attempted to attach 2 images of the full GMAU entry from which the quotes are taken (“ABBREVIATIONS. A. Acronyms and Initialisms.”). Let me know if it didn’t work and I’ll try Plan B.
More information (Thank you Amazon):
Garner’s Modern American Usage 2nd Edition
The first edition of Garner’s Modern American Usage established Bryan Garner as “an American equivalent of Fowler” (Library Journal)….this witty, accessible, and engaging book has become the new classic reference work praised by professional copyeditors as well as the general public looking for clear advice on how to write more effectively….thousands of succinct entries, longer essays on key issues and problematic areas, and up-to-the-minute judgments on everything from trendy words to the debate over personal pronouns, GMAU is approachable yet authoritative.
…The second edition includes hundreds of new entries ranging from Dubya to weaponize (coined in 1984 but used extensively since 9/11) to foot-and-mouth, plethora (a “highfalutin equivalent of too many”), Slang, Standard English, and Dialects. It also updates hundreds of existing entries. Meanwhile, Garner has written a major essay on the great grammar debate between descriptivists and prescriptivists. Painstakingly researched with copious citations from books and newspapers and newsmagazines, this new edition furthers Garner’s mission to help everyone become a better writer, and to enjoy it in the process.
Garner has been an active participant—one might say provocateur—in the judicial citation wars (hot, heavy, and as yet unresolved):
In books, articles, and lectures, Garner has tried to reform the way bibliographic references are “interlarded” (interwoven) in the midst of textual analysis…. He opposes references such as “457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 2521, 89 L.Ed.2d 744, 747” as interruptions in the middle of a line. However, such interruptions in judges’ opinions and in lawyers’ briefs have remained the norm. Some courts and advocates around the country have begun adopting Garner’s recommended style of footnoted citations, and a surprising degree of internal strife has resulted within some organizations. For example, one appellate judge in Louisiana refused to join in a colleague’s opinions written in the new format [quote is edited for readability; references and links are omitted].
I hope this all worked, and that someone will enjoy it. I think Garner takes all sides of our discussion, including the original complaint about ‘BTW’