# The Use of Abbreviations and Acronyms



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

This thread is started at the suggestion of Baron. 

Early on my first writing teachers, my grandfather and two local newspaper editors, taught me some rules about the use of abbreviations and acronyms. The basic rule is, when in doubt spell it out. Thus if you are unsure whether all, or nearly all, of your readers will understand the abbreviation or acronym, spell it out. 

Clarification, often requiring repetition, is preferable to misunderstanding. That is the same rule which, my teachers explained, applies to the use of names rather than pronouns. 

Many abbreviations can have two or more meanings. Thus co. can be county or company or country, and st. can be saint or street. Almost always context will make the meaning clear, but in those few instances in which there is the possibility of misunderstanding, the abbreviation should be avoided.

With acronyms, an explanation needs to be provided the first time the acronym is used. Thus on first reference, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries should be spelt out, followed by its common acronym, MAF, in parentheses. Then on second reference only the acronym need be used. If the Ministry is only mentioned once, then there is no need for the acronym. Internal documents intended only for people in the Ministry may dispense with the full spelling-out of the name in the first reference. Thus context and knowing for whom you are writing helps decide how and when to use abbreviations and acronyms.

We write to communicate. When what we write fails to make clear to the reader our intent, then we have failed as writers. The careless use of abbreviations and acronyms can cause misunderstanding and confusion. 

The use of an acronym in another board created confusion in my mind. A link provided by The Backward Ox (xO) told me the words represented by the acronym, but did nothing to explain its meaning or intended use. 

Apparently the acronym, judging by its component words and further research, is one that is used in the abbreviated text of the social network circle. Such text appears incomprehensible to the uninitiated. My stumbling efforts to understand how the acronym fit the discussion led to the observation that I'd gone off the rails and I should start a new thread here to discuss the issue.

When translated with the aid of sites devoted to explaining such acronyms, many of the messages on the social network appear to be on a Dick and Jane level. This raises the question of whether the steady, long-term, use of such textual compression can lead to the loss of a person's ability to understand and express complex ideas. But that is another question for another thread on another day.

The question also is whether we who profess to be writers should use such techniques as a substitute for writing when we are outside the confines of the social network and texting. 

We also might ask what this all means for the future development of language. A  translator some way down the road may render the _Iliad_ in two pages of acronyms.


----------



## Sam (Apr 17, 2011)

A recent novel of mine had so many acronyms that I decided to have a page at the beginning just as a reference for people to flick back to if they forgot what DHS or FEMA stood for. Of course, I used your method of spelling it out the first time and then having the acronym from then on, Garza. People tend to forget, though, when there are over thirty of them in a book. 

(Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for the uninitiated).


----------



## JosephB (Apr 17, 2011)

garza said:


> With acronyms, an explanation needs to be provided the first time the acronym is used. Thus on first reference, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries should be spelt out, followed by its common acronym, MAF, in parentheses.



I work on and write a lot marketing materials for technology companies -- so lots of acronyms. This is the convention I've always seen and follow. Organizations and companies -- especially technical people -- tend to talk to themselves and throw around acronyms assuming everyone knows what they mean. I'm always stopping clients mid-sentence or responding to an email -- asking what the heck some acronym means.

Otherwise, if I come across an acronym in an online conversation, and I don't know what it means, I Google it and have my answer in about 5 seconds. I've never seen it as any sort of problem.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

That's the same system that's used in papers prepared for government or for NGOs, (non-governmental organisations).

You know, now I think on it, we are all suspicious of the motives of many of the NGOs that operate in developing countries. Some of the environmental protection groups are suspected of being funded by big oil. One charitable organisation that operated in Belize for a number of years turned out to be running guns to nations south of us and trading the guns for drugs. What if one of the NGOs, or a combination of two or three, were bent on taking over all the resources that lie outside the physical boundaries of developed countries? Might be a good story, or has it already been done?


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

If you google for acronyms that stand for technical terms, government agencies, NGOs, and the like, there is no problem. 

My problem started when I googled for lmfao and got a page full of references to a band. Then xO gave me a link. That took me to a page that told me what the words are, but that didn't help. The words do not appear to have any relationship with the subject of the thread. It was, and is, as meaningless as ever.

Edit - Apologise for double post.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 17, 2011)

I don't know what to tell you, Garza. 90% of people who use the internet know what lmfao means -- so people use it freely without feeling that it needs to explained. I'm sure the first time I came across it, however many years ago, I either Googled it or asked someone what it meant. This is how we learn new things.

 Otherwise, when a word, phrase or acronym falls into common usage, and if there is some question, the onus to find clarification is on the person who doesn’t know the meaning – not the person who is using it.


----------



## Candra H (Apr 17, 2011)

Seconded about internet/text speak/abbreviations/accronyms/etc. Abbreviations might not be immediately recognisable but it's not that difficult for an enquiring mind to do some searching and dot joining to figure things out. I never used to know what lol or lmfao meant but I hunted down translations through Google and now I do. It's not that big of a deal, right?


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

Okay Okay Okay. This was the first time I've seen lmfao. I don't twit. I don't face. I don't text. I don't hang out in any other forum, and if I've seen it here I don't remember. I found out what the five words are early this morning. They mean nothing in the context of the thread where they appeared. It is a phrase that everyone says 'oh everyone knows what that means' but no one has been able or willing to explain what it means. Thus I can only assume it is a nonsense phrase that has no meaning. So forget it. If it's meaningless it's not important.


----------



## starseed (Apr 17, 2011)

I means that whoever wrote it is "laughing their ass off" ("*L*aughing *M*y *F*-ing *A*ss *O*ff) at something funny in the thread..... I don't get what's so confusing? Has no one ever really "been willing" to explain it to you? If so, that is funny... and odd. :???:

Good post about abbreviations and acronyms in writing... I don't really like to do it much myself. I can't even think of a time I would have used an acronym in my writing, but there may have been one here or there. I'll pay attention to it from now on just to see.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

There was nothing funny in the thread. That's what's confusing. I found the words early on. They are meaningless in context. That's what I had wanted to have explained, how they can mean something in a context in which there is nothing to laugh at. I'm no longer interested. I spent most of the morning researching case law in Mississippi regarding day for day sentencing to help a young pre-law student at the University of Mississippi. I have membership in sites he cannot access over the weekend, and managed to find five judgements from the Mississippi Supreme Court that he can use. _That is what the Internet is for._


----------



## starseed (Apr 17, 2011)

Well, perhaps it was funny in their head. 

Although, now that I think about I have met people who completely abused these acronyms such as "LOL"...putting "LOL" after every sentence for no reason when the subject matter isn't even particularly funny. It's almost like some sort of weird online tick... the way one might use the word "um" or "like" to fill space between the gaps of their speech. 

What's the worst is people who actually use acronyms when speaking out loud. Such as actually saying "L-O-L" instead of laughing. And yes I've actually known people in real life who did this. It bothers me so much!

Something else that annoys me is when people say something something.com or .net. Like "She is so totally stuckup.com" or "This place is sucky.org". It's just.... ewwww. It might have been funny once, for like one second, but some chick on TV the other day was doing it so much.... like every other sentence. 

The internet is completely re-writing human life as we know it.


----------



## Custard (Apr 17, 2011)

Well its also to discover what we dont know, including acronyms. Also its to connect people as proven by all the people on this forum. 

Edit- Over using acronyms where they are not needed is obviously over the top and using these in real life just absurd.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 17, 2011)

garza said:


> _That is what the Internet is for._


 
lmfao


----------



## starseed (Apr 17, 2011)

Me too. Literally.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Apr 17, 2011)

Interesting thread...

I was about to post a short story which requires the use of an acronym in the first paragraph, though it isn't used again afterwards. I have used the acronym and NOT the full title as it is a mouthful and interrupts the flow of the narrative. I have added an asterisk after the acronym and included the full meaning in small print at the end of the story, like a footnote / endnote would be used in academic work. I had my doubts about this when I started the piece, and am equally uncertain now. Any advice?

Thanks

Scott.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

The endnote would, I should think, be appropriate, provided the full name is important to the story. If you need for the reader to understand the meaning before reading the story, you might do as several science fiction writers have done and create a 'dictionary' reference to go at the top of the story. The fictioners would be better placed, however, to say whether that would be an aid or a distraction. Perhaps Sam W is listening.

The thought has occurred to me that there may be a disconnect between my use of the Internet and other people's use.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Apr 17, 2011)

Thanks for your prompt reply Garza. I've just posted the story, and have stuck with the endnote. I may put it at the top if I decide to submit it anywhere.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 17, 2011)

starseed said:


> Me too. Literally.



Go and look up 'literally', I very much doubt it starseed.

garza:- I am not against the principles here but I would pick some nits about their expression if you don't mind.

"With acronyms, an explanation needs to be provided the first time the acronym is used. Thus on first reference, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries should be spelt out, followed by its common acronym, MAF, in parentheses. Then on second reference only the acronym need be used."

Please consider 

"An acronym should be explained in the following form the first time it is used; give the full name  followed by the acronym in parentheses. Thus, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is written 'Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, (MAF)' initially and MAF thereafter.

I have described the process and given the example, repetition leads to learning, it is simpler and gentler language, compare, 'an explanation needs to be provided' with 'should be explained'. This makes it more acceptable to the reader. There is a tendency to phrase things in an 'official' or 'bombastic' sort of way when we think things important and this is often counter-productive. 

I think the on line community when it uses these things is not necessarily failing in the way you imply garza. Language serves more purpose than the communication of conceptually discreet pieces of information. I would see it more in terms of 'banter'. That is, mutual reassurance within the group by the exchange of shared concepts expressed in the same, repeated, small word groups. Thus continuous LOLs do not mean that the writer literally laughed aloud but are a reassurance that the communication is meant in good humour, quite useful when there is no intonation or emphasis in conversation.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 17, 2011)

Having perhaps established now that the emoto-abrievo-acro-iconograph "lmfao" has more in common with things of the sort :thumbr: than with those of the sort OoOUI (Office of Official Usuage Internetae) let me say that my reading of it in the thread referenced above was one of support for the immediatly preceeding post, nuanced by a recognition of an absurd hilarity inherent in the thread topic itself. An understanding not vastly different perhaps than what a comment such as "%$#@*&^!!!" might have evoked but certainly enriched by an understanding of the usages of "lmfao," wherein the deduced support is considerably more directly implied.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

Bilston Blue - I'll read your story shortly and offer some comments. Just remember that as a critic of fiction, I'm only a reader, not a writer.

Olly - Either way would work. Your version is more colloquial and with the repetition very well might make the point better with people who are not professionals. I'm accustomed to using terms such as 'first reference' and 'second reference' along with what you term a 'bombastic' style in talking with editors and other reporters, as well as in the production of reports for government or NGOs. It's how I was talked to as a youngster, standing before the editor of the daily as he slapped the top of his desk in time to such daily lessons as 'precision is essential' before sending me to find an empty desk where i could rewrite my story.  

Some of my language may even be unfamiliar for many, who might think 'second reference' might mean the same as 'second time'. When your version says 'thereafter' it makes clear that the acronym can be used alone on all subsequent mentions.  

There's little or no banter in anything I've ever written, and very often when I see it, even written in a proper language, I fail to get the point. Banter is for Friday night over a stout in the local. While I'm writing I've no time for it. My 'for sale' writing is more colloquial, more like your example, but 'banter' in writing is, like fiction, beyond me. If anything I write is found to be amusing, it's probably an accident.

Thus it occurs to me that not only is there a disconnect between the way I use the Internet and the way other people use the Internet, there is also a disconnect between my writing on the Internet and the way other people write. Perhaps I believe I'm still filing copy with some grumpy wire service editor in New York. In my day they all had hemorrhoids, ulcers, and bad breath, but they were professionals who knew how to get the best out of every writer, staff or stringer.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

ppsage - As I said, anything funny in what I write is an accident, so if you find this thread topic amusing I am happy to have entertained you.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 17, 2011)

> We write to communicate. When what we write fails to make clear to the reader our intent, then we have failed as writers.


Now I am not saying that you fail to communicate by using that sort of language, but with many readers there will be a sort of mental block. It's like when the police "Issue a statement reiterating their advice to youngsters to drink responsibly". Teenage pissheads will take no notice, the words have meaning and it is clearly the intended meaning, but communication is not taking place. You are not at that extreme, but you could communicate better.

The 'bombastic' bit comes from stating things as absolutes, even if something is verifiably true it is more acceptable to most readers if it is qualified "It is considered good practice to", "To the best of my knowledge", that sort of thing. It's part of the crafty bit.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 17, 2011)

ppsage said:


> Having perhaps established now that the emoto-abrievo-acro-iconograph "lmfao" has more in common with things of the sort :thumbr: than with those of the sort OoOUI (Office of Official Usuage Internetae) let me say that my reading of it in the thread referenced above was one of support for the immediatly preceeding post, nuanced by a recognition of an absurd hilarity inherent in the thread topic itself. An understanding not vastly different perhaps than what a comment such as "%$#@*&^!!!" might have evoked but certainly enriched by an understanding of the usages of "lmfao," wherein the deduced support is considerably more directly implied.


 
(should have written, _in the OP._ The thread which engendered this discussion. Not this thread. No decision here yet, about entertainment. Sorry to be imprecise.  )


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

ppsage - That explains it. Thanks for the clarification. 

Olly - All I can say is, for over 50 years I sold all I could write and lived comfortably - continue to live comfortably - on the proceeds.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 17, 2011)

Also I misspelled _interneteae_. Sorry again.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2011)

Dat'l teach youse to tro dem big woids aroun'.


----------



## The Backward OX (Apr 17, 2011)

starseed said:


> Well, perhaps it was funny in their head.
> 
> Although, now that I think about I have met people who completely abused these acronyms such as "LOL"...putting "LOL" after every sentence for no reason when the subject matter isn't even particularly funny. It's almost like some sort of weird online tick... the way one might use the word "um" or "like" to fill space between the gaps of their speech.
> 
> ...


 
It's all nearly as bad as using 'like' unnecessarily.


----------



## The Backward OX (Apr 17, 2011)

garza said:


> There's little or no banter in anything I've ever written, and very often when I see it, even written in a proper language, I fail to get the point.


 
Often there's little or no _sense_ in what you've written either. :-\" :wink: \\/


----------



## The Backward OX (Apr 17, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> Thus continuous LOLs do not mean that the writer literally laughed aloud


Really? And all this time here's me believing they were. Seriously. Takes all types, I guess.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Apr 18, 2011)

garza said:


> I don't twit. I don't face.



What is these I don't even...

Nah, I kid. X\'D

Oh, and it's "tweet," not "twit," or at least that's how the website creators put it. "Twit" is more like a slang term for "idiot." (Wikipedia told me this one. Reference is here.)

As for "face," now that's something new to hear, though I get what you're trying to say, this as a reference to Facebook. I'm not exactly a social media expert, but I've never heard a single person say, "Oh, I've 'faced' for a couple of hours..."


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 18, 2011)

> All I can say is, for over 50 years I sold all I could write and lived comfortably - continue to live comfortably - on the proceeds.


You wrote in a particular way for a particular market, that you were successful at it may validate your writing, it does not invalidate other sorts of writing.
People do things for reasons, that one does not perceive the reason does not mean that it does not exist, or that they are unthinking, erroneous fools necessarily, more likely that one has some sort of tunnel vision


----------



## The Backward OX (Apr 18, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> People do things for reasons, that one does not perceive the reason does not mean that it does not exist, or that they are unthinking, erroneous fools necessarily, more likely that one has some sort of tunnel vision


 
But who's the one? The doer or the perceiver?

Let's say for example someone creates a post. That someone else doesn't perceive the reason for the post doesn't make them an unthinking erroneous fool. But was it the poster or the reader to whom reference was made with the comment "has some sort of tunnel vision"?


----------



## The Backward OX (Apr 18, 2011)

garza said:


> I spent most of the morning researching case law in Mississippi regarding day for day sentencing to help a young pre-law student at the University of Mississippi. I have membership in sites he cannot access over the weekend, and managed to find five judgements from the Mississippi Supreme Court that he can use. _That is what the Internet is for._


 
Your argument is specious.

"Most traditional communications media including telephone, music, film, and television are reshaped or redefined by the Internet, giving birth to new services such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and IPTV. Newspaper, book and other print publishing are adapting to Web site technology, or are reshaped into blogging and web feeds. The Internet has enabled or accelerated new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking. Online shopping has boomed both for major retail outlets and small artisans and traders. Business-to-business and financial services on the Internet affect supply chains across entire industries."

~ Wikipedia


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 18, 2011)

And there was me thinking the internet was primarily conceived as a military communication system on the basis that a net was far more difficult to break than a chain. But the Ox is right, that is only your assessment of its correct and useful function and is a specious as your assessment of fiction as useless, it is a personal opinion based on personal prejudice.

Ox, my use of "one" was to avoid the personal and particular, to paraphrase, 'when any one in any situation fails to perceive the reason for another's actions it is more likely to be as a result of a failure in perception than to be for a lack of reason',  I think the way I start with the failure of perception and continued to the reasons for that failure, added to the fact that I said there always was a reason, made it clear which party I was talking about. I am not sure of the source of your confusion and am tempted to think you are being contentious purely from devilment.


----------



## garza (Apr 18, 2011)

Olly - The Internet is for many things. For me its great value is in research and the ability to share that research and share ideas across distances. In a couple of hours yesterday, using electronically indexed sites, I was able to find appropriate examples of case law which would have taken two or three days to find sitting in a law library searching through bound volumes of court decisions. Only another few minutes were needed to send what I had found to Oxford for the student to have for preparation of a paper on day for day sentencing. That's what the Internet is for. That, and many other things for other people. 

The military played a major role in the development of the Internet, but so did universities as well as the privately owned bulletin boards that began to interlink. What a thrill it was to dial up a bulletin board in Lafayette County, then link through to a bulletin board in Tennessee without dialing another number. The military had the money to spend, but the local techies with their homebuilt 8086 servers (can you even imagine an 8086 as a server?) we could reach with our 300 baud modems were, in a way, just as important. 

No style of writing is invalid. All writing, of every style, has value. I have a particular way of writing that has proven to be successful enough for me to, as I say, live 'comfortably' on the proceeds, though certainly not extravagantly. Most journalists are niche writers, and once having found the right niche, tend to stay there. It dosen't mean one person's way of writing is better than another's. It means we each find that market that allows us to write in our own, particular, natural style without having to agonise over the composition of every sentence. 

I don't know where you picked up the idea that I have blinders, that I do not see the value of other styles of writing. I continue to write the way I do because it has worked for me for a very long time. The next fellow has a different style, equally successful, perhaps more successful. He and I write differently. Both styles are valid. Both have value. If every writer wrote the same way, we would all get a great deal of rest because it would be such a damned boring world we'd all go to sleep.

You mention my habit of writing in absolutes, and that's true. All my life I've dealt with facts without embellishments. If the government convoy was ambushed 12 kilometres northeast of Santa Familia Village, that's a fact. It's not my opinion. I investigate. I go to the site, take pictures, make notes of what I see. I talk to survivors of the convoy. I track down my sources in FMLN and get their account. I put it together and write the story. This is what happened. This is what a government army officer says of the incident. This is what a guerilla leader says. This is what local villagers say. None of my opinion counts, so I can't waffle, as the current political term has it. Any opinion must come from those who took part in the incident, and I quote their words. That's an absolute. This is what they said, the words they used. And here are the words used by someone on the other side. Another absolute. And here is a picture of a burnt-out army truck sitting beside a jungle road. I was there and took the picture. That's an absolute.

And please find for me anywhere I have said that fiction is useless. I joined this forum for the specific purpose of learning to write fiction. I read a great deal of fiction. I admire greatly those who can write good fiction. I wish I could. Probably I'm far too old to learn, but I do keep trying. If you follow the link to my website you'll see the evidence of that, most, if not all, of which has been previously posted here.


----------



## garza (Apr 18, 2011)

xO - I've just seen your comment, '_Often there's little or no sense in what you've written either'._ 

All I can say to that is, 'phooey'.


----------



## Sam (Apr 18, 2011)

garza said:


> The endnote would, I should think, be appropriate, provided the full name is important to the story. If you need for the reader to understand the meaning before reading the story, you might do as several science fiction writers have done and create a 'dictionary' reference to go at the top of the story. The fictioners would be better placed, however, to say whether that would be an aid or a distraction. Perhaps Sam W is listening.



Certainly an aid. When a reader sees that 'dictionary' reference at the beginning, it won't mean anything to them and they'll skip over it. When they come on abbreviations scattered throughout the novel, it provides an alphabetised account of what each one stands for. Much better than having your reader thumb back through the novel to find the one -- and possibly _only _-- reference to what the acronym stands for. "Did I come on it on page 21 or 41?" You eliminate time wasted on such trivial matters.


----------



## C.M. Aaron (Apr 21, 2011)

Without seeing your work, my gut tells me you are right to be concerned about an unexplained acronym in the first paragraph.  Acronyms can be very off-putting, and you might scare off your reader before you get them hooked into your story.  Is there a way you can reassure your readers that the acronym is not a key piece of the story and that it is OK if the reader ignores it?  If the acronym is not important, it should not need a footnote/end note, and the reader will know this by the time they get to the end.  But you need to get the reader through the first paragraph.  Try posting that first paragraph and see if people can give you any ideas.  Why is the acronym necessary in that first paragraph but nowhere else?


----------



## Bilston Blue (Apr 21, 2011)

> Without seeing your work, my gut tells me you are right to be concerned about an unexplained acronym in the first paragraph. Acronyms can be very off-putting, and you might scare off your reader before you get them hooked into your story. Is there a way you can reassure your readers that the acronym is not a key piece of the story and that it is OK if the reader ignores it? If the acronym is not important, it should not need a footnote/end note, and the reader will know this by the time they get to the end. But you need to get the reader through the first paragraph. Try posting that first paragraph and see if people can give you any ideas. Why is the acronym necessary in that first paragraph but nowhere else?



Hi C.M

I think you may be referring to my post, about the acronym in the first paragraph. For the record, I decided against it in the end, and opted for the full title.

A link for the story, if you're interested, can be found in my signature below this post.

Scott.


----------

