Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: When does an Acronym become a Word?
Message-ID: <1172@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 17:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1172
Posted: Wed Mar  5 17:34:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 00:19:45 EST
References: <837@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 29
Summary: When it is used as a word


In article <837@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@stc.co.uk writes:
>        In the aftermath of the Challenger accident, I noticed that
>many reports spelt National Aeronautics and Space Administration as
>Nasa, rather than NASA.
>
>        This started me thinking about how long a probation an
>acronym has to serve before it becomes a word. For example, radar has
>been a word for at least 30 years, laser for 20 or so. NASA/Nasa
>seems to be on the point of graduating.
>
>        Some acronyms, like RAF or USAF, seem never to become words.
>
>        Which are next? ROM and RAM would appear to be prime
>candidates for promotion. Are some types of acronym more likely than
>others? I think it likely that the easily pronounced ones change
>status first.

I think this last is an understatement.  The key seems to be whether
the acronym gets pronounced as a word, or if the individual letters in
it are pronounced.  I have never heard RAF or USAF pronounced as "raff"
or "yousaff".  It may be that these pronunciations are used in some
contexts, but they are certainly not universal.

I will note that the Economist tends to print all acronyms with only the
first letter capitalized.  I'm not sure if this is common in England, or
a peculiarity of that publication.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108