Is it pronounced Vuhpilf or Veepilf?

Subscribe to the ADS-L email forum.* Today there's this offering from one contributor who thinks he might have come across the Acronym (or Initialism) of the Year:

VPILF

or maybe it's VPilf

(which unpacks just as you'd expect, even if you don't know how to pronounce it).

There's even a corresponding web site: http://www.vpilf.com/

Remember, you read it here first, unless you didn't. And given where we've been the last eight years, I'm pretty sure this one didn't exist before today.

Of course he must be forgetting that hotty John C. Calhoun, who had to resign for being too damn sexy.

---

* You really should if you have an extra email account that can stand to receive about 50 emails a day and you like to read ongoing and often meandering exchanges about the American language. Right now there is a thread going on (and on and on) about the pronunciation of Chinglish and the alphabetical principle.

OK. But what do you mean?

Continued from here here and here.

Fay claims there are also connotative and semantic problems with Read's proposed etymology of OK. The first problem he identifies is that "'OK' has always had some widely understood and accepted special connotations of impropriety to it." He cites two occurrences from the theatrical weekly, Paul Pry that Read uses as evidence: the first, a story about a benefit for the widow and children of Henry J Finn; the second, a story about a "horde of bloods" from Boston who engage in a "hob-a-nob": probably a round of drinking.

Though Fry claims that "Read says the editor apologized the next day for using the expression" it is not clear from Read's article that the expression was the reason for the apology. What Read says is that "in the next issue the editor apologized for the article that had contained O.K." While the expression could possibly be the reason for the apology it doesn't seem likely. The apology appeared the day after the article about the drinking buddies: three weeks after the article about the benefit. Such timing suggests that the apology addressed something other than the OK abbreviation. As Read recaps: the OK was "in a piece that slipped past the editor by mistake." It was the piece, not necessarily the OK that slipped by.

Evidence that OK was considered an undesirable form could help Fay's argument that it was a borrowing from the Choctaw. Fay pulls a quote from "O.K.; a True Tale of the Late Election," a fictional piece in Brother Jonathan (21 November 1840): "Drums beat in the street and shouts of O! K! made the night hideous." Perhaps the line assures him of the etymological connection to Choctaw. Such assurance must come by courageous conjecture.

As further evidence that many viewed the Choctaw language as undesirable and inferior, Fay relies on "Brinton's implication that Choctaw was the language of 'ignorance and immorality' while English was the language of 'godliness and civilization.'" Brinton did in fact make the ethnocentric and bigoted claim of "ignorance and immorality" but he was not saying anything about the language. He was giving misguided praise to the missionary efforts of the Reverend Cyrus Byington. The statement is found in the biographical introduction to an article on Choctaw grammar published in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (4 February 1870). It offers little more than circumstantial support for the argument that OK was decried because of an undesirable origin.

The semantic "problem" with Read's etymology: "No one would seriously argue that in any but one or two instances the expression 'OK' has been used to express 'Old Kinderhook.'" It's true that there is only light evidence of the occurrence of "O.K." as a substitute for the words "Old Kinderhook." But Fay shifts his focus claiming that "even 'Oll Korrect' is often not a good semantic fit for the expression 'OK.'" He suggests rather that "the traditional, non-abbreviation 'okay' seems to fit perfectly" in those otherwise awkward uses.

We may presume that he relies on the 'non-abbreviation' because it shakes loose from the need to represent either "oll korrect" or "old Kinderhook." Fay's entire argument predicates the etymology from the Choctaw "okeh" which he glosses as "it is so and not otherwise." (I will address his discussion of the Choctaw connection in another post.) He cites a linguist (Herbert A Badger) who in his 1971 dissertation notes "the occurrence of okeh in Choctaw conversations in much the same syntactic and semantic environments as the American OK."

Abbreviations do not always function syntactically or semantically as their long-forms. Especially when they represent forms that are not nouns. Consider such up-and-coming abbreviations as PO or LOL. These are far from standard. The former takes the past-tense marker after the "O" (I was so PO'd) even tho the long form takes the marker after the first segment (I was so pissed-off) and the latter (when pronounced "ell oh ell") is heavily mocked even in extremely casual speech. And although there are some who use "ell oh ell" in speech (yes--I have heard it) they rarely intend it as a replacement for "laughing out loud". I've never heard anything close to "I elled oh ell when heard the joke!" Abbreviations--especially slang abbreviations--often work within patterns that differ from the rules applied to the long form.

Read addresses the flexibility of casual forms in his "First Stage" paper saying that "slang expressions are notoriously loose, and it should not be expected that either O.K. or all correct would be used in a strict sense." Fay does not share Read's willingness to accept such loose interpretations from an abbreviatory etymology. He finds the "all correct" gloss suspect in the following passages where he feels that long form does not fit as well as "it is so and not otherwise."

1. The net proceeds was upward of $1,200, O.K.


2. [O]ur Bank Directors have not thought it worth their while to call a meeting, even for consultation, on the subject. It is O.K. (all correct) in this quarter.


3. The house was O.K. at the last concert, and did credit to the musical taste of the young ladies and gents.

Holding to the premise of Fay's argument we find the very fault with his "okeh/okay" gloss that he posits on the "O.K." gloss. The first example can take the "it is so..." gloss easily. But examples 2 and 3 work better when the abbreviation is replaced with "all correct". In sentence 3 it is hard to see how a re-affirmative would be intended or even how it would make sense.

Fay then relies on a nebulous argument regarding the impressions made by the differing etymological definitions.

But in almost all of those cases, the essential "feel" of the word is not conveyed by "all correct." To use the terminology of the Choctaw linguist, the "syntactic and semantic environments" do not quite fit. In all of those cases, the tradition "feel" of "okay" is a much better fit.

The better fit is not clear.

Impelling Fay to question and counter Read's conclusions is an article on the Folk etymology of OK that Read wrote in 1964. Fay also introduces another voice, the writings of Woodford Heflin who questions some of Read's earlier conclusions. Further posts will consider several new voices and other arguments, including those specifically those in favor of a Choctaw origin.

When OK became OK

[continued from here and here]

Fay's summary of Read's second paper on the history of O.K. begins with a criticism of the evidence it presents. Fay claims that although the Read repeats the connection to oll korrect he "is able to offer only two examples of clear cut instances of this 'general usage.'" He dismisses the relevance of all examples that were found making reference to a story about Andrew Jackson's legendary poor spelling. Read provides a total of six examples of "oll korrect" spelled-out. Not all include the abbreviation. This is still good evidence connecting O.K. to "oll korrect" as an intended meaning. Especially considering the several examples Read provides in the first paper that convincingly connects "O.K." to "all correct" without the facetious spelling.

Fay misstates a few of Reads arguments claiming that he entirely dismisses the relevance of any occurrence that connects O.K. to Andrew Jackson and he even quotes Read as claiming that any attempt to connect William Harrison to "Oll Korrect is "simply a transference from one false story to another." In fact the transference that Read refers to is the claim that Jack Downing authored the story connecting Jackson to O.K. Downing wrote a letter saying that "Gineral" Harrison used the phrase "Oll Korrect" and was subsequently accredited with attributing the phrase to Jackson. Throughout his treatment of this story Read asserts that the story was most likely false and born of political motivations. Far from entirely dismissing the relevance of the stories Read grants that the stories show a political connection and interest in the meaning of OK.

Countering the attribution does not counter the general usage. Examples tied to a specific story are not proof that it didn't occur generally. Read's First Stage paper gives especially strong evidence of the connection to "all correct" and the motivation of the Jackson digs very reasonably provide a 'spell-out' to make sure the joke makes the point of his failings with letters. Even the examples connecting OK to Jackson remain relevant.

They are particularly relevant to Fay's earlier claims that there was no evidence of "oll korrect" as an intended meaning of OK. Tho Read's first "First Stage" paper doesn't meet Fay's expectations of evidence, such is amply provided in the "Second Stage" paper.

Fay writes:

The evidence he presents in the "Second Stage" paper documents extremely persuasively that "OK" was very widely used during this time as a colloquial expression of affirmation, but it was not employed in general usage as an abbreviation for 'oll korrect' (except in connection with Jackson) any more than it was in dozens of other ways.

This attempt to detract from the connection between oll korrect and OK overlooks the very simple explanation that the meaning would likely widen since the first appearance of the abbreviation. Read relies on C.G. Greene's use in 1839 which stands well as the earliest use complete with gloss. Because Fay feels justified in dismissing the bulk of examples he is able to allow two examples originating in Ohio where he is better poised to connect the phrase to Choctaw influence which would of course be more likely on the "frontier." This of course requires that he defy the argument that all examples are relevant. As all examples are relevant we find several that do originate in New England.

Fay's thesis that OK is an affirmative by influence of a similar Choctaw form then takes arms against Read's antithetical support of the connection to "Old Kinderhook." A Newark NJ paper told the story of a group demonstrators using OK as a rallying cry. Read quotes the Tammany editor who writes in New Era (27 May 1840) explaining the bifurcate significance of OK: he mentions a pin

having upon it the (to the 'Whigs') very frightful letters O.K., significant of the birthplace of Martin Van Buren, old Kinderhook, as also the rallying word of the Democracy of the late election, 'all correct.'

Fay challenges the explanation arguing that the Tammany Society "delighted in using what they perceived as Indian expressions whenever possible." He introduces his argument by explaining: "In 1812 a branch of the Tammany Society was formed at Hamilton, Ohio. They called their meeting place 'Wigwam No 9,' and met to listen to 'long talks.'" He then claims "The New York Tammanies of 1839-40 were not very different, nor were they perceived as very different, from the Ohio Tammanies of 1812." From six months of New Era microfilm archives Fay provides a few accounts as evidence that the Tammany meetings served as little more "than an occasion to delight in Indian speech and practices." Although the number of these accounts is good evidence that there was interest in such activity the details do not preclude other interests or purposes.

Fay further claims that Read's faith in the importance of the New Era pin advertisement is mistaken and misplaced. He writes:

Others have not always share Read's interpretation of the notice. The notice does not materially seem to be particularly about "Old Kinderhook." On the contrary, it is hard to imagine a more explicit argument that in 1840 the expression "OK" was popularly associated with Jackson and the Choctaws at the Battle of New Orleans. At least the writer of the ad saw no need to explain the connection. Both "Old Kinderhook" and "all correct" seem rather to be afterthoughts to exploit the sportive acronym fad.

It makes little sense to discard the relevance of a provided gloss because a contrary unmentioned gloss is more likely to be assumed. It is mere conjecture that the writer intended the connection that Fay claims he "saw not need to explain." Jackson is mentioned in the ad (as "the hero") because he wears the "old white hat with a crape" depicted on the pin. While Van Buren is mentioned by name and is certainly more likely the focus of a campaign pin as the incumbent candidate in the roiling election.

Fay then argues that the ad would not have been and influential instance of the use and that there is little evidence of "Old Kinderhook" in wide circulation, stating that "the one example Read cites of general usage of the name "Old Kinderhook" may have been more tongue-in-cheek than an example of 'general usage.'" But he makes no sound argument that a tongue-in-cheek example is not a reflection of "general usage."

Fay also overlooks one stilt of Read's argument when he challenges the significance of O.K. He grants that it would have been a parallel reference to Van Buren and Richard Mentor Johnson (Old Kentuck). "For the Democrats to suggest that the popular nickname "Old Kentuck" referred to the Democratic Johnson was a gag to take a slap at Clay and the Whigs." This is a point that Read makes. It was appropriated to mock and frustrate the opposing party. Such a motivation does not discount another connection. In fact it makes the point that there was a struggle to cement the term in common usage. This is key to Read's main thesis that this time was an important one in cementing OK in general usage because political currents were greatly motivated to appropriate and claim phrases. Controversy is a reliable force of lexical influence.

Read’s reliance on the Kinderhook connection is to explain what caused OK to enter common and general use. This goal may withstand even an argument that OK stood for other things just as commonly.

And he provides extensive examples that point to a wide and varied awareness of "Kinderhook" as a common nickname. In two pages Read offers sixteen examples of "Kinderhook" used in references to Van Buren including a song containing the line "Then give three cheers for Kinderhook" in the Boston Morning Post (21 May 1840) and an account by the Englishman Edward Waylen who recalled travels towards Kinderhook and the impressive effect on passengers as the town grew nearer. His fellow Englishman Archibald Montgomery Maxwell produced the "curious" account of traveling past "Render Nook, the great centre of Loco-focoism in these parts."

Read concludes his paper confidently, saying

In the trajectory of O.K., "Old Kinderhook" represents a "booster shot" that marks an important stage of its course. Our historical information is now rich enough so that we can plot the trajectory of O.K. as it has rocketed across the American linguistic sky.

Fay does not share the same confidence and turns to another form of challenge. He takes issue with semantic and syntactic evidence. Such will be the focus of the next post on this textured question.

Ok. Let's continue.

In February of 1963 A.W. Read's article "The First Stage in the History of 'O.K.'" was published in American Speech. In this article Read establishes a culture of rampant wordplay and facetious abbreviations and spellings. The primary objective of the article is to show that his article "The Evidence on 'O.K.'" which was published 20 years earlier in The Saturday Review of Literature claimed too late an establishment of O.K. in American use. Read argues that by 1838 the "craze" of misspellings and initialisms had set the stage for O.K. to enter a wide use as an abbreviation for oll korrect. This was 2 years earlier than the 1840 campaigns that his prior article had identified as the first stage of development.

Read identifies several instances of O.K. used as early as 1839. In that year the announcement of a trip by the Anti-Bell-Ringing Society got attention from the Boston papers. Charles Gordon Greene wrote about the event using the line that is widely regarded the first instance of this strain of O.K.: complete with gloss.

...he of the [Providence] Journal, and his train-band, would have the 'contribution box,' et ceteras, o.k.--all correct--and cause the corks to fly, like sparks, upward.

Several instances of O.K. followed--Read gives seven instances that provided a gloss and five that didn't. In his article "The Choctaw Expression 'Okeh' and the Americanism 'Okay'" Jim Fay writes that the unglossed instances are evidence that the meaning is clear: "The reader is assumed to be already familiar with the term and its meaning." Several of these instances are in response to each other and 4 of the first 5 uses are given a gloss. It makes sense that the meaning of the phrase in a responsive succession would foment a fast familiarity.

Fay also advises that even with the gloss in a few cases "'all correct' does not seem to be a particularly good fit semantically or syntactically. In all instances the term is used in an informal, uncultured context." It's difficult to know what Fay means by "uncultured" but his reticence to grant felicitous use has been addressed by Read who provides good evidence of the "loose" and facile use of slang terms. Even addressing concerns (raised by W.A. Heflin in his article "'O.K.' and Its Incorrect Etymology") regarding the exact term "all correct" with the following example from a headline:

PENNSYLVANIA ALL CORRECT
The returns of members to the State Legislature exhibit a great democratic gain, and what is of the utmost importance, the REDEMPTION OF THE SENATE FROM THE CONTROL OF FEDERALISM.

It's not clear what Fay intends by claiming that "In none of the dozen quotes offered by Read is the expression used as an abbreviation for anything." In several of the quotes the gloss indicates that it is most certainly an abbreviation for "all correct."

Fay questions the validity of the conclusion of Read's article calling it "startling." To Read's summation:

...in the spring of 1839, O.K. became current as standing for 'oll korrect,' in a slang application of all correct, and from there it became widespread over the country. Thus the emergence of O.K. is well accounted for.

Fay responds: "except for one instance in which he speaks about the use of humor in 'the emergence of "oll korrect,"' that term does not appear any place in the paper until this summary." In fact the term does appear 2 pages before this conclusion when Read establishes the trend of humorous misspellings. Identifying such a trend is vital to Read's argument because the glosses "all correct" would not otherwise make sense as the full form of O.K. Read provides such examples as "O.W." (glossed "all right" presumably for oll wright) as analogous explanation. It is not a startling jump to recognize that the gloss does not need to reflect the jocular spelling.

Fay argues it is a liability to Read's argument that not a single instance of "oll korrect" is in evidence. This is certainly a huge lapse in the evidence. Even with other humorous spellings in evidence such as the gloss "pocket the kash" for "P.K." and "morning kall" for "M.K." Tho the humorous passages that contain "O.K." do not provide the same reflective humorous spelling in the gloss it is not clear that all writers were given to the convention.

Fay implicates the absence of a humorous gloss saying: "This includes instances in which the writer spells 'Boston' as 'Bosting' or uses N.S.M.J. for ''nough said 'moung[sic] gentlemen' or uses the phrase 'Vell, vot ov it!' but still glosses 'O.K.' as 'all correct.'" However the examples may be accounted for by noting that writers use these re-spellings to reflect an altered pronunciation and in one case the elision of letters in necessary to explain the initialism. It would make little sense to provide "enough said among gentlemen" as a gloss for N.S.M.J.

Still the case is far from proved. We may understand why stark evidence of a connection to 'oll korrect' is not found, but even a most reasonable explanation of the omission does not allay our desire for evidence. At some point we may have to admit that none of the competing etymologies are infallible. At this point we can say that Read has clearly demonstrated that the regular use of O.K. with the gloss "all correct" took root during a time when many phrases were abbreviated with letters that represented a "sportive" spelling.

In this essay Read does not make the case for the connection to Old Kinderhook and he has not shown the infiltration of the phrase into widespread everyday use in conversation. He notes this next step in a final footnote.

The relation of this first stage to the political development of 1840, when O.K. burst into overwhelming national currency, will be dealt with in another study, "The Second Stage in the History of 'O.K.,'" to appear in the May issue of American Speech.

A forthcoming post will focus on Fay's discussion of the "Second Stage" article.

Let's get started. OK?

The arguments should start slowly and continue at a deliberate pace because they can get boring quick. In a recent post I mentioned the ongoing deliberation between two sources of OK. I stated that one group claims the initialism originated from Martin Van Buren's birthplace of Old Kinderhook and that another group claims it started from oll korrect. That's not the most accurate abbreviation of the debate.

OK has is a long-contested etymology and it is familiar reading for most serious students of lexicography and etymology. And it is an interesting one. So I shall polish and clarify my statement regarding the Old Kinderhook -vs- oll korrect camps. Both phrases are widely regarded as co-contributors to the widespread use of OK. By many of the same people. The current meaning of approval is attributed to early association with oll korrect: a humorous misspelling of all correct. The same arguers who grant that much typically grant that the phrase was then cemented into common usage by the publicly repeated often reported campaign cries of Van Buren's supporters. This view is largely built on the findings of Allen Walker Read which he shared in a series of articles for American Speech in the early 1960s.

Justin makes the following comment in a response to my previous post:

At any rate, I've found Read's etymology questionable in its construction and especially in his approach to arguing it. Others have as well. It is curious that Read disregarded any Native origin of the word, and then ascribes its creation whole cloth to a group whose main unifying feature was mimicry of things they thought were 'Indian'.

He then provides the URI of a piece that also questions Read's conclusions and methods. The essay "The Choctaw Expression 'Okeh' and the Americanism 'Okay'" was written by Jim Fay in 2002 and a revision posted in 2007 less than one month ago.

I will distribute my discussion of this piece and its argument over several posts. I will not consider Fays claims in the strict order in which he presents them. Instead the order will follow the publication dates of Read's articles.

Although in 1941 Read had published "The Evidence on 'O.K'" in the Saturday Review of Literature, his series in American Speech began with "The First Stage in the History of 'O.K.'" in 1963. I will commence by evaluating Fay's criticisms of this latter essay which he lays out in his section "Read's 'First Stage' Paper."

But I promised to move slowly. So I shall let this introduction stand. Fay's essay is not a short piece but it's worth either perusing¹ (if you're in a hurry) or perusing² (if you have more time).

OK is just okay

A few days ago Buffy tried to convince me that writing out 'okay' is preferable to using the capitalized letters OK. Not more correct. Not preferred by style guides. Just better. She even enlisted the support of her professor Chris Blake who dedicated a chapter in his most recent book to the issue.

In his short chapter "KO @ the Okay Corral" Blake offers the following argument:

We should change our current aberrant house style whereby we capitalize the word okay. Okay does not deserve to be uppercased. OK stands out and up, heralded on a page of print, yet it is the epitome of mediocrity. All lower-class words such as okay deserve lower-case status.

The chapter is full of enough corny jokes and cutesy orthographic games to deflect any serious contention. It's a satirical transcript of a meeting about publishing and style issues. He's having fun here so the occasional blasts of prescriptivism work best with a nudge-nudge tone. I'll look beyond his warning "--- it all, let's / these flaws before we cave in completely." By using "---" for "dash" and "/" for "slash" (I think that's what he intends) this line says DON'T TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. And Blake does like to advise that quite often. He's dedicated to self-deprecation. How else could he dare to suggest (as he does in the chapter) that relaxed orthography is "Barbarism!" crying out that "These are the last gasps of civilization."

Now--Consider how you knew that one of the lines in that last paragraph implies a loud voice. Not the exclamation mark. The all caps. As Blake himself suggests--capital letters get attention and demand power.

And that is the core of Buffy's preference for okay and her dislike for OK. OK looks too eager. It yells. It's not understated or humble as the word should be. OK is only okay. It's not great or fabulous or amazing so it deserves no all-caps spelling. She has always thought so.

But it's an initialism isn't it? And we overlook the 'all-caps=loud' convention in most other initialisms. I've noticed several other initialisms in blogposts and email messages lately that are almost always written with all caps. I've mentioned them before. Putting them in all caps is a good way of calling enough attention to them and perhaps even assuring the reader that there is no typo. "This is really what I intended. Now figure it out."

But some take more effort than others. And some take very little effort at all. When I was a child I would ask my mother if it was OK for me to turn on the TV. And FWIW IIRC she usually told me WRT the TV to leave it off. OTOH she sometimes said it would be fine. IOW OK.

AFAIK none of you readers had to scream out those initialisms. But OK is so common it doesn't need the signal to attention. We know what it means immediately. And we have okay as an alternative. We have emcee for MC and deejay for DJ. They're all fine.

When Buffy told me how brash and aggressive OK looks to her I suggested a new way of reading a few phrases.

• House MD! is on tonight.


• The UN! is in NY!


• I was born near Washington DC!


• Do you use a MAC! or a PC!? (I know I know. It's Mac and it's not an initialism.)


• I graduated from the U! of M!

----------------
Etymology Epilogue
In the chapter Blake has one character explaining that some people trace OK back to oll korrect. The character named "Chris Blake" counters this etymology and claims that it's more likely an abbreviation of "Old Kinderhook" the birthplace of Martin Van Buren because the US(!) president liked to sign off his notes with O.K.

The OED gives more credence to the Oll Korrect origin, relying on the "detailed evidence provided by A. W. Read" in American Speech. In its list of citations an 1839 source provides the gloss "all correct" alongside an uncapitalised o.k.. Old Kinderhook is only listed under O.K. as it refers to Van Buren his campaign or his supporters.

The source for all correct (C.G. Greene--Boston Morning Post) is also listed in Webster's New World 3rd edition as the earliest known use. John Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins agrees with the oll (or orl) korrect origin claiming reinforcement from the Van Buren campaign cry.

WNW also suggests the possibility of an alteration of Scottish och aye 'oh yes'. This is harder to connect because of no clear trail like the 1839-40 explosion in the US.

Funk&Wagnalls (1960) and Webster's New Twentieth Century (1979) both recognize "Old Kinderhook" as the likely origin. Because of the available evidence and the clearer semantic connection I'm siding with Ayto WNW and OED. In any case there's no reason to think it's more likely to have originated with Van Buren. It makes more sense that Van Buren supporters fell upon an initialism identical to theirs that was tied to a sense of approval so they appropriated that connotation for their own use of O.K.

The the question

Recently Buffy and I were planning for a 3 hour drive on which I would not be allowed to listen to the radio. Buffy was going to be reading her Donne and the raucous music I listen to would distract her. You know how crazy that NPR interlude music can get. So I went online to search through the NPR podcasts and I came across KPBS radio's A Way With Words hosted by Martha Barnette and Grant Barrett. It's an hour a week of the usual language issues that you'd expect to hear on NPR: mostly discussion of etymologies and pet peeves. The episode I downloaded aired 5 May 2007. In this episode Ms Barnette shares a vocabulary tidbit (the synonym of synonym) a guest shares a puzzle, and several callers ask questions. The answers are occasionally confused and even misleading*. One of the lower points comes when a NASA engineer calls to ask about acronyms. His question is fine.

While setting up the problem the caller notes that some acronyms such as FBI CIA IRS and NTSB are always preceded by the definite article while NASA is not. Nor does the article precede UCLA FSU UGA CNN or ABC.

He makes an important observation in noting that NASA, Laser and Radar are "pronounced like words." He looks up the words and at this point, I'm not sure why, he throws up his hands and accepts that the language has stumped him. He says "guess what. They're not even capitalized anymore. But they are acronyms. So that's how I feel. I can't figure it out. The language has conquered me."

Oooh he's so close.

Mr Barrett then rightly makes the distinction between initialisms and acronyms, which the caller has used indiscriminately. And though this distinction could give him a very important half of the solution he makes an odd turn into a terribly clumsy answer. Here I'll provide a snipped transcript:

Barrett: "It didn't sound like you looked at the long form that the short forms came from. I think you'll generally find the rule is is that if the long form of an initialism takes an article (that is the...) as part of its formal name then so does the short form. And that's where you get the distinction between universities. UCLA is not The UCLA, because we don't say...we...we may say the University of California Los Angeles in the long form but it's not The Official formal name of it, not like the...

Barnette (talking over him): "...and it's not 'the Uklah'...'the Uklah'...

Barrett: "Right and it's also not...it's also not an acronym. So that's the general rule. it doesn't always hold but it's...it's gonna get you there most of the time. ...Acronyms however don't...they almost never take the article even if the longform does."

Mr Barrett's focus on the long form as the determining factor is misguided. It's not just incomplete. It's easily disproved. He appears to catch this himself when he starts using UCLA to support his point. He resorts to making a distinction between "official" definite articles and apparently 'unofficial' ones. (Language Log has dealt with this issue regarding The buckeye school.)

His analysis cannot explain the definite article before FBI even though the official name does not include the definite article. The official name is Federal Bureau of Investigation. The article when used is not capitalized. I'm guessing this is what Barrett meant by a not "official" article. The same is true of the Central Intelligence Agency.

We will grant Mr Barrett's claim that true acronyms typically do not take an article regardless of the official name. We are then left with the question of why some initialisms take an article and some do not. Why do FBI CIA and UN regularly take an article when UCLA UGA and FSU do not? I suggest that the nature of the organization is more important than the name. The initialisms for civic or administrative organizations will take an article regardless of official name. Commercial or private organizations (or organizations that are commonly perceived as such) will not take an article.

Forget about "official" names. For the long form of NBC most people would likely say "The National Broadcasting Company" and for PBS most would say "The Public Broadcasting Service." But no-one says the NBC or the PBS because they are not administrative. They are companies. They are not governmental. They are run by citizens and they control only themselves: they have no jurisdiction outside themselves. The same is true of colleges and universities. I believe this holds even if we consider the PGA the NBA the NFL and the NHL, which are not companies but administrative bodies that have jurisdiction over various corporations and individuals that are not owned by them and do not work for them. (Note that Major League Baseball is not tagged with the initialism and NASCAR is an acronym.)

Now I'm making a connection to the power of "the" in another case. Is this related to the difference between "man" and "THE man"?

---

*_{It's unfair to make a claim like this without qualifying or explaining it. The show is not an embarrassing display nor do the hosts lose credibility. As Mr Barrett reminds us in his comment, it is difficult to consider these questions on the fly without overstating or stumbling on a claim. One answer I had in mind (regarding the word "integrous") was logical and accurate. A relevant tangent during the discussion was hard to follow, and I had to listen again before I understood what the claim was, but that could be my fault. I'm kinda...slow.}

Initial impressions

The following initialisms/acronyms should be familiar to most. I don't need to spell out the meaning of these. You astute readers know them all.

aka
FYI
SOL
AWOL
ASAP

The list can be divided in two. The first three which are pure initialisms in which each letter is pronounced, [ejkejej, ɛffwajaj, ɛsowɛl] and the last two which are acronymic and pronounced as traditionally spelled words, [ejwɔl, ejsæp]. I know I've 4 of these in writing. I don't know that I've encountered SOL in print. I've only encountered it in spoken language. I'm not sure how to categorize DIY. I've only seen it in writing and usually as a book title or a section of a bookstore. And of course there's the channel...

The list is growing. The following list was gathered from a quick run through some recent email messages posted onto the ADS listserve.

IOW
WRT
IIRC
IMHO
FWIW
OTOH

Probably the most common of these is FWIW. I have never heard any of these pronounced. They are probably pure abbrevatory spellings that would always be read as the intended phrase. Some of them are pretty clear.

Which ones do you already know?

How many can you figure out?

Have you run across any others?

[update:
In the comments section Jaŋari mentions another class of initialisms that everyone has seen: that of abbreviated information without a typical conversational role. The most well known examples are lol rofl roflmmfao. These don't usually fit into the syntax of the speech surrounding them. They're little snippets of information that no one would ever say out loud -- they were created specifically for a medium of distanced communication. I think of them in some ways as cousins to the orthographic sound representations so common in cartoons that I mentioned here. While the onomatopoetic spellings are now divorced from the originally intended sound these initialisms are divorcing from their originally intended phrase or strict semantic content and may be closer to a representation of simple laughter like Haha. Is roflmmfao HAHAHAHAHA?

Update 2:
For those curious few who are still wondering about a couple of them:
SOL = Shit Outta Luck
IOW = In Other Words
WRT = With Regard/Respect To (I recently saw IRT)
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion (Sometimes just IMO)
FWIW = For What It's Worth
OTOH = On The Other Hand

]