Talk:Backronym

.

References

I don't know how to fix references. After #14, they are all joined. Could someone please correct this?--WPaulB (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A different kind of reference problem: the reversion of FORD (=Fix or Repair Daily/Found on Road Dead) is said to need an authoritative citation. Not sure what that would be for folk-materials like humorous backronyms, which by definition are unofficial. I would have thought 29000 googlehits would sufficiently document the fact that the backronym is in circulation (which is, as I understand it, what's required). I don't care much about the particular example -- it wasn't mine; however, wthe wikisourcing issue is, I thihnk, significant. Many folk and linguistic articles depend on evidence that a given term is in circulation. DavidOaks (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not my understanding of WP:RS. Anyhow, a reliable source was found so I'm not sure what the problem is. This article in the past was littered with lists of non-notable, unreferenced examples, and backronyms which weren't actually backronyms. If enough people have used a term to make it notable, there will surely be a reliable source which documents this. If no such source exists, maybe it's not very notable. --hippo43 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Never Eat Soggy Wheat-Bix

This is just a suggestion for a bacronym. As a kid I was taught a trick for remembering the compass directions in order. North East South West became Never Eat Soggy Weet-Bix (FYInformation, Weet-Bix is a popular cereal in Australia). I think this bacronym is pretty popular in Australia and there might be similar ones in other countries. If Mr Wikipedia deems it suitable, he can add this to the article.

Also, just because I couldn't be bothered adding a new topic, here's a suggestion for a pneumonic for the planets: My Very Evil Mother Just Shot Uncle Ned's Parrot. That's the one I was taught at school.Raph89 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted mnemonic example

I deleted the last example under mnemonics. Neither sources support the "popular... among school children" claim. Additionally, this is not a good example of a mnemonic[[1]]. I don't believe that it is at all common to teach a child to memorize long sentences in order to learn to spell words like arithmetic.--Koyarpm (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

True today the computer spell checks everything for us. Once more being phonetically close is good enough for starting a dictionary search. Your disbelief is rooted in your limitation to this current experience. However, I bet you have never been in a spelling competition above the neighborhood school level. Until you have or are close friends with several -- you should probably keep your mouth closed. I suspect the practice still lives on among the competitive in unassisted brain games. As this highly political and unreliable source shows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_test

Verbal mnemonic phrases were once common in the US plains states at least - with length being driven by word length and such. Many examples can be found circa 1930-1960s. But such techniques carried to extremes are a case of people being excessively impressed by their own cleverness. I was fortunate as one born in 1958 and with a fairly sharp mind - not to be forced to memorize many. But if I had been in state spelling bees, I would not have escaped.

Legacy of this can still be seen in the military technical schools, which still carry many sentences for difficult technical details (not as many as they once did when obscenity was allowed).69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC

"The name caused some confusion among Americans because AC/DC was a common euphemism for bisexuality, i.e. "plug into any available outlet."[33][34][35]"

How is this in any way relevant to the example let alone the article? None of the three references are even related to or contain a reference to the band. References 33 and 35 don't even contain a reference to the term AC/DC. 67.78.145.42 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

North, east, south and west?

How utterly ridiculous, you need a mnemonics aid to remember the four points of the compass? What I would have a job to remember is the mnemonics itself: "Never eat shredded wheat". Come on, let's have a bit of common sense here. Surely it is one of the easiest concepts. Just remember where the sun rises and sets, that takes care of two of the four heavenly points. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's silly. This one needs to be filed with the false etymologies and urban legends. Actually, it wasn't the claim that people needed to remember this, it was just that the news was printed in columns headed by initials signalling compass directions, which fortuitously spelled a pronounceable word. It's nonsense, but widely believed. I happen not to have a cite (and don't feel like searching for one), but if it (the claim, not the fact) can be verified, it's worth including as an example of a backronym. DavidOaks (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your lucky kids under 13 don't read wikipedia talk pages or you'd sound like a real as mean person. From first hand knowledge I can say this is very popular among young children in Australia. humbug88 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of the examples aren't acronyms

The article begins by saying "an 'acronym' is a pronounceable word derived from the initial letters of a phrase." That's a good definition. But then many of the examples cited are initialisms and not acronyms at all. Don't make such a point of what a proper acronym is if you are going to break the rule throughout the rest of the article. -- Llarq (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

In line with some of the comments above, and tags in the article, I've tried to clean this up. I've tried to be bold in streamlining the article and keeping it consistent with citations. hippo43 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've done -

Clarified the definition, according to sources used, then tried to keep the article consistent with it. Cleaned up the 'types', moved some examples. Removed a load of non-backronyms. This meant a number of 'types' disappeared, to the point that types became meaningless so I binned them, probably not a bad thing. Added some CN tags. hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure theres more

What about People Eating Tasty Animals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.230.192 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A Mistake and maybe something to add to

" In Spanish, a popular and sarcastic backronym for Adidas is "Asociación De Idiotas Dispuestos A Superarse" ("Association Of Idiots Willing To Improve").[15] "

The translation in English should translate to ("Association Od Idiots Willing to Improve Themselves). Superarse means to improve himself.

Also KISS could also mean "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

--Xeon3D (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First sentence description of backronym

In the first sentence "A backronym (or bacronym) is a reverse acronym, a phrase constructed after the fact to make an existing word or words into an acronym.", it is incorrect to define a backronym to be an acronym which is modified by the adjective "reverse". A backronym is not an acronym. It would be better to reword as "A backronym (or bacronym) is the reverse of an acronym, a phrase constructed after the fact to make an existing word or words into an acronym." Or, instead of "reverse", use "inverse" which, to me, implies an undoing of the acronym process. 132.228.195.207 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)JohnY

You could be right. Do you have a source for this definition? --hippo43 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the definition of "backronym" at dictionary.com. I was mistaken/misled by this wikipedia entry. The dictionary.com entry is fairly clear. The wikipedia entry is confusing. According to dictionary.com, a backronym is an acronym. It's a word that wasn't meant to be an acronym, but now has an associated phrase that makes it an acronym.132.228.195.207 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)JohnY

Why the Vulgarity

Is "F-U-know what" really an appropriate example? Was a little suprised by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.180.145 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It may or may not be a good example, but vulgarity isn't what decides: WP:NOTCENSORED. DavidOaks (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed vulgarity. Unnecessary and didn't add much to the article. 216.166.234.203 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility: creating a separate 'list' article. Luminifer (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, God, no. --hippo43 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To 216.166....: With due respect, the bacronym FUCK is one of the most significant to my mind, because it is a common misconception honestly held. No one believes that FORD stands for "Fix Or Repair Daily", but lots of folks have the odd idea that FUCK stands for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge". This fact makes it a useful example for this page. Phiwum (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well put! Luminifer (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perl punctuation

Look at the paragraph containing the second appearance of the phrase "Perl documentation." Something funny is happening with periods and commas there. I tried to fix but am not sure how.

Yes, I must admit I couldn't find any references to the subtitle or the backronym on what I could see of the official Perl websites. Is that surprising? I have cited at least one teaching website which does so. It is something to get on with, and if someone else can find and show the websites and citations so much the better. Have reverted the links to the Perl websites until someone can find the missing info. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re reliable source for defining backronym as a portmanteau word?

Requiring a "reliable source" for defining backronym as a portmanteau, Angr in his edit summary says:

"Does any reliable source call this a portmanteau? Or just Wikipedians who don't really know what that word means?"

What does Angr think a portmanteau is, what does he call a reliable source? Merriam-Webster defines a portmanteau " a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms (as smog from smoke and fog)". Granted, M.-W. is a general dictionary and not a linguistic one, we must surely allow their definition?

Tom McArthur's Oxford Companion to the English Language mentions Lewis Carroll inventing such forms as slithy from slimy and lithe, and calling them portmanteau words. What other kind of word does Angr think "backronym" is, surely a blend of back and acronym and therefore a portmanteau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Simon (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the word portmanteau is that (following Carroll) it's used in a general sense as a synonym of what linguists call blend, while linguists use it only in a special case. There is a lot of discussions on this at Talk:Portmanteau word, with some people thinking that the use of "portmanteau" for blends was flawed from the get-go (notice how Carroll described his words as being like portmanteaux), and others replying that even so, general usage and its dictionaries do allow this meaning. (Currently the Portmanteau and Blend articles are to a large extent content forks.) Clearly, Angr is with the first crowd (maybe a linguist?). I can't say I fully agree with the inapplicability of "portmanteau", but I also don't see a reason not to use the more precise "blend" instead, so I'm changing to that and removing the fact tag. —JAO • T • C 05:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with that. Many thanks, Jao. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)