TexasCHLforum.com

I can do that too:

^ Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, 1994. ISBN 0-877-79132-5. pp. 21–2:

acronyms A number of commentators (as Copperud 1970, Janis 1984, Howard 1984) believe that acronyms can be differentiated from other abbreviations in being pronounceable as words. Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction because writers in general do not.

Just being pronounced as a word does not make it a word.

If we're down to dueling Internet sources, I think we're done!

G26ster wrote:By definition, an acronym IS a word. Unless you use it as a word, it is not an acronym. Unless you say LEO (like mentioned before, "Leo the Lion.") it is not an acronym. LASER, RADAR, WAC, OPEC, LORAN, etc. are acronyms, as they are used as words. UCLA, USC TAMU, OU, FFL, IANAL, IMHO, etc. are not acronyms, they are abbreviations.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that definition. An acronym is truly an abbreviation, since it is specifically generated through a (strategic) compilation of the first or significant letters of words in a phrase. Thus, it is not a word! I just showed this with "LASER", which is a word born from a phrase, but requires other words to be meaningful, unless a new word is generated from it ("laser") which gives it meaning. GN&C, LIDAR, MMU, etc., are acronyms, not words.

jgedmond wrote: There's nothing magic about acronyms. The general rule is to use the article just as you would in any other situation considering the initial letter of the acronym as it is commonly spoken, therefore, a "LASER", but an "FFL".

Acronyms should be used as if you were writing or speaking the phrase for which it is substituted. Using your example, you would not say "a Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". Laser has been redefined to substitute for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation device". That's the kind of trap you get into when using acronyms, especially the compound ones.

So, it's best, when writing or speaking, to know you're only trying to save time and effort, and to use the acronym as you would the phrase itself. I suspect the Internet has made people try to take acronyms to another level, just as trying to establish changed spellings of such words as "though" ("tho"). Doesn't cut it for formal (read: "doesn't require interpretation") communication.

chabouk wrote: So, do you say "an LASER"? Our lives are filled with those little devices that produce "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation".

An acronym is a pronounceable abbreviation. Since it is pronounceable, it's proper to treat it as you would any other noun.

You've hit on the issue.

"Laser" has become a word, not just an acronym. It's an excellent example, because the original phrase is a method, not a device, so using an article in front of the method would not be reasonable. Thus, it became a word referring to a device.

Acronyms are really not primarily for pronunciation, they are for shortening conversation, and most often are said letter-by-letter (except by newbies in our business who just want to invent new words -- it's a cultural thing). That's why I'm saying they're a surrogate for the actual phrase.

Thus they can often get in the way. In our meetings, in fact, I (and even the top chiefs) often tell the speaker to "explain" the acronyms they're using, since many of our acronyms not only stand for several different things, but often are just made up by the speaker!

I live in an organization that epitomizes the use of acronyms. The safest way (and I believe the most correct way) to handle acronyms is as if they were spelled out, not as if you were pronouncing the acronym itself (which really is only a surrogate for the spelled-out phrase). So, not as "an el-ee-oh", but as "a law enforcement officer."

This will look funny to those who always pronounce acronyms as words, but it will always be defensible.