It seems to me the work of the dictionary is to give us conventionalized form/meaning pairings and not get too concerned about whether they are words or not. (Which is not to say the question itself is not interesting.) For the heck of it, I looked up DNA and found it, plus DJ on the same page. For the same reason (inclusiveness), a good dictionary generally gives us conventionalized phrases as well. When we hear or see something, it's good to have a way to find out what it means. I don't know how many people could tell you what DNA is short for, but it does have a conventionalized meaning as something like "molecular blueprint for life." When something comes out of a technical field (like DNA) or mainstream culture, we tend not to question it as shorthand. I would bet that LOL is thought of as "bad grammar" in the public mind, but TV, DNA, and DJ are routinely accepted. Craig > Initialisms tend to have the stress patterns of phrases, so UN has the > stress of black bird in “a crow is a black bird,” not of > “blackbird” as the name of a species. On the other hand they are > fixed collocations that have meanings like words do. I’ve noticed that > for many speakers TV has become a compound, like blackbird, while for me > and many other speakers it’s a phrase, like black bird. > > Herb > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of T. J. Ray > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:54 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: The Word > > Bob, > I still say RBI, but I hear more and more sports announcers > saying like "ribby." > > tj > > On Sunday 03/27/2011 at 10:45 am, Robert Yates wrote: > Just some observations about initialisms to words. > > In English, UN is still the initial; however in French UNO is a word. > > The same is true for UFO; also a word in French and German. > > On the other had, there is the case of RBI. Do you pronounce the > letters or is it a word for you? > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > > > "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> 03/27/11 6:27 AM >>> > Herb, > I appreciate your response. Can't find anything in it to disagree > with at all. My > curiosity involves how many different ways people define "word" in > daily life. > You touched on the way linguists use the term, leaving us with the > conclusion > that "the President of the United States" is one word. Teachers > assigning > 100-word essays to students would more likely count that example as > six > words. Dictionary makers are very spotty in whether they include > items > with more than word word in them. > > I'm also curious as to the transition from using the words for the > letters (GP, > RADAR) to seeing the grouping as a standalone entity where the > individual > words are not being thought of. (Yes, that is a terrible sentence!) > As many times > as folks refer to the United Nations as "the UN," I've yet to hear > anyone say "UN" > as a word. > > Thanks. > > tj > > > > On Saturday 03/26/2011 at 11:00 pm, "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" wrote: > > > > Without getting into some difficult and probably not entirely relevant > > > linguistic issues, there is a linguistic definition of word that goes > back to Leonard Bloomfield, the author of what was for decades a > standard text on linguistics. He describes a word as a “minimal > free form,” that is, the smallest portion of an utterance that can > be pronounced in isolation without changing it phonologically or > morphologically. Thus in a spoken sentence like > > The ball’s in play. > [D@ ‘bOlz Im ‘pleI] (ASCII IPA with spaces for clarity) > > For an English speaker who is not specifically phonetically trained > and behaving like a linguist, the minimal parts of this utterance that > > > can be pronounced in isolation without changing their phonetic or > morphological form are [‘bOl] “ball” and [‘pleI] “play.” > If phonetically untrained native speakers try to pronounce the > unstressed syllable [D@] “the” by itself they will say either > [‘DV] or [‘Di], stressing either form, because any isolated > one-syllable utterance in English must be stressed. By Bloomfield’s > definition, only “ball” and “play” would be words. “the,” > “’s,” and “in” would be something linguists call > “cliticized forms,” that is, unstressed forms that attach to > stressed forms. (There’s more to clitics than that, but it’s > mostly not relevant here either.) > > I suspect this is not what you meant by your question, though. I > think you are asking rather how something people say gets some sort of > > > official recognition as a word. Most dictionary writers have a > strong descriptivist streak in them, and they allow usage to determine > > > what is a word. If an acronym like “radar” begins to appear in > print enough, then they will include it as a word, perhaps adding a > usage marker of some sort. The same holds for initialisms (LOL), loan > > > words (sushi), slang (cool), and other sorts of new words. Different > dictionaries will have different standards by which they determine > whether to include something as a new word, which means that there are > > > lots of words out there that aren’t yet acknowledged by an authority > like a dictionary. > > Herb > > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of T. J. Ray > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 8:36 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: The Word > > With dictionaries beginning to add items such as LOL to their listings > > > of words, > > it might be a good time to pose the question What is a word? > > > > Granted that aconyms have been comi> loran, radar, sonar, snafu, jeep, > kayo, veep, emcee, and others. In > most of such > > instances, the new "word" is a blending of the individual letters and > is pronounced > > as a single lexical unit. Do LOL and such texting shortcuts qualify? > > > When one > > sees LOL, isn't the mental response a return to "laugh out loud"? > Words such > > as jeep don't (at least any longer) evoke "general purpose." > > > > I look forward to your feedback. > > > > tj > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > > > "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > > > "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/