LogFAQs > #954544366

GEKGanon posted...

I feel like that is a really weird ask

Not at all. You say there's practical value, practical value can be demonstrated.

GEKGanon posted...

that's like asking to provide 3 plausible real-world examples in which differentiating between synonyms and antonyms makes the sentences in question more concise.

Those are antonyms, not words that describe concepts that are so similar as to be considered interchangeable. That's not analogous at all. I'm asking for examples where the decision to say "initialism" instead of using "acronym" as a catch-all term allows the point to be communicated more concisely, which is what you claimed was the practical value of differentiating them.

GEKGanon posted...

Someone could easily mistake an acronym like "laser" for a word, as it is pronounceable as such, but they'd almost certainly not mistake "FBI" for a word, and would instead immediately recognize it as initialism. Why then should they not be differentiated, when they are not treated similarly?

One would not eat soup with their hands, and one would not eat a sandwich with a spoon. Does that mean they shouldn't both be called food?

It's quite common for general-purpose terms to be used to refer collectively to a set of things that do differ from each other in scenarios where those differences aren't relevant enough to differentiate them linguistically. In this case, the decision whether or not to pronounce a given acronym/initialism is never based on the terms somebody has used to indicate what it is, it's based on whether or not it looks pronounceable. That means the choice of what to call it makes virtually no difference (except for, as mentioned above, the inevitable confusion that will arise because people generally aren't familiar with the term "initialism")..

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.