Question
Paul King
pking123-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg at public.gmane.org
Sun Feb 29 04:48:07 UTC 2004
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Paul King wrote:
>
> > I strongly disagree with your implication that 'net acronyms were ever
> > any part of a "subculture".
>
> Hi Paul. They are definitely part of a subculture:
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/
>
> The culture is alive and well and has leaked many terms to the
> mainstream in recent decades, much like other successful subcultures.
Robert, I wasn't denying that a subculture exists; I was disagreeing that
acronyms are from anything resembling a subculture. Also, let's not get
"jargon" mixed up with acronyms. I am sure that terminology has leaked out, but
I have yet to hear anyone use an acronym like "IIRC" used in a normal
conversation. Rather, they would begin the sentence with "If I recall correctly
...". Nor has anyone told me to HAND. Rather, "Have a nice day" has been more
the norm.
For example, I have been using newsgroups (called the USENET) almost since the
beginning in the 80s. Acronyms, as far as I can tell, arose due to the fact
that the primary basis of the USENET was text, and it saved both typing and
reading. It arose out of necessity. Back then, there were only a few newsgroups
distributed worldwide, and everybody had a FAQ (Frequently-asked questions)
file, and a FAQ maintainer who was also some kind of an authority on the topic
of the newsgroup. For those newsgroups without a maintainer, the USENET had
(and still has) an internal, universally-distributed newsgroup called
news.announce.newusers, which has general introductory material regarding
newsgroup ettiqutte which can apply to the USENET as a whole.
Us food scientists (like all scientists) also have arcane acronyms and our own
jargon. But I don't see that as being "cultural" anymore than USENET acronyms
are cultural. Maybe it's true that food scientists form a subculture like
chemists and physicists, but like these it is quite limited.
But I agree that USENET and mailing lists are cultures in nearly every other
sense. It even has unique rules of ettiquette, clearly laid-out. I have read
USENET articles where people are baring their soul anonymously to the world,
while others just like to verbally abuse others. Some people, like Robert
McElwaine (google *that*) are legendary in their infamy. So is Serdar Argic. It
has legends, rumors, fears, hopes, loves, emotions (through emoticons) and
everything you could ask for in a true culture except for face-to-face human
contact.
>
> This subculture has even been the subject of formal cultural studies.
>
> > Over-use of acronyms obscure messages. Unless someone wish to post a FAQ
> > to interpret their own jargon, they are essentialy writing messages to
> > themselves.
>
> Not if the audience understands.
You always need a FAQ. There will always be people in the audience who don't
"get it", and re-hashing the rules each time for a newbie is tiresome. Newbies,
and people who have better things to do in life than to run to an acronym
website every time he sees an acronym he doesn't know about. An argument can be
made for this mailing list needing one. However, I have noticed that people
have been mostly pretty good about not letting the acronyms get out of hand, so
maybe it isn't necessary.
> As a rule I avoid accronyms that I think
> it is unlikely my audience will understand (or I'll post a reference) but
[snip]
I hadn't said jargon were not useful. In fact I often advocate it, ans use it
myself. But like you, I consider my audience and avoid acronyms unless I think
people will "get it". Like you, I aim for clarity, and use acronyms if they are
helpful in aiding that. Otherwise, what's the point?
Paul King
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
More information about the Legacy
mailing list