- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:35:38 +0000
- To: Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com wrote: > (For your example, the QUT would > likely make sense when read, but need to be spelled out completely on a > braille output device, because braille presents acronyms - like QUT - > and abbreviations differently.) Wesley, could you clarify how "QUT" qualifies as an acronym ? Using the definition of Garland Cannon (Texas A&M University) in his paper "Abbreviations and Acronyms in English Word-Formation", published in /American Speech/, Vol. 64, No. 2. (Summer, 1989), pp. 99-127 [1] : "an artificial word created by eliding the first one or two letters of each word in a phrase so as to yield a pronounceable whole", which I think is pretty much what most regard as an acronym, it is difficult to see how "QUT" qualifies. With the "U" used up to form the [KW] sound, there is no remaining vowel to indicate what should be sounded between [KW] and [T]. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 18:35:59 UTC