Talk:Backronym/Archive 1

Early Comments
I am a little confused here. It seems that there are different definitions.


 * Jargon-file style: a word interpreted as an acronym, though it was not originally intended.


 * word-like acronym: an acronym that interpreted as a word has some (funny) meaning.

Examples of the jargon-file style are: acme, mung.

Examples of word-like acronym: basic, mad, atlas (an experiment at Cern).

This article initially had the jargon-file definition (the only one I knew), and somehow it has now switched to that other meaning (that I had never called "backronym"), while still having parts that imply the first meaning. What's going on? Where did you see that called "backronym"? - jbc May 28 09:15 UTC 2003


 * The entry on apronym seems to describe the latter style, where the acronym was created first (as in USA PATRIOT) and the words that it would stand for were chosen second. So perhaps that's where references to the second definition should be moved. -- Arteitle 09:34 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, it looks like apronyms are meant as lighthearted jokes, though they're created in the same way as the "word-like acronym" style you mentioned. -- Arteitle 09:38 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I'd say that an apronym can be either jocular or quite serious. The ones at apronyms.com are largely jocular, but "USA PATRIOT" is a serious apronym if you ask me.  So I'd be all for moving it and the others that aren't really backronyms so much as apronyms to apronym.  In fact, I think I'll investigate into a means of doing such, if it's conveniently possible. JeffTL 16:27 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Essentially, it seems to me that apronymns are wordplay (i.e. they are deliberately designed to reflect the world they form), while backronyms actually stand for something in the real world (i.e., they abbreviate something else). Which isn't to say that the two categories can't overlap, as in "USA PATRIOT". But the Algebra I "FOIL" (first, outer, inner, last) would be a backronym, but not a apronym (because it has nothing to do with foils), and the SADDAM (Savage Arab Dictator, Dangerous And Murderous), while, although it may be true and an apronym, is not a backronym because nobody would ever use "SADDAM" to abbreviate "Savage.... Murderous" in real life. Does anybody else also parse the two this way? Seth Ilys 17:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd call "FOIL" a mnemonic, rather than a backronym, since "first, outer, inner, last" in some combination was known first, and the acronym was derived from that so as to be a memorable word, but as you pointed out, not an "appropriate" one (since algebra and "foil" aren't related). I'd call "SADDAM" a backronym, since it was formed "backwards", as wordplay, starting with the name "Saddam" and thinking up words that it could potentially stand for. --Arteitle 23:50, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

So why were BASIC, ZIP, USA PATRIOT removed from the list of backronyms? So far as I can tell, they are... - Seth Ilys 06:44, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the definition currently included, BASIC and USA PATRIOT are most definitely not backronyms - they are simply acronyms designed to spell out an appropriate existing term. In fact, this is closer to the definition currently listed under apronym (although that article then wrongly suggests that BASIC is a backronym, when as far as I know it was always officially an acronym).


 * Also, I notice that you've taken out the link to apronym, calling it an "invented word" - in what way is 'backronym' not invented? Surely both are neologisms intended to mean slightly different things (by the way, both get just over 10000 hits on a Google search).  While a large amount of clarification is clearly needed, the overlap surely necessitates more cross-referencing between the two articles, not less.


 * Either we decide on a definition for each, describe it more fully than either does at the moment, and add a prominent note on the occasional intrerchangability - eg: apronym=any acronym whose meaning as a word is apt to its meaning as a phrase (eg. BASIC); backronym=specifically those acronyms [and they would normally be apronyms] that expand terms not intended as acronyms (which are often humourous, like Fix Or Repair Daily). Or we decide that there is no clear seperation between the two words, and cover them in one article with the other as a redirect.  I will wait and see if anyone has any strong feelings on the matter before acting.
 * - IMSoP 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me comment on apronym. The entry in wikipedia was created by 202.89.128.87, who also included the reference to it in this article. Nothing wrong with that. But, have you seen the apronym article? It's like just a big propaganda for http://www.apronyms.com/ ! And there, they define it as a special kind of acronym where the initials spell out a word or phrase relevant to the expanded version, which is indeed very common for acronyms (not big deal, I can invent acronym-like things too). Sure, both backronym and apronym are neologisms, but I do have heard about backronyms before, and they are quite different from acronyms to deserve their name (imho), but I've never heard of apronyms and there is a guy with a web site (making money/fame from it?) "inventing" this word and having the entry in wikipedia like a neon panel to the website... I dunno, made me suspicious/reticent.


 * Now, if I am the only one with this feeling or it's a common word or anything, I am not against including a reference to it here (more the contrary). I am just worried of including crap, but surely I may be wrong. - jbc 20:34, Jan 13 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand your reticence, jbc - certainly the article needs rewriting to eliminate the advertising-like stance. In fact, a more thorough investigation of those Google results shows that apronym has only a handful of distinct hits, whereas backronym seems genuinely well-established.  Perhaps the whole article could be deleted in favour of mentions under acronym and backronym - or is it worth keeping as a stub?  Certainly, it has a subtly different meaning to backronym, but is it too new to be worthy of mention? - IMSoP 22:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's how I see the difference: An apronym is an acronym designed to spell something out, and fitting that "something." -- e.g. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" intentionally was designed to spell "USA Patriot" and refers to...well..the Patriot Act. Apronyms are common for proper nouns of organizations, laws, etc. They are (as demonstrated at the one website, where I must disclaim I have some contributions) also relatively common as a form of wordplay. A backronym is an unintended prepresentation, often similar to what can be called an apronym, for lack of a better specific term. An example of a backronym is "Beginners' Allpurpose Symbolic Instruction Code" for the BASIC programming language. The pop-culture belief is that the name of said language is an apronym; rather, it is closer to a backronym, as it was retroactively created as a believed apronymic exansion -- apronymic because "Beginners' Allpurpose Symbolic Instruction Code" does indeed describe Basic, which is often written in all capitals (suggesting an acronym of some sort). There is a clear difference between an "apropos acronym" and a "back-formed acronym." Jeff Anonymous 04:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I we should all stop using BASIC as an example, because it is very much unclear whether it was originally intended as an acronym. More generally, the problem is that the humourous apronyms on the website are of course also backronyms (since they are taking existing terms and turning them into acronyms); and, indeed, most backronyms are also apronyms (since if it's not an appropriate expansion of the term, in what sense can it have the same meaning?).  So we could perhaps define an apronym as any acronym that forms a word appropriate to its meaning; and a backronym as any acronym (or initialism, for those who insist) that was created from an existing term that was not originally created as one - and then note that most examples of one are also examples of the other. - IMSoP 12:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Those seem to be the best definitions. If the acronym is a real word and the expansion is appropriate to that, it is an apronym.  If it is retconned, it is a backronym (which, as an ex post facto acronym, can be an apronym).  Jeff Anonymous 18:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. These definitions sound good to me. So to restate them, an apronym (apropos acronym) is a multiword term or name (such as for a law, agency, etc.) with words deliberately chosen so that the resulting acronym will spell out something apropriate (e.g. USA PATRIOT), while a backronym is a (usually humorous, usually unofficial) set of words derived after-the-fact by interpreting something that wasn't originally an acronym as one (e.g. FORD = Fix Or Repair Daily). However, this definition disagrees with most of the examples given at apronym right now, and with the definition there (which refers to coining thousands of apronyms as wordplay). --Arteitle 22:26, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your example of FORD would be an apronym of the humorous type, as the person who wrote it must have had a broken-down Ford. Backronym implies linguistic back fomation, as noted at Jargon File.  If something seriously becomes acronymic after the fact, such as BASIC basically has (It is the canonical example because it is the best known example), to the point that everyone believes it is an acronym, is is a backronym by means of reification.  Most are also apronyms -- a case of overlapping sets.  An apronym can be thought of as any acronym appropriate to the expansion, often jocular but they can also be serious.  A point could be made that most of the apronyms.com collection are backronyms by certain definitions (albeit not a definition of a reified acronym, which seems to be the current accepted definition).  Noone actually believes that AA batteries stand for "Always Alkaline," but if that became believed in a widespread way it would be a clear backronym, despite its origins as a humoristic apronymic expansion.  Not all apronyms are backronyms, and not all backronyms are apronyms.  --Jeff Anonymous 06:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is there a List of backronyms somewhere ? Jay 14:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if Microsoft's Critical Update Notification Tool should be included... JoeBaldwin 23:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't be a backronym as described in the article, unless someone started with that four-letter word and decided that "Critical Update Notification Tool" was a suitable definition for it. --Arteitle 22:08, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * So it's an accidental derogatory acronym? Another such example is Martti Oiva Kalevi Ahtisaari, whose initials spell a Finnish slang word for "mistake". Is there a proper term for this? 17:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

KFC - Kitchen Fresh Chicken
KFC, which stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken, has recently launched an ad campaign rebranding the KFC to stand for Kitchen Fresh Chicken. Would this count as a backronym?


 * Is this an official renaming as with DVD, or a promotional alternative expansion? Don't know if that makes a difference.... -- Smjg 15:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This was an official renaming because of a dispute between KFC and the State of Kentucky over licensing of the Kentucky name. The State has recently reversed its position, and KFC has returned to using the Kentucky Fried Chicken name again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.132.222 (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there was never a dispute between KFC and the State of Kentucky over the Kentucky name. This was a story made up by snopes.com to prove that people will believe any old nonsense if it comes from an authoritative source. Marwood (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Censoring of f-word
I notice that in some parts of this article (like the Lufthansa entry), "fuck" is replaced with "f***", and in other parts (like Fiat), it is not censored. I think we should probably be consistent with this... which way do we go, "fuck" or "f***"?


 * I say spell it out. PS you forgot to sign your posting. ;Bear 17:45, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Ironic that this should be an issue on this of all pages, since "fuck" is itself often backronymed:. If we've decided it's OK to use this word on the page, we probably should mention it as a backronym as well. --Iustinus 06:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) ''(it's also Ironic that when I tried to post this comment I somehow deleted this whole section of the discussion. Trust me: I wasn't trying to censor it! ;) )

Let's not censor the word "fuck". It is part of the English language. - samorost


 * In case anyone hasn't found it yet: Wikipedia is not censored. Specifically, see Profanity. Hairy Dude 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

MUNG
''* Mung - Green gram, a kind of pulse (Phaseolus Mungo), grown for food in India, commonly backronymed as "Mash Until No Good". Later it had become "Mung Until No Good", making it a rare example of a recursive backronym.''

no, Mung, the 'acronym' originally meant "to clumsily debug a program", then later it became 'to clumsily debug a program to such an extent that it was rendered unfixable' I don't think it had anything to do with Mung Maybe we take this out and put "KFC" (see above) in?Pedant 13:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The derivation of that meaning doesn't seem to be exactly known, but see . -- Smjg 15:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expansions
Should the expansions be in a different font or in quotes or differentiated by some means from regular text? I know they're capitilized now but that seems rather weak. I'm espcially think of entries like Ford with multiple expansions. Lefty 17:42, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Changing the first para
Lefty, I had changed the first intro because it had been taken straight from this: backronym n. [portmanteau of back + acronym] A word interpreted as an acronym that was not originally so intended. Examples are given under BASIC, recursive acronym (Cygnus), Acme, and mung. Discovering backronyms is a common form of wordplay among hackers. As well as this there are about twenty other in Yahoo Search alone which all read the same. My contention was that we can do better than copying articles from other websites and can create our own. That is why I did it. Dieter Simon 23:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about this version? It's your formulation, except I changed the "noun or adjective or verb" wordage to simply "word". Lefty 23:41, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Lefty, that's fine. If you want to see how much searching into it it took before I understood the concept backronym just take a look in the talk page of the -onym article. It also gives you details about the "Hacker's Dictionary", where all these articles on the web seem to come from. Dieter Simon 00:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If you go back to the very first version of this article, you'll see that the language you found was copied from public-domain material. I'm against copyvios but I'm not against using something in the public domain if it explains the point correctly. JamesMLane 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, James, I realize that and it was a good idea of yours to create an article about the subject. However, searching the web there must be at least twenty-five websites also copied from the "Hacker's Dictionary". I would have thought we might do a bit better and create our own version, since we know all about the subject - well, I do at least now, having read all your quoted examples - and explain things a bit better than they do. Well, that's why I did it and I hoped people would understand. Dieter Simon 00:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I can't take credit for creating this article, and I've made only a few additions to it. An article like this gets better when several people look at it and each thinks, "I see a way to explain things a bit better."  So improving on the public-domain stuff is perfectly proper.  I just wanted to make clear that it's not a copyvio situation.  In copyvio, we must change the wording even if we don't think the change is an improvement. JamesMLane 00:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something-ronym
It seems to me that there ought to be some distinction between genuine or official backronyms (such as Perl) and those that are just invented for humorous purposes. I don't know if there's another term for joke-acronyms like Fix Or Repair Daily, Need Another Seven Astronauts, etc. or if there's even a reliable way to differentiate them from those which may have originally been jokes, but were adopted in some official capacity. For whatever reason, I don't think that words which were originally acronyms (including most of the ones in this article) should qualify as backronyms. At the very least, there should be some separation in the article between "true" backronyms (expansions that were not acronyms in their original formulation) and alternative-acronym backronyms (all the rest). Otherwise, readers may be led to believe that NASA was not an acronym until the Challenger disaster. -- Wapcaplet 18:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe the resolution is to state the official acronym as such or remove all official acronyms all together and let the main page (that the word should link to) handle it. Dustin Asby 08:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've reworded the intro and split the acronyms up into (as near as I can tell) non-acronyms and re-interpreted acronyms. It strikes me that a great many of these are the kind of thing you'd expect to get in one of those lame "funny acronyms" emails from your friends, chain-forwarded throughout the internet, rather than encyclopedic material. This list would be gigantic, if it included every "Found On Road Dead", well-known and obscure, of the backronymical lexicon. It's tricky separating the lame from the interesting. I'm not sure what to do with this article. Any ideas? -- Wapcaplet 00:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Most of these are just jokes. One possibility would be to segregate out all the mere jokes, while giving more prominence to backronyms like the one for Arby's that had some significance in the real world.  Some jokes might deserve to be in the upper echelon, such as Ada, if "Another Damn Acronmy" was indeed intended as a humorous reference when the language was named. JamesMLane 01:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Invento-ronym? Bogus-ronym?
What do they call the reverse of an acronym that was created solely to give the acronym a meaning? I'm thinking of things like BASIC and PLATO, as well as the hundreds of other examples found in the computer world, where the acronym was invented first and the bogus terminology later

Maury 22:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess I should have read the whole article. However it appears several of the listings on apronym are common with ones here. Some cleanup in order?

Maury 22:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "acronym"
I've removed the addition that restricted the applicability of "acronym" to terms like radar that can be pronounced as a word. Other terms, like HTML, are considered by some people to be acronyms as well, while others would exclude them from the definition and call them initialisms. The article links to acronym where this difference is described. JamesMLane 03:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NASA
In "From the Earth to the Moon", one character comments that NASA stands for Never Absolutely Sure of Anything. (Was this made up for the show, or has it been heard elsewhere?)


 * No, but I've read "Need Another Seven Astronauts" before. --82.141.48.65 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lisp made the list twice. Which to keep?

In alternative media it is increasingly referred to as "Never A Straight Answer" because they allegadly restrict access to much source data and satellite imagery. This is specifically a slur on their scientific endevours, rather than what that the public usually associate with NASA, i.e. Space Flight. There are those that believe that NASA lacks the transperency that other tax-payer funded research agencies do.

What about "Not Always Scientifically Accurate" from Deception Point by Dan Brown? Bobber0001 11:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

FIAT
Did Fiat stand for anything originally? There's entries for it on both 'sides' in this article. Krupo 22:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Società Anonima Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino -- Italian Automobile Factory Turin, Ltd. -- Arwel 23:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

COP
The entry for this is wrong. The word is a shortening of "copper," a term used to refer to early American police officers due to their copper badges. I forget whether it was NYC or Chicago that originated the term. This is from the History Channel; Merriam-Webster agrees. Ari 19:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i've read on several occasion that the word copper has a simmilar etymology as capture. the cop/copper being someone who captures perpetrators. i can't find any reliable sources though.

"Copper" for policeman is British slang too, and we never gave our police men copper badges. Pointed helmets, yes. Nickel plated brass whistles, yes. Truncheons, yes. But not copper badges. I have heard it traced to Latin capere, to seize, take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunnian (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for MCSE
Should MCSE be called Multiple Choice Special Edition?


 * It's widely known as "Minesweeper Consultant / Solitaire Expert" --82.141.48.65 23:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" more commonly used" --Daedalus01 18:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Up here in Canada, MCSE doesn't stand for anything at all, because use of the word "engineer" is regulated, and it's not actually a form of engineering. I'm not sure if that deserves a mention or not in this article...--24.42.245.92 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

GNU
According to the GNU entry, GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix." Thus, that translation isn't really a backronym ... is it? --Joe Sewell 21:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's a recursive acronym.

CQD
I'm going to revert CQD as being a backronym unless someone can come up with a citation. *Every* reference I've ever seen to it allocates it as a conscious initialism. It's not really an acronym, anyway: an acronym is by definition a *word* formed from initials. --Baylink 23:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can remember from my brief knowledge of amateur radio, CQ is not an acronym but a short form of "seek you" - used to ask quickly in Morse code if anyone is listening. I'm not sure how that fits in with the story of CQD. Thecatwho 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

confusing acronyms and backronyms
"Many people confuse acronyms and backronyms, like DVD for example"

Aren't backronyms also acronyms? But not all acronyms are backronyms. I don't see how backronyms become not acronyms.

I think a more accurate phrase would be, "Many people don't recognize backronyms because they aren't aware that the original acronym has been redefined."

Anyhow, thanks for this page, I wasn't even aware of this word. :)

"longer"
"In other words, only after the acronym was first created did people try to create an longer definition for each of the letters —that is to say, the words of the expanded term were chosen to fit the letters of the acronym."

I think the word "longer" is ambiguous. Does it mean the new words chosen have to be greater in length than the original acronym's words?

I think this really means the words chosen are new or updated or something of that sort.

Maybe something like: "In othe words, only after the acronym was first created did people realize the words in the acronym were inappropriate, leading them to redefine the words while keeping the resulting acronym the same."

backronym for backronym
I tried to make a backronymn for the word backronymn, and found it exceedingly difficult. The closest I got was "Backwards-adapted Acronymn Conveying Representation Originally Not Meant" (BACRONM). Oh well. Rohirok 02:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

ambiguity
This article is somewhat ambiguous. The first definition is: "A backronym is the phenomenon that the short word exists first and is then expanded to a phrase." this definition is fine, and makes sense... but is later countered. here: "Some backronyms are back-formed by replacing one word in an acronym with another, when the original meaning is deemed obsolete or inaccurate." according to the first definition, it's not possible for that to be a backronym, as it had an original meaning, lest it be suggesting that the original meaning was lost or forgotten, which could easily be the case, as with dvd... but then we must bring up the purpose of the acronym in general: is it created to replace the word? anyways, i think it would be more accurate to say "A back-formed backronym is formed when the original meaning becomes obsolete or inaccurate, and as such must be changed..." or something like that. it seems to me that there is a lot of redundance and blurry lines in the acronym community, because even under that definition (or rather change of subject) it's still inaccurate in reference to the first definition. conceivably there are only rare instances (as phenomenon are) in which a true or pure backronym exists, those being when letters are used as symbols, much like the SOS example. the only other example i can think of is qwerty, though that doesn't work because there's no words attached to it (yet), only an object or idea.

much of the rest of the article also contains descriptions of "backronyms" which are contradictory to the first definition. Dreamer.redeemer 01:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The definition does seem to only address word->acronym expansion and not reengineered acronyms. Unless a better term can be established for reengineering acronyms I think the definition should be modified to include them.  These two sources of letter sequences for backronyms are compatible and not really relevant to the concept being addressed:  the reverse-engineering of an acronym from a sequence of letters.


 * perhaps a better definition would be: "Backronym is a type of acronym that begins as a sequence of characters, from which the constituent words are derived. The word "backronym" is a portmanteau of back and acronym, and was coined in 1983."


 * It may help to start off with a description of the two sources of backronyms (acronyms and non-acronyms) as well as the two major types: Positive/neutral (often replacing obsolete or undesirable constituent words) and negative ( satire/prejorative). Special attention should be paid to the negative type as a common form of cultural criticism

SATs
SAT now doesn't stand for anything at all. The article should be changed to reflect this. Mkop 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This may be the case in the US, but in the UK this still stands for Standard Attainment Test, and is referred to as such in this government glossery: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/onlinehelp/?view=A-Z&version=1&ltr=s I notice that the National_Curriculum_assessment sites this same resource for the naming of SATs, so I'll add it here. 137.222.240.65 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Acronym vs Initials
The paragraph referring to A.D., R.I.P. and R.P.G. is in error - these are initials, not acronyms (and therefore not backronyms). Interesting info, though. 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

SNAFU
There seems to be a descrepency between the SNAFU article and this one: The SNAFU article claims that the 'F' in this acronym originally stood for 'Fouled' and was later changed to 'Fucked'. This article claims alternately that the 'F' stood for 'Fucked' originally, and was (for the sake of politelness) backronymed to 'Fouled'. I don't know what the correct facts are, but certainly only one of these is right. Perhaps the SNAFU article is more likely to be accurate? Since SNAFU is used here as an example of an backronym, perhaps it should be removed as it may be incorrect? Cai 12:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Derogatory Backronyms
There seems to be insufficient discussion of the common practice of derogatory backronyms, especially against commercial products and government agencies. These appear to be more common in every day conversation, if not popular culture than the atricle suggests. An exhaustive list is not necessary, but an acknowledgement of the cultural significance of the activity and some additional examples would be helpful.

Here are a few examples that could illustrate:


 * FORD: Fix Or Repair Daily, Found On Road Dead, Fucker Only Runs Downhill
 * CHRYSLER: Company Highly Recommends You Start Learning Engine Repair
 * FIAT: Fix It Again Tony
 * NASA: Never A Straight Answer
 * SUV: Stupid Ungainly Vehicle
 * PS/2 (computer): Piece of Shit 2 (extremely popular in it's day)
 * OS/2: Half of an Operating System
 * ISDN: It Still Does Nothing (see EFF bumper stickers)
 * ICOM (ham radio manufacturer): I Can Only Monitor
 * MFJ (ham radio manufacturer): Mother Fucking Junk
 * NTSC (color video standard): Never Twice the Same Color (ed. often simply Never The Same Color)

Some other interesting but not necessarily derogatory backronyms:


 * NSA: No Such Agency
 * SPAM: Send Phenomenal Ammounts of Mail (fake etnymology not mentioned on the spam page)
 * PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
 * NFL: Negro Football League (not necessarily racist or derogatory depending on context)

Gemfyre 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IBM - Idiots Built Me

Surely the most common backronym for IBM is I've Been Mugged? Brunnian (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IBM


 * Derogatory backronyms are of course not limited to English. French TV technicians also know PAL = "provocation allemande" and SECAM = "sans experience contre les americans", and German repair technicians know AEG = "Auspacken, Einpacken, Garantiefall", Fiat = "Fehler in allen Teilen" und Honda = "Heute ohne nennenswerte Defekte angekommen". :-) Markus Kuhn 19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What about backronyms that "take back" the word and change the meaning from negative to positive? (Examples - Never Ignorant, Getting Goals Accomplished -or- Beatiful Intelligent Talented Charming Helpful) ````

"Erroneous backronyms"
I've just put a reference to "erroneous backronyms" in the sic article, but am now given to wonder whether "erroneous backronym" is a tautology. Any thoughts?
 * tautology? no. redundant? yes.

=
Addition to FIAT.... there is a popular joke stating that it means First In All Trouble.

Reuben

Spam
SPAM is actually Specially Prepared Assorted Meats, not Spiced Ham.

FoxMajik


 * Not so, "Spam" should not be called "specially prepared assorted meats". Originally Spam was the proprietary name of a "type of tinned cooked meat consisting chiefly of pork" (20th Century Words, Oxford University Press, 1999). "Specially prepared assorted meats" nowadays are types of meat, very often for cultural or religious reasons, consumed by members of our Minorities, prepared differently and often consisting of different types of meat than those consumed by members of the Majority in the country. The name does not seem to have had a particular backronymic origin at the time, although (again) according to "20th Century Words" was "probably a conflation of 'spiced ham' ". Dieter Simon 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe there was a competition to name it and some woman came up with "Spiced Ham" thing. (I'll look it up when I get home). I just find it ironic because if you check the ingredients you'll find Spam has no spices in it, just salt and various other chemicals. Doesn't stop me being one of the sickos that eats it. Gemfyre 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TWAIN
Similar to the cited PCMCIA, the scanner device standard TWAIN can be backcronymed (or even it was the original meaning, I cannot tell for sure) to "Technology Without An Interesting Name" --Michele.alessandrini 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, TWAIN was named for Rudyard Kipling's quote, "...and never the twain shall meet..." and capitalized to reflect networking naming trendsBderwest 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded that entry slightly - my initial impression was it was claiming that Kipling invented the word in the first place, rather than just the phrase 129.215.141.101 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
It is bad enough that Wikipedia has a mostly useless List of backronyms consisting of something like a bunch of jokes, but without the funny bits. But despite this, there is also a constantly increasing list of similarly high-larious backronyms on this page. Why the redundancy? Indeed, why list so many of these things in the first place? Very few of them are known to anyone besides the guy that made them up and put them on Wikipedia. Phiwum 17:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear, a few examples would do quite well. We only need a flavour of the concept, not all and every one of them. This is always an open list, with companies being added all the time. But we get the idea first time, don't we? Dieter Simon 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Moratorium on adding further examples in "Backronym"
The article Backronym is receiving example after example of so-called backronyms, without any sources cited. How do we know these bits and pieces aren't made up as people go along? I think we should declare a moratorium on further additions unless each example given is accompanied by a citation. Furthermore, do we really need each and every one of these backronyms? Surely a sample selection would suffice here just to give readers an idea what it is all about? This is an open list with new commercial companies likely to attract one or another backronym all the time. Do we need such an ever-expanding list? I don't think so. Dieter Simon 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, we must be aware of possible libellous uses of some backronyms, especially if they are unsupported by citations. I think someone should go through the list and remove what cannot be substantiated in Google, Yahoo or Ask.com. If I have time I might do that, but can't promise. Dieter Simon 00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because something is critical of a product or service that one is trying to sell, that doesn't necessarily constitute "libel". Dissatisfied consumers have every right to express complaints and making jest with terms like "Left At Dump Abandoned" or "Dead On Day Guarantee Expires" is one means of doing so.
 * There was a list of backronyms article which was split from this one in order to keep the main text from becoming eighty-some kilobytes of "GMC - Get My Coveralls" but that page has been deleted from Wikipedia through AFD. The text is still on some external Wikipedia mirror sites and has been recovered to but that article being gone from WP may well mean more, not fewer, individual backronyms finding their way into this page. 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford Backronym History
In the Types section, the Fix Or Repair Daily backronym for Ford was related to quality problems in the 1980's. However, I heard that backronym circa 1970. I suspect that it developed out of general brand loyalty to its competitors sometime in the unknown past. I recommend deleting the reference to the 1980's. 70.226.180.124 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ford's reputation for quality-control issues goes back well before the 1980's; the Ford Pinto "Unsafe at Any Speed" debacle dates back to the 1970's and the Model T "tin lizzie" reputation as an inexpensive but cheaply-made vehicle goes back to the pre-Great Depression era. By 1980, most or all of the major American automakers would've been in damage-control mode as they were losing sales to smaller, more fuel-efficient Japanese models, causing serious financial troubles. 23:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed was about the Chevrolet Corvair, not the Pinto. Trevor Hanson 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This Article Is a Mess
This article is muddled, unclear, and extremely poorly written. The overlap with "apronym" is ludicrous. We could slice this article by about 90%.

Let's keep it short and sweet. And let us distinguish between backronym and apronym properly (in the respective articles, of course):


 * A backronym is back-formed from a pre-existing word or phrase. (e.g. tip = "to insure [sic] promptness", Fiat = "Fix it again, Tony")
 * An apronym is an acronym specifically contrived to reflect the expanded phrase. (e.g. USA PATRIOT Act)

These are not the same things, but we can mention, if we must, that "backronym" is sometimes used to mean apronym. And we may include a few examples in each article. We don't have to include every single backronym ever contrived, just a small handful of the best-known ones ("tip", "Fiat"). Unless someone can show good evidence why I shouldn't, I'm going to re-write the article in a couple days. Raggaga 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I say that the article can be taken many ways, depending on your country or even county/state of origin. Don't rewrite the article, as this would only be representing your views from your origin. Acra 16:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"So you're saying that any rewrite would be biased, and that therefore NPOV is not achievable? This makes no sense. If the article is too long, inconsistent, and has excessive less-than-funny examples (with which I think most would agree) then it should be rewritten. The constant stream of 'Here's a funny backronym I heard' additions should go into separate lists. (But of course this is just my own biased opinion, reflecting my own views from my own origin....) Trevor Hanson 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)"

Lack of Sources
If you are going to enter new examples - which seems to occur continuously - please ensure you give the source where the example comes from, in other words cite your sources. The way this article at the moment looks is as though we are making things up as we go along. Most unencyclopaedic! Dieter Simon 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup & Citation
Although several concepts of this article are of value, and therefore subject to construction/discussion, the structure has flaws that allow (and somehow promote) innapropiate content being added. This is the case with Examples. By the way, there is no citation. This issue degrades encyclopedic quality, but what's a most WORRYING is the addition of: -racist content -offensive content -insults

That of the last type renders the article unfit for minors reading it, for example. The first two dont need further explanation...

It should be shortened. And examples mostly, 3 or 4 would be enough to illustrate per category. If the popular jergon examples are somewhat considered valuable a solution would be creating a related article as "Popular Backronyms" or "list of..." but with referenced examples.

USA PATRIOT ACT
I removed the word "Allegedly" from the description of USA PATRIOT ACT. If anyone seriously thinks the creation of this was a mere coincidence, I suggest you check out the entries on probability and statistics. It seems from the rest of the discussion page that there's some controversy about whether it should even be on the page at all. Now, the meaning may have been it was specifically crafted, allegedly shortly after Sept11th. If so, say that. Do not say that it was allegedly created to match the text.

"Pure" Backronyms
Is it just me or are a lot of the backronyms listed under "pure" backronyms just replacement acronyms? For instance, I don't think anyone actually believes that "Fiat" was really meant to stand for "Fix It Again, Tony." Should not the list be confined to words that are commonly misinterpreted as acronyms and not words that are the target of acronymic jokes? GI, Adidas, SOS... all of these seem to fit the bill. But beginning with "Ford," the list is infested with words whose acronyms are clearly not intended. Chachilongbow 01:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's rein in these awful lists!
These lists will grow without bound, unless we do something! This isn't an encyclopedia article. It is an invitation for bad jokes.

I suggest that any new addition should be immediately reverted unless it comes with an actual citation. Etymologists and, er, dictionary guys require actual evidence of usage before listing words. We should do the same for these backronyms. Else, this page is sure to degenerate (sorry, I mean remain) a page of lameass jokes. Phiwum 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. This is ridiculous, it's a collection of unsubstanciated, in most cases local, jokes. I suggest someone who put some work into this does a little editing.  I usually don't do major edits on pages I have been no party to.Mikelj 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I too agree entirely. These lists are open to often unmitigated opinion mongering, and, as you say, cannot be substantiated. Jokes, yes, but an encyclopaedia it ain't. Dieter Simon 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Major rein-in of lists..
Someone had to do it. If you really can't stand it, revert it, but something has to be done. Not trying to start some kind of rv war, but seriously, this is not an encyclopedia article.Mikelj 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I left three examples each on the last two lists. I can't believe digs at a minor community college should count as an encyclopedia article.Mikelj 03:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I got no complaints, I tell you what. This page has become an endless list of lameass jokes.  A major trim was long overdue. Phiwum 03:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reread it, and found "examples" that were in sections that were unrelated. I fixed a few more. I would get rid of a few more, but, yeah.. Again, keep me posted with what you guys think.Mikelj 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the one year anniversary of the original cleanup, I'm going to do it again. It is horrible. If there's a problem, RV but it is a compendium of lame jokes again.Mikelj 00:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency post-clean-up
"A backronym or bacronym is a type of acronym that begins as an ordinary word, and is later interpreted as an acronym"

Way too many examples in this article fail this initial definition from the first line of the article. The way I read the definition, backronym means words that are, or were originally, words in and of themselves, and then came to stand for something else, as an acronym. For instance, ram becoming RAM, or pearl becoming PERL (although, to my mind, the differnt spelling makes this a borderline or special case). GI, SOS, and whatever else you want to mention, don't fit this bill, as they have never been "ordinary words". They are acronyms, or strings of letters, to which other meanings have adhered. If anything, they are examples of acronyms becoming ordinary words. Yet, these words are still listed in the article as "pure backronyms".

As it stands this article is a bit of a joke. Few people use backronym in everyday language, and it seems more an example of geek-speak. The phemonenom is legitimate, but the article needs to stick to a clear definition of the phenomenom (the first sentence seems clear to me) and then give valid examples of it. --Iacobus 04:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right I believe. I cleaned this shi up without really looking at it, but I do believe you are correct. Perhaps all the incorrect ones that actually are real like SOS and RIP could be moved to acronyms (sub) incorrect or something... Let me know what you guys think...Mikelj 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Originally reading the article it didn't hit me as a big deal, but on re-reading it seems the apronyms section is really one of the problems here - an apronum doesn't fit the backronym definition listed at the top of the article, since (for example) ACLU is originally an acronym and not an 'ordinary word'. Also, note that the apronym mention of PCMCIA may require revision as the original definition of the acronym was different, so it may be best to remove that example. GGG65 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD Picture
What does the DVD show? It doesn't say Digital Versitile Disk on it anywhere. It is just a huge file sitting there. (Sorry don't remember my username anymore) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.2.41 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

DVD stands for...
I'd been reading about digital versatile discs in magazines for at least a couple years before I ever heard "Digital Video Disc" or movie DVDs started coming out. If I had a source I'd change what I see as a mistake in the article, but I don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.140.19 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I agree. Digital Versatile Disc was the original name of the technology, as it was designed from the ground-up to support a wide range of applications (esp computer), not just video formats. It was later supplanted by "Digital Video Disc" because its adoption in the mainstream was spurred by film media as a replacement for VHS and LaserDisc. I am changing the caption, if anyone disagrees please provide evidence that "Digital Video Disc" was the original name that the acronym was based on.24.6.99.30 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right beside the caption is a link to the source that I got that information from. If you find a counter source, that is more reliable stating that my source is incorrect, i will have no problem with the caption being changed.  However, if no other source can be provided, I will have to object.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the DVD FAQ |FAQ, on The Digital Bits:


 * ''[ 1.1.1 ] What do the letters DVD stand for?


 * ''All of the following have been proposed as the words behind the letters DVD.


 * Delayed, very delayed (referring to the many late releases of DVD formats)
 * Diversified, very diversified (referring to the proliferation of recordable formats and other spinoffs)
 * Digital venereal disease (referring to piracy and copying of DVDs)
 * Dead, very dead (from naysayers who predicted DVD would never take off)
 * Digital video disc (the original meaning proposed by some of DVD's creators)
 * Digital versatile disc (a meaning later proposed by some of DVD's creators)
 * Nothing


 * And the official answer is? "Nothing." The original acronym came from "digital video disc." Some members of the DVD Forum (see 6.1) tried to express that DVD goes far beyond video by retrofitting the painfully contorted phrase "digital versatile disc," but this has never been officially accepted by the DVD Forum as a whole. The DVD Forum decreed in 1999 that DVD, as an international standard, is simply three letters. After all, how many people ask what VHS stands for? (Guess what, no one agrees on that one either.)--75.178.92.119 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

RSVP
Added a more accurate translation of "Répondez s'il vous plaît" to "Respond, if you please." There seems to be a tendency for people to mistranslate things just because it's more efficient in English... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 03:05, 23 December 2006 (talk) 74.227.152.184

I don't want to be rude but does rsvp really belong here? If the article was saying it didn't stand for respondez (etc) then it would belong here but respond by post (or whatever it was)???? Is this commonly used or made up by an editor on here? Sorry if this insulting but I've never heard it used before and find it hard to believe folks are that daft. AlanD 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Never heard that one at all ever. Does 2 comments a consensus make? Presumably whoever added it had heard of it before... 129.215.141.101 14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently neither of you have ever been invited to a wedding or other fancy party. It is extremely popular in North America, and assumedly France and possibly the UK--WPaulB (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the comments are over a year old, but just to clarify: AlanD and the IP did not say they had never heard of RSVP (I'm sure they have). They just said that they had never heard someone saying it stands for "Respond to Sender Via Post" or "Respond So Very Promptly". -- Jao (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed that entirely in the article and thought it was only being discussed on the Talk page. I have heard of both, but only in the context of Francophobes, like that silly "Freedom Fries" event a few years ago, where the protagonists (antagonists?) were simply mad that they would have to use a non-English translation.  They made up two backronyms that never caught on.  It sounds like urban legend, but you can find these phrases via a regular Google search and "Respond So Very Promptly" was used in a Laverne and Shirley episode.--WPaulB (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem in reference?
There seems to be a problem in the "False" section of the article here:

".......The band's founders (Angus and Malcolm Young) saw the letters on the back of a sewing machine[30]; they thought that a name associated with electricity suited their energetic style. (Oddly enough it was also British slang for bisexuals, used much like the term "switch-hitter")

Slayer (Satan Laughs As You Eternally Rot). Brothers further claims that this phrase is inscribed in the vinyl of the 'Show No Mercy' LP.[31]" 

Who is this "Brothers?" (We find out by checking the note in reference / note 30, but to mention "Brothers" in the article - all of a sudden - is odd: it infers we should be familair with this "Brothers" before we check the notes)

I guess I should get out more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.156.125 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2007

That makes sense. I thought it was just incorrect grammar, saying that "the brothers" in Slayer claim...and I thought, "oh, I didn't know Slayer was a group of brothers." Definitely needs to be fixed. 24.23.170.111 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing/Cleanup
This page is getting too big, and people are using it as an opportunity to insert their favourite rude comments.

We obviously cannot hope to catalogue every backronym ever, so we'd be far better having one or two well known (and well referenced) examples of each type.

As such I'm going to tag this with. --cfp 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, thanks for catching that. I did a cleanuip a few months ago, had everything nice and cited and it got out of hand prety quickly again.  I will take a look at it and do what I can to clean it up, or find citations etc! Thanks again for catching that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added to make the issue more specific. I also added  as some are still missing citations. Thanks for your help -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider), 'tis appreciated. --cfp 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up again to pretty muich the last cited version I had. If there are any particular citations requested, please let me know here.  I have tried to make sure all statements are sourced!  Thanks for the notice. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow that was quick. Nice work. --Cfp 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Posh
From the article:
 * Posh, which did not originally stand for "Port Out Starboard Home" (referring to 1st class cabins shaded from the sun on outbound voyages west, and homeward heading voyages east).

Given that, going west, port cabins face south, this seems backwards (assuming it was coined in the northern hemisphere). Hairy Dude 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are going to India, which at the time the acronym was supposedly formed, would have been, as the Jewel of the Empire, a common destination for posh people. This explanation makes sense if you assume that the term originated in Britain, from where most people would have been travelling to the East, via Gibraltar and Suez, not the West. The problem lies not in the understanding that he first class cabins would have been on the predominantly northern side of the ship, but which way the ship would have been travelling on each leg of the journey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.102.188 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Backronym and Retronym
Do these two concepts really warrant two seperate articles?--HisSpaceResearch 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

POS: replacing one acronym with another
NSF stands for the National Science Foundation and for Non-sufficient funds

POS stands for Point of Service insurance plan and for piece of sh*t

I can see how the different interpretations can get mixed up. --IHTFP 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

IHTFP
Err, I guess my name has a bit of history to it too.

http://www.mit.edu/people/mjbauer/ihtfp.html

--IHTFP 08:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Backronyms are NOT reversed Abbreviations/Initializations
Remember: not all abbreviations are acronyms! Acronyms are words. If a Backronym is a reversed acronym, then it cannot by definition apply to abbreviations such as:
 * IBM
 * ESV
 * DVD
 * GSM
 * LG

(I'm not sure about GAO, since it's possible articulate it as a word). So unless someone objects "real soon now", I will take these out. (I already took out IBM).
 * --Otheus 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) 1. Both PC Magazine and several other RS's list non-acronyms that have been turned into backronyms (expanded into phrases not fitting the original abbreviation)
 * 2) 2. The WordSpy site lists the oldest reference, from 1971, and it clearly fits into the "Pure" category.  In the 1971 reference, the word was "SCOPERS" and turned into the phrase "Students Concentrating On the Palatable Extremities of the Reciprocal Sex". This is an existing word that is used as an acronym.
 * 3) 3. I can find no definition of backgronym that indicates that it originates from an abbreviation or initialism -- always from a word.
 * 4) 4. As acronyms and initialiism have become more commonplace, their label as such is often confounded.

How can I say all this without it being considered OR?
 * --Otheus 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * the best i can suggest is that until someone coins a new term for a bacronym formed from an abbreviation or initialism, the term bacronym will have to suffice.

Update: I (Otheus) rewrote the whole article
Absolutely no offense to the preceeding editors, but the article was problematic for the simple reasons given above. I could not find any OR to resolve the Backronym acronym/initialism dispute (see above). I made my edits by section so that you all can more easily peruse the history seeing what changed on a section-by-section basis. In addition to cleaning up references and fixing minor grammatical problems, I ironed out the concept -- a backronym is a phrase, while its anteceedent is usually an acronym, but sometimes an initialism. Feel free to critique, etc. I religiously abide by WP:OWN. --Otheus 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For quick reference, here is the diff where I begin my edits. and here is the diff between my first and "final edit".

Removing bold
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove *all* the bold from the acronyms -- especially the first. Comments?? --Otheus 01:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to revert. I just think it looks odd to have some acronyms with the letters bold, and others not, and there didn't seem a good reason to bold the SAT phrases. Gimmetrow 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anacronym or Anachronym
We have wikipedia articles on both. Which is correct. Someone? --Otheus 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shock! Horror! We seem to have got a bit of a conundrum here, Otheus, and I somehow have been involved. The word is, to say the least a fairly recent coinage, judging by the number of dictionaries carrying the word. To start with, Google has over 14,000 references to "anacronym" and just 200 to "anachronym". OneLook Online Dictionary shows anacronym four times two of which are of Wikipedia and Wiktionary respectively, none for anachronym. None of the British English dictionaries I own have either anacronym or anachronym, all of them were published in the late nineties. As I see it, it seems to be very much "computerese" and/or "bloggese". So, where do we go from here? I think we should be consistent and use "anacronym" throughout. Dieter Simon 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll buy that. I think someone already changed the article to anacronym. What about the wikipedia article anachronym?? Nominate for merge r or just Boldly do it? --Otheus 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, "anacronym" is already linked to in "backronym", but some people will want to see a separate article for it to give it greater scope (at the moment it is only a stub). By rights, it is more than a backronym, it is one that has been around so long that it is no longer recognised as such. You would need to check the OED to see just how long each acronym has been around, would that be a bit too much to be a feature of this, the mother-article, if you merged it? It is an intractable task. After all, what makes it no longer recognised, who says it isn't. We can only cite from other dictionaries who say it is. Dieter Simon 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant merge anacronym and anachronym. :) --Otheus 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Acronym is an acronym
From the opening lines:

An example of a backronym from the word acronym is as follows.

''Acronyms Condense Representations Of Neologisms You Memorize In this example, because the word acronym itself is not an acronym, the phrase above is a pure backronym, not a replacement backronym. ''

However, according to the Internet Acronym Dictionary, ACRONYM is itself an acronym, standing for Abbreviated Coded Rendition Of Name Yielding Meaning. Is this an urban legend, does anyone know what the etymology of acronym is? mattbuck 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question, but really, that should be asked at the acronym page. However, I suspect it's an urban legend.--Otheus 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to perpetuate the argument, but I also suspect urban legend behind that etymology. However, I am regretfully unfounded in doing so, as the only alternative etymology would be a combination of the Greek akros, which bears height and extremity connotations, and onoma, meaning "name" directly; a combination which, given the meaning of the word acronym itself, waxes nonsensical.


 * I suggest another pair of eyes on the subject...preferably an ancient Greek pair, or a pair employed to the English usage board circa 1940. .Absolution. 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason this Greek prefix acr- puzzles all is that we think it only means "high", "height", "top, summit, or apex", but id doesn't. It also means "beginning", as well as "end", in other words, they were metaphorically used in ancient times as they are now, in "top eqals beginning" as they do in modern times. So, yes they do mean "acr- + onym", the word formed by "beginnings" (tops). If you can lay your hands on a "Longman Dictionary of the English Language", or a "Collins English Dictionary", they are both equally explicit. Dieter Simon 22:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the word is not a backronym and not even an acronym. It is a compound noun formed by Greek prefix and suffix. Dieter Simon 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Status?
I failed to find any reason in either the article or the discussion page inhibiting positive recognition. Perhaps the previous featured article distinction heading the page is dated beyond March 2007; that notwithstanding, the article certainly deserves the appropriate reviewing now. .Absolution. 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

confused; unclear
''A backronym or bacronym is a portmanteau of backward and acronym[1] coined in 1983.[2][3] It usually refers to a phrase that is constructed backwards from the phrase's abbreviation, the abbreviation being an initialism or acronym. Sometimes backronym refers to the initialism or acronym itself,[4] but usually in those cases, it is a "replacement" backronym, the abbreviation already having an associated phrase. When the backronym phrase becomes more popular than the original, the word becomes an anacronym.[5]''

The first two sentences are okay, but then things start to get confusing:

Sometimes backronym refers to the initialism or acronym itself,[4] but usually in those cases, it is a "replacement" backronym Perhaps it should be an initialism or acronym, instead of the initialism or acronym itself? "The initialism or acronym" implies the initialism or acronym mentioned in the previous sentence, so that the backronym would be the same thing as the initialism or acronym. [In those cases, then, it cannot be a replacement. The sentence makes about as much sense as saying "in the cases when an actor did his stunts himself, he had a replacement."] The words but usually in those cases, it is a "replacement" backronym appear to allow for this - but is that really needed? Unless an actual word needs to be accommodated, I would suggest scrapping the usually in favor of coherency.

the abbreviation already having an associated phrase Which abbreviation - the original or the replacement?

When the backronym phrase becomes more popular than the original, the word becomes an anacronym.[5] But an anacronym has been defined in Wikipedia as an acronym that is so well established that its origin as an abbreviation [i.e. the associated phrase] is no longer widely known!!

Finally, the backronym has not initially been defined as the expansion of a word/abbreviation that is NOT an acronym or initialism, hence the sentence because the word acronym itself is not an acronym, the phrase above is a pure backronym comes as a surprise!

I'm very glad that this article was not chosen as a featured article. It needs to be way more readable (I'm not talking of content, but clarity) and polished. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.152.156 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

NTSC
Video standard adopted by and named after the National Television Standards Committee. Often jokingly referred to as standing for "Never The Same Color" or "Never Twice the Same Color", due to reception problems changing the phase of the color signal, altering the color balance of the picture unless a compensation is made in the receiver.

Is this acceptable to add to the list of replacement backronyms? It seems relevant. Buttle 14:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Offensive" section has zero reliable sources
I am going to delete this section because only one of the "offensive" backronyms in the list has a reliable source. Many have no sources; others are linking to wikis, an "open dictionary" (the equivalent of the Urban Dictionary - anyone can edit it), at least one misprogrammed site, and in one case an official website that doesn't include the term whatsoever. I'm not opposed to having such a section, but it must be supported by reliable sources. Risker 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

TLA section
Can we get rid of this: "TLA: Three-Letter Acronym. Not actually an acronym since it is not pronounced as such. However a suitable replacement backronym is Three-Letter Abbreviation." seeing as how even the acronym page can't decide whether or not an acronym has to be pronounceable? 76.205.213.37 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

RAP
Although the word rap has sometimes been claimed to be a backronym of the phrase "Rhythmic American Poetry", "Rhythm and Poetry", "Rhythmically Applied Poetry", or "Rhythmically Associated Poetry", use of the word to describe quick and slangy speech or repartee long predates the musical form.

DVD under Recursive?
Have removed DVD from the recursive list as it is merely an acronym of either Digital Video Disc or Digital Versatile Disc "depending upon who you listen to" []. Dieter Simon 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rein in of lists
I'd like to get rid of the ones that obviously couldn't be mistaken for real acronyms, such as the ones for SPAM and IBM. If anyone can think of legitimate backronyms for them, please replace. Mikelj 00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of portmanteau?
Currently, this article doesn't mention that the word "backronym" itself is a portmanteau. I know it could be confusing to add this tidbit, depending on where you put it and how it is phrased. But, it is such a great example of a portmanteu, it seems a shame not to include this info. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Better examples of backronymic mnemonics
The mnemonics section currently reads as though all mnemonics are backronyms. I find nothing backronymic at all with the music examples (EGBDF is not a word!) or with the star example (neither is OBAFGKM). HOMES and APGAR are okay, both are genuine backronyms constructed for educational purposes, but in both cases it's really the acronym that is the mnemonic, not the backronym: the purpose is not that the student should remember the word "homes" by reading it out as "Huron Ontario Michigan Erie Superior". The only example of actual backronyms actually constructed to "form mnemonics so that the word or initialism is easier to remember", as the section defines it, is the ACRONYM example in the intro. Certainly we can find more genuinely backronymic mnemonics? -- Jao (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Acronym vs. Initialism
As long as the Acronym and initialism article acknowledges the existence of two conflicting definitions of "acronym", why should this article treat the subject differently and only give one of these definitions? I added a boilerplate about this to the backronym versus acronym section. -- Jao (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perl does NOT stand for Practical Extraction and Report Language
The citations: and The significance: It is a common misunderstanding by many programmers, because the backronym can describe the nature of Perl. In addition, this misunderstanding is noticed by perl.org, and it writes the backronym in Perl documentation. QQ (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BP
BP--> Officially 'British Petroleum', but often advertised as 'Beyond Petroleum'. Just thought this could be added, but I don't know exactly where... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.197.226 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Adidas slogan
The previous translation of the Adidas slogan "Try out Adidas, by all means" for the German version "Probier unbedingt mal Adidas" really doesn't make much sense. "By all means" in English has a connotation more like "if you really think so", "if you really must" whereas the German "unbedingt" means more something like "absolutely" in English.

The real sense is much more exhortatory "You really must try out Adidas!". And as for "once", which company would advertise their wares for people to try it once (and once only?). No, the "mal" in German has a number of meanings, not only "once", more often than not it is untranslatable on its own, and is usually part of an idiomatic phrase or clause. In this case it is part of the "do have a go, go on, try Adidas, go on". Mal always lightens the sense what you are trying to say, doesn't force people to use Adidas but give them a more light-hearted nudge. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Backronym a neologism?
A message atop the page indicates concern over the word being a neologism, but wasn't even the word "neologism" a neologism at one point? Or is this implying more of an individual idea than a cultural linguistic root? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jughead (search engine)
Jughead is officially an acronym for Jonzy's Universal Gopher Hierarchy Excavation And Display, though it was originally chosen to match that of the FTP search service known as Archie—Jughead Jones being the name of another character from the Archie Comics. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FVWM
FVWM (the unix windows manager) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.144.50 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

why did you take out the 12 steps?
Why did you remove the section explaining how backronyms were an important part of the 12-step culture?

I have seen the stated reason that the website cited is not a reliable source. But Isn't the process to challenge the inclusion for a period of time before it's deleted, so that the original author can find a source. Although 12-step culture, being anonymous, has no "experts" who can be quoted, I imagine it would not be impossible to find a RS with a couple of these 12-step backronyms included.

I confess to being a noob and not realizing that Wikipedia insists on Reliable sources, not Primary sources. Since the webpage cited was by an actual 12-step person, using actual current 12-step jargon, it qualifies as an unmediated primary source. It seems odd to go to a mediated source like a newspaper article as proof the phenomenon exists when there's a source available showing it does. There couldn't be copyright issues since the phrases cited are common coin, and multiple examples could be found.

So why was it deleted?

I anticipate an argument that the section is not strictly a definition of backronyms and therefore doesn't belong.

To that I would argue that this section gives an example of backronyms at work in the world. In a dictionary definition of a word it is common to end with the word used in a sentence. This is analogous, broadening the knowledge of what a backronym is capable of.

I think it's interesting, too, which is of value. It's a "little known fact," which is meat for readers.

If there are other examples of backronyms in culture, I think they should be included and the section broadened.

I suppose an argument could be made that this section belongs in an article about 12-step culture and not in the definition here. But I would reply that a person interested in Backronyms would find the section valuable and would never find the information otherwise. Conversely, a person reading an article about '12-step culture' would find the mention of backronyms not as valuable.

If the consensus evolves that including this section is too much of a left turn for the article I would suggest that we include a couple under pedagogical backronyms with a sentence mentioning that they're "an important part of 12-step culture." Savagela (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)