* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 22.2567

Mon Jun 20 2011

Qs: Rules of Etymology of Initialism

Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean <daniellelinguistlist.org>


New! Multi-tree Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
            http://multitree.linguistlist.org/

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
Directory
        1.     Michael Miller , Rules of Etymology of Initialism

Message 1: Rules of Etymology of Initialism
Date: 09-Jun-2011
From: Michael Miller <sinfulsailoryahoo.com>
Subject: Rules of Etymology of Initialism
E-mail this message to a friend

Hello,

I am researching the etymology of an initialism for a book that I am
writing. The root/source of the initialism I am studying is a combination
of previously existing initialisms. The earliest examples of the initialism I
am studying are combinations of the previously existing initialisms that
use punctuation within the combination. My specific question is: Are
these earliest forms of the initialism which are the joining of two
previously existing initialisms with an ampersand, a slash, a comma or
an "and" valid examples of the current preferred form of the initialism,
or by the rules of etymology is the source/origin of the currently
preferred form of the initialism found strictly and only in the first use of
the currently preferred form of the initialism? And, is there a reference
book such as a textbook in which I can find the answer to my question?

The specifics:

I am researching the origin of the initialism "BDSM". The earliest
examples of that initialism are either in the first appearance of the
initialism as it appears in usage today, ie., "BDSM" or in usages such
as "B&D and S&M", "BD, SM", "B&D/S&M" or even "SM and BD" and so
on in which, from the context, the writer intended to speak of the two
initialisms (BD and SM) as one concept and as what would now be
written as "BDSM".

(There are other examples in which BD and SM appear together in a
list separated by commas. Those examples, however, from context do
not appear to join BD and SM into BDSM. It is simply the case that
those two initialisms (BD and SM) appear side-by-side in a list. I do not
include those examples in my question. Nor do I perceive those list
examples to be valid examples of the origin of the initialism "BDSM"
currently in use. If I am mistaken about that, please correct me.)

Sources consulted:

Gales
OED
Webster's
The Language of Sadomasochism
Historical Dictionary of American Slang
Various contextual examples of usage

Thank you,
Michael Miller

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics
                            Morphology


Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 20-Jun-2011

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.