LINGUIST List 22.2567 Mon Jun 20 2011 Qs: Rules of Etymology of Initialism Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean <daniellelinguistlist.org> New! 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       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.