Your region for free !!! no fees !!!

Oh yay, have you succeeded in proving how smart you are, I'm assuming that was your objective.

NATO doesn't appear in the dictionary, yet it's cited by M-W as an acronym.

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Nice try at "coining" your own strawman argument, though.

Depends on how you use it. Could be as a noun, adjective, or adverb. Want usage as well? OK...

"It was a clear case of TINSTAAFL."

In this case, it is an aphorism for a state of affairs, and is, thus, a noun.

I think it's still hilarious that you call "TINSTAAFL" incorrect, while the more "popular" version is an incorrect double-negative, using an invalid contraction, nonetheless.

Stellar; just absolutely stellar.

..and, no, thank you for the entertainment! I do so enjoy the odd clown show.

Apparently, Pep does. It seems to be his main focus in life to care about such things. Well, that and "educating" all us "dumb forum posters" about it.

Amazing what "postgraduate work at (THE) Cambridge" can generate as interest in a person.

Please give it a rest or take it somewhere else.

What do you mean, he's clearly smarter than all of us and I thought his main focus in life was to prove that to all us stupid people.

I think you're getting the rules for acronyms confused with the ones for scrabble. If the acronym has to be a word found in the dictionary before it can be an acronym why would Merriam-Webster use NATO as an example of an acronym?

NONE OF THE EXAMPLES GIVEN WERE WORDS *BEFORE* THEY WERE ACRONYMS. And all of them were acronyms before they made it into the dictionary.

Main Entry: ac·ro·nym \ˈa-krə-ˌnim\
Function: noun
Etymology: acr- + -onym
Date: 1943

Definition 1:
a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) FORMED from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term


Definition 2:
an abbreviation (as FBI)

Definition 3:
initialism

This thread is STILL around? Geeze, we really need to find better things to do, like torturing Lindens.... IBTL!

Are you suggesting that this thread should back onto the original topic of your region for free !!! no fees !!!?

Woot, IBTL!

Seriously though, this is crazy. Where are all the mods? Do they have a life.. If so this will throw everything we know out the window!

Let me guess, we get a "Free" region then several months down the line you increase the price by 67%? Linden Lab already did that noise, not fooling us again! Plus that makes no sense, it was free so a 67% increase would not matter >.>

Exactly! That's why it will only be a 40% increase.

Why the hell is this thread still here?

IBTL.

I'm having trouble saying "IBTL" as a word... can anyone help me?

What is the price if you start with nothing, then increase it by 67%?

Rock

I suppose you would say it like "subtle".

Seems to me you did.

Pep (Oh, and the OED doesn't quote NATO as an acronym, giving examples that are acknowledged as "words", not proper names; I'd prefer it to Merriam Webster as a definitive authority)

Well, seems to me that you are, again, quite wrong.

I don't see the word "any" in that quote. You might assume it is implied, but just because *you* do, doesn't make it so.

I have looked around a little and I can't find a single instance of an aphorism that is a single word, which suggests your logical chain is in error - or perhaps you have coined a further new and incorrect definition. Rather, you would have been better advised to claim that it was an exclamation, in which case you might also claim that the complete pantheon of Batman and Robin's comic ejaculations (each one being being "a series of SOUNDS that conveys a MEANING" should also be considered as "words".

You are probably the only person reading this thread that still considers the "correct" version of TANSTAAFL worth arguing for. Give it up before you look even more silly.

The apparent ex-colonies' favourite dictionary M-W acknowledges "ain't" as: "common in the habitual speech of the ***less educated***, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in ***American English***; my OED deprecates it: "ain’t is non-standard and should not be used in informal or written contexts"; its use in TANSTAAFL highlights the folksy philosophy Heinlein espouses - and I would point out that his is a work of science fiction in which he artificially coins other nonsensical futuristic "words" . . .

Pep ( . . . although that is significantly more grounded than fantasising about being a dragon)

It's the way you have used it in your "argument" previously.

Pep (Refuting your own "argument" now? Perhaps you are tired?)

I really did spend to many days wagging school!

"***Too*** many".

Pep (I would hate to disappoint you)

Oh well, guess I was wagging that day, at least I was having fun

And you think I am not?

Pep (A different sort of fun, though)

There appears to one very important thing that you miss with your arguments, Pep. The dictionary reflects words that are used and, if a word's useage changes, or new words come into common useage, they must be relected in the dictionary. You argue as though the dictionary must be obeyed, and non-compliance is wrong.

That's an example. Your OED can do what the hell it likes with "ain't", but your OED will change it's view if the word becomes more commonly used. Dictionaries spend their time trying to reflect words as they are used, and not in trying to make rules for their use. You seem to be thinking that what the dictionary says is gospel and must be obeyed. That's the wrong way round, Pep.