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

I think we can forget about the IBTL... if it's gone on this long. Really, how is it this thread still lives?

I say IBTL as "eye-bottle."

In Italian most but not all initialisms (or whatever you call them) are pronounced as words, so that the CIA is "cheeya" (for example). Some people go so far as to say "kuggaba" for the KGB, but it's not common.

Be precise, please. It's the Oxford English Dictionary. "The definitive record of the English language". Not one of those transatlantic upstarts that includes all sorts of peculiar argot because it has appeared once or twice as a misspelling in an internet site run by someone who thinks he is a dragon yet isn't even Welsh. Note that it is a "record", not a snapshot. To repeat my arguments made elsewhere that you are apparently too indolent to review, it recognises - as I of course do - and tracks changes in meaning, normally because of errors in usage by the ignorant. Gresham's Law apparently applies to words as well as money.

Good Lord? Really? I am so grateful for pointing out such an astonishingly original concept to me. My scholarship is obviously defective to a considerable degree. Or maybe I didn't study, as did you and Basil Fawlty's wife, so that I could enter Mastermind with my subject as "The Bleeding Obvious". If you think that an editor is likely in the future to revise Heinlein's oeuvre to get rid of a double negative then think again, and the same goes for the replacement in common use of TANSTAAFL by TINSTAAFL. I will, however, acknowledge that the wave of ignorance surrounding the use of the word "acronym" is already subsuming its correct use, and English is being left poorer by it having to do double duty, to the neglect of "initialism".

Pep (I would say that a nice distinction is being lost, but the subtle original meaning of the word "nice" has long been overwhelmed by the use of it by the ignorant masses to mean very little, in a different way)

BINGO! I think he's finally got it. There's hope for him yet

Five syllables versus three, to make a distinction of no significance: surely an archaism in the making.

Or perhaps it shall become a pond-side-specific usage, Oxbridge being so near l'Académie française geographically and, evidently, philosophically.

Same alphabet, just selective quoting of letters and spaces.

Pep (Childish eh?)

So you judge the worth of words as inverse to the number of syllables? An interesting evaluation method. And you obviously failed to comprehend the "nice" comment, which alluded to the distinction which *has* a significance, although your devotion to minimalisation might want to simplify things further. Perhaps you would like English converted into a finite set vocabulary like computing languages?

Pep (Oxbridge? Cambridge doesn't descend to such mundane issues)

It's not "my" definition of the word; it came from the dictionary, as I have already quoted. However, since you seem to want to epitomize the ultimate in being pedantic, I'll quote it for you again:



I shouldn't have to remind you that it isn't the only meaning that could be applied, but since you appear to lack any real reading comprehension beyond the obtusely literal, being functionally incompetent at communicating anything other than your (non-)pithy bile, here's another for you to chew (and perhaps, choke) on:



Taken literally, even your random garbage "word" "tcfcdwikclj" fits (and is laughably the most intelligent thing to come from your posting here).

..and don't even bother disparaging the source; it is LIGHT YEARS ahead of you in terms of credibility.

However, I'm willing to give you that I wouldn't use that definition in this discussion, since I don't think it should apply. Still, that leaves the first one, which I paraphrased nearly exactly.



Translation: "Pot, thou art black!"



1) You're wrong.
2) It's in dispute.
3) This whole debate about acronyms started when you got your panties in a twist over the usage of a perfectly acceptable version of a popular acronym, that's all. So, who is the REAL "grammar Nazi", Mr. "it's not an acronym"?



The only thing it demonstrates is that you are particularly bad at reading, atrocious at communicating, and even worse at math. 234,000 divided by 11,600 is ~20.17, not 55.



Probably a lot less than use "TINSTAAFL" as a valid alternate form of the popular acronym.

Once again you are demonstrating your incompetence. Your inadequate reading of the thread means you are using different numbers from those that I originally quoted (and have since confirmed) by googlefight. Check back and do your numbers again. You will find out that once again I am right and you are misguided.

Probably the difference is just one - you.

Pep (Still waiting for someone else to say they recognise TINSTAAFL not TANSTAAFL)

Doubtful.



Surprised? No. Believe in its veracity? Definitely not.



What does that garbage even mean? Sounds like you invented a postscript just so you could use the phrase "doesn't make *you* right". Bravo! *applause*

No, what makes me right is a superior argument, with nearly impeccable presentation.

You didn't "answer" it; you threw some words at it.



Yep, the pot is still black.



Why wait? READ some of the 11,600 hits on Google for it and see what they say:

"Any freshman economics student knows the acronym TINSTAAFL – there is no such thing as a free lunch."

"One sounds better, one is more widely used. Message is the same, but my Economics prof preferred TINSTAAFL, so that's what I use."

"Engineers often say, "There is no such thing as a free lunch" (abbreviated TINSTAAFL) to imply that no benefit is without cost."

"Outside hacker circles the variant TINSTAAFL ("There is No Such Thing..." is apparently more common, and can be traced back to 1952 in the writings of ethicist Alvin Hansen. TANSTAAFL may well have arisen from it by mutation."

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress popularized the concept of There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, or TANSTAAFL. (Actually, the phrase may have its roots in the writings of ethicist Alvin Hansen in 1952, only he used the phrase “there is no such thing as a free lunch” or TINSTAAFL.)"

From this research, it appears that the use of TINSTAAFL predates TANSTAAFL, hence:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d6JZryGvfxYC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&source=bl&ots=-GHHab8s5R&sig=z0_LgER-q75XVQZStj3MzGAxmzc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

However, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Gee, Crazod didn't stick around for his full five minutes...

Why? We know what he meant. Don't you? Or is that your anal retentiveness streak flaring up again? Might try a bit of fiber for that.



Self-described, anyway.



Thankfully, the Welsh have no monopoly on Dragons. Too stuffy and inbred; Welsh Dragons, that is.



I see the problem; it's a mantra to you. The "normal" way language can change is via errors in usage by the "ignorant". Other people who post anything you disagree with are dumb (as in "lacking intelligence". More or less, "Pep" is the epitome of human perfection (probably moreso than you realize), and everyone else is an "indolent" ignoramus.

If you're nothing else, you're remarkably consistent.



You should be grateful anyone is willing to point anything out to you at all.



I'd argue it isn't the only defective aspect.



Now, THERE is a caricature I recognize in your posting paradigm, Basil Fawlty.



Protip: Something doesn't have to be popular to be used without challenge as to whether it is "proper" or not.



The only ignorance surrounding the use of the word "acronym" is coming from your direction. Relevant sources (MUCH more authoritative than you, thankfully) have been used to demonstrate it. Yeah, I know; you are more authoritative than the "ignorant masses", many of which have more degrees and man-millennia of first-hand study on the subject than you, but they still are "ignorant".

Regardless, I think they probably sleep very well at night being completely ignorant... of your existence, anyway.



Variations on a theme. *AUUMMM*

Misquoting yourself? O.o

Brenda's panties are a point of much speculation, and are collected and traded by those lucky enough to score a pair. Her pants merely showcase her panties when she takes them off.

Oh, and IBTL.

Surely this must rank as the deadliest insult ever to be posted on these, our Forums.
















j/k

Not likely; I am using the ones ACTUALLY given by Google, not some nonsense toy site which is probably either a) buggy, or b) presents bogus results subject to its own interpretation of the data.

After all, if you're going to quote statistics, shouldn't you get them from the SOURCE? Durrr...

What's even more sad is that, using your toy site numbers, 552,000 vs 11,300, you are off by more than 10% error in your calculations, even when rounded to the same number of significant digits (2; 55 (your number) vs 49 (rounded from ~48.85)).

Who appears to be the incompetent and misguided one here?



I'm glad to be able to make a difference, especially here, and for you. *lick*

Seriously? We're worrying about acronyms?

So you were watching me? I guess you must have looked away when I read the whole thread (which I found mildly educational, and somewhat amusing). As for your questions, I prefer TINSTAAFL, because TANSTAAFL looks like it should be read "T'ain't no such thing as a free lunch", because most people would just say "Ain't no such..." and leave the "there" off entirely, or squish it in with the "ain't", but in my area "t'ain't" is very rarely used.

For the second, no one uses "ain't" in a legal document, because most people don't type the way they speak. Which is good, since I am far more understandable in type than speech, thanks to slurred speech caused by a neurological defect I was born with.

What interests me the most about this thread, is the defense of the English language. It's my first language, but I despise it. It seldom follows its own rules, and is often too ambiguous, as a result of being a bizarre mix of other languages, rather than a truly unique language. Japanese is so much easier to understand.

(Edited..... Since the original "arguer" seems to have disappeared, I'm picking up the baton here)



You did so...



And as I have paid for my five minutes, I want my five minutes!

there site isn't even working.
Don't think I want a region there if they even can't keep there site up

If you delve into the history of the English languge, you'll see that most of what today looks like irregularities can actually be explained-for example all those "weird" pronunciation exceptions. English is far more regular than most people think. I find German perfectly boring. No foreign influences to the extent of what English experienced. For pronunciation purposes, I prefer Welsh or Latin. Both easy to pronounce because there are very strict rules. Or Old English.

Btw, SPQR is usually considered the earliest acronym ever. Discuss.

I haven't been able to log into it, I get to the login page and get an error message every time........something about the server. Can't be arsed with it.

As for the English language thing, it's not about language or English or Grammar, it’s about one dork who clearly has some very real inadequacies and feels he has to compensate by attempting to prove he's smarter than the rest of us.

Btw, where I live SPQR is a trendy restaurant/ bar

Pep: which version of the oxford are ya using?

The original, or the one they just revised and released?