3

Can you create an abbreviation for any word that has no commonly accepted abbreviation simply by dropping some or all the vowels (i.e., restore: rstr or restr; replace: rplc or replc)?

Kit Z. Fox
  • 27,819
Adrienne
  • 31
  • 2
    You may find this answer useful. – Kit Z. Fox Apr 09 '13 at 16:59
  • It would depend on the context. People do that kind if thing all the time when texting, but I wouldn't advise it for a job application. You have to make sure the abbreviation is understood and not misinterpreted. – Mynamite Apr 09 '13 at 17:00
  • 1
    Every publication uses its own set of abbreviations. If you can suss out some rhyme or reason out of it, more power to you. For example, here is a list of abbreviations used by one publication. – tchrist Apr 09 '13 at 17:03
  • 7
    One general rule is to make the abbreviation shorter than what it abbreviates. This would seem to be obvious, but pronunciation isn't often taken into account. Where I live there is a university called Western Washington University (/'wɛstərn'wɔʃɪŋtənyunə'vərsəti/ -- 9 syllables); the canonic abbreviation is WWU. That looks short, but it's got 7 syllables, and is significantly more difficult to pronounce: /'dəbəlyu'dəbəlyu'yu/; most people just say /'wɛstərn/, ignoring the abbreviation. I usually pronounce it /'wuwu/. – John Lawler Apr 09 '13 at 17:38
  • 2
    Would those examples you cite in your question be full-fledged abbreviations? Or would they merely be considered shorthand? (By the way, if I saw those abbreviations sans any context, I'd probably guess they stood for restroom and replica respectively.) @JohnLawler: As for your example, I think WWU works well for, say, a box score, or an address on an envelope, but I agree that it would be unwieldy to say in its pronounced form. – J.R. Apr 09 '13 at 19:02
  • 2
    The very funny Mitch Hedberg once said: "If you don't know how to abbreviate a word, just start spelling it... then quit!" – SmokerAtStadium Apr 09 '13 at 21:42
  • 2
    I'd like to respond to an implication that I think hasn't been addressed. It seems to me at least part of what's being asked here is whether it's allowed to create new abbreviations. If that is part of the question here, the answer is, yes, it's allowed. Is it a good idea? In most cases, no. As Mynamite said, you have to be clear. Generally there's little value in inventing abbreviations. What is accomplished by doing so? If communication would be improved by the abbreviation, you can bet the abbreviation already exists. If it doesn't yet exist, it probably shouldn't. – John M. Landsberg Apr 10 '13 at 01:39
  • I made up my mind to type worldwidewebdotstackexchangedotcom in the address bar -- whatever may come. @JohnLawler Wish there indeed was an algorithm to create a unique abbreviation by rules for a given word. – Kris Jun 09 '13 at 05:34
  • 2
    @Kris: Use a hash function. Of course then you have to maintain a hash table, but it's known to work if you're careful about boundaries. – John Lawler Jun 09 '13 at 15:06
  • @JohnLawler Thanks. However, we need the 'rules' (as the OP asks) to start with, I suppose? – Kris Jun 10 '13 at 05:32
  • If you have less than 26³ words of 4 or more letters to abbreviate, use the first three letters. When you get a collision, substitute the third letter with the fourth one; if that causes a collision, the fifth; etc. That should pin it down to a very few cases for hashing by hand. I think that's roughly what they do with airport codes. – John Lawler Jun 10 '13 at 13:47

1 Answers1

2

Well, of course you can. Dropping vowels is as much an acceptable way of forming abbreviations as dropping consonants.

I believe your question really is more, "Is this a way to create defensible/allowable/usable abbreviations?"

Defensible? To whom? Generally speaking, if you have not seen the abbreviation before you use it you are treading on the thin ice that is also trodden upon by innovators of neologisms. This is not for the weak of heart.

Allowable? By whom? If it's not in a dictionary it's probably not going to be welcomed with open arms by your reader unless the abbreviation is very useful and obvious in meaning. Remember that the purpose of an abbreviation is to communicate clearly using less letters.

Usable? Of course it's usable. But it may be of only marginal (or even negative) utility if the abbreviation obscures meaning.

There is little need for abbreviations in writing meant to be read, and there is no need at all for abbreviations that are, N.B., obscure.

davarinofuntucson
  • 738
  • 3
    There is a lot of need in technical writing meant to be read: Chemistry especially gets a bit long winded without the abv. – mgb May 10 '13 at 12:44