Right, in cases where an acronym is pronounced as word it generally follows the normal convention of the letters that form the word. Which would STILL result in the same pronunciation as “g” in graphics or gun.
Of course accepted convention and tradition can also matter. If a word is generally pronounced a certain way then that is how its pronounced. Which of course STILL gives us the soft G.
Except they don’t. The vast majority of acronyms have at least one letter that’s pronounced differently than in the word it’s representing. Any correlation is purely coincidental.
So occasionally one letter doesnt fit with the rest… doesnt that mean that the rule is not absolute and my statement is correct? That often the originating phrase contributes and often it does not, and that neither is exclusive to the other?
The pronunciation of an anagram’s component words has no bearing on the anagram’s pronunciation.
Why not?
NASA and LASER would like a word.
wait hang on… nasa works. laser is more iffy.
I think that question is best posed to the Joint Photographic Experts Group, better known as “jay-fegg”.
(For the record, I’m in camp “G as in Graphic”, but it’s still true that an acronym’s source words don’t dictate the pronunciation.)
Right, in cases where an acronym is pronounced as word it generally follows the normal convention of the letters that form the word. Which would STILL result in the same pronunciation as “g” in graphics or gun.
Of course accepted convention and tradition can also matter. If a word is generally pronounced a certain way then that is how its pronounced. Which of course STILL gives us the soft G.
They dont absolutely define it, but they certainly contribute. Assuming one or the other as sole definer seems silly.
Except they don’t. The vast majority of acronyms have at least one letter that’s pronounced differently than in the word it’s representing. Any correlation is purely coincidental.
So occasionally one letter doesnt fit with the rest… doesnt that mean that the rule is not absolute and my statement is correct? That often the originating phrase contributes and often it does not, and that neither is exclusive to the other?