Skip to main content

Correct capitalization for "of" in an acronym definition


For an acronym that includes the word "of", do you capitalize its usage within the definition (or expansion) of the acronym


For example, in the follow sentence:


My coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance of Work Syndrome (CAOWS).


Should of be written as Of?



Answer



First, some definitions from the Chicago Manual of Style:




  • acronym refers to terms based on the initial letters of their various elements and read as single words (AIDS, laser, NASA, scuba);

  • initialism refers to terms read as a series of letters (AOL, NBA, XML);

  • contraction refers to abbreviations that include the first and last letters of the full word (Mr., amt.).



As for the capitalization of these constructs, CMS has these recommendations:



Initialisms tend to appear in all capital letters, even when they are not derived from proper nouns (HIV, VP, LCD). With frequent use, however, acronyms—especially those of five or more letters—will sometimes become lowercase (scuba); those that are derived from proper nouns retain an initial capital. Chicago generally prefers the all-capital form, unless the term is listed otherwise in Webster’s. [NAFTA (not Nafta)]


On the other hand, if the words in a spelled-out version of an acronym or initialism are not derived from proper nouns or do not themselves constitute a proper noun (as in the official name of an organization), they should generally be lowercased, even when they appear alongside the abbreviated form. [transmission-control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP)]



So, whether CAOWS is:



  • an acronym, pronounced cows

  • an initialism, pronounced "SEE-AY-OH-DUBYA-ESS"


the Chicago Manual, at least, would recommend you write:



My coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance of Work Syndrome (CAOWS).



Note that in Nathan's comment, it's necessary to lowercase DoS (an acronym for denial-of-service) to disambiguate it from DOS (an acronym for disk operating system). I don't think CAOWS has any such problem.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more