Pronunciation of CIC and CINC
ref
RPian "should be") treated as true acronyms, and pronounced like "sick"
and "sink" respectively.
Robert Lieblich
The US military uses CINC and treats it as a true acronym,
pronouncing it "sink."
Roger Whitehead
But there are thousands, millions possibly, of IBM users who pronounce
CICS as "kicks". (CICS = Customer Information Control System.)
Regards,
Roger
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roger Whitehead,
Oxted, Surrey, England
Tim Coleman
"ref" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote:
I think that "CIC" should be pronounced like "kick".
Tim
--
Tim Coleman <t...@epenguin.org> [43.28 N 80.31 W]
Software Developer/Systems Administrator/RDBMS Specialist/Linux Advocate
University of Waterloo Honours Co-op Combinatorics & Optimization
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain
Tim Coleman
<r...@office-futures.com> wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95.101041...@mail.wesleyan.edu>, Ref
> wrote:
>> Not that anyone cares, but my suggestion is that CIC and CINC be (=
>> RPian "should be") treated as true acronyms, and pronounced like "sick"
>> and "sink" respectively.
>
> But there are thousands, millions possibly, of IBM users who pronounce
> CICS as "kicks". (CICS = Customer Information Control System.)
>
Not to mention developers for IBM systems. Shudder.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.101041...@mail.wesleyan.edu>,
>"ref" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>
>> Not that anyone cares, but my suggestion is that CIC and CINC be (=
>> RPian
>> "should be") treated as true acronyms, and pronounced like "sick" and
>> "sink" respectively.
>
>I think that "CIC" should be pronounced like "kick".
What meaning are people here attaching to these two acronyms? I only
know them in the US Navy sense where they mean Combat Information
Center (pronounced C...I...C) and Commander in Chief as in CINCPACFLT
(pronounced sink-pack-fleet).
Charles Riggs
ref
"CIC" = "cot is caught"
"CINC" = "cot is not caught"
I think Bob Cunningham included these in that list of abbreviations he was
preparing, didn't he?
Roger Whitehead
wrote:
> > But there are thousands, millions possibly, of IBM users who pronounce
> > CICS as "kicks". (CICS = Customer Information Control System.)
> >
>
> Not to mention developers for IBM systems.
I count them as users.
There's also CIX (Compulink Information Exchange), a pre-Web online
community in Britain. Pronounced as CICS.
Bob Cunningham
[...]
>"CIC" = "cot is caught"
>"CINC" = "cot is not caught"
>I think Bob Cunningham included these in that list of abbreviations he was
>preparing, didn't he?
Richard is presumably referring to a list that I generated by
selecting from a five-year archive of AUE postings every string that
might possibly be construed to be an initialism. From that list I
further selected the ones that I thought really were meant to stand
for something.
We need to remember that when we see an initialism in a posting, we
don't really know for certain what the writer meant it to stand for,
except in the rare case when the writer defines the initialism on the
spot.
In the case of the list I've mentioned above, I have shown in the
initial part what I guess the meaning of many of the initialisms to
be. And, in direct response to Richard's comment, yes, "CIC" and
"CINC" are in the annotated list, along with my understanding of what
is meant by them in AUE pronunciation discussions.
In a second part, which is headed "Unedited list of search results",
I've shown the complete list, which, of course, includes many things
that are obviously not meant to stand for anything. The reason for
including the unedited list, though, was for the benefit of someone
who might want to see if I had missed a meaningful initialism because
I didn't know it was meaningful.
The annotated list, followed by the unedited list, are at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/initialisms
.
The visitor count at my Web site has shown that almost no one has
looked at the list. If you're not interested in it, join the crowd.
ref
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:12:56 -0400, ref <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> said:
>
> [...]
>
> >"CIC" = "cot is caught"
> >"CINC" = "cot is not caught"
>
> >I think Bob Cunningham included these in that list of abbreviations he was
> >preparing, didn't he?
>
> Richard is presumably referring to a list that I generated by
> selecting from a five-year archive of AUE postings every string that
> might possibly be construed to be an initialism. From that list I
> further selected the ones that I thought really were meant to stand
> for something.
>
> We need to remember that when we see an initialism in a posting, we
> don't really know for certain what the writer meant it to stand for,
> except in the rare case when the writer defines the initialism on the
> spot.
>
> In the case of the list I've mentioned above, I have shown in the
> initial part what I guess the meaning of many of the initialisms to
> be. And, in direct response to Richard's comment, yes, "CIC" and
> "CINC" are in the annotated list, along with my understanding of what
> is meant by them in AUE pronunciation discussions.
I notice that you define them as:
*CIC: 90 "Caught is cot"
*CINC: 119 "Caught is not cot"
I have no objection to this, even though I am inclined (why?) to put "cot"
first and "caught" second. The meaning is, of course, the same. Whether
the pronunciation is the same depends on your accent.
I also speak/think of the "cot/caught merger" rather than the "caught/cot"
merger. It might just be that I first read about it in some discussion
that put "cot" first and "caught" second. Similarly, I like the ordering
"Mary/marry/merry". (More sensible orderings might be "Mary/merry/marry"
and "marry/merry/Mary", where the vowels go from high to low or low to
high.)
Bob Cunningham
From my point of view, which is the point of view of someone who
pronounces "caught" and "cot" identically, there is a reason to put
"caught" first. The sense of the expression "'caught' is not 'cot'"
is that instead of the two being pronounced the same, "caught" is
pronounced differently from the common pronunciation that I think of
as normal. That is, the statement is essentially about the
pronunciation of "caught", so it's appropriate for it to go first.
>I also speak/think of the "cot/caught merger" rather than the "caught/cot"
>merger.
I tend to think of it as a divergence rather than a merger, because I
was an adult before I became aware that there were people in other
regions who pronounced them differently.
I guess I'm sorta like the lady from Boston who was asked if she had
ever traveled by train. She said, "Goodness no; I didn't have to; I
was already here." In a similar way, I don't find it natural to think
about a merger of "caught" and "cot" because my experience tells me
it's natural to pronounce them the same, unnatural to pronounce them
differently.
Bob Cunningham
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:12:56 -0400, ref <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> said:
>>
>> [...]
[...]
>I notice that you define them as:
>*CIC: 90 "Caught is cot"
>*CINC: 119 "Caught is not cot"
I most definitely do not "define" them.
I've tried to make it clear that I've only guessed at what I think
people mean by them, and that there's no way to know for certain what
a given writer means by one of them -- unless the writer accompanies
the first use with a definition of his or her meaning.
The list is not intended to define or prescribe initialisms. It's
intended only to provide a place for a newcomer to see what a strange
initialism may possibly stand for.
I have prefixed some of the initialisms with asterisks to show that
they are the ones that I, for one, would use.
ref
[I, RF, wrote:]
> >I notice that you define them as:
> >*CIC: 90 "Caught is cot"
> >*CINC: 119 "Caught is not cot"
>
> >I have no objection to this, even though I am inclined (why?) to put "cot"
> >first and "caught" second. The meaning is, of course, the same. Whether
> >the pronunciation is the same depends on your accent.
>
> From my point of view, which is the point of view of someone who
> pronounces "caught" and "cot" identically, there is a reason to put
> "caught" first. The sense of the expression "'caught' is not 'cot'"
> is that instead of the two being pronounced the same, "caught" is
> pronounced differently from the common pronunciation that I think of
> as normal. That is, the statement is essentially about the
> pronunciation of "caught", so it's appropriate for it to go first.
Well, that's so, but only in those (possibly disappearing) Traditionalist
and Radical Traditionalist (TART) accents that happen to use a markedly
high or close rounded vowel for the "caught" class. In my accent, and
other CINC varieties of Postwar Prestige Standard (PPS), the prescribed
pronunciation of "caught" is just about exactly the way you pronounce
"cot" and "caught" (to my ear), while "cot" is given a more fronted vowel.
(The prescribed pronunciation of "cot" is, in fact, about where many
TART-CIC speakers pronounce merged cot/caught. I believe this is
particularly the case with certain West Coast TART-CIC accents. It is
also more or less where the merged cot/caught vowel seems to be in
Nonregional PPS-CIC.)
It is my (sad) hypothesis that PPS-CINC is an endangered accent, and is
giving way to PPS-CIC.[1] All speakers of PPS-CINC should do what they
can to preserve this historically important and unique American accent.
If you speak PPS-CINC and have young children, be sure to teach them the
value of distinguishing "cot" from "caught". Pressure your kids' teachers
to maintain the cot/caught distinction in the classroom. Don't let your
kids grow up not knowing their accent heritage! Remember where you come
from!
[1]Hopefully I'm wrong.
Roger Whitehead
I thought that was kitchenware.
Sam Hinton
************************
In the US Navy during World War II. "CIC" stood for "Combat Information
Center,": and was pronounced "See-eye-see." "CINC", on the other hand, meant
"Commander-in-Chief," and was pronounced "Sink." The Commander-in-Chief of
the US was "CINCUS", and the pronunciation "Sink us!" led to the abandonment of
the term.
Sam
La Jolla, CA USA
R J Valentine
...
} The annotated list, followed by the unedited list, are at:
} http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/initialisms
} .
}
} The visitor count at my Web site has shown that almost no one has
} looked at the list. If you're not interested in it, join the crowd.
<pausing for the appropriate "Aww!">
I hesitate to contradict Mr. Cunningham when he may be right about what he
intended to say, but the typical visitor counter is triggered only by
graphical browsers that suck in any and all logos and dingbats and is
typically not triggered at all by the average textual browser or by
graphical browsers used responsibly (i.e., with images off unless needed).
Now it is true enough that Mr. Cunningham, in his normal phrasing of his
statement as a truism, has said something that would be difficult to
contradict, had he said what he appears to be saying (that "almost no one
has looked at the list"). At the time the list was first installed, there
was a discussion of it on alt.usage.english that resulted in a second run
of some three hours being made and a second list being posted, which was
also discussed. So it is evident that at least some people looked at the
list. Similar claims have been made about submissions to the FAQ
supplement, and some of us know that what is proposed as near-zero is not
quite as close to zero as the casual reader might assume.
But, as a matter of English usage, Mr. Cunningham's claim that the visitor
count at his Web site has shown something is, I suggest, a little
overstated. Even if he were to claim that a high visitor count "shows"
that a lot of people have viewed something, that wouldn't take into
account the ease with which a textual browser can "refresh" a counter.
But diddling a web counter just to make someone feel good seems wrong
somehow. Certain Web logs may be able to show things with a little more
specificity than a simple counter can provide.
That said, I reiterate yet again that I appreciate the efforts that Mr.
Cunningham made to put that information in particular on his personal
website and the vast amount of information that he has made available on
the http://www.alt-usage-english.org website in general, though I
understand that it may gall him no end that I'm one of the few people to
express gratitude for his monumental efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. For some reason it even brings back memories
of his early tip about a CD-ROM version of the _Encylcopaedia Britannica_,
which was an early example of a website on a CD-ROM (and I've bought
several copies of it since). Truly, thanking someone can be its own
reward. (Rats! Now I have to think of an excuse to flog that Rey of
Sunshine, the unlate Philological Giant of Malediction.)
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.usage.english%3E%20>
ref
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:58:56 GMT Bob Cunningham <malgran...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> ...
> } The annotated list, followed by the unedited list, are at:
> } http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/initialisms
> } .
> }
> } The visitor count at my Web site has shown that almost no one has
> } looked at the list. If you're not interested in it, join the crowd.
>
> <pausing for the appropriate "Aww!">
It illustrates the cot/caught merger. Even I have difficulty accepting
this (for I am a CINC speaker), but in 'Western'[1] CIC accents
"Aww" and "Ahh" sound the same. As I believe AUE's seasonal contributor,
Aaron J. ("Dr. Whom") Dinkin has noted in the past, in Eastern New England
"ahh" would get the distinct "cart" vowel, /a/, not the cot/caught vowel.
[1]For these purposes, the West begins at the Connecticut River.
Charles Riggs
Didn't I just say much the same thing yesterday? Don't you read my
posts? CIC, by the way, still does stand for Combat Information Center
and CINC still stands for Commander in Chief and is alive and well in
such terms as CINCPACFLT and CINCLANTFLT.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<malgran...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:12:56 -0400, ref <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> said:
>
>[...]
>
>>"CIC" = "cot is caught"
>>"CINC" = "cot is not caught"
These are not generally accepted acronyms.
I think that using generally unrecognized acronyms and initialisms is
a dodgy thing at best. We're here to communicate and how much fun is
it when someone uses an initialism that only some people recognize?
How much trouble is it to type out the words so *everyone* will know
what you're talking about? I have a list of some of the commonly used
initialisms in newsgroups on my wall; what a pain in the ass. YMMV.
Charles Riggs
Donna Richoux
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:12:56 -0400, ref <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> said:
>
> [...]
>
> >"CIC" = "cot is caught"
> >"CINC" = "cot is not caught"
>
> >I think Bob Cunningham included these in that list of abbreviations he was
> >preparing, didn't he?
[snip]
> The annotated list, followed by the unedited list, are at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/initialisms
> .
>
> The visitor count at my Web site has shown that almost no one has
> looked at the list. If you're not interested in it, join the crowd.
I don't even remember noticing an announcement that the list was posted,
actually. I'll put the URL into Intro A, next to the dozen common
abbreviations I show. I think people will look for it if they know it is
available and how to find it. Maybe that won't be vast numbers of
people, but still I think it will be helpful to the puzzled and curious
few.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
said:
>Bob Cunningham <malgran...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:12:56 -0400, ref <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >"CIC" = "cot is caught"
>> >"CINC" = "cot is not caught"
>>
>> >I think Bob Cunningham included these in that list of abbreviations he was
>> >preparing, didn't he?
>[snip]
>
>> The annotated list, followed by the unedited list, are at:
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/initialisms
>> .
>>
>> The visitor count at my Web site has shown that almost no one has
>> looked at the list. If you're not interested in it, join the crowd.
>
>I don't even remember noticing an announcement that the list was posted,
>actually.
===== Begin copy of February posting =====
From: Bob Cunningham <malgran...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Reference initialisms: revised list
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:29:42 GMT
I've modified my Perl script to broaden the criteria for searching my
AUE database for initialisms that have been used during the past five
years. The new list is at my Web site at
http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/initialisms/abbreviations.html
.
There are actually two lists. One is a list of the ones that I think
are significant (about 180 items). The other is the full list of
search hits (about 3,000 items). There's a link to the full list near
the beginning of the file. There's also a link to explanatory
comments that describe the new search criteria. If anyone wants to
look over the full list to see if I may have overlooked any
significant initialisms, your comments will be welcome.
As before, I've considered only items that showed ten or more
occurrences.
===== End copy of February posting =====
>I'll put the URL into Intro A, next to the dozen common
>abbreviations I show.
I'm going to move the list from my Web site to our AUE Web site. The
URL there will be
http://alt-usage-english.org/abbreviations.html
. The list will no longer be available at my Web site.
Let me emphasize once more that the list is not meant as an attempt to
standardize initialisms used in AUE. It's not even meant to recommend
ones to be used. Its sole purpose is to provide a place where a
stranger to AUE can get a suggestion of what a given abbreviation may
possibly stand for.