Acronyms in non-suffixing languages

[alice]

I was wondering how languages without suffixing morphology, such as the Bantu and Semitic languages, form acronyms, if at all, given that there are only a limited number of initial consonants. Does anybody know?

[xxx]

see https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... eviations/

[Creyeditor]

Geman sometimes keeps prefixes intact in abbreviations, e.g. BVerfG for Bundesverfassungsgericht instead of BVG or BVerwG for Bundesverwaltungsgericht instead of BVG.

[bradrn]

I was wondering how languages without suffixing morphology, such as the Bantu and Semitic languages, form acronyms, if at all, given that there are only a limited number of initial consonants. Does anybody know?

At least for Hebrew, I’m not aware of there being ‘only a limited number of initial consonants’. As xxx notes, Hebrew uses acronyms extensively, and as far as I’m aware there’s no special rules around forming them.

[alice]

OK, "Semitic" was a stupid example . Please disregard it.

[WeepingElf]

Geman sometimes keeps prefixes intact in abbreviations, e.g. BVerfG for Bundesverfassungsgericht instead of BVG or BVerwG for Bundesverwaltungsgericht instead of BVG.

There is no rule in German of keeping prefixes intact in abbreviations. These two abbreviations are such because the f in Verfassung and the w in Verwaltung are simply the first letters that are different in these words.

[Linguoboy]

I was wondering how languages without suffixing morphology, such as the Bantu and Semitic languages, form acronyms, if at all, given that there are only a limited number of initial consonants. Does anybody know?

I don't know that it's really that limited. In Swahili, at any rate, there are quite of few words (mostly foreign borrowings) which lack overt noun class prefixes, so forming acronyms isn't that challenging provided you're willing to including a following vowel. Some examples:

BAMUTA (Baraza la Muziki la Taifa)--National Music Council
BAKITA (Baraza la Kiswahili la Taifa)--National Swahili Council
TATAKI (Taasisi ya Taaluma ya Kiswahili)--Institute of Kiswahili Studies

[Arzena]

OK, "Semitic" was a stupid example . Please disregard it.

It's not really! My experience with Arabic has taught me that acronyms are very rare. Judging by al-Jazeera programming I watch, even an organization like the UN will be referred to by its English or French acronym while maintaining the full al-umum al-muttahida when talking in Arabic. When Mohammad bin Salman announced NEOM and it was revealed that the "M" stands for madiina 'city' as in "Neo-Madina" I was shocked.

[Richard W]

I was wondering how languages without suffixing morphology, such as the Bantu and Semitic languages, form acronyms, if at all, given that there are only a limited number of initial consonants. Does anybody know?

I seriously don't understand the thinking behind this question, and I hope I would learn something if it were explained to me.

Possibly the question is actually about languages with relatively few final consonants.

Now Thai is a language with only 9 final consonants and next to no suffixing morphology. (It has quite a few prefixes.) It forms acronyms by stringing short letter names together. The short names have the form /Cɔː/. Now, many Indic loan words neutralise the original last consonant, but when these words are the first element of compound, a linking /a/ is added, generally with reduplication, so /sat/ 'animal' + /phɛːt/ 'physician' becomes /sat.ta.wa.phɛːt/ 'vet'.

[bradrn]

I was wondering how languages without suffixing morphology, such as the Bantu and Semitic languages, form acronyms, if at all, given that there are only a limited number of initial consonants. Does anybody know?

At least for Hebrew, I’m not aware of there being ‘only a limited number of initial consonants’. As xxx notes, Hebrew uses acronyms extensively, and as far as I’m aware there’s no special rules around forming them.

Actually, now that I think about it, there is something interesting about Hebrew acronyms… they work on the basis of the Hebrew abjad! Which means that sometimes funny things happen to vowels.

For instance, Maimonides — the Rambam in Hebrew — was Rabbi Moses ben Maimon. RMBM isn’t pronounceable in an alphabetic script, but it is in an abjad.

Or consider the great rabbi Rashi, who was really Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki. The final ‘i’ in the acronym is because the letter yud /j/ also acts as a mater lectionis for /i/.

[Ryusenshi]

Also in Hebrew, the Tanakh is an acronym of its three parts: Torah (the Law or Teaching), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).

[bradrn]

Also in Hebrew, the Tanakh is an acronym of its three parts: Torah (the Law or Teaching), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).

This is basically the same thing I mentioned in my previous post — it’s written as the straightforward abbreviation תנ״ך (TNK), but pronounced as a normal Hebrew word by inserting vowels and keeping in mind that letter kaf is always lenited at the end of the word (an instance of begadkefat).

Also, this brings to mind something I didn’t mention earlier: ⟨״⟩ (the gershayim) is a special punctuation mark used specifically to mark acronyms.

[zompist]

Actually, now that I think about it, there is something interesting about Hebrew acronyms… they work on the basis of the Hebrew abjad! Which means that sometimes funny things happen to vowels.

For instance, Maimonides — the Rambam in Hebrew — was Rabbi Moses ben Maimon. RMBM isn’t pronounceable in an alphabetic script, but it is in an abjad.

You're quite right here, and that is pretty neat. Abugidas share the idea of an inherent vowel, though I don't know if they use it for acronyms.

But I'd just comment that, pace Peter T. Daniels, the difference between an abjad and an alphabet isn't that stark. The Hebrew writing system can be seen as an impure abjad (that marks vowels it's not "supposed to"), or a very sloppy alphabet (that doesn't mark vowels it should). Much the same is true of Arabic or Urdu.

Trying to think of the reverse-- an alphabet with an inherent vowel-- I thought of Brazilian Portuguese, which arguably does have one, namely /i/. Most stops can't be pronounced at the end of a word, so borrowings get an added /i/. Thus club is pronounced /klubi/ and Hollywood is /oliwudʒi/.

[Raphael]

Arguably, the very way individual are pronounced as consonants-plus-vowels or vowels-plus-consonants when they're part of acronyms does something similar in languages using the Latin alphabet.

[bradrn]

But I'd just comment that, pace Peter T. Daniels, the difference between an abjad and an alphabet isn't that stark. The Hebrew writing system can be seen as an impure abjad (that marks vowels it's not "supposed to"), or a very sloppy alphabet (that doesn't mark vowels it should). Much the same is true of Arabic or Urdu.

Of course, and in fact I’d go further — I’m not sure abjads and alphabets are fundamentally different at all. But it does have implications for acronyms, that’s all.

Trying to think of the reverse-- an alphabet with an inherent vowel-- I thought of Brazilian Portuguese, which arguably does have one, namely /i/. Most stops can't be pronounced at the end of a word, so borrowings get an added /i/. Thus club is pronounced /klubi/ and Hollywood is /oliwudʒi/.

Interesting! (Though I’ll pedantically note that writing systems with inherent vowels are abugidas, not abjads.)

[zompist]

Interesting! (Though I’ll pedantically note that writing systems with inherent vowels are abugidas, not abjads.)

Sure, but you demonstrated yourself that the inherent vowel in a Hebrew acronym is /a/!

(If I'm not mistaken it could have been taken as /e/, but apparently just isn't.)

[bradrn]

Interesting! (Though I’ll pedantically note that writing systems with inherent vowels are abugidas, not abjads.)

Sure, but you demonstrated yourself that the inherent vowel in a Hebrew acronym is /a/!

I’ve actually never thought of it that way, but it does makes sense.

[Emily]

the more i learn about them, the more i feel that the divisions between alphabet/abjad/abugida/syllabary are too blurry to stand up to any real scrutiny

[Raphael]

the more i learn about them, the more i feel that the divisions between alphabet/abjad/abugida/syllabary are too blurry to stand up to any real scrutiny

The same could arguably be said for the distinction between day and night. But that distinction is still useful in some contexts.

[bradrn]

the more i learn about them, the more i feel that the divisions between alphabet/abjad/abugida/syllabary are too blurry to stand up to any real scrutiny

I’d say that alphabet/abjad is quite blurry, as is abugida/syllabary, but the difference between those two supercategories is arguably quite useful — essentially whether glyphs are structured in terms of phonemes (alphabet/abjad) or syllables (abugida/syllabary). There are edge cases between these, but not many.