No one has ever shown any interest in my original spelling and grammar nazi post, but, I am not someone who allows lack of interest to deter him, so I am launching yet another post on spelling and grammar errors that annoy me.

I am starting with just one, and will expand this post as new ones occur to me.

For the moment, my gripe is with those who don't think about what acronyms mean before using them. It started because of a Burt Pretusky article, where he used "HIV virus", but a number of others have come up that also annoy me.

Some examples:

"HIV virus"

HIV stands for "Human Immunodeficiency virus", so to say "HIV virus" is to say "virus" twice.

"ATM machine"

This is the same as "HIV virus". ATM means "Automated Teller Machine". Saying machine afterward is redundant.

"UFO"

A lot of people use this as a synonym for "alien spacecraft", but it is not. A "UFO" is any "unidentified flying object". If we KNOW something to be an alien spacecraft, it is no longer a UFO.

I am sure I could add more if I took some time, a lot of acronyms contain "council" or "organization" yet have synonyms for those words appended by writers, but you get the idea. Before using an acronym, it is probably best if you spell out exactly what it means. If you spell out the components of the acronym it is a lot less likely you will write anything too absurd. (Or if you do, it is then by choice rather than accident.)

As I said, more posts will follow as other topics annoy me.

ADDENDUM

I thought of a related error after I posted this. A "faxed copy" is actually redundant. "Fax" derives from "facsimile", which itself means "copy". In other words, "fax copy" means "copy copy". But I suppose that may be a bit too obscure to get really upset about.  Then again, as it is impossible to receive an original document via fax transmission, "fax copy" seems a needless clarification, all faxes are of necessity copies. So, "fax" should be sufficient to make one aware it is not the original.

ANOTHER ADDENDUM

As someone claiming to be the father of the term "Spelling Nazi" posted a comment arguing that spelling nazis were people who were inadequate and attacked the message rather than responding, I feel the need to repeat an argument I have made before. (And also here.)

I do not criticize spelling and grammar because I cannot respond to the substance of a comment, but because we need to have standards in our communication. Once we allow people to spell however they wish or form sentences however they wish, we are well along the path to that gibberish that litters facebook and youtube. ("DUD, were u at? That ws sooo gud, I thugh so, u kno?")  And to criticize only the worst is foolish. The worst only exist because we accept the slightly less bad.

Again, I am not arguing for a slavish adherence to every rule in every context. I break rules constantly, using sentence fragments, run-on sentences, and a lot of other incorrect forms. (Though I have tried to avoid them recently, as I am beginning to believe I should probably stick to slightly more formally correct structures, even if I play fast and loose with other rules of composition.) What I want is a recognition that such rules exist, and that they matter. If you are going to break the rules, at least know what rules you are breaking.

But to just allow such rules to be broken, or not even recognized, is to start us along the path to a point where conversation becomes impossible, as without common means of communication, how could we speak?

ONE MORE ADDENDUM

I forgot to address spelling in this post, and, as that is where this all started, then I feel I should spend a bit of time on spelling.

Even those who will concede that grammar does matter often argue that spelling is unimportant. "So long as you understand it", the argument goes, "who cares if it is spelled right?"

But that is precisely the problem. With an agreed spelling, everyone knows that the word is. When you decide to use a nonstandard spelling, you can no longer assume that your readers will be able to understand what you are saying. (I have seen this in fiction when reading representations of dialect. Often I cannot quite figure out what the author is trying to say.)

At best, a nonstandard spelling is understood by everyone, and works as well as the standard spelling, but that is not always the case. Even if it works in some contexts, it may be confusing in others. For example, many seem to confuse "dual" and "duel". In most contexts that mistake does not confuse readers, who can spot the misspelling and understand the sentences, but there are certain contexts where using the wrong word could cause confusion for the readers that a correct spelling would not*.

And, that is the best case scenario, where a misspelling is understood most of the time, but can confuse readers in some contexts. More often, a misspelling either is not understood at all, or is read as the wrong word. This can lead to endless confusion.

The counter argument some make to all this is that standardized spellings are a "modern invention" and in the 18th century and earlier intelligent men allowed multiple spellings. To which I respond that there is a reason intelligent men gave up that practice and opted for standard spellings. Anyone who has tried to read 18th century manuscripts and decipher the unique spellings and even more cryptic abbreviations, or, even worse, tried to figure out what Latin abbreviations mean on coins or inscription, know that there is a lot to be said for standardization.

So, I just see no reason to accept nonstandard spellings. At best they work as the standard spelling does in most contexts, but also introduce more possibilities for misunderstanding. And more often than not, they simply don't work at all.

Leaving me to wonder why anyone would be so put off by someone arguing for correct spelling and grammar.

Well, I have spent a lot more time on this than I intended, as it was a short puff piece, but I got irked and spent far more energy than I should have. So I will now move on to more substantive writing.

----------------------------------------------------

* In case anyone asks: "He fought with dual pistols". If the writer has proven to not know the difference between "duel" and "dual", does this sentence simply mean he had two guns, or is it a poorly written declaration that the man fought with dueling pistols? If we can rely on standard spelling it is clear, if we do not know whether spelling is standard or not, then we do not clearly know the meaning.