tl;dr version: Linguistics and etymologies are fascinating to me. :) If you have no interest in a more-than-passing manner, you are better served just ignoring this e-mail. :)
full version: I was going to reply to Chris off the user list, because the topic has changed from Debian, but others have joined in the conversation. :) Little did I realize that my very first ever usage of the acronym would create such a pickle! :) I appreciate the courteous responses in regards to an issue that could have caused unintended offense. On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:36:56 +1300 Chris Bannister <cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 09:49:13PM -0600, nv wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:31:52 +1300 > > Chris Bannister <cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: > > > > tl;dr: Is it recommended that I use apt-pinning to upgrade some > > > > packages to > > > > > > Weird, considering yours was the long post and not Andrei's > > > > Eek! I meant no disrespect! :) I ALWAYS read the whole reply. > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long%3B_didn't_read > > > > > > > Interesting. I was surprised to find my usage not described in that > > Wikipedia page. In some places, particularly, slashdot.org, I have > > seen "tl;dr" used also as a self-summarizing of one's own posting. > > Of > > So it can also mean "too long don't read"? After all it is an acronym > and the letters are supposed to mean something. :( > Several thoughts/responses come to mind with your question. 1) I have never thought, "too long; don't read." I have always thought, "too long; didn't read." 2) I don't think I have a problem with someone using, "don't," because it is just another form of the verb. I don't recall whether I have ever had occasion to consider verb form changes in acronyms before, but I will be on the lookout from here on. 3) Solely from context, I have interpreted this usage as a pre-emptive provision: --- Here is the "too long; didn't read" version, in case you aren't going to read the complete details. Possibly, because I know that I am an excessively wordy writer, or because I know that not everyone will need the complete details. Therefore, I am providing a tl;dr version as a courtesy (or to prevent possible rude tl;dr replies). --- > I wonder why/how it started being abused in that way ... > I'm not sure if your concern is over the verb form (see 1 and 2 above) or over the contextual usage (see 3 above). In response to the verb form concern, I will hold off on my judgment until I can consider other examples. In response to the context concern, I think that is just etymological history being formed. I can understand and empathize with the feeling that it is an abuse of language as I am often on that side of the fence, myself. In this case, I feel that it is a logical extension of meaning. > > course, I see now that I probably should have placed it at the top > > for better clarity, or used, "tl;dr version:," perhaps. > > Do you see it as abuse, or just following a trend? > Linguistic history is replete with usage and spelling changes, which are often considered, at first, as abuse. Then, eventually, if the trend continues long enough, the change will be considered the new norm. I must admit this as a fact of life, while, at the same time, admit to feeling that some of it is abuse or laziness. Keeping in mind, of course, that "tl;dr" isn't really a "properly" accepted word at this time, but an Internet slang or jargon. In some cases, I must admit that the general populace has accepted something which I, personally, will never accept. One example is "RTFM" (mentioned in the previously referenced knowyourmeme.com page for tldr): I will never utilize this acronym in my own writings (due to offensive language), but I recognize it's commonality and general acceptance on the Internet. I have seen various forms of it and understand how it gets used in different ways. > > > From http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tldr > > "Usage > > Most of the time, tl;dr is used to call out another user on the > > length > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Really? It could be just a statement of fact ... > This was my exact reaction when I first read that definition. :) Although, I think it does often include at least a bit of rudeness, in the sense that the reader is not giving a courteous full reading to the writer's thoughts. I originally thought you were accusing me of this apparent lack of courtesy. > > of their post. However, in cases of more courteous exchanges and > > serious discussions, tl;dr can be self-invoked by the original > > poster as a disclaimer to the readers. It is then paired with a > > brief summary of the longer original text." > > Really? Is this is an example of acronym abuse evolving right before > our very eyes? The etymology of this second meaning would be an > interesting read. > I agree that this acronym is evolving quickly, as many words and acronyms are doing these days. > http://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=7392 > Etymology : acronym of 'too long; don't read' > I have issues with the text on this Rice University web page, which leads me to dismiss it as having very little research value. The information is poorly presented, poorly explained, and poorly researched. The first issue I see is that the definition doesn't even include the expanded words from which the acronym originated. The second issue is that the definition provided is not even the correct definition: "an unnecessarily long explanation or editorialization on some subject." That is not at all what it means; but rather an example of what could prompt the use of the acronym. This is really horrible! These are glaring errors in something purporting to be a reference work. Other issues: * Although I consider the adjective form to be understandable as a logical extension of meaning, it is not the original form, nor the most common form, by far! If there were some actual etymological information present, I would, of course, be fine with seeing this bit included. * It is not immediately obvious that the bold-heading text is actually supposed to be an example: "This is probably tl;dr, but...[.]" Yup, I had to add in a period there, after the ellipsis, for proper grammar. :> * The "Etymology" section incorrectly defines that it is an 'acronym of "too long; don't read."' Then it proceeds (with bad HTML code, i.e., ">," instead of ">") to list some gibberish which has nothing to do with the actual etymology of the acronym, which it claims to have found at the Online Etymology Dictionary. They didn't feel the need to provide a link or proper citation. I could find no reference to any variation of "tl;dr" at that site using its own search and Google's: http://www.etymonline.com * The gibberish formatting of the "etymological data" looks nothing like the typical entry at etymonline.com. * It lists an anonymous, unlinked, personal Livejournal blog entry from 2008 as its source for all of this misinformation. * The question of whether "tl;dr" is truly a neologism. References to it go back at least to 2003. Based on conversations like this: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/when-does-a-neologism-cease-to-be-a-neologism I wonder whether "tl;dr" has been in use on the Internet long enough and widely enough so that it possibly should not be considered a neologism. Googling for the following terms shows some useful data: 6,150,000 results for "tl;dr" 1,790,000 results for "too long; didn't read" 1,750,000 results for "tldr" 306,000 results for "tldnr" 203,000 results for "too long; don't read" 17,900 results for "tl;dnr" As of today, I am comfortable saying that "tl;dr" is the most common form, and that it clearly stands for, "too long; didn't read." I don't recall having seen "TL;DR" in all caps, although I have seen "TLDR" in all caps several times. I have also seen "tldnr" a couple of times. Other references: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TLDR (short and quick) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:TLDR (more interesting discussion) Interesting examples of "tl;dr" as other than a rude comeback: http://www.reddit.com/r/tldr "You're busy, we know that, so we've condensed the best of reddit into a daily recap - courtesy of the redditor who spends more time on reddit than the entire admin team combined, qgyh2." https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/too-long-didnt-read/fpjlkgihgfjkaepjpijjjbeelddmkfnk?hl=en It and several other extensions for Google Chrome, which are used to condense information. (Sorry about the fpjlkgihgfjkaepjpijjjbeelddmkfnk part, but it seems to be required for the link to work.) Google search for: "too long; didn't read" chrome This will show that chrom link, as well as several others. > Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that > for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English). > "I know, right!?" :) Also, for fun, compare "speak good English" with "speak English well": http://www.englishforums.com/English/ISpeakEnglishSpeakEnglish/hxvnv/post.htm On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:17:42 -0700 Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > nv wrote: > > > Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > > tl;dr: Is it recommended that I use apt-pinning to upgrade > > > > > some packages to > > > > > > > > Weird, considering yours was the long post and not Andrei's > > > > > > Eek! I meant no disrespect! :) I ALWAYS read the whole reply. > > I think your "faux pax" was putting it at the end. If you had put it > at the top as a summary of the post and the details below with that > type of an indication then I think the meaning would have been more > clear. I understand what you meant to say now. But at the time I > read it I was also somewhat confused by it. > I agree. I almost did it originally, but with only a moment's thought, decided to leave it in place, at the end. [SNIP] > Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121217124555.6f55b...@kiwi.absoluteperks.com
