TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: TIEBREAKER NEEDED: What do you call this? From:John Renish <John -dot- Renish -at- CONNER -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 20 Jul 1995 08:21:59 PDT
Ah, yes, but:
1) Some sources I've seen for the origin of bit split the word origin as I
previously mentioned.
2) The definition my dictionary provides for contraction refers to
"...omission of _a_ (i.e., single) sound or letter... " Oddly, it does not
mention apostrophes.
So I still say it is an abbreviation at least by reason 2, if anything other
than a normal word. However, as I also mentioned, the same dictionary sees
fit to define bit as a _word_ without giving its origin. Why don't we all do
the same and quit worrying about its etymology, any more than we do for, say,
tip (gratuity), which may or may not be an acronym?
BTW, I see in yesterday's paper a new optical medium can encode up to
31(terceunary?) separate states in a single point. It appears the concept of
bit is about to get much more complicated.
John -dot- Renish -at- conner -dot- com
My statements are my own and do not represent Conner Peripherals, Inc.
-------------
Original Text
