Claude SPP in his angry screed, “TLAs DOA? TBD!” (SpecGram CLII.2, 2007) entirely missed the point of BizSpeak, as do most speakers of BizSpeak.
Many believe that acronyms, particularly TLAs, make communication more efficient. However, as SPP alludes to, this is not the case, because of the additional cognitive demands of both producing and comprehending them. There is the additional efficiency cost of teaching them to newcomers
All of these attributes are desirable
My TSA, who was CNS’d of ARCing my LPM
— TL’d into RNSs and WRT’d on PAP4 (a H04 I PU5’d from the LOCs while LVVing in TDF in the NTFs) — CR’d a TPL for me to FLI on this CPU in my O98.
You don’t know what it means, and neither do I; and probably half the people on the call didn’t really get it either. Why, because it is moderately well encrypted.
I do not believe that this encryption is intentional, per se; rather it is a side effect of the dialectal evolution of BizSpeak. Business people
Those who turned to acronyms and their ilk
As I said before, TLAs provide a basic level of encryption
To those who would rather seek security intentionally and with purpose, I recommend a custom variant of Tthm & usn trryv Aluuaj’s Huffmenglish. By a stroke of good fortune, I have recently acquired licensing rights for developing such custom variants of Huffmenglish. Not only will your variant be unique to you, it will be optimized based on the jargon you use, providing not only security, but also the efficiency you desire.
Qnfu Ą. Bbon-Ahuq
6155 Craaflyinavn Nir AJ
Jnfuvatgba, QP 75055