RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Origin of SPAM (Yes! I am a google GOD)

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> Sure, I can tell you where I read something abou tit:
> 
> http://www.toonopedia.com/smokey.htm
> 
>   "It may have influenced the formation of the World War II slang
>    expression 'fubar' (a relative of 'snafu')."

I wouldn't call that a study, and given that the evidence you and others here have supplied for Foo's entry into the realm of computers (and the obvious fact that Smokey Stover wasn't exactly well read at the time computer programmers began to use the term), "probably from having seen it in this strip." isn't exactly accurate.

> My original message only said this:
> 
>     "We may never know if it was part of the motivation for FUBAR and
>      SNAFU, but it might have been."

Motivation, and the subconscious reason for a pronunciation choice are two different things.

> Your reply said this (among other things):
> 
>     "It wasn't, those are pretty well known."

Which is true, the origins are pretty well known. The acronyms are clearly offshoots of military terminology and cynicism, the use as an acronym was spurred by the military's excessive use of them, and there is no relation of the words to "foo" except that they have similar sounds in them. It -MAY- have had some effect on how they chose to pronounce the "U", but all acronym pronunciations are based on what "sounds right" (excluding "backronyms" which come with their own pronunciation already). For example, the "earl" pronunciation of URL. Were it based on the real words, as you seem to have suggested an unaided acronym would be, people would be pronouncing it "Yourl".

> I'm objecting to your claim of certainty, that's all.  Since 
> then you've
> written several things that are not accurate about my position on this
> (more on that below).


> Of course I'm suggesting that something *might* be true, not 
> that it is
> true, (a subtle point, I guess) and you are suggesting that it is
> impossible.  How can a pronunciation be based on a 
> derivation?  What do
> you mean?  If the 'FU' in FUBAR comes from "fucked up," as it 
> obviously
> does, then "pronunciation based on derivation" should lead to the
> pronunciation of FUBAR as "fuhbar," right?  So the 
> pronunciation is not
> based on the derivation.

As mentioned above, no acronym uses its root words for determining its pronunciation. That is what I wanted to clarify, because I didn't see why you thought the pronunciation of "up" had anything to do with the pronunciation of the acronym.

> > > My point is, we (you) don't know.
> >
> > I don't know that the data that was shown for the 
> derivation of SPAM was
> > true either. I choose to believe it because it isn't far-fetched.
> > Claiming FUBAR and SNAFU are derived from Foo and not the 
> phrases they
> > are acronyms for IS far-fetched.
> 
> And here's where you've gone completely off the deep end.  
> Did you read
> what I wrote earlier?  When did I ever claim that "FUBAR and SNAFU are
> derived from Foo?"  How would they be?  My idea is only that they were
> partly motivated by the popularity of 'foo.' 

Please explain what you meant by motivated then. From your statement, it seemed you were stating that they might have started with "FooBAR" and just found something to fill in the letter gaps for "Foo". (ie. a derivation). If you were just suggesting that the pronunciation came to mind because they had been saying "Foo" so often, then I appologize for misreading you.

> In the jargon 
> file it says
> the following about Foo during and before WWII:
> 
>    According to the Encyclopedia of American Comics, 'Foo' 
> fever swept the
>    U.S., finding its way into popular songs and generating 
> over 500 'Foo
>    Clubs.' ...
> 
>    One place 'foo' is known to have remained live is in the 
> U.S. military
>    during the WWII years. ...
> 
>    The U.S. and British militaries frequently swapped slang 
> terms during
>    the war (see kluge and kludge for another important example) Period
>    sources reported that 'FOO' became a semi-legendary subject of WWII
>    British-army graffiti more or less equivalent to the 
> American Kilroy.
>    Where British troops went, the graffito .FOO was here. or something
>    similar showed up.
> 
> The fact that both WWII terms FUBAR and SNAFU have the 'foo' 
> syllable in
> them is a complete coincidence, you believe.  It is 
> impossible, you claim,
> that there is any relationship between 'foo' and those two terms.  You
> have offered no reason why I should believe you.  I have some 
> doubts and
> good reasons for those doubts.

So do Food and Fool. Fell and Felon have the "fell" syllable, but that doesn't mean the two are related. The reasons you've suggested all seem to come down to the fact that "Foo" was well known at the time, and your imaginary requirement that the pronunciation would somehow be based off of the derivative word "up" were it not for "Foo". 

> > I don't doubt that Foo had something to do with their 
> popularity, and
> > could even have contributed to how most people pronounced it, but
> > claiming Foo motivated people to conjure up those terms is going to
> > require a lot more logic put behind the argument.
> 
> I think we barely disagree then.  I didn't claim that "Foo motivated
> people to conjure up those terms," I only said this:
> 
>     "We may never know if it was part of the motivation for FUBAR and
>      SNAFU, but it might have been."
> 
> You think the 'foo' syllable could have been part of the 
> reason for the
> popularity of FUBAR and SNAFU, but you think it is not 
> possible that the
> love of 'foo' was part of the motivation for constructing 
> these acronyms
> in the first place.  You're completely wrong because it's entirely
> possible.

I disagree. The terms clearly were a result of military jargon of the time. Claiming their creation was motivated by "foo" simply isn't plausible.

> I'm wasting my time writing to you because I have a big job 
> to do and I'm
> avoiding it.  Back to work now.

Thats what I'm here for. :-)

> > More towards where we got onto this topic of foobar vs. fubar:
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/foobar.html
> 
> At least you did read one of my earlier messages, I guess, or 
> maybe you
> didn't read them and you found the jargon file on your own.

I read it but didn't see the origin of "bar" explained. Just that it was "related to foo". I read the "foobar" page while trying to figure out who the people you mentioned "studying 'foo'" were before asking.

Baz is also unexplained everywhere I've looked. Anyone want to enlighten me on that ones origin?

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion