Can you create an abbreviation for any word that has no commonly accepted abbreviation simply by dropping some or all the vowels (i.e., restore: rstr or restr; replace: rplc or replc)?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
closed as not constructive by FumbleFingers, MετάEd, Hellion, Kristina Lopez, choster Jun 12 '13 at 17:14
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Well, of course you can. Dropping vowels is as much an acceptable way of forming abbreviations as dropping consonants.
I believe your question really is more, "Is this a way to create defensible/allowable/usable abbreviations?"
Defensible? To whom? Generally speaking, if you have not seen the abbreviation before you use it you are treading on the thin ice that is also trodden upon by innovators of neologisms. This is not for the weak of heart.
Allowable? By whom? If it's not in a dictionary it's probably not going to be welcomed with open arms by your reader unless the abbreviation is very useful and obvious in meaning. Remember that the purpose of an abbreviation is to communicate clearly using less letters.
Usable? Of course it's usable. But it may be of only marginal (or even negative) utility if the abbreviation obscures meaning.
There is little need for abbreviations in writing meant to be read, and there is no need at all for abbreviations that are, N.B., obscure.