Eurojargon: : A Dictionary of European Union Acronyms, Abbreviations and Sobriquets

Citation

Fraser, K.C. (1998), "Eurojargon: : A Dictionary of European Union Acronyms, Abbreviations and Sobriquets", Collection Building, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-46. https://doi.org/10.1108/cb.1998.17.1.45.3

If you thought librarians were among the most prolific coiners of abbreviations and acronyms, you should see the output of the European Union (EU). There are two obvious reasons why it needs so many. First, it gives rise to a great many organizations or projects with complex names, so it is much easier to speak of “IRIS” than of “The integrated road safety information and navigation system.” Second, with nine official languages, and more to come, it does make sense to invent a single easily memorable name which can be used in all languages ‐ although many acronyms do, in fact, have alternative versions in different languages, and the present work deals only with those current in English‐language texts.

The book lists about 3,000 acronyms or abbreviations, of which those beginning “Eur” account for 150. Most of them are still current, the cut‐off date being December 1996. The coverage appears to be very thorough. I tried out 20 examples from the most recent issue of European Access, and all but one were included (the exception was EUDIF, the European Documentation and Information Network for Women). Items included range from the well‐known (such as “Benelux”) to the utterly obscure (for example CIMCEli, the Committee of the Mustard Industries of the EEC). This example demonstrates the inclusion not only of official EU bodies but also of the numerous lobbying organizations: the address of each body is also quoted. I found numerous examples where the same abbreviation is used for quite different purposes: for example, “AIMS” could mean three things. If the EU should set up a clearing house to avoid such conflicts, perhaps they could also check the acronyms for rude words in all the official languages: I noticed at least one.

Although the title corresponding to each acronym is quoted, it is often not explained. For instance, “Babel” stands for “Broadcasting across the barriers of European language,” but what purpose does it serve? This lack of further definition is the more surprising when we remember that the dictionary also includes “Sobriquets” (Sir Ernest Gowers would have preferred “Nicknames”), which are further defined, for example the “Luxembourg compromise.” In this context, the book hovers uneasily on the verge of attempting coverage of European terms as a whole, which is not its primary purpose. Perhaps those items which are not abbreviations or acronyms might have been better left out. This, however, is a minor problem in a book which would be useful to all libraries concerned with the affairs of the European Union.