ANZAC or Anzac?

The language is constantly evolving with a trend towards brevity. Waggon has become wagon and to-day has become today.

Some Australians cling to what they believe is English spelling for words like “programme” and anything that potentially ends in -our like “colour”.

I think they are mistaken. Researching newspapers from the 1890s for my family history a few years ago the consistent style was to spell “color” etc.

That’s possibly because newspapers are leaders in simplifying the language. They write in the vernacular without being crude.

For that reason I say the Ellenbrook sub-branch of the RSL is on the wrong track in their motion to demand the Macquarie Dictionary drop the word Anzac, and by extension, that newspapers also use ANZAC instead of Anzac.

It’s reported in The West Australian today the sub-branch objects to “faceless academics” (the dictionary wordmasters) influencing public opinion. It’s actually the other way around.

ANZAC of course stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

A good sub-editor once instilled in me a hatred of acronyms. They are evil, she said, and should be replaced wherever possible except when they are easily understood and accepted, such as AFL and ACTU.

Many acronyms are obscure jargon and in print they stand out like dog’s balls.

ANZAC could survive though, according to her ruthless definition, because it’s widely understood and in common usage, but it really does leap off a page.

Besides, Anzac has come to represent more than just the Army Corp which landed at Gallipoli. It says something about the Australian character. It’s an adjective as well as an acronym.

Sorry Ellenbrook RSL, but Anzac is here to stay.