It was recently pointed out in a couple different threads that the term "progressive anagram" is a severe misnomer, since the concept has nothing to do with anagrams. Does anyone know who coined this term, and if so, is it possible that what they really meant to say was "progressive acronym"? Just wondering because I've often seen "anagram" and "acronym" confused for one another, and "progressive acronym" would be a much more accurate term.

Quinn

I think anagram is certainly more accurate than acronym. As far as I know an acronym is exclusively a word made up of the initials of a phrase/title...such as WHO for the World Health Organisation.

Think about effects using the principle and you should see why anagram is closer to the mark...some words are anagrams of others...some have missing letters...so on and so forth. Anagram may not be exactly right, but acronym certainly isn't right at all.

Regards,

David.

I don't know who first called it the "progressive anagram" principle. I think it's a close description; each word is an anagram of the previous word, with an extra letter. It really doesn't exacty fit since the words can have repeated letters and extra letters. I've likened it to a unary number system. (PM me for an explaination).

My best shot at an accurate name is "progressive features", and for the the extension of the principle, "branching progressive features". That generalization covers not only words, but any other set of objects. I'm being deliberatly vague, I don't want to spill too much.
PM me if you want more. I'm not at the 50 mark yet...
Regards,
Victor

vratkins wrote:
A rearrangement of letters is not an anagram unless it actually spells a different word, so in the type of effect being referenced (and I'm being deliberately vague), the above statement does not apply. There are no additional words (or "previous" words), other than the targets themselves, and they have no anagrammatic relationship.

... Doug

The term "anagram" applies because the performer picks up on the letters of the target word out of order, thereby reading an anagram of the actual thought-of word. It's progressive because the result of but of reading alters the course of the rest of the performance.

Like Doug, I tried to be both suitably clear and still appropriately vague. If I wasn't vague enough, the moderators are welcome to delete this message. If I wasn't clear enough, feel free to email me or send me a private message.