"S" is not Harry Truman's middle initial

I now have a lot of useless information about initials :P "It is not a question of whether or not someone can have a name consisting of only one letter, the question is whether or not that letter counts as an initial"if that letter is the first, last, and only letter, then it is not an initial, it is the entire name. Therefore, it is not appropriate to abbreviate it, as is the purpose of an initial. " There is insufficient evidence to reject an initial being of one letter even if it does not serve as an abbreviation. Whilst I did admit that initials serve to provide convenience to words, this is not their only purpose. This is because an initial serves a greater purpose than simply abbreviating words. Initials are a symbol of formality, they are used as a signature and they are used for ratification of treaties, when witnessing etc. Initials are unique in that they represent names. This is proven in the dictionary where the verb "initialling" is to mark or sign with one"s name. It is especially useful being terse but not disrespectful when referring to a president with a lengthy name, such as FDR or JFK. This is what uniquely identifies initials, not abbreviation. "So, if "S" is not an abbreviation, then it does not need a period after it. In fact, a period implies abbreviation, which is false. Thus, "S" is not an initial, in Harry Truman's case. (The period is) "to show that the letter is an initial; an abbreviation of a larger "word". " Yes it is true that the "S" in Harry Truman"s middle name has no need for a full stop. This is because a full stop implies abbreviation. As previously said however, the full stop/abbreviation is no true indicator of an initial, as it fails to prove to be in the dictionary. The "S" is unlike most initials in that no full stop should follow if we were to be pettily accurate with Truman"s middle name. However, this does not disqualify the S of being an initial. Harry Truman after all is known as Harry S Truman, the S still is his middle name. Thus, to refer to Harry Truman by his middle initial would still be S. To fulfil its purpose of exuding formality, or distinguishing himself from others with the same first and last name, not just to abbreviate. "Here, Con appears to agree that the purpose of abbreviations is to provide convenience to words, and that initials are abbreviations. However, the examples of abbreviations listed by Con (NASA, LOL, etc. ) are in fact, not initials, they are acronyms, which have entirely different rules, and definitions (2). " Whilst it is true that the examples used by Con are acronyms, in the dictionary definition 2, it is revealed that they can equally be considered as a set of initials, just as initials like JFK, JC can be considered to be acronyms. Additionally, even if this were to be untrue, names such as JFK, JC, GRRM etc. are known without their full stops following their initials. A full stop indicates a pause, where no such pause exists in the spoken language (nor when read internally from paper). Moreover, in the rest of the English speaking world, full stops have been known to have largely dropped between initials. Although it is still arguable that periods after initials are still relevant in the US, which is the location of this debate, it is still ironic if so then that in the name that stands for the United States of America, periods between its names in the form of "U. S. A. " is rarely seen. Hence it is equally accurate to refer to initials with full stops as it is without. Sources: . http://www.dictionary.com... . http://www.dictionary.com... . http://english.stackexchange.com...