ANZAC or Anzac?

[Mike Cecil]

Gents,

I've been following a rather emotional and at times acrimonious thread on another forum about the term ANZAC ... or is it Anzac? Of course, we know that it was an acronym - like Qantas - but what is the 'proper' way to write it these days: ANZAC or Anzac?

As a former employee of the AWM, the use of the word 'ANZAC' in caps was, during my time there, insisted on by the then-Director (Gower). It was the convention we all had to use, much to the annoyance of the AWM's editor who considered the normal English convention was the more applicable. I didn't object to the use of ANZAC, in much the same way as I saw no reason to object to always using 'First World War', and 'Second World War' rather than 'World War 1' or 'World War 2', etc.

I've just had a quick look at the NLA's Trove, and the first use of the word 'Anzac/ANZAC' in newspapers was in quotes from the report to the Minister for Defence from Sir Ian Hamilton. This report was widely quoted, ostensibly verbatim, in newspapers in June 1915. The text includes '...I received information from Anzac that enemy reinforcements had been seen...'. Already a word, it seems, by that early stage.

Also in the June 1915 newspapers were 'on site' reports from CEW Bean (the 'father' of the AWM, and who went on to write the First World War Official History), again quoted verbatim, in which he states '...at no time during the fighting in what is now known as Anzac Bay ...'.

Bean continued to use this 'proper word' convention post-war in the official history, Volume 2: The Story of Anzac. While headings are all caps, the word 'Anzac' within the text and in map and image captions is in upper and lower case, ie used as a proper word.

I've also looked at The Oxford Companion to Aust Military History (1995) by Dennis, Grey, Morris and Prior, and they use 'Anzac' in all text, and 'ANZAC' in headings (they use caps in all headings, so nothing implied by that).

I've also noticed, when reading some back issues of 'Army, The Soldiers' Newspaper', that they consistently use 'Anzac' in both text and headings, for example, Feb 27 2014, page 11:'New Anzac Coin' (apparently the Australian Mint uses the upper/lower case convention, too); and Feb 13, 2014, page 5: 'Anzac ballot to be drawn'. All abbreviations and acronyms appearing in Army elsewhere are in caps and defined at first use, so the use of the form 'Anzac' as a proper word is deliberate.

Yet one clearly irritated respondent stated bluntly that "I am also for my sins, a trained AFP [Aust Federal Police] Assistant Ceremonial and Protocol Offr, which also recognises the writing of the hallowed acronym in upper case, it will as far as I am concerned, be ever thus." (So when have the AFP ever been in step with the public??)

And another: "..A note I included in response to a recent request from a parliamentarian: "Congratulations on referring to ANZAC, rather than Anzac; the meaning of ANZAC deserves to be preserved and one way of doing this is to maintain the acronym as such (who can remember what Radar or Laser stood [for] after they became words, rather than acronyms?)".

I note that posts on the subject on this forum mostly use the term 'Anzac': is this indicative of the broader community's perception?

Reasoned thoughts on ANZAC or Anzac, please gentlemen, and I would welcome such from our overseas contributors as well......

Mike C

[Grant Bowker]

My perception, formed by Canadian military writing guidelines, is that at least military acronyms (and most, if not all, others) are fully capitalized.
Perhaps the fact that ANZAC can be pronounced as a word, unlike CMP, MCP, RCAF, RCN, RSL, RCL, WRT, WTF has hastened the conversion. If this is the case, acronyms such as CANSOFCOM will be up for conversion shortly.
Another explanation is that spellcheckers can be set to accept initial capitalization for proper nouns but most require acronyms to be either entered one at a time or accepted as valid on review. (Though this wouldn't explain the 1915 usage....)

[Little Jo]

Hi Guys

Apparently the president of the NSW RSL doesn’t want old blokes to march in the ANZAC Day March if there are only a couple of them under a banner.

I reckon that the cartoon says it all “Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened” This should be seen and understood by those who want to do away with ANZAC Day Marches.

Cheers

Tony







.

[Lynn Eades]

Mike To answer your question, from my point of view, it is and always should be "ANZAC". I do understand that to use Anzac in a sentence when referring to the Anzacs is correct.
Yes it is an acronym, which represents a group of our two nations highly regarded representatives.
If I write Australia in a post, I write it with a capital "A' because that is the way that I was taught to write the names of Countries, peoples names, the month etc. I try to do it every time out of respect.
It seems to me that Australia is somewhat guilty of claiming ANZAC day as it's own. (google "Anzac day" for evidence)( Mike, I know your views on wiki ) I think that calling it "Anzac" day helps to to further diminish New Zealand's part in this.
I believe the acronym should be all in capitals because "New Zealand" also deserves the same respect as "Australia".
BTW for WWI, As a percentage of the population, New Zealand's commitment in the way of lives lost, and injuries, was higher than any other country. If I remember correctly,something like 40% of all males between 18 and 40 wore a military uniform, had served over seas, or were in training.
There is a strong brotherhood between our two countries. The commemoration of the price paid, in a similar way, by both countries, strengthens that bond.
Just my view.
Cheers Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

what is the 'proper' way to write it these days: ANZAC or Anzac?

It all depends Mike - do you want to be politically correct, or do you want to be historically and grammatically correct? If you want to be politically correct, then you need to forget about history and grammar and jump on board with ANZAC. AWM and RSL have already switched to ANZAC, and several State governments have now rewritten their laws to ANZAC, and it's being taught to kids in school. On the other hand if you want to be a stick in the mud and insist on observing outdated notions like Anzac tradition and English grammar, then you can only use ANZAC as an acronym. That is, when referring specifically to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps itself, as an army formation. If you want to use the word, you need to spell it Anzac, with a capital A, because it's a proper noun. Of course, proper nouns can be used as adjectival nouns, otherwise known as nounal adjuncts, for example Anzac Day. In this case 'day' is capitalized, because it's being used as a proper noun, in a title, rather than a common noun as in 'next day'. As opposed to Anzac biscuit, which we don't spell Anzac Biscuit. Or God forbid, ANZAC biscuit. Somehow the AFP's "hallowed acronym" doesn't look so hallowed as a biscuit.

Each to his own of course, but personally I'll be sticking to Anzac for the word, as per century of usage by Anzacs themselves, and as per Oxford Dictionary, and as per 1921 Federal Regulations, which thankfully remain in force today: These Regulations may be cited as the Protection of Word 'Anzac' Regulations. No person shall, without the authority of the Minister, proof whereof shall lie upon the person accused, assume or use the word 'Anzac' or any word resembling the word 'Anzac' in connexion with any trade, business, calling or profession or in connexion with any entertainment or any lottery or art union etc. etc. etc.

My sincerest apologies to any New Zealanders who may feel slighted by the lower case NZ, but one of the things the Anzacs fought and died for was the English language, so I feel some obligation to uphold it as they have done for the past century. This is one word in the English language that belongs to them, and I am not at liberty to tamper with it, even in the interests of trans-Tasman relations. If we have some gripe across the ditch then let's address it constructively, without engaging in semantics over the word given to us to symbolize this brotherhood by those who forged it the first place. It was good enough for them for a century so how can it not be good enough for us?

[Mike Cecil]

Gents

Well reasoned and interesting replies: please keep them coming, this is a most interesting discussion. I hope a couple more of our regular contributors join the thread, too.

Interesting the point about biscuits, Tony: I have an Anzac/ANZAC (note the non-committal each way bet ....) commemorative biscuit tin (I ate the bikkies: very nice!) which only uses the term as ANZAC in several places on the tin (such as 'ANZAC biscuits'). Released 2011 by Unibic, Broadmeadows, Victoria. I assume they were authorized: it has the backing of the RSL. Looks like Unibic were told to be politically, rather than historically, correct.

Mike C

[Dianaa]

Sort of on the same subject, the original Aus and NZ troops landing at Gallipoli were the A NZ A C. Later in the war on the Western front when the Australian divisions together with the New Zealand Division they were called "II Anzac", while in 1917, without the NZ Division, all 5 Australian Divisions became the Australian Corps under General Monash.

I wonder if the early reference to Anzac was referring to the formation in France while the all capitalised ANZAC referred only to the formation in Gallipoli?

[Dianaa]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

It all depends Mike - ....

... My sincerest apologies to any New Zealanders who may feel slighted by the lower case NZ, but one of the things the Anzacs fought and died for was the English language, so I feel some obligation to uphold it as they have done for the past century. This is one word in the English language that belongs to them, and I am not at liberty to tamper with it, even in the interests of trans-Tasman relations. If we have some gripe across the ditch then let's address it constructively, without engaging in semantics over the word given to us to symbolize this brotherhood by those who forged it the first place. It was good enough for them for a century so how can it not be good enough for us?

One of my favourate stories about Ozzies forgetting about the Kiwis in ANZAC, was during the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Bob Carr the then NSW State Premier was escorting the NZ Prime Minister, Helen Clark, out to Sydney Olympic Park via the Western Distributor. When crossing the recently re-named concrete suspension bridge beside Blackwattle Bay, Bob proudly informed the PM the bridge was called the ANZAC Bridge. Helen Clark then countered that she could see the Australian National Flag and the NSW State Ensign flying atop the pilons, but could not see the NZ National Flag and surely that flag should be flying atop any bridge named Anzac. The next day PM Clark presented Premier Carr with a NZ National flag.

The New Zealand flag has flown atop one of the pilons with the Aussie on the other to this day.

Another corollary to the story is that a bronze statue of a Digger had been erected at the Western approach to the bridge. Subsequently the same sculptor Alan Somerville (a Kiwi) was commissioned to make another bronze statue this time of a Kiwi Anzac. Both statues now face each other across the water, the Kiwi was made a little taller by the sculptor to honour his birthplace.



http://www.groveoz.info/flags.htm

[Lynn Eades]

Dianaa, thank you for the info. Up until this evening, I was not aware that Helen had done anything useful
(thus endeth my political broadcast )


My apologies Mike for degrading your thread. I just couldn't help myself.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Tony: I have an Anzac/ANZAC (note the non-committal each way bet ....) commemorative biscuit tin

Yes I detected some ambivalence in your initial post Mike, and I'll be interested to see how you resolve it in due course. Meanwhile you're just the man to chair this debate and retain the non-committal 'Anzac/ANZAC' device for yourself. Like you I hope we get some more input as folks come to grips with the issues here, and that includes folks overseas as this concerns them too. Like I said, 'Anzac' is a word in the English language, and has been for the past century. As such it's in use around the world, but presently in Australia and New Zealand an attempt is afoot to expunge it completely. There can be no doubt this attempt will succeed here quite soon - the job is already accomplished in print, with much of the population following suit in their own writing, including many MLU members. As can be seen however the debate remains quite impassioned, and wherever you live in the world you must choose 'Anzac' or 'ANZAC' in your own writing too, and that includes speakers of all languages. If you're undecided, then for the purposes of posting here you can always use Mike's device, or perhaps a shortened hybrid like ANZac.

Just to clarify the position, here is the word we're talking about, as it appears in the Oxford Dictionary online:

Anzac
1. A soldier in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (1914-1918)
1.1 informal: A person from Australia or New Zealand, especially a member of the armed services.


Here's how it appears in Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

We do not have an entry for Anzac. Have a look at how it is spelled. Did you type it correctly? We have these words with similar spellings or pronunciations:

anal
ansa
Kwanzaa
stanzas
kwanzaa
kwanza
stanza
prozac
bonanzas

As you'd expect, Cambridge has no entry for ANZAC either, because it's not a dictionary of military acronyms. Thus we find Cambridge has completely expunged the word 'Anzac' from the English language.


Of particular interest is Macmillan Dictionary online, which like Cambridge has also removed the word 'Anzac', and yet strangely provides the acronym, but defines it as a word:

ANZAC
a soldier from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, especially in the First World War.

This is unprecedented, and contravenes English grammar. It stands as the only word in the English language spelt entirely in capital letters. Does this HERALD the start OF a process WHEREBY we arbitrarily SPELL any word THAT takes our FANCY entirely in capital LETTERS? Evidently Cambridge don't subscribe to this new selective grammar, and since the spelling of the word 'Anzac' is now politically incorrect, they've been forced to drop the word entirely. One suspects Oxford may never subscribe to such abuse of English grammar either, and while they've resisted the tide of political correctness thus far, it's only a matter of time before they too succumb like Cambridge and drop their 'Anzac' entry. Whereupon Macmillan will have no reason to retain their curious acronym/word hybrid, which like Mike's Anzac/ANZAC hybrid is but a temporary device to accommodate political correctness, which in the absence of any Oxford entry they'll be free to drop as aberrant.

Thus while we bicker and bitch about the spelling of the word 'Anzac' here in Australia and New Zealand, it will quietly disappear from the English language. And just to remind you what will have disappeared from world view: "A soldier in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (1914-1918)", and "A person from Australia or New Zealand, especially a member of the armed services".

Meanwhile of course every English dictionary in the world will continue to recognize words earned by soldiers of other nations, because unlike us they are satisfied with an initial capital letter only. For example:

Marine
a. a soldier in the Royal Marines
b. a soldier in the US Marine Corps

Of course, they won't see their respective military acronyms in dictionaries, nor do they expect to, not even in Macmillan:

USMC
Sorry, no search result for USMC.
Did you mean:
uses
used
user
umma
sac
sec
sic
ism
isms
use


And long after the word 'Anzac' has disappeared from world view and memory, and any search for it in dictionaries will suggest 'anal' as the closest word, the following word will continue to be recognized until the end of time with an initial capital letter:

Nazi
someone who belonged to the Nazi Party, which was established and led by Adolph Hitler between 1933 and 1945. The Nazi Party governed Germany before and during the Second World War.


Make no mistake here - dictionaries are subject to political correctness, but English grammar is not. You can force dictionaries to drop the word Anzac, but you cannot force them to misspell words. There will never be a word in the English language spelt ANZAC, just like there will never a word spelt NAZI. They are both acronyms which have spawned words, purely by chance arrangement of consonants and vowels. Just like 'radar' and 'laser', which being common nouns are not spelt with an initial capital letter.

Therefore be very clear what you are seeking here. For the past century the world has recognized both the acronym ANZAC and the word Anzac. You can ask the world to kindly stop using the word Anzac because we now find it offensive, and they will accede to our wishes and strike it from their dictionaries, redirecting us instead to 'anal'. What you cannot do is ask the world's dictionaries to spell your favourite word in capital letters. ANZAC is an acronym, not a word, and English dictionaries don't list acronyms. Once you've expunged the word Anzac from the English language, you'll be left only with the acronym ANZAC, which you'll only find listed in specialist publications like "Australian Military Abbreviations, Acronyms & Codes" by Mike Cecil.

[Mike Cecil]

PERFECT, Tony!

(or is that 'Perfect, Tony?'....)

Another well reasoned and argued contribution.

Interesting the Oxford now contains the word Anzac. My shorter Oxford, purchased for me when at University in the 1970s, does not contain either ANZAC (which is understandable, as it is an acronym) or Anzac the word.

Thank you to all! Keep the comments coming.

Mike C

(And Lynn, an apology not needed: all adds to the colour. I've certainly learned some things from all the comments thus far, and I too have been guilty of such hijackings of other threads in the past, too.)

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

My shorter Oxford, purchased for me when at University in the 1970s, does not contain either ANZAC (which is understandable, as it is an acronym) or Anzac the word.

That's interesting Mike, does it contain the word Nazi? I'm now wondering when the word Anzac first appeared in dictionaries, I had assumed it would date back at least to 1921 Protection of Word 'Anzac' Regulations, but on second thoughts it usually takes a while for dictionaries to incorporate new words, esp. if their use is mainly localized. Next time I'm near a secondhand bookshop I'll wander in and check a few old editions.

Of interest in this discussion is the Australian Army's official stance, which seems pretty clear from their webpage headed 'Anzac Day'. The word appears 20 times in the text as follows:

Anzac: 1 (Australia's desire to recognize the Anzac tradition)
Anzacs: 4 (including: These became known as Anzacs and the pride they took in that name continues to this day.)
Anzac Day: 12 (including: Anzac Day is one of Australia's most important national commemorative occasions.)
Anzac biscuit: 5 (including: The Anzac biscuit is one of the few commodities able to be legally marketed in Australia using the word 'Anzac', which is protected by Federal Legislation.)

The acronym ANZAC appears 3 times, twice in the definition plus one anomaly:

What does 'ANZAC' stand for?
'ANZAC' stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

What happens on ANZAC Day?
Evidently an error (given the Anzac Day heading and 12 further appearances)

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-history/Traditions/Anzac-Day

[Mike Cecil]

Tony,

Yes, Nazi is listed: defined as a member of the German Nationalist Socialist party.

Interestingly, the next entries are N.B. abbrev, of NOTA BENE, then N.C.O, abbrev, NON-COMMISSIONED officer, so abbreviations (some at least) are included in this version of the Oxford.

So I looked up Radar - not included, but Rad, abbrev of RADICAL, is.

Go figure....

Mike C

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Looks like Unibic were told to be politically, rather than historically, correct.

Yes, they have to follow RSL policy, just like AWM had to follow Gower's policy. Unlike the editor however there'd be no need for bullying, as it's very much in Unibic's commercial interests to secure RSL endorsement.

As you say Mike they're very nice bikkies, I buy them occasionally and I have four of the commemorative biscuit tins you mention. One serves as my regular biscuit tin, usually stocked with their competitor's gingernuts! Another two have been pensioned off into the garage, where they contain my drill bits and taps and dies. Your post prompted me to examine the undersides, which I found quite revealing. The 2008 tin depicts the Australian Light Horse, and the underside includes the following text:

THE RSL STORY
Since 1916, the RSL has provided assistance in many forms for members, both past and present, of the Australian Defence Forces and their families, providing such benefits as housing, food, clothing and professional support.
In addition, the RSL supports the broader Australian community in areas such as sport sponsorship, education and fundraising for many community projects.
The RSL and UNIBIC are proud to offer you this product. Each purchase of this Limited Edition Tin, will directly assist the RSL in continuing their great community work.
If you would like to learn more about the activities of the RSL, please contact your local branch.

I note with amusement that Unibic helped themselves to capital letters that year, even for the tin! This practice had ceased by 2011 when their tin commemorated 100 years of the RAN, but there was an interesting new inclusion:

THE RSL AND RNZRSA STORY
Since 1916, Australia's RSL and New Zealand's RNZRSA have provided assistance in many forms for members, both past and present, of the Australian and New Zealand Defences Forces and their families, providing such benefits as housing, food, clothing and professional support.
In addition, the RSL and RNZRSA support the broader Australian and New Zealand communities in areas such as sport membership, education and fundraising for many community projects.
The RSL, RNZRSA and Unibic, are proud to offer you this product. Each purchase of this limited edition tin will directly assist the RSL and RNZRSA in continuing their great community work.
If you would like to learn more about the activities of the RSL or the RNZRSA, please contact your local branch.

All very nice and inclusive, but by 2013 when the tin commemorated Balikpapan, the Kiwis had been banished! This prompted me to trot down to the supermarket and see what happened this year, and while the tins are all sold out the bikkies are conveniently on special so I bought a packet. Here's what the blurb says:

Since 1916 the RSL has assisted former and current members of Australia's armed forces, their families and dependants. This takes many forms including the provision of care packs to those deployed in harm's way, assisting those wounded in action and caring for elderly veterans and widows.
The RSL is also active in the wider community in projects which help educate the young, foster youth development and enrich the lives of the disabled and others in need.
In buying Unibic ANZAC Biscuits you are directly assisting the RSL in its endeavours.

So much for the Anzac biscuit brotherhood - a very brief affair indeed!

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Marine
a. a soldier in the Royal Marines
b. a soldier in the US Marine Corps

Of course, they won't see their respective military acronyms in dictionaries

I was wrong, Oxford lists RM and USMC, but Cambridge and Macmillan don't.

It's possible Oxford lists a few of the more commonly used military acronyms which remain current, like these two and NCO. For example they don't list ANZAC or AIF (except as Asociación Internacional de Fomento, which is part of the World Bank).

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

I was wrong, Oxford lists RM and USMC, but Cambridge and Macmillan don't.

It's possible Oxford lists a few of the more commonly used military acronyms which remain current, like these two and NCO. For example they don't list ANZAC or AIF (except as Asociación Internacional de Fomento, which is part of the World Bank).

Tony,
My Oxford Concise dictionary lists Anzac (that is how it is written) and gives the pronunciation of it "aenzaek", listing it as a noun. The 1990 edition.

cheers Richard

[Tony Wheeler]

Richard, my post refers to the acronym, not the word.

[Marc Montgomery]

I've alway written it as ANZAC as an acronym. If one is a soldier member of the organization it would be " he is an ANZAC soldier"
in the same sense as we always say for example CSIS (Cdn Security Intelligence Service) as in "he is a former CSIS agent.
Without New Zealand,, would it would AAC? or Aac? New Zealand of course should always be capped NZ. like USA..... or how about USAAF..that could be "nouned" but no-one ever does it

I dont think it should be a noun.

Nazi would not be all caps as its not an acronym, but a short form.

Nazi by the way was originally a diminutive of the name Ignaz, (common in Bavaria and Austria) and evolved into a perjorative..as in dummy, or goof. Although it had been used ear
Naso was common in Germany, Konrad Hieden, a well known journalist before the war and Jewish..always used Nazi..knowing its perjorative origins...however it did catch on in Germany but not to the same extent in the rest of the world. I wouldnt be at all surprised if Churchill knew of its perjorative origins.

Communist regime post war, such as DDR. never used the full form "nationalsocialismus" because of a potential connection with their own 'socialismus" and so always used Nazi.

[Dianaa]

If we have Anzac does it also mean we have Cmp?

[Lang]

The use of ANZAC as an official acronym (as opposed to general unofficial usage at appropriate times when Australians and New Zealanders have fought together, such as Vietnam) was not restricted to WW1. When the disasterous WW2 Greek campaign got underway the acronym ANZAC was revived officially for the composite (short lived) formation.

As explained above, using the "word" ANZAC's to describe individual soldiers is clearly wrong. By putting an "s" on the acronym you are talking about both the Gallipoli formation and the Greek formation. The soldiers are described by the "word" Anzac's - clearly derived from the acronym but with an entirely different meaning. I am sure the Anzac biscuit is meant to be eaten by an Anzac soldier and not a supply item for an ANZAC Q Store.

Lang

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by Dianaa

If we have Anzac does it also mean we have Cmp?

Don't even go there!

[Lynn Eades]

Keith, Cmp? There are probably a few on here with Cardiomyopathy.

There are some clever buggers here....Unlike some people who make signs.

[Tony Wheeler]

We seem to be getting lost in semantics and linguistics here, partly my fault I suspect. Let's get back to the facts for a moment.

As we know, ANZAC is a military acronym, which stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Therefore when you celebrate 'ANZAC Day' you are celebrating the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. That includes all the British and Indian Brigades and Divisions, and units of various other nationalities that formed part of ANZAC at one time or another. It does not include the AFC, the RAAF, the RAN, the RNZAF, the RNZN, the 2nd AIF, or the 2nd NZEF, except for the shortlived ANZAC formation during the '41 Greek campaign. Nor does it include Australians and New Zealanders who served in British or other national Armies, Navies, or Air Forces. Most obviously it does not include servicemen and women since WWII.

That's why we've always celebrated 'Anzac Day'. From the very beginning the word 'Anzac' was coined in reference to Australians and New Zealanders, irrespective of Command, and the word 'Anzac' retained currency after the two ANZAC Corps ceased to exist in 1917. It remains current today, and notwithstanding any trans-Tasman confusion that may exist, the rest of the world appears to be in little doubt as to its meaning, certainly if their English dictionaries are any guide:

UK. Oxford: Anzac (noun):
1. A soldier in the Australian an New Zealand Army Corps (1914-1918)
1.1 informal: A person from Australia or New Zealand, especially a member of the armed services.

USA. Merriam-Webster: Anzac (noun): a soldier from Australia or New Zealand

Thanks to this uniting word, we are able to celebrate Anzac Day as a commemoration and a tribute to ALL Australian and New Zealand servicemen and women, past and present, and express our desire to associate ourselves with the values they represent. These values we loosely define as 'the Anzac spirit', and we would like to think the Anzac spirit informs our national character both in Australia and New Zealand. We do not refer to it as the ANZAC spirit, or the RAAF spirit, or the RNZN spirit, because these terms are not all-embracing.

You'll find a brief summation of the Anzac spirit on the AWM website, including the origins of the word 'Anzac' itself, and I'd suggest it's required reading for this debate: http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/spirit.asp

Also worth noting are NZNWM guidelines for use of ANZAC or Anzac: "We recommend using the term 'ANZAC' with all capitals only when referring to the specific Corps. For all other uses 'Anzac' is preferred." http://www.mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-h...zac-guidelines

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Dianaa

If we have Anzac does it also mean we have Cmp?

No, you need some vowels if you want to make a word. Like they made jeep out of GP. That became beep for the Dodge so I guess we could make ceep for the CMP. Of course we're probably about 70 years too late, esp. in Australia where it's always been blitz. Not that we need a word for CMP, it rolls off the tongue pretty well.

[Lynn Eades]

Very good 2nd to last post Tony. Thank you for the logical reasoning.

[Lang]

Tony

Agree, your summation is very good and should put the argument to bed.

Lang

[lynx42]

I have read every word in this terrific thread, Thanks Mike C. for starting it.

All the respondents seem to agree that ANZAC/Anzac usage actually came from the Gallipoli Campaign. Not so, It was coined as a time saver during January 1915 in Egypt.

I have gone to:-

"THE OFFICIAL HISTORY OF AUSTRALIA IN THE WAR OF 1914-1918

VOLUME I

THE STORY OF ANZAC"
By C.E.W. Bean
(1921)

Page 124 says that it was coined as a Code word to shorten the long "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps" headings then being used.

Thanks to the following:- Lieutenant A. T. White, who suggested it to Major C.M.Wagstaff who passed the suggestion on to Birdwoods staff and also Sgt. G.C.Little who first asked Sgt. H.V.Milligton to "throw him the ANZAC stamp".



This Volume I, the first part of the 13 Volume history of WWI. (There are an average 741 pages to each volume). There are mentions of the Australian & New Zealand Army Corps numerous times BEFORE page 545. On page 545 of that first volume is the first mention of the word Anzac, at Anzac.
" About April 29th - the day upon which Sir Ian Hamilton first visited the headquarters of the Army Corps - General Birdwood asked that the Beach between the two knolls, being the original landing-place, should be known as "Anzac Cove" and the name "Anzac" till then the code name of the Army Corps, was gradually applied to the whole area."
see this attachment.



Further into that actual history in Volume IV. there is a map on page 740, (1030 pages in this volume), is both usages of the word. ANZAC is used as a Code on the map and Anzac as a noun so you know who is being referred to. see here



This is our Official history and therefore this is the correct spelling and usage of the word and all other arguments are unnecessary.

Maybe we need to educate the media.

Regards Rick.

[Mike Cecil]

Excellent, Rick.

Everyone's input has been great and most stimulating. I think we may all have learned a thing or two about ANZAC/Anzac and its proper use, and about its origin.

Mike C

[Dianaa]

Hi Rick

While I don't doubt your reasoning about the word "Anzac" from Vol 1 of The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, however Vol 1 was first published in 1921.

The use of the non-capitalised form may therefore have developed after 1915 and Bean used it in that form when writing Vol 1 only because it it had come into common usage by that time. It would be nice if we could see the form from the original sources, like Birdwood's correspondence rather than from secondary sources like Bean's "History" official or not.

Diana

[Lynn Eades]

I thought it interesting that in New Zealand the word Anzac was already protected by law in 1916 (see link in Tony's post)