unabbreviation

English

Etymology

From un- +‎ abbreviation.

Noun

unabbreviation (countable and uncountable, plural unabbreviations)

1. (uncommon, uncountable) The act of unabbreviating.
   • 1956, The Music Review, volumes 17–18, page 264:

     The alternative, of course, is unabbreviation. Quite apart from the extra labour of typing and printing involved, one’s whole experience of sol-fa (if any) brings home that as signs for distinguishing common sound-relationships single letters are the most efficient mnemonic system, besides being clearer to the eye, even in a single diversion like Point One.

   • 1970, Gerald J. Massey, Understanding Symbolic Logic, New York, N.Y., Evanston, Ill., London: Harper & Row, →LCCN, page 310:

     T4. (x)(y)[(x ≪ y) ⊃ ~(y ≪ x)]. Partial unabbreviation of T4 yields ‘(x)(y){(x < y)⋅(x ≠ y) ⊃ ~[(y < x) ⋅ (y ≠ x)]}’.

   • 1971, George Horace Woodmansee, A Definitionally Extendible Type-Logic for Mechanical Theorem Proving‎^[1], Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, page 110:

     There are two ways one can handle unabbreviation in a system such as E. The first is to remove all defined constants at the outset by preprocessing the initial expression.

   • 1987, Roger Angell, “The Arms Talks”, in The New Yorker‎^[2], volume 63, page 104:

     I did find a scattering of rookies to admire, but not nearly as many as last spring, in the great vintage year of ’86, when I had my first, awed look at the Angels’ Wally Joyner, the Rangers’ Pete Incaviglia (an even better Texas youngster, Ruben Siena, didn’t join the club until midseason), the Giants’ Will Clark, and the Athletics’ (“the A’s” has undergone official unabbreviation) Jose Canseco.

   • 1994, Michael H. Brackett, “[Data Documentation] Data Resource Lexicon”, in Data Sharing Using a Common Data Architecture (Wiley Professional Computing), New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., →ISBN, page 167:

     The Data Resource Lexicon contains all the algorithms for abbreviating data names and a definition of when each algorithm is used. If the abbreviation algorithms use different word abbreviations, these are indicated in the definition of the algorithm. The lexicon can assist automatic abbreviation and unabbreviation of data names by passing the full data name through the algorithm to obtain the abbreviated data name or vice versa.

   • 2004, Dmitry Kirsanov, XSLT 2.0 Web Development (Definitive XML Series)‎^[3], Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, →ISBN, page 112:

     The XSLT stylesheet will have to recognize this type of link, possibly apply some special formatting to it, and most importantly resolve (unabbreviate) the abbreviated address. In this example, unabbreviation would supply the complete URL of the referenced document for the HTML link: […]

2. (uncommon, countable) The result of unabbreviating.
   • 1952, Stephen Cole Kleene, “[The Predicate Calculus] Replacement”, in Introduction to Metamathematics (The University Series in Higher Mathematics), New York, N.Y., Toronto, Ont.: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., part II (Mathematical Logic), page 154:

     All legitimate unabbreviations of a given abbreviation are congruent, and hence by Lemma 15b equivalent. Thus it is immaterial in considering questions of deducibility and provability which legitimate unabbreviation is used.

   • 1957, Norman Kretzmann, Elements of Formal Logic: An Introductory Textbook‎^[4], Long’s College Book Company, page 142:

     Since the universal quantifier has been introduced as primitive, and since every formula containing an existential quantifier may be viewed as an abbreviation or unabbreviation of a similar formula containing only universal quantifiers, this general rule may be […]

   • 1962, Richard Eugene Vesley, The Intuitionistic Continuum‎^[5], Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, page 37:

     The first equivalence in *R7.8, *R7.9 is simply an unabbreviation of "α∘≯β".

   • 1970, Michael D[avid] Resnik, “Formal deductive theories”, in Elementary Logic, New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, →LCCN, part 4 (Extensions of Quantification Theory and Other Advanced Topics), page 406:

     (∃ ! y)(Pyz ⋅ My) 5, UI / (∃y)[Pyz ⋅ My (x)(Pxz ⋅ Mx ⊃ y = x)] unabbreviation

   • 1980, Kenneth Kunen, “[The foundations of set theory] Why formal logic?”, in Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs (Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics; 102), Amsterdam, New York, N.Y., Oxford, Oxon: North-Holland Publishing Company, →ISBN, pages 5–6:

     Likewise, when we use other abbreviations, we can be vague about which of a number of logically equivalent unabbreviations is intended. For example, ϕ ⋀ ψ ⋀ χ could abbreviate either ϕ ⋀ (ψ ⋀ χ) or (ϕ ⋀ ψ) ⋀ χ, but since these two formulas are logically equivalent, it usually does not matter which of the two sentences we choose officially to represent ϕ ⋀ ψ ⋀ χ.

   • 1985 May, Harry Avant, “Horizon’s Latitude on the AT&T 3B2/300”, in Unix/World, volume II, number 4, Mountain View, Calif.: Tech Valley Publishing, →ISSN, page 92, column 2:

     Latitude’s abbrev function allows you to create a library of abbreviations. Using this feature, you can generate files that contain unabbreviated forms of words or lines of text that you frequently use. Because abbreviation files allow you to create “unabbreviations” of up to several hundred characters, they can be a real timesaver.

   • 1990, Angelo Margaris, “[The Predicate Calculus] Equality”, in First Order Mathematical Logic (Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics), Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, Inc., →ISBN, page 109:

     We have chosen v in (1) to be a specific variable to make sure that (2) has a unique unabbreviation.

   • 2017, Tony Roy, “[Formal Languages] Sentential Languages”, in Sentential Logic (Symbolic Logic: An Accessible Introduction to Serious Mathematical Logic), San Bernardino, Calif.: John M. Pfau Library, →OCLC, page 46:

     In fact, this is a good check on your unabbreviations: If the result is not a formula, you have made a mistake!

   • 2018, William Boos, “[Berkeleyan Metalogical ‘Signs’ and ‘Master Arguments’] Semantic Paradox(es) and ‘Master Arguments’”, in Florence S. Boos, editor, Metamathematics and the Philosophical Tradition, Boston, Mass.: De Gruyter, →ISBN, pages 203–204:

     Let T be a first-order theory which encodes [its own syntax] in plausibly normalised ways (cf. (Smorynski, 1977), 827) and let δ in L(T) be an appropriate unabbreviation—(cf. 3.12 of (Boos, 1998)) of the following sentence: 3.24.1 [it is unprovable in T that [metatheoretic pointwise definability is expressible in T]].