On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:09:08 -0500 Jay Kreibich <jay at kreibi.ch> wrote:
> although if you trace SQL back to the IBM days of SEQUEL, there is a > strong argument that the term ?sequel? makes more sense. IBM insisted "SQL" be pronounced as three letters for exactly that reason: to distinguish it from its forerunner, SEQUEL. IIRC, SEQUEL was trademarked by another firm, and pronouncing SQL to sound like "sequel" risked trademark infringement. > ?an ess-cue-ell lite database? Yup, that's what I write, too. But I've given up my Pedant Pin in conversation because "sequelite" trips off this English-speaker's tongue. Practically saves a second every time I say it, must have added up to hours by now. --jkl
