...guys, it's official!!Time to get used to the new name....IBF is no longer in existence as the official name..It's now called BWF(Badminton World Federation) (http://www.internationalbadminton.org/newscontent.asp?pageid={142DC369-23C4-4F81-85A3-85123DADDFED})...;)

OMG, IBF got even worse
it sounds to me like BMW...

OMG, IBF got even worse
it sounds to me like BMW...

ha.. yeah.. that's the first thing I think of.

they shoulda name it BCF, Badminton Central Federation. We can also use it as Badminton Central Forum too :p

ummm.... wtf?
i liked IBF better

I think WBF is better than BWF?
World Badminton Federation sounds more natural than Badminton World Federation.

But WBF reminds me of WWF/WWE....

What about International Badminton Association IBA or Badminton International BI... actually tahts not a good one. Or United Badminton Federation / Association. UBF UBA. Even BT (Better than Tennis...:D)

they shoulda name it BCF, Badminton Central Federation. We can also use it as Badminton Central Forum too :p
...:) ..yah, that's a great name...:cool: but of course, Punch and his cohorts will have to ask for "permission" from kwun abt adapting and then using and then incorporating BC..:rolleyes: :p ;) :D

I think WBF is better than BWF?
World Badminton Federation sounds more natural than Badminton World Federation.

But WBF reminds me of WWF/WWE....
..I believe someone else, in another thread(forgot which one) mentioned that perhaps the new BWF don't want to use IBF's name because the initial might be confused with International Boxing Federation(IBF)..Using WBF will essentially have the same effect also as it stands for World Boxing Federation...
Now, whether why they(BWF) haven't thought abt this long time ago, and why now, who knows??..:confused: :rolleyes: ;)

What about International Badminton Association IBA or Badminton International BI... actually tahts not a good one. Or United Badminton Federation / Association. UBF UBA. Even BT (Better than Tennis...:D)
..yah, those are some interesting choices...but who knows??..:confused: :rolleyes: ;)

I believe it actually makes sense to name it BWF because the sequence is important and must be logical. B stands for badminton, and it should be the first in its name. With the first shot B (for badminton) we are where we should be, instead of waiting for the next word as would be the case if B is not used first. W is for World and its place as the second letter logically follows the first letter B, to state that it covers the world instead of something regional or national or local. The last letter F stands for Federation, because it rightly reflects the BWF as a federation of many national badminton entities.
The people on the old IBF Council, now the BWF, who made this name change decision have better brains than we think.

We have now had the inevitable Taneepak support for a silly IBF decision.

This new name does not make sense in English and it does not feel/sound right, as others have said. It completely ignores the natural word order of the language. Unless you think badminton rules the world, of course.

It should naturally have been WBF for World Badminton Federation (WBF), but this acronym clashes with the boxing authority so they rather foolishly landed themselves with a nonsensical name in order to get a unique acronym.

Oh dear!

why can't they stick with the original name anyway? IBF sounds good... compared to BWF. Think of the meaning, Badminton World Federation sounds like it is a federation of the badminton world instead of a federation in the world representing badminton.

why can't they stick with the original name anyway? IBF sounds good... compared to BWF. Think of the meaning, Badminton World Federation sounds like it is a federation of the badminton world instead of a federation in the world representing badminton.

No, IBF has the sequence wrong. International instead of badminton as the lead-in just takes you on an unnecessary merry-go-round. B as in Badminton hits it right on as the lead-in character. W as in World also hits it perfect as the second character. The same applies to the 3rd character F.

English is not your first language, is it?

In England the governing body is called Badminton England. BWF couldn't get away from the English influence, even after relocating to Malaysia. Also in Canada they are known as Badminton Canada. Names change, perhaps it is a case of being infected with the NSS disease.:D

I don't like the new name..IBF sounds good to me...BWF is not suitable..Why they must make changes???

Personally, and English is my first language, I can't see that there is much of a difference.

Remember when the World Wildlife Fund started, and won. legal action against the World Wrestling Federation for the use of the WWF initials? I don't know for certain buit thre might have been legal problems had the IBF changed it's name to WBF.

ah, the name is only academic, as long as they perform their duties well and promote the sport properly, it's all the same to me.

BWF doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, AND doesn't follow the usual rules for organisation names.

I don't think they were worried about the World Boxing Federation complaining if they used WBF. I mean, IBF also stands for International Boxing Federation and they have never complained.

There doesn't seem to be too much point to this whole exercise. Does changing from 'International' to 'World' really improve the organisation's image?

There must be some official comments from IBF members regarding the discussions that took place to decide on the change. Anybody seen any?

I don't like the new name..IBF sounds good to me...BWF is not suitable..Why they must make changes???

It shows that they are doing something :D :D :D . Nevermind the result :o .

BWF doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, AND doesn't follow the usual rules for organisation names.

I don't think they were worried about the World Boxing Federation complaining if they used WBF. I mean, IBF also stands for International Boxing Federation and they have never complained.

There doesn't seem to be too much point to this whole exercise. Does changing from 'International' to 'World' really improve the organisation's image?

There must be some official comments from IBF members regarding the discussions that took place to decide on the change. Anybody seen any?
..hmm, our own Sally Yeh can probably chime in on this??..;)
The only difference i notice in the new BWF acronym is they took out the letter 'I' and replaced it with 'W'. The 'F'(Federation) still stays where it is and switch the 'B'(Badminton) to the front..:p
My guess on the reasoning is that the council wanted a "special" or "distinctive" name, eventhough IBF(International Boxing Federation) never objected to/complained abt it..;)

...being picky here, but i think they need to "change" it's website's & url name as well..i guess that's what happens when you change "name"-everything else follows...:p ;) :D

This name change is silly, as 'Badminton World Federation' doesn't even make proper sense in English, CWB001 is right, the name doesn't sound right and it isn't how you would express what they are trying to say. I personally can't see what was wrong with IBF, even though they are the same initials of the International Boxing Federation, it never exactly caused any problems and there were no complaints so I don't really see why they had to change the name

did yonex create this name, sounds like something those crazy people at yonex would come up with.

English is not your first language, is it?

Obviously it's not. :p

I agree, BWF is not a good name. IBF was just fine.

So, this where all the badminton funds go huh? 206 panelists thinking of ludicrous names. No wonder badminton is not improving. :rolleyes: :(

If you think BWF doesn't sound right, what do you think of the confusion with BAM and BAE, Badminton Association of Malaysia and Badminton Association of England, respectively? In BAM and BAE why do they exclude the 'OF'? So BAE ends up with Badminton England because it sounds better. But you end up with 3 separate names-BAE, Badminton Association of England, and Badminton England, all close but not quite. Contrast this with BWF and Badminton World Federation-two names and both matched and related with no missing words.

It is conventional in English to omit prepositions, articles and conjunctions from phrases or titles when turning them into a contraction or acronym.

In the case of the Badminton Association of England, though, people used "BAofE" usually - it did not have an official acronymic abbreviation and BAE was rarely , if ever, used. It does not have three names because it changed its name to Badminton England (acronym "BE") some time ago and has a name and an acronym. And yes, it too sounds a bit odd.

Badminton administrators are not blessed with a gift for language it seems - or a flair for branding.

"BWF" is completely indefensible as the full name is awkward-sounding and with delusions of grandeur. What is more the acronym is not easy to use because it stems from such a strangely-formed full name. You expect an organisational noun (such as "federation" or "association") or a region-defining noun or adjective (such as "international" or "world") first in such a three-letter acronym - not the name of the sport.

Still, they have done it now and will forever sound silly, which is just as well because they are - they have proved it time and time again.

I believe all badminton associations in all countries are required by law to have their names registered, including acronyms. Just like limited companies, names can take any form, so long as they have not been registered by others or they contain unaccepatble words.
Re Badminton England, I wonder which of the following names are officially registered : BE, BAE, BA of E, Badminton Association of England, and Badminton England.

they don't want to share the name with international boxing federation i guess

I believe all badminton associations in all countries are required by law to have their names registered, including acronyms.


In the UK, including England of course, the name of an organisation does not have to be registered anywhere, at least for naming purposes.

I don't really want to get involved in this but I think I ought to say that the issue of registration depends on the nature of the organisation. If the organisation wishes to limit its liability it will register itself as a company. I think most sports bodies do this (Badminton England are registered as are the Football Association).

An association/organisation is not therefore required to register but will normally do so where they deal with large amounts of money to obtain the limited liability status of a company, at least in the UK. if the IBF/BWF were based in England I am pretty sure they would register themselves as a company

Yes, of course they are a limited company (though they don't have to be). My point is that there is no central register of names just to make sure that two organisations don't use the same name.

There is not even any check that two limited companies do not have the same or a similar name.

The sports club that I help run has a similarly-named club (in the same sport) elsewhere in the country, for instance.

Yes, of course they are a limited company (though they don't have to be). My point is that there is no central register of names just to make sure that two organisations don't use the same name.

There is not even any check that two limited companies do not have the same or a similar name.

The sports club that I help run has a similarly-named club (in the same sport) elsewhere in the country, for instance.

Larger sports organizations register under the Companies Ordinance as a company limited by guarantee. Very small ones like 'Cooler's Badminton Club' normally register under the Societies Ordinance. Under the Companies Act or Ordinance in each country, you have to do a search first to ensure the name you are registering has not already been used by another company. Maybe under the Societies Act it is less stringent.

But none of this applies to the UK. None of those laws exist - we don't have "ordinances". Maybe it is relevant in your country, but not in Britain.

Many sports organisations voluntarily register as companies (sometimes limited by guarantee, sometimes PLCs, sometimes private limited companies), many don't. There is NO check as to whether companies have a unique name in Britain. This is a myth.

In any event they could, if they so wished, register under one name (e.g. The Badminton Authority of England Limited) and trade under another (e.g. Badminton England). This is all pewrfectly normal in commerce in the UK.

But none of this applies to the UK. None of those laws exist - we don't have "ordinances". Maybe it is relevant in your country, but not in Britain.

Many sports organisations voluntarily register as companies (sometimes limited by guarantee, sometimes PLCs, sometimes private limited companies), many don't. There is NO check as to whether companies have a unique name in Britain. This is a myth.

In any event they could, if they so wished, register under one name (e.g. The Badminton Authority of England Limited) and trade under another (e.g. Badminton England). This is all pewrfectly normal in commerce in the UK.

All incorporated companies, whether limited by shares or guarantee, either in England or in any country, must do a search first before registering their names. In the UK you can visit www.companieshouse.gov.uk. If there is no such provision you could end up with thousands of companies having the same name. This will be a nightmare, should you wish to take a company to court, only to find there are twenty companies with the same name.

Choosing a name is difficult and choosing the right name is even more difficult.

I share the opinion that our name should be distinct and if possible not to be confused with another.

In this regard, BWF is more distinct than IBF as the latter is also the acronym for the boxing fraternity.

In fact I like BW (not to be confused with the world-renowned BMW) in the sense that if you put words into the letters 'BW', straightaway you have identified yourself as "Badminton World". Others would know your sport instantly with the letter 'B' (for Badminton not Boxing or Basketball, I hope) and we do not need to beat about the bush. Yes we are only interested in the Badminton World and the letter 'F" is added to let others know that we are an international group, a 'Federation' and also to complete the popular 3-letter alphabets for acronyms, thus BWF.

To say aloud 'Badminton World" is quite easy as we (fans) are used to talking about badminton in our daily lives. As many other international sports organisations also use the name "Federation", it will only be a matter of time before we find pronouncing BWF a cup of tea! "World Federation" is just as easy to pronouce. Just add in our keyword "Badminton" and we are already there!

In fact I like BW ...

To say aloud 'Badminton World" is quite easy as we (fans) are used to talking about badminton in our daily lives.

Badminton World sounds like a magazine to me.

Badminton World sounds like a magazine to me.

Yes indeed and it is not too bad at all as it identifies with the game. But any confusion will at once be corrected with the word "Federation" to signify that it is the name of a very big group! ;)

Note that Badminton England is the trade name of the Badminton Association of England.

The Badminton Association of England did not change their name: they rebranded. There is a subtle difference ;)

are there any other 'World Federation''s ?

i think the word federation needs to come after the subject word (in this case badminton) and not world..

Since this is not a federation of the world.. it's a federation of badminton.

BAM and BAW are all assocations of badminton which is why association comes after badminton.

perhaps it would be better as WBF or BFW but i agree BWF doesn't quite sit right

coops

I share the opinion that our name should be distinct and if possible not to be confused with another.

In this regard, BWF is more distinct than IBF as the latter is also the acronym for the boxing fraternity.
..it's quite interesting... And if there's a slight thought that perhaps there should be a "distinction" between the former name of BWF which has the same exact acronym like the boxing fraternity, IBF, then all they have to do is switch the letters around, to have something like :

BIF(Badminton International Federation)
BFI(Badminton Federation International)
IFB(International Federation of Badminton)
FBI.....(Federation Badminton International)...no,no,no not this one, don't want to get related to the U.S. govt...::p :(
FIB(Federation Internation Badminton)

I mean, if there's a sense of wonderment on why the need of name/acronym change, let alone one which "really doesn't make sense" like some of us here have mentioned, then using those acronym(s) wouldn't be any different or "awkward-sounding"(like 1 of you mentioned) than what we have now, BWF(Badminton World Federation)..?!?!..:rolleyes: :p ;) :D

Chris, you must seriously be bored at work, recently. :p

..it's quite interesting... And if there's a slight thought that perhaps there should be a "distinction" between the former name of BWF which has the same exact acronym like the boxing fraternity, IBF, then all they have to do is switch the letters around, to have something like :

BIF(Badminton International Federation)
BFI(Badminton Federation International)
IFB(International Federation of Badminton)
FBI.....(Federation Badminton International)...no,no,no not this one, don't want to get related to the U.S. govt...::p :(
FIB(Federation Internation Badminton)

I mean, if there's a sense of wonderment on why the need of name/acronym change, let alone one which "really doesn't make sense" like some of us here have mentioned, then using those acronym(s) wouldn't be any different or "awkward-sounding"(like 1 of you mentioned) than what we have now, BWF(Badminton World Federation)..?!?!..:rolleyes: :p ;) :D

I believe the BWF (old IBF) is an incorporated company limited by guarantee, hence the words Ltd. or Limited can be dispensed with. To change a corporation will require a special resolution passed by 75% of the total votes that are entitled to vote, at a general meeting. It can also be passed without a general meeting, but then a written resolution, to be sent to every member entitled to vote, must be passed and signed by 100% of the total votes.
If nearly every national badminton association in every country has voted for this new name change, why are we nit-picking a comma here, a period there?

I believe the BWF (old IBF) is an incorporated company limited by guarantee, hence the words Ltd. or Limited can be dispensed with. To change a corporation name will require a special resolution passed by 75% of the total votes that are entitled to vote, at a general meeting. It can also be passed without a general meeting, but then a written resolution, to be sent to every member entitled to vote, must be passed and signed by 100% of the total votes.
If nearly every national badminton association in every country has voted for this new name change, why are we nit-picking a comma here, a period there?

BFI (Badminton Federation, International) or BIF (Badminton International Federation) sounds better and has "more class" imo.

BWF (Badminton World Federation) sounds a little kiddy to me. But we're just nit-picking here since it has been changed already.... :D

BFI (Badminton Federation, International) or BIF (Badminton International Federation) sounds better and has "more class" imo.

BWF (Badminton World Federation) sounds a little kiddy to me. But we're just nit-picking here since it has been changed already.... :D
:) ...hehe, it's too bad the name/acronym FIBA(International Basketball Association) (http://www.fiba.com/) is taken...
If not, they could use FIBA as the new name : Federation Internationale de Badminton Association(or something like that), just like FIFA...how's that for a name??..hehe:rolleyes: :p ;) :D :cool:

BTW, i'm interested to read a history on how they selected 'IBF' as the name/acronym..:confused:

are there any other 'World Federation''s ?

i think the word federation needs to come after the subject word (in this case badminton) and not world..

coops

A check with Google revealed many organizations having "World Federation" as part of their names, eg, World Federation of Athletic Training & Therapy, etc, etc...

Chris, you must seriously be bored at work, recently. :p

I wonder why too??????

A check with Google revealed many organizations having "World Federation" as part of their names, eg, World Federation of Athletic Training & Therapy, etc, etc...

ah yes... but are they not all 'World Federation... of blah blah

i doubt there are many with the subject then world federation afterwards..

coops

A check with Google revealed many organizations having "World Federation" as part of their names, eg, World Federation of Athletic Training & Therapy, etc, etc...
ah yes... but are they not all 'World Federation... of blah blah

i doubt there are many with the subject then world federation afterwards..

coops
..correct-a-mundo!...just some samples from the pic shown below...;)

**To Dan(DinkAlot) and Gunawan(fabcargo) : No, i was 'extremely' bored..:p :( .Yah, it's been quite('very') slow at office recently(part of the business' nature); fortunately there's BC/BF and the WC to follow(the last few weeks)..haiz;):p:( :D :cool:

This whole thing is giving me headache...please just follow whatever they say.

It appears that using a magnifying glass to find faults at commas and full stops (period in N. America) is not enough. Don't tell me the next thing is to get inside the commas and full stops to find and/or pick on anything for another bash?:D

It appears that using a magnifying glass to find faults at commas and full stops (period in N. America) is not enough. Don't tell me the next thing is to get inside the commas and full stops to find and/or pick on anything for another bash?:D
uncle taneepak, i'm not with you this time on the new name of BWF. I'm no linguist so guys please do correct me if i'm wrong.

BWF doesn't sound natural, though grammatically correct. i think the reason is:

the core of the name is Badminton Federation, not World Federation. World or International is to define/discribe "Badminton Federation", and can only be put in front or at back, becoming World/International (Badminton Federation) or (Badminton Federation) International. the later explains "Badminton England" too. if you insert "world" in between, the tie between "badminton" and "federation" is broken. so Badminton World Federation sounds unnatural to me.

alternatively, if the core is Federation of Badminton, it will become International/World (Federation of Badminton). it can be loosely interpreted as (International Federation) of Badminton by many.

IBF and IFB are two good names of these combinations. BIF doesn't sound as good as IBF, but better than BWF. afterall, "international" is an adjective.

in any new name that IBF takes, the B for badminton can be (mis)understood as boxing or basketball or baseball or whatever. so what's the fuss? but anyway, the name is not the suckiest part of IBF. i can't care less.

uncle taneepak, i'm not with you this time on the new name of BWF. I'm no linguist so guys please do correct me if i'm wrong.

BWF doesn't sound natural, though grammatically correct. i think the reason is:

the core of the name is Badminton Federation, not World Federation. World or International is to define/discribe "Badminton Federation", and can only be put in front or at back, becoming World/International (Badminton Federation) or (Badminton Federation) International. the later explains "Badminton England" too. if you insert "world" in between, the tie between "badminton" and "federation" is broken. so Badminton World Federation sounds unnatural to me.

alternatively, if the core is Federation of Badminton, it will become International/World (Federation of Badminton). it can be loosely interpreted as (International Federation) of Badminton by many.

IBF and IFB are two good names of these combinations. BIF doesn't sound as good as IBF, but better than BWF. afterall, "international" is an adjective.

in any new name that IBF takes, the B for badminton can be (mis)understood as boxing or basketball or baseball or whatever. so what's the fuss? but anyway, the name is not the suckiest part of IBF. i can't care less.

The BWF, formerly known as IBF, is an incorporated company limited by guarantee. Corporate names should be short and at the same time descriptive. More important is to ensure that someone else doesn't register a name in such a way that can create confusion and that can lead to litigation. For a world governing body in any sports-in this case badminton-one must be extra careful with its name or change of name, to ensure that it is descriptive, registerable, and most important of all, that it will prevent copycats. The BWF, I believe, must have used the services of their corporate lawyers or outside specialist lawyers to come up with this name.
I think the key words are federation, world, and international. Although the IBF has been replaced with the BWF, I am sure the corporate name IBF is still a registerd corporation but with all its assets and liabilities as well as management transfered to the BWF. This is to preventthe name IBF being hijacked by some opportunist. Also, sometime back there was a competing international badminton federation, known as the World Badminton Federation (WBF) with China as its captain. For three years there were two world badminton controlling bodies, and the IBF couldn't do anything to prevent or stop the WBF from stealing many of its members.
Later, the two governing bodies IBF and WBF became one. The unified body became known as the IBF. However, I am sure the name World Badminton Federation (WBF) was and is still retained as a corporation, to prevent some rascals from registering the name and then demanding a king's ransom to sell it back to the IBF.
A little of background : IBF was the beginning but was hobbled by a new world badminton governing body WBF, which eventually led the two to merge. With the move from England to Malaysia, the change from the OSS to the NSS, the need to use a new name to prevent future copycats, and a new image that reflects more accurately the earlier merger of IBF/WBF, the new name BWF makes a lot of sense.
Sometimes we cannot see the sense of it because we don't have enough information.

A little of background ... the change from the OSS to the NSS ... the new name BWF makes a lot of sense.


Are you seriously suggesting that a change to the laws of the game should influence the need for a new name of the sport's governing body?

If this made sense we could expect another new name when RPS is changed back after the Olympic Games and Fifa would have changed its name when the offside law of association football was changed.

Are you seriously suggesting that a change to the laws of the game should influence the need for a new name of the sport's governing body?

If this made sense we could expect another new name when RPS is changed back after the Olympic Games and Fifa would have changed its name when the offside law of association football was changed.

I think to be fair you should quote my complete paragraph. The way you quoted it, so selectively, I would say, is not very 'fair dinkum'.

The BWF, formerly known as IBF, is an incorporated company limited by guarantee. Corporate names should be short and at the same time descriptive. More important is to ensure that someone else doesn't register a name in such a way that can create confusion and that can lead to litigation. For a world governing body in any sports-in this case badminton-one must be extra careful with its name or change of name, to ensure that it is descriptive, registerable, and most important of all, that it will prevent copycats. The BWF, I believe, must have used the services of their corporate lawyers or outside specialist lawyers to come up with this name.
I think the key words are federation, world, and international. Although the IBF has been replaced with the BWF, I am sure the corporate name IBF is still a registerd corporation but with all its assets and liabilities as well as management transfered to the BWF. This is to preventthe name IBF being hijacked by some opportunist. Also, sometime back there was a competing international badminton federation, known as the World Badminton Federation (WBF) with China as its captain. For three years there were two world badminton controlling bodies, and the IBF couldn't do anything to prevent or stop the WBF from stealing many of its members.
Later, the two governing bodies IBF and WBF became one. The unified body became known as the IBF. However, I am sure the name World Badminton Federation (WBF) was and is still retained as a corporation, to prevent some rascals from registering the name and then demanding a king's ransom to sell it back to the IBF.
A little of background : IBF was the beginning but was hobbled by a new world badminton governing body WBF, which eventually led the two to merge. With the move from England to Malaysia, the change from the OSS to the NSS, the need to use a new name to prevent future copycats, and a new image that reflects more accurately the earlier merger of IBF/WBF, the new name BWF makes a lot of sense.
Sometimes we cannot see the sense of it because we don't have enough information.

uncle taneepak, whatever the reason, it doesn't justify that BWF sounds unnatural. :) was it just me? it is not the only name left available to IBF i believe.

uncle taneepak, whatever the reason, it doesn't justify that BWF sounds unnatural. :) was it just me? it is not the only name left available to IBF i believe.
It's not just you. The name is absurd.

The name World Badminton Federation is a noun phrase with two nouns used as adjectives ("World" and "Badminton"). These two nouns are being used as non-coordinate adjectives, which means that their order cannot be changed; in a sentence, they would not be separated by a comma or preposition ("and").

"Badminton Federation" cannot be split. You cannot grammatically insert any word in between, because the phrase "X federation" always implies that the federation is about X (unless X is implicit, in which case you cannot include it elsewhere in the noun phrase).

The Badminton World Federation is about badminton. It is not about world, nor is it about badminton world; "world" merely specifies the federation's scope. Therefore this name is a grammatical mistake.

Badminton England, though it also reeks of marketese, is more forgivable because it has no pretensions to being a noun phrase. Badminton World Federation, however, sounds like a noun phrase written by someone poorly educated in English. It sounds sloppy.

There may be politico-legal reasons for this silly name, but that doesn't reduce its silliness. Very few people who hear the name will care about the IBF/BWF's internal politics. They will just think, "What a stupid name."

You guys are seriously sweating over the small things in life. Come on, enough I'm right and you guys should bow down to me kind of talk and more of mmm it's a change... hope they did the right thing and be done with it.

Geez.

If we assume that IBF and WBF are out because of boxing organisations having the same acronym, then what are we left with?

I admit that BWF is a bit of a tongue-twister and syntatically inaccurate. However, not a single post here provided a better alternative. I have racked my brains for the past few minutes but can't come out with one. But of course, English is not my first language, so maybe someone with an almighty command of the language can come up with a better one (assuming that IBF or WBF are out).

Personally, I'd rather stick with IBF. But maybe we are kept in the dark in certain matters. Maybe IBF of boxing is threatening to sue. After all WWF of wrestling used the acronym for a long time before having to change to WWE.

You guys are seriously sweating over the small things in life. Come on, enough I'm right and you guys should bow down to me kind of talk and more of mmm it's a change... hope they did the right thing and be done with it.

Geez.
No, I don't care what they call themselves. They can call themselves Punch's Dancing Monkeys and it wouldn't bother me.

I care about use of the English language, so I offered my explanation. That's all.

You guys are seriously sweating over the small things in life. Come on, enough I'm right and you guys should bow down to me kind of talk and more of mmm it's a change... hope they did the right thing and be done with it.

Geez.
if the new name of IBF becomes a joke, i'm afraid the new IBF isn't far from a joke either. if IBF is unable to find a grammartically correct name for itself....errrr.....hmmm.....perhaps IBF isn't getting any worse?

If we assume that IBF and WBF are out because of boxing organisations having the same acronym, then what are we left with?

I admit that BWF is a bit of a tongue-twister and syntatically inaccurate. However, not a single post here provided a better alternative. I have racked my brains for the past few minutes but can't come out with one. But of course, English is not my first language, so maybe someone with an almighty command of the language can come up with a better one (assuming that IBF or WBF are out).

Personally, I'd rather stick with IBF. But maybe we are kept in the dark in certain matters. Maybe IBF of boxing is threatening to sue. After all WWF of wrestling used the acronym for a long time before having to change to WWE.
first off, does IBF really need to change its name? no offical documents support the necessity.

secondly, the acronym of IBF is shared by many organisations. If there has to be a war in the name of IBF, it'll be multiplayer.

Institute of Business Forcasting www.ibf.org (http://www.ibf.org), www.ibf.net (http://www.ibf.net)
International Business Forum www.ibf.com (http://www.ibf.com)
International Badminton Federation www.internationalbadminton.org (http://www.internationalbadminton.org)
International Boxing Federation www.ibf-usba-boxing.com (http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com)
International Basketball Federation (more commonly known as FIBA) www.fiba.com (http://www.fiba.com)
Irish Bankers Federation www.ibf.ie (http://www.ibf.ie)
International Booksellers Federation www.ibf-booksellers.org (http://www.ibf-booksellers.org)
International Broadcast Facilities www.ibf.co.uk (http://www.ibf.co.uk)
International Bicycle Fund www.ibike.com (http://www.ibike.com)

WWF changed to WWE is often quoted. however, it is mainly because the values of World Wresting Federation and World Wildlife Fund are tooooo opposite, one is bloody red, the other is green. the public is one-sided. if the case ever applies to IBF in some way, i see boxing closer to wrestling.

No, I don't care what they call themselves. They can call themselves Punch's Dancing Monkeys and it wouldn't bother me.

I care about use of the English language, so I offered my explanation. That's all.

Exactly, WBF is not gramatically correct. No further explanation necessary.

And if we have to explain it...oh forget it.

I'm not sure whether we need to apply the rules on grammar strictly for choosing a name. Words are used in many ways to convey a message as distinctly and as powerfully as possible. In this sense one may want to be different from the crowd.

If you talk about Chinese names you'll be most confused because they can be juggled about and mean different things to different people. For example, Chan Poh Thong may be different from a Thong Poh Chan or a Poh Thong Chan or a Chan Thong Poh or a Thong Chan Poh. But this is to the extreme. :D

I tried to look up both Google and Yahoo for names that have "World Federation" in them. It appears that the most common ones have WF split in the middle, eg:

World Heart Federation
World Karate Federation
World Salsa Federation

But there are the much longer ones starting with WF, eg:

World Federation for Mental Health
World Federation for Medical Education
World Federation of Trade Unions
World Federation of the Deaf

And those with WF as their last words are much fewer in number, but they do exist, such as:

Lutheran World Federation
Eurhythmics Dalcroze World Federation
The Ethopian World Federation
Sayokan World Federation

So, what is wrong with Badminton World Federation, especially when World Badminton Federation has been used?

If names should be governed strictly by grammar, why then do we have names that are supposedly to be grammatically wrong? Such as the Lutheran World Federation, which I think must have been in existence for some time? Don't tell me that the leaders that chose this name didn't know much about English grammar?

There should be nothing wrong for an organization that tries to be different, to make an impact with its new name. Why must we start with "World" instead of emphasizing on "Badminton" as our game?

Change is difficult and accepting change is even more difficult initially. We are so used to the old name. It has been with us for a long time. It is our comfort zone such that anything that sounds different is to be despised. :(

But given reasonable time, we will learn to accept the change and it will then become part of us again. Some will take longer to get used to the new name, just like the NSS, but it will come to pass.

If names should be governed strictly by grammar, why then do we have names that are supposedly to be grammatically wrong? Such as the Lutheran World Federation, which I think must have been in existence for some time? Don't tell me that the leaders that chose this name didn't know much about English grammar?

I'm sorry but those names exist simply because the people that invented them were not proficient in English, just like the IBF/BWF. This reflects badly on them and on their organisation (and ultimately on their sport). They didn't know much about English grammar. Possibly some of them were not native speakers, which appears to be the case with the IBF/BWF.

This naming episode merely serves to confirm what we already knew of the sports international leaders - they are not particularly competent.

Making an impact is one thing, but making a bad impact is something else.

The fact that relatively few ungrammatical names are formed is testament to most people's competence and to the point that such a mistake sticks out a mile to most people.

"World Federation for/of Badminton" of WFB may well have been better choices.

Institute of Business Forcasting www.ibf.org (http://www.ibf.org), www.ibf.net (http://www.ibf.net)
International Business Forum www.ibf.com (http://www.ibf.com)
International Badminton Federation www.internationalbadminton.org (http://www.internationalbadminton.org)
International Boxing Federation www.ibf-usba-boxing.com (http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com)
International Basketball Federation (more commonly known as FIBA) www.fiba.com (http://www.fiba.com)
Irish Bankers Federation www.ibf.ie (http://www.ibf.ie)
International Booksellers Federation www.ibf-booksellers.org (http://www.ibf-booksellers.org)
International Broadcast Facilities www.ibf.co.uk (http://www.ibf.co.uk)
International Bicycle Fund www.ibike.com (http://www.ibike.com)


That's the problem. When we say IBF to people who have little to no clue about badminton then they'll go and assume other things. By changing the acronym to something different regardless whether it is grammatically correct in 20 languages is irrelevant. In this stage the Badminton World Federation has its own aims to market itself and when they say BWF, they are hoping that people will know what the brand is instead of comparing it to a dozen odd organizations and guessing till they hit the right one.

That's the problem. When we say IBF to people who have little to no clue about badminton then they'll go and assume other things. By changing the acronym to something different regardless whether it is grammatically correct in 20 languages is irrelevant. In this stage the Badminton World Federation has its own aims to market itself and when they say BWF, they are hoping that people will know what the brand is instead of comparing it to a dozen odd organizations and guessing till they hit the right one.

And you think that BWF is an improvement? Here are a few existing organisations that already use the acronym:

Burroughs Wellcome Fund
British Walking Federation
British Woodworking Federation
Backyard Wrestling Federation
Brisbane Writers’ Festival
Baha’i World Faith
Biblical Witness Fellowship
Boston Women’s Fund
Bloomington-Worldwide Friendship
Broadcast Wave Format

I'm sorry but those names exist simply because the people that invented them were not proficient in English, just like the IBF/BWF. This reflects badly on them and on their organisation (and ultimately on their sport). They didn't know much about English grammar. Possibly some of them were not native speakers, which appears to be the case with the IBF/BWF.

This naming episode merely serves to confirm what we already knew of the sports international leaders - they are not particularly competent.

Making an impact is one thing, but making a bad impact is something else.

The fact that relatively few ungrammatical names are formed is testament to most people's competence and to the point that such a mistake sticks out a mile to most people.

"World Federation for/of Badminton" of WFB may well have been better choices.

Excellent post, my sentiments exactly. :)

.... By changing the acronym to something different regardless whether it is grammatically correct in 20 languages is irrelevant...
Fend, please take nothing personal but i'd never agree with anything like "regardless whether it is grammatically correct" when it doesn't have to be grammatically wrong.

FIFA or Fédération Internationale de Football Association is French, so it's gotta be grammatically correct in French. it is perfectly alright that "Federation International of Football Association" is not good English. Nothing can be equally good in 20 languages. :D

WBF or World Badminton Federation is English, so it's gotta be grammatically correct in English. Or perhaps it is some other language? ;)

A name is an identification. A new name is a new identification. A new funny name is a new funny identification. That's where IBF is heading to.

if the new name of IBF becomes a joke, i'm afraid the new IBF isn't far from a joke either. if IBF is unable to find a grammartically correct name for itself....errrr.....hmmm.....perhaps IBF isn't getting any worse?


first off, does IBF really need to change its name? no offical documents support the necessity.

secondly, the acronym of IBF is shared by many organisations. If there has to be a war in the name of IBF, it'll be multiplayer.

Institute of Business Forcasting www.ibf.org (http://www.ibf.org), www.ibf.net (http://www.ibf.net)
International Business Forum www.ibf.com (http://www.ibf.com)
International Badminton Federation www.internationalbadminton.org (http://www.internationalbadminton.org)
International Boxing Federation www.ibf-usba-boxing.com (http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com)
International Basketball Federation (more commonly known as FIBA) www.fiba.com (http://www.fiba.com)
Irish Bankers Federation www.ibf.ie (http://www.ibf.ie)
International Booksellers Federation www.ibf-booksellers.org (http://www.ibf-booksellers.org)
International Broadcast Facilities www.ibf.co.uk (http://www.ibf.co.uk)
International Bicycle Fund www.ibike.com (http://www.ibike.com)

WWF changed to WWE is often quoted. however, it is mainly because the values of World Wresting Federation and World Wildlife Fund are tooooo opposite, one is bloody red, the other is green. the public is one-sided. if the case ever applies to IBF in some way, i see boxing closer to wrestling.

I highly suspected that the only reason IBF change its name is because Punch wanted a clean break from IBF after gaining control over it.

in fact, International Badminton Federation was the first google hit on IBF. that at least tells me that when talk about influence of IBF, badminton ranks high and if someone gotta change name, it's not me.

Int Bad Fed was founded in 1934 (i dunno when IBF was registered though), so when talk about the earliest user of the acronym, badminton ain't that late either.

so we have a big share of the influence cake, and we signed in early, why leave?

New name? i'd like to see something like ABP, association of badminton professionals :D but that's not a name for IBF, it's a name for a new badminton organisation which can really give badminton a new life.

Well, in defense to my argument I would like to say, would you have thought of British woodworking federation if you didn't google it up?

So in retrospect you guys would rather our sport with the previous acronym compete for publicity with a better known IBF (international boxing federation?) Btw I do not consider Backyard wrestling federation a sporting organization. And let's assume it's an entertainment thing rather than a sporting organization. How many of the following acronyms provided are actually an international sporting organization.

And you think that BWF is an improvement? Here are a few existing organisations that already use the acronym:

Burroughs Wellcome Fund
British Walking Federation
British Woodworking Federation
Backyard Wrestling Federation
Brisbane Writers’ Festival
Baha’i World Faith
Biblical Witness Fellowship
Boston Women’s Fund
Bloomington-Worldwide Friendship
Broadcast Wave Format

Well, in defense to my argument I would like to say, would you have thought of British woodworking federation if you didn't google it up?

So in retrospect you guys would rather our sport with the previous acronym compete for publicity with a better known IBF (international boxing federation?) Btw I do not consider Backyard wrestling federation a sporting organization. And let's assume it's an entertainment thing rather than a sporting organization. How many of the following acronyms provided are actually an international sporting organization.

the war between WWF wrestling and WWF wildlife wasn't one between two organisations of the same nature (sporting in the context). and wildlife people still considered it necessary.

IBF boxing isn't a better known IBF than IBF badminton, as shown by my google search, also by the populations of boxing vs badminton audience. and is there really a war ongoing between IBF boxing and IBF badminton?

even if IBF boxing is the best known IBF and IBF badminton is the second, i still see promoting the second best known IBF being far more easier than promoting the unknown funnily named WBF.

even if IBF boxing is the best known IBF and IBF badminton is the second, i still see promoting the second best known IBF being far more easier than promoting the unknown funnily named WBF.

That is your opinion, I respect that. However I do not think the management team in the Badminton World Federation buys your argument.

Well, in defense to my argument I would like to say, would you have thought of British woodworking federation if you didn't google it up?


I did actually. It was the second one I thought of.

And I agree with everything Franxon just said.

The name (and acronym) should be grammatically correct in the language it is normally written in. IBF/WBF's official language is English and its name should make sense in that language. Similarly, FIFA has a French name and it is grammatically correct in that language.

If an organisation does not have the competence to get its own name right, what is it competent at? Er, don't answer that!

That is your opinion, I respect that. However I do not think the management team in the Badminton World Federation buys your argument.

We can all see that. That does not make them right.

World Federation for Mental Health
World Federation for Medical Education
World Federation of Trade Unions
World Federation of the Deaf

Note that these are grammatically correct. For example, consider "World Federation for Mental Health":

"Mental Health" is a noun phrase ("health" is an abstract noun, "mental" is an adjective).

"Federation of mental health" is also a noun phrase.

"World Federation of Mental Health" is the same noun phrase plus the noun "world" used as an adjective to modify the meaning further.

We can all see that. That does not make them right.
Neither does that make them wrong. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all relative to one's perspective.

Look, even the BWF website writers find the name confusing:


At the conclusion of the meeting, BWF president Kang Young Joong briefly addressed the assembly, thanking everyone for being here. He said, "I look forward to your support of WBF and its efforts in promoting the sport of badminton."
:D

Look, even the BWF website writers are confused about using the name:



And this proves?

That it is not memorable enough?

That it doesn't make sense as a name in its full form?

And this proves?

Nothing, of course; I just think it's funny :p

Nothing, of course; I just think it's funny :p

Alright. It looks cute nothing more. Moving along..

That it is not memorable enough?

That it doesn't make sense as a name in its full form?

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know why the BWF writers have got it mixed up? For all we know they might've been drunk and stoned all while doing their work.

Look, even the BWF website writers find the name confusing:


:D

LMAO! I was waiting for this. :p

And this proves?

It proves just like Gollum stated, at least one person is confused with the name. Or maybe he was drunk, like you said. Regardless, I got a chuckle or two. :p

It proves just like Gollum stated, at least one person is confused with the name. Or maybe he was drunk, like you said. Regardless, I got a chuckle or two. :p

Good on you dink. At least you and gollum can see the funny side of this and not be overly hyper critical of the decision made by the BWF.

WBF sounds better.... WORLD BADMINTON FEDERATION... BWF.. BADMINTON WORLD FEDERATION...???? got such thing mehz..???

Good on you dink. At least you and gollum can see the funny side of this and not be overly hyper critical of the decision made by the BWF.

Initially, I did voice my disapproval, but...well, what's done is done. Hopefully the WBF - I mean BWF can further the sport of badminton. :)

Initially, I did voice my disapproval, but...well, what's done is done. Hopefully the WBF - I mean BWF can further the sport of badminton. :)

We can hope, but I am fast losing hope. What are the achievement of the present BWF? I can't think of any:o Wait a minute, I can....political in fighting (England, where modern badminton first begin not represented?) I am shock, shock speechless :D :D :eek: :eek:

Also, sometime back there was a competing international badminton federation, known as the World Badminton Federation (WBF) with China as its captain. For three years there were two world badminton controlling bodies, and the IBF couldn't do anything to prevent or stop the WBF from stealing many of its members.
Later, the two governing bodies IBF and WBF became one. The unified body became known as the IBF. However, I am sure the name World Badminton Federation (WBF) was and is still retained as a corporation, to prevent some rascals from registering the name and then demanding a king's ransom to sell it back to the IBF.
A little of background : IBF was the beginning but was hobbled by a new world badminton governing body WBF, which eventually led the two to merge. With the move from England to Malaysia, the change from the OSS to the NSS, the need to use a new name to prevent future copycats, and a new image that reflects more accurately the earlier merger of IBF/WBF, the new name BWF makes a lot of sense.
Sometimes we cannot see the sense of it because we don't have enough information.
taneepak, thanks for a bit of background info on the history of IBF...now, may we also know some source(s) of IBF's history or where it came-about??..:confused: ;)

just some "silly" names/acronyms, if you guys don't mind...to kill off time before next week's Japan Open..:p ;)
If we assume that IBF and WBF are out because of boxing organisations having the same acronym, then what are we left with?

I admit that BWF is a bit of a tongue-twister and syntatically inaccurate. However, not a single post here provided a better alternative. I have racked my brains for the past few minutes but can't come out with one. But of course, English is not my first language, so maybe someone with an almighty command of the language can come up with a better one (assuming that IBF or WBF are out).

Personally, I'd rather stick with IBF. But maybe we are kept in the dark in certain matters. Maybe IBF of boxing is threatening to sue. After all WWF of wrestling used the acronym for a long time before having to change to WWE.
hmm, if anyone can help me check on Google or Yahoo for these acronyms, maybe we'll get one which hasn't been used yet(if there is/are)..how abt these names:
1. IBAF which stands for International Badminton Associations Federations??..All they have to do is add the letter 'A' to IBF. When pronounced, it will still sound similar to 'IBF'(if pronounced at a reasonable speed). And the definition will sound similar to an English version of FIBA(Federation Internationale de Badminton Associations), the acronym i mentioned ealier..
2. Or if IBF wants to go the WWE route, then just call it IBE (International Badminton Enterprise) or (International Badminton Entertainment)..:p:)
3. Or maybe if the are targeting the U.S. market, this one will really jump out to the general non-badminton followers: IBSF (International Backyard Sport Federations)..:eek: :p ;)

are those acronyms used already??..my guess is they already have, but who knows..:rolleyes: :p ;) :D

Are there absolute rules in linguistics? Linguists themselves fall into different camps. One school of thought is the one put forward so far in that there are rules and that individuals should follow them. The other school of thought is that there are no absolute rules except that which we make for ourselves through use of the language.

Also, regional variations are allowed for spelling (eg colour v color, theater v theater etc). Why can the same not apply to syntax? If the Malaysian use of English allows for BWF (and I don't know if it does) then why should it not be allowed?

Rules should change over time according to usage. Shakespeare used double negatives as a way of enhancing the negative. Now, we use the more mathematical approach of saying that a double negative is a positive.

Language rules are just a reflection of accepted practice at a particular time and in a particular place. Language has to evolve and change. By all means say that BWF breaks the rules but don't say that the rules are absolute and shouldn't be broken. The reason I haven't started this e-mail with "Forseuth" and the reason I won't end it with "Hey Nonny Nonny" is because the rules are supposed to be broken and language is meant to change. In ten years time people may well wonder what all the fuss was about and that BWF is quite normal.

How many of you, if given the chance to go back in time, would say to William Shatner when he was recording THAT voiceover "No, no, no, you're splitting the infinitive. You need to say 'To go boldly where no man has gone before'"

There is actually nothing wrong with split infinitives in English. Sure, they can be inelegant but those who stated it as a rule were incorrectly basing their ideas on other languages (such as Latin and French) in which such constructs are impossible (and therefore wrong).

A commercial organisation or leadership body would be well-advised to follow the normal rules of English unless it is making a deliberate point.

You don't catch too many big advertisers making spelling mistakes in their slogans and adverts, do you? That is because they make an effort not to devalue their brands. IBF/WBF, sadly, has not followed suit.

We are veering wildly off topic here but the fact that a number of distinguished writers in the past stated that split infinitives were grammatically wrong is the point I am making. To them, at that time, rules of English were to be based on rules of Latin and Greek. That idea has not lasted but that just proves that language and the use of language evolves. Does that mean that split infinitives in the 16th Century were wrong but that split infinitives in the 21st Century are right.

I do see the point about devaluing the brand but I really don't think that many people will see the title and think that it is grammatically incorrect. The public might well regard BWF as inelegant but that's about all. That is just my opinion though, there's no way I can prove that without doing a survey! The important thing, I think, is that the name explains the function of the organisation. After all, 99% of people will refer to it as BWF rather than Badminton World Federation so the syntax error probably won't even be apparant.

We can hope, but I am fast losing hope. What are the achievement of the present BWF? I can't think of any:o Wait a minute, I can....political in fighting (England, where modern badminton first begin not represented?) I am shock, shock speechless :D :D :eek: :eek:

Well mate, it's about time you just have faith in the current administration. Why worry even more and cause stress to something that won't be affected by your stress levels. If you are in a 'shock' 'shock' 'speechless' state of mind I suggest you get some sleep and have a good rest and take it easy. I don't think being 'shock' 'shock' 'speechless' is good for your health.

taneepak, thanks for a bit of background info on the history of IBF...now, may we also know some source(s) of IBF's history or where it came-about??..:confused: ;)

The IBF was formed in 1934. The founding members were England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Holland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada and France. Under the IBF, now BWF, there are five continental confederations - the Africa Badminton Federation, the Asian Badminton Confederation, the Europeon Badminton Union, the Oceania Badminton Confederation and the Panamerican Badminton Confederation.
I got the source from the Guinness Book of Badminton.

The best corporate names are descriptive yet use the least number of alphabets or words. The over-riding objective in choosing a corporate name is to establish a descriptive name and to prevent it or its derivations from being used by others. Grammar is not of the same priority. With the IBF and the WBF already safe in their pocket, registering the new BWF closes any loop-hole. It is a smart move. Otherwise we BFers, especially those who are disgusted with the NSS, will start a new organization like "BWF". Also, the new BWF takes over from the old IBF, itself a merger of "Imperial" IBF and the WBF, at an auspicious, yet challenging, time.

Note that these are grammatically correct. For example, consider "World Federation for Mental Health":

"Mental Health" is a noun phrase ("health" is an abstract noun, "mental" is an adjective).

"Federation of mental health" is also a noun phrase.

"World Federation of Mental Health" is the same noun phrase plus the noun "world" used as an adjective to modify the meaning further.

My main point is that "for" and "of" are different and they mean different things.

I tend to agree with Crosscourt #93.

I'm no expert in English grammar but I hesitate to think that you need to apply the rules of grammar even in the choice of a name.

My best guess of why IBF should want to change its name is as follows:

1. For a long time the acronym "IBF" has been embarassingly confused with another sports organization the "International Boxing Federation", which I think is a more popular name because of much wider TV coverage.

2. IBF wants to steer away from the confusion to remain distinct.

3. Boxing has been a mainstay at the Olympics for a long time whilst Badminton is a newcomer. Therefore badminton has to try to be distinct from boxing and to make a wider impact.

Since its inception, IBF has not been making much progress as badminton was accepted into the Olympics relatively recently compared with boxing. Changing its name is one way to make people take notice and whether or not the change will be able to achieve its main purpose, only time can tell.

Some may think BWF is making a wrong impact because the name doesn't quite gel or is grammatically incorrect, but to others the change is acceptable and it may only take some time to get used to. Opinions are subjective and what may be agreeable to you may not be agreeable to others.

But remember, the IBF Council decided on the name change and not Punch Gunalan, who alone does not have the power to do so. If Mr Gunalan is able to convince his fellow colleagues of the need to change, who are we to disagree? If one is unhappy about the change, please don't blame it on Punch, blame the entire IBF Council. Your country's badminton association may actually be represented on the IBF Council and if so, convey your displeasure to them.

For all you know, the IBF Council may have consulted the experts in the field before they are convinced of the new name 'BWF'. If so, are we better than such experts?

The best corporate names are descriptive yet use the least number of alphabets or words. The over-riding objective in choosing a corporate name is to establish a descriptive name and to prevent it or its derivations from being used by others. Grammar is not of the same priority. With the IBF and the WBF already safe in their pocket, registering the new BWF closes any loop-hole. It is a smart move. Otherwise we BFers, especially those who are disgusted with the NSS, will start a new organization like "BWF". Also, the new BWF takes over from the old IBF, itself a merger of "Imperial" IBF and the WBF, at an auspicious, yet challenging, time.
Did IBF take the name of BWF just to protect it from other ill people's evil abuse of it or as its new offical name, the replacement of IBF? they are two totally different stories.

as well said by folks above, the rules in English language are not strict and definite, even among the linguists. in deed. however, most of the mass who think BWF sounds funny will just think so quietly. you'll never know who and where they are. and you'll never get a chance to tell them that, "friend, it's not confirmed yet that the name is grammatically wrong, it's just debatable. the linguists are working it out. please be updated."

i'm not sure how warmly/coldly the new name will be accepted/rejected, but i'm sure BWF does not sound as smooth as IBF to most ears. that's bad enough to be considered as a failure. few people will bother to correct you, they'll just leave you. the americans don't even bother to correct a wrong president!:D

it doesn't matter if the mass are technically right or wrong, they are just who decide your fate. If IBF were a commerical body like a car manufacturer, a funny name like BWF would just be suicidal.

I believe the BWF replaces the IBF and has a different structure. The new body is going to be run like a business, very profit-conscious-and will be incorporated as a company limited by shares instead of by guarantee.

IBF boxing is not the same game as Olympic boxing. IBF boxing is not the most influencial boxing organisation.

IBF badminton is the same game as Olympic badminton. IBF badminton is the sole highest badminton organisation.

If IBF badminton feel uncomfortable sharing the name with IBF boxing, they should act like WWF wildlife. not like an orstrich. "you can run, but you can't hide". I'll show you how impossible for IBF to hide, i.e. to get a unique name.

there are 26x26x26=17576 3-letter names/acronyms in English. i'm pretty sure all of them are taken by one or more organisations, from AAA to ZZZ.

therefore there're no more unique 3-letter names/acronyms for IBF or anyone, all taken, if not multi-taken.

there are 26x26x26x26=456976 4-letter names/acronyms in English. some of them are funnier than BWF, but plenty available names are not funny i believe.

IBF's new name gotta have "B" somewhere in it. therefore there're 17576 theoretical names left.

and there gotta be an "F" for federation or "A" for association or "U" for union in the name too. so there're 2028 names.

and there gotta be an "I" for international or "W" for world. so there are actually 156 mathematically available 4-letter acronyms for IBF to choose

Now we move from mathematics to (English) linguistics.

the forth letter can be anything a-z that gives the whole full name a good meaning which relates to the highest authority of badminton on this planet. number of names reduced.

the 4-letter acronym itself must not mean anything funny or bad, not something like BAWL (badmintion association world league?) or BIAS (badmintion international association superleague?) hahaha. number futher reduced.

the full name must not sound any funnier than BWF grammatically, i.e. the 4 words much be arranged in an order that sounds comfortable to most ears. number further reduced.

so there are very few gramatically also available 4-letter acronyms for IBF to choose.

and the name must be unique, not be taken by any other organisations yet.

so how many pratically also available 4-letter acronyms for IBF to choose? zero, I guess.

5-letter acronyms? nah....

this is no scientific research article. for fun only.

If the new BWF is going to be run like a business enterprise, it has to be profit-driven. They can start off by selling super Dan, Taufik, Peter Gade, Lee Chong Wei T-shirts and make some good and easy money. In return, the players get a certain percentage return from the proceeds, based on their world rankings, provided they agree to hand over to the BWF all marketing rights.

Yes, you may find that the players have already sold these rights elsewhere.

Are there absolute rules in linguistics?
No. But consider this piece of pithy wisdom from The Elements of Style, evergreen handbook to professional writers around the world. My emphasis added:



It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules.
Star Trek's "To boldy go...." is better than "to go boldly". But that does not imply that it's always okay to split infinitives. In general, splitting infinitives should be avoided because it reduces readability of the sentence; sometimes, however, the merit is worth the violation. Examples: Bad: "Try to quickly run around the block."
Good: "Try to run quickly around the block."

Good: "I like to really feel the atmosphere of the sports field."
Bad: "I like really to feel the atmosphere of the sports field."
Different: "I really like to feel the atmosphere of the sports field."

If the Malaysian use of English allows for BWF (and I don't know if it does) then why should it not be allowed?
Because: first, English is not a national language of Malaysia; second, English must conform to either American or British versions of the language, if it is to be used effectively as a lingua franca.

Language has to evolve and change.
Indeed; language changes, and writers must recognise this.

Yet knowing that language evolves is not an excuse for breaking all the rules. It may seem daring and creative to write wilfully ungrammatical sentences -- after all, the language changes so why adhere to rules? -- but you just try getting that sort of self-indulgent rubbish published :p You'll soon find that your "original" and "stylish" rule-breaking will be marked as simple error by experienced copy editors.

Star Trek's "To boldy go...." is better than "to go boldly". But that does not imply that it's always okay to split infinitives. In general, splitting infinitives should be avoided because it reduces readability of the sentence; sometimes, however, the merit is worth the violation. Examples: Bad: "Try to quickly run around the block."
Good: "Try to run quickly around the block."

Good: "I like to really feel the atmosphere of the sports field."
Bad: "I like really to feel the atmosphere of the sports field."
Different: "I really like to feel the atmosphere of the sports field."



But what you're saying here is that the test to be applied is not siimply whether the sentence is wrong but rather a more complex 2 stage test of
1. Is there a syntax error?
2. Is this outweighed by the 'merit' of the error?

The answer to the second limb of the test ought to be 'No' before a syntax error is condemned.

What people like Loh and Taneepak are saying, it seems to me, is that in their view the order of the words is logical and so therefore the issue of of the 'merit' is not clearcut. Given that an assessment of merit is always going to involve a subjective element we ought to respect each others views and accept that to some people the sequence of BWF is acceptable.


Because: first, English is not a national language of Malaysia; second, English must conform to either American or British versions of the language, if it is to be used effectively as a lingua franca.


What about Australia, New Zealand, Canada, EIRE, Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya? They all have English as an official language. English, as a language, is one of England's biggest exports. Why shouldn't other countries develop their own rules for its usage, regardless of whether it is the national language or not. In my opinion English as a bit like an open-source piece of software like Linux (I'm not in IT so forgive me if I've used the wrong terminology:D )


Indeed; language changes, and writers must recognise this.

Yet knowing that language evolves is not an excuse for breaking all the rules. It may seem daring and creative to write wilfully ungrammatical sentences -- after all, the language changes so why adhere to rules? -- but you just try getting that sort of self-indulgent rubbish published :p You'll soon find that your "original" and "stylish" rule-breaking will be marked as simple error by experienced copy editors.



Irvine Welch might disagree. As might James Joyce, Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner. In fact there is a whole style of writing ('stream of consciousness') whose acolytes would disagree.:p :p

I know we're not going to settle this in this thread but isn't the important thing to respect the fact that there are different views on the use and misuse of language? Some people think Badminton World Federation sounds wrong, others think it's fine

I know we're not going to settle this in this thread but isn't the important thing to respect the fact that there are different views on the use and misuse of language?
Yes, there are different views. Yes, people are entitled to their views.

No, different views are not all equally right. Some people have better reasons for their views than others.

Open-mindedness and respect is one thing; soft-headed subjectivism/relativism is another. Must every debate be cushioned by weakening concessions, such as "it's just my opinion, others can be equally right"?

No. If it's your opinion, and someone else's opinion contradicts it, then you must think that he is wrong. Otherwise, you don't really believe what you say.

Obviously this does not license unpleasant behaviour towards other people. Disagree forcibly, but not rudely. You can be respectful to someone while still telling him that he's wrong.

Zealous relativism erodes meaning. It wraps the world in cotton wool. The classic example is the desire not to make less talented or less capable children feel inferior: "Everyone is equally special".

"Everyone is equally special"? That's a contradiction.


Irvine Welch might disagree. As might James Joyce, Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner. In fact there is a whole style of writing ('stream of consciousness') whose acolytes would disagree.:p :p
And there are a whole lot more idiots who think they are the next Joyce, try to write the next Ulysses, but actually write complete rubbish :p :p

I remind you of the key phrase: unless he is certain of doing as well. If you're a brilliant pioneer, that's great. Go rewrite all the rules. But most probably you are not. Genius and creativity should not be confused with mere lack of discipline.

Good writing requires discipline of steel. No really, it does. Try doing it professionally.

Err...discipline? I should get back to work ;)

if the name doesn't have to be right to the grammar books or linguists, it at least needs to be right to ears. if the name doesn't have to be right to all ears, it at least needs to be right to >50% of the discerning ears. BWF fails. so it's unsucsessful, grammar bypassed.

Perhaps the last paragraph of my post was unclear. It should be taken alongside my earler comment that there will always be different views when dealing with subjective issues such as merit and that these views should be respected.

In matters than can be assessed objectively, such as whether the English rules of syntax have been broken, then an abolutist approach can be defended. In subjective matters such as whether the BWF sequence sounds right then why it can't be accepted that there will be different but valid views?

ps. I'm sorry but I couldn't resist making this last point but on your citation of Mr Strunk as "William Strunk Jr" as opposed to "William Strunk, jr" (see page 11 of the book and the use of commas with abbreviations such as jr) I am bound to say that you needn't apologise as I understood the meaning regardless of the grammatical error !!:D :D

ps. I'm sorry but I couldn't resist making this last point but on your citation of Mr Strunk as "William Strunk Jr" as opposed to "William Strunk, jr" (see page 11 of the book and the use of commas with abbreviations such as jr) I am bound to say that you needn't apologise as I understood the meaning regardless of the grammatical error !!:D :D
You can't expect grammatical perfection on a forum, although I'm as close as it comes :D Forum exchanges are too fleeting to be worth thorough copyediting.

Yet you are, of course, right; and I appreciate the irony :)

....there will always be different views when dealing with subjective issues such as merit and that these views should be respected.
Quite right.

I am absolutist (pace evolving language and all that) about the grammar, but not so about the merit of breaking it. I think there is little merit; others may see merit that I don't.

if the name doesn't have to be right to the grammar books or linguists, it at least needs to be right to ears. if the name doesn't have to be right to all ears, it at least needs to be right to >50% of the discerning ears. BWF fails. so it's unsucsessful, grammar bypassed.

What makes you say that >50% of discerning ears find BWF not to be right? There are only a very small number of people that have posted in this thread. I agree with your general point though, if a large number of people feel that the BWF sequence is awkward then the name change could possibly be considered a failure.

What makes you say that >50% of discerning ears find BWF not to be right? There are only a very small number of people that have posted in this thread. I agree with your general point though, if a large number of people feel that the BWF sequence is awkward then the name change could possibly be considered a failure.

I smell a poll coming! :D

What makes you say that >50% of discerning ears find BWF not to be right? so you think otherwise? ;)

I smell a poll coming! :Dyou smelt my mind. it's just that i couldn't figure out how to start a poll. no such option when i started a new thread. perhaps i'm not entitled.

you smelt my mind. it's just that i couldn't figure out how to start a poll. no such option when i started a new thread. perhaps i'm not entitled.

I think you've got to ask the forum owner or moderator to create it for you.

I think you've got to ask the forum owner or moderator to create it for you.you hit again. i've already asked. i had two polls in mind, I asked for one only, the other one. i like you. :D you wanna smell the other one? :D

you hit again. i've already asked. i had two polls in mind, I asked for one only, the other one. i like you. :D you wanna smell the other one? :D

Oh my god! What are you talking about:D

My poll entry choice: BWF? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA ... or, "it doesn't sound right."

-dave

...haiz(with long sigh), i didn't read thru all the recent posts, but now i feel i shouldn't have started this thread in the first place...:p :( it's now gone quite off topic from just a simple innocent topic of IBF changing its name to BWF...And then shifted to some of us discussing what is the "correct English grammar" etc.-even explaining it in long details, and in some instances nothing to do with the topic at hand....and now some people considering a new poll...aiyaah..:confused: :rolleyes: :p :(

I'm a lazy person. I prefer a 3 syllable abbreviation (IBF) as suppose to a 4 syllable abbreviation (BWF). However, I have learnt that my opinion does not mean anything to the world governing body. So, I'll just have to deal with the extra syllable.
But my biggest problem with the new abbreviation is I keep referring it as WBF instead of BWF. So, it's a little counter intuitive for me. I have to make an effort to switch the 'W' and 'B'. Do any of you have the same problem?

In anything elegently simple, there are lot of underlying mechanics under-the-hood, that's invisible to the "consumer." Re-hashing it out here identifies the components that makes the association abbreviation "acceptable" or not acceptable.

BWF is unacceptable, if you care.

-dave

We are talking about registering a name for a corporation. One can register Taneepak Ltd. or Eepaktan Ltd. or IBM or Apple or Orange as corporate names. There are thousands of company names that are no better than Badminton World Federation Ltd.
You can win an "English" lesson battle in this BWF case but end up with another competing badminton organization that will eventually start stealing your members and players.
BWF has to run a financially sound business. It does not want to see a repeat of the old IBF and old WBF fiasco again.

I think the bigger issue here is the dismantling of an historic and iconic name that has been associated with badminton since 1934.

Registering a corporation does not justify changing the name no matter how sweet the new name sounds.

We are talking about registering a name for a corporation. One can register Taneepak Ltd. or Eepaktan Ltd. or IBM or Apple or Orange as corporate names. There are thousands of company names that are no better than Badminton World Federation Ltd.
You can win an "English" lesson battle in this BWF case but end up with another competing badminton organization that will eventually start stealing your members and players.
BWF has to run a financially sound business. It does not want to see a repeat of the old IBF and old WBF fiasco again.

How will changing the name to BWF prevent this?

Any rebels could use, for instance (and off the top of my head), "World Badminton Association (WBA)", "International Badminton Association (IBA)", "Association of Badminton Federations (ABF)", "Federation for World Badminton (FWB)", "International Badminton Authority (IBA)" all of which are better monikers than WBF.

Oh my god! What are you talking about:D what's wrong?:D

How will changing the name to BWF prevent this?

Any rebels could use, for instance (and off the top of my head), "World Badminton Association (WBA)", "International Badminton Association (IBA)", "Association of Badminton Federations (ABF)", "Federation for World Badminton (FWB)", "International Badminton Authority (IBA)" all of which are better monikers than WBF.

I think when the BWF gets going on the business side it will get most of its revenue from badminton. Badminton then is the lead-in or selling point. Badminton T-shirts, badminton racquets, badminton strings, badminton grips, badminton autographs, badminton racquets of famous players for auction, etc., etc. Some of the names you suggest, like "... associations" are more local, restricted to a country. The others that use the words "Federation" or "International" sound more like a controlling body that supervises, instead of an organization running a pure business organization on a global scale.

I think the bigger issue here is the dismantling of an historic and iconic name that has been associated with badminton since 1934.

Registering a corporation does not justify changing the name no matter how sweet the new name sounds.

But can you really register IBF (International Badminton Federation) as a company limited by shares? It sounds great as a company limited by guarantee-which most non-profit, sports, or charitable organizations are-but as a comapany limited by shares, it may be inappropriate.

Are we off topic or still on the same topic?

So you think that WBF will set out to compete with the likes of Yonex, Ashaway and Carlton?

I think that it could achieve this on a small scale but has no chance to gain a large slice of the market.

Or perhaps it will interpose itself as a middleman, increasing prices to players to take a slice of the profits? I think the retailers, the manufacturers and the trade regulators would have something to say about this - not to mention the players!

Funny, I thought the role of the world governing body was precisely that of supervising and developing the sport. Which makes the words "international" and "federation" very appropriate, doesn't it.

Are you revealing some kind of hidden agenda here? Is it not WBF's intention to supervise and develop the sport? Does it intend merely to be a commercial giant? If it does then it should think about appropriate names such as "Racquets R Us" rather than the name it has selected. And it should get itself some competent commercial management.

As for your comments on those names I suggested: I don't see why you think that "association" conjures up a merely local, one-country, organisation. FIFA, for instance, uses the word and I would have thought that WBF can only dream of success like that.

Are we off topic or still on the same topic?
...hmm, i think it's "best" if someone could call out our own BC Sally Yeh to come and explain to us all the "logic" or the "came about" of this new name...Besides, she's usually in those meetings sitting literally ear to ear with Mr. Punch and she'll probably clear some things up...:rolleyes: :p ;) :cool:

But can you really register IBF (International Badminton Federation) as a company limited by shares? It sounds great as a company limited by guarantee-which most non-profit, sports, or charitable organizations are-but as a comapany limited by shares, it may be inappropriate.

Why not? Why does the underlying structure of the organsiation make a difference to how its name is percieved? If the body is legally International Badminton Federation Plc (or Ltd) and operates as IBF or International Badminton Federation this is perfectly normal.

The public has no real need to know whether it is a company limited by guarantee, or by shares or whatever. Its trading partners would need to know but most large companies do not have their underlying structure revealed in their trading names.

In any event, many of them (including sporting bodies) have subsidiary companies that all use the over-arching brand name. I expect that IBF itself owns several limited companies for various purposes.

There is a thread "IBF call for EGM" which is related to this thread.

Taneepak, you seem be misled by the quote in that thread, about the purpose of the EGM.

It was said: "The meeting will also address the formation of a company limited by shares to take control of the major business elements of the federation".

The major business elements of the WBF are to supervise and develop the sport of badminton worldwide. This is nothing to do with going into shirt and kit supply other than as a sideline.

Taneepak, you seem be misled by the quote in that thread, about the purpose of the EGM.

It was said: "The meeting will also address the formation of a company limited by shares to take control of the major business elements of the federation".


The major business elements of the WBF are to supervise and develop the sport of badminton worldwide. This is nothing to do with going into shirt and kit supply other than as a sideline.

I must say this "business aspect" is something new to me, but I hope we're still talking about the new BWF and not WBF. But are we? I'm a little confused.

I'm also a little concerned that BWF may be competing against their major sponsors like Yonex if they are setting up businesses selling badminton equipment, etc, unless BWF are working in collaboration with them on a mutually beneficial basis.

Ah yes. I wrote "WBF" when I meant "BWF". Sorry. (Shows how counter-intuitive the name is).

There is no way in the world that Yonex and the others will tolerate BWF reducing their profits or competing with them. It just will not happen - Taneepak is confused.

Taneepak, you seem be misled by the quote in that thread, about the purpose of the EGM.

It was said: "The meeting will also address the formation of a company limited by shares to take control of the major business elements of the federation".

The major business elements of the WBF are to supervise and develop the sport of badminton worldwide. This is nothing to do with going into shirt and kit supply other than as a sideline.

Usually an extraordinary general meeting is called to pass a resolution, and any related resolutions, that are urgent. The name change and the business aspect are related. Some big things, which will involve having to change the constituion and a new Memorandum and Articles of Association, are brewing.

If badminton is going to be a major sport it must be bigger than Yonex. Otherwise, it is Yonex alone that makes badminton possible. The badminton cake will get bigger, with Yonex still doing as well as now. The difference is that Yonex's market share could be a mere 5%.

If badminton is going to be a major sport it must be bigger than Yonex. Otherwise, it is Yonex alone that makes badminton possible. The badminton cake will get bigger, with Yonex still doing as well as now. The difference is that Yonex's market share could be a mere 5%.

Agree, we need major corporations (FEDEX was a nice start for Team China), and major sport companies such as Nike and Adidas to show interest in badminton.

i think IBF sounds better than BWF too. :) Why they changed it?

Agree, we need major corporations (FEDEX was a nice start for Team China), and major sport companies such as Nike and Adidas to show interest in badminton.

Will they though? I mean they will sponsor players? :confused: :)

...guys, it's official!!Time to get used to the new name....IBF is no longer in existence as the official name..It's now called BWF(Badminton World Federation) (http://www.internationalbadminton.org/newscontent.asp?pageid={142DC369-23C4-4F81-85A3-85123DADDFED})...;)

too bad they have yet change their web link.

somebody has to update the wikipedia too

Who is this careless guy in WBF who gets all kinda crazy stupid ideas like the recent 21 points system (already adding to old problems of judgements), now the coool name IBF is changed something similar to BMW; these guys are messing up with the traditional classic badminton culture... As usual other country representatives will just nod their heads accepting what ever is implemented worrying being left over or may be avoid politics.... Im waiting for more of such stupid changes for no good reason... god please save badminton.... They better introduce some useful tools like camera for linesman and so on... I never knew I will have to talk about badminton as WBF which sounds like WWF to others.....

Have patience, "Khublai Khan".

Sometimes change is necessary to invigorate oneself and to meet the competition. Not all changes are bad. Only time will tell and time is what is needed for the present BWF Council to prove itself.

Judging from what has transpired, it would appear that the major decisions taken by the Council has had the backing of its members. So it will do us well to wait and see before we can come to a fair conclusion. As they say "Rome is not built in a day"!

Have patience, "Khublai Khan".

Sometimes change is necessary to invigorate oneself and to meet the competition. Not all changes are bad. Only time will tell and time is what is needed for the present BWF Council to prove itself.

Judging from what has transpired, it would appear that the major decisions taken by the Council has had the backing of its members. So it will do us well to wait and see before we can come to a fair conclusion. As they say "Rome is not built in a day"!

Hence like Loh has suggested previously, if you feel that you want to voice out your disatisfaction with the current administration in the Badminton World Federation, it would be better if you voice your concerns straight to your local badminton organization :)