September 11 vs. 9/11

United States President Barack Obama's referral to the September 11 Attacks as "9/11" reminds me that I have been intending to post on my preference for "September 11" over "9/11." "September 11" is an abbreviation for the "September 11 Attacks" or the "September 11 Terrorist Attacks." "9/11" is, therefore, an abbreviation of an abbreviation. I observe that "9/11" did not become the predominant abbreviation for the attacks until -- suddenly -- around the time of the first anniversary.

It is not that it is wrong to abbreviate an abbreviation, I suppose, but given the gravity of the attacks, it seems too lazy to abbreviate them to a second degree, as if "9/11" has become a euphemism for the massacre. In this sense, as a family member of a victim of the attacks, I find "9/11" somewhat offensive because the laziness inherent in the term seems disrespectful to the dead, as if the attacks are not important enough to be worth uttering two more syllables. "9/11" also seems too modern and informal for such terrible event. I realize that few, if anyone, intends the term "9/11" to come off the way I perceive it, but someone, especially a family member, needed to state this objection.

Additionally, some people even refer in speech to the attacks as "9-1-1," which is too easily confused with the emergency response phone number. Also, in Europe, the month and day are transposed. Thus, "9/11" refers to November 9. Therefore, "9/11" is not a universal abbreviation for the September 11 Attacks.

In short, although "9/11" is not incorrect, it is an inadequate and confusing secondary abbreviation. Moreover, "9/11" seems to trivialize one of the worst days in American history. Although I do not criticize those who use "9/11" instead of September 11, I always eschew the former and prefer the latter.