| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:04:19 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,480 |
I recall this topic being discussed here not so long ago. Here is an
engaging video, explaining its history and development in an
entertaining way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAT-eOzeY4M
Some facts:
Although NATO gets credit in the name, it shouldn't.
ObAUE: It is not a phonetic alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. (I
recall someone pointing this out here in AUE.)
Most interesting word choice for me: Q -- Quebec
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
I recall this topic being discussed here not so long ago. Here is an
engaging video, explaining its history and development in an
entertaining way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAT-eOzeY4M
Some facts:
Although NATO gets credit in the name, it shouldn't.
ObAUE: It is not a phonetic alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. (I
recall someone pointing this out here in AUE.)
Yes.
Most interesting word choice for me: Q -- Quebec
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
Possible confusion with Yankee, I guess.
Remember that the alphabet was extensively tested
for errors over noisy and static filled channels,
where only the 'ee' might come through,
Jan
PS Remember American cultural imperialism:
Yankees take precedence over Queens.
(it is from 1958)
I recall this topic being discussed here not so long ago. Here is an
engaging video, explaining its history and development in an
entertaining way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAT-eOzeY4M
Some facts:
Although NATO gets credit in the name, it shouldn't.
ObAUE: It is not a phonetic alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. (I
recall someone pointing this out here in AUE.)
Most interesting word choice for me: Q -- Quebec
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 08:53:15 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
And then there is "Zulu time", which in South Africa means precise to
within a day.
"Ten o'clock Zulu time" means "I'll probably be there some time before afternoon tea."
On 15/10/2025 08:29, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 08:53:15 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
And then there is "Zulu time", which in South Africa means precise to
within a day.
"Ten o'clock Zulu time" means "I'll probably be there some time before
afternoon tea."
<smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana' principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
On 2025-10-15 08:03:51 +0000, occam said:
On 15/10/2025 08:29, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 08:53:15 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
And then there is "Zulu time", which in South Africa means precise to
within a day.
"Ten o'clock Zulu time" means "I'll probably be there some time before
afternoon tea."
<smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana'
principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
"Inshallah" is said to have a similar meaning, but without the same implication of urgency.
On 15/10/2025 at 09:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-10-15 08:03:51 +0000, occam said:
[...] <smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana'
principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
"Inshallah" is said to have a similar meaning, but without the same implication of urgency.
"Inshallah" brings in the concept of God interfering in the timing -
"God Willing"
Ar an c.igi. lb doag de m0 Deireadh F<mhair, scr0obh Chris Elvidge:
On 15/10/2025 at 09:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-10-15 08:03:51 +0000, occam said:
[...] <smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma+ana'
principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
"Inshallah" is said to have a similar meaning, but without the same implication of urgency.
"Inshallah" brings in the concept of God interfering in the timing -
"God Willing"
"Inshallah" certainly in Persian is not really an adverb of time. It's more like "weather permitting" or the "please God" of my rural Irish youth, expressing humility that best-laid-plans don't always work out.
Ar an c||igi|| l|i d|-ag de m|! Deireadh F||mhair, scr|!obh Chris Elvidge:
> On 15/10/2025 at 09:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2025-10-15 08:03:51 +0000, occam said:
> >>
> >> [...] <smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
> >> characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana'
> >> principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
> >
> > "Inshallah" is said to have a similar meaning, but without the same
> > implication of urgency.
>
> "Inshallah" brings in the concept of God interfering in the timing -
> "God Willing"
rCLInshallahrCY certainly in Persian is not really an adverb of time. ItrCOs more
like rCLweather permittingrCY or the rCLplease GodrCY of my rural Irish youth,
expressing humility that best-laid-plans donrCOt always work out.
On 14/10/2025 10:37, J. J. Lodder wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
I recall this topic being discussed here not so long ago. Here is an
engaging video, explaining its history and development in an
entertaining way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAT-eOzeY4M
Some facts:
Although NATO gets credit in the name, it shouldn't.
ObAUE: It is not a phonetic alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. (I
recall someone pointing this out here in AUE.)
Yes.
Most interesting word choice for me: Q -- Quebec
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
Possible confusion with Yankee, I guess.
Not the explanation given in the video. ICAO - the organisation that was driving the development of the alphabet - was headquartered in Quebec.
There was also the stipulation of how to pronounce it - 'Ke-beck' (hard
K) and not 'qwe-beck'.
Remember that the alphabet was extensively tested
for errors over noisy and static filled channels,
where only the 'ee' might come through,
Jan
PS Remember American cultural imperialism:
Yankees take precedence over Queens.
(it is from 1958)
This last point - although true - is nothing to do with the Americans
and the Brits. The real struggle seems to have been between the
anglophones and the non-anglophones (Spanish, French) - in order to
satisfy the 'three language' rule. (Details in the video)
Dutch and other Calvinists used DV for that. (for Deo Volente) In
particular with invitations for events to happen yet.
In their view it would be vanity to assume that a mere human could
for example invite people to a meeting in the future. It can only
happen if god is willing to allow it, hence they always added a DV,
On 2025-10-14 02:54, occam wrote:
On 14/10/2025 10:37, J. J. Lodder wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
I recall this topic being discussed here not so long ago. Here is an
engaging video, explaining its history and development in an
entertaining way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAT-eOzeY4M
Some facts:
Although NATO gets credit in the name, it shouldn't.
ObAUE: It is not a phonetic alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. (I
recall someone pointing this out here in AUE.)
Yes.
Most interesting word choice for me: Q -- Quebec
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
Possible confusion with Yankee, I guess.
Not the explanation given in the video. ICAO - the organisation that was
driving the development of the alphabet - was headquartered in Quebec.
There was also the stipulation of how to pronounce it - 'Ke-beck' (hard
K) and not 'qwe-beck'.
Remember that the alphabet was extensively tested
for errors over noisy and static filled channels,
where only the 'ee' might come through,
Jan
PS Remember American cultural imperialism:
Yankees take precedence over Queens.
(it is from 1958)
This last point - although true - is nothing to do with the Americans
and the Brits. The real struggle seems to have been between the
anglophones and the non-anglophones (Spanish, French) - in order to
satisfy the 'three language' rule. (Details in the video)
Aegis
Bee
Cede
Dee
Eight
For
Gent
Hour
Inning
Jerry
Khalid
Llama
Mnemonic
Nine
One
Psyche
Quiche
Ruby
Six
Two
Unity
Voluptuous
Wax
Xanadu
You
Zhivago
On 16/10/25 05:43, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Dutch and other Calvinists used DV for that. (for Deo Volente) In
particular with invitations for events to happen yet.
In their view it would be vanity to assume that a mere human could
for example invite people to a meeting in the future. It can only
happen if god is willing to allow it, hence they always added a DV,
Some languages (e.g. Romance languages) have a true future tense. Some
others (e.g. English) don't.
philosophy among early speakers of those languages. From one point of
view, you can't predict the future, so it's useless making statements
about the future without qualifiers. But some cultures, it seems, were
quite confident about predicting the future.
A is for 'orses
B for Pork
Some languages (e.g. Romance languages) have a true future tense. Some
others (e.g. English) don't.
This is a purely formal distinction: inflection vs. periphrasis (use of >auxiliary verb). I don't see any reason to consider one more "true" than
the other.
On 15/10/2025 08:29, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 08:53:15 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
And then there is "Zulu time", which in South Africa means precise to
within a day.
"Ten o'clock Zulu time" means "I'll probably be there some time before
afternoon tea."
<smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana' >principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
On 16/10/2025 10:59 a.m., Peter Moylan wrote:
On 16/10/25 05:43, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Dutch and other Calvinists used DV for that. (for Deo Volente)
In particular with invitations for events to happen yet.
In their view it would be vanity to assume that a mere human
could for example invite people to a meeting in the future. It
can only happen if god is willing to allow it, hence they always
added a DV,
Some languages (e.g. Romance languages) have a true future tense.
Some others (e.g. English) don't.
This is a purely formal distinction: inflection vs. periphrasis (use
of auxiliary verb). I don't see any reason to consider one more
"true" than the other.
This presumably reflects a difference in
philosophy among early speakers of those languages. From one point
of view, you can't predict the future, so it's useless making
statements about the future without qualifiers. But some cultures,
it seems, were quite confident about predicting the future.
But the Romance "true" future is transparently derived from the
infinitive + "have": je chanter|ai 'I will sing' etc. Are you really
proposing a difference in philosophy between Romans and French on
the basis of that?
On 16/10/25 05:43, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Dutch and other Calvinists used DV for that. (for Deo Volente) In
particular with invitations for events to happen yet.
In their view it would be vanity to assume that a mere human could
for example invite people to a meeting in the future. It can only
happen if god is willing to allow it, hence they always added a DV,
Some languages (e.g. Romance languages) have a true future tense. Some
others (e.g. English) don't. This presumably reflects a difference in philosophy among early speakers of those languages. From one point of
view, you can't predict the future, so it's useless making statements
about the future without qualifiers. But some cultures, it seems, were
quite confident about predicting the future.
On 15/10/2025 23:59, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 16/10/25 05:43, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Dutch and other Calvinists used DV for that. (for Deo Volente)
In particular with invitations for events to happen yet.
In their view it would be vanity to assume that a mere human
could for example invite people to a meeting in the future. It
can only happen if god is willing to allow it, hence they always
added a DV,
Some languages (e.g. Romance languages) have a true future tense.
Some others (e.g. English) don't. This presumably reflects a
difference in philosophy among early speakers of those languages.
From one point of view, you can't predict the future, so it's
useless making statements about the future without qualifiers. But
some cultures, it seems, were quite confident about predicting the
future.
"Thy will be done" (Lord's prayer). Surely that's future tense in
Christian philosophy, isn't it?
On 16/10/25 16:56, occam wrote:
"Thy will be done" (Lord's prayer). Surely that's future
tense in Christian philosophy, isn't it?
No, that's a third person imperative. (The future would be
"Thou wilt be done".) It's a request, presumably to a higher-
level god, to permit the current god to do what he wants to
do.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:03:51 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 15/10/2025 08:29, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 08:53:15 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling
alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
And then there is "Zulu time", which in South Africa means precise to
within a day.
"Ten o'clock Zulu time" means "I'll probably be there some time before
afternoon tea."
<smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana'
principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
In rural areas, before cell phones were ubiquitous, people often told
the time by the sun.
But that can be deceptive.
When I first went to the UK in 1966 the plane descended through clouds
and I didn't see the sun again for 6 weeks.
The first time I saw it--
was whe n a friend took me on a tour of Oxford colleges. And it seemed
to me that it was 10:00 am the whole day. Because we were on the move, walking in different directions from college to college, I didn't see
the sun move across the sky, so it didn't seem to have moved at all.
On 16/10/25 10:34, Ross Clark wrote:
On 16/10/2025 10:59 a.m., Peter Moylan wrote:
On 16/10/25 05:43, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Dutch and other Calvinists used DV for that. (for Deo Volente)
In particular with invitations for events to happen yet.
In their view it would be vanity to assume that a mere human
could for example invite people to a meeting in the future. It
can only happen if god is willing to allow it, hence they always
aadded a DV,
Some languages (e.g. Romance languages) have a true future tense.
Some others (e.g. English) don't.
This is a purely formal distinction: inflection vs. periphrasis (use
aof auxiliary verb). I don't see any reason to consider one more
"true" than the other.
This presumably reflects a difference in
philosophy among early speakers of those languages. From one point
aof view, you can't predict the future, so it's useless making
statements about the future without qualifiers. But some cultures,
ait seems, were quite confident about predicting the future.
But the Romance "true" future is transparently derived from the
infinitive + "have": je chanter|ai 'I will sing' etc. Are you really
aproposing a difference in philosophy between Romans and French on
the basis of that?
I do see a difference in philosophy. In English we say things like "I
want to go", "I should go", "I intend to go", "I must go", and so on.
There is no direct way of saying, "At some time in the future, the
statement 'I went' must be true". There is no definite statement about
the future. They are less definite than saying "weather permitting" or "insh'allah" to express a lack of certainty.
I agree that in some languages the future is expressed by a
"root+auxiliary" construction, but such forms do not express
uncertainty, and anyway that is also done for past tenses. In French,
for example, in the infinitive+avoir form, the "avoir" does not express
any form of doubt.
"Thy will be done" (Lord's prayer). Surely that's future tense in
Christian philosophy, isn't it?
No, that's a third person imperative.
(The future would be "Thou wilt be done".)
It's a request, presumably to a higher-level god, to permit the
current god to do what he wants to do.
On 2025-10-16 01:47:05 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:03:51 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 15/10/2025 08:29, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 08:53:15 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
(Q- Why was it named Quebec and not, say, Queen? )
P.S: Watch out for the sidetrack discussion of the German spelling >>>>>> alphabet. Fascinating.
Dang, pipped at the post.
And then there is "Zulu time", which in South Africa means precise to
within a day.
"Ten o'clock Zulu time" means "I'll probably be there some time before >>>> afternoon tea."
<smile> I don't know what Zulus have done to deserve that
characterisation, but in Europe I know that as the Spanish 'ma|#ana'
principle. "Tomorrow, and perhaps never".
In rural areas, before cell phones were ubiquitous, people often told
the time by the sun.
But that can be deceptive.
When I first went to the UK in 1966 the plane descended through clouds
and I didn't see the sun again for 6 weeks.
Stereotypes can be deceptive as well. When we left Birmingham in 1987
it was a sunny day. We didn't see the sun again for three or four
weeks, in Devon, across France, and in Devon.
--The first time I saw it
was whe n a friend took me on a tour of Oxford colleges. And it seemed
to me that it was 10:00 am the whole day. Because we were on the move,
walking in different directions from college to college, I didn't see
the sun move across the sky, so it didn't seem to have moved at all.