Win wrote:
I believe that, at some speed, CW becomes a language. Most high speed
operators are not reading the each character. They hear the word.
They only resort to character copy on unfamilure words and names. Even
the low speed op will hear many short common words.

That sounds like a language to me.

Win, W0LZ



On 11 Jul 2006 13:14:37 -0700, "
wrote:


A rather lengthy thread contains erroneous claims on the above topics.
Morse code is not a language. Language is communication of thoughts and
feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds,
gestures, or written symbols, with such a system including its rules
for combining its components, such as words. The words are the
language. Morse code is the alphabet just like A, B, C ... Z are the
alphabet. It is nothing more than the building blocks used to compose
the words that actually are the language. English, French, Spanish,
German etc. are languages. Hello, bonjou, ola, and hallo are alphabetic
symbols combined to form a word meaning the same thing in the various
languages. It doesn't matter if the word is written, transmitted orally
or by CW, it is still just a string of characters that only becomes
language based on the knowledge of the sender to combine them in the
proper sequence and the recipient to translate it and receive the
intended communication. Neither the alphabet nor morse code are
languages.

Proficiency is having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as
in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning. One could
extend that to include competence in an avocation or hobby. Our narrow
minded and singly focused friend claims an operators ability to use
code makes him more proficient. That is patently false in many cases.
It is the overall competency that is the determinant. The operator with
code skills may be excellent at code and know nothing of PSK, digital,
satellites, EME or any number of things while another operator can
expertly use any of them but doesn't know code. They may both be
proficient operators, just in differing modes of operation. Then again,
neither may be a proficient operator. They may barely know enough about
their equipment to get it to do what they narrowly focus on doing. A
third operator who perhaps doesn't know code and only knows SSB
operation may be the proficient operator who knows his equipment well
and can quickly and easily adjust it to perform at peak efficiency in
his operating mode.

It boils down to code being nothing more than another operating mode
which isn't a language and isn't a gauge of proficiency.


Your definitions are skewed and irrelevant. As is your post.