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.

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


Unless ........ one is trying to communicate with another "code" station
....... I don't buy the language aspect ...in fact this discussion has been
beat to death years ago ...... what is proficient ???? 5 WPM yep it is if
you are working another 5 WPM station .... 40 WPM yep if the other fellow
is 40 WPM "proficient" ...as stated many times before ....my "proficiency"
unravels like a cheap sweater around 40 WPM or so. PS to keep this in the
realm of equipment ......
how does the FT-897 act with the Collins CW filter ...worth if for and
backup and field day ????

Take care all ...73 Tom Popovic KI3R

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.

Win writes:
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.

When most adults read printed text, they don't look at each letter and
sound out the word, at least for common words. Instead they see the
shapes of whole words and recognize them as a unit.

This does not mean that "written English" is a distinct language from
"spoken English".

CW is a modulation type. It is interesting in that it is the only form
of digital modulation which can be encoded and decoded by an
unassisted human in real-time. It is also interesting for a variety of
other reasons, such as historical importance, widespread adoption,
simplicity of equipment and readability in high-noise, weak-signal
environments.

That sounds like a language to me.

When abbreviations, prosigns and Q-codes are heavily used, one could
perhaps make an argument for calling the entire system a dialect or
pidgin. It is not a language in and of itself. There are very few
thoughts you can express in CW alone, without using a real language
(English or Esperanto or whatever) on top of it.

Win, W0LZ
__
KE5IXY AR

Although good code operators don't individually recognize each separate
character, code is still not a language. It is a character based system
that allows communication. The combining and ordering of characters,
whether written letters of the alphabet on paper or tone representation
in code, produce communication in whatever language the operator uses.
The words in this sentence are English language. Someone with knowledge
of German or Tagalo can take the letters and create a sentence in that
language. The same can be done with code. The letters and code are not
and never will be that language or any other language no matter what
speed is achieved.

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

Douglas Henke wrote:

CW is a modulation type. It is interesting in that it is the only form
of digital modulation which can be encoded and decoded by an
unassisted human in real-time. It is also interesting for a variety of
other reasons, such as historical importance, widespread adoption,
simplicity of equipment and readability in high-noise, weak-signal
environments.


The old rotary telephones were "Digital Modulation" in that they
opened the line to control the Stowager stepper relays, or crossbar
switching eguipment. If you were good at it you could dial numbers with
the hook switch.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

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.

sigh
CW is a *MODE* of transmission
Morse Code is the language

"jawod" wrote in message ...
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.