Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say as
telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can maximize
their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say
as
telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can
maximize
their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate
communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -

Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate communication
by conveying what works for him since English is almost never his native
language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific set that other sets
cause him to "stumble" mentally.

It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need speak in a
manner that the target audience will understand. In this case the target is
the DX. You are the one trying to break through to him/her. He's not
trying to break through to you.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use hydrochloric
acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the acid is highly
corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber writes back thanking
the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric acid. The chemist tries again
using similar wording. Once again the plumber thanks the chemist for his
approval. This goes on for a couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally
the chemist breaks down and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats
the hell out of the pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience (the
plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say

as

telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can

maximize

their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate

communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -


Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate communication
by conveying what works for him since English is almost never his native
language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific set that other sets
cause him to "stumble" mentally.

When I work DX, I try to include a little bit of the other Ham's
language in the QSO, if I can. I'm no genius, but I can pick language up
fairly quickly.

My point is most Hams are fairly intelligent people. The basic language
of an exchange is English, like it or not. A ham in a small country
speaking an obscure language is going to enjoy a lot more success if he
or she pick up the language that the communication is done in.


It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need speak in a
manner that the target audience will understand. In this case the target is
the DX. You are the one trying to break through to him/her. He's not
trying to break through to you.

Well, in my version of Hamworld, we are both trying to communicate with
each other. Perhaps I am wrong.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use hydrochloric
acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the acid is highly
corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber writes back thanking
the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric acid. The chemist tries again
using similar wording. Once again the plumber thanks the chemist for his
approval. This goes on for a couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally
the chemist breaks down and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats
the hell out of the pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience (the
plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Language being what it is, does the person that is justified in
ignoring "improper" phonetics also justified if they don't like the
pronunciation? Or inflection? Should we listen and pronounce the worked
exacltly the same as they do? What if they *want* different phonetics?

Like I say, my version of being a ham is two people that *want* to
communicate with each other and will do what they can to facilitate
that. Sometimes that takes proper phonetics, sometimes that takes
several rounds of trying to get the call, when proper phonetics may be
followed by *improper ones*. Sometimes it means straight csllsigns. And
yes, I can copy callsigns in several languages.

Unfortunately, the refusal to answer "improper" phonetics or whatever
reminds me of "No Kids, No Lids, and No Space Cadets". or an exchange I
heard in a contest a few weeks ago, where one ham told (ordered is more
like it) another to stop using "Please copy" before the exchange. Told
him he sounded like a stupid idiot when he did that.

Too many hams are entirely too rigid.

- Mike

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself
(though prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say
on the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to
say

as

telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can

maximize

their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results.
I personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate

communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -


Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate
communication by conveying what works for him since English is almost
never his native language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific
set that other sets cause him to "stumble" mentally.

When I work DX, I try to include a little bit of the other Ham's
language in the QSO, if I can. I'm no genius, but I can pick language
up fairly quickly.

My point is most Hams are fairly intelligent people. The basic
language
of an exchange is English, like it or not. A ham in a small country
speaking an obscure language is going to enjoy a lot more success if he
or she pick up the language that the communication is done in.


It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need
speak in a manner that the target audience will understand. In this
case the target is the DX. You are the one trying to break through to
him/her. He's not trying to break through to you.

Well, in my version of Hamworld, we are both trying to communicate
with
each other. Perhaps I am wrong.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use
hydrochloric acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the
acid is highly corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber
writes back thanking the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric
acid. The chemist tries again using similar wording. Once again the
plumber thanks the chemist for his approval. This goes on for a
couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally the chemist breaks down
and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats the hell out of the
pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience
(the plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Language being what it is, does the person that is justified in
ignoring "improper" phonetics also justified if they don't like the
pronunciation? Or inflection? Should we listen and pronounce the worked
exacltly the same as they do? What if they *want* different phonetics?

Like I say, my version of being a ham is two people that *want* to
communicate with each other and will do what they can to facilitate
that. Sometimes that takes proper phonetics, sometimes that takes
several rounds of trying to get the call, when proper phonetics may be
followed by *improper ones*. Sometimes it means straight csllsigns. And
yes, I can copy callsigns in several languages.

Unfortunately, the refusal to answer "improper" phonetics or
whatever
reminds me of "No Kids, No Lids, and No Space Cadets". or an exchange I
heard in a contest a few weeks ago, where one ham told (ordered is more
like it) another to stop using "Please copy" before the exchange. Told
him he sounded like a stupid idiot when he did that.

Too many hams are entirely too rigid.

- Mike



Where I am originally from (the UK) the international phonetics are on the
test, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere. Consequently, I had to
learn them so that I could instantly come up with the correct phonetic for
any letter and vicea versa. Many people can do that who can't even speak
English, as they had to learn it to get a licence. They weren't tested on
using Japan and Zanzibar, though.

Most of the 'Avocado, Bascule, Cumquat' variety of phonetics comes from US
hams, I imagine because it isn't on the FCC tests, and this is then dressed
up as 'freedom of choice', rather than admit that they don't know their
phonetics. Also, many people end up learning a different set or just use
any phonetics they have heard on air, but this is not conducive to being
understood. There is a useful American expression here, it's what you call
'all being on the same page', and that's where we should aim to be.

That isn't to say that you can't use altenative phonetics if the standard
ones don't succeed. I do that.

I suppose I ought to submit some questions on phonetics for the question
pools. I wonder if I could succeed in getting it tested? I beleive it
should be tested. Even the most diehard CW ops seem to use 2m FM, and there
are occasions where phonetics can be useful there too.

"Alun" wrote in message
...

I suppose I ought to submit some questions on phonetics for the question
pools. I wonder if I could succeed in getting it tested? I beleive it
should be tested. Even the most diehard CW ops seem to use 2m FM, and
there
are occasions where phonetics can be useful there too.

Actually there are questions on the test. Theoretically, the prospective
ham is supposed to learn the phonetic alphabet. However, there's only one
or two questions on the test pertaining to the phonetic alphabet. So if the
student just memorizes the answers to the questions, he won't have a strong
grasp of it. There's often a question about why it is used but some of this
info doesn't stick with the person past the test itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE