Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt(at)jps.net]

 <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."


	


Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was: "...to land almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead." Reading again my sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite. That's the fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.



Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with another ham, he said: No it's correct. All my experience as an astro-nagigator told me it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian wording of the "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a Norwegian sentence that was wrong.



Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100 years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is supposed to have said:

"Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires Englishmen, fire first!)



This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite gentlemen" wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:



"Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the Englishmen; fire first!)

Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big difference! 



Cheers,

Michel



do not archive

<pre><b><font size  color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for (I've been 

told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why is it not 

abbreviated CTU?

Aviation on a whole has so darn many of these contractions and acronyms 

and abbreviations, that it's hard to remember them all, and when they 

throw one like this at us, with the letters out of sequence, it's hard 

for me to recall what it stands for because it doesn't "compute" so to 

speak. And how do they get Zulu out of all this?

Interestingly enough, this is back ON topic, dealing with aviation as 

it does. : ) And I might add, Michel, that I admire and envy anybody 

that has mastered more than one language, and that puts you up several 

rungs on the proverbial ladder.

Lynn

do not archive

On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:47  AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  > From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt(at)jps.net]

> <SNIP> "is to land almost anywhere but straight ahead."

 Ha ha ha! Good one, Lynn! What I should have written was: "...to land 

 almost anywhere but make sure it is straight ahead." Reading again my 

 sentence I see how it turned out to be the exact opposite. That's the 

 fun of speaking languages without really mastering them.

 Many years ago, when I passed my ham license here in Norway, still 

 much influenced by my native French, I was pretty sure that the 

 explanation of UTC in our book was wrong. Arguing with another ham, he 

 said: No it's correct. All my experience as an astro-nagigator told me 

 it was the opposite. The problem was in the Norwegian wording of the 

 "ahead" or "behind" the clock. It was the way I interpreted a 

 Norwegian sentence that was wrong.

 Here is another famous language pitfall in French: During the 100 

 years war between the French and the Brits, a French general is 

 supposed to have said:

 "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Sires Englishmen, fire 

 first!)

 This has been used to demonstrate the almost absurd "polite gentlemen" 

 wars of the past. In reality, the original text says:

 "Messieurs, les anglais; tirez les premiers!" (Sires, the Englishmen; 

 fire first!)

 Which is exactly the opposite. A tiny comma can make a big difference! 

 Cheers,

 Michel

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

As a ham  whose interest in radio goes back almost forty years ( only

licensed for 22 Yr) I like the term Z.  As in 1400 Hr Z.  Or 1400hr. Zulu.

It was also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).  From the longitude going

through Greenwich, England  as 0Hr.  The fall of the British Empire finished

that.



Who out there knows what the UTC really stands for??   I'm just guessing

maybe Universal Time Coordinate.  T would be interested in knowing though.



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Like I said, Noel, it stands for Coordinated Universal Time, or in 

aviation speak, UTC, what with their (whoever "they" are) penchant for 

mixing things up so we can't get an easy handle on memorizing these 

things. I'm sorry, but this has been an issue with me ever since I 

started to learn about aviation. It seems that whenever something makes 

sense, "they" find a way to make it difficult. Then to make matters 

more difficult, they convert UTC to the word Zulu, for whatever reason, 

and then to make it really perplexing, they explain that:  "it really 

is the time at the 0° line of longitude which passes through Greenwich, 

England".  Confused yet? I sure am...actually WAS confused, because I 

try not to dwell on these nonsensical matters. It is only when the 

subject comes up that I start to boil over. No wonder it took me so 

damn long to get my ticket!

I just looked up the term in my Jeppesen Private Pilot Manual, and the 

above quote comes from that book, page 2-50.



If anybody can follow the paper trail of this "Coordinated Universal 

Time-----UTC------Zulu------Z-------Greenwich, England"  thing, or 

knows the reasoning behind the "code", please enlighten me and others.



Lynn

On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 08:19  PM, Noel Loveys wrote:



[quote] 



 As a ham  whose interest in radio goes back almost forty years ( only

 licensed for 22 Yr) I like the term Z.  As in 1400 Hr Z.  Or 1400hr. 

 Zulu.

 It was also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).  From the longitude 

 going

 through Greenwich, England  as 0Hr.  The fall of the British Empire 

 finished

 that.



 Who out there knows what the UTC really stands for??   I'm just 

 guessing

 maybe Universal Time Coordinate.  T would be interested in knowing 

 though.



 Noel



> --

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

The UTC I can't explain.  In the days when the British Empire was becoming

the Commonwealth the centre for time was changed to Z, or Zulu from GMT

Greenwich Mean Time to reflect a more international, for lack of a better

word flavour.  Of course Zulu is the recognized phonetic word to represent

the letter "Z" so Z and Zulu are the same.  What perplexes me is why it's

UTC and not CUT.  Maybe some one at the UN may know.



As for using the different systems of measurement the only one I ever had

problems with was the old English Sterling currency.  Like everyone I knew

that a pound was around $2.50 - $3.00.  But when you got into Crowns,

Guineas, Pennies and Farthings... Sheeesh!



The best thing that happened north of the 49 was when they rammed the

international metric system down our unwilling throats.  I was lucky there

as at the time I was studying physics in high school and doing everything

metric was just a lot easier.  Funny though I still think of speed in miles

per hour.  I think of distances in both kilometres and miles and gasoline in

gallons (Imperial Gallons 4.55 L) even though Gas is only sold here by the

litre.  The major loss in the implementation of the metric system is the

loss of the pint of beer.  The answer ... Beer on tap!



That reminds me.... Time for a cold one.



Good night 



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

It looks like it is Coordinated Universal Time (From the US Naval 

Observatory website).  That is our arrangement of the words.  I suspect in 

the language adopted - maybe French, Michel? the acronym is more correct.  I 

too prefer Zulu time and still find myself using that term from time to 

time.



Lowell

---

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Read all about it.



http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/MAEL/ag/zulu.htm

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/UT.html



Lowell

---

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

My favorite example of the metric versus inch/foot/mile system (what is 

is called, anyway?) is when I used to order motion picture film (yeah, 

I'm THAT old) was seeing the dimensions of 16mm x 100feet....talk about 

your mixed metaphors.

I've always thought in inches and don't want to change...I know the 

decimal equivalents of nearly all the fractions, and can usually do the 

math in my head for those that I don't recall. I don't want to learn a 

new system at this late date, thank you. : )



I am willing to concede that the metric system is easier to deal with, 

and often use it when measuring something to be divided into equal 

parts, but I'm able to do it either way.



For a beginning student, I agree that the metric system is easier...I'm 

not completely stubborn. : )



Lynn

do not archive

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 12:04  AM, Noel Loveys wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The UTC I can't explain.  In the days when the British Empire was 

 becoming

 the Commonwealth the centre for time was changed to Z, or Zulu from GMT

 Greenwich Mean Time to reflect a more international, for lack of a 

 better

 word flavour.  Of course Zulu is the recognized phonetic word to 

 represent

 the letter "Z" so Z and Zulu are the same.  What perplexes me is why 

 it's

 UTC and not CUT.  Maybe some one at the UN may know.



 As for using the different systems of measurement the only one I ever 

 had

 problems with was the old English Sterling currency.  Like everyone I 

 knew

 that a pound was around $2.50 - $3.00.  But when you got into Crowns,

 Guineas, Pennies and Farthings... Sheeesh!



 The best thing that happened north of the 49 was when they rammed the

 international metric system down our unwilling throats.  I was lucky 

 there

 as at the time I was studying physics in high school and doing 

 everything

 metric was just a lot easier.  Funny though I still think of speed in 

 miles

 per hour.  I think of distances in both kilometres and miles and 

 gasoline in

 gallons (Imperial Gallons 4.55 L) even though Gas is only sold here by 

 the

 litre.  The major loss in the implementation of the metric system is 

 the

 loss of the pint of beer.  The answer ... Beer on tap!



 That reminds me.... Time for a cold one.



 Good night 



 Noel

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:38 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Thanks for the enlightenment Lowell, and Michel...that was interesting. 

I'm still wondering though, about the jumbling of the letters UTC to 

represent Coordinated Universal Time. Did I miss the explanation in my 

reading just now?



Lynn

do not archive

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 12:43  AM, Lowell Fitt wrote:



[quote] 



 Read all about it.



 http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/MAEL/ag/zulu.htm

 http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/UT.html



 Lowell

 ---

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:43 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

It appears that  the final letter stands for a "Correction" that

"Coordinates" between two time standards 

Coordinated Universal Time = Universal Time Corrected.  That's just a guess.



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Lynn:



	I will 'suggest' that they were avoiding the obvious sequence

"CUT", as the abbreviation for "Coordinated Universal Time" because it

forms a word in English.  And apparently this word, meaning what it

does, was thought to be distasteful, or not a good choice for an acronym

simply because it is a word, so once they made that decision, then any

jumbling of the first letter sequence  was open for use. 



Duane Rueb 

  



--

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:12 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

It's the Imperial system of measurement.  In the U.S. the gallon and the

quart are different than in the UK.  1 Imp gallon = 4.55L, 1 U.S. Gal =

3.8L.  

Or

5 Imp Gal = 6 U.S. Gal.  In aviation all the gas pumps were/are calibrated

to the U.S. Gal. to avoid fuelling problems.



Noel



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 

 My favorite example of the metric versus inch/foot/mile 

 system (what is 

 is called, anyway?) is when I used to order motion picture 

 film (yeah, 

 I'm THAT old) was seeing the dimensions of 16mm x 

 100feet....talk about 

 your mixed metaphors.

 I've always thought in inches and don't want to change...I know the 

 decimal equivalents of nearly all the fractions, and can 

 usually do the 

 math in my head for those that I don't recall. I don't want 

 to learn a 

 new system at this late date, thank you. : )

 

 I am willing to concede that the metric system is easier to 

 deal with, 

 and often use it when measuring something to be divided into equal 

 parts, but I'm able to do it either way.

 

 For a beginning student, I agree that the metric system is 

 easier...I'm 

 not completely stubborn. : )

 

 Lynn

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

It just came to mind when I realized you have a background in film.  



I have a question of trivia for you ....  What is 35mm in 35 mm film???  The

image is 24mmX36mm.  35mm film is also sold by the foot or roll in the U.S..



All the lenses attached to later U.S. made cameras,ie Kodak,  were all

measured in metric... But the earliest lenses used in the U.S. were measured

in imperial ( inches) sand to really mix things up the width of the same

lenses was measured in metric.



Early water stop apertures were generally measured in metric even for lenses

that had imperial focal lengths... I guess that is why they came up with the

"F" measurement.



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:01 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

The 35mm is the actual film width, as 16mm is the actual film width of 

that format. The 24mm is the size of the picture area between the 

perforations (perfs), and the 36mm is the "long" 

measurement...24x36=1.5:1 ratio, just to drag out something up there in 

the cobwebs of my mind. I haven't thought about film in about 5 

yrs...since retirement. I've still got a 4x5 view camera that I should 

get out and attach to the lift strut of the 'fox, maybe. (that last 

part was just to satisfy the requirements of the list)  : ) Imagine 

this:  load film, take off, take picture  with cable release, land, 

unload film...oops, forgot to pull dark slide and cock shutter...do all 

over again.



Yes, the foot system of selling film saves using a really long number 

if sold in mm's...they could use a meter, but what would we have to 

talk about if they did that? Oh, I know...flying!



Lynn

do not archive

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 10:24  AM, Noel Loveys wrote:



[quote] 



 It just came to mind when I realized you have a background in film.



 I have a question of trivia for you ....  What is 35mm in 35 mm 

 film???  The

 image is 24mmX36mm.  35mm film is also sold by the foot or roll in the 

 U.S..



 All the lenses attached to later U.S. made cameras,ie Kodak,  were all

 measured in metric... But the earliest lenses used in the U.S. were 

 measured

 in imperial ( inches) sand to really mix things up the width of the 

 same

 lenses was measured in metric.



 Early water stop apertures were generally measured in metric even for 

 lenses

 that had imperial focal lengths... I guess that is why they came up 

 with the

 "F" measurement.



 Noel



> --

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

How about my military idea, Duane...you were there, didn't they use a 

lot of commas in their descriptions of stuff?

And your notion of it being distasteful....yup, wouldn't take a huge 

stretch of the imagination to butcher that into something else.

Lynn

do not archive

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 09:51  AM, Rueb, Duane wrote:



[quote] 

 <ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu>



 Lynn:



 	I will 'suggest' that they were avoiding the obvious sequence

 "CUT", as the abbreviation for "Coordinated Universal Time" because it

 forms a word in English.  And apparently this word, meaning what it

 does, was thought to be distasteful, or not a good choice for an 

 acronym

 simply because it is a word, so once they made that decision, then any

 jumbling of the first letter sequence  was open for use.



 Duane Rueb

 --

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

temco(at)telusplanet.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Noel 



If it's off topic how about a few DO NOT ARCHIVES at the end of your

messages



Thanks Ted



DO NOT ARCHIVE



--

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Lynn sez:



 	  Quote: 	
		  What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it 

stands for (I've been told, and I have read) 

Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why is it not 

abbreviated CTU?


	


According to Wikipedia 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time>:



"The International Telecommunication Union wanted 

Coordinated Universal Time to have a single 

abbreviation for all languages. English speakers 

and French speakers each wanted the initials of 

their respective languages' terms to be used 

internationally: 'CUT' for 'coordinated universal 

time' and 'TUC' for 'temps universel coordonné'. 

As a compromise, a variation of the English term 

was used, with the verbal adjective trailing as 

in French.[1] 'UTC' can thus be read as 

'universal time, coordinated', although that is 

not the correct name in English."



Mike G.

N728KF

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Finally!! Thanks, Mike, for finally clearing this up. It was bugging 

me, but not enough to do the 'search...and thanks to the IUT, (Union 

Telecommunication Internationale)  : )



Lynn

do not archive

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 01:14  PM, Michael Gibbs wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Lynn sez:



> What bothers me about the UTC thing is that it stands for (I've been 

> told, and I have read) Coordinated Universal Time. If so, why is it 

> not abbreviated CTU?



 According to Wikipedia 

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time>:



 "The International Telecommunication Union wanted Coordinated 

 Universal Time to have a single abbreviation for all languages. 

 English speakers and French speakers each wanted the initials of their 

 respective languages' terms to be used internationally: 'CUT' for 

 'coordinated universal time' and 'TUC' for 'temps universel 

 coordonné'. As a compromise, a variation of the English term was used, 

 with the verbal adjective trailing as in French.[1] 'UTC' can thus be 

 read as 'universal time, coordinated', although that is not the 

 correct name in English."



 Mike G.

 N728KF

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Lynn:



	Yes, the military loves commas.  They also love obfuscation you know.   I like Michel's story, too.  If you want to get even more frustrated, fools the enemy, with illogic, and confusing logic, associated with abbreviations and acronyms, just study more scientific subjects.  You will decide that aviation is a lightweight in the confusion game.  More discussion or example on that in a private communiqué.  



Duane Rueb

	--

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: OFF TOPIC: The danger of languages

Sorry Ted; I keep forgetting that.  To make matters worse I often delete

previous posts that do have the Do not archive statement in them.



Do not archive



Noel



[quote] --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum