Alternate phonetic alphabets?

There have been threads on a lot of esoteric subjects, but I haven't seen one on this.

So, what would a phonetic alphabet look like without NATO? Would it be nearer one used by many U.S. police departments? Or nearer the UK WW1 telephonic alphabet?

Would there be more than one? Say, one military & one civil aviation? Or military, civil avn, & police?

Does the dominant language depend on the "dominant" alliance partner? So maybe a German & Russian one, as well as an English one? A Chinese one?

Thoughts?
 
There were phonetic alphabets long before NATO. Some 35 years ago, my friend, Delta Yankee Sierra received a call on 2 meter, from Armenian Fried Zucchini, and I never forgot his name.

Juliet Lima. Out.
 
Just Leo said:
There were phonetic alphabets long before NATO.
I believe the very first was a British Army telephonic alphabet.

I don't think any other but the NATO alphabet ever became anything like an international standard.
 
The NATO phonetic alphabet is substantially the same as the ICAO phonetic alphabet, which was designed to be consistently pronounced irrespective of the the nationality of the speaker. This is most obvious with JULIETT, which is downright weird spelling but won't result in a dropped or softened 'T' like JULIET or JULIETTE would.

Most countries have a historic standard spelling alphabet that could become widespread, or form the basis of one that becomes widespread.

If a worldwide standard arises out of a particular nation's dominance, then a phonetic alphabet based on its' domestic practice is likely to become the world standard. If it's the US, then expect a lot of "Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog...." Unless of course the accepted standard is based on police practice, when it might be "Adam, Boy, Charles, David...."
 
I believe the very first was a British Army telephonic alphabet.

That was "Ack, Beer, Charlie, Don ..." and is the reason that Anti-Aircraft guns were known as Ack-Ack Guns.

For civilian use, maybe the Cockney Alphabet (which has been around since the 1930s) gets taken more seriously. The humour of the definitions can be seen as making it easier to remember - "Q for A Song, R for Mo, S for You, T for Two".


Cheers,
Nigel
 
RLBH said:
The NATO phonetic alphabet is substantially the same as the ICAO phonetic alphabet, which was designed to be consistently pronounced irrespective of the the nationality of the speaker. This is most obvious with JULIETT, which is downright weird spelling but won't result in a dropped or softened 'T' like JULIET or JULIETTE would.
I did not know about that part of it. Thx.:)
NCW8 said:
Most countries have a historic standard spelling alphabet that could become widespread, or form the basis of one that becomes widespread.

If a worldwide standard arises out of a particular nation's dominance, then a phonetic alphabet based on its' domestic practice is likely to become the world standard. If it's the US, then expect a lot of "Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog...." Unless of course the accepted standard is based on police practice, when it might be "Adam, Boy, Charles, David...."
I was thinking there'd be some pressure to avoid common words, to prevent confusion. Clarity is an issue; any doubt what the initial letter is must be avoided. (That makes Quebec a bit odd...especially when you have to change the pronunciation to make it work.:confused:)

I do know there was a German alphabet (tho IDK any of the letters past "D":eek:), & WP has a list of several.
NCW8 said:
That was "Ack, Beer, Charlie, Don ..." and is the reason that Anti-Aircraft guns were known as Ack-Ack Guns.
Yep. And why WW1 aircraft mechanics were called Ack Emmas.

So why did the Brits change to the WW2 system?
NCW8 said:
For civilian use, maybe the Cockney Alphabet (which has been around since the 1930s) gets taken more seriously. The humour of the definitions can be seen as making it easier to remember - "Q for A Song, R for Mo, S for You, T for Two".
I somehow doubt it.;)
 

Driftless

Donor
Could you create one based on animal genus or species names that would translate across (some) cultures? i.e. C=Canis, F=Felis, etc; or does that get tangled real quickly?

P.S. When I first read the title, I mis-understood, thinking this thread was about alternate phonetic spelling & pronounciations..... oops
 
I do know there was a German alphabet (tho IDK any of the letters past "D":eek:), & WP has a list of several.

There's more than one - the Swiss and Austrians have their own variations. One useful feature of the German is that not only do letters with umlauts have seperate signifiers "A wie Anton, Ä wie Ärger" but also the common constonant groups CH (wie Charlotte) and SCH (wie Schule).


Yep. And why WW1 aircraft mechanics were called Ack Emmas.

So why did the Brits change to the WW2 system?

The Brits changed in 1942. Presumably it was to simplify communication between British and American forces.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
I was thinking there'd be some pressure to avoid common words, to prevent confusion.
I remember the front-of-book pronunciation of my Meriam-Webster dictionary really spent time on vowel sounds, as I suppose they needed to. But all the same, I guess I'm just pronoucing new words based on how I and others in my social group pronounce familiar words.

I think any language emphasizes certain sounds and ignores other. For example, at the beginning of words I don't think Spanish makes a big deal between v and b.
 
GeographyDude said:
I remember the front-of-book pronunciation of my Meriam-Webster dictionary really spent time on vowel sounds, as I suppose they needed to. But all the same, I guess I'm just pronoucing new words based on how I and others in my social group pronounce familiar words.

I think any language emphasizes certain sounds and ignores other. For example, at the beginning of words I don't think Spanish makes a big deal between v and b.
I was thinking less that than confusion between real items & codewords... (So no "dog" & "Charlie", & "queen" rather than "quick".) It may be an overblown worry, since in spelling a name/word, how much risk is there?:eek:
 
please explain a little more, so a real item would be . . ?

And I'm not sure why they use 'Charlie' since it's a complex sound of Ch.
 
GeographyDude said:
please explain a little more, so a real item would be . . ?
Something a military organization might actually use or encounter; phonetic "T" wouldn't be "tank", but could be "tango" or "toucan".
 
hard c in 'cat' and 'calendar'

soft c in 'city' and 'cent'

and ch seems to have sound all it's own as in 'church' and 'Charlie'

For all it's strengths, I don't think English is all that great as a model of consistent pronunciation!
 

Driftless

Donor
hard c in 'cat' and 'calendar'

soft c in 'city' and 'cent'

and ch seems to have sound all it's own as in 'church' and 'Charlie'

For all it's strengths, I don't think English is all that great as a model of consistent pronunciation!

C & K
C & S
G & J
CKS & X
Ou & Ow
Ph & F
Gh & F
Long vowels/Short vowels/double vowels
Silent letters
plus probably a couple of dozen other comibinations I haven't touched.
 
I don't think the system is important, the main thing is that it is understood. Now there are circumstances when the standard system needs to be used so there is no ambiguity - air traffic control. But in b2c - whatever works should be the guidline.

I used to work in a call centre taking calls from all over the UK, so some accents were worse than others for understanding, and some people just didn't 'get-it' when you are trying to use phonetics! C - for Charlie? no the name's Christophe!
Though, I always think the word used should be one that can be identified, so to my mind 'S' for Sugar, is better than Sierra.
 
Top