h a l f b a k e r yNo serviceable parts inside.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Talking to machines. Soon it will be all we do. Machines do fine with big, rambling words but have trouble distinguishing the small ones: in, on, um, his, and the other inchoate grunts and hisses that pass for language with the crutch of context as well as liberal shrugs, winks and hand waving.
The
problem is worst with foreigners, especially those hailing from lands where all communication is with grunts and gesticulation. Aware that many foreigners would soon be speaking English, the NATO alphabet was desgined to remedy this, substituting unmistakebale words of moderate length for the letters of the English alphabet.
I propose that this scheme be extended to all small and easily misidentified words, and the substitutes be used in common parlance. This will have the effect of doing away with the words entirely in spoken language. These words will persist in written language which is conservative of ink / pixels and so appropriate.
There are many candidates for substitution. One could use French words or those from some similar language falling into disuse but with many pretty words that are fun to say.
[link]
|
| |
India think this would bravo echo tiresome after alpha
while. |
|
| |
"Roger flight 783, over."
"Tower, this is 783 please repeat, over."
"That's Roger, 783. Romeo, Oscar, Golf, Echo, Romeo,
over"
"Romeo, Oscar what?"
"Romeo, Oscar, Golf. That's Golf, Oscar, Lima,
Foxtrot, over."
etc. |
|
| |