Elecraft

Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

Classic

List

Threaded

25 messages Options

We5f

Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

>>On Sunday 12 June 2005 06:14 pm, Ian Stirling G4ICV, AB2GR wrote:
> I have seen this only on this Elecraft list.
> It's not something that I know and probably
> Modesty and Willie didn't.
> What does '72' mean?

A qrp'er saying 73's
(confusing, ain't it?)
Don't know how it started but if someone signs 72's they are a qrp station
saying........ yep, 73's.. (from [hidden email])<<

I don't think this is OT, but it may be. However, I think it will be of
sufficient interest to post.

I don't wish to be a horse's patootey, but this is a pet peeve of mine. The
term "73" translates to "best regards", so expressing it as "73's" or
"seventy-thirds" is inappropriate. That would translate to "best regardses".

Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of whether
it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For example, is it
really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct to
say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high today". Or is it?

And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing. Should
this term be used on phone?

Everyone seems to have an opinion on these questions, but are there
definitive answers?

73, Jim KM5M
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Trevor Day

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes
>Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of whether
>it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For example, is it
>really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct to
>say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
>reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high
>today". Or is it?
>
>And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing. Should
>this term be used on phone?

Personally I have no real problems with using some Q codes on phone.

The use of HI (spelt as two letters) adds confirmation that the
foregoing was said in jest. Not all humorous statements come with
'laughter attached' :-) The smiley I have just used conveys a similar
sentiment.

Trev G3ZYY
--
Trevor Day
UKSMG #217
www.uksmg.org

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Dan Romanchik KB6NU

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

I don't mind awfully much when someone uses QRM or QRN on
phone, BUT, one thing I think you'll have to watch out for
in the future is that there will be many no-code who simply
don't know the codes. Since they never worked CW, they will
never have had a chance to learn them. I run into this often
on 2m FM when talking to no-code Techs.

All things considered, it's probably best to avoid the use
of Q-signals on phone.

73!

Dan KB6NU
=================================================
President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org)
ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
CW Geek - FISTS #9342
Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com

Trevor Day wrote:

> In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes
>
>> Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of
>> whether
>> it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For
>> example, is it
>> really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be
>> correct to
>> say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
>> reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high
>> today". Or is it?
>>
>> And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing.
>> Should
>> this term be used on phone?
>
>
> Personally I have no real problems with using some Q codes on phone.
>
> The use of HI (spelt as two letters) adds confirmation that the
> foregoing was said in jest. Not all humorous statements come with
> 'laughter attached' :-) The smiley I have just used conveys a similar
> sentiment.
>
> Trev G3ZYY

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

N8LP

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

Hi Dan, didn't know you were an Elecrafter ;-) I think Q signals are OK
on phone. If the uninitiated don't know what they mean, they'll either
learn it or remain in the dark. Let's challenge them to learn the
codes... it won't hurt them, and maybe eventually they will become
curious about cw (or PSK/RTTY for that matter).

I think they all know QST, QTH, etc. anyway, and if they read QST or the
handbook, they are exposed to a lot more of them.

Larry N8LP

Dan Romanchik wrote:

> I don't mind awfully much when someone uses QRM or QRN on phone, BUT,
> one thing I think you'll have to watch out for in the future is that
> there will be many no-code who simply don't know the codes. Since they
> never worked CW, they will never have had a chance to learn them. I
> run into this often on 2m FM when talking to no-code Techs.
>
> All things considered, it's probably best to avoid the use of
> Q-signals on phone.
>
> 73!
>
> Dan KB6NU
> =================================================
> President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org)
> ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
> CW Geek - FISTS #9342
> Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com
>
>
> Trevor Day wrote:
>
>> In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes
>>
>>> Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of
>>> whether
>>> it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For
>>> example, is it
>>> really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be
>>> correct to
>>> say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
>>> reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high
>>> today". Or is it?
>>>
>>> And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing.
>>> Should
>>> this term be used on phone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I have no real problems with using some Q codes on phone.
>>
>> The use of HI (spelt as two letters) adds confirmation that the
>> foregoing was said in jest. Not all humorous statements come with
>> 'laughter attached' :-) The smiley I have just used conveys a
>> similar sentiment.
>>
>> Trev G3ZYY
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>

Craig Rairdin

RE: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by Dan Romanchik KB6NU

> I don't mind awfully much when someone uses QRM or QRN on
> phone

Since we're griping and slightly off topic, here's one I ran into over the
weekend:

A lot of people send R (for "received") as "dit, dah dit, dit, dah dit" --
with a gap after the first dit. In the VHF QSO contest, when I'm expecting
you to send a grid location that could start with "EN", your "R" sounds like
the beginning of your location and it's quite confusing. Especially when
we're bouncing 2M CW signals off the aurora and I've got a 1.5KW 6M station
in the next room shutting down my receiver every time they key the
transmitter. :-)

What a lot of fun, though. I hadn't worked any VHF other than 2M FM. I
couldn't figure out how we were going to work anyone outside our own grid on
2M. Kinda makes me think about adding the 2M transverter to my add-on
shopping list for my K2. :-)

Craig
NZ0R
K1 #1966
K2 #4941

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Mark J. Schreiner

Re: Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by We5f

Or maybe it is instead better to use them on phone as well to broaden the knowledge of ham radio operators whether they know code or are "no-code". If they are "no-code" and someday decide to get interested in code it will seem like an easier transition for them. After all, learning the code itself is apparently quite difficult these days, not to mention having to learn all sorts of new lingo that goes with it. Gosh, back in the days when I learned code and the Q-signals and other abbreviations and so on it wasn't so difficult, but based on many emails I read (not here though) it must have gotten more difficult, probably about the time the no-code license was suggested.

Oh, I better not forget to add "HI HI" as a tagline to the above comments!

Mark, NK8Q

>From: Dan Romanchik <[hidden email]>
>Date: Mon Jun 13 09:10:54 CDT 2005
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

>I don't mind awfully much when someone uses QRM or QRN on
>phone, BUT, one thing I think you'll have to watch out for
>in the future is that there will be many no-code who simply
>don't know the codes. Since they never worked CW, they will
>never have had a chance to learn them. I run into this often
>on 2m FM when talking to no-code Techs.
>
>All things considered, it's probably best to avoid the use
>of Q-signals on phone.
>
>73!
>
>Dan KB6NU
>=================================================

Ron D'Eau Claire-2

RE: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by We5f

Jim KM5M asked:
Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of whether

it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For example, is
it
really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct to
say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high today".
Or is it?

--------------

Going back into the early 1930's as "phone" operators just starting to show
up on a few Ham bands in any number, you'll find QST articles speaking out
against the use of Q-codes on phone.

But it's done every day.

Whoever said it was harder to herd cats than direct Hams never tried to tell
a Ham how to operate.

As I writer, I've noticed that every field of endeavor tends to create its
own language. Much of it is quite justified. Special words provide nuances
and precision that other people don't need or appreciate. But much is
totally unjustified. It seems to be a natural tendency to create and
perpetuate code-speak that sets the group apart from "mere mortals".

While Q-codes have a very legitimate purpose on CW, their use on phone seems
to fill this need among Hams.

QSL?

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by We5f

Jim, KM5M, wrote on June 13, 2005, at 1:42 PM

> Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of
whether
> it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For example,
is it
> really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct to
> say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
> reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high
today". Or is it?
>
> And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing. Should
> this term be used on phone?
>
> Everyone seems to have an opinion on these questions, but are there
> definitive answers?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Methinks it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions when
circumstances so dictate. Unless you are certain that the other operator is
fluent in English, of whatever form, and is copying you well, then use
Q-signals. QRZ or "again please" is well understood by most, as is "QRN S6".
Both have a much better chance of "getting through" and understood over
difficult paths, especially with rapid QSB in play, or through QRM I
believe.
I agree with you about "HI" in principle, although it is useful when signals
are difficult to copy.

My $.02 worth.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Dan Romanchik KB6NU

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by Mark J. Schreiner

When I say that it's probably best not to use them, I'm
talking as a writer and editor. I was a trade magazine
editor at Test&Measurement World for six years and have been
a freelance writer and editor for the last ten years or so.

Whenever we tried to include jargon in an article--and
Q-signals are definitely jargon--we'd be challenged by the
copy editors. Most of the time, it was simpler to simply
reword a sentence to take out the jargon. And you know what?
The article was much more readable without it.

I think the same is true for the use of Q-signals on phone.
Instead of saying, "There's a lot of QRN today," I think it
makes more sense to simply say, "The band is noisy today"?
It's simpler to say, and the receiving operator is less
likely to hear "QRM" instead of "QRN." In the end, your
message is much more readable.

73! Dan KB6NU

[hidden email] wrote:

> Or maybe it is instead better to use them on phone as well to broaden the knowledge of ham radio operators whether they know code or are "no-code". If they are "no-code" and someday decide to get interested in code it will seem like an easier transition for them. After all, learning the code itself is apparently quite difficult these days, not to mention having to learn all sorts of new lingo that goes with it. Gosh, back in the days when I learned code and the Q-signals and other abbreviations and so on it wasn't so difficult, but based on many emails I read (not here though) it must have gotten more difficult, probably about the time the no-code license was suggested.
>
> Oh, I better not forget to add "HI HI" as a tagline to the above comments!
>
> Mark, NK8Q
>
>
>
>>From: Dan Romanchik <[hidden email]>
>>Date: Mon Jun 13 09:10:54 CDT 2005
>>To: [hidden email]
>>Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Use of Abbreviations (OT?)
>
>
>>I don't mind awfully much when someone uses QRM or QRN on
>>phone, BUT, one thing I think you'll have to watch out for
>>in the future is that there will be many no-code who simply
>>don't know the codes. Since they never worked CW, they will
>>never have had a chance to learn them. I run into this often
>>on 2m FM when talking to no-code Techs.
>>
>>All things considered, it's probably best to avoid the use
>>of Q-signals on phone.
>>
>>73!
>>
>>Dan KB6NU
>>=================================================

Craig Rairdin

RE: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

> I think the same is true for the use of Q-signals on phone.
> Instead of saying, "There's a lot of QRN today," I think it
> makes more sense to simply say, "The band is noisy today"?
> It's simpler to say, and the receiving operator is less
> likely to hear "QRM" instead of "QRN." In the end, your
> message is much more readable.

Hence the use of "QR Mary" and "QR Nancy" on phone.

Use of Q-signals on phone may have the same effect it does on CW -- when
copy is difficult it can help to know what's coming. As soon as you hear "Q"
on CW or phone you have an idea what may come next and your brain is
prepared to copy it through whatever other noise and distractions may be
present.

I don't care one way or another. I'm installing the SSB option in my K2
because the next person to own the radio might like to use phone. He'll most
likely be the first to plug a mic into it. :-)

Craig
NZ0R
K1 #1966
K2 #4941

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Sandy W5TVW

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by We5f

|
| I don't think this is OT, but it may be. However, I think it will be of
| sufficient interest to post.
|
The term: "73s" is kind of corruption of "73". Most people ignore the grammatical
err or implication of it and go on.

| I don't wish to be a horse's patootey, but this is a pet peeve of mine. The
| term "73" translates to "best regards", so expressing it as "73's" or
| "seventy-thirds" is inappropriate. That would translate to "best regardses".
|
| Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of whether
| it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For example, is it
| really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct to
| say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
| reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high today". Or is it?
|
| And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing. Should
| this term be used on phone?
|

The use of "Q" signals on radiotelephone IS BAD operating practice! It seems even sillier
that some people who abhor the Morse code, which the "Q" signals were designed for,
delight is using them on "phone"!
I have also noted operating practices in general have deteriorated in the last 10-15 years
quite a bit, a lot of the "newbies" ignoring protocol or they are ignorant of same.
One is no doubt a hangover from "contest/DX practice". That is when someone calls CQ
on CW, an answering station merely sends his call sign! This gripes me to no end!
It is like someone shouting his first name in a crowded mall! Who is he calling?
If you want to answer my CQ, PLEASE have the courtesy of sending my call at least ONCE
the "DE" your call.
Reminds me of the old "Rotten Radio" stories that used to appear in QST years ago
written by "The Old Man". I can understand brevity and even some rudeness in the
heat of contest activity, but not as a matter of everyday operating practices. People
teaching "ham classes" should SURELY include a few sessions of Operating Protocol
and proper operating practices in the curriculum.

73 to all (72 to my fellow QRP types!)

Sandy W5TVW
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Hank Kohl K8DD-2

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

Sandy wrote:

>|
>| I don't think this is OT, but it may be. However, I think it will be of
>| sufficient interest to post.
>|
> The term: "73s" is kind of corruption of "73". Most people ignore the grammatical
>err or implication of it and go on.
>
>| I don't wish to be a horse's patootey, but this is a pet peeve of mine. The
>| term "73" translates to "best regards", so expressing it as "73's" or
>| "seventy-thirds" is inappropriate. That would translate to "best regardses".
>
>

I don't have much of an opinion on Q signals on the phone bands ....
Used properly they are ok when
they take less time than the "spoken equivalent"!

(OF mode on)

73's makes me cringe ..... even more than the occasional use of 10-4!
Far as I'm concerned it is 7 3 - not seventy three.

7 3 (seven three)
Hank K8DD

(OF mode off)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

roncasa

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by Ron D'Eau Claire-2

ARRL handbook sez: Q signals whose meaning most often need to be expressed
with brevity and clarity in amateur radio.
In "udder" words: use Q sigs when signal quality is marginal.
Ron wb1hga
BTW: can we please end this trivial and mondane thread?
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

k6dgw

Ham innovation (Q-signals)

In reply to this post by N8LP

Hmmm ... FWIW: Officially, Q-signals are in question/answer format --
QRP? = "Shall I decrease power?" and QRP = "Decrease power," or QRY? =
"What is my turn" and QRY <digits> = "Your turn is number <digits>."
(There's an amusing footnote to QRP ... "Aeronautical Note: Refers to
communications." Apparently, someone thought pilots might confuse the
radio with the throttle?)

Being innovative, however, we hams have built Q-signals into parts of
speech. For example, nouns - "QRM is heavy," verbs - "Some lid is
QRMing you," and adjectives - "High QRM level today." We also derive
abbreviations from them. "You're Q-five" comes from "QSA 5" meaning the
strength of your signals is five (on a scale of 1 - 5)." Sometimes, we
just change the meaning. Most of us would interpret QRX as "Stand by."
Officially, it means QRX? = "When will you call me again?" and QRX
<t> <f> = "I will call you again at <t>(hours) on <f> KHz." And of
course, we invent them -- QST is not defined internationally. As parts
of speech, phone would seem to be an OK place for the familiar ones, at
least.

In high school, I worked for a year at a shore station in So. Cal. I
built a predecessor of the TO-Keyer (9 or 10 dual triodes), and began
using it on my watches instead of my bug. I got a lot of verbal and
some physical abuse from my colleagues for the device (they kind of
enjoyed knocking the kid around anyway), and word must have gotten out
because a number of our regular customers afloat began giving me "QSD."

You can download a comprehensive list of Q-signals from the web site of
the Wilderness Emergency Medical Services Institute. Some are somewhat
quaint. I'm not sure when the "?" character entered Morse usage ... in
1956 in commercial practice, IMI [di di dah dah di dit] was the prosign
for "repeat" or "I repeat," and still is. Questions were formed by
preceding the Q-signals with the interrogatory prosign, INT [di di dah
dit dah]. Don't hear that on the ham bands, however.

There's another set of Z-signals which arose first in commercial
wireline service and then in the military, and which are used primarily
on land-line teletype (and now data) channels. They don't all follow
the question/answer format, and I only remember a few:

ZUI: Your attention is invited to ...
ZAA: You are not observing proper circuit discipline.
ZAB: You're speed key is improperly adjusted (one of my favorites)
ZAN: We can receive absolutely nothing.

and a few others. I've never heard them used on the radio.

As I said, FWIW --

Fred K6DGW
Auburn CA CM98lw

Larry Phipps wrote:

> Hi Dan, didn't know you were an Elecrafter ;-) I think Q signals are OK
> on phone. If the uninitiated don't know what they mean, they'll either
> learn it or remain in the dark. Let's challenge them to learn the
> codes... it won't hurt them, and maybe eventually they will become
> curious about cw (or PSK/RTTY for that matter).
>
> I think they all know QST, QTH, etc. anyway, and if they read QST or the
> handbook, they are exposed to a lot more of them.
>
> Larry N8LP

John Chappell G3XRJ

RE: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by Trevor Day

Got me thinking this one ....
I was a commercial operator for over thirty years in coastal radio
stations,
while at the same time being active on the ham bands.

During my day at work I would often do several 2 hour rotating stints on
CW and Phone.
I cant recall any use of Q codes when on the RT points even when talking
to a commercial op at the other end.

Expressions such as 73's were virtually unknown on CW

However I would often start my day with an hour's dxing on the low bands
and fitted in with the parlance without a thought.

su and hve a gd trip

73's John
dit dit

In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes
>Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of
whether
>it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For
example, is it
>really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct
to
>say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
>reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high
>today". Or is it?
>
>And it seems silly to me to say "HI, HI" instead of just laughing.
Should
>this term be used on phone?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Ian Stirling, G4ICV, AB2GR

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by Hank Kohl K8DD-2

On Monday 13 June 2005 09:49, Hank Kohl K8DD wrote:

> 73's makes me cringe ..... even more than the occasional use of 10-4!
> Far as I'm concerned it is 7 3 - not seventy three.

Cringe squared - forming a plural of an abbreviation
with an apostrophe is cringing in itself.

Ian
--
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

W7RY

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by Hank Kohl K8DD-2

You beat me to it!!!

What does 73 mean? It means "best regards"

I think 73's got started from 11 meters.... "3's and 8's to ya" And then
there is new operators that are using "personal" instead of name.

That one really gets me. My guess, proper usage of the English language is
out the window!

73
Jim W7RY

At 06:49 AM 6/13/2005, Hank Kohl K8DD wrote:

>Sandy wrote:
>
>>| | I don't think this is OT, but it may be. However, I think it will be
>>of | sufficient interest to post.
>>| The term: "73s" is kind of corruption of "73". Most people ignore
>>the grammatical
>>err or implication of it and go on.
>>
>>| I don't wish to be a horse's patootey, but this is a pet peeve of
>>mine. The | term "73" translates to "best regards", so expressing it as
>>"73's" or | "seventy-thirds" is inappropriate. That would translate to
>>"best regardses".
>>
>
>I don't have much of an opinion on Q signals on the phone bands .... Used
>properly they are ok when
>they take less time than the "spoken equivalent"!
>
>(OF mode on)
>
>73's makes me cringe ..... even more than the occasional use of 10-4!
>Far as I'm concerned it is 7 3 - not seventy three.
>7 3 (seven three)
>Hank K8DD
>
>(OF mode off)
>_______________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Post to: [hidden email]
>You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Thom LaCosta

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by We5f

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Also, I'm still searching for a definitive answer to the question of whether
> it is appropriate to use Q-signals in phone transmissions. For example, is it
> really appropriate to say "QRZ? this is K5XXX". Or would it be correct to
> say "Who is calling me, this is K5XXX"? Of course, using a Q-signal by
> reference would be appropriate, such as "The QRN level is very high today". Or is it?

If the goal is communicate with efficiency, then QRZ? spken takes less time than
"Who is calling me?"

73,Thom-k3hrn
www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page,
Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel
Elecraft Owners Database
www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Stephen W. Kercel

Re: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by W7RY

Jim:

As with many of the quirky customs of radiotelegraph, 73 arose back in the
days of the land line railroad telegraph. In other words, there are about
160 years of tradition behind it. There is no such thing as 73's, or 73s.
Such an expression would be equivalent to "best regardses."

It is worth mentioning that the quirky customs of radio CW, especially
those inherited from the railroad telegraph, are part of its charm. Those
of us who are really emotional about CW are much attracted to such features
as charm and tradition.

It is not the case that proper usage of the English language is out the
window. Radiotelegraphic practice, with its Q signals, the practice of
sending N instead of 9, borrowings from foreign languages, such as using
the French "DE" for "from," and so on, are a kind of international pidgin
language in its own right. For example, I speak no Russian, and most
Russians speak no English. Nevertheless, using these traditional signs and
symbols I can (and often do) have extended, albeit rudimentary,
conversations with Russian hams that go well beyond simply saying "RST 569
73 DSW VA."

I know of no instance when any practice from CB has ever found its way into
ham CW operation. Certainly, if such a thing were to arise, I would be in
the forefront of the movement to stamp it out.

I have virtually no experience with ham voice modes, and absolutely no
experience whatsoever with CB. Thus, I have no idea of the extent to which
CB affects ham phone operations. My comment on CB is that CB operating
practices have no place in the ham bands. Period.

As far as legitimate ham voice operation is concerned, it naively seems to
me that the more plain English one uses the better. That having been said,
the sense that I get from the members of my local radio club, who are
especially fond of using handheld VHF transceivers and repeaters, is that
they have their own secret "repeater talk," that is practical for repeater
operation, but is incomprehensible to those of us not in the game.

73,

Steve Kercel
AA4AK

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

EricJ-2

RE: Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

In reply to this post by We5f

Dan, I spent 30 years in publishing as a writer, editor and vice president
(google "Eric Jorgensen" for a few books). Jargon is an important part of
communication in the publishing industry. No doubt you have run into sigs,
folios, lead (the metal, as in spacing) and more colorful terms in your
writing career. Everyone "in the know" in publishing knows what "12 points
of lead" means. Why don't they say "0.167 inches of spacing between lines"?
Because it is meaningless to a group that knows the jargon. It is not
well-defined, but in the context of the group it carries full meaning. QRM,
QRN, Hi, How copy?, all carry full meaning in the context of ham radio QSOs
(See? There's another that instantly conveyed to you and any other ham what
I meant).

Furthermore, if someone doesn't want to use the jargon and slang, concrete
ways of participating in and embracing the ham radio culture, then why would
we want them in the group at all!? If hearing it alienates them and turns
them away, so be it. A strong sense of community and culture is what has
differentiated hams as a group for a very long time. Otherwise we are just a
bunch of electronic hobbyists. We don't WANT everyone to be a ham.

The recent interview with Wayne Burdick in a Northern California (Santa
Cruz, I think), newspaper was linked on the reflector a few weeks ago. The
writer of this excellent article referred to hams being "close-knit and
enthusiastic" as a group. Our culture and community binds us. Jargon is an
integral part of this process.

Eric
KE6US

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Romanchik [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 11:12 AM
To: EricJ
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Use of Abbreviations (OT?)

Quite the contrary. Jargon, by its very nature, is not well-defined. What
you think you mean when you use some jargon is often not what the person
listening receives.
That's why nearly every writing book you will read discourages its use. You
think you're communicating, but the message isn't getting through.

You say that if someone doesn't want to use jargon they are distancing
themselves from the group. In reality, it works the other way. The use of
jargon alienates and turns away those who are not "in the know." I don't
think we want to be doing that.

Best regards,
Dan KB6NU
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com