TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Origin of phonetic alphabet From:"Dave L. Meek's User Account" <dave -at- ROGUE -dot- DISC-SYNERGY -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:01:27 -0700
Beverly Parks wrote:
>I know the pronunciation of Quebec is often debated, but if it
>is not pronounced kwa-bek', how then is it phonetic? Kay-bek' is
>no phonetically different than kee'-lo (as far as the sound of
>the initial consonant).
>Maybe "Quebec" is just a poor choice to represent Q in a
>phonetic alphabet. Perhaps a word like "quality," "question,"
>or "queen" would be a better choice.
>If someone were relaying information to me and said "al'-fa,
>lee'-ma, kay-bec'", Q would not be the letter that comes to my
>mind with that pronunciation.
I spent 8 years as a US Navy Airborne Communications Officer, and
the pronunciation we used was "kay-bek." Apparently, the letter
"Q" doesn't have a unique sound, and there is no word "kabek."
Also, the hard "kay" sound is more distinguishable over radio
than the softer "kwa" sound, especially when sun spots create
excessive static. When you say "kay-bek," there's only one word
that even comes close, and that's Quebec.
At least, that's how it was explained to me.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dave Meek "Imagine Whirled Peas"
