WORKING GROUP MILITARY TERMINOLOGY

1. WORKING GROUP MILITARY TERMINOLOGY Based on STUDY GROUP 3 BILC Conference VILNIUS May 2011 PRAGUE May 2012

2. 1.Situation • AAP-6 is not satisfying Many terms that require definitions, e.g. in ATP-3.2.1, are not listed in AAP-6. • Many dictionaries, wordlists, glossaries ………….,with inconsistencies existing. • Updating process takes much time! • Cannot rely on NSA only.

3. 2. Guidelines for national WG • Start with ATP-3.2.1 Allied Land Tactics (9 Nov 2009) • Extract those terms that require definitions from the perspective of a non-military language teacher or translator. • Terms contained in ATP-3.2.1 but not listed in AAP-6 could primarily be taken from JP 1-02. • Unless listed there, they could be taken from FM 1-02. • Unless listed in AAP-6, JP 1-02, FM 1-02 or similar national documents, terms are quoted with no definition. • Terms quoted with no definition in any of the proposed documents are to be defined by the working group in English, considering the context of ATP 3.2.1 • National working groups must include linguistic and military experts. • Continue with AJP-01 (D) dated 21 Dec 2010

4. 3. Evaluation • WG results are to be posted on the BILC website. • Evaluation has to be done by military English native speakers. = Evaluation committee task: - avoid multiple entries - proofread for plausibility

5. 5.Way Ahead • Evaluated results in English to be published on BILC website. • Nations establish equivalencies in their languages on the English basis of ATP-3.2.1 and AAP-6. (only for national training purposes aiming at Interop) • Benefit for national teachers and translators from a multilingual database. • Later on: NSA process • Same procedure applies to AJP-01 (D).

6. 6.WG Meeting PRAGUE 2012 • After discussion about problems (first results)Agreed: • XLS-Template works out for the purpose

8. Agreed: • Term is extracted if civilian teacher/translator does not understand its meaning in a military context

9. Agreed: • In the teams working on the respective chapters the civilian member designates terms to be extracted, the military expert provides the explanation and the linguist formulates the definition according to ISO 2704 (if not already given in authoritative documents)

10. Agreed: Terms occurring in the definition or explanation supposedly unfamiliar to civilians have to be marked (e.g. mission-type order) and adopted as entries in the term list.

11. 7. Timelines AJP-01 (D) Terminology liststo be sent to AUT by 21 Oct 2012

12. ATP-3.2.1 SitRep:BLED 2012 • 1. AUT: The Employment of Land Forces • 2. GBR: Conceptual Frameworks for the Conduct of Tactical Activities: Battlespace, Functional and Operational Frameworks • 3. BEL: Types of Tactical Forces • 4. POL: Tactical Planning Considerations • 5. EST: Tactical Offensive Activities • 6. DNK: Tactical Defensive Activities • 7. ITA: Tactical Stability Activities • 8. DNK: Tactical Enabling Activities • 9. CZE: Operations in Specific Environments and Circumstances

13. 8.Way Ahead with AJP-01 (D) • Evaluated results in English to be published on BILC website. • Nations establish equivalencies in their languages on the English basis of ATP-3.2.1 and AAP-6. (only for national training purposes aiming at Interop) • Benefit for national teachers and translators from a multilingual database. • Later on: NSA process • Same procedure applies to AJP-01 (D).

14. AJP-01 (D) chapters to be allocated Chapter 1 The Alliance Doctrine Chapter 2 NATO´s Position Within the Global Security Environment Chapter 3 Alliance Structures and Military Forces Chapter 4 The Strategic Level Chapter 5 Campaigning Chapter 6 Command and Control of Operations

15. There are only 6 chapters. AJP-01(D) Don‘t hesitate - Apply for one!

16. POC POC for WG Terminology and Translation: horst.walther@bmlvs.gv.at josef.ernst@bmlvs.gv.at and CC: juergen.kotzian@bmlvs.gv.at

17. „I’m going home“