1 / 7

WORKING GROUP MILITARY TERMINOLOGY

WORKING GROUP MILITARY TERMINOLOGY. Based on STUDY GROUP 3 BILC Conference VILNIUS May 2011. PRAGUE 2012. 1.Situation. 2.1 AAP-6 is not satisfying Many terms that require definitions, e.g. in ATP-3.2.1, are not listed in AAP-6. 2.2 Many dictionaries, wordlists, glossaries

stian
Download Presentation

WORKING GROUP MILITARY TERMINOLOGY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 1.Situation • 2.1 AAP-6 is not satisfying Many terms that require definitions, e.g. in ATP-3.2.1, are not listed in AAP-6. • 2.2 Many dictionaries, wordlists, glossaries • ………….,with inconsistencies existing. • 2.3 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.

  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. 4. Timelines

  6. 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

  7. ATP-3.2.1: SitRep for the WG AUT: The Employment of Land Forces GBR: Conceptual Frameworks for the Conduct of Tactical Activities: Battlespace, Functional and Operational Frameworks Types of Tactical Forces Tactical Planning Considerations EST: Tactical Offensive Activities DAN: Tactical Defensive Activities Tactical Stability Activities Tactical Enabling Activities CZE: Operations in Specific Enviroments and Circumstances

More Related