Dave, I read your article on the use of the word “Roger” in radio communications. As a Ham Radio operator my comment is as follows:

Although, according to OED II, the verbal use of “Roger” to indicate a correctly understood message may date to WWII, the use of the letter “R” to indicate the reception of a correct transmission dates back to the 19th century. Telegraphers and later, CW radio operators, used (and still do) “R” to mean: “Received as transmitted”. Since the old phonetic alphabet was Roger for the letter “R”, it is not too much of a stretch to believe that the word “Roger” was used in early voice transmissions, where the reception of a complete communications was iffy, at best. More research needs to be done into Amateur Radio history to verify this, however. I will see if I can find some early records of voice transmissions.

Rich

Edited for clarity.

Is it true that the expression “over and out” was invented by Hollywood and that no radio operator would ever say it?

What entry in the OED has the 19th century telegraphy uses? I can’t find it.

And as far as over and out being “invented” by Hollywood, that’s a bit too much. It is not correct radio procedure, but that doesn’t mean that radio operators don’t use it. Hollywood and the media certainly perpetuate it among those who have not been trained in radio procedure, but I don’t think they “invented” it.

The only examples of “R” standing for “received” that I can find in the OED2 entry for “R” is in abbreviations for “received pronunciation” or the similar terms “received standard” and “received speech”.  This is a very different sense of “received”.

FWIW, it’s listed as a ‘logging abbreviation’ at http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Received+(logging+abbreviation)

And I can’t see how to do links.

Use the button with the “a” between angle brackets.

In answer to bayard’s question: “Never, ever!  use the term ‘over and out’. You may see it used a lot on TV but it is never used in real life radio communications.”—http://www.ukmaritime.org.uk/Radiotraining/Training%20Tips.htm

Another site remarks that the two terms are never used together because they have opposite implications.  “Over” implies “Go ahead, it’s your turn to talk” while “out” implies “this conversation is over”.

Didn’t use the <a>, but it seems to have worked anyway.

kurwamac - 06 March 2007 02:48 PM

Didn’t use the <a>, but it seems to have worked anyway.

I ran a test over in the Test Forum and just putting in a url automatically generates a link.

Using the <a> lets you give the link a better name.

I edited the OP for clarity. Sorry for the confusion, it was at the end of a long day.

Rich

related note: i heard within the last five years a corious usage of military-alphabet speak… one Army guy was on his hand-held radio requesting information and when he received it over the radio, he replied with “roger tango”.  The “tango” really threw me, knowing of course what the “roger"” meant.  So I had to inquire… “tango”?  He explained it was short for “thanks”.

link of interest…
http://www.militaryconnection.com/military-alphabet.asp

Many years ago, I was a radio operator in the Israel Defence Forces. Some of our equipment dated from WW2. The most reliable form of radio communication was by Morse code on carrier wave. The signal for “received” was “dot-dash-dot” --- in Hebrew, the letter “resh”; in English-language code, the letter “R”. This was a borrowing - “resh” does not stand for any applicable Hebrew word. We used “dash-dot-dash” (K) for “over” and “dot-dash-dot-dash-dot” for “out”

Wkipedia has a fascinating, and very detailed, article on phonetic alphabets, by someone obviously very well informed. It even lists the WW1 phonetic alphabet used by telephonists in the trenches, which gave rise to such long-lived expressions as “ack-ack” (anti-aircraft fire), “pip-emma” (PM). It also tells the moving story of Vietnam POW Jeremiah Denton.