WORKING
GROUP
MILITARY
TERMINOLOGY
Based on
STUDY GROUP 3
BILC Conference VILNIUS May 2011
PRAGUE May 2012
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.
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
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.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.WG Meeting PRAGUE 2012
• After discussion about problems
(first results)
Agreed:
• XLS-Template works out for the
purpose
• Agreed:
• Term is extracted if civilian
teacher/translator does not
understand its meaning in a
military context
• 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)
•Agreed:
Terms occurring in the definition
or explanation supposedly
unfamiliar to civilians have to
be marked (e.g.  missiontype order) and adopted as
entries in the term list.
7. Timelines
Oct 2011
MAY2011
Oct 2011
st
1 results
Presentation
results
nat. WG
INPUT
MONTEREY
BILC-Conf
2012
result
BILC-ProfSem
2012
BILC-Conf
2013
AJP-01 (D)
Terminology lists
to be sent to AUT
by 21 Oct 2012
ATP-3.2.1 SitRep:
BLED 2012
1. AUT:
2. GBR:
The Employment of Land Forces
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
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).
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
There are only 6 chapters.
AJP-01(D)
Don‘t hesitate - Apply for one!
POC
POC for
WG Terminology and
Translation:
horst.walther@bmlvs.gv.at
josef.ernst@bmlvs.gv.at
and CC:
juergen.kotzian@bmlvs.gv.at
„I’m going home“