从‘telegraphy (电报）’到 ‘twittergraphy (xx) - 纽约时报文章

[远洋过客]

摘要转贴纽约时报文章：twittergraphy --( 还不知道怎样翻译， 希望高手指点)
因为怕有些朋友见不到原文，所以转贴在此。

郑重声明：
1， 我们这些跟‘encoding standards (编码标准）‘打交道的人，只是关心那些将要流行于各种[自然]语言的Twitter的密电码的可互操作性和理解性以及人际交流中翻译的效率与准确性问题，（这应该算够人文或理论了吧），绝没有半点赞成用这个技术去‘破坏'人类社会的想法。
2，‘电报(telegraphy)‘不是被‘twittergraphy‘取代的，所以希望不要将二者像‘手工目录'与‘Web-OPAC‘那样比来比去。

-------------------------------------------------
New York Times
OP-ED GUEST COLUMNIST

Twittergraphyhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/opinion/03schott.html?em


By BEN SCHOTT


Published: August 2, 2009
"A version of this article appeared in print on August 3, 2009, on page A16 of the New York edition."

The 140-character limit of Twitter posts was guided by the 160-character limit established by the developers of SMS. However, there is nothing new about new technology imposing restrictions on articulation. During the late 19th-century telegraphy boom, some carriers charged extra for words longer than 15 characters and for messages longer than 10 words. Thus, the cheapest telegram was often limited to 150 characters.

Concerns for economy, as well as a desire for secrecy, fueled a boom in telegraphic code books that reduced both common and complex phrases into single words. Dozens of different codes were published; many catered to specific occupations and all promised efficiency.

The phrases below are from the third edition of “The Anglo-American Telegraphic Code,” published in 1891. It can only be hoped that, as Twitter advances, more people will begin Tweeting in code, thus:

希望见到过中文Twitter密电码的同行分享中文版本。谢谢。