 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009One military person is a "troop"?
On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported that "three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear that they were referring to three individual servicemen (or servicewomen: they did not specify the gender). This usage seems strange. Perce Perce Cassidy queries: > "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] > ... This usage seems strange. It's been around for a while, all the same. During the thread here on this subject in 2001, an example was posted from the War of 1812 (the one in North America) where General Brock (the guy that Brockville, Ontario, is named after) referred to "700 troops".  SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "History will be kind to me, for I intend msb@vex.net to write it." -- Churchill >Perce Cassidy queries: >> "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(the one in North America) where General Brock (the guy that Brockville, >Ontario, is named after) referred to "700 troops". Interesting, though, that dictionary.com does not show usage for a single soldier, who would, I think, rightly be a "trooper". I'll have to drag out my COED and the high-strength magnifier that came with it once I've had my Wheaties and my spinach... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>Perce Cassidy queries: >>> "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'll have to drag out my COED and the high-strength magnifier > that came with it once I've had my Wheaties and my spinach... Trooper is usually reserved for an individual cavalryman. Also troop as a unit denotes a cavalry platoon. But troops for soldiers is generic. >>>Perce Cassidy queries: >>>> "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Also troop as a unit denotes a cavalry platoon. >But troops for soldiers is generic. I think almost everyone realizes that "troops" for "soldiers" is a sort of generic term, but the question is, is "troop" generic for "soldier"? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>Perce Cassidy queries: >>>>> "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a sort of generic term, but the question is, is "troop" generic > for "soldier"? The usage mentioned in the thread was "troops" not troop. "three troops were killed." so what is your point because no-one has used troop for a soldier? >>>>>Perce Cassidy queries: >>>>>> "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >so what is your point because no-one has used troop for a soldier? "Troops" is generally a collective sort of noun. To say "three troops were killed" implies that one troop might also be killed. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [ ... ] > "Troops" is generally a collective sort of noun. To say "three > troops were killed" implies that one troop might also be killed. Except that everyone seems to know that in actual usage "troop" does not mean "one soldier." So the implication is false. Just as it was the last time we had a long thread on this very dull subject. And the time before that. It's like asking what the singular of "people" is. We can play all sorts of definitional games (ask Bob Cunningham), but fluent native speakers know the usage. SignatureBob Lieblich FNS >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Except that everyone seems to know that in actual usage "troop" does >not mean "one soldier." So the implication is false. You don't know that it's false unless you can show the writer has never used "troop" for jsut one person. And see Varela's post. >Just as it was >the last time we had a long thread on this very dull subject. And the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sorts of definitional games (ask Bob Cunningham), but fluent native >speakers know the usage. This is alt.usage.english where lots of time is spent playing definitional games. That's pretty much part of the group's raison d'etre. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > definitional games. That's pretty much part of the group's raison > d'etre. Yabbut. You would, I trust, feel inclined to correct an English-learner who saw a solitary soldier and said "There's a troop". SignatureMike. >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Yabbut. You would, I trust, feel inclined to correct an English-learner >who saw a solitary soldier and said "There's a troop". But if he saw three soldiers and he said "There are three troops," you'd have to admit that he had a certain level of common misusage to back him up. I've read in newspapers that a certain number of troops were killed. I'm not sure the certain number has been as low as two, but I'm pretty certain it never has been one. Eleven troops were killed: not surprising. Three troops were killed: maybe. Two troops were killed: not likely, One troop was killed: never? SignatureEgbert White | You can fool some of the people some of the WAme | time -- and that's enough to make a decent | living. (W.C.Fields) >>>> [ ... ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Two troops were killed: not likely, > One troop was killed: never? Sure. I did mention that in my earlier response: I accept "troops" with small numbers rather reluctantly, because it's now so frequent, and won't use it in the singular...I've just looked, and find that OED has no example at all with a specific number, so perhaps even with the large numbers I find easily acceptable it's quite a recent usage. SignatureMike. >Sure. I did mention that in my earlier response: I accept "troops" with >small numbers rather reluctantly, because it's now so frequent, and >won't use it in the singular...I've just looked, and find that OED has >no example at all with a specific number, so perhaps even with the large >numbers I find easily acceptable it's quite a recent usage. All this reminded me of the usage, "state trooper", referring to a member of an American state's statewide police forces. It's never "state troop". But it also raised the thought that state highway patrol officers and state police officers are sometimes referred to as "state troopers", but I don't know if that is, in fact, the legal title in any state. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Sure. I did mention that in my earlier response: I accept "troops" with >> small numbers rather reluctantly, because it's now so frequent, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > referred to as "state troopers", but I don't know if that is, in > fact, the legal title in any state. Still, I would assume they were originally mounted. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Sure. I did mention that in my earlier response: I accept "troops" with >>> small numbers rather reluctantly, because it's now so frequent, and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Still, I would assume they were originally mounted. Interesting surmise, and perhaps once upon a time some state police forces was mounted. But I tried to google for 'state trooper' and discovered taht many state police units call themselves "tropers" but do not actually have that name. Along the lines, "Apply to become a state trooper. Take the state police exam." There's a web site called http://www.statetroopersdirectory.com, but the actual page is labelled "Official directory of state patrrol and state police." Only Alaska apparently officially calls them "state tropers" My father was one of the original Ohio State Highway Patrolmen in when the patrol ws first established in Oio in the mid-1930s, and they enver did ride horses. Alabama has the Alabama Highway Patrol, but their shoulder patch calls them "trooper". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Interesting surmise, and perhaps once upon a time some state > police forces was mounted. But I tried to google for 'state [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > patrrol and state police." Only Alaska apparently officially > calls them "state tropers" > Alabama has the Alabama Highway Patrol, but their shoulder patch > calls them "trooper". In Missouri, it's the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Individual patrol members are called Troopers: <http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions/HRD/Trooper/tr oopCareer.html> The term "troop" is used for the unit that patrols a particular section of the state. I live in Troop C's area. <http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions/TroopHeadquart ers/TroopC/index.html> Brian SignatureDay 92 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project > Sure. I did mention that in my earlier response: I accept "troops" > with small numbers rather reluctantly, because it's now so frequent, > and won't use it in the singular...I've just looked, and find that > OED has no example at all with a specific number, so perhaps even > with the large numbers I find easily acceptable it's quite a recent > usage. I see "a hundred Troops of Horse" (which could be raed either way) in the 1709 _Annals of the Universe_ and "four hundred Troops", refering to the occupants of four ships, which would, I would think, be individuals, in Josiah Burchett's 1720 A Complete History Of the most REMARKABLE TRANSACTIONS AT SEA, from the Earliest ACCOUNTS of Time To the Conclusion of the LAST WAR with FRANCE, WHEREIN Is given an ACCOUNT of the most considerable Naval-Expeditions, Sea-Fights, Strategems, Discoveries, AND Other MARITIME OCCURENCES that have happen'd among all NATIONS which have flourished at SET: And in a more particular manner of GREAT BRITAIN, from the time of the REVOLUTION, in the Year 1688, to the aforesaid Period You just ton't get titles like that anymore. There are several other hits for "hundred troops" from the 1730s and 1740s and more later in the century. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I see "a hundred Troops of Horse" (which could be raed either way) in > the 1709 _Annals of the Universe_ and "four hundred Troops", refering [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > hits for "hundred troops" from the 1730s and 1740s and more later in > the century. Let's just all pretend I can type, okay? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On May 3, 4:02 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > small numbers rather reluctantly, because it's now so frequent, and > won't use it in the singular... ... When this subject came up "on another network" twenty-some years ago, a U. S. Army veteran said he remembered singular "troop" as slang c. 1960 (I think). "That looks like a pretty strac troop" meaning "That fellow looks like a soldier who adheres scrupulously to the regulations." Of course that's facetious. "Strac" seems to still exist. Fr. Ig quoted it here in 2006: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_frm/thread/995ee7ed7691e a80/575f5f97c1325f7b?lnk=gst&q=strac#575f5f97c1325f7b It's also in Wikipedia, though not at the 'pedia's most believable level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Army_Corps#Other_Definitions -- Jerry Friedman > It's like asking what the singular of "people" is. Peep? See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peeps and scroll all the way to the bottom. If "peeps" is plural then surely "peep" is singular. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Perce Cassidy queries: >> "three troops were killed." [meaning three individuals] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (the one in North America) where General Brock (the guy that > Brockville, Ontario, is named after) referred to "700 troops". I suspect that it's a reanalysis of a form that goes back at least about fifty years earlier: About five hundred of the King's Troops were killed, but what Loss the Enemy sustained he could never find out. G[eorge] W[ollaston], _The Life and History of a Pilgrim_, 1753 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported that >"three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear that >they were referring to three individual servicemen (or servicewomen: >they did not specify the gender). And how many of their horses? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported that >"three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear that >they were referring to three individual servicemen (or servicewomen: >they did not specify the gender). Another thought... In another thread there was a discussion about "private" -- a rank in the infantry. In the cavalry or mounted infantry the equivalent of "private" is "trooper", and in the artillery it is "gunner". A troop is a group of troopers, I think under a Lieutenant, and I think the equivalent in the infantry is a platoon. So perhaps three platoons were killed. Are there experts in military terminology here who can confirm this? My great-grandfather was a Lieutenant in the Natal Native Horse in the Anglo-Zulu War, and I think he had three troops under him, consisting of 50 men (each?) and their horses. But probably each country has its own ranks and terminology. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported that >>"three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > But probably each country has its own ranks and terminology. My older brother was in the Royal Horse Artillery in WW2, his Regiment ,3rd RHA was composed of batteries using self propelled guns in support of the 7th Armoured Division. His rank was Gunner, there is however a King's Troop of the RHA, I don't know whether they are troopers or gunners. >On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported that >"three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear that >they were referring to three individual servicemen (or servicewomen: >they did not specify the gender). > >This usage seems strange. In BrE, at least, "troops" is, amongst other things, a generic term for military personnel. It's the norm to hear commentators talk about (e.g.) "the deployment of 1500 more troops to Afghanistan". If the speaker went into detail, they might talk about "combat troops", "support troops", "front-line troops", "ground troops" or half a dozen other, similar phrases. It's unusual to hear it used to described such small numbers, though. Cheers - Ian > In BrE, at least, "troops" is, amongst other things, a generic term > for military personnel. It's the norm to hear commentators talk about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's unusual to hear it used to described such small numbers, though. We've had this conversation before, and I mentioned then that I've heard "troop" used to address one person. "You ready for lunch, Troop?" In fact I think I've done it myself. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> In BrE, at least, "troops" is, amongst other things, a generic term >> for military personnel. It's the norm to hear commentators talk >> about (e.g.) "the deployment of 1500 more troops to Afghanistan". >> If the speaker went into detail, they might talk about "combat >> troops", "support troops", "front-line troops", "ground troops" or >> half a dozen other, similar phrases. >> It's unusual to hear it used to described such small numbers, >> though. > We've had this conversation before, and I mentioned then that I've > heard "troop" used to address one person. "You ready for lunch, > Troop?" In fact I think I've done it myself. That looks as if it could be shortened from "trooper". If so, it would indicate another possible route from plural to singular use: the short form of familiar address. Hi, Prof; hi, Teach; hi Coop; hi, Troop. >>> In BrE, at least, "troops" is, amongst other things, a generic term >>> for military personnel. It's the norm to hear commentators talk [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >short form of familiar address. Hi, Prof; hi, Teach; hi Coop; hi, >Troop. But "professor" and "teacher" are singular forms and your abbreviated versions are not derived from a plural form. "Teach" is not short for "teachers" but for "teacher". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> In BrE, at least, "troops" is, amongst other things, a generic >>>> term for military personnel. It's the norm to hear commentators >>>> talk about (e.g.) "the deployment of 1500 more troops to >>>> Afghanistan". If the speaker went into detail, they might talk >>>> about "combat troops", "support troops", "front-line troops", >>>> "ground troops" or half a dozen other, similar phrases. >>>> It's unusual to hear it used to described such small numbers, >>>> though. >>> We've had this conversation before, and I mentioned then that I've >>> heard "troop" used to address one person. "You ready for lunch, >>> Troop?" In fact I think I've done it myself. >> That looks as if it could be shortened from "trooper". If so, it >> would indicate another possible route from plural to singular use: >> the short form of familiar address. Hi, Prof; hi, Teach; hi Coop; >> hi, Troop. > But "professor" and "teacher" are singular forms and your > abbreviated versions are not derived from a plural form. "Teach" > is not short for "teachers" but for "teacher". Yes, just as this "Troop" is short for the singular "Trooper". There is a difference in the endings, but I don't think it's between singular and plural. The endings of the other words are agentive, at least etymologically, and the "-er" of "trooper" isn't (I think). A trooper belongs to or in a troop, as a Montrealer belongs to Montreal. Of course, it's true that the shortened forms of the other words don't have another use as collective nouns. My thought was that the habit of hearing single troopers addressed familiarly as "Troop", a usage John has attested to above, might have made the transition from collective plural to singular easier in other contexts. It's speculation: "another possible route", as I said. > My thought was that the habit of hearing single troopers addressed > familiarly as "Troop", a usage John has attested to above, might have > made the transition from collective plural to singular easier in other > contexts. It's speculation: "another possible route", as I said. To clarify, I've never heard "troop" used in any formal situation. I've heard it used informally, as between co-workers asking about going to lunch. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> My thought was that the habit of hearing single troopers addressed >> familiarly as "Troop", a usage John has attested to above, might >> have made the transition from collective plural to singular easier >> in other contexts. It's speculation: "another possible route", as >> I said. > To clarify, I've never heard "troop" used in any formal situation. > I've heard it used informally, as between co-workers asking about > going to lunch. Understood. > On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported > that "three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear > that they were referring to three individual servicemen (or > servicewomen: they did not specify the gender). > > This usage seems strange. We have had numerous discussion of this topic. In Sept, 2005, Sept, 2008, to mention the more frequent ones. I see "troop of horse" (in Google) in Sept, 2007, but that conversation doesn't mention individual soldiers. >> On the NPR news this morning (or was it yesterday?) it was reported >> that "three troops were killed." The more detailed report made clear [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Google) in Sept, 2007, but that conversation doesn't mention > individual soldiers. We do see it used often enough for very small numbers in the way quoted from NPR, so I think we can accept it. Personally, though, I'd rarely use it for small numbers, and in reference to a single soldier I don't hesitate to say it's a mistake in written English. SignatureMike. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.