"Troop" = how many?
Douwe Egbert
they said, and the others retreated higher up the mountains."
--NY Times
My dictionary says a "troop" is an assemblage.
When did it change meaning?
-- Douwe
Donna Richoux
I remember being confused by this military use around 1970, when I was
old enough to begin reading news reports of the Vietnam War. Before
then, I only knew of Boy Scout troops and "F Troop," the TV show; both
of those refer to groups.
Merriam-Webster shows "troops" in the plural to mean "soldiers" as the
third meaning, historically. It's always plural. You never see, as far
as I know, "one troop" being used to mean "one soldier," although logic
would force that conclusion. "Troops" in this sense is a rare thing, a
plural with no singular.
I don't know how old it is; perhaps someone will check the OED. But I
know that Ulysses Grant, in his "Memoirs" about the US Civil War,
routinely uses "the troops" to mean "the soldiers," not "the little
bands of soldiers." I don't quickly see any example that illustrates
that beyond all doubt, but he says things like (from the On-Line Books
version):
The troops waded the stream, which was up to their necks in the
deepest part.
The army was not accompanied by a pontoon train, and at that time
the troops were not instructed in bridge building.
The troops would take up their march at an early hour each day...
Still, the meaning of "a group" is older than the meaning of "the
soldiers"; there must have been a gradual semantic shift long ago.
Anyway, when you see "troops" in military reports, substitute
"soldiers."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Spehro Pefhany
> I don't know how old it is; perhaps someone will check the OED.
OED has 1598 and 1605 for this sense of "troops". The latter quote is from
King Lear:
Reg. Faith he is poasted hence on serious matter:
It was great ignorance, Glousters eyes being out
To let him liue. Where he arriues, he moues
All hearts against vs: Edmund, I thinke is gone
In pitty of his misery, to dispatch
His nighted life: Moreouer to descry
The strength o'th'Enemy.
Stew. I must needs after him, Madam, with my Letter. [2400]
Reg. Our troopes set forth to morrow, stay with vs:
The wayes are dangerous.
There is also "trooper" for one soldier of a troop.
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
/.-.\
(( * ))
\\ // Please help if you can:
\\\ http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
//\\\
/// \\\
\/ \/
Spooky Guy Next Door
(tr...@euronet.nl) posted the following...
> Douwe Egbert <Do...@wassup.com> wrote:
>
> > "Four Arab Al Qaeda troops were killed during the battle,
> > they said, and the others retreated higher up the mountains."
> >
> > --NY Times
> >
> > My dictionary says a "troop" is an assemblage.
> > When did it change meaning?
>
> I remember being confused by this military use around 1970, when I was
> old enough to begin reading news reports of the Vietnam War. Before
> then, I only knew of Boy Scout troops and "F Troop," the TV show; both
> of those refer to groups.
They used to show "F Troop" here on WIN-TV for a bit during the
afternoons, but then they dropped it. Bastards. 'Twas a good show =)
> Merriam-Webster shows "troops" in the plural to mean "soldiers" as the
> third meaning, historically. It's always plural. You never see, as far
> as I know, "one troop" being used to mean "one soldier," although logic
> would force that conclusion. "Troops" in this sense is a rare thing, a
> plural with no singular.
"Trooper" is occasionally used as singular, but it's usually "soldier".
--
The ideas expressed in the above post are my own, with the possible
exception of the one involving a scarecrow and a stick of butter.
blog - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/
cyberfuddle - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/
learn HTML - http://smiley.vh.mewl.net/markhtml/
Apurbva Chandra Senray
I know, Douwe. This is one of my pet peeves. It drives me buggy
when "troop" is used to mean "soldier."
Mickwick
>The renowned Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>> I don't know how old it is; perhaps someone will check the OED.
>
>OED has 1598 and 1605 for this sense of "troops". The latter quote is from
>King Lear:
>
> Reg. Faith he is poasted hence on serious matter:
> It was great ignorance, Glousters eyes being out
> To let him liue. Where he arriues, he moues
> All hearts against vs: Edmund, I thinke is gone
> In pitty of his misery, to dispatch
> His nighted life: Moreouer to descry
> The strength o'th'Enemy.
> Stew. I must needs after him, Madam, with my Letter. [2400]
> Reg. Our troopes set forth to morrow, stay with vs:
> The wayes are dangerous.
>
>There is also "trooper" for one soldier of a troop.
Trooper used to be reserved for a cavalryman, I think. I recently read a
book about the English Civil War which contained a sentence referring to
'troopers and soldiers', where the former were mounted and latter on
foot, but I can't remember if the words were in a 17th century quote or
were written by the 20th century author.
--
Mickwick
John Varela
> You never see, as far
> as I know, "one troop" being used to mean "one soldier," although logic
> would force that conclusion. "Troops" in this sense is a rare thing, a
> plural with no singular.
Troop, singular, is sometimes used as a familiar form of address, like Mac,
Buddy, or Fella. "What're you drinking, Troop?"
--
John Varela
God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and
the United States of America -- Otto von Bismarck
Mike Oliver
> Merriam-Webster shows "troops" in the plural to mean "soldiers" as the
> third meaning, historically. It's always plural. You never see, as far
> as I know, "one troop" being used to mean "one soldier," although logic
> would force that conclusion. "Troops" in this sense is a rare thing, a
> plural with no singular.
What about "cadre"? I always thought that was a group too, but every
now and then you run across "Communist cadre" in a context where it
clearly refers to an individual.
M-W gives as definition 4 for "cadre", "member of a cadre". They don't
say specifically whether they believe in the Axiom of Foundation,
and I guess nothing in their definition really contradicts it.
Douwe Egbert
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1f495qv.nkplh0ahbpr1N%tr...@euronet.nl...
> Douwe Egbert <Do...@wassup.com> wrote:
>
> > "Four Arab Al Qaeda troops were killed during the battle,
> > they said, and the others retreated higher up the mountains."
> >
> > --NY Times
> >
> > My dictionary says a "troop" is an assemblage.
> > When did it change meaning?
>
> I remember being confused by this military use around 1970, when I was
> old enough to begin reading news reports of the Vietnam War. Before
> then, I only knew of Boy Scout troops and "F Troop," the TV show; both
> of those refer to groups.
>
> Merriam-Webster shows "troops" in the plural to mean "soldiers" as the
> third meaning, historically. It's always plural. You never see, as far
> as I know, "one troop" being used to mean "one soldier," although logic
> would force that conclusion. "Troops" in this sense is a rare thing, a
> plural with no singular.
Why do you say that "you never see" it when I have just
cited an example from the New York Times?
--
D E
Douwe Egbert
>
> Merriam-Webster shows "troops" in the plural to mean "soldiers" as the
> third meaning, historically. It's always plural. You never see, as far
> as I know, "one troop" being used to mean "one soldier," although logic
> would force that conclusion. "Troops" in this sense is a rare thing, a
> plural with no singular.
>
Please disregard my earlier question regarding this
comment -- I misunderstood your meaning and I now
see that we are in agreement.
--
D E
Ray Heindl
news:VUnR7.29965$pa1.11...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com:
> The renowned Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>> I don't know how old it is; perhaps someone will check the OED.
>
> OED has 1598 and 1605 for this sense of "troops". The latter quote
> is from King Lear:
>
> Reg. Faith he is poasted hence on serious matter:
> It was great ignorance, Glousters eyes being out
> To let him liue. Where he arriues, he moues
> All hearts against vs: Edmund, I thinke is gone
> In pitty of his misery, to dispatch
> His nighted life: Moreouer to descry
> The strength o'th'Enemy.
> Stew. I must needs after him, Madam, with my Letter. [2400]
> Reg. Our troopes set forth to morrow, stay with vs:
> The wayes are dangerous.
>
> There is also "trooper" for one soldier of a troop.
I ran across a reference to a specific number of troops, which sort of
implies that there can be a single troop, from the War of 1812:
"I hasten to apprize Your Excellency of the Capture of this very
important Post [Fort Detroit] -- 2500 troops have this day surrendered
Prisoners of war.... I had not more than 700 troops including Militia
and about 600 Indians to accomplish this service." -- Major General Sir
Isaac Brock
Another term that's starting to show up as a synonym for 'soldier' is
'force'. This morning's paper had this:
"...a Pentagon official last night confirmed that 'dozens' of Special
Forces were in the area."
The same article refers to "the small group of Special Forces already
in the area", so the 'dozens' presumably doesn't refer to dozens of
groups, but rather dozens of individual soldiers. I've seen similar
uses of 'forces' without the 'special', though I can't locate any at
the moment.
So, when it a soldier not a troop? When he's a force.
--
Ray Heindl
Brian Wickham
Senray) wrote:
When I was in basic training in 1967 it was common to be addressed
individually as "troop" by some instructors. They made a point of not
calling us "soldiers" as we had not finished our training yet.
Another poster mentioned the word "cadre". In Armyspeak a "cadre" is
an assigned person at a military post. The trainees are trained, fed
and administered by cadre. All post cadre in the US Army wear a
distinctive pin on each epaulet, and on the baseball cap if enlisted,
that is not worn by trainees. This, again would be circa 1967-69.
Brian Wickham
Donna Richoux
We're in agreement, but I think there is some confusion here. When I say
you don't see "one troop" to mean "one soldier," I mean that you *don't*
see things like, say, *"The troop fell down and sprained his ankle." It
would have to be "The man fell down" or "The soldier fell down" or
something else, for the true singular.
But yes, we are all in agreement that when the New York Times says "Four
Al Quaida troops were killed" they mean four people, not four groups.
You count the members of the set as individuals. But I wouldn't say that
this implies there can be "a single troop." It's such an odd
construction, a mix of singular and plural, that it's hard to talk
about.
Maybe this is the problem. Usually we think that the singular came first
-- door, river, elbow -- and the plural is made from that -- doors,
rivers, elbows. So if we have a word like "troops" that functions just
like "doors" or "soldiers," it's logical to assume there must have once
been a word like "troop" meaning "one soldier." (The sort of logical
process, in a way, as the one that formed the jokey words "gruntled" and
"kempt" and "heveled.") But that assumption appears to be wrong. The
word "troops" didn't come about because there was ever a singular
"troop" (with that meaning). No, the word came about because there was a
word "troops" with a different meaning (the groups of soldiers) which
had come in its turn from the singular "troop" meaning a group of
soldiers. Long ago, that borrowed "troops" began to stand for the
soldiers themselves. To address the troops, to address the soldiers, to
address the men -- from the commanders' point of view, they would have
been interchangeable.
By the way, I just went back to that on-line text of Grant's Memoirs,
Vol. I, to see if he ever uses the constructions
"troop " with a space, or
"troop," with a comma, or
"troop." with a period.
He doesn't. To me that is evidence he didn't think of "troop" in the
sense of group, like "Boy Scout Troop".
--
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Tony Cooper
What's your reaction when a Brit refers to a "squaddie?
Having served in the army of the U S of A, and heard many a
sergeant, bellow out "Move it, troops!", I am totally inured
to the usage.
Subject switch: The phrases that bother me the most are
when someone refers to his wife as "my bride". She may have
been his bride one day twenty years ago, but she's now his
wife. The second annoying phrase is "my lovely wife". I'll
decide if she's lovely or not. I'm always tempted to say
"Well, she's really not that great looking.", or "Dead right
there. Nice ass, too."
I mean, he opened up the conversational line, didn't he?
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
John Varela
> Another term that's starting to show up as a synonym for 'soldier' is
> 'force'. This morning's paper had this:
> "...a Pentagon official last night confirmed that 'dozens' of Special
> Forces were in the area."
That one really makes me grate my teeth. I even wrote a letter to the
Ombudsman of The Washington Post to complain about it.
Maria Conlon
Tony Cooper wrote
>Subject switch: The phrases that bother me the most are
>when someone refers to his wife as "my bride". She may have
>been his bride one day twenty years ago, but she's now his
>wife.
That one annoys me, too. But it would be worse to hear a married
woman (of wife status, not bride status) refer to her husband as "my
groom."
>...The second annoying phrase is "my lovely wife". I'll
>decide if she's lovely or not.
What if he's obviously very much in love with his wife? Would it
still bother you? Or what if he says "my lovely wife" sarcastically?
Now *that* could pose a problem.
>...I'm always tempted to say
>"Well, she's really not that great looking.", or "Dead right
>there. Nice ass, too."
>I mean, he opened up the conversational line, didn't he?
Most people would advise you, I think, to resist the temptation. The
conversational line might get closed very quickly, and possibly
painfully. For you, that is.
Maria (Tootsie)
Tony Cooper
>
> >...The second annoying phrase is "my lovely wife". I'll
> >decide if she's lovely or not.
>
> What if he's obviously very much in love with his wife? Would it
> still bother you? Or what if he says "my lovely wife" sarcastically?
> Now *that* could pose a problem.
I'm very much in love with my wife, but I don't hold her up
like a butcher saying "Here's a lovely brisket, now."
I am also opposed to saying "my better half". Some things
are self-evident.
Douwe Egbert
"Tony Cooper" wrote :
>
> Having served in the army of the U S of A, and heard many a
> sergeant, bellow out "Move it, troops!", I am totally inured
> to the usage.
>
I never heard it in my Army years (1967-1971). In boot
camp we were addressed individually as "trooper" when
they were being friendly, but I never heard the usage you
describe.
So if you can tell me when this started to be used, you
will have answered my original query.
--
D E
Steve Hayes
A troop in the military sense is roughly about 30-40 men, but in a more
general sense it's an indefinite number. Troops are mainly found among the
artillery and cavalry, while the infantry have platoons. A member of a cavalry
troop is a trooper, equivalent to an infantry private and artillery gunner.
So the report probably means about 150 people were killed.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jitze Couperus
wrote:
>
>A troop in the military sense is roughly about 30-40 men, but in a more
>general sense it's an indefinite number. Troops are mainly found among the
>artillery and cavalry, while the infantry have platoons. A member of a cavalry
>troop is a trooper, equivalent to an infantry private and artillery gunner.
>
Interesting that you chose cavalry, infantry, and artillery as the
branches to cite.
Let's not forget the bombardier, the grenadier, the lancer, the
reiver, and the bundook-wallah.
But what do they call the laddies in the REME? Or the NAAFI
for that matter?
Jitze
Spehro Pefhany
> A troop in the military sense is roughly about 30-40 men, but in a more
> general sense it's an indefinite number. Troops are mainly found among the
> artillery and cavalry, while the infantry have platoons. A member of a cavalry
> troop is a trooper, equivalent to an infantry private and artillery gunner.
The OED says a "troop" of cavalry (a subdivision of a regiment commanded
by a Captain) corresponding to a "company" of "foot" and a "battery"
of artillery, in the military specialist sense.
Elsewhere they say that in the first establishment of horse regiments
after the Restoration, a "troop of horse" was one Captain, one Lieutenant
and sixty Troopers.
Douwe Egbert
"Steve Hayes" wrote :
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:34:04 +1100, "Douwe Egbert" <Do...@wassup.com> wrote:
>
> >"Four Arab Al Qaeda troops were killed during the battle,
> >they said, and the others retreated higher up the mountains."
> >
> >--NY Times
> >
> >My dictionary says a "troop" is an assemblage.
> >When did it change meaning?
>
> A troop in the military sense is roughly about 30-40 men, but in a more
> general sense it's an indefinite number. Troops are mainly found among the
> artillery and cavalry, while the infantry have platoons. A member of a cavalry
> troop is a trooper, equivalent to an infantry private and artillery gunner.
>
> So the report probably means about 150 people were killed.
Well, no, my point is that that is *not* what the reporter
meant. What he meant was four soldiers.
You may or may not be familiar with the longstanding convention
in American reportage of using "troops" generically to refer to
unspecified numbers of soldiers. What I find odd is this reporter's
use of "four troops" to mean "four soldiers."
--
D E
Tony Cooper
I was in boot camp at Ft. Leonard Wood 1962. Obviously, you
were not at the same post since you used the phrase "they
were being friendly".
Tony Cooper
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:34:04 +1100, "Douwe Egbert" <Do...@wassup.com> wrote:
>
> >"Four Arab Al Qaeda troops were killed during the battle,
> >they said, and the others retreated higher up the mountains."
> >
> >--NY Times
> >
> >My dictionary says a "troop" is an assemblage.
> >When did it change meaning?
>
> A troop in the military sense is roughly about 30-40 men, but in a more
> general sense it's an indefinite number. Troops are mainly found among the
> artillery and cavalry, while the infantry have platoons. A member of a cavalry
> troop is a trooper, equivalent to an infantry private and artillery gunner.
>
> So the report probably means about 150 people were killed.
>
I am not under the impression that the Al Qaeda uses the
same system of military units that the U.K, and U.S. uses.
For all we know, a platoon in their army could be three men
and a goat.
Brian Wickham
wrote:
>
Which Army had "boot camp"?
Tony Cooper
Ours. Perhaps you didn't refer to basic training as such,
but the Marines don't have a lock on the term. You're not
the Sergeant of me.
R J Valentine
} Douwe Egbert wrote:
}>
}> "Tony Cooper" wrote :
}>
}> >
}> > Having served in the army of the U S of A, and heard many a
}> > sergeant, bellow out "Move it, troops!", I am totally inured
}> > to the usage.
}> >
}>
}> I never heard it in my Army years (1967-1971). In boot
}> camp we were addressed individually as "trooper" when
}> they were being friendly, but I never heard the usage you
}> describe.
}>
}> So if you can tell me when this started to be used, you
}> will have answered my original query.
}
} I was in boot camp at Ft. Leonard Wood 1962. Obviously, you
} were not at the same post since you used the phrase "they
} were being friendly".
"[B]oot camp"? Were you people in the _American_ Army? The Navy had boot
camp, and the Marines had boot camp. (The Air Force had something like
"welcome to the military", I suspect.) But in the Army I was in, it was
"basic" ("basic training" if you were writing to an aunt or "basic combat
training" if you were talking to an officer). Was it that different at
Ft. Leonard Wood (['fOrt 'lEnRdwUd])? Fort Dix was, after all, The Home
of the Ultimate Weapon. Our drill sergeants always called us "trainee",
whether they were being friendly or not. (Well, if they really got
irritated, they might call someone "airman".) They were never our
buddies, but they were never uncivil. "Troops" was an unexceptional
collective word (my trusty old _American Heritage Dictionary_ (I) for the
plural has it as both "Military units" and "soldiers"). "Trooper" was a
little advanced to be used in basic. Is Douwe Egbert sure that wasn't in
AIT?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Ray Heindl
news:NKQS2gVdCOMx-p...@dialup-63.215.157.155.Dial1.Washing
ton1.Level3.net:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:47:06, Ray Heindl <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote:
>
>> Another term that's starting to show up as a synonym for 'soldier'
>> is 'force'. This morning's paper had this:
>> "...a Pentagon official last night confirmed that 'dozens' of
>> Special Forces were in the area."
>
> That one really makes me grate my teeth. I even wrote a letter to
> the Ombudsman of The Washington Post to complain about it.
Good for you! Did they reply?
Of course, it's not all the news organizations' fault, as they're
probably quoting Pentagon spokespeople and the like. Maybe we should
all write to Mr. Rumsfeld.
--
Ray Heindl
Ray Heindl
news:1f49yn4.150kubr1s7385lN%tr...@euronet.nl:
> Ray Heindl <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote:
>
>> I ran across a reference to a specific number of troops, which
>> sort of implies that there can be a single troop, from the War of
>> 1812:
[snip]
> We're in agreement, but I think there is some confusion here. When
> I say you don't see "one troop" to mean "one soldier," I mean that
> you *don't* see things like, say, *"The troop fell down and
> sprained his ankle." It would have to be "The man fell down" or
> "The soldier fell down" or something else, for the true singular.
No, not yet at least :) But if you have four troops and one of them is
killed, there are only three. So eventually you end up with one
'troop'. The use of 'troops' with a small number seems more grating to
me than use with a large number, possibly for that reason -- the closer
the number is to one, the odder it sounds.
> But yes, we are all in agreement that when the New York Times says
> "Four Al Quaida troops were killed" they mean four people, not four
> groups. You count the members of the set as individuals. But I
> wouldn't say that this implies there can be "a single troop." It's
> such an odd construction, a mix of singular and plural, that it's
> hard to talk about.
My use of 'implies' was a bit of _reductio ad absurdum_, but it seems
less absurdum than it used to.
I was surprised to see a couple of articles in yesterday's paper that
referred to 'soldiers'. That term seems to be nearly passé these days.
My theory is that 'soldier' is viewed as being specific to the (US)
Army, so that other terms are needed for members of the Marines, Air
Force, Navy, and Coast Guard. The use of 'troops' avoids this
difficulty, especially if the writer doesn't know what service branch
is involved. But I suspect that it's only a matter of time before
'troop' is used to mean an individual soldier, Marine, etc.
On a vaguely related note, what are the terms for members of the Air
Force and the Coast Guard? I think the Air Force used to use 'airman',
but I wonder if that's been changed to reflect the fact that they're
not necessarily men anymore.
> By the way, I just went back to that on-line text of Grant's
> Memoirs, Vol. I, to see if he ever uses the constructions
>
> "troop " with a space, or
> "troop," with a comma, or
> "troop." with a period.
>
>
> He doesn't. To me that is evidence he didn't think of "troop" in
> the sense of group, like "Boy Scout Troop".
Wasn't 'troop' generally limited to a group of cavalry soldiers? Maybe
Grant didn't have much to do with the cavalry.
--
Ray Heindl
Gary Williams
> A troop in the military sense is roughly about 30-40 men, but in a more
> general sense it's an indefinite number. Troops are mainly found among the
> artillery and cavalry, while the infantry have platoons. A member of a cavalry
> troop is a trooper, equivalent to an infantry private and artillery gunner.
In the U.S. Army, at least, the equivalencies are
Troop (cavalry) = Battery (artillery) = Company (infantry).
An infantry company is nominally 150-200 men. I think batteries and
troops may consist of somewhat fewer. Someone has said below that, of
course, not all armies may be organized identically. Attrition, too,
can reduce nominal battalions to company strength and companies to
platoons. I just read a comment by Joshua Chamberlain, describing
Lee's surrender at Appomatox, in which he remarked on the veritable
sea of Confederate battle flags as the surrendering army approached;
the impression arising not from their number, but from the
much-smaller-than-usual spacing between them due to losses in the Army
of Northern Virginia.
Gary Williams
Skitt
Gosh, I don't know when it started, but it was in use during my Army basic
training (1956) -- expressed something like a sarge yelling "Move your
asses, troops!"
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Donna Richoux
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
> > By the way, I just went back to that on-line text of Grant's
> > Memoirs, Vol. I, to see if he ever uses the constructions
> >
> > "troop " with a space, or
> > "troop," with a comma, or
> > "troop." with a period.
> >
> >
> > He doesn't. To me that is evidence he didn't think of "troop" in
> > the sense of group, like "Boy Scout Troop".
>
> Wasn't 'troop' generally limited to a group of cavalry soldiers? Maybe
> Grant didn't have much to do with the cavalry.
How could Grant have played commanding roles throughout the US Civil War
and not had much to do with cavalry? He talks about cavalry all the
time, but never as a "troop." Often it's just "the cavalry" but here are
some hits that I found that talk about amounts:
the few cavalry men I had with me.
A few of our cavalry
small detachments of cavalry
During the night Forrest also, with his cavalry and some other
troops about a thousand in all,
part of a regiment of cavalry
I took my staff and the cavalry--a part of one regiment
two companies of cavalry
I saw a column of cavalry
with a squadron of cavalry
There was also a cavalry corps under General Harney,
a body of the enemy's cavalry, two or three thousand strong
So, who ever it was who spoke of "cavalry troop" and "troop of cavalry,"
it wasn't Grant. He mentions that in his youth, the cavalry were called
the "dragoons."
Blurg -- word fatigue setting in -- cavalry cavalry cavalry...
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Robert Lieblich
>
> Maria Conlon wrote:
> >
> > >...The second annoying phrase is "my lovely wife". I'll
> > >decide if she's lovely or not.
> >
> > What if he's obviously very much in love with his wife? Would it
> > still bother you? Or what if he says "my lovely wife" sarcastically?
> > Now *that* could pose a problem.
>
> I'm very much in love with my wife, but I don't hold her up
> like a butcher saying "Here's a lovely brisket, now."
> I am also opposed to saying "my better half". Some things
> are self-evident.
Then there are those who like to introduce the little woman as "my
first wife," omitting to point out that she's the one and only -- so
far, at least.
What's wrong with "My wife Zelda," mutatis mutandis?
Gary Williams
> ... What I find odd is this reporter's use of "four troops" to mean "four
> soldiers."
I think that what is unusual is not associating a number with
"troops", but the associating of such a small number with them. I
didn't have time to check all one million plus entries in the new
Google archives using the word "troops", but here are a couple of
quotes from 1985:
"We do care when 120,000 Soviet troops are in Afghanistan..."
("Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #47", apparently quoting from a Senate
Committee hearing)
"... it took several years of enormous slaughter (millions of Russian
troops
killed) before morale collapsed." ("Re: Communism as historical
tragedy", posted on net.politics.theory).
Here's the progression I would hypothesize:
troop (a unit of mounted soldiers) --> troops (more than one unit of
mounted soldiers) --> troops (a large number of soldiers, branch
immaterial) --> a specified large number of soliders [the critical
step, changing the noun from mass to countable]) --> any specified
number of soldiers (in this case four). I don't think we're yet to
the stage of writing of one troop in the sense of one soldier, but I
doubt we're far away. Especially since singular "troop" as "a unit of
cavalry commanded by a captain" is unfamiliar to most. Armored
cavalry and air cavalry units still have troops in that older sense,
but the shock part of the horse cavalry role has been taken over by
armored units, which have companies.
I'm not certain, but I think I've heard "troop" used to refer to one
individual colloquially, perhaps only as a noun of address.
Gary Williams
Douwe Egbert
"Tony Cooper" wrote :
>
> I was in boot camp at Ft. Leonard Wood 1962. Obviously, you
> were not at the same post since you used the phrase "they
> were being friendly".
Same here, but five years later.
Friendliness was rare, but not unknown. And, of
course *relative.* You can yell at someone in a
nice way ("trooper") or in a nasty way ("dickhead")
while forcing them to do painful things in miserable
surroundings. The tone of voice doesn't change, so
one learns to seek comfort in these fine nuances of
vocabulary.
I don't recall the expression you refer to. And I don't
recall seeing "troop" used for a single individual until
the NY TImes piece I cited.
--
D E
R H Draney
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> I'm very much in love with my wife, but I don't hold her up
>> like a butcher saying "Here's a lovely brisket, now."
>> I am also opposed to saying "my better half". Some things
>> are self-evident.
>
>Then there are those who like to introduce the little woman as "my
>first wife," omitting to point out that she's the one and only -- so
>far, at least.
Richard Belzer, and very likely others, refers to "my future
ex-wife"...according to IMDb, they've been a couple since 1985 and I
think he started that the day after the wedding....r
Douwe Egbert
"Brian Wickham" wrote :
> Which Army had "boot camp"?
What, you a jarhead or something?
It's a common informal usage for "Basic Training"
in the US Army. I've not been invited to join any
of the others.
You can read all about it here:
http://www.armybasic.homestead.com/
--
D E
John Varela
> jav...@earthlink.net (John Varela) wrote in
> news:NKQS2gVdCOMx-p...@dialup-63.215.157.155.Dial1.Washing
> ton1.Level3.net:
>
> > That one really makes me grate my teeth. I even wrote a letter to
> > the Ombudsman of The Washington Post to complain about it.
>
> Good for you! Did they reply?
Actually, it was one of a whole list of malusages that I culled from a
single day's issue of the newspaper and yes, she did reply. She liked my
question, "How many troops in a force?".
A few years earlier I sent a letter to one of her predecessors. After a
widespread electrical blackout in the area The Post printed several articles
speculating on whether the problem might "reoccur". I clipped one of them,
circled the offending word, and dashed off a curt note to the Ombudsman
saying, "That's three times in three days. The word is RECUR. Please tell
your copywriters." That one made it into the newspaper. I could just
picture my note pinned to a bulletin board in the newsroom.
Douwe Egbert
"R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:u1fg9es...@corp.supernews.com...
>"Troops" was an unexceptional
> collective word (my trusty old _American Heritage Dictionary_ (I) for the
> plural has it as both "Military units" and "soldiers").
Yes, but was it a form of address?
> "Trooper" was a
> little advanced to be used in basic. Is Douwe Egbert sure that wasn't in
> AIT?
Drill sergeants will call trainees just about any damn
thing, I recall. They all had their favorite terms of abuse
(not that Trooper was one of them).
You can Google on
army "boot camp"
and find quite a few hits. We called it boot camp, so it
was boot camp.
My AIT was at the Defense Language Institute, where we wore
Class-A uniforms, hobnobbed with captains and majors,
spoke foreign languages badly, and called each other mostly
by first names.
--
D E
John Varela
wrote:
> Then there are those who like to introduce the little woman as "my
> first wife," omitting to point out that she's the one and only -- so
> far, at least.
That columnist who preceded Levey on The Washington Post's comics page
(?Bill Gold?) was the first and only person I've ever heard or read doing
that.
I didn't find it annoying, though I imagine his wife would.
John Varela
> The phrases that bother me the most are
> when someone refers to his wife as "my bride".
An acquaintance asked me the other day, "Where's your bride?" We have been
married over 40 years and the question struck me odd.
Brian Wickham
I have to disagree. You are the first person I ever encountered that
insisted on calling Army basic training "boot camp". Everyone in the
Army would disagree with you and so would everyone who has been in the
Army (you excepted), and the Navy and Marines. "Boot" is a naval term
for a trainee and is used exclusively by the Marines and Navy. They
do have a lock on the term!
Just because boot camp and basic training accomplish approximately the
same thing (the Marines might disagree with that!) doesn't mean the
terms are interchangeable. After all, you wouldn't call a West Point
Cadet a Plebe although he is the equivalent.
Brian Wickham
Steve Hayes
Brian Wickham
wrote:
>
>Drill sergeants will call trainees just about any damn
>thing, I recall. They all had their favorite terms of abuse
>(not that Trooper was one of them).
>
>You can Google on
>
> army "boot camp"
>
>and find quite a few hits. We called it boot camp, so it
>was boot camp.
>
>My AIT was at the Defense Language Institute, where we wore
>Class-A uniforms, hobnobbed with captains and majors,
>spoke foreign languages badly, and called each other mostly
>by first names.
>
>--
I'm totally flummoxed! Where did you go through boot camp, and call
it that? We've heard from Fort Dix already and I can tell you that
Fort Jackson and Fort Gordon both insisted it was called basic
training. You are aware that a Navy trainee is called a "Boot"?
On the East Coast almost everyone was sent to Dix, Jackson or Gordon
so the term "basic training" is firmly implanted in our collective
psyche.
Googling is a double-edge sword! I got 65,800 hits for "Army Boot
Camp" and 468,000 hits for "Army Basic Training". The first few "boot
camp" hits seemed to use the term to explain "basic training" to
neophytes, and one was for some sort of Air Assault Training in
Hawaii, an overwhelmingly Naval environment.
Incidentally, I can recall one very clear instance when a range
instructor (officer) testily called me "Troop". There may have been
others but who can remember? In a few more years I won't remember
being in the Army at all.
Brian Wickham
Chairborne! All the way!
and don't forget to FTA
Spehro Pefhany
> Then there are those who like to introduce the little woman as "my
> first wife," omitting to point out that she's the one and only -- so
> far, at least.
M. You look like my first wife.
F. Oh, how many times have you been married?
M. I've never been married.
Brian Wickham
wrote:
>
How do you know it is common informal usage in the Army? That website
is directed at civilians who may be thinking of enlisting. A civilian
kid may not know the difference so you have to use every tool to get
his or her attention. The title of the site uses the term "boot camp"
and it appears in the box asking for a survey on how well you think
your recruiter is preparing you. That's still civilian stuff. I
searched all the links on that page and found no other reference to
"boot camp".
Brian Wickham
US Army 1967-69
A draftee who was Chairborne, all the way!
Douwe Egbert
"Brian Wickham" wrote :
> In a few more years I won't remember
> being in the Army at all.
What I'll always remember (I hope) is the range of characters
and the range of American dialects to which I was exposed in
those four years.
Our basic training brigade Sergeant Major, for example, from
coal-country Kentucky, who told us stories loaded with patois
like this:
"Well, it was colder'n a well-digger's ass in the
Klondike. I was shakin' like a dog shittin' razors."
There's a crazy music to this way of speaking.
--
D E
Douwe Egbert
"Brian Wickham" <bwic...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3c182334.10691349@news-
[Re: "Boot camp" for Basic Combat Training]
> How do you know it is common informal usage in the Army?
Because, as I say, I was in for four and I heard it used informally
everywhere I went. I suppose it is possible that its use has been
stamped out since 1971.
>That website
> is directed at civilians who may be thinking of enlisting.
No matter -- I just picked one more or less at random
from the Google hits to show that I wasn't inventing a
usage that doesn't exist elsewhere. Do we really need
to go through all 24,000 hits on <army "boot camp">
to establish it as a common usage?
--
D E
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I am not under the impression that the Al Qaeda uses the
>same system of military units that the U.K, and U.S. uses.
>For all we know, a platoon in their army could be three men
>and a goat.
If the rationale for the current fracas in Afghanistan is to be believed,
three men and a box cutter.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Then there are those who like to introduce the little woman as "my
> first wife," omitting to point out that she's the one and only -- so
> far, at least.
>
> What's wrong with "My wife Zelda," mutatis mutandis?
First, never marry a woman named "Zelda" (unless you wanna die young).
Second, it needs a comma: "My wife, Zelda." Without the comma there's
the implication that you have more than one wife: "And here's my wife
Shirley."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Tony Cooper
I think it all depends on the particular Sergeant that
controls your life during those eight weeks (it's been so
long, but I think it was eight weeks) of basic training.
Each have their own style, their own terms, and their own
attitude that ranges from somewhat decent to nothing decent
about them. Mine was the latter. He loved Friday night
work parties and having us scrub the floor with
toothbrushes.
It's too late for me, but my suggestion to anyone joining
the army is to declare that they are Jewish; preferably
Orthodox. The Jewish guys got to go to Hillel on Friday
night (work party night), were off on Saturday, and never
had to take any more Sunday duty than us stupid Gentiles
that didn't have the system figured out. There were Jewish
guys in my platoon that hadn't been to a synagogue since
they'd received their ritual pen and pencil sets that
suddenly became devout.
We had one Seventh Day Adventist, but the Sergeant wouldn't
recognize that as a religion. He insisted that Sunday was
the seventh day and wouldn't let the guy off on Saturday.
Tony Cooper
>
>
> My AIT was at the Defense Language Institute, where we wore
> Class-A uniforms, hobnobbed with captains and majors,
> spoke foreign languages badly, and called each other mostly
> by first names.
Monterey? A friend of mine went through Russian language
training at Monterey and ended up in Turkey translating
radio transmissions. I think he was in ASA (Army Security
Agency), but I'm not sure.
Tony Cooper
>
> I have to disagree. You are the first person I ever encountered that
> insisted on calling Army basic training "boot camp". Everyone in the
> Army would disagree with you and so would everyone who has been in the
> Army (you excepted), and the Navy and Marines. "Boot" is a naval term
> for a trainee and is used exclusively by the Marines and Navy. They
> do have a lock on the term!
>
> Just because boot camp and basic training accomplish approximately the
> same thing (the Marines might disagree with that!) doesn't mean the
> terms are interchangeable. After all, you wouldn't call a West Point
> Cadet a Plebe although he is the equivalent.
I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree with me or not. I
was there. That's what we called it. Whether or not it was
unique to my training class or half the people that went
through Ft. Leonard Wood called it that is immaterial. The
day they let me out was the day I quit caring about any of
terms. I don't go around "encountering" ex-Army privates
and determining mutually acceptable terminology. I entered
as an E-1 and was discharged as an E-1, never shined my
brass after boot camp, dusted - but did not shine my boots
after boot camp, and broke dozens of pairs of army glasses
just to have a day away from the bullshit. I spent eight
weeks (?) in boot camp and the rest of my six-month hitch in
the PIO writing newspaper articles for hometown papers.
Consider this a one-finger salute, my friend, because your
opinion of what I should have - but did not call - basic is
as important to me as shiny brass was at the time.
Tony Cooper
>
> How do you know it is common informal usage in the Army?
The same way you insist that "no one" else called it that.
Douwe Egbert
"Tony Cooper" wrote :
> Douwe Egbert wrote:
> >
> >
> > My AIT was at the Defense Language Institute, where we wore
> > Class-A uniforms, hobnobbed with captains and majors,
> > spoke foreign languages badly, and called each other mostly
> > by first names.
>
> Monterey?
Not Monterey, much to my chagrin. After I signed
on the dotted line for a chance to do a stint in
Monterery, where I already imagined myself hanging
with Henry Miller in Big Sur on the weekends, they
informed me that there was also an East Coast campus.
Guess which one I was sent to?
> A friend of mine went through Russian language
> training at Monterey and ended up in Turkey translating
> radio transmissions. I think he was in ASA (Army Security
> Agency), but I'm not sure.
I can neither confirm nor deny that.
--
D E
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brian Wickham wrote:
>>
>> I have to disagree. You are the first person I ever encountered that
>> insisted on calling Army basic training "boot camp". Everyone in the
>> Army would disagree with you and so would everyone who has been in the
>> Army (you excepted), and the Navy and Marines. "Boot" is a naval term
>> for a trainee and is used exclusively by the Marines and Navy. They
>> do have a lock on the term!
>I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree with me or not. I
>was there.
I consulted the nearest rat's ass and it told me you are correct and
Brian Wickham, whoever he is, is dead wrong.
Charles Riggs
Simon R. Hughes
> > Ray Heindl <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote:
[...]
> No, not yet at least :) But if you have four troops and one of them is
> killed, there are only three. So eventually you end up with one
> 'troop'. The use of 'troops' with a small number seems more grating to
> me than use with a large number, possibly for that reason -- the closer
> the number is to one, the odder it sounds.
It sounds odder the more you say it, too.
Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop.
Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop.
Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!--So much to do, so little time; so much time, so little done.-->
Donna Richoux
>
> I have to disagree. You are the first person I ever encountered that
> insisted on calling Army basic training "boot camp". Everyone in the
> Army would disagree with you and so would everyone who has been in the
> Army (you excepted), and the Navy and Marines. "Boot" is a naval term
> for a trainee and is used exclusively by the Marines and Navy. They
> do have a lock on the term!
>
> Just because boot camp and basic training accomplish approximately the
> same thing (the Marines might disagree with that!) doesn't mean the
> terms are interchangeable. After all, you wouldn't call a West Point
> Cadet a Plebe although he is the equivalent.
I was kinda hoping the Random House Historical Dictionary of American
Slang would provide examples of "boot camp" being used to refer to the
Army, but it doesn't. It gives quite a historical justification for your
position, really.
boot camp n. Orig. Navy & USMC, a basic training
center for recruits in one of the armed services.
Now colloq. or Standard English.
Of the seven citations, from 1916 to 1966, all but two specifically
mention the Navy or Marines.
So although although nothing stops people from applying it to the basic
training run by the Army, it does have more of a tradition in those two
services.
--
Ducking for cover --- Donna Richoux
Apurbva Chandra Senray
> They used to show "F Troop" here on WIN-TV for a bit during the
> afternoons, but then they dropped it. Bastards. 'Twas a good show =)
What about the construction "F Troop"? I hear this from prison
officials as well: "There was a disturbance in C Block." This sounds
all backwards to me. I would say "Troop F" and "Block C." Anyone else
with me?
Douwe Egbert
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1f4ctet.1il83t6fvi3k0N%tr...@euronet.nl...
>
> I was kinda hoping the Random House Historical Dictionary of American
> Slang would provide examples of "boot camp" being used to refer to the
> Army, but it doesn't. It gives quite a historical justification for your
> position, really.
>
> boot camp n. Orig. Navy & USMC, a basic training
> center for recruits in one of the armed services.
> Now colloq. or Standard English.
>
> Of the seven citations, from 1916 to 1966, all but two specifically
> mention the Navy or Marines.
>
> So although although nothing stops people from applying it to the basic
> training run by the Army, it does have more of a tradition in those two
> services.
Careful reader that you are, I'm sure you haven't overlooked
the fact that there is a helluva difference between saying that
the term originated with the Navy and Marines, and saying that
it is "never" used with reference to the Army's basic training
program.
The reference you cite gives *no* justification for the latter
position; it says "one of the armed services" -- which of course
includes the Army and the Air Force as well as the Navy and
Marines.
I have to assume that "everyone in the Army would disagree"
was meant to be some sort of humorous hyperbole, since a
Google search handily proves otherwise, as does any casual
inquiry among those who have been in a position to know
how Army soldiers talk.
--
D E
R J Valentine
...
} I can neither confirm nor deny that.
Four years, you say? After 1963? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R J Valentine
I thought you said Army. Sounds like Reserves to me. That doesn't even
get up to Air Force levels of military awe. Where "boot camp" is
overstating the case for Army basic (with respect to the Marine Corps
experience), when I was in the reservists were kept in isolation, and the
only contact I had with any of them was an ex-Marine drill sergeant who
put in his two weeks with our basic company. He's the one who marched us
through the eight-foot hedge (if I told that story here). Dozens of pairs
of glasses, eh? They'd catch on to that even in the Air Force.
It's not the opinions of Army veterans you have to worry about when you
claim "boot camp". They're at most smirking. It's the Marines who are
guffawing and rolling on the floor.
M.J.Powell
<hug...@tromso.online.no> writes
>Thus Spake Ray Heindl:
>> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
>> news:1f49yn4.150kubr1s7385lN%tr...@euronet.nl:
>> > Ray Heindl <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> No, not yet at least :) But if you have four troops and one of them is
>> killed, there are only three. So eventually you end up with one
>> 'troop'. The use of 'troops' with a small number seems more grating to
>> me than use with a large number, possibly for that reason -- the closer
>> the number is to one, the odder it sounds.
>
>It sounds odder the more you say it, too.
>
>Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop.
>Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop.
>Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop. Troop.
...marching up and down again...
Sorry.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Douwe Egbert
"Douwe Egbert" wrote :
>
> I have to assume that "everyone in the Army would disagree"
> was meant to be some sort of humorous hyperbole, since a
> Google search handily proves otherwise, as does any casual
> inquiry among those who have been in a position to know
> how Army soldiers talk.
But just in case the dude was serious ---
Drill instructors at Fort Benning, the training center for the Army's infantry,
say molding privates has been easier in the last two weeks. "When guys first get
to boot camp, they're usually joking around and a little loose," Staff Sgt. James
Vchulek said. "Not this time. They're quiet and paying attention."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/24/special-forces.htm
Ferguson, who believes basic training should be sex-segregated, went to boot camp
at Fort Jackson, S.C., in 1996. As one of the Army’s two gender-integrated boot
camps (the third, Fort Benning, Ga., processes combat soldiers and is
predominantly male), Fort Jackson processes about 70 percent of all female
enlisted Army personnel.
http://www.militarynews.com/soundings/pages/archived%20stories/1january%20%202001
/navy012401.html
In 1997, I went through boot camp for the U.S. Army. I spent nine weeks at Fort
Jackson, S.C. -- nine weeks I would prefer not to repeat but will if necessary.
On Aug. 7, 1997, I marched off the parade field at Fort Jackson as my company's
Honor Soldier.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/opinion/devoice/04132001.html
One of the major milestones for all basic trainees and biggest hurdles for some
is "qualifying" on the M16A2 Rifle. Here is a platoon of soldiers in "Boot Camp"
getting orientation from its mentor.
http://www.goarmy.com/tour/adv/bramt.htm
... and so on.
Tony Cooper
>
>
> I thought you said Army. Sounds like Reserves to me. That doesn't even
> get up to Air Force levels of military awe. Where "boot camp" is
> overstating the case for Army basic (with respect to the Marine Corps
> experience), when I was in the reservists were kept in isolation, and the
> only contact I had with any of them was an ex-Marine drill sergeant who
> put in his two weeks with our basic company. He's the one who marched us
> through the eight-foot hedge (if I told that story here). Dozens of pairs
> of glasses, eh? They'd catch on to that even in the Air Force.
>
When I went into the Army, they had a program where you went
in for six months active duty and then spent several years
in the Reserves. Our serial numbers started with "RA" and
the draftees or four year enlisted men had "US" serial
numbers if I remember correctly. We all went through the
same basic training. In the basic training part, there was
no difference between a RAs and a USs program. All the
training cadre and officers were US. After basic, the RAs
went through a different program than the USs, though. We
were all kept at Ft. LW, and the USs were often sent
elsewhere for some MOS training.
My platoon had mostly USs, but about four RAs. The other
platoons in the same barracks were mostly USs also. I don't
remember being singled out in any way - good or bad - for
being an RA. I can't speak for what went on before, after,
or even during - in other places - my own service. Believe
me, it wasn't something I was all that interested in.
Even though I lived in Chicago, I had joined a Reserve unit
in East Chicago Indiana since all the Chicago units were
full. The "six month active" was - I think - a fairly new
program and very popular. I had received a physical draft
notice and wanted to get in a unit before they actually
drafted me. When I left active duty, I gave them my Chicago
address. Indiana is in one Army Corps, and Illinois in
another. In the transfer from one Corps to another, they
overlooked me and I ended up only going to one summer camp
and no reserve meetings.
I was assigned to PIO and spent my time interviewing
National Guard troops on active duty and sending stories to
the unit's home town newspaper.
(I think "Corps" is always plural, but I'm not sure.)
Douwe Egbert
"R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:u1hdrhc...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:26:56 +1100 Douwe Egbert <Do...@wassup.com> wrote:
> ...
> } I can neither confirm nor deny that.
>
> Four years, you say? After 1963? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Shhhh.
Loose lips have ears, you know.
--
D E
Tony Cooper
>
as does any casual
> inquiry among those who have been in a position to know
> how Army soldiers talk.
Mostly profane. Before I went into the Army, "hell" and
"damn" were about the extent of my profanity. Even "screw"
was said in a slightly lowered voice with an unconscious
look over my shoulder to see if my mother was somehow
listening. A few weeks into the Army, and I had trouble not
writing "fuck" in letters home.
Douwe Egbert
"Tony Cooper" wrote :
>
> When I went into the Army, they had a program where you went
> in for six months active duty and then spent several years
> in the Reserves. Our serial numbers started with "RA" and
> the draftees or four year enlisted men had "US" serial
> numbers if I remember correctly.
Doubtful, methinks. In 1967, anyway, "RA" meant "Regular
Army" -- i.e., enlistees with three-year or four-year commitments.
Draftees were "US," and National Guardsmen were "NG". I
don't recall whether reservists had a separate designation or not.
--
D E
Douwe Egbert
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C18C660...@yahoo.com...
> Douwe Egbert wrote:
> >
> as does any casual
> > inquiry among those who have been in a position to know
> > how Army soldiers talk.
>
> Mostly profane. Before I went into the Army, "hell" and
> "damn" were about the extent of my profanity. Even "screw"
> was said in a slightly lowered voice with an unconscious
> look over my shoulder to see if my mother was somehow
> listening. A few weeks into the Army, and I had trouble not
> writing "fuck" in letters home.
You might have done much better. The Army is full
of profanity-geniuses, spectacular practitioners of
the art. Monstrously profane, prodigiously obscene.
Perhaps it comes from having guys next to you,
in front of you, and behind you suddenly blown to
pieces.
Happily, this was a relatively rare occurrence in basic
training.
Tony Cooper
It just came to me: BR. My serial number started with a
BR, not a RA. It's been several decades, you know.
Mike L
<ex2S7.28449$8N6.8...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com>, Douwe Egbert wrote:
[...]
>how Army soldiers talk.
>
This is interesting: I've met "Army soldiers" in US usage once or twice before.
Is it standard, or -- no offence intended, I assure you -- just a slip? In
British-type English the expression would be pleonastic.
Mike.
Skitt
"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3C1830...@sonic.net...
Hmm, I remember being admonished by some representatives of this august body
not to put a comma there. A comma could indicate that you are talking to
Zelda (since you were smart enough not to marry her)? "This is my wife,
Zelda. Tell her that there was nothing going on between us. Oh, I forgot
to introduce her -- this is my wife Trixie, Zelda. Trixie, say 'Hi' to
Zelda."
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Skitt
> Douwe Egbert wrote:
> >
> >
> > My AIT was at the Defense Language Institute, where we wore
> > Class-A uniforms, hobnobbed with captains and majors,
> > spoke foreign languages badly, and called each other mostly
> > by first names.
>
> Monterey? A friend of mine went through Russian language
> training at Monterey and ended up in Turkey translating
> radio transmissions. I think he was in ASA (Army Security
> Agency), but I'm not sure.
My dad was offered a teaching job at Monterey, back in the fifties, teaching
Russian. The family persuaded him to turn it down, as he was much too
intolerant with any but the fastest learners to teach anyone. I know ...
Skitt
>
> It's too late for me, but my suggestion to anyone joining
> the army is to declare that they are Jewish; preferably
> Orthodox. The Jewish guys got to go to Hillel on Friday
> night (work party night), were off on Saturday, and never
> had to take any more Sunday duty than us stupid Gentiles
> that didn't have the system figured out. There were Jewish
> guys in my platoon that hadn't been to a synagogue since
> they'd received their ritual pen and pencil sets that
> suddenly became devout.
Ain't it the truth! It was too late for me also, but what a racket!
Skitt
"Brian Wickham" <bwic...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3c182334...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> How do you know it is common informal usage in the Army? That website
> is directed at civilians who may be thinking of enlisting. A civilian
> kid may not know the difference so you have to use every tool to get
> his or her attention. The title of the site uses the term "boot camp"
> and it appears in the box asking for a survey on how well you think
> your recruiter is preparing you. That's still civilian stuff. I
> searched all the links on that page and found no other reference to
> "boot camp".
I believe that "boot camp" is one of the newer terms in the Army. It wasn't
used to refer to basic training when I was at Fort Ord (early 1956). I did
the first eight, and then went to a couple of schools (Signal School and
Ordnance School) on the East Coast. I was an RA with a three-year
commitment.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Then there are those who like to introduce the little woman as "my
> > first wife," omitting to point out that she's the one and only -- so
> > far, at least.
> >
> > What's wrong with "My wife Zelda," mutatis mutandis?
>
> First, never marry a woman named "Zelda" (unless you wanna die young).
>
> Second, it needs a comma: "My wife, Zelda." Without the comma there's
> the implication that you have more than one wife: "And here's my wife
> Shirley."
Hey, Rey, you don't want me discriminating against Muslims, do you?
Anyway, if I dare be serious, I think most people would realize that
anyone with a wife named Zelda (or Shirley, for that matter) is
unlikely to be a bigamist. And the rule of -- TA-DA - English usage
is that very short appositives do not require commas.
John Varela
> Mostly profane. Before I went into the Army, "hell" and
> "damn" were about the extent of my profanity.
A friend was in the Seminary at Notre Dame when he was drafted into the Navy
in World War II. As you may know, in the Seminary one bobs one head in
respect whenever the Lord's name is mentioned. He got into the Navy and to
right and left of him people were constantly exclaiming, "Jeee-sus
Kee-rist!" He said he was going around like one of those nodding-head dolls
one used to see in the rear windows of automobiles. After the war he went
to engineering school...
--
John Varela
God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and
the United States of America -- Otto von Bismarck
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote:
>> Wasn't 'troop' generally limited to a group of cavalry soldiers?
>> Maybe Grant didn't have much to do with the cavalry.
>
> How could Grant have played commanding roles throughout the US
> Civil War and not had much to do with cavalry?
Good point. I was thinking of one of the definitions from the RHUD for
'troop': "an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more
platoons and a headquarters group." But maybe it wasn't used that way
during Grant's day, or maybe he didn't want to use technical terms
(if it was one) in his memoirs.
> Blurg -- word fatigue setting in -- cavalry cavalry cavalry...
Not to be cofused with Mr Hughes's "troop troop troop...." Is 'blurg'
a new term for word fatigue, or just a sound effect?
--
Ray Heindl
Brian Wickham
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree with me or not. I
>was there. That's what we called it. Whether or not it was
>unique to my training class or half the people that went
>through Ft. Leonard Wood called it that is immaterial. The
>day they let me out was the day I quit caring about any of
>terms. I don't go around "encountering" ex-Army privates
>and determining mutually acceptable terminology. I entered
>as an E-1 and was discharged as an E-1, never shined my
>brass after boot camp, dusted - but did not shine my boots
>after boot camp, and broke dozens of pairs of army glasses
>just to have a day away from the bullshit. I spent eight
>weeks (?) in boot camp and the rest of my six-month hitch in
>the PIO writing newspaper articles for hometown papers.
>Consider this a one-finger salute, my friend, because your
>opinion of what I should have - but did not call - basic is
>as important to me as shiny brass was at the time.
>
>
>--
>Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
>Provider of Jots and Tittles
Sorry Tony, I didn't realize you were so worked up about this thing.
I remember that the reservists in basic at Fort Gordon seemed to
resent the whole thing more than the rest of us draftees. I guess we
were just fatalistic, having accepted the fact that we were drafted in
the first place. The reservists thought they were in for "squeak
through" and by week three they were bitching and moaning. BTW, I was
in PIO also, at Fort Gordon and Saigon. A good gig for malcontents
and it's exempt from duty too! The really nice part was I didn't have
to go to any stupid meetings for another four years. You should have
gone National Guard. They went home right after basic.
I carry no brief for the military and don't chat up veterans or belong
to any organizations. But I do tend to want to know the lingo of the
people I'm dealing with at the moment. I had the Army lingo down then
and have the lingo of my job down now.
BW
Brian Wickham
wrote:
>I was kinda hoping the Random House Historical Dictionary of American
>Slang would provide examples of "boot camp" being used to refer to the
>Army, but it doesn't. It gives quite a historical justification for your
>position, really.
>
> boot camp n. Orig. Navy & USMC, a basic training
> center for recruits in one of the armed services.
> Now colloq. or Standard English.
>
>Of the seven citations, from 1916 to 1966, all but two specifically
>mention the Navy or Marines.
>
>So although although nothing stops people from applying it to the basic
>training run by the Army, it does have more of a tradition in those two
>services.
>
>--
>Ducking for cover --- Donna Richoux
Thanks for the support. You are the brave one! But I guess after
reading some others recent citations I'll have to give in and say I
have no knowledge of what "Basic Training" is called in our current
times. If they now call it "boot camp" then so be it.
Brian Wickham
Douwe Egbert
"Mike L" wrote:
> Douwe Egbert wrote:
> [...]
> >how Army soldiers talk.
> >
> This is interesting: I've met "Army soldiers" in US usage once or twice
before.
> Is it standard, or -- no offence intended, I assure you -- just a slip? In
> British-type English the expression would be pleonastic.
It felt awkward as I was writing it, but I couldn't
be bothered to decide what to do about it.
"Army guys" maybe? "Soldiers" is okay, but
I wanted to emphasize that I was limiting the
class to Army. Sometimes "soldiers" is used
generically to mean any armed forces personnel.
I agree with your objection, and I would not let it stand
if I were editing for publication.
--
D E
Douwe Egbert
"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9vb3fi$e8g58$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I believe that "boot camp" is one of the newer terms in the Army. It
wasn't
> used to refer to basic training when I was at Fort Ord (early 1956).
I guess this gets down to a question of "used" by whom,
when?
Basic Combat Training (BCT) was the official Army
designation, and AFAIK remains so. However, "boot
camp" is what a lot of soldiers called it informally
when I was in the Army, and apparently remains
in informal use, though having no official status.
In the Navy and Marine Corps, "Boot Camp" may be an
official designation, leading some to conclude
that only the Navy and Marines ever use the two words
to mean basic training. Weird, huh?
--
D E
Douwe Egbert
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3C192BBF...@Verizon.net...
>
> Anyway, if I dare be serious, I think most people would realize that
> anyone with a wife named Zelda (or Shirley, for that matter) is
> unlikely to be a bigamist. And the rule of -- TA-DA - English usage
> is that very short appositives do not require commas.
He said nothing about Zelda's height. Besides, what
if she's lying down?
--
D E
Tony Cooper
>
> Thanks for the support. You are the brave one! But I guess after
> reading some others recent citations I'll have to give in and say I
> have no knowledge of what "Basic Training" is called in our current
> times. If they now call it "boot camp" then so be it.
The discussion started when I said we used the term in
1962. I made no claim - and still don't - that it's used
now, used widely, or used anywhere else other than within my
hearing in 1962.
John Varela
Even odder is "Army men" instead of soldiers. When I was a kid we played
with toy soldiers, but my kids played with toy Army men. I was interested
to note that the soldiers in the original _Toy Story_ movie were called
"green Army men".
Tony Cooper
>
> Sorry Tony, I didn't realize you were so worked up about this thing.
I'm not worked up about issue itself, but it's a bit
disconcerting to have someone tell me that I didn't use a
term that I know I used. I don't mind if you say *you*
didn't say it, but don't tell me *I* didn't say it.
> I remember that the reservists in basic at Fort Gordon seemed to
> resent the whole thing more than the rest of us draftees.
I didn't go in with a Reserve unit. Knowing I'd be drafted,
I joined a Reserve unit and asked for immediate active
duty. I didn't like my job that well, I wasn't dating
anyone interesting, and it just seemed the best thing to do
to get the active duty over with. To the best of my
knowledge, no one else from the unit I belonged to was on
active duty at the time. That's why I was put in a group
that was mostly draftees and voluntary draftees. The
"voluntary draftees" were men that knew they would be
drafted, and volunteered for the draft in order to serve
only two years instead of the four a regular Army person
served.
BTW, I was
> in PIO also, at Fort Gordon and Saigon. A good gig for malcontents
> and it's exempt from duty too! The really nice part was I didn't have
> to go to any stupid meetings for another four years.
I had no complaints to speak of. I was an E1 - the lowest
possible rank - and had a driver and a photographer assigned
to me. I basically set my own hours and schedule. As long
as I turned in stories, no one bothered me. I actually
served less than the full six months active duty because I
was due to get out in mid-January, but the gave me an
early-out before Christmas. That was common practice then
for January leavers.
You should have
> gone National Guard. They went home right after basic.
Every unit was full in Chicago and the northern Indiana
areas. I was lucky to find what I did. I don't even
remember the type of unit it was since I went only the once
to sign up.
In retrospect, I wish I would have volunteered for the
draft. I would probably have been sent to Germany and had a
chance to see the world for free. At that time, though, two
years sounded like an eternity.
Brian Wickham
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brian Wickham wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Tony, I didn't realize you were so worked up about this thing.
>
>I'm not worked up about issue itself, but it's a bit
>disconcerting to have someone tell me that I didn't use a
>term that I know I used. I don't mind if you say *you*
>didn't say it, but don't tell me *I* didn't say it.
>
Sorry, I didn't realize I had said it that way. I'm sure many people
said it in front of me but I just dismissed it as the talk of those
who didn't know better at the time. I certainly wouldn't quote them
as a source. If I said "Nobody" I guess I meant it in the sense of
"It just isn't done." In the Army a two and a half ton truck is called
a deuce and a half. Somebody must call it a two and a half ton truck
but it just isn't done by those who know.
>> I remember that the reservists in basic at Fort Gordon seemed to
>> resent the whole thing more than the rest of us draftees.
>
>I didn't go in with a Reserve unit. Knowing I'd be drafted,
>I joined a Reserve unit and asked for immediate active
In my training company there were isolated reservists sprinkled about,
but no actual unit. The same for National Guards. I think that's the
nature of the beast but don't know for sure.
>duty. I didn't like my job that well, I wasn't dating
>anyone interesting, and it just seemed the best thing to do
>to get the active duty over with. To the best of my
>knowledge, no one else from the unit I belonged to was on
>active duty at the time. That's why I was put in a group
>that was mostly draftees and voluntary draftees. The
>"voluntary draftees" were men that knew they would be
>drafted, and volunteered for the draft in order to serve
>only two years instead of the four a regular Army person
>served.
Three years for the Army (just a minor correction.) Four for the other
services barring special age deals.
>
I read your other post of how you managed to get out of meetings.
What a deal! You did your duty and still managed to beat the machine!
My hat is off to you. That would be a classic example of the
expression, "Pure Ass!" Blindly falling into a winning situation
without really knowing how to. We can all start fighting over that
one now (maybe it's just a NYC expression).
>
>I had no complaints to speak of. I was an E1 - the lowest
>possible rank - and had a driver and a photographer assigned
>to me. I basically set my own hours and schedule. As long
>as I turned in stories, no one bothered me. I actually
>served less than the full six months active duty because I
>was due to get out in mid-January, but the gave me an
>early-out before Christmas. That was common practice then
>for January leavers.
>
snip
>
>In retrospect, I wish I would have volunteered for the
>draft. I would probably have been sent to Germany and had a
>chance to see the world for free. At that time, though, two
>years sounded like an eternity.
>
Your right. My friends and relatives who went to Europe in the
services used the time well and did a lifetime's worth of travel, much
of it on free military hops (the clerk's mafia was something you never
had time to become acquainted with.) But you would have gotten stuck
with some reserve duty when you got out.
Brian Wickham
R J Valentine
...
} "It just isn't done." In the Army a two and a half ton truck is called
} a deuce and a half. Somebody must call it a two and a half ton truck
} but it just isn't done by those who know.
Ah. The six by six. With the benches that fold down from the side racks.
} Three years for the Army (just a minor correction.)
Except for some people after about 1963, but I've been properly shushed.
SNKNKKNKK! Sorry. There were some two-year deals, I think, but you
didn't get much. For three years you could get almost a year of
pre=enlistment-guaranteed schooling and a fair say in where you got sent.
Or you could pick where you got sent and do the work nobody else wanted to
do.
} I read your other post of how you managed to get out of meetings.
} What a deal! You did your duty and still managed to beat the machine!
} My hat is off to you. That would be a classic example of the
} expression, "Pure Ass!" Blindly falling into a winning situation
} without really knowing how to. We can all start fighting over that
} one now (maybe it's just a NYC expression).
Oops! Is that Prof. Fontana just outside the door?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Mike L
Egbert and Mike Lyle discussed the expr. "Army soldiers">
Over on the Google version - usually much slower to post than Newsranger - John
Varela said:
>Even odder is "Army men" instead of soldiers. When I was a kid we played
>with toy soldiers, but my kids played with toy Army men. I was interested
>to note that the soldiers in the original _Toy Story_ movie were called
>"green Army men".
Yes, I've noticed that, too. My own children also seem to select "Army man" in
preference to "soldier". (Whereas in my vocabulary "He's an army man" though
quite possible doesn't mean quite the same thing: I'm not sure, but if pushed, I
think I'd suggest that it meant either that the Army had entered into his
character, or that I didn't want to imply his rank or unit. Clearly you used to
have to say "He's an Indian/Egyptian Army man" of British officers in the Indian
or whatever Army, because he clearly wasn't "an Indian soldier"; but that's
different.)
I think it's part -- in Britain, anyhow, -- of a general unfamiliarity with
anything to do with the services.
E.g., British broadcasters have so little native military vocabulary that they
often use Americanisms which would be theoretically meaningless to a British
soldier, such as "fatigues" for some kind of clothing, "camouflage fatigues"
which seems to mean "combat kit" or "DPM smock" and others which I think I've
mentioned before.
Actors don't know how to look like soldiers any more, now that none of them has
been one, and liberal people prefer not to look at one closely: they slouch,
have no apparent experience of moving quickly, stick their berets in the
shoulder-straps of their coats, operate the bolts of rifles with the edge of
their hands, fire pistols turned on their sides (American actors are doing this,
too, for some reason), etc.
This may, of course, be a sign of advancing civilisation.
Mike.
perchprism
"Douwe Egbert" <Do...@wassup.com> wrote in message
news:9vbgi5$j9$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
Army guys are made of green plastic.
Is a U.S. Marine a soldier?
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
John Varela
> Actors don't know how to look like soldiers any more, now that none of them has
> been one, and liberal people prefer not to look at one closely: they slouch,
> have no apparent experience of moving quickly, stick their berets in the
> shoulder-straps of their coats, operate the bolts of rifles with the edge of
> their hands, fire pistols turned on their sides (American actors are doing this,
> too, for some reason), etc.
I've noticed this too. They lack military bearing and don't even keep in
step. It's really the Director's fault.
John Varela
> Army guys are made of green plastic.
Excuse me, those are "Army men".
> Is a U.S. Marine a soldier?
In WWII-era radio shows, of which there are regular Sunday evening
rebroadcasts on radio station WAMU in Washington, it was common to refer to
"our soldiers and sailors overseas". So the Marines must have been either
soldiers or sailors, and since they aren't sailors they must, in that
context, be soldiers.
But I don't think I'd call a Marine "soldier" to his face.
Spehro Pefhany
> In WWII-era radio shows, of which there are regular Sunday evening
> rebroadcasts on radio station WAMU in Washington, it was common to refer to
> "our soldiers and sailors overseas". So the Marines must have been either
> soldiers or sailors, and since they aren't sailors they must, in that
> context, be soldiers.
Since the U.S. Marine Corps are more-or-less part of the Navy (under the
Secretary of the Navy), I would have thought that they were more like
sailors. But their Commandant is called a General, not an Admiral (as
explained on CNN last night). I notice that when words are cheap they
refer to "airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers".
> But I don't think I'd call a Marine "soldier" to his face.
If the above list is ordered by decreasing prestige, that would seem
risky.
Secretary... could this also be a place where one hides or stores things
(perhaps prounced "secrete - ary")?
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
John Varela
> Since the U.S. Marine Corps are more-or-less part of the Navy (under the
> Secretary of the Navy), I would have thought that they were more like
> sailors. But their Commandant is called a General, not an Admiral (as
> explained on CNN last night). I notice that when words are cheap they
> refer to "airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers".
As Harry Truman said, the Marines are the police force of the Navy. They
also provided the small-arms and shore expeditionary force on warships in
the days of sail. Shores of Tripoli and all that.
> > But I don't think I'd call a Marine "soldier" to his face.
Actually, I might call him "Soldier" if it were in the context of buying him
a drink. Then, he might even let me call him "Troop".
Gary Williams
> I have to assume that "everyone in the Army would disagree"
> was meant to be some sort of humorous hyperbole, since a
> Google search handily proves otherwise, as does any casual
> inquiry among those who have been in a position to know
> how Army soldiers talk.
I imagine that this has something to do with the age of the Army
soldier. (Since a discussion of this term came up, I'd probably have
put "Army personnel", although I don't know what I'd do in the
singular, when the important point is that the referenced combatant is
from the Army rather than from some other branch.)
There is a second-hand reference to a post I haven't seen in which
Tony Cooper says that "boot camp" for Army basic training was current
in 1962. I'd disagree slightly on the timing; I think that as late as
1970 I thought of "boot camp" as something Navy personnel went to
while we had "basic" instead. But I think that the distinction was in
the process of being lost even then, and appears to have completely
disappeared by now. Just as well; it doesn't seem like a particularly
useful distinction.
Mike:
"My own children also seem to select "Army man" in preference to
"soldier"."
Is this childhood usage perhaps formed on the model of "fireman" and
"policeman"?
My Reserve unit was a hospital, and we had a large number of female
personnel. Three of these females of my acquaintance car-pooled to
assemblies together. On one occasion, the young son of one of them
asked, "Mommy, are there _men_ in the Army?"
Tony:
"A few weeks into the Army, and I had trouble not writing "fuck" in
letters home."
Could have been worse, I suppose. A friend of mine told of blurting
out, in the midst of a conversation over family Christmas dinner, a
reference to his "cunt cap".
Gary Williams
Douwe Egbert
"perchprism wrote:
>
> Army guys are made of green plastic.
>
> Is a U.S. Marine a soldier?
I'd say so, yes, but I don't know what the USMC
would say. People often use "soldier" to cover all fighting
forces, indiscriminately.
I recently saw a statement by an ex-Marine referring to
himself as "an infantryman," which surprised me.
--
D E
N.Mitchum
----
> Is a U.S. Marine a soldier?
A Marine is a Marine, and make no mistake about it. An Army guy
is a soldier. An Air Force guy is an airman (even women?). I'll
bet Navy guys are sailors. What's left? Coast Guardsmen.
Merchant mariners. Border guards. Customs officers. Me.
----NM
Simon R. Hughes
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:40:01, "Spehro Pefhany" <sp...@interlog.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > But I don't think I'd call a Marine "soldier" to his face.
>
> Actually, I might call him "Soldier" if it were in the context of buying him
> a drink.
As in, "Hello, Soldier. May I buy you a drink?"?
> Then, he might even let me call him "Troop".
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!--So much to do, so little time; so much time, so little done.-->
John Varela
To be accurate, I believe the technically correct term is "grunt".
Tony Cooper
>
> Spooky Guy Next Door <mgall...@cyberfuddle.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1680b9135...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
> > They used to show "F Troop" here on WIN-TV for a bit during the
> > afternoons, but then they dropped it. Bastards. 'Twas a good show =)
>
> What about the construction "F Troop"? I hear this from prison
> officials as well: "There was a disturbance in C Block." This sounds
> all backwards to me. I would say "Troop F" and "Block C." Anyone else
> with me?
Not me. Military usage is F Troop. Google, for example, "B
Troop" and you will find several real military pages. The
Alcatraz webpage lists "B Block" and "C Block". Saying
"Troop B" and "Block C" would make it immediately apparent
that you are neither in the military or an ex-con. Which
means you might want to keep saying it that way.
Police departments do a similar thing with precincts. If
what I've read is correct, in NYC you wouldn't go to the
17th Precinct, but to the "One Seven". (If there is such a
place)