Hinky Dinky

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>Yes. In fact, "sous lieutenant" was (and I believe still is) the standard
>designation in the French army for "second lieutenant" (or British Great
>War "subaltern.")

Apparently a Canadian officer of this rank has both designations ("second",
"sous") (it's a bilingual country).

>It's just that "sous lieutenant" was not a usual term in the AEF ....

I believe there were Americans who served under the French flag and who
actually carried the rank "sous-lieutenant" (not in the 77th though,
right?). [It would be a miracle if nobody ever made a joke like "I'm a
sous-lieutenant. That means I get paid one sou a month." But maybe such a
joke never caught on.]

>Furthermore, the odd choice of words encumbers the stanza in singing; just
>compare the more tripping rhythm of the normal "second lieutenant" in the
>same slot.(Homer had to deal with similar considerations.) I suspect the
>stanza was bowdlerized for print in some way, represents some sort of
>mistake, or else was hardly ever sung, or that it was totally factitious.

But wouldn't it be easier and more natural then to bowdlerize by replacing
the bad word (whatever it was) with "second" instead of "sous"?

>Given the temper of the '20s, when the stanza was published in a songbook,
>my guess is bowdlerization - not of a bawdy reference but of something
>that today would seem pretty innocuous.
>
>In the mid-20s the Broadway comedy-drama "What Price Glory?" which was the
>first mildly realistic portrayal of American soldiers on stage, was the
>target of protests because it showed American soldiers cursing, carousing,
>complaining, questioning the value of the war and - wait for it! - DRINKING!

Then maybe "sous" appears as a euphemism or an error for the blasphemous
"soused" (or even "sozzled")?


-- Doug Wilson