Kerry's sing. "troop"

[Charles Doyle]

I reckon the objection to "serviceman/servicemen" would be the gender matter--perhaps influencing the current preference for "troop/troops"?  The OED gives "serviceman" from 1899, "servicewoman" from 1945.  "The service" to designate the entirety of military personnel is older than I would have guessed (18th century).  But do they also serve who only stand and wait?

--Charlie
__________________________________________

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 06:10:43 -0800
>From: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
>Subject: Kerry's sing. "troop"
>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
>Sen. Kerry said yesterday he did not intend to insult "any troop."  Use of "troop" in the singular meaning "soldier" is first attested - though rarely - as a semi-humorous designation during WWII. During the Vietnam era, it was fairly common in the Army.
>
>  Kerry's use of "any troop" is notable for two reasons. It is rare ex. of use by a public figure in a self-evidently serious, Standard English environment. What's more, it is clearly intended to mean "any member of the armed services."  That's also unusual, especially, one would think, for a Navy veteran.
>
>  "Troop" is an unusual word in that it's traditionally been used solely in the plural when referring to individuals ("troops") rather than organizations ("a cavalry troop," "a Boy Scout Troop").
>
>  Before WWII, the phrase "soldiers, sailors, and aviators" was usually deemed sufficient to characterize U.S. forces in a nontechnical way, despite the well known existence of the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and mostly female Army and Navy Nursing Corps. The evidence shows that Marines in WWI (and earlier) often referred to each other nontechnically as "soldiers."  During WWII, Marine recruits were instructed to refer to themselves as "Marines" only - and always capitalized in print.  If you refer to a U.S. Marine as a "soldier," you will be corrected.  Presumably this insistence on the prescribed, exclusive use of "Marine" arose as a protective measure following occasional Congressional pressures to merge the Marine Corps with the Army.
>
>  "Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines" was the usual inclusive phrase during and after WWII, a period when interservice rivalry was prominent.
>
>  The easiest way of avoiding that unwieldy phrase in previous generations was to say "G.I.'s," "servicemen" or "members of the armed forces."  But the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines did not always take kindly to "G.I.," which was regarded as an Army innovation. There was no concise way of referring with virtually unarguable equality to all men and women in the military.
>
>  Apparently during the '70s, "warriors" became noticeable as a comprehensive synonym. This has unfortunate connotations for some of us. "Warriors" seems now to be the most frequent way in which military officers formally refer to all American military personnel, including those in support occupations, plus any CIA or other intelligence operatives (now called "operators" for some reason) attached to military units. Nurses of either sex may or may not feel slighted by this designation, depending on their point of view.  The Fox News Channel likes to say "warriors" whenever possible.
>
>  If you want to be utterly inclusive and maximally concise, and you don't like the use of "warrior," you may find yourself at a loss for words. What to do ? You say "troop." "Troop" sounds very wrong - not to mention absurd - to us antediluvians, but it could be another vibrant precursor of tomorrow's everyday Inglish.
>
>  JL
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org