"Soldier"

[Laurence Horn]

At 12:36 PM -0500 2/27/09, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>It is not literally accurate, but synecdoche sez it's A-OK.
>
>Objections to the usage in this sort of generalized context are not
>linguistically based.
>
>In *theory*, "marines," "sailors," or "airmen" would do just as well, but
>English hasn't developed that way.
>
>Homer Simpson: "Marge, I agree with you -- in *theory.* In *theory,*
>Communism works. In *theory.*"
>
>JL
>
>On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>  -----------------------
>>  Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>  Poster:       Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
>>  Subject:      Re: "Soldier"
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  There are many alternatives e.g.,"military members" "personnel", "members
>>  of
>>  the armed forces", etc. but he chose "soldiers", which is inaccurate.
>>
>>  Bill Palmer

It might be worth noting that none of the above is a basic level
category in Rosch's sense, and so doesn't really threaten the
invocation of "soldier" as a natural (if inaccurate) label.  I'm
reminded of a thread we had many years ago that was set off by a
Times Magazine article containing the claim that one reason for the
spread of "queer" as an inclusive lexical label, despite its history
as a slur, is the fact that "gay" can't serve as a cover term because
"technically" it only applies to men.  Who decides on what the
technical or accurate use is in such cases, especially if we're
talking about articles in the popular press, as in the original
stories (CBS News, etc.) and the term is an autohyponym in ordinary
usage?

LH

>  >
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Neal Whitman" <nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET>
>>  To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>   Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:57 AM
>>  Subject: Re: "Soldier"
>>
>>
>>  > ---------------------- Information from the mail
>>  > header -----------------------
>>  > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>  > Poster:       Neal Whitman <nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET>
>>  > Subject:      Re: "Soldier"
>>  >
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >
>>  > Maybe he wanted to avoid the confusion of using 'troop' as a
>>  noncollective
>>  > count noun (a topic previously covered here, on Language Log, and on
>>  > Literal-Minded).
>>  >
>>  > Neal
>>  >
>>  > ----- Original Message -----
>>  > From: "Bill Palmer" <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
>>  > To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>  > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:14 AM
>>  > Subject: "Soldier"
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >> ---------------------- Information from the mail
>>  >> header -----------------------
>>  >> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>  >> Poster:       Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
>>  >> Subject:      "Soldier"
>>  >>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >>
>>  >> CBS news correspondent Bill Plante reported today that 4,250 "soldiers"
>>  =
>>  >> had died in Iraq, although many of them were US Marines along with a few
>>  >> =
>>  >> sailors & airmen.
>>  >>
>>  >> I read an article recently mentioning the 17 "soldiers" who had been =
>>  >> killed in the USS Cole bombing.
>>  >>
>>  >> There are many, many other recent examples.
>>  >>
>>  >> Is "soldier" now taken to mean any member of the armed forces, even =
>>  >> those who man ships? Or are we now so far into the all-volunteer force =
>>  >> (>35 years) that none of our journalists have any military experience =
>>  >> and don't know the proper terminology any more?
>>  >>
>>  >> Bill Palmer
>>  >>
>>  >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>  >
>>  > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>  > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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