"Soldier"

[Jonathan Lighter]

Actually, the use of correct terminology is, in one sense, important to more
and more.  There was a time when Marines (note my careful capitalization to
refer especially to U.S. Marines) - enlisted Marines in particular - were
not as sensitive about being referred to now and again as "soldiers"
(even among themselves if one believes AEF novelists Thomas Boyd and William
March). Back then, there were far fewer Marines (about 20,000 in all), and
the Corps had not yet awakened to the subtle magic of public relations.

WWII, however, saw a tremendous increase in Marine personnel along with a
now officially enforced insistence onobserving the distinction between
"Marine" and "soldier."  (I doubt that any American much cared whether they
called foreign marines "soldiers" or not.)

Part of the increased post-1918 sensitivity also came from the fact that
there were frequent Congressional rumblings that merging the Marine Corps
with the Army would save a bundle of money.  Emphasizing that "Marines" were
not "soldiers" (never capitalized, even when "Army" is) was partly an
attempt to discourage such thinking.

JL

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Wilson Gray <hwgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "Soldier"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In other words, there are necessary distinctions to be made among
> those who fight and die for their country. Meanwhile,  let the
> linguists and reporters Marine on in their lack of sensitivity, given
> that there are many who do recognize that there are distinctions and
> who intend to see to it that these are maintained.
>
> -Wilson
> –––
> All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> -----
> -Mark Twain
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> > Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster: Â  Â  Â  Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
> > Subject: Â  Â  Â Re: "Soldier"
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Well "reserve" or National Guard" are subsets of "army", "navy", or other
> > branch. Â That is quite different from calling those who man our ships
> > "soldiers", or lumping marines in with soldiers, although these days, and
> > particulary in Iraq, their mission is practically identical.
> >
> > But it could be that linguists are the same as journalists and don't
> really
> > make the distinction. Â Particularly as we move more and more into a
> society
> > where those who serve in the military are rarer and rarer, and the use of
> > correct terminology is important to fewer and fewer.
> >
> > Bill Palmer
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wilson Gray" <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
> > To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: "Soldier"
> >
> >
> >> ---------------------- Information from the mail
> >> header -----------------------
> >> Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> Poster: Â  Â  Â  Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
> >> Subject: Â  Â  Â Re: "Soldier"
> >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> How is it that you don't complain about the lack special reference to
> >> the members of the various Reserves and the branches of the National
> >> Guard? Does the phrase, "regular forces," as opposed to reservists and
> >> guardsmen, even exist, anymore?
> >>
> >> -Wilson
> >> â?"â?"â?"
> >> All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> >> come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> >> -----
> >> -Mark Twain
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at bellsouth.net
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>> ---------------------- Information from the mail
> >>> header -----------------------
> >>> Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <
> ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >>> Poster: Â  Â  Â  Bill Palmer <w_a_palmer at BELLSOUTH.NET>
> >>> Subject: Â  Â  Â "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