soldier = sailor

Fri Feb 5 00:51:18 UTC 2010

This shows that all was still well with the world three years ago. Or does
it?

Newsweek felt compelled to print the  following correction to a movie review
it published in October, 2006:

[http://www.newsweek.com/id/44948]  CORRECTION:  In "Inside the Hero
Factory" (Oct. 23), we said the flag raising at Iwo Jima was conducted by
six soldiers, when in fact the flag was hoisted by five Marines and a Navy
corpsman.

JL

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Dave Wilton <dave at wilton.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> Subject:      Re: soldier = sailor
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe the "pursuit" was dropped and "fighter" adopted when the Army Air
> Forces became the USAF in 1948. At least all the P-planes became F-planes
> at
> that time.
>
> The last official fighter-bomber that I know of was the FB-111, the
> strategic version of the F-111. That's a different use (i.e., fighter that
> is being used as a strategic bomber) of "fighter-bomber" than the WWII use.
>
> A howitzer is a low-velocity cannon that fires shells with high
> trajectories. A gun is a high-velocity cannon that fires shells with a low
> or nearly flat trajectory. It's a fine distinction that can safely be
> ignored in all but the most technical of contexts.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
>  Wilson Gray
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:24 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: soldier = sailor
>
> During The War, the term, "fighter-bomber," was in common use. It's
> not as though this sort of thing is a new tactical development. But
> what's now called a "fighter plane" - F-Numeral - was called a
> "pursuit aeroplane," e.g., the Curtiss _P_-40 used by the Flying
> Tigers. That change is (relatively) new. (No doubt, the
> then-still-ongoing shift from "aero-" to "air-" annoyed purists of the
> day. The only form that I have ever used is "airplane," though I can
> recall that some people in Marshall used "aeroplane" [&@r at pl&In],
> including my fella-chirren, and was still used in the dictionary and
> in literature, by the time that I could read such big words.)  What's
> new is no longer bothering to make the distinction, presumably on the
> assumption that "a difference that makes no difference is no
> difference."
>
> As for submarines, I agree with Jon. During The War, there were only
> submarines, pig-boats, and u-boats, in the funny-books of the era.
>
> Merely asking for information: what is a howitzer, if not, like a cannon, a
> gun?
>
> -Wilson
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Dave Wilton <dave at wilton.net> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: soldier = sailor
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > There are different levels of error in "fighter plane" (referring to any
> > combat aircraft) and "fighter sub."
> >
> > "Fighter" is the jargon term for a class of aircraft, it is not a jargon
> > term for a class of submarine. The term the movie critic should have used
> is
> > "attack sub," or perhaps "fighting sub."
> >
> > From the use of "fighter sub" I would not say that this movie critic had
> > "professional-level skills," at least not in writing about naval
> subjects.
> > The use of the term, in fact, displays remarkable ignorance of the
> subject
> > matter. That said, I've seen many uses of "soldier" to mean "service
> > member," "warrior," or "warfighter," subsuming sailors in its definition,
> > but usually in email, conversational speech, or other non-editorial
> contexts
> > and generally not in published writing.
> >
> > Also the CNN error is more understandable in that as years have gone by,
> > fighter aircraft have taken on more and more of the bombing or
> ground-attack
> > role. "Attack aircraft" (i.e., light bombers) have largely disappeared
> from
> > the American military arsenal, replaced by multi-purpose fighters. (Case
> in
> > point: the F-117 Stealth Fighter, which is designed for bombing, not
> > air-to-air combat.) In the USAF and USN today, the two classes of combat
> > aircraft are intercontinental-range strategic bombers and fighters (with
> a
> > few older attack aircraft still hanging on). The CNN error is more akin
> to
> > calling a "howitzer" a "gun" or "shell fragments" being called
> "shrapnel,"
> > although not nearly as technically nitpicky.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> > Jonathan Lighter
> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:37 AM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: soldier = sailor
> >
> > Weve already discussed whether or when marines are ever soldiers.  But
> the
> > following ex., obviously written by someone with professional-level
> > skills, shows that "soldier" now subsumes sailors too, at least for some
> > people:
> >
> >
> > 2007 _Moviefone_ [
> > http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2007/03/07/feature-page-5-1-films/]:
> > German director Wolfgang Petersen's U-boat drama realistically captures
> the
> > claustrophobia and uncertainty of a fighter sub and portrays the German
> > soldiers as real people, not Aryan monsters.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, as skeptics will chuckle, this is merely a slip. Maybe. But if
> so,
> > it is a bizarre slip IMO. The writer obviously knows what the movie is
> > about.
> >
> > Consider too the peculiar phrase "fighter sub." That supports the idea
> that
> > the writer is not very familiar with even everyday military/naval usage,
> at
> > least as little boys grew up learning it in the '50s.  I've heard Fox
> News
> > refer to all combat aircraft as "fighter planes."
> >
> > (If you don't understand my point, you may be proving it.)
> >
> > The explanation (if one is needed) may be that over the past couple of
> > decades, all members of the armed forces have come to be described in
> > journalism as "warriors" generally. (There are several reasons for this.)
> > But if "warrior" can subsume "sailor," why can't "soldier"?
> >
> > Inglish. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
> >
> > JL
> >
> > --
> > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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