[Ads-l] troops

[Dan Goncharoff]

Context creates, or avoids, ambiguity. What, in this context, created
ambiguity? I don't see it.

On Sep 18, 2016 10:22 AM, "Christopher Philippo" <toff at mac.com> wrote:

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > I also am confused about ambiguity. The Syrian Army is AFAIK a formal
> army.
> > Both troops and soldiers seem to be correct.
>
> I didn’t write that soldiers wasn’t correct.  I am uncertain as to the
> reason for any confusion given that I had explicitly stated what the
> ambiguity was:
>
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Christopher Philippo <toff at mac.com> wrote:
> > sixty-two people (as seems to be the case) or sixty-two units of people
>
> That “troops” may be used for both a number of people or a number of
> military subunits, and that both uses may be correct creates ambiguity - as
> stated repeatedly in the link I had shared in connection with my referring
> to the ambiguity, e.g.:
>
> > In his Political Dictionary published last year, William Safire had this
> to say on the issue:
> > Troops is a word in semantic trouble. In one sense, it means "soldiers";
> does this exclude sailors and airmen (now grouped as "service personnel")?
> Troops means "a group of," but so does a troop; the extent of the number is
> fuzzy. ... A troop means both “one soldier” and "a group of soldiers,"
> which is not what a word is supposed to do.
> http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/a-troop-of-one/
>
> The ADS thread mentioned in the visualthesaurus article:
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2003-April/031099.html
>
> > The Associated Press stylebook — used by NPR and many other news
> organizations —says that when “troops” is used with a large number, it’s
> understood to mean individual soldiers. […]
> > It is not the military’s practice to refer to one individual as a troop,
> said Col. Dave Lapan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media
> Operations.
> > Lapan said the Pentagon has no policy or media recommendation on how to
> refer to U.S. military personnel. He confirmed that using “troop” as a
> singular noun or “soldiers” to describe personnel outside of the Army is
> incorrect.
> > “A more accurate term is service members,” said Lapan. “There isn’t a
> universal way of doing it. It tends to be more preference. We [the
> military] recognize that the media at large uses soldiers in a generic
> sense.”
> > Former Army Times managing editor Robert Hodierne cautions against using
> the generic term “troops” and encourages specificity. […]
> > “My recommendation would be that NPR consistently use service member to
> avoid any problems,” said Alicia Shepard, NPR Ombudsman. “But if you are
> sure about what branch of the service, use that. NPR could minimize
> mistakes — and harm — by implementing a clear policy designed for
> reporters, hosts and writers to refer to when in doubt.”
>
> http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2010/08/13/
> 129183352/is-there-such-a-thing-as-one-troop
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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