Merriam Webster defines a troop as a group of soldiers (or other individuals).
When CNN makes a statement such as "at least 73 U.S. troops have been killed in hostile action..." I was questioning how many were in a troop. Dorian pointed out to me (in another post) that when the word troops is used in this content it always meant individuals. Why is this? ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 04:07 PM maiku I'm glad you asked this question, Georgia.
Personally, I wince whenever I hear the word "troops" used to refer to several individual soldiers in this way. But Dorian is correct, it is often so used these days. Why? Because people, and particularly newcasters ("journalists"), are ignorant, that's why.
The word comes from a French word originally meaning "herd." So a troop is already a sizeable group. Back in the days of the Korean War, we talked about bringing the troops home by Christmas, and this meant that they would come back by whole divisions, the plural of troop meaning many units, each unit itself a large collection--a troop, division, battalion, or what have you.
Like many words, this one has become bastardized, and no amount of my wincing will change a thing. So it goes. The crass newscasters have succeeded in creating a new meaning for the word, out of their lack of verbal skills. Do not forget that these are the same types who think that they are, as individuals, "media," who don't know that to beg the question means to evade it, not to raise one, and who don't know the difference between an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms. Frown
My American Heritage dictionary, by the way, does not recognize the new meaning of a troop as an individual. It defines "troops" as military units. Interestingly enough, in view of your question of how many are in a troop, it also states that a troop can be a unit of at least five Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts. Smile ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 04:39 PM FredPuli In the UK we hear, and occasionally see, statements in this form : "some troops were fired on" when the number is but a truck crew or some other small number. So there the speaker or writer is almost at the point of having a troop as one soldier.
Compare the word cohort and its plural with troop. They have had an equally unhappy history here. Cohort is already being used infelicitously for one individual e.g. " Gordon Brown is a cohort of Tony Blair".It has come to mean, as there, a very close ally at best; at worst it suggests a co-conspirator or the poodle of the person named. In the plural it is invariably pejorative; in " Tony Blair and his cohorts " it means his fellow travellers, those who support him out of self -interest, hypocritically, and those who aid him without overtly displaying their support; anyone, in fact, who supports him ignobly and dishonourably. ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 04:39 PM Georgia85 Loved your answer! Newscasters are ignorant...LOL So basically journalists, like businesses, create words/definitions to meet their needs. But I don't understand why the journalists don't just use the term "soldiers".
Well it's nice to know that I still know the correct definition of some words and I shall wince whenever I hear that term too Big Grin ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 04:57 PM DorianGreyed "But I don't understand why the journalists don't just use the term "soldiers"." - Georgia
The word "soldiers" would be in error if some were Marines or even, I think, National Guard. Marines are Marines, and Guardsmen are Guardsmen. (Trust me, you wouldn't want to call Koz a soldier.) It wouldn't surprise me if the bastardization of "troops" came about to make reporting about both solidiers and Marines a little easier. Saying that we have 50,000 troops commited in Korea does get the point across, and is less cumbersome that saying we have 50,000 soldiers, Guardsmen, Marines, sailors (seamen?), and airmen. I agree with Maiku, and think that the usage came into being during the Korean War or WW II, and may have been in the interest of time. Then, a newscast was about news, and editing was tight in order to get as much news in as possible. ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 05:29 PM Rakuchild Has anyone addressed the connotations of the words. "Troops" sounds impersonal. It implies a group of people and lacks individuality. "Soldier" brings it down to one person, though an anonymous one, that person is still thought of as part of a group and the perception is that person is trained and professional. And if they used "Persons" or "person" that brings it too close to home. People are objectified in war with words like enemy, ally, soldiers and troops because who would get behind it if one picked up the paper and read "Two US men, both fathers, and a woman, recently engaged before deployment, were fired upon and killed while searching for land mines"? The less real they are, the easier it is to go on knowing they died.
See, the language used gives us distance from the reality. That's why the Vietnam memorial is so emotionally packed. It gets real up close and personal. ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 06:27 PM maiku Part of what I tried to make clear above was that the use of "troops" as the plural of a normal count noun "troop" denoting an individual soldier was unheard of at the time of the Korean War. The present-day use is much more recent than that, I believe.
I first heard the word used in this way following Gulf War I when Bush I was president. I was teaching English classes in Germany to soldiers who had been deployed in Kuwait and Iraq, and I remember being shocked when one of these soldiers insisted that he was a troop.
In my lexicon, marines are still soldiers. And so are guardsmen. And I think the majority of English speakers still use the word "soldier" to include these. I agree that sailors and airmen are not generally thought of as the same as soldiers, though, and in any case, I don't want to make an issue out of it. If Koz wants to deny having been a soldier (as I was pretty nearly certain myself he would want to do), that's his lookout (or outlook), and I'd still much prefer thinking of him as having been a soldier than a troop.
I'd suggest the use of "servicemen," but that would run into charges of sexism, I suppose. "Service member" just doesn't have the right cachet, does it.
I loved Rakuchild's thoughtful observations. ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 08:29 PM Georgia85 Thank you all for such wonderful answers. Smile
While using the world "soldiers" seemed to be appropriate I can see why some servicemen/women would feel that term inappropriate for them. And I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Perhaps we could substitute "Americans" for "troops"? You do have to be an American citizen to enlist into the service don't you? ******************************************************* 04-13-04, 09:45 PM Sarai No, you don't need to be a citizen to fight in the US military.
From the above link (from Visalaw Immigration Information):
This week Federal Judge Gary Feess singled out 23 members of the United States Armed Forces during a citizenship swearing-in ceremony in Los Angeles.
Foreign-born recruits join the military for many reasons, including education benefits, job security and love of their adopted country. And now, enlisting puts them on the fast track to citizenship.
Since President Bush signed a temporary executive order in July making all soldiers with green cards immediately eligible for citizenship, eliminating a three-year waiting period, nearly 6,000 soldiers have become U.S. citizens. The president’s executive order affects any member of the military serving after September 11, 2001. It essentially allows them to apply for citizenship immediately and is described as a gesture to thank the soldiers for their service in defending the country.
Similar decrees during World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam and the 1991 Persian Gulf War helped hundreds of thousands of immigrants become U.S. citizens. ******************************************************* 04-14-04, 02:56 PM Kwll Avoiding all the etymology etc of the word troop this is what it means in an Army/military context. Troop when referred to as an Army unit is a Cavalry unit of Company size. Only Cavalry units in the Army are referred to as "Troops". When the media or others use the word they mean individual military members. DG explained it well, you wouldn't refer to Koz as a "troop" (he is a jarhead after all! term affectionately used here Smile) Although Guardsmen are also referred to as Soldiers unless they are in the Air Guard and then they are Airmen. Sometimes Soldiers within the Army will be referred to as troops which is short for troopers and is a slang. Troopers comes from those Cavalrymen that served in "Troops" and gradually began to mean individual Soldiers as well. Note capitilization is important here. It all comes down to context folks. Hope that helps. And Sarai is correct, you don't have to be a US citizen to enlist, but you do have to be a citizen to be appointed to specific military positions (Officers, clearance requirements, etc) ******************************************************* 04-14-04, 03:12 PM Georgia85 You learn something new every day, don't ya?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 9192 | Location: Atlanta, GA, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
