Comments on: troops vs soldiers

By: porsche

porsche — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:14:39 +0000

Gilbert, as inarticulate as Bush may be, and as much as I blame him for many, many things (and I really do), I'm afraid you really can't blame him for this whole troop/troops thing. It predates his term by years/decades/centuries. Scroll up to my previous post. Furthermore, and I'm sure this will start another argument (at least, I hope so:), I think that criticism for his use of "decider" is misplaced. I would propose that adding -er to the end of ANY verb to create a noun is ALWAYS correct in English, even if it's not in the dictionary, even if it's never been done before for a particular word by any single human being ever, even if it results in a stilted, awkward-sounding word. The -er paradigm itself is a universal method of nounification. And, by the way, nounification is a real word, too. I just coined it. Making up such words in context is also allowed in English, actually, in every language. That's how ALL language was created in the first place, right? Like it or not, Bush WAS the decider, I guess we were the decidees. If you want to join the many other criticizers in making him the critizee, go right ahead.

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Gilbert

Gilbert — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:30:34 +0000

I have not reached for my dictionary. In the old days, and I am an old guy, a “troop" was a unit with a given number of soldiers, a trooper is one soldier, consequently 2 or 3 troopers is the same as 2 or 3 soldiers. Trooper is synonymous with Soldier. The problem today is that since Bush made up his own vocabulary and it was quoted/repeated so much that it became accepted and therefore real. The best example is his use of the non-word “decider." To a degree that is so stupid. However, on the other hand the English language evolves at an incredible rate so I expect the improper use of troop will become proper in the future. This is true because everyone is using it incorrectly these days. I will not be a surprised to see the new meaning for troop in future dictionaries, just because the media has fallen to such low levels of unprofessional journalism. Brave to Barbara for bringing up the issue. Brave to everyone who commented.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Name (supplied)

Name (supplied) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:46:12 +0000

Bah, correction/clarification: I agree with whomever else said it; “troop” means a group of soldiers, and “troops” means groups of soldiers, for now.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Name (supplied)

Name (supplied) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:35:49 +0000

Well, JC, you've apparently been well and truly brainwashed. Even bought into the rivalry with the Navy tactic they use to increase solidarity. Anyway, I agree with whoever else has said that, for now, "troop" means a group of soldiers, and "troops" means groups of soldiers. However, if common usage dictates that a "troop" means a single soldier, then the purists will just have to whine about the degradation of the language as it gets added into the dictionaries.

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: jc

jc — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:17:28 +0000

THE ANSWER. I am an AMERICAN SOLDIER in THE US ARMY.... the army has soldiers. the air force has airmen the marine corps has marines the navy has homosexuals when it is a joint force we are called troops.. you will never hear a Captain in the Army refer to his soldiers as troops...we are SOLDIERS past and present who live by the SOLDIERS CREED and our WARRIOR ethos.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:37:02 +0000

Although I came across this conversation much later than posted, this issue has been bothering me for years, and I have even been lectured by people that "troop" is and always has been the name for an individual soldier. People are clearly not grammatically trained enough to understand singular and plural forms. It's not the first time and I'm sure won't be the last that I will be lectured by people who are barely literate about "the correct form." The real issue seems to me to be the kind of corporate speak that organizations develop over time as a kind of substitute for real English, I suspect for reasons other than grammatical incompetence-- reasons like wanting to make official communications less formal, wanting to have a group inspeak that outsiders cannot totally decipher, and frankly the lack of demands on anyone who speaks in public or communicates to the public to make sense. People for some reason accept euphemisms as more "friendly" than real English, even when, as in this case, it totally obscures the facts being presented to a person who understands basic grammar. Like others, on hearing this word used in the singular, I always wondered if 10 troops were dead, how many men were in each troop. Luckily I am no longer plagued with that problem, as others who don't understand English grammar have corrected my uneducated guesses. Hooray for egalitarianism!

Current score: 4 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: dy

dy — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:35:03 +0000

I'm sorry, but the word "troop" has always referred to a group: i.e., more than one individual. And it just looks ridiculous to say "4 troops were killed", as it does on aol today. "Soldier" is as fine a word as any to use: it does not need to define which division of armed forces one comes from, they are all fighting for the same things, are they not? It does not need to define man or woman...they are all human beings putting their lives on the line for what they believe in. It works, and it is not confusing. And it couldn't look ridiculous if it tried...God Bless our Soldiers, every one!

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Rorschach

Rorschach — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:17:20 +0000

I wanted to add that although the military people say that "troop" is singular, our dictionaries say that it is a plural word- now I am back to being confused again.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Rorshach

Rorshach — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:14:40 +0000

Well this is still quite confusing. The only military people who responded to this board have all said that a "troop" can be singular. Everyone else has had mixed opinions. I am still confused, but if our own military people say that it can be singuar, then it must be so- they would know, you know?

Comments on: troops vs soldiers

By: porsche

By: Gilbert

By: Name (supplied)

By: Name (supplied)

By: jc

By: Bill

By: dy

By: Rorschach

By: Rorshach

By: Robin