troops vs soldiers

I am absolutely positive in my mind that the media uses the word "troops" in place of "soldiers" because "troops" sound less human than "soldiers". When x number of troops are shot to death, it sounds better than x number of soldiers were shot to death. It's a sick psychological game. "Troops" sound more like objects, whereas "soldiers" obviously paints the image of an actual person in peoples' minds. Our evil government couldn't care less that they are sending our young people all of the world to be slaughtered in all these useless wars. They only care about their greed and power. :-|

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

As a former Armored Cavalry TROOP Commander, allow me to clarify the difference between the terms Troop, Trooper and Troops.

1) Troop: When referring to an Army company sized unit, a Cavalry unit is traditionally referred to as a "Cavalry Troop" (such as A Troop or C Troop, NOT A Company or C Company). Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery is organized into "Batteries" - all other Army branches are generally organized into "Companies".
2) Trooper: Trooper is an older term of rank used in Cavalry organizations to refer to Cavalry enlisted men in the ranks of Private through Specialist. It is not an "official" rank, but is used more as a term of respect in today's Cavalry and Parachute Infantry organizations to demonstrate the more elite status of the Cavalry or Airborne Soldier versus his peers in less demanding specialties. It is used more in the generic (as in "How many Troopers do you have fit for duty?") than the specific ("Is Trooper Smith fit for duty?").
3. Troops. Troops is a generic, inoffensive catch all term used to refer to military personnel by those not in the military. It encompasses all branches of the service, and is a verbal shorthand for listing total military strength without having to break down the end strength by individual service. For example, it is easier to say "There are 200,000 troops in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations" versus "There are 150,000 Soldiers, 40,000 Marines, 8000 airmen and 2000 sailors in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

troops also encompasses privateers. Every time we have pulled out troops we have sent an equal number of private security forces in like XE. BY securing funds for troops rather than soldiers, you are agreeing to keep paying for mercenaries.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

The thing everyone appears to be overlooking is that the word army is a generic word to describe a group of soldiers or military people. It's been that way for centuries.

Now the entire preference of what you want to be called does not override fact. And the fact is that anyone who goes to war is a soldier. Here's a great example of why: we're all humans but we each break down into men and women and then there's children, teens, adults and seniors.

Now in the Navy, an aviator gets upset if he's called a sailor because he's a pilot. A Navy Seal is not a sailor either, he prefers Navy Seal. Army Rangers prefer Ranger over soldier. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If you signed up in the military, you know there's a chance you might go to war. Soldiers fight no matter what service they're from. Soldier IS a generic term and always has been.

I've never before in my military career heard the term 'troop' used in defining military members I've been around. But a troop IS a group of soldiers. So if you're okay with the word 'troop' or 'troops' being used, then you must be okay with 'soldier' being used.

Our preference does not change fact or the dictionary.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

And these are journalism majors that presumably took English in college! It's no ones fault except the talking heads refusal to actually learn proper grammar.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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!

5 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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!

4 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

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?

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Troops is a lot of soldiersss
and soldiers are less people then troops

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

In the Marine Corps it is as follows: e-1 through e-3 is considered a troop e-4 and e-5 are Non-Commissioned Officers and above that in the enlisted side are Staff Non-Commissioned Officers. So when I say "get me 5 troops immediately", I am speaking of the junior Marines. Soldier is Army, and Marines do not take to being called that very well. It is just the way it is.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Thanks Anonymous

now to another question
140.000 US troops in iraq and 1.250.000 civilian causalties in iraq.

2.819 people killed in 9/11 but 4144 American deaths in Iraq since war began

clinton almost impeached for lying about his sex life - Bush lying to the UN and reelected.

BTW are french fries still banned?

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Actually, Klaus, that was NOT the original question. The original question ALREADY assumed that the word 'troops' in your context means individual soldiers, not groups. the original question only asked why.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Back to the original question:

Today (28-07-08) in BBC news: "(...)His death brings the number of UK troops killed on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 to 113."

Is the head count 113 then? Or some higher number because a troop referes to a unit

Wikipedia:"A troop is a military unit (...) "

thanks

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Today (04/08/08) General Petraeus,before the US Senate, is referring to US soldiers as "troopers". What's that all about?

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Frank, the use of "they" and "their" with a singular antecedent is not a mistake. It's been part of English for 500 years.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

The way I understand the matter of the manner by which one speaks English, it seems that people really believe that they can make up the rules all according to their whim, which is based on a lack of their understanding "the logic of language (grammar). Thusly, in the matter of the use of the noun, "troop" instead of "trooper", it is just plain, BAD GRAMMAR, made to be correct by a mass of people that do not understand collective nouns and the logic behind them.
Also, why do MOST people misconstrue the pronoun, EVERYONE, and believe that it is a plural pronoun, as in the sentence: EVERYONE DID "THEIR" BEST TO RECTIFY THE MATTER? The possessive pronoun object of "everyone" is "his/her", NOT "their", which is a plural possessive pronoun! The pronoun, "everyone" is a singular pronoun that takes the singluar possessive pronoun object, "his/her", not the plural, "their"! Any grammarians have a comment to make about this? Frank

4 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Just came upon this. I currently serve in the US Marine Corps. The term troop, in their definition simply means on military member (ie. 10,000 troops =10,000 military personnel). They use the term troop, like many others have said, to generalize all the branches of military (said as "catch-all"). The reason for this, again as previously stated, is that not everyone out there is a "soldier". Marines are Marines, Army is Soldier, Navy is Sailor and Air Force is Airman. Now, touching on what Mad Joe said, while calling a Marine a Soldier is the not the best thing to do, it generally (speaking of the majority of us who have good sense) won't start a fight as said before, but if whether you're a civilian or not expect an instant correction and possibly brief explanation of why. Me personally, I have nothing against any of the branches, may God bring all our people back home safely--Semper Fidelis.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I thank God I have never been ordered into harms way by a war criminal president or killed anyone who has never harmed me or mine. This is semantics. Bush has ordered soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and troops, along with their corporate support staff who are not "troops" into harms way. They are all involved in an illegal, unprovoked, invasion, and occupation to invade, kill, steal, and lie about it. Get over the semantics and vote your elected officials out of office. America has been hijacked and we sit around arguing about trivia. That is not the American way.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Yeah...so..troop. Is it etymologically related to trap like I've been told, or..what.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

PS. Regarding the Marines thinking that "Soldier" is demeaning, all who serve should consider themselves Soldiers, as in "Onward Christian Soldiers...Marching on to War"! I have never served, and regret that decision every day!
Thanks for reading my post!
Steve

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I think the question of modern usage has been solidly answered by at least 3 members of the U.S. military. As for etymology, I have read that "troop" is related to the word "trap," the implication being that the word "troop" refers to a group of people and that if you happen upon a group of people when you are alone, they will jump you (we're talking about 5th or 6th century England here). Does anyone know about that? Is it true?

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Okay, I'm in the Army so I am speaking from experience. Soldier(s) refers to Army personnel. Troop(s) refers to any military personnel. We use all of the following: "I need one Soldier over here now.", "Send 20 Soldiers to headquarters." "Get me one troop to guard this vehicle." "There are 40 troops in the field at the moment." I'm sure that both troop and soldier, as with any other word, have more than one meaning and use. I believe that the original author's statement that "troops" has come to be synonymous with "soldiers" has resulted from a misunderstanding by the media and the public. Mainly due to the fact that the Army has the largest population of troops in Iraq. Therefore, the media tends to show more images of Army Soldiers in combat than other services. This in turn leads to the public having a mental picture of Soldiers when they think of the War. This leads to someone connecting "troops" to "soldiers". Now, I am not lessening the impact, nor the importance of other services in Iraq. The War couldn't be fought without the sacrifices of ALL branches of service. I'm just stating that the Army has more personnel over there... and this is due to the fact that the Army has the largest branch of the military. So, in conclusion: Soldier refers to Army. Troop refers to any military. An Airman can refer to himself as an Airman or a troop... but wouldn't state that he is a Soldier. And so it goes with the other services.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

doesnt troop come from trooper? i saw somewhere online that cavalry soldiers of private rank are called troopers. ive heard thats where it came from.. just a thought..

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

What about "we employ 10 staff". I think this is similar to saying we are sending 10.000 troops to Iraq.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

This fits the neo-con pattern of substituting Prussian sounding words for the usual latinate ones. Homeland (heimat) for country is another.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

10 000 troops could mean approximately 50 000 soldiers; I believe I recall that a platoon is around 24 soldiers and headquarters is around four officers, or something like that.

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Something that drives me up the wall are references to '15 personnel'...

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Vivin is correct. I used to be in the US Army, left and am now in the US Navy. Soldier is a term for any Army member, Sailor for Navy and Marine.....well for any Marine Corp member. I belive the Air force term is Airman. I'm not sure though. It's been this for a long time, but this distinction is not very well known among civillians. Troop is the proper Catch-all for any military member.

If a civilian calls a Marine a soldier, the Marine will usually let the slip slide without a word.

If a known military member calls a Marine a soldier on the other hand, This usually sparks a brawl.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

"Troops" is a less personal word. It sounds far better to lose a certain number of "troops" in combat than it does to lose a certain number of "soldiers."

I also think the word "soldier" connotes more of a honorable, proud heritage than "troop." When TIME named its person of the year a few years ago, it was not the "American Trooper" who was honored, it was the "American Soldier."

Soldiers sound more impressive, more valuable than troops. I wonder if we can tell a media outlet's intentions from their usage of either words?

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

My Marine neighbor referred to himself as a troop. His interpretation was that troop could be used to refer to a single person and to a specific collection of people. His was a Viet Nam era experience.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

In military terms, 'soldiers' tends to denote members of the ground forces, i.e. the army. Troops is more encompassing in that it can include Air Force and Navy personnel as well as others.

As Barbara in the first post pointed out, a 'troop' can also be used as a military unit. In the British Army, units such as the Cavalry and those units that are historically derived from the cavalry (such as the Royal Corps of Signals) use the term Troop in place of Platoon, Squadron in place of Company and Regiment in place of Battalion. Just to make it more confusing, an infantry battalion is the sub-ordinate unit of an infantry regiment (as in 'The First Battalion, The Parachute Regiment'). The British infantry can also use the term 'regiment' for a battalion-sized organisation. These regiments are, in reality, single battalion regiments.

That's what history does for you :-)

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I'm in the US Army.

"Soldier" is a term used to refer to Army Personnel exclusively, just like you would use "Sailor", "Airman", or "Marine".

"Troop" is a catch-all term.

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

In effect from all the conversations, I see a miss. The point is that by definition the word meant something but by usage, by the battering of time (call it language rust), the meaning changed.
I don't think I would be wrong in saying, that from a puritanical perspective usage of 'troops' for 'soldiers' is incorrect and from the angle of going with the flow, it is accepted.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Wait a minute. I have to take issue with the fallacious question itself. It asserts facts that are simply incorrect.

First, dictionary.com says that the word "troops" DOES mean "soldiers". There are a whopping 23 different definitions from four sources, many of which include "soldiers" or "group of soldiers".

Second, this did not come about in "the last few years". This usage has been common since before any of us were even born.

That being said, it is still an interesting question. Reference to a specific number of troops, like "50,000 troops were sent" was publicly and commonly used in the media at least as early as the Vietnam War. Within the military, such usage was widespread during the Korean War, possibly earlier.

Troops was used more abstractly to mean a body of soldiers, (and, duh, NOT meaning a group of groups of soldiers!) by Roosevelt in World War II, and even by George Washington before the Revolutionary War.

"Troops", technically (if debatably) might have meant group of troops, but in usage, has really been referring to a collective group of soldiers or servicepersons, at least for the last few hundreds of years.

see:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/arch...

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I'm a former Airman who worked beside Soldiers, Sailers, and Marines. I don't know about proper definitions, but individually and generically, we were "troops." When our supervisors would talk about their supervisees, they would refer to us as their "troops." It's not a recent term. Go back to Viet Nam news reports, and they talk about "number of troops killed." A Soldier is widely considered as someone in the Army. According to the Oxford American Dictionary: "Troops -- soldiers or armed forces (UN peacekeeping troops)."

4 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I suspect that Austin is right, but that if you ask the military, they will reverse the order, saying that troops is preferred because a soldier is a fighter and there are so many more things the military personnel do, like manage all the non-military personnel. Perhaps the military wouldn't even acknowledge the first argument, that there is less of an emotional connection to sending troops then soldiers. Of course, I bet if we scan the headlines, we only hear about soldiers dying. The news media don't mind tugging the heart strings.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I suspect that Austin is right, but that if you ask the military, they will reverse the order, saying that troops is preferred because a soldier is a fighter and there are so many more things the military personnel do, like manage all the non-military personnel. Perhaps the military wouldn't even acknowledge the first argument, that there is less of an emotional connection to sending troops then soldiers. Of course, I bet if we scan the headlines, we only hear about soldiers dying. The news media don't mind tugging the heart strings.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I wonder if there's something PC going on too. 'Soldier' typically only refers to members of the Army. Yet, the Marines, Air Force, and Navy have all sent service members to Iraq. Troops is sort of a catch-all term. I like what dyske said that it's less personal (in that it doesn't conjure up images of people), but I would go on to say that it is a bit more friendly. 'Soldier' has a very cold and mechanical feeling to it.

Also, 'soldier' tends to connote an infantryman who marches through the battlefield carrying his rifle. In modern warfare, this is just one of many different jobs to be had.

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

This is quite interesting. “Troop” certainly sounds less personal than “soldier”, because no one says, “I’m a troop.” Saying, “We are sending 10,000 troops,” sounds less serious, because it sounds as if we are just sending guns or something. It is possible that they changed the usage for this psychological/emotional reason, like the way they refuse to use the term “civil war” to describe what is going on in Iraq.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse