[lit-ideas] One Troop Too Many?
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:48:07 EDT
Back in 1832, the OED and M. Quinion report, 'troop' could be used
singularly:
"As the wounded 'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed".
But John McWhorter ignored this when objecting to what he felt was a
'misuse' of "troop" -- on National Public Radio:
McWhorter said:
"Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
McWhorter noted in particular that
"this usage of troops is only possible
in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop."
---- But one CAN, as per 1832 OED quote above.
McWhorter, ignoring that, adds:
"This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg."
As Quinion notes, though, it will possibly be some while, if ever, "before
a member of the armed forces describes himself or herself as a troop, not
least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as "soldier" will continue
to take precedence.
Plus, in French, they speak of a "troup" of actors, which is still a
different (French) usage.
Speranza---Bordighera
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] One Troop Too Many? - Jlsperanza
