J:
"in terms of language use your own descriptivist view would seem to imply accepting "gang" as a collective, not a single person, which is indicated by gangster (a member of a gang, like included...hey set theory, in brief!)."
---- Yes. There is a detail as to verb form (cfr. Davidson, "The logic of action sentences"). Strictly, "the gang WERE dangerous", rather than "was" dangerous ("The gang are dangerous").
---
J:
""gang" is germanic/deutsch---as in walk, ie Gangplank, related to v. "gehen", to go ( "gegangen" gone). So yr correct that it's sort of awkward as well, and the use in English for "mob", or "group of criminals" fairly recent,"
I wonder if that originated -- where? It is odd that because some people are GOING (somewhere) they are a "gang"). Incidentally, when I walk my dog, I'm in a gang, too.
(and so is my dog).
"but...English, ie anglo-saxonish has always been a mishmash, if not a mess (as one old philosophaster told me...). But at least in Anglo, it seems coherent to show a difference between the group, and the individual (as type theory would imply as well). Gang, gangster; troop, trooper; mob, mobster. Even if it sounds like piratenzunge to a native German."
Well, but what about "Grice Club". Surely that's a collective. "The Grice Club were dangerous". Surely, if we all die (etc.) the phrase "The Grice Club" does NOT become vacuous. So, the SEMANTICS of "Grice Club" (or 'flock of criminals') is stuffy enough (full of stuff -- vide Jones on "Vacuous Names", his pdf in his site). Never mind the PRAGMATICS.
It's odd that while you, J, me, and Jones -- and Grice, etc. -- understand the lambda operations and the type-theories, most people who use words like 'mob', 'gang', or 'club' do NOT (necessarily). And so, they treat 'troop' (qua collective) at the same level of 'troop' as a MEMBER of a collective. A one-'troop' troop is still a troop. And literally, a troop EXISTS, qua type, beyond its (or her?, "troupe" is feminine in French) members.
J:
"As far as practical editing/journalist I think the preferred usage is service people, men/women serving in the military, or in uniform, perhaps soldiers. The use of "troops" is colloquial (tho' often used....but really "support our troops" seems to suggest, like support our groups of soldiers, or our teams, our gangs, etc)."
Yes. I'll check with wiki what they have about collectives. It would be interesting to check if they are necessary -- collectives -- and if they translate to ALL languages.
Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe collective noun/verb issue complicates matters as you quite rightly point out. British usage is plural, right? "The committee are in session."--tho it seems odd to have plurals sans s's, except in a few rare uses (the fish are jumping). "The gang is dangerous...or "That gang are dangerous" (don't think that would even work in British). But they do use plural with committee, etc.,
ReplyDeleteIn American it takes singular form of verb. Or something. At any rate brits more often make a distinction with collective/group nouns that Mericans don't.
I suspect "troop" was a newspaperman's contrivance, probably WWI, or WWII--rally the troops! Rally the troopers! just doesn't have that ring to it, so who cares about the grammatical weirdness.