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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Originally "troop" was like "troupe" from old frankish--a gang or platoon (as with a troupe of thespians). So singular would be a bit odd, tho'...semantics shifted I think Mericans accept that. It looks related to the IE root word for "tribe" , like thorp or somethin--not latinate, exactly.
ReplyDelete"Soldier" on the other hand meant...soldier--an infantryman who was paid via "solidus" I believe (this from wiki and other online sources-lite)--a gold coin of roman empire circa Emperor Julian , approx.
There may be a difference in connotation--most Merican politicians will generally prefer monosyllabic words to polysyllabic words for one. Bush II said " I will not put troops in harm's way." Why not "I will not put soldiers in harm's way"? "Troops" is to the point, direct. "Soldier" has a vaguely latin--or worse, french--vibe. Serious. Now, run 'em through the handy Gricean Connote-o-meter and see what the results are
Troop
ReplyDeleteActually, the noun "troup"--for a company of soldiers, or people at least-- is not cognate with "tribe" exactly, but with Germanic "dorf"--village--, also in OE/ON, "thorp" or "thrup", still seen in some Anglo place names--like...Northrup--north town, more or less. But McWhorter was sort of correct that "troop" was not singular, except via colloquialization. For the singular you would probably say...trooper.
"But McWhorter was sort of correct that "troop" was not singular, except via colloquialization."
ReplyDeleteTx, and lovely to see you back. Of course I disagree, as per next post!