One troop too many? the disimplicature

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