Language desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 22

"Troop:" plural until killed, then 1 equals a troop?

How come "X troops were killed" is what the media report when X individual soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen are killed? What year did this usage begin? Various dictionaries [1] report that "troop" means "A group or company of people, animals, or things." See also [2], which says a "troop is 60 to 250 soldiers, or 2 to 8 platoons." Another source says a "troop" is two or more platoons. Historically, I read things like [3] "A detachment of Troop H, Second United States Cavalry, was fired on late this afternoon by Mexican Federal cavalrymen." from 1913, clearly not referring to an individual soldier. "Troop" was clearly used as an adjective, as in "troop train" and "troop ship." It was a collective noun as in "Troops ordered out (1902) referring to soldiers in the thousands. Yet when a military helicopter crashes and all aboard die, the story says "A Black Hawk helicopter crashed Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, killing nine American troops. When and why did this odd use of "troop" commence? Does anyone say "My son is a troop in the US Army?" Or "I was a troop in Vietnam?" Is "troop" just a default term to describe soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, while avoiding the recent horrid US government term "warfighters" which sounds like they are entities from Terminator (franchise)? Edison (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out troop here. Bus stop (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it then correct to say "At age 11 I became a Boy Scout troop?" Edison (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on troop as a unit, but Company (military unit)#United States Army has a better explanation. Troops is a generic plural term for soldiers; troop would never be used in this context. In Scouting, troop is always a unit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read Michael Quinion's article. It is completely hashed out there. That is found here. Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone responded to Quinion saying that they are a writer for the Pentagon, and the accepted US military term for one service member is "warfighter." Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper (rank) is more or less synonymous with soldier. And if you're a really good Swedish one, a Super Trouper. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Vermont you can even be a Super Trooper ;) Rimush (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Michael Quinion: He's right about the OED's omission, but he fails to mention that the singular "troop" for an individual member of personnel was added to the OED in 1993, as an irregular formation from the plural "troops", in "chiefly Mil." usage. And the OED has a cite for that usage from 1832, albeit in inverted commas. Troop is certainly a useful word: U.S. marines, for example, don't take at all kindly to being called "soldiers", even if some insist it is correct. Finally, I can't resist linking to this, though it's old news.--Rallette (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar issue with "police". Usage has changed since I was in school, where I was rigorously drilled about referring to individual "police men" or "police officers", or groups thereof. You could have "three policemen arrived" or "the police arrived", but never "three police arrived". But "three police arrived" is considered quite OK these days. And yet, the answer to the question "What do you do for a living?" is still never "I'm a police". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, in the British Army, a troop is a subdivision of a cavalry regiment, analagous to a platoon in the infantry (also the cavalry has squadrons, where the infantry has companies). It is also used by units with a cavalry heritage such as the Royal Horse Artillery. A trooper is a cavalryman, where an infantryman is generally a private. Robert Baden-Powell was a cavalry officer, hence the use of troops and patrols in Scouting. "Troops" is however a general term for a number of soldiers, whether infantry or cavalry; for example in troop ship. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely heard 'I'm a police' on The Wire, so it seems that this might be a regional expression around Baltimore. 149.169.165.212 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... "considered quite OK these days", Jack? Not on this side of the world, except perhaps in informal communication. Dbfirs 06:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll googlefully find various examples in print. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, one example in the Australian Daily Telegraph, but never in the British one! Dbfirs 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Indeed there is"

Hello, wikipedians. I've come for your help again. :)

The above phrase, "Indeed there is", is what I have a question about. How can I classify this phrase? It is necessarily an embedded clause, but is it covered otherwise by linguistic terminology? THank you in advance. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a phrase you can use as a sentence?"

"Indeed, there is."

...which means no, it doesn't have to be an embedded clause. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing OtherDave: it's just a normal sentence with elided material. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the American accent

I was reading Boswell's Life of Johnson and came across the anecdote of the Earl of Marchmont's accent being mistaken for an American one in the 1770s. It got me thinking that the thirteen colonies were colonised by native English speakers from Britain and so how long has the American accent been noticeably different from the one spoken in England? When did Americans or Englishmen first comment on the difference? Does anyone know the answer?--Britannicus (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an "American accent". There are several different accents. See American_English#Regional_differences for starters. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, they why do tens of millions of British people recognise an American accent, but not any sub-grouping of it? Eh? Eh? 92.29.121.41 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect in the same way that American's "love your British accent". Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one single "English accent" or "British accent" - there are many different accents over different parts of the UK, readily identifiable to UK residents at least. Back in the eighteenth century those accents (and dialects) would have been much more distinguishable from each other than they are now, because of the relative lack of mixing between people from different areas - and would also have been different from modern accents. The accents of the settlers would have varied considerably depending on which part of Britain they came from, and the accents that then developed in America would have arisen from a mixing of the different accents in use at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying "There is no such thing as blue" but only navy, ultramarine, and so on. 92.15.27.8 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both statements are true. There is no one, single color that can be referred to solely and exclusively as "blue". There are various forms of "blue" (navy blue, sky blue, ultramarine) which are all lumped together, collectively, as "blue"; in the same way that there are various accents of English in the UK, various accents of English in America, and so on and so forth. Lexicografía (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Unfortunately the article does not mention when the first American accents emerged. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating subject, and the truth often surprises most people. Patricia T. O'Conner has a cool section on this in her book Origins of the Specious, which is what I'm using as a reference right now. The English that was spoken at the time of the thirteen colonies (the time period you are referencing) was the same on both sides of the pond. In fact, today's educated American English is closer to the English of that time period than today's British English is, and AmEn has preserved a lot of words and pronunciations from that time period that BrEn hasn't, as well as vice versa. But to answer your question, the two Englishes have been different pretty much since the American Revolution (the spellings pretty much since Samuel Johnson picked the "British" variants for his dictionary in 1755, and Noah Webster picked the "American" variants for his dictionary in 1828). I don't know who exactly was the first to notice the difference, but the Brits have been (often erroneously) complaining about the Yanks' language pretty much since the mid-nineteenth century. Lexicografía (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everard would have been more precisely correct to say "there is no single American accent," although of course outside the classroom, ordinary people use the term all the time, without needing to be extra-precise, as the heading for a large category of regional accents - which are usually ignored when it comes to making Hollywood movies, unless needed for local color, or to emphasize the difference between the hero and the villain. By the same token, if we want to be exact about it, there is no single British, French, Spanish, German, etc., accent either; but the category headings suffice to indicate what we mean in everyday language.

Having said that, I don't know exactly when our English cousins first noticed that we sounded different from them, although our colonial forebears started coining "Americanisms" practically from the moment they first reached these shores: Captain John Smith used "opossum" in his Map of Virginia, ca. 1610. Presumably pronunciation began to diverge in the 17th century, and by the following century was different enough that both Ben Franklin (1768) and Noah Webster (1789) commented on it - favorably, of course. These and other interesting observations on these points are found in Robert J. Menner, "The Pronunciation of English in America," Atlantic Monthly, March, 1915,[4] and in H. L. Mencken's classic work, The American Language, 1921, esp. Chap. 2, part 6, "Colonial Pronunciation."[5]

Thank you, Lexicografia, for your helpful reply. It is refreshing to see a reply that does not split hairs but does actually answer the question I asked.--Britannicus (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The accent of the American South changed due to African influence. Boston stayed closer to the English source. Accents in Britain changed over time. Folks living 100 km distant in the UK speak with grossly different accents. Folks 100 km apart in the US speak similarly with each other, except perhaps for the north-south variation either side of the Mason-Dixon line, y'all. Edison (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philo-

I was thinking about philosophy recently and the meaning. I've been told it translates "love of wisdom." 'Philo-,' I know, means love, which got me thinking even more. Why does it precede -sophos? In other words, with philo- it always seems to follow the noun, or at least is the subject. Examples: Philology (study of what is loved, philo- being the subject), pedophilia (-philo being the desciptor). Just wondering. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, philology is the science of language (phil + logos). Just a thought, both philosophy and philology do come pretty much straight from the Greek, but pædophilia is a created word. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also -phil-, as well as wikt:phil-, wikt:-philia, wikt:-phile, and wikt:-philiac. My favourite is philately, the love of that which is exempted from taxes. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Merriam-Webster lists about 160 entries for "philo-", about 60 for "-philous", about 20 for "-phily", and about 35 for "-philia". I don't see any strong trends, but a lot of the ones prefixed with "philo-" were formed in Greek, while a lot of the others were formed in either New Latin (otherwise known as modern science) or English. Lexicografía (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill the misremembering pedant: please don't be a rude person to one who is unwillingly ignorant. Anyways, Philology can be translated several ways.
I guess the modern interpretation of phil- is a matter of social convention then, eh? schyler (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I was being rude, and misremembering? I double checked in a real dictionary before posting. I'll try not to help you in future though, as it obviously offends you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between the two of you, Duncan and schyler, you have shown how the word philology is inconsistent with most other -logies. Though it does have several definitions (see also Philology#The_term), none of them seem to mean "study of what is loved". So it doesn't follow the pattern of zoology (study of animals), biology (study of life), anthropology (study of humans), ... There are erotology and of course sexology for the study of carnal love, but I couldn't find a specific greek term for "study of friendship" or "study of that which is loved". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reinforce: @schyler, Duncan was not being rude, and you were flat-out wrong—"philology" has never meant "the study of what is loved". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't think Duncan was being rude either. He did annoy me though, by edit-conflicting me :P, and I had to revise my answer, which was almost identical with the first part of Duncan's answer. If it was the "Umm" that bothered you, schyler, then I think you misinterpreted it as condescending or rude. I've been familiar with Duncan's writing for quite a while, and I am certain that is not how Duncan meant it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But given its now-obvious potential to appear to be condescending - and remember, if a receiver feels offended, then offence has been caused whether or not the writer intended it - it's probably best if editors generally avoided the use of umms and ers and the like (I include myself in this imprecation), or at least be more judicious in their use. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great balls of C₁₉H₂₈O₂, what a cutthroat business the ref desk is. Damned if you answer a question, and damned if you don't. No wonder the women Wikipedians stay away in droves. I may join them. Textorus (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never know. The women may be here, but too smart to participate. They're probably having a wikipedia party and watching all that goes on and chuckling to each other about the fallacies of man. Lexicografía (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

As wise women often do. Definitely the superior sex.Textorus (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is Duncan felt it necessary to correct me without having any insight into my inquiry. I do apologize but at the same take up defense. My question still hasn't been answered though. Maybe if I clarify it: What is the determining factor in the different translations of some Greek roots which can be used as prefixes and suffixes, such as -philo-? schyler (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there is a general rule, and even in the case of "-phil-", there seem to be several determining factors, and possibly some random factors as well. In terms of references, I didn't find a lot, except several snippets stating that the prefix phil- implied an active meaning (examples: philantropy (active love of mankind) or Philippe (active love of horses), while the suffix -phile implied a passive meaning (Theophilus, beloved of Zeus)[6]. This may have applied to ancient Greek (hopefully someone can comment on this). Yet in modern English haemophilia isn't the state of being loved by blood and bibliophiles aren't loved by books, they actively love books. So the date and location and context of when and how some of these words entered the English language seem to play an important part too. Are there any neologisms of this kind beginning with philo- or phil-? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Philosophy" is a keen interest in Sophia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED Online has philo-, comb. form: "Forming nouns denoting a liking for the thing specified by the second element" and "Formations within English first appear in the early 17th cent. (e.g. philomythology n.), and from the start, the second element is usually an English word, although in many cases ultimately of Greek origin." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castellano

Why is it that Castellano (or "Spanish Spanish") features the [θ] sound while almost every other Western European language I know (obviously excluding English and possibly Greek) doesn't? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic's got it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it appears in these European languages: Albanian, English, Galician, Greek, Castilian Spanish, and Welsh (as well as a few more rare ones which you may or may not care about). Lexicografía (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish it seems to have been a more recent development. Modern development of the Old Spanish sibiliants states that it emerged in "northern and central dialects", but doesn't explain why (if it can even be explained). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ceceo#Origins (including the legend of the king's lisp). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, [θ] in Spanish is not a separate phoneme, but just an allophone of [s]. correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are minimal pairs [θ]-[s] (unlike English, for example: "sink" and "think"). And of course, Latin American Spanish doesn't even have [θ], as far as I know. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was wrong after all. The article on ceceo that Sluzzelin points out has a lot of information on this phenomenon; it seems to be a merger that's happened in some dialects but not others, similar to the cot-caught merger and pin-pen merger in American English. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article shouldn't be titled "ceceo". Most Spanish dialects have seseo, and the majority of the rest of dialects has distinción. "Ceceo is a phenomenon found in a few dialects of southern Spain", as the article itself says. Rimush (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's because [θ] is an uncommon consonant, so it's not to be expected to crop up very often. Baranxtu (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet

How are "Montague" and "Capulet" pronounced? I've always pronounced them /mɑːnteɪg/ and /kæpjuːleɪ/ but that might be my French experience creeping in. I've recently heard them pronounced /mɑːntəgjuː/ and /kæpjuːlɛt/; is this correct? Also what is the point of having [ɳ] if it is basically the same as [nj]? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I am unsure how to pronounce a word, I find it very helpful to consult a dictionary. In this one, you can even hear the word Montague pronounced. Rhymes with barbecue.

As a side note, there is a Montague County, Texas, which is theoretically pronounced mon-TAYG, like vague, but locally it comes out sounding mon-TEGG. They make good barbecue there too. Textorus (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be Italian, not French: "... in fair Verona, where we lay our scene ...". To a rough approximation, Italians pronounce all the letters (there aren't the "silent" letters as with French). I'm not great with IPA, but the latter seems to be the only way I've heard them said. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was /mɑːnteɪg/, then any line including the name (such as "Thou art thyself, though not a Montague / What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot…") wouldn't scan. Marnanel (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And since in the play Shakespeare rhymes "Montague" with "thou art true" and "Capulet" with "love is set", the intended pronunciations are clear. Deor (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Montague" in Montague semantics is always pronounced /mɒntəˈgjuː/ (with normal dialect pronunciation variations, of course). Since "Montague" comes from Latin mons acutus, even in French it would be trisyllabic (cf. accent aigu)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was "montaigue" it would be pronounced the way the OP thought (aigue being medieval French for "water", as in "Aigues-Mortes", although "water mountain" wouldn't make much sense). When we first read Romeo and Juliet in high school, I thought it was pronounced that way too, because I knew a Montag family. But their name was probably German. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantua

On a related note, how is the exonym "Mantua" pronounced? The village in Ohio is pronounced MAN-uh-way, but I don't think that's how Shakespeare said it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "MAN-too-uh" (or "MAN-to-va" in Italian). How do they get "man uh way" out of that? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same way they get "Camel" out of Campbell, Ohio and "Low-ville" out of Lowellville, Ohio. If you think that's weird, check out the pronunciation of some British place names. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could hazard a guess that they initially said "Man-too-ay" (not too far removed from how the rest of us say it, but with a mid-Western nuance), which was corrupted to "Man-uh-way". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elision of "t" between "n" and a vowel is common in this part of the world -- "I have an appointment with the dennist in Toronno." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cf.: "Des Moines" and "Boise"--Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Mantua (man-TOO-uh) subdivision in Fairfax County, Virginia. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually /'mæntju(w)ə/ in British English. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Northern Virginia and I always hear it pronounced MAN-too-uh - basically like the British pronunciation, only yodless. LANTZY ^TALK 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ɳ

Really this depends on whether the sequence is one phoneme or two in the language in question. English is not normally analysed as having a phoneme /ɳ/, that symbol is not usually used in transcribing English: Spanish and Amharic do have that phoneme. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean [ɲ], anyway? [ɳ] is retroflex.—Emil J. 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I reproduced the OP's error without noticing it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]