| Author |
Message |
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:48 pm
Post subject: Militaries? |
|
|
Just heard on CNN:
"[T]he ballots from our militaries overseas"
-- Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State
I'm aware of "military" as a mass noun, but I think this is the first
time I've encountered it in the plural. If it's not a slip of the
tongue, how does it work -- as a standard count noun (one military,
two militaries) or as a weirdo defective form, a bit like "troops"?
--
Ross Howard
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Militaries? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | Just heard on CNN:
"[T]he ballots from our militaries overseas"
-- Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State
I'm aware of "military" as a mass noun, but I think this is the first
time I've encountered it in the plural. If it's not a slip of the
tongue, how does it work -- as a standard count noun (one military,
two militaries) or as a weirdo defective form, a bit like "troops"?
|
I've seen the plural, but only used of national forces - eg "the
militaries of four nations provide security in West Berlin".
cf "soldiery"
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Militaries? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | Just heard on CNN:
"[T]he ballots from our militaries overseas"
-- Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State
I'm aware of "military" as a mass noun, but I think this is the first
time I've encountered it in the plural. If it's not a slip of the
tongue, how does it work -- as a standard count noun (one military,
two militaries) or as a weirdo defective form, a bit like "troops"?
|
The guy probably needed sleep. The news people who are still up after
the long night are somewhat punchy, too.
In any case, it's sort of logical to use the term "militaries" when
speaking (especially on the fly) of "members of the military," "military
units," "soldiers," etc. And the audience will, for the most part,
easily understand what's being said.
Btw, "troops," as used these days, is generally accepted (AmE-wise), I
think; "weirdo defective form" is probably an outdated judgment by now.
Maria Conlon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Militaries? |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:02:14 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
<mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrought:
| Quote: | Ross Howard wrote:
Just heard on CNN:
"[T]he ballots from our militaries overseas"
-- Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State
I'm aware of "military" as a mass noun, but I think this is the first
time I've encountered it in the plural. If it's not a slip of the
tongue, how does it work -- as a standard count noun (one military,
two militaries) or as a weirdo defective form, a bit like "troops"?
The guy probably needed sleep. The news people who are still up after
the long night are somewhat punchy, too.
In any case, it's sort of logical to use the term "militaries" when
speaking (especially on the fly) of "members of the military," "military
units," "soldiers," etc. And the audience will, for the most part,
easily understand what's being said.
|
But it was his 15 minutes (well, three) of fame. I bet the guy's
wildest dream was that one day he'd be interviewed live on national --
and international -- TV by Wolf Blitzer, so I was assuming he'd have
been on his toes.
| Quote: | Btw, "troops," as used these days, is generally accepted (AmE-wise), I
think; "weirdo defective form" is probably an outdated judgment by now.
|
I just meant this weirdness:
More troops -- OK
50,000 troops -- OK
23 troops -- iffy
one/a troop -- beyond iffy
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Militaries? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrought:
Ross Howard wrote:
Just heard on CNN:
"[T]he ballots from our militaries overseas"
-- Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State
I'm aware of "military" as a mass noun, but I think this is the
first time I've encountered it in the plural. If it's not a slip of
the tongue, how does it work -- as a standard count noun (one
military, two militaries) or as a weirdo defective form, a bit like
"troops"?
The guy probably needed sleep. The news people who are still up after
the long night are somewhat punchy, too.
In any case, it's sort of logical to use the term "militaries" when
speaking (especially on the fly) of "members of the military,"
"military units," "soldiers," etc. And the audience will, for the
most part, easily understand what's being said.
But it was his 15 minutes (well, three) of fame. I bet the guy's
wildest dream was that one day he'd be interviewed live on national --
and international -- TV by Wolf Blitzer, so I was assuming he'd have
been on his toes.
|
Coincidentally, an email I just received from the Washington Post had a
video of Blackwell. It was taken after 2 AM Eastern Time. (He was
already tired, I think.) So Blitzer wasn't his only "chance." Plus, I
remember seeing him interviewed by someone else during the night. (I
wasn't watching CNN at all.)
Actually, I don't get the impression that he'd be impressed or thrilled
with national or international news interviewers. Local publicity might
be better for his career anyway.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/110304-18v.htm?referrer=email
or
http://tinyurl.com/4vf2m
The video starts off with a commercial, by the way, but it doesn't last
long.
| Quote: | Btw, "troops," as used these days, is generally accepted (AmE-wise),
I think; "weirdo defective form" is probably an outdated judgment by
now.
I just meant this weirdness:
More troops -- OK
50,000 troops -- OK
23 troops -- iffy
one/a troop -- beyond iffy
|
Yes, I see your point. I'm with you on the iffies.
Maria |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in