# "Four troops were wounded"--is this right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 4, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621 "2005-08-04T21:09:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tiltypig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dbc845/32.png) [@tiltypig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiltypig)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/1 "2005-08-04T21:09:56Z")
“Four troops were wounded today in an intense battle.” This use of the word “troops” sounds so grating to me, but I see it in newspapers all the time. Is this actually acceptable, or have America’s copy editors gone crazy? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/2 "2005-08-04T21:26:26Z")
What do you think it should be? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/3 "2005-08-04T21:27:51Z")
As far as I know, the word “troop” has been used to mean “a single soldier” for decades. However, the usage of the word seems to be limited to contexts where a number of soldiers is being stated. As in: 27 troops lost their lives in the attack. but not: The staff sergeant reprimanded the troop for being out of uniform. The word’s always grated on me, too, because it sounds just like “troupe”, which is clearly more than one person. ---
**Author:** ![bryanmaguire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d07c76/32.png) [@bryanmaguire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bryanmaguire)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/4 "2005-08-04T21:38:35Z")
Well soldier would imply a member of the US Army. Troops is more generic and refers to either solders, sailors, airmen or marines. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/5 "2005-08-04T21:46:12Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > As far as I know, the word “troop” has been used to mean “a single soldier” for decades. Troop refers to a group of soldiers, trooper to a single one. I think the right expressions is “four troopers”. You wouldn’t say “four squads” to refer to four soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/6 "2005-08-04T21:52:54Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Troop refers to a group of soldiers, trooper to a single one. I think the right expressions is “four troopers”. You wouldn’t say “four squads” to refer to four soldiers. No. Doesn’t trooper specifically refer to soldiers in units with vehicles? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/7 "2005-08-04T22:22:07Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > No. Doesn’t trooper specifically refer to soldiers in units with vehicles? Or horses. Troop refers to a collection of them. From Encarta: > [@](#): > > military unit: a unit of soldiers that forms a subdivision of a cavalry or armored cavalry squadron ( often used before a noun ) ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/8 "2005-08-04T22:32:06Z")
[Dictionary.com’s definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=troop) 2b says that it can be used interchangably with “soldiers”. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/9 "2005-08-04T23:40:05Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > As far as I know, the word “troop” has been used to mean “a single soldier” for decades. Neither my 2002 _American Heritage College Dictionary_ nor my 1976 _Webster’s Third (Unabridged)_ contains any reference to this usage. Both define the word “troop” to mean multiple soldiers, not one single soldier. I’ve heard that singular usage, too, but I’ve never encountered an authority that agrees with it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/10 "2005-08-04T23:57:57Z")
Isn’t it one of those things that makes sense in the plural, but not the singular? No one would say “one troop was kiilled”, it would be “one soldier was killed”. Support the Troops. My son is a solider, not my son is a troop. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/11 "2005-08-05T00:11:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Isn’t it one of those things that makes sense in the plural, but not the singular? No one would say “one troop was kiilled”, it would be “one soldier was killed”. Support the Troops. My son is a solider, not my son is a troop. That’s what my dictionary says. Troop is used to refer to a group. The cavalry in the US Army used troop as the designator for a unit at the same command level as an infantry company with the next level up being a squadron. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/12 "2005-08-05T00:20:17Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > You wouldn’t say “four squads” to refer to four soldiers. You might say “ **a** squad” which is explicitly a group. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/13 "2005-08-05T02:03:44Z")
I blame [the Boy Scouts](http://usscouts.org/boyscouts/bstroop.html), who congregate in troops, comprised of several patrols, of 6-8 boys each. ---
**Author:** ![Ashes\_Ashes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Ashes\_Ashes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashes_Ashes)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/14 "2005-08-05T07:17:26Z")
The way it was explained to me was\* troop \* and \*troops \* mean the same thing-- multiple military personnel. _Troop_ means all in the group are from the same branch, say all are Army. _Troops_ can mean they’re all from the same branch or mixed-- Marines and Army. When referring to the singular, you say \*troop member \* or \*soldier, Marine \* and so on. I never even thought to ask about cavalry and such, darn. It’s likely the person who wrote the headline was saving space by using 'Four troops were wounded" instead of “Four members of the troop were wounded” “Four soldiers (or ‘Two Marines and two soldiers’) were wounded” or “Four troop members were wounded.” After settling on _troops_ for brevity, they then chose _were_ because they agree with each other. Even though it’s wrong, which is like chewing tinfoil. One question I always had was whether troop or troops is actually used to de-humanize the personnel. No one in the military, mainly Air Force and Marines, that I knew, was able to tell me. It was just policy. Maybe this is a question for Cecil? ---
**Author:** ![WonJohnSoup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f17d59/32.png) [@WonJohnSoup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WonJohnSoup)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/15 "2005-08-05T07:21:01Z")
“A troop of four soldiers,” sound more acceptable, if not headline friendly. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/16 "2005-08-05T07:24:03Z")
> [@tiltypig](#): > > Is this actually acceptable, or have America’s copy editors gone crazy? I resent your suggestion that copy editors used to be sane. Anyway, it would appear that the beleaguered copy editors are just bowing to current usage. Lots of people say “troops” to mean soldiers, so that means it’s “right.” ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/17 "2005-08-05T14:24:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Lots of people say “troops” to mean soldiers, so that means it’s “right.” But the point is that “troop” refers to multiple soldiers, not just one of them. “Four troops,” according to every dictionary I own, would be a lot more than four people. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/18 "2005-08-05T15:39:36Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > But the point is that “troop” refers to multiple soldiers, not just one of them. “Four troops,” according to every dictionary I own, would be a lot more than four people. Dictionaries are not authoritative – not even the OED. They are merely descriptive. **Spectre** is correct up above – in military jargon, dependent on context, “troops” can denote individual soldiers. James Dunnigan notes in his book [_Dirty Little Secrets: Dirty Little Secrets : Military Information You’re Not Supposed To Know_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688112706/qid=1123256441/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/104-1478810-8066341?v=glance&s=books) that the word “troop” is even occasionally used (though not commonly) as an informal form of address between an officer and an individual enlisted man, as in “Buck up, troop! Hold out for 4 more hours, and we’re out of this hellhole!”. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/19 "2005-08-05T16:13:22Z")
I agree with both points being made here: (1) It is a grating usage, and (2) It has been common for a while, at least as far back as the first Iraq war. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621/20 "2005-08-05T16:14:31Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > James Dunnigan notes in his book [_Dirty Little Secrets: Dirty Little Secrets : Military Information You’re Not Supposed To Know_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688112706/qid=1123256441/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/104-1478810-8066341?v=glance&s=books) that the word “troop” is even occasionally used (though not commonly) as an informal form of address between an officer and an individual enlisted man, as in “Buck up, troop! Hold out for 4 more hours, and we’re out of this hellhole!”. Or as a joking comment during a ‘hurry up and wait’ operation. Like when you fall in for some unknown purpose and nobody shows up to do anything so you wait around. “Let’s get these troops out of the hot sun.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/four-troops-were-wounded-is-this-right/315621.md?page=2)