On the "We Speak English on This Blog" thread, quite a few comments said more or less this:
This is silly.
Use the correct title - it's a matter of courtesy, not clarification. We're not talking about a "select few" here, we're talking about millions of active and former military, many of whom are risking or have risked their lives so you can sit around and whine about differences between the services.
Generally, no one is writing about service members without looking at something else written about them - so there is really no excuse for getting it wrong. There is no need for civvies to actually memorize this stuff.
The trouble is that this argument assumes that what is "correct" in the source language or jargon is also the only correct approach in plain English. My point is that it is no less correct to translate from the source language or jargon to the plain English idiom.
Thus, the correct title for a Russian colonel is "polkovnik" -- correct, that is, in Russian. In common English, "colonel" is a correct translation, and there's nothing discourteous about that.
Likewise, the correct abbreviation in military jargon for a naval captain is apparently "CAPT" -- a departure from normal English abbreviation conventions, but military jargon has its own conventions, to which it is entitled just as normal English is entitled to its own. Yet when one is using normal English rather than military jargon, "Capt." is a perfectly correct normal abbreviation, and there's nothing discourteous about that.
Related Posts (on one page):
Please. I am the father of a soldier and the uncle of a Marine, neither of whom has ever hinted at being even a bit annoyed at the absence of capitals in my writing. My son, ("a "1LT" in the jargon) often makes fun of the Army for its bizarre manglings of English. Some Army publications now capitalize "Soldier," apparently on the theory that it's more "respectful." And the use of apostrophes to form plurals is all to common in military writing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of prescriptivism may be, it's just silly to adopt a change in English usage and then insist that those who don't go along with this change are being disrespectful.
In the Navy, a captain is an 0-6, the equivalent of a Colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines. In the Army, Air Force, or Marines, a captain is an 0-3, the equivalent of a Lieutenant in the Navy.
By not using the Navy's abbreviation for captain when referring to a Navy 0-6, it is not so much discourteous as it is incorrect by implying to those who are more familiar with Army, Air Force, or Marine rank that it is only a midgrade officer you are talking about rather than somebody in charge of a full-sized ship or installation.
A more precise analogy would be if a "colonel" in the U.S. Armed Forces was in charge of a small office while a "polkovnik" was in charge of a small military base.
A colonel may be a polkovnik when literally translated into Russian, but they may not designate the same position in the rank heirarchy.
What good is a direct translation if the two words indicate completely different positions?
God help us if a Rear Admiral shows up and we have to distinguish RADM (LH) from RADM (UH). ("So he's a commodore, right?")
Oddly enough, the U.S. Naval Institute, which is the professional organization for officers and friends of the Navy, doesn't like rank abbreviations at all and eschews them in its magazine Proceedings. To prospective writers, USNI gives the following advice in its author guidelines:
"Avoid naval jargon. Many Proceedings readers are civilians or live in foreign countries."
Surely a law blog can be held to a lower standard!
A USAF Colonel new to the Pentagon got lost. He spotted a USN Master Chief walking down the hallway and called to him, "Sergeant." The Master Chief kept on walking. The Colonel prusued him and asked, "Sergeant, why didn't you respond to me when I called you?" The Master Chief responded: "Sir, I am not a Sergeant." The Colonel said: "If you were in the Air Force you would be a Sergeant." To which the Master Chief replied, " Sir, if I was in the Air Force, I would be a Colonel."
And you now what? It doesn't matter for most people. It's not a matter of disrespect, but of ignorance. What doesn't affect your life regularly gets put in a separate mental bin where a lot of analysis just isn't called for.
Bureaucracies, civilian as well as military, have their ranks, penetrable and of interest only to those whom have to deal with them on a regular basis. GS ranks go from low to high numbers; FS ranks go from high to low numbers. Does it matter that most people don't get that? This isn't even getting into the rank of positions. If you're in the game, then you know that a Deputy Secretary outranks an Assistant Secretary, but for most, that's arcane, inside-the-ballpark trivia.
Jediflyer: re-assigning translated ranks to represent their function would create an incredible mess for those who need to deal with them while providing minimal benefit for those who don't. Someone who deals with the Russian military learns the difference.
For crying out loud, anyone who objects to the use of abbreviations that somehow fail to conform to the way they are done in military correspondence clearly has no grasp of what is "correct". What they are arguing for is the use of military "style" correctly, not grammar. This is silly, if not outright idiotic. To magnify it even further and proclaim that failure to use the capitalization matching the branch of the military is completely insane! Please, get a life, get a clue!
No disrespect intended, but STFU!
I don't think any of the conspirators intend any dissrespect, but if some members of the military think it's more respectful to capitalize their titles in a certain way, given their sacrifice, I don't see why we shouldn't respect that request.
Even more strikingly, the bearer of a Ph.D in cultural studies is referred to by the same title as a neurosurgeon: "Dr. Smith" in both cases.
Difference in the practical import of titles is not, in standard English, translated into a difference in the abbreviation of those titles. No one is disrespected by this convention.
Even more strikingly, the bearer of a Ph.D in cultural studies is referred to by the same title as a neurosurgeon: "Dr. Smith" in both cases.
Difference in the practical import of titles is not, in standard English, translated into a difference in the abbreviation of those titles. No one is disrespected by this convention.
Well, given potential confusion with a PhD in cultural studies, that neurosurgeon sure is. Perhaps applying the title "ADVANCED TUITIONER" to the former would obviate confusion and offense.
But I don't know anyone who takes offense at these pedantic rules not being followed outside of our own group. If a civilian were to use a nonstandard abbreviation, no one cares, unless he were a civilian contracting with the military. If an army guy were to call a 2dLt a 2LT, no one would really care.
Which brings up another point. For some really weird reason, in the Marine Corps "second" is abbreviated "2d" and "third" is abbreviated "3d." Not even most Marines get that right, mostly because it doesn't make much sense.
As for capitalizing "soldier," I think that is another interservice rivalry thing. For generations, Marines have always capitalized our name, but not other branches. We often talk of Marines and sailors and soldiers. We usually ignore airmen. Or airpeople. Or whatever they're called now.
I know nothing of what 0-6 or 0-3 mean. Just tell me who can beat up whom if they were Stratego pieces.
This is the convention in some legal citation forms, as well. A case decided by the Second Circuit in 1978 would have, at the end or near-end of its citation, "(2d Cir. 1978)". Of course, this is just another example of the many similarities between the Marines and legal academics.
Now that you know it's wrong, there is.
The notion underlying both is that people in a particular sub-group have the right to refer to themselves as they wish and that people who do not follow that convention are somehow disrespectful.
When did people in the armed forces turn into such whiners?
Anyway, I would find it hard to believe that "Capt." has somehow acquired derogatory implications. We civilians are simply unfamiliar with military jargon, and therefore don't use it.
Unless, of course, the neurosurgeon is a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. In that case, he's Mr. Smith, and you'd probably be disrespectful if you called him Dr. Smith as though he were some lowly general practitioner.
BS. In English writing an abbreviation is to reference the associated English word, not cross referencing some military pay scale chart.
Paragraph 1-16 b:
Letters. Use only common abbreviations found in standard dictionaries. Do not use military abbreviations, brevity codes, acronyms, or military jargon in letters addressed to persons outside the Department of Defense. Military personnel will use their full rank (for example, Lieutenant General, Major General, Captain, Sergeant First Class, and
so forth) for letters.
So, if an Army officer (say, me) writes you a letter, I'd put my rank as "Major" instead of MAJ. You write for the audience, not the writer. Similarly, the military uses funky dates, like 15 DEC 08. But, when writing letters, I must do it the civilian way:
b. Dates on letters. Express dates on letters and refer to dates within letters only in this way: January 1, 2000.
When working within or between the services, using the service-specific rank format is VERY helpful. I can immediately tell what service the officer I'm emailing / calling is in. I don't expect anyone outside the military to jump into our semi-arcane abbreviation system, though. Heck, we keep changing abbreviations and acronymns. How is someone outside the system supposed to keep up?
As long as it's clear what or who you're talking about, do it any way you want. Writing it out all the way is always correct, and electrons are free.
Caveat: don't randomly shorten or capitalize things. The military is more likely to use ALLCAPS than CamelCase. For example, US Northern Command is USNORTHCOM, not NorthCom.
It's not wrong.
So, you were once a human being before they took your spine out and wrapped you in khaki?
heheh, kidding....
Respectfully,
Pol
(MM1/SS, once upon a time....)
Much depends on the audience. If you're writing to a military officer, or for a military audience, then using the proper military style is not only courteous but shows that you are not ignorant of the conventions.
As for "Moskva" and "Rossiya", there is a growing tendency in English to use the "native" names, so maybe you ought to call them that instead of Moscow and Russia. =)
I don't think naval jargon is "damned obscure," just as I don't think Russian is "damned obscure." I just think that when I write in English, I'm entitled to use what is proper for standard English, and say "Colonel" instead of "Polkovnik" (even when I'm writing about Russians) or "Capt." instead of "CAPT" (even when I'm writing about Naval officers). Can you explain to me, please, why that isn't so?
As to the "growing tendency" you describe, I've seen it in a few cases, but the lion's share of nonnative names remain unaffected by this supposed tendency. When you see people routinely talking, in standard English, about Deutschland, Ellas, Shqiperia, Magyarorszag, Nippon, Firenze, Warszawa, Praha, Moskva, and Rossiya (apologies for any misspellings), call me.
(Not sure if those characters are going to render.) The point is, the quest for "authenticity" in spellings has a logical endpoint which, for most readers, is incomprehensible. Hence, "Japan," "Capt." The point of language is communication. The Army manual referenced above seems to, quite sensibly, recognize that.