GalacticCactus Forum

Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: BlackBlade on March 18, 2010, 03:16:33 PM

Title: Military English
Post by: BlackBlade on March 18, 2010, 03:16:33 PM
OK so I was thinking about this this morning.  In the Vietnam war American GI's using their special military alphabet (Not in alphabetical order: Alpha, Whisky, Foxtrot, etc) referred to North Vietnamese combatants as Charlie.  Charlie is obviously the letter C in that alphabet.

Today, enemy combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan are (from what I have seen) referred to as Tangos.  I don't think I have heard of them referred to as Charlie.

Were VC forces called Charlie because they were communists and communism starts with a C?  And are enemy combatants called Tangos because they are terrorists and terrorism starts with a T?
Title: Military English
Post by: Jonathon on March 18, 2010, 03:40:31 PM
I'm pretty sure "tango" is for "terrorist", but I'm not sure about "charlie" in the Vietnam War. I would guess that you're right that it's for "communist".
Title: Military English
Post by: fugu13 on March 18, 2010, 03:46:45 PM
I'm pretty sure the derivation worked as follows: Charlie was originally for the Viet Cong, or Victor Charlie, and that was extended to the North Vietnamese (because you don't want to call your enemies "Victors").
Title: Military English
Post by: rivka on March 18, 2010, 05:31:37 PM
And the "military alphabet" isn't just. Police officers and ham radio operators and others use it as well -- internationally. Also, while some letters are the same as the alphabet that used to be used by the military (Charlie among them), many are different from the one commonly used now. (Tango among them.)
Title: Military English
Post by: BlackBlade on March 18, 2010, 06:16:07 PM
Quote
And the "military alphabet" isn't just. Police officers and ham radio operators and others use it as well -- internationally. Also, while some letters are the same as the alphabet that used to be used by the military (Charlie among them), many are different from the one commonly used now. (Tango among them.)
Did it originate with the US military, or does it precede it?
Title: Military English
Post by: The Genuine on March 18, 2010, 06:22:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet)
Title: Military English
Post by: pooka on March 19, 2010, 10:52:35 AM
I'd guess Tango refers to "target" rather than "terrorist."  But that is just a guess.  Seems like learning that alphabet was part of Ham radio certification, which I looked into but lost steam on.
Title: Military English
Post by: rivka on March 19, 2010, 11:57:52 AM
Quote
Seems like learning that alphabet was part of Ham radio certification
Sure is.
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: The Genuine on November 11, 2010, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/11/09/apostrophe-sparks-veterans-day-conundrum/
Do you know which federal legal holiday is observed on Nov. 11?

Here are the choices:

1.) Veteran’s Day

2.) Veterans’ Day

3.) Veterans Day

 * * *

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (no apostrophe) continues to promote the attributive version, and offers the following explanation on its Web site: “Veterans Day does not include an apostrophe but does include an ‘s’ at the end of ‘veterans’ because it is not a day that ‘belongs’ to veterans, it is a day for honoring all veterans.”
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: Jonathon on November 11, 2010, 12:04:18 PM
I think this is the result of a very basic misunderstanding of just what exactly the genitive is. We often call it the possessive in English, which leads people to think that it only denotes ownership, which is a mistake. And this kind of reasoning about possessives leads to stupid thing like removing apostrophes in place names like Pikes Peak. There's no way to interpret that as a plural attributive noun.
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: Tante Shvester on November 11, 2010, 12:38:38 PM
Martha's Vineyard stubbornly retains their apostrophe.
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: Jonathon on November 11, 2010, 12:46:27 PM
Yup. They are one of five exceptions granted by the US Board on Geographic Names. See question 18 (http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/faqs.htm).
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: BlackBlade on November 11, 2010, 03:26:58 PM
This is sorta military related.  Are side burns really so named after Gen. Ambrose Burnside (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Ambrose_Burnside2.jpg/455px-Ambrose_Burnside2.jpg) of civil war renown who sported some pretty impressive specimens?
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: Jonathon on November 11, 2010, 03:33:49 PM
Yup.
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: BlackBlade on November 11, 2010, 03:47:24 PM
Yup.
Could you point me in a direction where I could read about it?
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: Jonathon on November 11, 2010, 03:59:56 PM
The OED and Etymonline.com (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sideburns) don't give much explanation: they say that it was originally burnsides, and then within about ten or twelve years, it had turned into sideburns. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideburns) says pretty much the same thing.
Title: Re: Military English
Post by: BlackBlade on November 11, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
Ah, thanks!