CAPT
vs. Capt.: By the way, those who are interested in actual Navy practices in abbreviating Captain — not that they're dispositive of standard English practice — might want to do a Google search for site:navy.mil Capt and see what comes up. Even in jargon established by hierarchical organizations, language is partly a grown order, not just a made order.
As with the old rule that Army BDUs could not be starched, I'm sure the official style guide is often disobeyed within the Navy. All-caps are more difficult to read, because they break up the ordinary flow of reading and focus your eye on the big block letters. If you also use all-caps for special emphasis, it makes it even more difficult- "Capt. Jones says do NOT request leave" is better than "CAPT Jones says do NOT request leave," if you must use all-caps.
It would be interesting to know where rules like this come from. As a wild guess- maybe 1940s-era teletype machines had primitive printing capabilities, 1950s-era machines developed lower-case printing abilities, and for whatever reason "important" words were still printed in all-caps by convention? Who knows.
For writers not constrained by mindless regulations, or at least not the same mindless regulations as those endured by our military friends, there is no reason to adopt the Navy's system of abbreviation if it makes reading more difficult.
If we expect the writer to know exact rank abbreviations for each branch, then it seems we have to expect all readers to know them as well. That is completely unreasonable.
The point is to be clear. It's one thing to use an uncommon word that is easily referenced; it's something else entirely to use the wrong word. Using "Sgt." to refer to a Sgt. Major is wrong and disrespectful. Using "Sgt. Major" in place of the properly Army "SGM" is simply being clear for the readers, with no inherent disrespect.
Can you imagine a piece quoting the SMA? Almost everyone's reaction would be "uhhh...". But if that person was identified as "Sgt Major of the Army", it's perfectly clear. Not only is he a Sgt Major, he's THE Sgt Major.
And this is even more important as the social separation between service families and non-service families increases. America is developing a military subculture -- where service is multigenerational and which holds a different set of values than much of their civilian friends. We have created an armiger class that is becoming increasingly estranged from mainstream America. What is important to them may not be important to you.
So, if your audience consists primarily of people who are ignorant of, or who do not respect the military, then you are absolutely right. It doesn't matter. If you expect for your opinions to have weight with people who have military experience, then it is better not to show ignorance of basic military matters. Unfortunately saying that you do know and don't care is not much better **to that audience.**
It's a little like the kerfluffle awhile back when the Democratic National Committee put up a web page claiming that it honored US soldiers more than the GOP -- with a wonderful picture of a soldier wearing a *Canadian* uniform (see:
http://www.florida-cracker.org/archives/003616.html . The fact that the Democrats did not know and did not care about the difference said more than whether or not they cared about the military than any words they wrote.
Sure, to the person who put up the web page, a soldier (or whatever) is a soldier (or whatever). They're all the same, and penny ante distinctions like uniforms and stuff just aren't really important.
But they are important to people who do care. And by ignoring that, you risk losing your credibility with that audience when you choose to opine on matters relevant to them.
This got posted while I was writing my response, but it makes my point. Military types don't expect non-military types to know anything about the military. That's not discourteous. We have low expectations of civilians in such matters. But any opinions expressed are viewed accordingly.
You simply can't have it both ways.
It demonstrates some of the confusion that having two kinds of Captains, O-3 and O-6, can cause:
TerrencePhilip linked to the Navy's style guide. "Military titles/job titles" is the relevant entry. The following paragraph is included:
"For naval officer ranks, Navy NewsStand/NavNews follows Associated Press (AP) Stylebook guidance for military titles. AP style is the preferred style for public release, as NewsStand/NavNews stories are often used in civilian publications. This style should be used whenever there is a strong likelihood that civilian editors may want to reprint the story."
So, if you're writing for a civilian audience, you use the AP style, which is to abbreviate Captain as Capt. and not as CAPT. Conversely, "[b]ecause All Hands magazine is primarily aimed at the Navy internal audience, Navy correspondence style is used." CAPT would be used in this publication because of its audience, presumably not because Capt. is insulting or even incorrect.
Furthermore, note that CAPT is specified as "Navy correspondence style." This seems to limit its preferred use even further. The example for how to refer to Navy medical doctors and chaplains even uses the AP rather than Navy correspondence style for their ranks!
This reminds me of the hate mail my old college roommate, who went on to become a journalist, got for second-referencing to a community leader by his last name only. Said community leader held some sort of doctorate. Why didn't my roommate give this man the respect he deserved by second-referencing him as "Dr. So-and-so" rather that just "So-and-so?" Racism? Insensitivity? No: he was following the dictates of the AP style manual, which does not allow titles on second references.
Just a guess, though, an IANAS (soldier, seaman, as you like).
If it was good enough for Nelson, Rodney, Cochrane, Hood and Cunningham I don't see why it isn't good enough now.
If you really need something, though, ask the Chief. Real power resides in the Chief's mess, anyway. (And don't screw up the all-caps abbreviation of the chief's rating -- the last thing you need is an irate BMCM.)
I come from a military family (army and intelligence), going back about 200 years. I can never recall my Lt. Col. father getting worked up about civilians getting his rank etc wrong. He DID get worked up about his men getting wronged by media and govt: proper weapons, training, salaries etc.
You are building a straw man. I don't know anybody who said anything about "grevious." It's a mark of ignorance. Military types *expect* civlians to be ignorant, and this demonstrates it. People don't get upset when ignorant people demonstrate their ignorance; they can't help it.
However,if a person wants to opine about a subject, it may be better not to advertise one's ignorance of it That seems pretty simple to me, though it's obviously not a requirement for blogging.
Knowing better but is instead *choosing* to act ignorant seems a bit odd, but to each his own. Where I come from, it's simple courtesy to address people by their correct titles when you know what they are. It's not "grevious" when people choose to address you ignorantly, but it's not a bonus, either.
The fact that minor disrespect is not the same as a suicide bombing does not change what it is. No, it's not 'grevious.' Nobody claimed that it was; misrepresenting other people's position does not add to the discusson. It's a minor thing, and as such is more a reflection on the person who chooses to act that way than an irritant to those who observe it.
I do not think it is either "ignorance," or "disrespect" to write "CAPT" or "Capt." The USN is entitled to its conventions, but it is not entitled to enforce them on the rest of society, especially when the Navy's OWN websites refer to offices of that rank as both "CAPT" and "Capt."
To even assume that those who spell "Capt" are per se ignorant itself demonstrates ignorance that there are alternative conventions that require such spelling outside the Navy.
You make two mistakes with this premise. The first is that, in fact, the minority *does* enforce such rules when those rules impact them. Do you really think it is wrong for an African-American to object to being referred to by the N-word? After all, it was popular with the majority not too long ago, and that has only changed because of the pressure you discount.
Your second mistake is in conflating a slang term or euphemism with a title. Titles are not matters of consensus; they are matters of correctness. To give you an example, I am a Medical Examiner, not a Coroner. Many people don't know the difference and call me a Coroner. I am not insulted, but I correct them because the difference is significant -- the title of Medical Examiner has an historical meaning (a physician who practices forensic medicine) and arose in *opposition* to the elected lay Coroner system. The National Association of Medical Examiners was founded to try to move the nation towards professional forensic medicine and away from politicized lay Coroner systems. It doesn't matter that the majority of people conflate Coroners and Medical Examiners, I am still not a Coroner. One might as well argue that it's OK to call all lawyers "ambulance chasers," since it's a common usage.
What's even worse is to say "Screw you, I don't care. I'm going to call you what I want and if you don't like it, shove it up your ass." Sure, you can take that approach, but don't expect to make a lot of friends that way.
Finally, you ask "Why should we care if we unintentionally offend people?"
First, we are not talking about unintentionally offending people. We are talking about choosing to do so. It's not that Mr. Volokh doesn't know the difference -- he does. It's that he chooses to ignore it because he believes that people should not ask him to be correct. Of course he is quite within his rights to choose to offend people -- I do it all the time myself. But it's not unintentional at this point.
Second, the reason you try not to offend people is that they are your audience. If Mr. Volokh wants impress me with his opinion regarding matters military, it would help his case if he did not display ignorance of the military (intentional or not). If he wants to sway me to his side, it may not be a good tactic to start by intentionally being offensive. Once again, he can choose to be so as a particular tactic -- and again I often do so myself -- but it *is* a matter of tactics.
Let's say that you are an editorial writer for a major newspaper and you write an op-ed piece on how we should be doing things in Iraq, it would behoove you not to talk about propellers on jets or call rifles muskets. Even if your opinion is right, you will likely be ignored.
And if someone writes and says "You know, jets don't have propellers," the appropriate response is not "Whatever. I don't care." You are certainly free to insist that it doesn't matter whether or not jets have propellers, but you won't impress many Air Force types with your arguments thereafter.
The "nigger" analogy puzzles me. "Nigger" has been rightly rejected because it has very often been used as a pejorative. "Capt." to my knowledge has not generally been used this way, which is why -- as my post points out -- even the Navy itself uses it at times. So I am neither trying to be offensive, nor, as best I can tell, am I actually being offensive to many naval people (though perhaps I am to you). I am trying to use standard English and what is correct in standard English, and I don't see why I should have to use naval jargon instead. What am I missing here?
What I see, rather, is that some are insisting that we adopt USN internal policy in standard English, which would be minority forcing its will on the majority.
Just as important, imposing this will result in a reduction in clarity, as the use of all caps is counter to standard usage in so many ways. Thus, it is unlike the distinction between aircraft with jet engines and those driven by propellors.
It should. I was trying to show that it was inappropriate analogy. Zooba conflated this discussion with what he or she called "PC-ification" and brought up euphemisms such as "differently abled" because "handicapped" had become offensive. His or her claim was that the minority has no (or should have no) right to determine what is and is not offensive. My two points in response was a) this is not about euphemisms or slang and b) even if it were, he or she is wrong and the use of the n-word is a counterexample. I apologize for not being clear.
"I am trying to use standard English and what is correct in standard English, and I don't see why I should have to use naval jargon instead. What am I missing here?"
What you are missing is that it sets you aside as an outsider who is talking about something he doesn't know anything about. Using Capt. for everybody mostly just tells folk that you are a clueless civilian. Being a clueless civilian is not inherently offensive. There's absolutely nothing wrong about being a clueless civilian, unless you don't want to seem clueless.
I think the thing to remember is that the military society has become a very exclusive subculture, one in which civilian opinions have little weight. There is increasing alienation between the military world and the civilian world in terms of values, experience, tradition, and, yes, language. For a formal study of it, see this study from Duke , or for an excellent editorial on it, see this by Robert Kaplan.
It's not so much a matter of being offensive as it is getting over the hump of being considered clueless and irrelevant. Once again, it's like mistaking a Canadian soldier for a US soldier in the DNC webpage. If one wishes to seem clueless and irrelevant to one's target audience, then why write at all? In that context, your counterargument that using the civilian abbreviation is "correct" in terms of nonmilitary people describing military people in casual civilian correspondence may be arguable, but it is essentially irrelevant.
Of course, if your target audience is primarily clueless civilians and you don't care that many military folk will give your views less weight, then you are golden.
An analogy: Say that we see a naval document that is ostensibly written in English, but that speaks of "CAPT Mariner." Would we conclude that the author is "clueless" about English rules of capitalization and punctuation? No; we'd say that he's using his own jargon, which may well be perfectly acceptable in this context, even though he knows full well that the jargon departs from standard English. Likewise, I'm using standard English capitalization and punctuation practices, even though I now know that they depart from naval jargon.
No, it means that we make allowances for ignorant civlians. The question becomes whether or not a civilian should reciprocate.