Is the singular “troop” depersonalizing?
Dan Kennedy, my favorite media critic, posted this observation about President Bush using “troop” as a singular form of “troops” on his blog.
Linguist John McWhorter, in a commentary for NPR’s “All Things Considered,” March 27:
One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. This means that calling 20,000 soldiers “20,000 troops” depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight.
President Bush, March 29:
We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded.
I disagree with McWhorter’s assertion that the singular troop “depersonalizes” soldiers. If it does, doesn’t using “soldier” or “trooper” or referring to any person by a job title depersonalize him or her as well?
Furthermore, with all of President Bush’s misspeaks, I’m not sure this one is all that significant.

My writing focuses on travel and culture. I've contributed to The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Air Canada's enRoute, BlackBook, Budget Travel, Deadspin, and Louisville Magazine. I'm also the editor-in-chief of Louisville.com and BlackBook's Louisville City Editor.