Annoying incorrect terminology - what to do?

Discussion in 'General' started by ceolredmonger, Feb 18, 2013.

  1. ceolredmonger

    ceolredmonger Member

    I tend to be pragmatic when it comes to communication - you know what I mean, I don't need to be pedantic.

    However I am getting a bit worked up about new terms creeping in to descriptions of kit amongst collectors - describing British helmets as 'Brodies' is the latest bugbear. British Mk.II helmet will do (I am not insisting on Helmets, Steel, Mk.II. with liner Mk.II....)

    I accept first hand accounts describing 'Spandaus' and 'Schmeissers' but do get annoyed when they are captioned as such in books or the web by modern authors or collectors. Is this reasonable? What do you all think?
     
  2. Blutto

    Blutto Banned

    As somebody that has been involved in civil and military aviation for most of my working life, I cringe every time I see a film or hear a news report on the subject. Problem is I'd just be trying to push s..t uphill if I tried to fix it.
     
  3. rockape252

    rockape252 Senior Member

    Hi ceolredmonger,

    I try to follow your principle although I am no expert.

    To quote from my Fathers WW2 Army service, Action in Syria against the Vichy French

    See http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/people-ww2/48459-%22-story-my-fathers-ww2-army-service%22.html

    I described the weapons used by the dismounted Tank crews as

    "Thompson Sub Machine Guns loaded with Drum Magazines"

    as opposed to the appalling description "Tommy Guns"


    I joined this site to learn and if facts are incorrect then the truth cant be found and the phrase "British helmets as 'Brodies': really had me baffled.

    Many thanks for the clarification.


    Regards, Mick D.
     
  4. Combover

    Combover Guest

    Funnily enough, I recently updated a section on my website entitled 'lingo' to try and get around some of these.

    The one that annoys me the most is 'Tank Destroyer' when describing a Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun. Gets me inexplicably angry, that one.
     
  5. Swiper

    Swiper Resident Sospan

    I will not even begin to start to say the amount of threats I've received over the tank crew oversuit issue...

    Yup, threats!
     
  6. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Swiper

    Threats ?

    I am mystified........

    What on earth could you have written about the Tank Suit that would warrant threats being made against you ?

    Ron
     
  7. Swiper

    Swiper Resident Sospan

    Long story short... I explained a tank crew oversuit was not called a 'pixie suit', and things escalated, a lot. Even when various individuals shown the evidence showing this to be a postwar term, and a collector/re-enactorism. Curiously this has happened several times - mostly to do with tank crew oversuits.

    Many of these incorrect terms are often said by dealers, collectors and enthusiasts who actually have no common sense and never question what they are told. So when you articulate a different viewpoint, with evidence, the results can be - well ridiculous. Internet toughguys at their most foolish.
     
  8. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    Crikey! I had better start using the term Helmet Steel , instead of 'Battle Bowler' 'Steel Toby' or just 'Toby' some also used 'Tin Lid'.
     
  9. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Wills

    we called them Tin Topees - didn't wear them of course - even the modified ones to use in Tanks - our berets cushioned the bumps when the driver went berserk..
    Cheers
     
  10. Cee

    Cee Senior Member Patron

    For published works I can see the need for correct terminology. On public forums less so as long as the point is not lost in communication. The best policy if you feel strongly about it is rather than criticize is to lead by example without comment on other's usage. It's always better to encourage comment rather than stifle it.

    Regards ...
     
  11. Five-Five

    Five-Five Senior Member

    I have to admit to being, in most cases, really rather picky when it comes to terminology and nomenclature - the one that really gets me is people referring to Cases, pistol, W.E. 37 Patt' as 'holsters'...

    Therefore, I suppose it could be said that I am, for the most part, in the 'Helmets, Steel, Mk.II' camp!

    I do make exceptions in some circumstances, however (generally due to space, length of message, getting the point accross etcetera), though they are not common. I agree that in published and definitive matter then official nomenclature and terminology should be adhered to at all times, though it is perhaps a little less key in some purely informative forum posts.

    Regards,
    Five-Five
     
  12. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I think there is a difference between proper terminology and idiom. While the proper terminology for a Thompson may have been M1928A1 or whatever, soldiers at the time often called them Tommy guns so I see no problem in modern writers doing the same in the proper context. Context, of course, is the key there. I do object to the perpetuation of inaccurate terminology like Schmeisser in postwar works that pretend to be scholarly. The term "Long Lance" for Jap torpedoes has always annoyed me, because it was a postwar coinage by S.E. Morison and was never used even idiomatically during the war itself. I often look at weapons sites for research purposes, and the slipshod descriptions and picture captions of weapons and equipment are frustrating and have caused no end of confusion in my research. Bear in mind, though, that some official terminology is itself unclear and even experts can be confused and deceived.
     
  13. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    I suppose that we all tend to be a bit rivet-counterish in our own specialist fields. (more than a bit in my case). I try to use period terms or correct technical descriptions with British equipment, but the further removed from that, the less accurate I'm likely to be.

    I'd probably call any crested French helmet an 'Adrian' but I don't to be honest know if that only correctly applies to the Kaiser-war tin hats or the later versions as well.

    I believe that there are several versions of German helmets and that some people even collect them but to me they all look like coal scuttles and are no more interesting.

    As Cee so corrrectly said, the best thing that we can do where we're certain is to keep using the correct terms and hope it rubs off.
     
    Five-Five likes this.
  14. Five-Five

    Five-Five Senior Member

    Context is indeed key. I should have clarified my statement by adding that my feelings on the subject, naturally, do not extend to first-hand accounts or other similar circumstances where a soldier's idiom is appropriate. In these cases, official nomenclature rarely has any place and quite rightly so.

    Aye, Rich makes a very good point - we many of us use the nomenclature associated with our particular field, but beyond that we may rely upon guidance to do similar or simply may not do so. A question of interest.
     
  15. ceolredmonger

    ceolredmonger Member

    Thanks everyone. If effective communication was without flaws we might not have so much to talk about here! There is a place for idiom and pedantry in our studies and interests.

    Ironically, I was pulled up this week for referring to the "Koyli" rather than the "K, O, Y, L, I" by a serving officer. About an hour later a veteran told me that he had served in the "Koyli"!

    Keith
     
  16. rockape252

    rockape252 Senior Member

    Hi,

    Having read all the posts in this thread I've discovered that I am "hoist by my own Petard".

    The case in question is when I talk about the "General Purpose Machine Gun" I always used it's mangled acronym "Gimpie"

    So yes, as already stated as long as context is maintained and there is no risk of confusion non standard descriptions as well as nicknames are in order.

    Perhaps I may have heard my Father refer to the Thompson Gun and I replied "ahha the Tommy Gun" to which he replied

    No ! I wasn't Al Capone.


    Regards, Mick D.
     
  17. Hebridean Chindit

    Hebridean Chindit Lost in review... Patron

    In my notes and collected works I don't even change the spelling errors, just note them and leave as is; for me it makes it more "real" - historians tend to prefer the "pristine" and it should be left battered, tarnished and torn, as it was and as it is in the memories of those who were there...

    Chaggal
    Chagal
    Chaggul
    Chuggal
    Chaggel

    A skin water bag by any other name...
     

Share This Page