Hello folks, for some time now I have been wondering whether or not ranks in the British and Canadian armies during WW2 were written with a hyphen or not? Lieutenant-Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel ? Sergeant-Major or Sergeant Major ? The same question applies, of course, to other ranks composed of two or more words: Regimental-Sergeant-Major or Regimental Sergeant Major ? or Regimental Sergeant-Major ? I would be very happy if someone could help me out.... Regards Dirk
Yes, the hyphen was well used by the War Office. So for the British Army it is Lieutenant-colonel and Serjeant-major. I did over hyphenate myself in years gone by, it is Regimental serjeant-major, and not Company-serjeant-major. It is also Quarter-master rather than quartermaster. Canadian convention does seem a bit different, quartermaster being used but still Lieutenant-colonel. Gary
Gary, you have helped me a lot. Thank you very much! As far as I can tell, the US Army rarely / never uses the hyphen. So maybe Canadians are a bit of a mix of "hyphen-loving Brits" and the American spelling. Could that be? Greets Dirk
We Canadians are always a little caught in between British and American influences on our English. I'm a little appalled that one should write "Lieutenant-colonel" as I don't think I understood this.
Stop Wondering and study the English Language. You are walking into a minefield. None of these ranks have to be hyphenated, it was merely fashionable at various times and rapidly fallen out of use. More Importantly you would not write to a Lieutenant colonel without getting your backside kicked It's Lieutenant Colonel, the accent on Colonel. My cousin was a Lieutenant Colonel, he used to simply write Col in front of his name. I recall queuing to go in to a function he was behind me. The lady on the reception desk ticked off our names. She asked him if Col stood for Colin. He replied in no uncertain term NO, It's COLONEL. Sergeant and Serjeant are the same rank but Serjeant was used prior to 1946 in many Cavalry, Artillery and Light Infantry Regiments. An RSM is Regimental Sergeant Major BSM Battery Sergeant Major etc. One difference however is Lance Serjeant, the same rank as a Corporal depending on the appointment held. You also need to appreciate what is an actual Rank and what is an Appointment. British Army ranks | National Army Museum Category:Military appointments of the British Army - Wikipedia
"None of these ranks has to be hyphenated, it was merely fashionable at various time and has rapidly fallen out of use." Personally (acknowledging this to be no more than personal preference), I tend to write: Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Kneebone Twiglet Lieut-Col. Arthur Twiglet Lt.Col. Twiglet. There is an argument for an additional stop in the second of these: Lieut.-Col., but aesthetically that's not sitting well with me. I think 'all the action' as far a prescriptive grammarians are concerned is with the plurals of compound nouns in examples such as sergeant majors (OR) sergeants-major. I believe the former is British and Commonwealth and the latter American, but I could be mistaken. Yes, I know that's an appointment and not a rank. I quite enjoyed someone's example of Mini Coopers vs Minis Cooper.
Apologies for the disquiet caused by a quick post (crowbarred into an evening of household duties and via a computer that often needs to be summoned from beyond the veil when it's gone to sleep, bit like me really) that I hoped might help someone out. Oddly enough, ranks, when provided in WEs, are rarely capitalised, and not at all if occurring after a preceding word or number. There's a similar approach in pamphlets and the like, with terms such as regiment, battalion or division mostly left all lower case, however a reference to a specific formation or unit in an example order will be capitalised. The same extends to ranks in such publications. There's also the contemporary use of organization in WEs, and often mechanization and mechanized can be seen. It's not unusual to see organisation in other documents however. The FSPB kindly uploaded to the resources section here shows a similar approach to CSM, CQMS and similar but does not include the offending 'half-colonel'. I like Serjeant; Australia and Canada both used Sergeant though I think New Zealand stuck with Serjeant in their WEs. Gary
When I learned how to do Service Writing was taught that when referring to generic battalions, companies, commanding officers, company sergeant majors its all lower case. When referring to a specific unit, officer or appointment, these were proper nouns and capitalised as; the Battalion, A Company, The Commanding Officer, CSM X Company etc..
And just to add some contemporary documentation: 65th Fd Regt RA - Sep 43 5th Med. Regt. RA - Nov 43 2 Hants - Aug 43 2 Hants - Oct 43 I'd recommend picking whichever makes you feel comfortable and then sticking with that. Consistency is everything.
I agree. Current usage would neither use full stops after abbreviated ranks nor hyphens between ranks.
London Gazette uses multiple variations throughout although hypen is used in the main, I seem to remember there being a period when none were used by LG. Lt. Gen., Lt. General Lt. Col., Lt. Colonel As well as Lt.-Genl. Lce.-Sergt. Lce.-Corpl. / is sometimes used instead Lt/Col 2/Lt. L/Sgt. L/Cpl. etc. LG, WDs, recommendations, etc., weren't terribly consistent. I too prefer Serjeant; that spelling is used often in Guards Diaries, etc. Reminds me of PW, PWs, PsW POW, POWs, PsOW
I can very well imagine that abbreviation created a small conundrum for the writer. Should one write, for instance, "Lt.-Col."? I looked through some of my anti-tank war diaries. Most opted for "Lt. Col." or some variation which did not include a hyphen. But I don't know if that's really conclusive evidence of what the authors would have written if they were writing the rank in full.
