Dear media...

[gridlore]

The troops are not in Fort Bragg, NC. They are at Fort Bragg. This is a minor nit, but it bugs me. Mainly because it's far more common to refer to yourself being in a unit which is at a particular base. ("I was in the 1/15th at Schofield Barracks." for example.)

Comments

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

Yes, but Ft Bragg is in North Carolina, not at it. Whereas you are at the corner of 4th and Main, not in it - though a billiard ball goes into the corner pocket.

It's a funny language. You learn by doing.

[jovianconsensus.livejournal.com]

If it's a fort, it must be one big stone castle. Ergo, "in."

[fragbert.livejournal.com]

Ayuh, I was stationed *at* Fort Knox, not in it. I got your back on this one, sir.

Signed,
Fellow Grammar Whore and Veteran.

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

Maybe some of the confusion--because I've heard both--is between troops (as in individual soldiers) and troops (as in cohesive units with a real or virtual "flag")?

I mean, you could technically consider something, say the political party membership of troops/soldiers (which is generally irrelevant to military units) in Fort Bragg but the training of troops at Fort Bragg would be a different thing completely.

The difference--perhaps--may be how we're "collecting" troops into a "container". Your illustration: "I was in the 1/15th at Schofield Barracks." sort of shows this. The "container" of 1/15th Infantry holds troops (individual soldiers) while the "container" Schofield Barracks holds units which are colloquially known as "troops".

I guess one way to think about it is whether or not all the "items" talked about are physically in the "container". For a unit, you always have someone on leave or TDY for training or something, so the unit would be at a post while the individual members may not. However, if you're only talking about those physically present...

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

Although, more generally, I heard of soldiers being referred to as "troops on Fort Stewart" as though Fort Stewart was simply a specific replacement for "post" or "base" in "on post/off post" or "on base/of base" when referring to a collective group of individual soldiers who may or may not belong to the same command.