Talk:Lieutenant

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Additional information:
/
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Pronounciation

"In contemporary American English, the word is usually pronounced [ˈ/lu'tɛnənt/](Audio (help·info)).[1][2]. In 1791, English lexicographer John Walker lamented that the "regular sound" – /lju'tɛnənt/ – was not in general employ, giving the pronunciation current at the time as /lɛv'tɛnənt/ or /lɪv'tɛnənt/.[1] This is still the dominant pronunciation in English-speaking countries outside North America."

This is not true. In Canada it is pronounced as in the UK.

Minimum Length of Time?

I can't seem to find information on whether there is a minimum length of time to achieve O-3 in the US Navy.

Template question: re officer ranks

I was wondering what the usefulness of Template:UK officer ranks was on this page. Lieutenant is a rank that exists in a number of armed forces, and I think that if they all had a template like that on this page, the page would quickly be overrun. --timc | Talk 23:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Template:US officer ranks, which has not, for some reason, been added to this article, but has to the others. Personally, I'd be in favour of removing both, but if US stays then so does UK in the interests of avoiding US-centrism! -- Necrothesp 01:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about lieutenants in police and fire services?

Two things: 3rd Lt and "Mister"

I would have expected to see, but didn't: isn't a 3rd liut. an ensign, or the equivalent thereof? Secondly, I was hoping for some discussion of the usage of address "Mister", in the American Navy...
--Baylink 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

explanation of lieutenant

liked this and the linked articles about ranks. Very informative.

regarding the etymology of the word lieutenant, I would like to make the following comment:

the translation of decomposed words is correct, i.e. "lieu" fr place, and "tenant" fr gerondif of "tenir" to hold.

the explained meaning "holding a position" however is incorrect.

The french say "in lieu ..." when discribing "in stead". In lieutenant, this is what it means.

Explanation: Strictly speaking, the LT commands by grace of his superior - the captain, and he is the most junior commissioned officer. He does not hold a position, but carries out and supervises orders.

the rank capitain, the most senior of junior officers(in the french army), is a company commander: (etym.: capitain from: capo lat. hat/head tenere lat. holding ~ the one holding/wearing the cap. the head of the company). He is the one who wore a/the hat - to make him recognizable in battle. Should he fall, the next officer in line, would take the captains hat, and wear/holding it in his stead. QED

The Brit. army calls them Leftenant. The guy has been left in his master's stead, holding a position.

With refrence to the example of the lord lieutenant, he rules in the monarchs stead.

Re pronunciation

Can somebody add an audio file of the spelling? 172.178.182.189 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely false (Honi soit qui mal y pense)

<It has also been speculated that it may have come from a fanciful etymology which associated it with the verb 'to leave', as the lieutenant only took up his duties once his superior officer had 'left'>. FALSE

'Lieutenant' is a French word (lieu tenant) used by both the British and later by the Americans. "tenant lieu de": the 1st lieutenants were the king's agents and his representatives, they were send "à la place de" (lit. "in the place", for "instead of") his majesty.

<Lieutenant is a French word coming from the contraction of the lieu tenant expression which is the old litterate form for tenant lieu de. The expression means in the place for. Once, the lieutenants were not militarymen but officials, they were the king's representatives in french provinces>. HISTORICAL FACTS

EnthusiastFRANCE 17:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown the statement itself to be false. No one is claiming that the etymology involving 'leave' is correct. It blatantly isn't. What's being claimed is that at some point in the history of the word, people assumed wrongly that that's where the word came from, and started pronouncing it with an f because of that. Similar things happen all the time. There was originally no l in belfrey, but people inserted one because of the association with bells. People often talk about Welsh rarebit, but in origin it's Welsh rabbit. And so on. Whether or not people ever actually did make such an assumption in the case of lieutenant is another matter. Garik 16.43, 7 may 2006 (BST)

To put the same idea another way, folk etymology is often interesting and noteworthy, even when it's incorrect. — Lumbercutter 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shift from u to v is a natural phenomenon that is more than just "mistaken reading"

There is an underlying reason why u and v were once written alike (phonemically they were the vowel and semivowel personalities of the one same creature in classical Latin). The alphabetic equivalence congealed and remained fossilized long after there was phonetic and phonemic use for an alphabetic differentiation. Linguistically there is in fact a fuzzy sliding-scale connection that links /u/ to /v/ and back again with an area in the middle that is bilabial (/w/), from which shifts to labiodentals can take it off in diverging directions. This interconnected chain is analogous to the one that connects "hard g" to "soft g" through /χ/, /ʃ/, et al. Interestingly, both of these chains can be exemplified in one example word: They are what allowed the original Greek version of the name "Eugene" (meaning "well bred", that is, eu- + gen-) to diverge toward the /ju/ and the /dʒin/ of English Eugene but also toward the /jev/ and the /gen/ of Slavic Yevgeny et al.

Of course, the linguistic depths are a digression from the article's topic, so I won't try to discuss the above in the article. A link to relevant articles on linguistic topics would be appropriate, to be followed by the occasional reader who cares to digress into it. If I think of a succinct way to replace the "mistaken reading" phrase with an improved phrase with links that will do justice to the linguistics, I'll do that. — Lumbercutter 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Army but not Naval

The article has an entire section devoted to Army, Air Force, and Marine versions of the rank. However, no equivilent article is mentioned for Navel officers.--Will 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject law enforcement

I am proposing removing the Wikiproject Law enforcement tag from this article. This article doesnt seem to have anything to do with Law enforcement other than the fact that alot of Police agencies have a rank of Lieutenant. It seems this article would fit better in a military wikiproject or something like that. EMT1871 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, articles about ranks that cross over from their predominant military usage into a more minor police usage aren't in the project. SGGH 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd lt 21st century

In american army nominclature, the 3rd lt is still used as a designation, particularly in the case of cadets in appointed roles. cite: the used of a cadet in the army national guard program as a member of SMP(simultaneous membership program) the cdet is designated in some units a third lt.

As for the mention of fictional usaged, this is incorrect. Heinlien 3rd LT are told specifically they do have authority, and are given the rank of 3rd LT specifically to place them in the chain of command. The idea is that there are no "extras" or "deadheads" in combat. If the leader is a causualty, the charachters are told they will take charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.229.98 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree most strenuously. I have been in the U.S. Army for 21 years now (E-9, retiring in 8 months, WHOOAHH) and I have never once, in all that time, heard "3rd Lt." When the ROTC kids and the Pointers do their summer training with the grown-ups they are called "cadets", reflecting the fact that they are not commissioned until graduation from their university or service academy. If there are units that call cadets 3rd Lts., they are wrong, and if they were in earshot of an upper-level NCO they would be in the front-leaning-rest position for days. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking of this article - 11 October 08

I have been working over the last week on a re-working of this article in one of my workboxes. Inevitably this has meant that the text has been inserted wholesale, so here is a list of the more significant changes:

Introduction of a proper structure
Re-arrangement of the text within the new structure for ease of reading
Culling of some non-encyclopedic and unverified information - in particular the list of foreign equivalents for "Third Lieutenant", not one of which was referenced and which added nothing useful to the encyclopedia.
Introduction of text on the naval rank, which was conspicuous by its absence, as well as some text on Air Force, Marine and Police Service Lieutenants.
Adding images of rank badges, which serve to demonstrate quite how little standardisation there is even within NATO of insignia.

I hope this meets with approval, but I must stress that there is still work to do here. I'm thinking of:

References for much of the text on Army ranks.
Expansion of the historical sections on the origins of the rank.
Further information on use of the the rank within other organisations.

Long live Wikipedia! Shem (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]