19 replies to this topic

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Sergeant abbreviated = Sgt or Sergt

Serjeant abbreviated = Sjt or Serjt

Is anybody aware of any other abbreviations used “officially” between say 1910 and 1919 ?

Tom

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Tom

No others for Serjeant/Sergeant as far as I know, but I think ranks were always shortened in lists of MMs in the London Gazette, and not always consistently e.g. Bdr or Bmdr or Bmdr for Bombardier. You can't get more "official" than the Gazette!

Ron

[daggers]

Saw a group photo eariier where most of the ranks were captioned as 'Dr', but they were not RAMC but Drivers, RFA.
D

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Ron Clifton, on 08 August 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

... You can't get more "official" than the Gazette! ...

Ron - is that the same London Gazette which, during WW1, skips from mentions in "despatches" to mentions in "dispatches" almost willy-nilly

The original question though - there are no known variations apart from maybe the odd typo (?) - looks like agreement on that.

thanks - Tom

[nigelfe]

Field Service Pocket Book 1914 has Sjt as the proper abbreviation.

Sgt (and Sergeant) became the norm after WW2 (excepting some regts)

[Robert Dunlop]

or is that rgt????

[squirrel]

KRR always used the Serjeant or Sjt version - they also had Colour Serjeants - odd for a Rifle regiment.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

squirrel, on 10 August 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

KRR always used the Serjeant or Sjt version - they also had Colour Serjeants - odd for a Rifle regiment.

MoD confirm that the traditional spelling Serjeant and abbreviation Sjt is still current with The Rifles today.

Anybody going to stick their neck out with a (documented !) changeover date for the rest of the army to sergeant ?

Tom

[Ron Clifton]

Tom

Queen's Regulations 1955 still uses Serjeant, but the British Official History of WW1 (Edmonds) uses Sergeant. There just isn't a single official changeover date. Serjeant seems to have been retained for strictly legal matters rather than in common use.

The RAF, I believe, has always used Sergeant.

Ron

[Jim Smithson]

Tom

All headstones use the longer serjt where abbreviation is required, even when it causes space problems, never the shorter sjt., not sure why though.

I've never seen any other forms of name used in any documentation I have come across.

Jim

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Ron Clifton, on 11 August 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Tom
Queen's Regulations 1955 still uses Serjeant, but the British Official History of WW1 (Edmonds) uses Sergeant. There just isn't a single official changeover date. Serjeant seems to have been retained for strictly legal matters rather than in common use.
The RAF, I believe, has always used Sergeant.
Ron

Ron - I see also that the Bayeux Memorial uses Serjeant for WW2 British casualties, but WW2 London Gazettes uses both sergeant, serjeant, and abbreviations of both.

Beginning to look then as if the army really  did jumble along for a considerable time using both spellings,

Odd

Tom

[Stoppage Drill]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 10 August 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

MoD confirm that the traditional spelling Serjeant and abbreviation Sjt is still current with The Rifles today.

Anybody going to stick their neck out with a (documented !) changeover date for the rest of the army to sergeant ?

Tom

Serjeant is an old historic spelling which fell linto disuse.When John Arden wrote "Serjeant Musgrave's Dance" in 1959, the spelling seemed completely archaic.Nobody in the army or RAF (as if that mattered) used it.

It was resurrected by the Light Division in - about- the 1970's.
It has gained currency, because British soldiers are so keen to be different that they all end up being the same for a while until the next fad comes along. (Watch the styles in beret shaping.)

I was at RMAS last month, and noted that my invitation included drinks in the "Serjeants" Mess. As I was accompanying a detachment of Muslim police officers, we were obliged to decline the kind invitation, alcohol being involved.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Stoppage Drill, on 12 August 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Serjeant is an old historic spelling which fell linto disuse. ...

The reason I started this topic was because -

1) - A friend (with past military service) had expressed a very strong view as to one spelling being correct and the other being wrong, in a WW1 British Army context.
2) – I didn’t know which was correct.
3) – I could remember that there had previously been some discussion on the subject on GWF but couldn’t remember the outcome.

I see now that there doesn’t seem to be an answer (a definite changeover point), and find it particularly intriguing that the London Gazette uses both variations over a very long period of time.

There’s no army order then ? – no army council instruction or the like ?

Tom

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

I've managed to make some headway with trying to untangle this and have found a couple of sets of relevant notes. When I've had a chance to go through them (and another couple of documents) I'll post a summary, but in the meantime here's a "taster" >

 GWF Sgt-Sjt crop.JPG   102.25K   1 downloads

Tom

[Ron Clifton]

<sup>Tom

A very interesting find! It does seem to bear out my understanding that retention of the "j" spelling seems to have been confined to strictly legal documentation.

Ron</sup>

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Ron Clifton, on 23 August 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

^{Tom
A very interesting find! It does seem to bear out my understanding that retention of the "j" spelling seems to have been confined to strictly legal documentation.
Ron}

Ron - not quite - but your earlier reference to the 1955 QR's turned out to be very relevant !

I'll try to precis the material I've now found and shall post that in the next few days. This will hopefully explain how the matter was "concluded". (Such a small issue seems to have caused so many problems for the War Office).

Tom

[Staffsyeoman]

The Machine Gun Corps also used 'Sjt' for its whole existence.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Staffsyeoman, on 24 August 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

The Machine Gun Corps also used 'Sjt' for its whole existence.

Phil, regrettably nothing amongst the papers referred to here throws any great light on how the regiments and corps spelled the rank, and I wonder whether it might be a bit like the Welsh with their “Welch” before the AO of 1920 – particular units maybe using the “J” spelling on a whim ?

The following notes are taken from two documents at TNA; WO32/15646 & 15647. Both file covers refer to the use of “serjeant” in army regulations, military publications, orders, etc. The files contain notes of minutes, as shown in post #14 above, and as is common with this sort of file there are very obvious gaps in both continuity and completeness. There is no indication as to the genesis of the content of the two files and it is often very unclear precisely which department is generation the minutes (I’ve given the correspondent’s office code beside the minute dates, whenever possible). The following notes are abbreviated summaries of what I thought were the relevant minutes. Quotations are verbatim. Any highlighting is mine:-

Minute 22/8/1950 C3 WO. The spelling of “serjeant” with a “j” “… is inconsistent with the rule laid down by H.M.S.O. (Rules for Authors and Printers, para 2) that “The Concise English Dictionary” will be the authority for spelling.” The dictionary entry gives “sergeant” as the spelling when the word is used in its military sense.”

“The “j” spelling is the traditional War Office one; it is used, for example, in Queen’s Regulations, 1858 and Pay Warrant, 1844.”

“The “g” spelling, however, is used in the R.A.F. (eg King’s Regulations for R.A.F., para. 481) and in the Royal Marines (e.g. King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Appendix XVII). It is also used in the US Army.”

There is then mentioned that Major Frederick of “M.T.2.” (Military Training Directorate) had stated that changing “j” to “g” in training manuals had already started “… to secure uniformity with U.S. practice”

It is then suggested that the “g” spelling should be used in all written and printed army documents and publications, including, if agreed, ACIs, AOs, and new publications. HOWEVER the “j” spelling would continue to be used in amendments to existing documents. “It would probably be desirable to publish a brief A.C.I. notifying the change.”

There is a subscript note here 28/4/1950 saying that this spelling issue was raised in 1909 but seems not to have been followed-through.

A minute 29-8-1950 “A.U.S.” notes that “g” is now being used in training manuals in order to conform to US practice. The Pay Warrant is just about to be issued and it is likely that KR’s will follow shortly. Overall then “It might, therefore, be said that, so far as official publications are concerned, the present is a convenient time for introducing the change.” The change would not be a simple matter because although the “g” spelling could be used in new ACIs and AOs, the “j” spelling, where used in existing publications, will have to be retained until the parent publications are revised.

“It would therefore be desirable to issue an Army Council Instruction, and perhaps also an Army Order, to announce the adoption of the new practice and to explain that the old spelling will be retained in the promulgation of amendments to existing publications.”

“Have you any objection to the proposal ? Is there any sentiment in the Army attached to the old spelling, and would the change cause disorder in orderly rooms ? If the “j” spelling appears on painted notices etc., it would have to remain until a convenient opportunity to change it.” (Presumably any painted notices would be drawing attention to serjeant's messes and the like ?).

Minute 8/9/50. A “R.A.Hull DSD 1.” says it would be a pity to break with an Army tradition dating from 1750. He doesn’t believe that there are “sufficiently strong traditional reasons” to oppose the change, but at the same time he doesn’t believe that any great confusion would result from leaving things as they are. However if the Military Training Directorate “feel so strongly about it however, it would seem as well to tie up all the loose ends and regularize the spelling of this word.”

A minute 15/9/1950 DPS. Writer sees no great need to change, but “If the change is to be made however I feel that we should do it quietly; in these times of stress the publication of an ACI announcing such a change might well lead to public laughter.”

Minute 21/9/1950 DPA. “I have no strong feelings on this question either way. It would certainly appear to be more convenient to spell the word with a “g”. I agree with DPS that any change should be insinuated into military vocabulary. It would be giving it undue prominence to publish the change in an ACI.”

Minute 25/9/1950 DDALS for DALS (AOL). Points out that “j” is used in ranks and appointments as set out in King’s Regulations 1940 (amended 1945). It is also used twice in Rules of Procedure. Contradictorily, Section 4 of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, uses Serjeant for visiting army and airforce personnel contrary to UK RAF regulations.

Minute 9/10/1950 AUS. Notes an “absurdity” in that the War Office seems to use “j” and the Ministry of Defence uses “g”. “… seems rather absurd. I do not know which Department does the translation from one spelling to the other !”

A note 10/10/1950 to AUS from what appears to be “DF (U)” says he doesn’t think a change of spelling is worth the effort now as the pay warrant is with the printers. He goes on to say that “I would not like to try to influence the M of D on a matter such as this.”

The final note in this folder says that as long as the old spelling appears in annual estimates, and the general feeling is against change, it doesn’t matter which spelling is used. (This page is badly torn at the bottom and there are clearly other notes which are incomplete and unreadable).

First file ends here.

Second file.

Minute 17/7/1953 Lt Col GS SD1. Notes that the issue was raised in 1950 and again in April 1952, but no record of an outcome can be found. A later note strongly implies a “no change” decision at this time.

Minute 24/7/1950 Lt Col GS MT2. “It is evident that a lot of time has been spent on this subject and it is with great reluctance that we are forced to reopen it.” The problem seems to be that documents spelt “g” are constantly being submitted for printing, and every time this happens a load of civil servants start ringing each other up to try to get somebody else to take responsibility for making a decision.

“It is suggested that the fact that one part of the British Army forms an island in the rest of the English speaking world in the matter of spelling is unacceptable. We should therefore come into line with the other Ministries and the rest of the world and adopt “g” gradually, letting “j” die out.”

Minute 28/7/1953 DADALS. With reference to the foregoing points out that no change can be made to the rules of procedure without the assent of the Sovereign.

Minute 9/9/1953 Lt Col GS MT2. Military Training Directorate suggest that a lot of trouble would be involved in changing “j” to “g” legally. Can the issue be shelved for six months, or if some agreement be reached whereby the spelling in ACIs could be changed “… the controversy would largely die out. ACIs have such a wide circulation that inconsistencies are bound to be given wide publicity.” A War Office reply C3 WO same date notes that the new Queen’s Regulations have been set out with the “j” spelling. “We can hardly use the “g” spelling in ACIs, now, and produce in 6-12 months time QR with the “j” spelling. Lets revive the controversy after QR are published.”

Minute 11/9/1953 Lt Col GS MT2. QR is just about to be republished. Surely this is an ideal time to change the remaining “js” to “gs”. Additionally a standardized abbreviation “Sgt” has recently been agreed with the US and Canada, to be used in messages etc.

Minute 16/11/1953. As post # 14 above.

Minute 23/11/53 DPS. The Director General of Military Training is complaining that the question of spelling is still “constantly” being raised and DPS is inclined to agree that a definite decision should be made. “The word does not appear in the Army Act and in the regulations etc. where it does appear with a “j” (e.g. QR and the pay warrant) it is written by us. I should therefore have thought that we could agree that in future we will use the “g” and change our spelling in all future revisions.

The spelling of “sergeant” is a small point and I really think it is part of a wider issue. We lay down for the Army in “Staff Duties in the Field” (published under the authority of the Army Council and signed by PUS) the way certain words will be abbreviated – sgt is shown for sergeant. This is almost a waste of time if in numerous other documents published by the Army Council (or prepared by them or, on their behalf, for the approval of Her Majesty), we use different abbreviations. This, however, is what happens at present. I would really like to see an ACI saying that the spellings and abbreviations in “Staff Duties in the Field” will in future be used, and will be adopted in all revisions of existing regulations, etc.”

Minute 30/11/1953 A.U.S. to D.P.S. through D.G.M.T.
“This is clearly a matter which cannot be settled in a light-hearted fashion, and any decision which we now take will no doubt go down in history. If we decide to make the change, I can envisage historians of the future turning from the specific point of the change from “j” to “g” and becoming interested in the important questions with which the staff of the War Office were face during the turbulent period which followed the War. In fact, with a little imagination it could quite erroneously be discovered to be part justification for the vast sum included in Vote 3, for Vote 3 covers only the civilian element in the War Office.” (I’ve raised “Vote 3” elsewhere in “Other”). …

“I appreciate that it required an Act of Parliament to enable us to interpret “he” as “she”, but I cannot imagine that our legal authorities have yet reached the stage where they would argue that a “Sergeant” is not entitled to the rate of pay granted to a Serjeant in the Pay Warrant, and I take it we can assume that the military authorities would not argue that , for the same reason, pay could not be stopped, penal deductions made, etc.

The crux of the matter  is that everybody grows up to use the “g” spelling and a good deal of time is wasted in getting used to another form – in fact, judging by the number of occasions on which C.3 have to waste their time amending “g” to “j”, some people never get used to it.

I intend, therefore, to tell C.3 to use in future the “g” in all publications for which they are responsible. It will mean that for a number of years, both forms will appear in our publications, but many of the more important changes in this world necessitate an admixture of the old and new for a while. This no doubt reduces the shock to the old who would otherwise wake up one morning and find that all they cherished had disappeared. I do not think an O.M. or A.C.I. is necessary or desirable – it would give the frivolous the opportunity to poke fun at us. If C.3 blazon the trail, others will quickly follow. If necessary C.3 will fly a kite.”

Minute; appears to be 24/12/1953 AAG. “Though AUS in minute 14 has said that no general instruction is to be published about the change in this spelling, DPS proposes to ask that it should be mentioned in the AG’s liaison letter to Commands.”

File ends.

Earlier Ron mentioned QRs 1955, where, for example, para 391, “Ranks and Appointments , Precedence, Promotion and Employment” uses the spelling serjeant throughout. Amendment No 9 to QR’s dated 31/12/56 shows all of the relevant ranks as sergeant.

Why they couldn’t have sorted that out in 1909 …

Tom

[Staffsyeoman]

Tom, even by your impeccable standards that is some breathtaking digging work. When I was involved in MGC research, we could never find a prescriptive source for the spelling either, but I saw a few documents with Sgt struck out and Sjt substituted; MICs almost always have a 'g' and the naming of (especially gallantry) medals is far from consistent.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Phil – I was a bit disappointed that the files did nothing to explain which units may have fallen into the “j” camp, and vice-versa. As Ron pointed out though, the legal aspects were with the paperwork and not the regimental traditions.

I suppose GWF isn’t the best place to get an answer to this.

Tom