Military wearing out its welcome to me (quality, hospital)

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Kar54

Correct. It becomes "a lifestyle".

Again, that doesn't clarify the grammar issue. A surgeon's lifestyle revolves around his job, but we don't say "He is doctor."

I think this is grammatically incorrect and is simply widely misused.

[DrDog]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Again, that doesn't clarify the grammar issue. A surgeon's lifestyle revolves around his job, but we don't say "He is doctor."

I think this is grammatically incorrect and is simply widely misused.

You don't get it because you haven't served. If a doctor is late for work one day, his employer doesn't restrict him to the hospital for 3 months, cut his pay in half for 3 months, and make him repeat a year of training.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by DrDog

You don't get it because you haven't served. If a doctor is late for work one day, his employer doesn't restrict him to the hospital for 3 months, cut his pay in half for 3 months, and make him repeat a year of training.

I'm not comparing the duties of the two jobs. My point is that the seriousness of the duty or the commitment have nothing to do with the grammar question I am asking. "He is military," doesn't mean anything different then "He is in the military" in terms of seriousness. It's a grammar question, nothing more.

The fact that a job is very serious doesn't imply that we no longer use prepositions.

[otowi]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I'm not comparing the duties of the two jobs. My point is that the seriousness of the duty or the commitment have nothing to do with the grammar question I am asking. "He is military," doesn't mean anything different then "He is in the military" in terms of seriousness. It's a grammar question, nothing more.

The fact that a job is very serious doesn't imply that we no longer use prepositions.

English is a flexible language. Clearly "military" in the first sentence is being used as an adjective, and there's nothing grammatically wrong with that.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by otowi

English is a flexible language. Clearly "military" in the first sentence is being used as an adjective, and there's nothing grammatically wrong with that.

I think there is something wrong with it because that doesn't actually fit with how it is being used. We aren't trying to say someone is a military type of person or generally describe a person as being "military." Rather, we are saying that the person is a member of the military, which is a totally different thing.

[otowi]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I think there is something wrong with it because that doesn't actually fit with how it is being used. We aren't trying to say someone is a military type of person or generally describe a person as being "military." Rather, we are saying that the person is a member of the military, which is a totally different thing.

I'll agree to disagree there. I think we actually are trying to "generally describe a person as being 'military'".

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by otowi

I'll agree to disagree there. I think we actually are trying to "generally describe a person as being 'military'", because the implication is that it is more than just a job or being a member of something.

Would you ever say "He's military" in reference to a person who wasn't a member of the military? When a restaurant asks me "Are you military?" are they asking me about my personal qualities or whether I am a member of the military?

These phrases are almost always used to identify someone as being a member of the military. I understand the possibility of saying "He's a military man" or "He's so military" when referring to a person's traits, such as dedication and hard work that was formed during military service. But that isn't normally what we're trying to say in these conversations.

[mtngigi]

Thumbs up, Otowi ... I agree.

[otowi]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Would you ever say "He's military" in reference to a person who wasn't a member of the military? When a restaurant asks me "Are you military?" are they asking me about my personal qualities or whether I am a member of the military?

These phrases are almost always used to identify someone as being a member of the military. I understand the possibility of saying "He's a military man" or "He's so military" when referring to a person's traits, such as dedication and hard work that was formed during military service. But that isn't normally what we're trying to say in these conversations.

We have a word for that: We say "He's militaristic" when referring to traits. We use "He's military" to mean someone has the quality of "being military" which in this context means one is in the military, or perhaps, one's family is. One could also say "He's in the military" but it is not the only way to say that that is grammatically correct. Saying "He's military" is also grammatically correct and there is nothing wrong with it. If you prefer one way, that's fine, but the other way is not incorrect.

[Kar54]

Originally Posted by otowi

I'll agree to disagree there. I think we actually are trying to "generally describe a person as being 'military'".

Otowi, I completely agree. You say potayto... I say whatever. I can't see this being a grammatical issue whatsoever. An issue of perceptional interpretation perhaps. Grammatical, no. Now, excuse me while I go to "hospital" on the way to "university".