assiduous avoidance of word "Canadian"

 
Daniel C. Boyer
 
Avatar
 
 
Daniel C. Boyer
Total Posts:  1104
Joined  16-03-2005
 
 
 
12 February 2007 13:53
 

It’s interesting to notice how they are so eager to avoid the word "Canadian" that they use the word "augmented": http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Eng/2EngineerBattalion.htm .

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 February 2007 14:23
 

Daniel C. Boyer wrote:

It’s interesting to notice how they are so eager to avoid the word "Canadian" that they use the word "augmented":.


It’s hard to know on what basis the word "Canadian" might have been used, since, as the site says, "The coat of arms was originally approved for the 2nd Engineer Regiment on 7 June 1924.  It was redesignated for the 2nd Engineer Battalion (Combat) on 26 February 1940.  It was redesignated for the 2nd Engineer Combat Battalion on 8 January 1954.  The insignia was redesignated for the 2nd Engineer Battalion on 15 July 1958." 

 

With the arms of the 2d Engineers having some four decades of seniority, one might as well observe how eagerly the College of Arms avoided the term "Second Engineers pale" in blazoning the Canadian flag in 1964.

 
ESmith
 
Avatar
 
 
ESmith
Total Posts:  550
Joined  15-11-2005
 
 
 
12 February 2007 15:23
 

Actually, as US military heraldry goes this is a rather nice Coat of Arms… not to imply that the IOH does shoddy work, quite the contrary.  Just that this is a very nice, simple, straightforward achievement… whatever they call the pale