"field uniform"

[TAHAWK]

An official usage limited to OA insignia or simply human frailty in action?

[qwazse]

...

As for the terms "class A" and "class B,"  I'm reminded of a concept an English teacher shared years ago concerning definitions:   "usage determines meaning."  

 

We have the formal "dictionary" or "regulation" meaning for a word (or in this case, a phrase).   And then we have the meaning used by the masses.   Usually the latter carries the day.

...

Your teacher is what my Linguistics professor would call a descriptivist. Prescriptivists (uncommon in the English speaking world) would have less objective terms for someone who makes such allowances. But their attempts to prescribe language often do seem like a scene from Don Quixote.

 

Class A/B as is commonly used among scout troops is unlikely to go away anytime soon. There's something fun about using military short-hand with boys. But, unlike "field", I have not seen it in any literature.

 

So let's review:

 

The term Field Uniform is not used much in current BSA literature - only a single reference in the uniform guidebook in reference to OA sashes and in the OA handbook, so field uniform seems to be an official usage limited to the OA.

 

Official Uniform = Field Uniform = "Class A" = "Dress Uniform"

Activity Uniform (apparently no longer used) = "Class B"

@@CalicoPenn, not "only a single reference" ... but rather two in the Insignia Guide. Not just sashes, but wood badge beads. I only emphasize this because it provides a pattern of context in which the BSA tries to use the term.

 

The premise that we can discount the scouter.com blog is, I think, flawed. In this decade, we saw the venturing awards being fashioned online before our eyes.

 

@@Stosh is poking fun at your attempt to equate "Field" "A" and "Dress". Not having one of those blue blazers, I never gave that much thought.

 

An official usage limited to OA insignia or simply human frailty in action?

I think it's a little bit of both. I think the usage is intentionally chosen to delineate regalia that belongs exclusively to the tan shirt. However, it also seems to be unnecessary. They could have simply said "strictly for uniform wear" or some such phrase and conveyed the same meaning.

Edited October 5, 2015 by qwazse

[qwazse]

Just wanted to rephrase that last statement a little ...

...

I think it's a little bit of both. I think the usage is intentionally chosen to delineate regalia that belongs exclusively to the tan shirt. However, it also seems to be unnecessary. They could have simply said "strictly for uniform wear" or some such phrase and conveyed the same meaning.

The usage is chosen to delineate regalia that belongs to the khaki or green shirt ... as both the O/A and the Wood-badge are available to venturers.

 

I think this is also why "field" was chosen ... for those rare occasions where a venturer would wear a national uniform, but it wasn't "the uniform". In venturing circles, I have not heard "Class A/B" being used.

 

That was the other thing that baffled us scouts when De La Renta's design rolled out. We all fully expected Explorers to wear the same khaki shirt as ours, only with green epaulets ... one uniform to rule them all! But it never happened. I guess we boys weren't thinking rationally at the time.

Edited October 5, 2015 by qwazse