0

I have a question about the usage of the preposition "in" in this wikipedia article:

Identified with Soviet rule and issued in all Warsaw Pact armies, the ushanka has become a part of the winter uniform for military and police forces in Canada, the United States, and other Western countries with a cold winter.

The use of "in" in "issued in all Warsaw Pact armies" seems off, because "in" along with "armies", means membership. The act of issuing ushankas has nothing to do with army membership.

The correct use of "in" seems to be:

Ushankas are issued in school.

This use of "in" makes sense, because "in" along with "school" means at what time the act of issuing ushankas takes place.

Does anyone agree with me that the sentence from the wikipedia is wrong? Or, is my analysis wrong?

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    RE: The act of issuing ushankas has nothing to do with army membership - On the contrary, this has everything to do with army membership. (Try getting issued an ushanka without enlisting in the army. Write us back when they give you one, comrade.) – J.R.♦ Feb 4 '16 at 19:51
  • I don't think "in" here implies they are exclusively given in this context. "In" here feels almost exactly equivalent to "to" (although that's partially because "armies" is ambiguous, it can either mean the soldiers or the administration). – Chris Down Feb 4 '16 at 20:23
  • I agree with your assessment, meatie. Issued in school makes sense, but the original sentence should either be "issued by Warsaw Pact armies" or "issued to Warsaw Pact soldiers". – BlueDot Feb 4 '16 at 21:02
  • 1
    Anything which is confined to an organization can be said to occur within the organization. Using in as a shortened form of within seems perfectly reasonable. And since "issuing" an object implies that the item will be used exclusively by a member of the organization, issuing has everything to do with membership. For instance, if a unit provided warm clothing, like a ushanka, to victims of a disaster, the ushankas would be given or donated or provided, not issued. – WhatRoughBeast Feb 5 '16 at 4:41
  • @BlueDot - Issued in works just fine in the sentence. (That part of the sentence essentially means, "In all Warsaw pact armies, ushankas are issued.") – J.R.♦ Feb 5 '16 at 15:50
2

You are overthinking this preposition in in the sentence. Let's rephrase it to a simple sentence removing the absolute construction:

The ushanka is issued for all (the) soldiers (to wear in Winter) in all Warsaw Pact armies.

You can see there are many unnecessary (redundant) words elided to make the sentence concise. The soldiers belong to all Warsaw Pact armies. Soldiers wear the ushanka in Winter. The reason all (the) soldiers is omitted is there is no reason to write it because the noun army implies that it includes soldiers. An army can't exist without soldiers.

Let's compare it with your sentence that has school:

Ushankas are issued for all (the) students in school to wear in Winter.

You will see there is no difference between the two sentences. Conciseness is very important in an article.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.