civilian

[Baker, John]

        I'm not so sure that this particular example exemplifies a
change in meaning for "civilian."  My read is that the Times is
distinguishing between this attack and attacks on (a) soldiers
(non-civilians, a legitimate target in wartime) and (b) public figures
(extraordinary civilians, not conventionally considered a legitimate
target, but commonly targeted in this conflict).

John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Bergdahl
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:57 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: civilian

Yesterday on an NPR news report on the recent violence in Lebanon I
heard an unusual [to me] usage of the term "civilian," not as
"non-military" but as "not a gov't official" and today's NY Times has
the same usage.  In a page 3 article by Michael Slackman, "Bombs Kill 3
in Lebanon on Eve of Slaying Anniversary" the third paragraph begins

"It was the first such attack--directed at ordinary civilians, not
public figures--since the end of Lebanon's 15-year civil war in 1990."

My sense is that it's the inverse of the use of "assasinate" inasmuch as
one would use the term assasinate for a "public figure" but not for an
"ordinary civilian"; the military/civilian dichotomy seems to be missing
but, then again, one interpretation of "civilian" is "inappropriate as a
target in wartime" and that meaning is definitely retro!

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org