Regime Change

[Baker, John]

        Actually, my inspiration for pointing to a euphemistic use of
"regime change" was the search for a pre-1990 euphemistic use in the
BBC's Balderdash & Piffle program, see
http://www.oed.com/bbcwordhunt/list.html#regime.  I found this too late
to make it into the program, not that it matters, since the OED already
had the example in their files.

        There isn't really a line to establish between the "literal" and
"euphemistic" uses of the phrases, since the euphemistic use is literal.
What makes the euphemistic use euphemistic is that the generalism
deliberately fails to clarify what, if any, steps are being taken to
bring about the desired regime change.  Winning without any effort is
usually, though not always, even more desirable.

        "Regime change" also seems to be a term of art in economics.
Here are some examples (all via Westlaw):


                "Testing theories of regime change : hegemonic decline
or surplus capacity?" (title), International Organization, 1/1983.


                "In its most recent action, the Fed decided that in the
second half of 1985, it will permit M1 to grow at an annualized rate of
between 3% and 8%, a loosening from the 4%-to-7% range in the first
half.  "We have presented evidence to show that the policy regime change
in October 1979 led to a fundamental change in the way market
participants perceived the weekly M1 announcement," the study says."
The Bond Buyer, 8/8/1985.


                "Unanticipated policy shocks, regime changes and
unemployment in Canada, 1967-83" (title), Applied Economics, 8/1987.


                "This specification imposes an untested prior restraint.
Expressing [D.sub.t] as a step function assumes an abrupt regime change
at Z*. All observations up to Z* belong to regime 1, and the rest to
regime 2."  Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 5/1989.



John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:25 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Regime Change

Am not sure that a line between "literal" and "euphemistic" _regime
change_ can be established empirically.

  Even if Official X says, "We are for regime change" while thinking,
"Off the @3$5^&*!" one assumes that a fortuitous change resulting from
some legitimate cause would be equally acceptable.

  JL

Jesse Sheidlower <jester at PANIX.COM> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Jesse Sheidlower
Subject: Re: Regime Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:54:32PM -0400, Baker, John wrote:
> The OED has 1990 for the euphemistic use of "regime change."
> (The non-euphemistic use goes back to 1925.) Here's earlier, from the
> Houston Chronicle (via Westlaw), 2/20/1987: "In mid-August last year,
> the president signed a National Security Decision Directive (NSDD)
> stating that he still sought a "regime change" in Libya, and directed
> the CIA to conduct a campaign of "disinformation" to make Gadhafi
> think that he was about to be attacked again by the United States or
> ousted by his closest aides."

The OED already has this quote, though from the same day in the
Washington Post. (I assume the HC got it from the post, or it's a wire
story.) I believe it will appear in the next update. I assume someone on
ADS-L pointed this out, but I'm too lazy to check.

Jesse Sheidlower
OED

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



---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo!
TV.

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

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