Libyan Linguistics – Part 2

I wrote earlier about how I thought it was curious that most media outlets in March were describing the fight in Libya as being between the “pro-Gadaffi forces” and the rebels.

I asked, back then, if the armed forces fighting for a country is called “an army”, why wasn’t this conflict being described as being between the “Libyan army and the rebels”.

Well, with the toppling of Gaddafi and with some bodies recognizing the legitimacy of the Libyan transitional government, I guess it’s okay again to call the armed forces fighting for a country the “army” or “government troops”.

Case in point is BBC News and this October 8 story where the first line is Libyan government troops have moved on the city from two directions.

Notice the armed forces fighting against the pro-Gaddafi forces are not labelled by BBC News as “pro-Mustafa Abdel Jalil forces”, because, well, that would be weird, wouldn’t it?

Read Full Post »

Libyan Linguistics

While listening and reading the news about the battles in Libya, I keep hearing an interesting turn of phrase.

Now the radio program On the Media has already done a piece about how reporters changed the labels of those fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from “protesters” to “rebels”. It’s a good piece and worth listening to. How one calls a thing really does determine how one thinks about a thing.

What I have heard lately is the phrase used to describe those fighting against the rebels. That phrase I see and hear over and over again is “pro-Gaddafi” forces (see here and here and here for samples).

Pardon me for splitting hairs but wouldn’t the fighting force battling for a government be called an “army”. Why don’t these stories refer to the forces fighting for the Libyan leader as “the Libyan army”?

It’s almost like refering to the Battle of Antietam as a fight between the Confederate rebels and the pro-Lincoln forces.

Then again, I’m sure there’s a purpose to refering to the Libyan army as “pro-Gaddafi”…I wonder what it is.

Read Full Post »