John W. Kennedy wrote:
John Crinnion wrote:
Adam Beneschan wrote:

Alex Martelli wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:

SNIP


. The dictionary says that "anti-Semite" has
specifically to do with hostility toward Jews, so that's what the
definition is, period---regardless of what it looks like it *ought* to
mean. (My source is www.m-w.com, in case it matters.)

Yes, the word ought to mean what it says. Though it of course does
not. The thing is, it was coined as a kind of coy, school marmish
euphemism - should have been 'anti-jewish', meant it, actually spoke
from shelter of one level of abstraction.

It came from a period when even Jews felt the word "Jew" was faintly
distasteful, for reasons that are unknown to me. "Hebrew" was the usual
euphemism; I suppose "anti-Hebraic" sounded silly.

Leaving us with a legacy of the silly-sounding "anti-semitic ". We
could go with '"anti-jewish" nowadays, and I think we should. It is
not as though one were making an empty style-statement as in calling
"Bombay" by a modish alternative.

Mind you, the word "jew" is hardly without its baggage! Part of the
problem seems to be that the word is a monosyllable, and thus difficult
to say (in a context of possible hostility) without sounding abrupt.

But people can be ridiculously over-sensitive, and it is fashionable to
be cowardly about humouring them. There was once a complaint on the
London Underground system (= tube, subway) about careless pronunciation
over the public address system at one particular station of 'due' (as
in 'jew to signal failure'). The idiots agreed to say 'owing to'
instead. This is not only incorrect as a matter of usage, it could be
seen as one more example of the holocaust being regarded as a blank
cheque - albeit not so lethally as in South Lebanon.



--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"