Another concept that could use some semantic refining is “socialism”.

That looks like a rocking site, btw – thanks for the pointer.

A second reason is that we’re not talking about Latin or old Anglo-Saxon derivations; “anti” and “ism” are currently active word-formers with fixed meanings, and “Semite” has a definite meaning including but not limited to “Jew”.

And dictionary definitions do not win arguments. Much less, Wikopedia definitions.

On the other hand, my own personal Mr. Language Person, Steve at Language Hat, agrees with Rilkefan and the others.

This might be one of those political arguments like “negro” vs. “black” vs. “African-American”. I believe that it’s fallen out that way here. Steve has a consistent policy on this kind of question, but anti-anti-semitism (conventional meaning) was one of his motives.

So anyway, I’m going to let it drop, and without conceding everything, do not claim to have won the argument.

Or is your plan to go off and change the encyclopedias along with the dictionaries?

Jesus fuck, soru, you’re talking about Wikopedia. Wikopedia is changed every minute of the day. That’s what Wikopedia is all about.

I’ve read one of Bernard Lewis’s books (The Muslim Discovery of Europe) and had problems with it. It was based almost entirely on fairly recent Ottoman sources and focussed on a negative presentation of the evidence against the Ottomans. I had been looking forward to something much more interesting. SO his opinion is not definitive for me.

Rewriting dictionaries is what lexicogrphers do. It’s not a crime against nature. I am not a lexicographer but am suggesting that it might be a good idea to come up with a new typology and a new term.

Rilkefan, the fact that “anti-Semitism” is a word with meaningful elements which can be meaningfully and unambiguously parsed, combined with the fact that the parsed meaning is misleading, combined with the fact that the discrepancies between the conventional and the parsed meanings directly impact contemporary political issues, means that maybe new terminology is needed. It isn’t an absolute case, but it’s a reasonable one.

You have intimated that maybe I’m antisemitic. Please clarify what you meant by that.

Have you considered for a second stopping ‘guessing’ and going and finding out a few of the basic facts about the area you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_anti-Semitism

Or is your plan to go off and change the encyclopedias along with the dictionaries?

soru

If you want to not look like you’re attacking this particular word out of antisemitism, you ought to at least advocate a consistent approach to language.

“Jet, you can’t win an argument by pointing at the dictionary.”

Of course he can. He just did.

“there’s been a change in the realities”

The reality that there was antisemitism hasn’t changed; the reality that there is antisemitism hasn’t changed, and seems unlikely to. The reality that no sensible prescriptivist operating under the mistaken view that there’s a problem with this word would advocate abandoning its simple, clear, specific, useful, settled meaning isn’t going to change.

Jet, you can’t win an argument by pointing at the dictionary. When language changes, dictionaries change. That’s the very thing we’re talking about.

As I said, there’s been a change in the realities which make the old word less appropriate. This happens all the time in linguistic history. In 1850 Arabs, who are semites, were irrelevant to the world of prejudice (though my guess is that all anti-Semites then were anti-Arab), whereas today they aren’t. Maybe we need a new typology and a new vocabulary with more specific meanings.

Is this plan to rationalise and reform the English language going to be performed wholesale, all at once, or just one word at a time?

soru

Sure it isn’t.

Emereson, weren’t dictionaries created to avoid conversations like this one.

When you have a word which has an easily construed meaning which is misleading, as “anti-semitism” is, one of your options is to find a new, more precise word. All three morphemes of “anti-semitism” have exact meanings, and “anti” and “ism” are common word-formers which are invariable in meaning. “Semite” may once have been a code word for “Jew”, but that was an unfortunate mistake. The word “semite” does have a definite meaning (contra #27). It’s not a scientific term, but it means “speakers of semitic languages, considered as descent groups”. Pretty mushy, but the term “Jew” includes families who have not practiced Judaism for generations, so if “Jew” means anything, “semite” does too. But it means something different.

One big advantage of changing termology and finding a new typology would be to avoid discussions like this one.

By the logic some posters here are using, it ‘really means’ fishing with coloured lures, and ‘left wing’ is a part of a bird.

You can’t break a term up into it’s individual components, look up a dictionary definition of these components, and then chain those together to see what the term means. Linguisticaly, that’s just a silly as doing the same thing with the individual syllables of a word.

soru