Can someone be a Muslim Jew?

[Link]

There has been, since the later 19th century, a technical term coined specifically to refer to anti-Jewish feeling. That term is "Anti-Semitic." It was not established in the generic. Semite, in the intent of the word's creator, referred specifically to Jews.

anti-Semitism | History, Facts, & Examples

If you would like to go back and time, and correct him, feel free. Until you do, the term will be used to point to a feeling against Jews.

Language is dynamic, words change usage and meaning per how people use it.

 

[Flankerl]

Yeah. Just because someone misuses a word for propaganda, I won't use it the same. I prefer to follow the reasonable, not the fake propagandists like the German murderers.

Cheers.

The word literally did not exist before it was used by Antisemites.

And no one outside of linguistics has ever counted these various people together.

Arabs like to say "I cannot be an Antisemite because I am a Semite" to explain their Antisemitism away.

There has been, since the later 19th century, a technical term coined specifically to refer to anti-Jewish feeling. That term is "Anti-Semitic." It was not established in the generic. Semite, in the intent of the word's creator, referred specifically to Jews.

anti-Semitism | History, Facts, & Examples

If you would like to go back and time, and correct him, feel free. Until you do, the term will be used to point to a feeling against Jews.

The problem is also the fault of English.
In German it's Antisemitismus, not Anti-Semitismus.
By dividing the word English suggest that there may as well be a Pro-Semitism.
Which of course does not exist, nor has it ever.
No one ever felt that strongly about an Afro-Asiatic language family.

Language is dynamic, words change usage and meaning per how people use it.

And no one outside of Arabs who hate Jews want the terminology to be changed.
Why they should have a say on a German word that's not about them they can never explain.

 

[Link]

And no one outside of Arabs who hate Jews want the terminology to be changed.
Why they should have a say on a German word that's not about them they can never explain.

Even if it was the case, the usage of it to turn it around, is part of usage now and part of how the term is used. There is no official ruler(s) of language. So we can use terms how we want.

A lot of battle of truth and falsehood is simply about defining terms.

 

[rosends]

Language is dynamic, words change usage and meaning per how people use it.

There has been no change in the meaning of "anti-semite". There has just been an attempt by people who feel that it is somehow unfair to change the meaning by claiming that the term's language refers to something else. Note that what I was responding to wasn't the claim that "the term has begun to apply equally to other semites" but "the term semites also includes..." This is not an argument, then about the dynamic nature of language, but about the use of a word as a technial and generic term, or a specific term with an intended area of coverage.

 

[Link]

There has been no change in the meaning of "anti-semite". There has just been an attempt by people who feel that it is somehow unfair to change the meaning by claiming that the term's language refers to something else. Note that what I was responding to wasn't the claim that "the term has begun to apply equally to other semites" but "the term semites also includes..." This is not an argument, then about the dynamic nature of language, but about the use of a word as a technial and generic term, or a specific term with an intended area of coverage.

The attempt is enough. There is no rulers or authorities in language. It's dynamic and how people decide to use terms.

 

[rosends]

The attempt is enough. There is no rulers or authorities in language. It's dynamic and how people decide to use terms.

There are actually rules and authorities in language. Yes doesn't mean no. Recognize doesn't mean reject and it won't just because I start using it that way. Coopting a term does sometimes happen (though this is more a case of undermining it from its origin) but coopting happens when people give up on using terms the way they were intending. As I am not giving up on that, I see no reason to acknowledge that it is a fair accompli.

Ai don't think that a native of Brazil has to worry about "Anti-American" sentiment even though "America" includes both North and South America.

 

[Link]

There are actually rules and authorities in language. Yes doesn't mean no. Recognize doesn't mean reject and it won't just because I start using it that way. Coopting a term does sometimes happen (though this is more a case of undermining it from its origin) but coopting happens when people give up on using terms the way they were intending. As I am not giving up on that, I see no reason to acknowledge that it is a fair accompli.

Ai don't think that a native of Brazil has to worry about "Anti-American" sentiment even though "America" includes both North and South America.

Yes doesn't mean no unless you being sarcastic. But I took a linguistic class, and language is dynamic. People invent terms and terms change meaning by usage. If a significant population uses the term in a way, it becomes one of the meanings of the term and known by context.

There is a significant portion of humanity using the term in that sense, and so it's one of the meanings now.

 

[rosends]

Yes doesn't mean no unless you being sarcastic. But I took a linguistic class, and language is dynamic. People invent terms and terms change meaning by usage. If a significant population uses the term in a way, it becomes one of the meanings of the term and known by context.

There is a significant portion of humanity using the term in that sense, and so it's one of the meanings now.

I took a linguistic class also. Language grows and shifts. Words often stray from their etymological roots. But that hasn't happened here, nor was that the claim here. The claim was that the word embedded within the term refers to something different from what the person who created the word intended. Additionally, there is no significant portion of the population which uses it in this variant way and, in the context in which I used it, it was clearly about one particular group. So you are defending a process not in evidence, an espousing and appreciation of a context which is not the context here and a meaning which runs counter to the intent of the person who made up the phrase.

 

[Link]

I took a linguistic class also. Language grows and shifts. Words often stray from their etymological roots. But that hasn't happened here, nor was that the claim here. The claim was that the word embedded within the term refers to something different from what the person who created the word intended. Additionally, there is no significant portion of the population which uses it in this variant way and, in the context in which I used it, it was clearly about one particular group. So you are defending a process not in evidence, an espousing and appreciation of a context which is not the context here and a meaning which runs counter to the intent of the person who made up the phrase.

There is a significant population using the term in the way @firedragon uses it. It's one of the meanings and it's a counter propaganda tool. This is how language works. If people use it in a way, it's one of the meanings.

 

[firedragon]

There has been, since the later 19th century, a technical term coined specifically to refer to anti-Jewish feeling. That term is "Anti-Semitic." It was not established in the generic. Semite, in the intent of the word's creator, referred specifically to Jews.

anti-Semitism | History, Facts, & Examples

If you would like to go back and time, and correct him, feel free. Until you do, the term will be used to point to a feeling against Jews.

Yeah. But it's wrong. Just because some one invented a propaganda term, no one needs to worship it like God's word.

 

[firedragon]

The word literally did not exist before it was used by Antisemites.

Yeah. I would repeat what I said. So I understand you stand by a concocted term invented to market a propaganda. Shallow.

So that ends that little discussion. Thanks.

 

[gnostic]

Though most would reject this today, it is obvious that a muslim could be a person who does not even know about Muhammed or the Qur'an. That's by linguistic definition.

But theological definitions from outside of the Qur'an composed by institutions would beg to differ. They would agree with you.

I think you can be a Jew who convert to Islam...if being “Jewish” only relate as nationality, and not following Judaism...

...or if the Jew decided abandoned Judaism for Islam (hence, changing religion).

But a religious Jew (follower of Judaism) won’t accept Muhammad as a prophet and won’t accept the Quran as the scriptures, just as they won’t accept the Christian Bible and won’t accept Jesus as their prophet.

 

[Link]

Yeah. I would repeat what I said. So I understand you stand by a concocted term invented to market a propaganda. Shallow.

So that ends that little discussion. Thanks.

They want us to just accept that we are ignored in the term when the term linguistically should've included us. Classical oppressors mindset.

 

[rosends]

There is a significant population using the term in the way @firedragon uses it. It's one of the meanings and it's a counter propaganda tool. This is how language works. If people use it in a way, it's one of the meanings.

I have never heard of anyone using it so it is not a significant population, and firedragon didn't advocate using it in any way, just that the word in its meaning refers to a different group from what was intended.

 

[Link]

I have never heard of anyone using it so it is not a significant population, and firedragon didn't advocate using it in any way, just that the word in its meaning refers to a different group from what was intended.

You should get out more then.

 

[rosends]

Yeah. But it's wrong. Just because some one invented a propaganda term, no one needs to worship it like God's word.

Ah, so the word that was created is wrong. That's the underlying claim. That a word doesn't mean what it was intended to mean -- not that it changed in its meaning.

 

[rosends]

You should get out more then.

I get out plenty. I also teach language and have for over 25 years. You should stop assuming that words mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

[Link]

I get out plenty. I also teach language and have for over 25 years. You should stop assuming that words mean whatever you want them to mean.

Well it's one of the meanings to me since I've seen this usage many times by many people.

 

[rosends]

They want us to just accept that we are ignored in the term when the term linguistically should've included us. Classical oppressors mindset.

Ah, again, "should've." So from way back there was a conspiracy of linguists to use words that express hate for one particular group and not another. Sorry you weren't hated enough to be included in 1879.

 

[Link]

Ah, again, "should've." So from way back there was a conspiracy of linguists to use words that express hate for one particular group and not another. Sorry you weren't hated enough to be included in 1879.

It's what made this particular word popular. What is the drive behind that?