"Semite", "Semitic"

[Michael West]

Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

AHD3 says "Semite" is a back-formation from Semitic,
for which it gives the following:

noun
Abbr. Sem.
1. The Semitic languages.
2. Any one of the Semitic languages.

[New Latin Sêmiticus, from Sêmita, Semite, from
Late Latin Sêm, Shem, eponymous ancestor of the
Semites, from Greek, from Hebrew Sêm.]

And for Semite:

Sem·ite (sèm¹ìtŽ) noun
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples
of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs,
Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews,
and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

[Robert Lieblich]

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."
<http://schema-root.org/people/political/activist/anti-semitic/>.[1]

For confirmation of Marr's creation of the term, see
<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&ci=0195040058>
and
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=7908&tocid=0&query=anti-semitism&ct=>
I'd say this is one term whose originator is known, and its meaning
remains pretty much as assigned by him. It may be, as Britannica
says, a misnomer, but its meaning is reasonably clear to all, even
those perverse enough to pretend to dispute it.[2]

[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.

[2] There's no silver in German silver. The American buffalo is not
a buffalo. A guinea pig is not a pig (despite the Disney cartoon).
Etc., etc. An anti-Semite is prejudiced against Jews. Not all
Semitic peoples, not other Semitic peoples -- Jews.

[Michael West]

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."

You're speaking of "anti-Semitism" rather than
Semitic or Semite. It seems curious that the "anti"
version of the word would focus on Jews, while the
non-"anti" versions cover a much wider swath.

Didn't the "Aryan" theorists hold all "Mediterranean"
stock in equal contempt, with the Jews singled out
for punishment chiefly because unlike other "Semites"
they had a visible and viable presence in Northern Europe?

I guess I'm asking the question: "If people mean
'anti-Jewish' why don't they say 'anti-Jewish'?
What's with the "Semite" thing?

I guess I'd need to know something about Welhelm Marr
to know why he chose that locution. But that wouldn't
explain why subsequent generations have continued
to commit what seems on the surface to be a misnomer.

[Robert Lieblich]

Post by Michael West

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."

You're speaking of "anti-Semitism" rather than
Semitic or Semite. It seems curious that the "anti"
version of the word would focus on Jews, while the
non-"anti" versions cover a much wider swath.

Machs nichts. They all have the same root. Blame Herr Marr for the
illogic. I'm only reporting.

Post by Michael West
Didn't the "Aryan" theorists hold all "Mediterranean"
stock in equal contempt, with the Jews singled out
for punishment chiefly because unlike other "Semites"
they had a visible and viable presence in Northern Europe?

The coiner of the term "anti-Semite" was German. The Germans
managed to ally with the Italians, whom I believe to be of
"Mediterranean stock," with some regularity during the last
century. Gypsies aside, no ethnic group other than the Jews was
singled out by the Nazis for extermination. I think these
differences are differences of kind.

Post by Michael West
I guess I'm asking the question: "If people mean
'anti-Jewish' why don't they say 'anti-Jewish'?
What's with the "Semite" thing?

It's not the "Semite" thing. It's the "anti-Semite" thing. There
are differences in coverage, like it or not. "Anti-Semite" has been
used as it is currently used since first it saw the light of day 127
years ago.

Post by Michael West
I guess I'd need to know something about Welhelm Marr
to know why he chose that locution. But that wouldn't
explain why subsequent generations have continued
to commit what seems on the surface to be a misnomer.

The term caught on because those who used it found it useful. It
originated with a German. I don't think that's just a
coincidence. The Jews adopted it, I assume, because it had the
specific meaning given it by Marr and was useful in that meaning.
If a black person accuses you of being a member of the KKK, true or
not, he's making a point using a term coined by those who wished him
ill. Same for "anti-Semite." In the mouths of Jews it has become
an accusation and a denunciation. But it was coined by one whom it
described accurately.

On the surface it's a misnomer. But in actual usage any person
aware of the situation to which it relates soon becomes aware of
what it means.

[Per Rønne]

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Didn't the "Aryan" theorists hold all "Mediterranean"
stock in equal contempt, with the Jews singled out
for punishment chiefly because unlike other "Semites"
they had a visible and viable presence in Northern Europe?

The coiner of the term "anti-Semite" was German. The Germans
managed to ally with the Italians, whom I believe to be of
"Mediterranean stock," with some regularity during the last
century. Gypsies aside, no ethnic group other than the Jews was
singled out by the Nazis for extermination.

And the Nazis even made themselves allies to the Moslims [Arabs
including] as they had one common enemy, the Jews, and as Hitler admired
Islam for creating such good warriors.

[Michael West]

Post by Per Rønne
And the Nazis even made themselves allies to the Moslims [Arabs
including] as they had one common enemy, the Jews, and as Hitler admired
Islam for creating such good warriors.

He could be a pragmatic lunatic; leaving aside the
question of what he might have done with them,
and all other non-Aryans, for that matter, after he
was finished with them.

[Per Rønne]

Post by Michael West

Post by Per Rønne
And the Nazis even made themselves allies to the Moslims [Arabs
including] as they had one common enemy, the Jews, and as Hitler admired
Islam for creating such good warriors.

He could be a pragmatic lunatic; leaving aside the
question of what he might have done with them,
and all other non-Aryans, for that matter, after he
was finished with them.

Have you forgotten his alliance with Japan?

[Michael West]

Post by Per Rønne

Post by Michael West

Post by Per Rønne
And the Nazis even made themselves allies to the Moslims [Arabs
including] as they had one common enemy, the Jews, and as Hitler admired
Islam for creating such good warriors.

He could be a pragmatic lunatic; leaving aside the
question of what he might have done with them,
and all other non-Aryans, for that matter, after he
was finished with them.

Have you forgotten his alliance with Japan?

Of course not. I don't doubt they were on the same
list of future victims.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Michael West

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."

You're speaking of "anti-Semitism" rather than
Semitic or Semite. It seems curious that the "anti"
version of the word would focus on Jews, while the
non-"anti" versions cover a much wider swath.
Didn't the "Aryan" theorists hold all "Mediterranean"
stock in equal contempt, with the Jews singled out
for punishment chiefly because unlike other "Semites"
they had a visible and viable presence in Northern Europe?
I guess I'm asking the question: "If people mean
'anti-Jewish' why don't they say 'anti-Jewish'?
What's with the "Semite" thing?

You really need to ask that Marr guy, who concocted the term. He seemed to
think that the Jews were the most dangerous of the Semites, and so any proper
anti-Semitism should deal with them first, before getting on to any of the
others.

It may seem curious to non-anti-Semites, but to thosde who define themselves
as anti-Semitic it seems perfectly logical. Anyone who doesn't see it their
way is being disingenuous or stupid.

Post by Michael West
I guess I'd need to know something about Welhelm Marr
to know why he chose that locution. But that wouldn't
explain why subsequent generations have continued
to commit what seems on the surface to be a misnomer.
--
Michael West

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."
<http://schema-root.org/people/political/activist/anti-semitic/>.[1]
For confirmation of Marr's creation of the term, see
<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&ci=0195040058>
and
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=7908&tocid=0&query=anti-semitism&ct=>
I'd say this is one term whose originator is known, and its meaning
remains pretty much as assigned by him. It may be, as Britannica
says, a misnomer, but its meaning is reasonably clear to all, even
those perverse enough to pretend to dispute it.[2]
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.
[2] There's no silver in German silver. The American buffalo is not
a buffalo. A guinea pig is not a pig (despite the Disney cartoon).
Etc., etc. An anti-Semite is prejudiced against Jews. Not all
Semitic peoples, not other Semitic peoples -- Jews.

So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from anti-Semite,
which in turn means a person who is anti-Semitic, that is, hostile to Jews.

Similar confusion prevails regarding the term "theist", which is a
back-formation from "atheists", and not, as is popularly supposed, the other
way round.

Apropos of which, I've noticed that "underwhelmed" and "underwhelming" seem to
have entered general speech, and are no longer being used purely facetiously,
e.g. "The NNPs underwhelming performance in the elections", spoken by radio
commentators without any sense of trying to be funny.

[Donna Richoux]

Post by Steve Hayes
So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from anti-Semite,

Sorry, no, that's not true. Maybe it's cleared up enough in other posts,
but the order in which the words appeared:

Semitic 1813
Semite 1848
anti-Semitic 1882

The etymology of the first, by the way, from m-w.com:

Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite
Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late
Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813

Michael was asking how it came about that "anti-Semitic" was restricted
to Jews since the earlier "Semitic" wasn't. Since Bob tells us the word
was coined by a German writing about Germany, perhaps a missing link
(using "semitisch" as a synonym for "Jewish") occurred in German, not
English.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Post by Donna Richoux

Post by Steve Hayes
So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from anti-Semite,

Sorry, no, that's not true. Maybe it's cleared up enough in other posts,
Semitic 1813
Semite 1848
anti-Semitic 1882
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite
Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late
Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
Michael was asking how it came about that "anti-Semitic" was
restricted to Jews since the earlier "Semitic" wasn't.

I think you misread the original question:

Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became the
most familiar one to most people.

He's asking about "Semite" and "Semitic" in the restricted sense of
"Jewish". I agree with Steve that this appears to be a back-formation
from "anti-Semite", coined by Marr.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes
|closest to applying...
***@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became the
most familiar one to most people.
He's asking about "Semite" and "Semitic" in the restricted sense of
"Jewish". I agree with Steve that this appears to be a back-formation
from "anti-Semite", coined by Marr.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes
|closest to applying...
[phone]
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became the
most familiar one to most people.
He's asking about "Semite" and "Semitic" in the restricted sense of
"Jewish". I agree with Steve that this appears to be a back-formation
from "anti-Semite", coined by Marr.

Steve would be right only if "Semite" or "Semitic" would apply strictly to the
Jews and not include any other Semites. So far I haven't encountered this
meaning.

But I heard of references to Jews as Semites, as I heard of Italians or Greeks
referred to as Europeans; or Argentinians and Brasilians as "Latino".

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either
Judaism or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the
familiar sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and
became the most familiar one to most people.
He's asking about "Semite" and "Semitic" in the restricted sense of
"Jewish". I agree with Steve that this appears to be a
back-formation from "anti-Semite", coined by Marr.

Steve would be right only if "Semite" or "Semitic" would apply
strictly to the Jews and not include any other Semites. So far I
haven't encountered this meaning.

I have, for "Semitic", at least. MWCD11 lists "Jewish" as sense 3
(the most recent). It seems to mostly occur in physical descriptions,
e.g., "Semitic features", "Semitic nose". Contextually, it's clear
that the speaker means "Jewish", often specifically Ashkenazi.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It can't affect you unless you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |install Windows, and who would be
|foolish enough to do that?
***@hpl.hp.com | Peter Moylan
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became the
most familiar one to most people.
He's asking about "Semite" and "Semitic" in the restricted sense of
"Jewish". I agree with Steve that this appears to be a back-formation
from "anti-Semite", coined by Marr.

Steve would be right only if "Semite" or "Semitic" would apply strictly to the
Jews and not include any other Semites. So far I haven't encountered this
meaning.
But I heard of references to Jews as Semites, as I heard of Italians or Greeks
referred to as Europeans; or Argentinians and Brasilians as "Latino".

Nowadaus people often say that it is a misnomer to describe Arabs, for
example, as "anti-Semitic" because they are Semites.

The same objection ould be raised ot the description of Canadians or Mexicans
or Brazilians as "anti-American", because they are residents of the American
continent.That's true, of course, but in general usage the negative term
"anti-American" applies primarily to the USA, and its policies and culture
etc.

"Anti-Semitism" is a bit more precise than that. It applies primarily to Jews
because the deviser of the term intended it to.

[Per Rønne]

Post by Steve Hayes
"Anti-Semitism" is a bit more precise than that. It applies primarily to Jews
because the deviser of the term intended it to.

No. It applies /only/ to the Jews.

[Raymond S. Wise]

Post by Michael West

Post by Donna Richoux

Post by Steve Hayes
So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from anti-Semite,

Sorry, no, that's not true. Maybe it's cleared up enough in other posts,
Semitic 1813
Semite 1848
anti-Semitic 1882
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite
Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late
Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
Michael was asking how it came about that "anti-Semitic" was
restricted to Jews since the earlier "Semitic" wasn't.

Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became the
most familiar one to most people.
He's asking about "Semite" and "Semitic" in the restricted sense of
"Jewish". I agree with Steve that this appears to be a back-formation
from "anti-Semite", coined by Marr.

*The Century Dictionary* does not list dates of first use, but I suspect
"Semite" and "Semitic" were used in senses restricted to Jews before
"anti-Semitism" and "anti-Semite" were coined. To repeat an entry from the
Century which I quoted earlier:


[quote]

*Semitize* [...], _v. t._ ; pret. and pp. _Semi-
tized,_ ppr. _Semitizing._ [< _Semite_ + _-ize.] *1.*
To render Semitic in character, language, or religion.

That they [the Philistines] were a Semitic or at least a
thoroughly _Semitized_ people can now hardly be made
a matter of dispute. _Encyc. Brit.,_ XVIII. 756.

*2.* To convert to the Hebrew religion.
Also spelled _Semitise._

[end quote]


If "Semitize," "Semitise" occurred before "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Semite"
(the latter pair occur in the Century Supplement of 1909, not the Century)
then the practice of restricting the word-element "semit-" to the sense of
"Jew" antedated "anti-Semite."

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Donna Richoux

Post by Steve Hayes
So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from anti-Semite,

Sorry, no, that's not true. Maybe it's cleared up enough in other posts,
Semitic 1813
Semite 1848
anti-Semitic 1882
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite
Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late
Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
Michael was asking how it came about that "anti-Semitic" was restricted
to Jews since the earlier "Semitic" wasn't. Since Bob tells us the word
was coined by a German writing about Germany, perhaps a missing link
(using "semitisch" as a synonym for "Jewish") occurred in German, not
English.

Ok, then that explanation doesn't work, but I still think that the answer lies
in the ideology that the originator of the word was trying to promote.

From his point of view the Jews were the most dangerous of the Semites, and
therefore dealing with Jews was the most important and urgent task of
antu-Semitism.

[Pat Durkin]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

Post by Robert Lieblich
The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."
<http://schema-root.org/people/political/activist/anti-semitic/>.[1]
For confirmation of Marr's creation of the term, see
<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&ci=0195040058>
and

<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=7908&tocid=0&query=anti-semitism&c

t=>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Robert Lieblich
I'd say this is one term whose originator is known, and its meaning
remains pretty much as assigned by him. It may be, as Britannica
says, a misnomer, but its meaning is reasonably clear to all, even
those perverse enough to pretend to dispute it.[2]
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.
[2] There's no silver in German silver. The American buffalo is not
a buffalo. A guinea pig is not a pig (despite the Disney cartoon).
Etc., etc. An anti-Semite is prejudiced against Jews. Not all
Semitic peoples, not other Semitic peoples -- Jews.

So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from anti-Semite,
which in turn means a person who is anti-Semitic, that is, hostile to Jews.
Similar confusion prevails regarding the term "theist", which is a
back-formation from "atheists", and not, as is popularly supposed, the other
way round.

I was thinking, just the other day, that anti-theist might be a coming word,
since many Christians nowadays are insisting that they are an oppressed
group in US society. Can't go much further than that, though, as
antithesis, antithetic are probably blocking the way.

Hmm: theism, but no "thetic" (yet), atheism, but no "athetic".
Anti-theism, but "antithetic" is probably all used up.
And: deism, but no "detic" (yet), but no "adeism, adetic" (oops, sounds
like eidetic -were one to do the usual "ei" sound). Antideism? antidetic?

Just playing with words and possibilities. To date, I haven't made any kind
of study of any possible difference between deism and theism.
==============

First post to newly set up newsgroup in peoplepc.com.
Checking sign-on, etc.
Just in case anyone has peoplepc.com. I am enjoying this but presently have
new earthlink and peoplepc and in my town they have the same access number
(I dropped cable and am testing phone modem/ISPs.) Strange that the
"taskbar/taskpanel for the two programs don't fight. I am posting to and
have set up this news server while signed on to earthlink.

[Pat Durkin]

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

Post by Robert Lieblich
The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."
<http://schema-root.org/people/political/activist/anti-semitic/>.[1]
For confirmation of Marr's creation of the term, see
<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&ci=0195040058>
and

<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=7908&tocid=0&query=anti-semitism&c
t=>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Robert Lieblich
I'd say this is one term whose originator is known, and its meaning
remains pretty much as assigned by him. It may be, as Britannica
says, a misnomer, but its meaning is reasonably clear to all, even
those perverse enough to pretend to dispute it.[2]
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.
[2] There's no silver in German silver. The American buffalo is not
a buffalo. A guinea pig is not a pig (despite the Disney cartoon).
Etc., etc. An anti-Semite is prejudiced against Jews. Not all
Semitic peoples, not other Semitic peoples -- Jews.

So to answer the actual question: Semite is a back-formation from

anti-Semite,

Post by Steve Hayes
which in turn means a person who is anti-Semitic, that is, hostile to

Jews.

Post by Steve Hayes
Similar confusion prevails regarding the term "theist", which is a
back-formation from "atheists", and not, as is popularly supposed, the

other

Post by Steve Hayes
way round.

I was thinking, just the other day, that anti-theist might be a coming word,
since many Christians nowadays are insisting that they are an oppressed
group in US society. Can't go much further than that, though, as
antithesis, antithetic are probably blocking the way.
Hmm: theism, but no "thetic" (yet), atheism, but no "athetic".
Anti-theism, but "antithetic" is probably all used up.
And: deism, but no "detic" (yet), but no "adeism, adetic" (oops, sounds
like eidetic -were one to do the usual "ei" sound). Antideism? antidetic?
Just playing with words and possibilities. To date, I haven't made any kind
of study of any possible difference between deism and theism.
==============
First post to newly set up newsgroup in peoplepc.com.
Checking sign-on, etc.
Just in case anyone has peoplepc.com. I am enjoying this but presently have
new earthlink and peoplepc and in my town they have the same access number
(I dropped cable and am testing phone modem/ISPs.) Strange that the
"taskbar/taskpanel for the two programs don't fight. I am posting to and
have set up this news server while signed on to earthlink.

=========================
X-Complaints-To: ***@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1083249922 63.186.8.163 (Thu, 29
Apr 2004 07:45:22 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:45:22 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.usage.english:929234
X-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:45:22 PDT
(newsspool2.news.atl.earthlink.net)

[Roland Hutchinson]

Post by Pat Durkin
Hmm: theism, but no "thetic" (yet),

"Thetic" is a perfectly good word, but it has nothing to do with theism --
rather with thesis (in poetic or musical meter).

Post by Pat Durkin
atheism, but no "athetic".
Anti-theism, but "antithetic" is probably all used up.
And: deism, but no "detic" (yet), but no "adeism, adetic" (oops, sounds
like eidetic -were one to do the usual "ei" sound). Antideism? antidetic?

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by Pat Durkin
Hmm: theism, but no "thetic" (yet), atheism, but no "athetic".
Anti-theism, but "antithetic" is probably all used up.
And: deism, but no "detic" (yet), but no "adeism, adetic" (oops, sounds
like eidetic -were one to do the usual "ei" sound). Antideism? antidetic?

Since there is no "'thetic' (yet)", we must be living before 1678. Note
that thetic derives from 'thetos' & 'thetikos', not 'theos'. Another
such word is "polythetic".

Having the separate word "theistic" is a good idea.

"Theos" gives rise to "-theistic" words, not "-thetic" ones. Similarly,
we have "antitheistic", "atheistic", "autotheistic", "chaotheistic",
"di-theistic", "extra-theistic", "henotheistic", "hylotheistic",
"misotheistic", "monotheistic", "non-theistic", "pantheistic",
"philotheistic", "physitheistic", "polytheistic", "tritheistic", and
"zootheistic".

[SOED5]
thetic, adjective.
/"TEtIk/
L17.
[Greek thetikos such as is (fit to be) placed, positive, affirmative,
from thetos placed, from the-: see THESIS, -IC.]

1. Involving direct or positive statement; (of a proposition, thesis,
etc.) that has been laid down or stated; positive; dogmatic; arbitrary. L17.

2. Classical Prosody. Of, bearing, or pertaining to the thesis. E19.

• thetical adjective = THETIC adjective 1 M17.
• thetically adverb M17.

========
[OED2]
thetic, a. (n.)

("TEtIk) [ad. Gr. hesij-¾| such as is placed or is fit to be placed;
positive, affirmative, f. hŒso| placed, f. root he- to place.]

1. Characterized by laying down or setting forth; involving positive
statement: cf. thesis 4.

1678 Gale Crt. Gentiles III. Pref., To render our Discourse the lesse
offensive, we have cast it into a thetic and dogmatic method,
rather than agonistic and polemic.
1837 E. Bickersteth Life Francke iv. 61 Thetic and historical
divinity were not the fields which Francke had chosen to lecture
upon.
1882 A. M. Fairbairn in Contemp. Rev. Dec. 862 His [Mohammed's]
genius was not thetic, but synthetic, not creative but
constructive.

2. Pros. That bears the thesis; stressed.

1815 J. Grant in Monthly Mag. XXXIX. 303 The first syllable of each
being thetic or emphatic and the remainder of the foot being in
arsis or remiss.

b. ‘Beginning with a thesis’ (Cent. Dict. 1891).

B. n. (pl.) thetics (nonce-wd.), the art of laying down principles
or putting forth propositions.

1864 Carlyle Fredk. Gt. xvi. v. (1873) VI. 182 Polemics, Thetics,
Exegetics.

[Raymond S. Wise]

Pat Durkin wrote in a previous post, that he "was thinking, just the other
day, that anti-theist might be a coming word,
since many Christians nowadays are insisting that they are an oppressed
group in US society."


A Google search indicates that there is some use of the word "antitheistic"
in that very sense, as someone hostile to believers in God.

Post by Martin Ambuhl

Post by Pat Durkin
Hmm: theism, but no "thetic" (yet), atheism, but no "athetic".
Anti-theism, but "antithetic" is probably all used up.
And: deism, but no "detic" (yet), but no "adeism, adetic" (oops, sounds
like eidetic -were one to do the usual "ei" sound). Antideism? antidetic?

Since there is no "'thetic' (yet)", we must be living before 1678. Note
that thetic derives from 'thetos' & 'thetikos', not 'theos'. Another
such word is "polythetic".
Having the separate word "theistic" is a good idea.
"Theos" gives rise to "-theistic" words, not "-thetic" ones. Similarly,
we have "antitheistic", "atheistic", "autotheistic", "chaotheistic",
"di-theistic", "extra-theistic", "henotheistic", "hylotheistic",
"misotheistic", "monotheistic", "non-theistic", "pantheistic",
"philotheistic", "physitheistic", "polytheistic", "tritheistic", and
"zootheistic".

The following is from *The Century Dictionary* at www.century-dictionary.com
:


[quote]

*antitheism* [...], _n._ [< _anti-_ + _the-
ism._] Opposition to theism. [Rare.]

*antitheist* [...], _n._ [< _anti-_ + _theist._]
An opponent of theism ; one who denies the ex-
istence of a personal God. [Rare.]

The verdict of the atheist on the doctrine of a God is
only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven.
He is but an atheist. He is not an _antitheist._
_Chalmers,_ Nat. Theol., I. 58.

*antitheistic* [...], _a._ [< _antitheist_
+ _-ic._] Antagonism to theism. [Rare.]

*antitheistical* [...], _a._ Same as
_antitheistic._ [Rare.]

*antitheistically* [...], _adv._ In
an antitheistic manner. [Rare.]

[end quote]


That definition for "antitheist" which refers to "one who denies the
existence of a personal God" suggests to me that an antitheist could be a
deist: One of the Century's definitions for "deist" includes "*1.* One who
believes in the existence of a personal God, but in few or none of the more
special doctrines of the Christian religion," but another is "*2.* One who
holds the opinion that there is a God, but no divine providence governing
the affairs of men ; one who holds that God is not only distinct from the
world, but also separated from it." To me, this latter deist is someone who
does not believe in a personal God, and so is potentially an antitheist.

I don't think there is much future in that last definition of "antitheist,"
however, and expect the first may well, as Pat speculates, increase in use.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Raymond S. Wise
The following is from *The Century Dictionary* at www.century-dictionary.com
[quote]
The verdict of the atheist on the doctrine of a God is
only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven.
He is but an atheist. He is not an _antitheist._
_Chalmers,_ Nat. Theol., I. 58.

Then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

I know there are many degrees of agnosticism, so I compare the atheist in the
quotation with the agnostic who doesn't believe or disbelieve in God because
His/its existence is not proven.

[Pat Durkin]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Raymond S. Wise
The following is from *The Century Dictionary* at

www.century-dictionary.com

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Raymond S. Wise
[quote]
The verdict of the atheist on the doctrine of a God is
only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven.
He is but an atheist. He is not an _antitheist._
_Chalmers,_ Nat. Theol., I. 58.

Then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
I know there are many degrees of agnosticism, so I compare the atheist in the
quotation with the agnostic who doesn't believe or disbelieve in God because
His/its existence is not proven.

My idea, as well.

My sister is well into "The gnostic gospels", but anything I have read about
those gnostics leaves me totally indifferent. Am I agnostic, or
antignostic?

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Pat Durkin
My sister is well into "The gnostic gospels", but anything I have read about
those gnostics leaves me totally indifferent. Am I agnostic, or
antignostic?

You could be both. It's not like amoral vs. antimoral.

[I'm sure you know already that "a" means without and "anti" means against.]

[Michael West]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Raymond S. Wise
The following is from *The Century Dictionary* at

www.century-dictionary.com

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Raymond S. Wise
[quote]
The verdict of the atheist on the doctrine of a God is
only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven.
He is but an atheist. He is not an _antitheist._
_Chalmers,_ Nat. Theol., I. 58.

Then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

It is not so much a question of what one or the
other believes about the existence of a god, but
rather of what they believe about what can be
"known" -- that is, the efficacy of epistemological
tools in answering the question.

The atheist doesn't believe in a god, and
believes there are alternatative explanations
capable of discovery for the phenomena
attributed by believers to their god or gods.


The agnostic may or may not "believe"
in the existence of a god, but believes in
either case that we do not or cannot have
certainty about the nature of a god; that the
existence or nature of God is not something
that can be "known" in the usual way.

Although there may be an area of semantic overlap,
I think the main difference is that the agnostic does
not believe that logical and scientific methods are
adequate to answer the question, whereas the atheist
believes such tools can and should be applied there as
they can anywhere.

The "antitheist", I suppose, would be one who believes
that belief in God is a Bad Thing, regardless of what
can or can't be known about his existence.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Michael West

Post by Arcadian Rises
Then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

You took my question out of its context to give me a lecture on the difference
between atheism and agnosticism.

Post by Michael West
It is not so much a question of what one or the
other believes about the existence of a god, but
rather of what they believe about what can be
"known" -- that is, the efficacy of epistemological
tools in answering the question.
The atheist doesn't believe in a god, and
believes there are alternatative explanations
capable of discovery for the phenomena
attributed by believers to their god or gods.
The agnostic may or may not "believe"
in the existence of a god, but believes in
either case that we do not or cannot have
certainty about the nature of a god; that the
existence or nature of God is not something
that can be "known" in the usual way.
Although there may be an area of semantic overlap,
I think the main difference is that the agnostic does
not believe that logical and scientific methods are
adequate to answer the question, whereas the atheist
believes such tools can and should be applied there as
they can anywhere.
The "antitheist", I suppose, would be one who believes
that belief in God is a Bad Thing, regardless of what
can or can't be known about his existence.

And they may all be right, even the antitheists.

My favorite is the logical positivists' approach: since God's existence cannot
be proven or disproven, then it's irrelevant.

No matter in which of the above cathegories you place yourself, you still need
to file your income tax, and I still need to finish the work I keep postponing.

[Michael West]

Post by Arcadian Rises
You took my question out of its context to give me a lecture on the difference
between atheism and agnosticism.

Sorry if I seemed to be lecturing. I was answering
the question as much for my own satisfaction as
for anyone else's.

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Raymond S. Wise
The verdict of the atheist on the doctrine of a God is
only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven.
He is but an atheist. He is not an _antitheist._
_Chalmers,_ Nat. Theol., I. 58.

...the more specious I think it is. I don't
see how any reasonable person could claim
to "disprove" God, or anything else for that
matter. Proof doesn't work in the negative.
No one can prove that somewhere there isn't
a moon made of green cheese (unless of course
they define "moon" in such a way as to preclude
the possibility).

What the atheist says is that there is no
need to posit a supernatural agency to
explain anything. "Disproving God" is an
irrelevancy.

Post by Arcadian Rises
My favorite is the logical positivists' approach: since God's existence cannot
be proven or disproven, then it's irrelevant.

To me, that equates almost exactly to the atheist position.
In a scientific materialist worldview, there is no allowance
for something "extra". It is either part of the picture or it
isn't. There is no place for a big cloud labelled "A miracle
happens here."

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Arcadian Rises
Then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

[Pat Durkin]

Post by Raymond S. Wise
Pat Durkin wrote in a previous post, that he "was thinking, just the other
day, that anti-theist might be a coming word,
since many Christians nowadays are insisting that they are an oppressed
group in US society."
That definition for "antitheist" which refers to "one who denies the
existence of a personal God" suggests to me that an antitheist could be a
deist: One of the Century's definitions for "deist" includes "*1.* One who
believes in the existence of a personal God, but in few or none of the more
special doctrines of the Christian religion," but another is "*2.* One who
holds the opinion that there is a God, but no divine providence governing
the affairs of men ; one who holds that God is not only distinct from the
world, but also separated from it." To me, this latter deist is someone who
does not believe in a personal God, and so is potentially an antitheist.
I don't think there is much future in that last definition of

"antitheist,"

Post by Raymond S. Wise
however, and expect the first may well, as Pat speculates, increase in use.

Thanks to Roland, Martin and Ray for provinding info I hadn't begun to look
up (and might not have, being a lazy, guess-is-as-good-as-a-gosh kinda guy.
Now, I looked up "guess is as good as a *" and "goose" is the closest I can
get to my expression. I suppose the original of mine is "by guess and by
gosh". If you haven't heard the one, you may have lived long enough to
hear/see the other.)

[Skitt]

Post by Pat Durkin
(I dropped cable and am testing phone modem/ISPs.)

May I ask, why? I used to have Earthlink DSL, but switched to Comcast
cable.

Earthlink was unreliable in our area, and its speed was dropping as the
months went by. The best speed ever was around 1400/104 kbs, but usually it
was around 500/95 kbits.

With cable I have hit 3193/247 kbs, but there are speed drops during busy
times, and yes, I have seen 650/240 kbs at times. It varies from test to
test.

[Pat Durkin]

Post by Skitt

Post by Pat Durkin
(I dropped cable and am testing phone modem/ISPs.)

May I ask, why? I used to have Earthlink DSL, but switched to Comcast
cable.
Earthlink was unreliable in our area, and its speed was dropping as the
months went by. The best speed ever was around 1400/104 kbs, but usually it
was around 500/95 kbits.
With cable I have hit 3193/247 kbs, but there are speed drops during busy
times, and yes, I have seen 650/240 kbs at times. It varies from test to
test.

1. in March, 2003, I had severe interruption in my cable internet, in
addition to some problems with cable TV. My calls resulted in a new cable
across the rooftops from the junction box to my condo unit, and a new cable
modem. (I had been on cable for more than 3 years at that time. None of my
neighbors was home to let the installers run new cable through our
basements, and the management didn't consider the matter an emergency.) My
package of $69.95 (before tax) monthly digital TV and comprehensive
channels, including Charter Pipeline (silver--as opposed to gold or
platinum) internet was suddenly split off, and for the first time I had to
pay a modem rental of about $5 monthly. Total bill has been more than $ 80
before taxes since the improvement. Oh, yes. In order to avoid paying a
hellacious service charge I agreed to pay a cable insurance of another $5.
So my total bill went from $76 to $90.
TV reception improved, internet improved for only about 3 months, before
reverting to its frequent slow and interrupted service. (constant
flickering of modem lights, whether I be online or not).

2. In August or September, I received a very generous notice that my
Download speed would be tremendously increased 2 or 2.5 Mbps, I think, at
no additional charge, until new plans should arrive in March of '04. In
March I received a notice that my internet would now decrease, not to the
previous 256Kbps, but to 386 or some such, and there would be a
corresponding increase in the charge from $20 to $25--all of these changes
without my having any choice other than the one I took of declining further
internet service.

3. Some ill grace on my part meant that they would come and pick up the
modem, after a 10+ day planning notice (I couldn't just unplug the modem. .
.apparently there was no way they could test if it was on or not), so I got
those extra days of service, for which I must pay a prorated amount. My
normal billing was in advance from the 18th of one month to the 17th of the
next. Thus, the 27th end date. The ill grace was that I would not unplug
the modem and deliver it in person all the way across town. I wouldn't be
allowed to keep it, just in case I wanted to sign back on. (It was never
itemized as a separate item until March of 2003. My original cable provider
was Brennan, whose service became @Home.com, which went belly-up, and was
bought out by Paul Allen &co, former partner of Bill Gates and Owner/founder
of Charter.net.) I was on "Charter" for more than 2 years before they even
sent out a CD. In assuming control of our cable service Charter was so
ungenerous as to not even provide one of those "free service for a month"
and other such special offers it now advertises on TV.

4. Oh, more ill grace. From the very beginning, I found it ridiculous that
the Charter service would not enable clients to check our accounts or pay
online. I could forgive Brennan, but not Charter. Some areas have this
capability, but after 3 or 4 years, Charter had not upgraded the service to
enable this in our region.


Earthlink has, for the time being, been yielding up to accelerated
62 (or maybe that was PPC. . .I can't really tell some times, unless I look,
since they both use the same access number.) It has been 4 years or more
since I used DUN, and this modem is at 56i. My previous one was 36kbps.
_That_ kept dropping the line, and the irritation and extra cost (volume
calling plan) convinced me to go with cable, so this is the first experience
I have had with a 56i (90) modem, which came installed on this computer.

I understand that cable, as with regular phone lines, will deliver a
degraded service as more people sign onto a trunk line. (My term. . . I
don't really know from nodes and trunks. etc.) DSL is dedicated, therefore
not _supposed_ to deteriorate. I wonder why yours degraded?) But the cost
would be about the same as my cable internet. So. . .I will try the phone
lines until my next fit of exasperation. (my volume phone plan is 5 cents
per call. Not bad if I only connect 2, 3, 4 times per day. Back then, I
was getting disconnected up to 20 times, which raised my service expense to
about $30/month on top of the $9 ISP cost. That was a low-cost
out-in-the-country ISP ( itis.com--sounds like an infectio, huh?), with
about 3 nodes between me(a local call) and its phone line.

At that time, in addition, my ATT (or Ameritech/SBC) line also had an
interface with GT (General Telephone) which is now Verizon. (The GT
operators wouldn't even provide number information--"it's not in our
directory"--if GT and ATT happened to divide a city. Things have really
improved since the Verizon setup arrived.

Does DSL provide TV as well as internet? Even the option of the "Dish" or
DirectTV is remote for me, unless I can persuade condo management to allow
us all to put weird projecting elements onto the roofs. I think I would
still have to pay an extra internet charge. Right now, though, we are all
concerned with re-insulating our units on some kind of contractual basis,
and I don't want to make waves. My electric and heating bills went through
the roof--pun intended and oh, so true--this past winter.

So far, so good. I find Earthlink and PeoplePC are very compatible with
each other. I don't know which I will go with in 60 days (free after the $1
charge). Probably PeoplePS, because they will be ranging from $13-$18 per
month, while my 6-month half-price offer from Earthlink will go to $21.95 in
6 months.

Rant over.

Hmph!

Speed on Earthlink's meter says 45.3Kbps, time online 1hr 5 min. (but I am
connected with PeoplePC. Accel. enabled. Ave. speed-up 2.6X) I wonder what
that means? See, they do work with each other. PeoplePC calls its Usenet
mirror "Trial news", but the NNTP name is news.peoplepc.com . I was able
to post to it with Earthlink, this morning. When I signed on to it last
night, AUE had more than 37,000 messages. I didn't bother to check the
earliest date. When I read AUE on Google yesterday, I think there were
something like 555,000 messages. Again, I didn't bother with the date.

[Skitt]

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by Skitt

Post by Pat Durkin
(I dropped cable and am testing phone modem/ISPs.)

May I ask, why? I used to have Earthlink DSL, but switched to
Comcast cable.
Earthlink was unreliable in our area, and its speed was dropping as
the months went by. The best speed ever was around 1400/104 kbs,
but usually it was around 500/95 kbits.
With cable I have hit 3193/247 kbs, but there are speed drops during
busy times, and yes, I have seen 650/240 kbs at times. It varies
from test to test.

1. in March, 2003, I had severe interruption in my cable internet, in
addition to some problems with cable TV. My calls resulted in a new
cable across the rooftops from the junction box to my condo unit, and
a new cable modem. (I had been on cable for more than 3 years at
that time. None of my neighbors was home to let the installers run
new cable through our basements, and the management didn't consider
the matter an emergency.) My package of $69.95 (before tax) monthly
digital TV and comprehensive channels, including Charter Pipeline
(silver--as opposed to gold or platinum) internet was suddenly split
off, and for the first time I had to pay a modem rental of about $5
monthly. Total bill has been more than $ 80 before taxes since the
improvement. Oh, yes. In order to avoid paying a hellacious service
charge I agreed to pay a cable insurance of another $5. So my total
bill went from $76 to $90.
TV reception improved, internet improved for only about 3 months,
before reverting to its frequent slow and interrupted service.
(constant flickering of modem lights, whether I be online or not).

I got free "professional" installation and free cable modem. Initial upload
speed problems caused them to give me new cable lines from the pole across
the street to my four TVs and the computer modem (I talked them into doing
the TVs). I have digital TV service, including HDTV (six channels,
including HBO).

The internet charge is $42.95 per month.

Post by Pat Durkin
2. In August or September, I received a very generous notice that my
Download speed would be tremendously increased 2 or 2.5 Mbps, I
think, at no additional charge, until new plans should arrive in
March of '04. In March I received a notice that my internet would
now decrease, not to the previous 256Kbps, but to 386 or some such,
and there would be a corresponding increase in the charge from $20 to
$25--all of these changes without my having any choice other than the
one I took of declining further internet service.

I didn't get any notices, but the speed jumped to the figures I quoted
before -- in excess of 3 mbs download (on good days). The charges stayed
the same.

[...]

Post by Pat Durkin
Earthlink has, for the time being, been yielding up to
accelerated 62 (or maybe that was PPC. . .I can't really tell some
times, unless I look, since they both use the same access number.)
It has been 4 years or more since I used DUN, and this modem is at
56i. My previous one was 36kbps. _That_ kept dropping the line, and
the irritation and extra cost (volume calling plan) convinced me to
go with cable, so this is the first experience I have had with a 56i
(90) modem, which came installed on this computer.

YOu are describing your regular modem. That won't do for DSL. You need a
different modem (external) and a network card (I'm sure that your computer
has one) for it.

Post by Pat Durkin
I understand that cable, as with regular phone lines, will deliver a
degraded service as more people sign onto a trunk line. (My term. . .
I don't really know from nodes and trunks. etc.) DSL is dedicated,
therefore not _supposed_ to deteriorate. I wonder why yours
degraded?)

I wondered too, and after really bugging Earthlink (I wrote to their CEO in
Atlanta), I shook them up enough that they admitted having severe equipment
problems in Oakland, California. They eventually fixed them, and I was
getting weekly phone calls from the Pasadena branch people, checking if
everything was alright. Eventually, the calls stopped.

About six months later, the speed started dropping again, and the people in
Pasadena no longer wanted to talk to me, claiming that they were in a
different department now. That is when I switched to cable.

In general, DSL speed depends on the distance between you and the nearest
DSLAM (phone comany's equipment location). Also, usually the only speed DSL
providers "guarantee" is 384 kbps. Any higher than that, and the charges go
up.

[...]

Post by Pat Durkin
Does DSL provide TV as well as internet?

No.

[...]

Post by Pat Durkin
Speed on Earthlink's meter says 45.3Kbps, time online 1hr 5 min.
(but I am connected with PeoplePC. Accel. enabled. Ave. speed-up
2.6X) I wonder what that means? See, they do work with each other.
PeoplePC calls its Usenet mirror "Trial news", but the NNTP name is
news.peoplepc.com . I was able to post to it with Earthlink, this
morning. When I signed on to it last night, AUE had more than 37,000
messages. I didn't bother to check the earliest date. When I read
AUE on Google yesterday, I think there were something like 555,000
messages. Again, I didn't bother with the date.

45 kbps is pitiful -- it is regular phone modem speed. As I said, I get 3.1
mbps on good days. That is almost 70 times faster.

One must keep in mind, though, is that network congestion can slow things
down considerably.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."
<http://schema-root.org/people/political/activist/anti-semitic/>.[1]
For confirmation of Marr's creation of the term, see
<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&ci=0195040058>
and
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=7908&tocid=0&query=anti-semitism&ct=>
I'd say this is one term whose originator is known, and its meaning
remains pretty much as assigned by him. It may be, as Britannica
says, a misnomer, but its meaning is reasonably clear to all, even
those perverse enough to pretend to dispute it.[2]
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.

A pity those sites are no longer available, since someone was asking about
this today, and I referred to this post, which I had saved.

Haven't seen Bob Lieblich for a while either.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Steve Hayes
A pity those sites are no longer available, since someone was asking about
this today, and I referred to this post, which I had saved.

Well, for "Semite", OED gives the definition:

A person belonging to the race of mankind which includes most
of the peoples mentioned in Gen. x. as descended from Shem son
of Noah, as the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Aramans. Also:
a person speaking a Semitic language as his native tongue.

...and the first citation is from a "C. Bunsen" in 1848. But the OED
gives a link to the earlier term "Shemite" with the same meaning,
dating to the 17th c.

For "Semitic", they have a bit more to say:

Of or relating to the Semites. (In recent use often spec. =
Jewish.)

(citations from 1826), and additional senses from linguistics (first
citation from 1813).

"Anti-Semitism" (first published in 1972) is more specific:

Hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people;
(also) the theory, action, or practice resulting from this.

They cite this to an 1882 article in /Athenaeum/ (also the source of
citations for "anti-Semite" and "anti-Semitic"), but the only other
citation is from Julian Huxley in 1941.

-GAWollman

[Mike L]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:10:08 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

[...]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Robert Lieblich
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.

I've just had a look at M-W online, and, while it's a dictionary in
which I have little faith, its entry on anti-Semitism seems very good.
Is there an earlier version somewhere?

Poor Robert Fisk: pays the price for being a pacifist resident expert
in the Middle East who knows everybody in the region and cares
passionately about his profession and his fellow-humans.

Post by Steve Hayes
A pity those sites are no longer available, since someone was asking about
this today, and I referred to this post, which I had saved.
Haven't seen Bob Lieblich for a while either.

How I miss him!

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Mike L
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:10:08 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

[...]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Robert Lieblich
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.

I've just had a look at M-W online, and, while it's a dictionary in
which I have little faith, its entry on anti-Semitism seems very good.
Is there an earlier version somewhere?
Poor Robert Fisk: pays the price for being a pacifist resident expert
in the Middle East who knows everybody in the region and cares
passionately about his profession and his fellow-humans.

Since the site no longer seems to be available, our only hope of learning
which bizarre M-W definition Fisk used is if Bob Lieblich returns to aue and
tells us.

In looking for the sites he mentioned I came across a couple of others that
made the point that "antisemitism" should be spelt thus, without a hyphen, ie
not "anti-Semitism", since it is a single word for a single concept. It does
not denote opposition to "Semitism" (whatever that may be) but hatred of Jews.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:15:06 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mike L
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:10:08 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

[...]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Robert Lieblich
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.

I've just had a look at M-W online, and, while it's a dictionary in
which I have little faith, its entry on anti-Semitism seems very good.
Is there an earlier version somewhere?
Poor Robert Fisk: pays the price for being a pacifist resident expert
in the Middle East who knows everybody in the region and cares
passionately about his profession and his fellow-humans.

Since the site no longer seems to be available, our only hope of learning
which bizarre M-W definition Fisk used is if Bob Lieblich returns to aue and
tells us.
In looking for the sites he mentioned I came across a couple of others that
made the point that "antisemitism" should be spelt thus, without a hyphen, ie
not "anti-Semitism", since it is a single word for a single concept. It does
not denote opposition to "Semitism" (whatever that may be) but hatred of Jews.

Is "hatred" truly the right word? There are people who will not
associate with Jews, will not hire Jews, would not want their children
to marry a Jew, or will not allow Jews to join their club. These
people are, in my opinion, antisemites, but I don't think their
aversion rises to the level of hatred.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:15:06 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mike L
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:10:08 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

[...]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Robert Lieblich
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.

I've just had a look at M-W online, and, while it's a dictionary in
which I have little faith, its entry on anti-Semitism seems very good.
Is there an earlier version somewhere?
Poor Robert Fisk: pays the price for being a pacifist resident expert
in the Middle East who knows everybody in the region and cares
passionately about his profession and his fellow-humans.

Since the site no longer seems to be available, our only hope of learning
which bizarre M-W definition Fisk used is if Bob Lieblich returns to aue and
tells us.
In looking for the sites he mentioned I came across a couple of others that
made the point that "antisemitism" should be spelt thus, without a hyphen, ie
not "anti-Semitism", since it is a single word for a single concept. It does
not denote opposition to "Semitism" (whatever that may be) but hatred of Jews.

Is "hatred" truly the right word? There are people who will not
associate with Jews, will not hire Jews, would not want their children
to marry a Jew, or will not allow Jews to join their club. These
people are, in my opinion, antisemites, but I don't think their
aversion rises to the level of hatred.

Probably not the best word, but I couldn't think of another when I was writing
it. Perhaps Judeophobic by analogy with xenophobic.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:15:06 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
In looking for the sites he mentioned I came across a couple of others that
made the point that "antisemitism" should be spelt thus, without a hyphen, ie
not "anti-Semitism", since it is a single word for a single concept. It does
not denote opposition to "Semitism" (whatever that may be) but hatred of Jews.

Is "hatred" truly the right word? There are people who will not
associate with Jews, will not hire Jews, would not want their children
to marry a Jew, or will not allow Jews to join their club. These
people are, in my opinion, antisemites, but I don't think their
aversion rises to the level of hatred.

I find it very difficult to guess when "Antisemitismus" differs from
"Judenhass".

<http://OpenThesaurus.de> lists as synonyms for "Judenhass" all of
"Judenfeindlichkeit", "Judendiskriminierung", and "Antisemitismus".

And this is the entry from <http://www.duden.de>

Ju­den­hass, der

Wortart: Substantiv, maskulin
Häufigkeit:
Nach obenRechtschreibung

Worttrennung:
Ju|den|hass

Nach obenBedeutung

gegen die Juden gerichteter Hass

Nach obenSynonyme zu Judenhass
Antisemitismus; Judenfeindlichkeit
Nach obenAussprache

Betonung:
Ju̲denhass

Nach obenBlättern
Im Alphabet davor

Judenfeindlichkeit
Judenfrage
judenfrei
Judengegner
Judengegnerin

Im Alphabet danach

Judenhaus
Judenheit
Judenkirsche
Judenmord
Judenpogrom

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Martin Ambuhl

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:15:06 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
In looking for the sites he mentioned I came across a couple of others that
made the point that "antisemitism" should be spelt thus, without a hyphen, ie
not "anti-Semitism", since it is a single word for a single concept. It does
not denote opposition to "Semitism" (whatever that may be) but hatred of Jews.

Is "hatred" truly the right word? There are people who will not
associate with Jews, will not hire Jews, would not want their children
to marry a Jew, or will not allow Jews to join their club. These
people are, in my opinion, antisemites, but I don't think their
aversion rises to the level of hatred.

I find it very difficult to guess when "Antisemitismus" differs from
"Judenhass".

Thanks very much for that.

Details snipped but appreciated, since "antisemitism" is a translation of
"Antisemitismus".

[Steve Hayes]

John Kerr-Mudd posted an "old" post from 2018.

Here's one from 2004.


On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:31:32 -0400, Robert Lieblich

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.

The meaning didn't "emerge." The word has meant what it now means
since first coined: "The term [anti-Semitism] was first coined in
1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German writer who described the dominance of
Jews in Germany."
<http://schema-root.org/people/political/activist/anti-semitic/>.[1]
For confirmation of Marr's creation of the term, see
<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&ci=0195040058>
and
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=7908&tocid=0&query=anti-semitism&ct=>
I'd say this is one term whose originator is known, and its meaning
remains pretty much as assigned by him. It may be, as Britannica
says, a misnomer, but its meaning is reasonably clear to all, even
those perverse enough to pretend to dispute it.[2]
[1] Among several other brief articles at this site is one that
comments on the bizarre M-W definition used by Robert Fiske.
[2] There's no silver in German silver. The American buffalo is not
a buffalo. A guinea pig is not a pig (despite the Disney cartoon).
Etc., etc. An anti-Semite is prejudiced against Jews. Not all
Semitic peoples, not other Semitic peoples -- Jews.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 09 Nov 2024 06:39:56 +0200

Post by Steve Hayes
John Kerr-Mudd posted an "old" post from 2018.

'twas on a old laptop that I've revived, yer 'oner.

[Raymond S. Wise]

Post by Michael West
Considering that dictionaries list several senses of the words
"Semite" and "Semitic" that have little to do with either Judaism
or its adherents, I'm curious to know when and how the familiar
sense of "relating to the Jewish people" emerged and became
the most familiar one to most people.
AHD3 says "Semite" is a back-formation from Semitic,
noun
Abbr. Sem.
1. The Semitic languages.
2. Any one of the Semitic languages.
[New Latin Sêmiticus, from Sêmita, Semite, from
Late Latin Sêm, Shem, eponymous ancestor of the
Semites, from Greek, from Hebrew Sêm.]
Sem·ite (sèm¹ìtŽ) noun
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples
of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs,
Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews,
and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

It's my impression that "Semite" is rarely used today and "Semitic" is
usually used in the context of speaking of a family of languages.

First, let's look at some dates. MWCD11 gives the following as the first
dates for the word in question being used in English:

"Semite," 1848
"Semitic," 1813
"anti-Semitism," 1882
There is no separate entry for "anti-Semite." It is given as a subentry
under "anti-Semitism" and thus has no separate date.


*The Century Dictionary* was published in 1895. The various terms related to
"Semite" and "Semitic" suggest to me that those terms had a wider use at one
time. Note that none of the following are labeled "rare." In the following
"[assumed]" means that the word was preceding by an asterisk in the original
text, indicating that the term is assumed to have existed, or is a
reconstructed form. The narrowing of the senses of these various terms to
matters Jewish must have happened sometime within the 19th century.

From
www.century-dictionary.com


[quote]

*Semite* [...], _n._ and _a._ [< NL. [assumed]Semites, < LL.
_Sem,_ < Gr. [Sem], Shem.] *I.* _n._ A descendant or
supposed descendant of Shem, son of Noah.
*II.* _a._ Of or belonging to Shem or his de-
scendants.
Also _Shemite._

[...]

*Semitic_ [...], _a._ and _n._ [= F. _Sémitique_
= Sp. _Semítico_ = Pg. It. _Semitico_ (cf. G. _Semit-
isch_ = Dan. Sw. _Semitisk_), < NL. [assumed]_Semiticus,_ <
_Semita,_ Semite : see _Semite._] *I.* _a._ Relating to
the Semites, or the descendants of Shem ; per-
taining to the Hebrew race or any of those kin-
dred to it, as the Arabians and the Assyrians.
Also _Shemitic, Shemitish._

The term [_Semitic_] . . . was not in general use until the
first quarter of this century, having been used in Germany,
as it alleged, by Schlözer in 1781 . . . . It could not, how-
ever, have been general, since Eichhorn claims to have
introduced it in place of Oriental in 1794. . . . It may not
improperly be said that the term _Semitic_ is authoritative.
_J. S. Blackwell,_ in Proc. Amer. Philol. Ass., 1881, p. 28.

[...]

*Semitism* [...], _n._ [< _Semite_ + _-ism._]
*1.* A Semitic word or idiom.

So extensively had Semitic influences penetrated Egypt
that the Egyptian language, during the period of the
nineteenth dynasty, is said by Brugsch to be as full of
_Semitisms_ as German is of Gallicisms.
_Huxley,_ Nineteenth Century, XIX. 498.

*2.* Semitic ways, life, thought, etc.; especially,
the religious doctrines and principles or prac-
tices of the Jewish people.
Also _Shemitism._

*Semitist* [...], _n._ [< _Semite_ + _-ist._] A
Semitic scholar; one versed in Semitic lan-
guage, literature, etc.

Possibly, like some other _Semitists,_ Prof. Driver may
not regard the results of Assyriology with pre-eminent
favour. _The Academy,_ July 26, 1890, p. 66.

*Semitization* [...]. _n._ [< _Semi-
tize_ + _-ation._] The act of rendering Semitic in
character, language, or other attribute. Also
spelled _Semitisation._

The partial _Semitization_ of the southern districts of
Abyssinia. _Encyc. Brit.,_ XXI. 656.

*Semitize* [...], _v. t._ ; pret. and pp. _Semi-
tized,_ ppr. _Semitizing._ [< _Semite_ + _-ize.] *1.*
To render Semitic in character, language, or religion.

That they [the Philistines] were a Semitic or at least a
thoroughly _Semitized_ people can now hardly be made
a matter of dispute. _Encyc. Brit.,_ XVIII. 756.

*2.* To convert to the Hebrew religion.
Also spelled _Semitise._

[end quote]


There is no entry for "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic" in the Century, but
there are entries in *The Century Supplement* of 1909:


[quote]

*Anti-Semite* [...], _n._ One who seeks
by political or other means to lessen the com-
mericial, political, or social influence of the
Jews. The name is given especially to those who have
participated in the agitation against the Jews in Germany,
Russia, and Austria which began about 1878.

*Anti-Semitic* [...], _a._ Of or per-
taining to the Anti-Semites.

*Anti-Semitism* [...], _n._ The agi-
tation conducted by the Anti-Semites or its
motives ; antagonism to the Jews.

[end quote]


I have read in at least one source that "anti-Semitism" is a loan
translation, that the word was coined in German and entered English either
as a loan translation from German or as a loan translation from French,
which in turn got it from German. However, none of the sources I have handy
state that to be the case: The *Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé*
derives "antisémite" from "anti-" plus "sémite" and the English-language
dictionaries I consulted don't give an etymology. The following should be
obvious, but because people on occasion give a contrary argument it should
be stated that "anti-Semite"/"anti-Semitism" and their French and German
counterparts have never had any such meaning as "opposed to the descendants
of Shem" or "opposed to people who speak a Semitic language."

[Michael West]

Post by Raymond S. Wise
I have read in at least one source that "anti-Semitism" is a loan
translation, that the word was coined in German and entered English either
as a loan translation from German or as a loan translation from French,
which in turn got it from German. However, none of the sources I have handy
state that to be the case: The *Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé*
derives "antisémite" from "anti-" plus "sémite" and the English-language
dictionaries I consulted don't give an etymology. The following should be
obvious, but because people on occasion give a contrary argument it should
be stated that "anti-Semite"/"anti-Semitism" and their French and German
counterparts have never had any such meaning as "opposed to the descendants
of Shem" or "opposed to people who speak a Semitic language."

Thanks for the citations. If the Century is any guide,
the "anti-Semitic" sense does seem to have entered
general English usage around the turn of the century
with the specific anti-Jewish sense. But why wouldn't
"anti-Jewish" have served just as well?

Post by Raymond S. Wise
The following should be
obvious, but because people on occasion give a contrary argument it should
be stated that "anti-Semite"/"anti-Semitism" and their French and German
counterparts have never had any such meaning as "opposed to the descendants
of Shem" or "opposed to people who speak a Semitic language."

Perhaps not, but I am well aware that there are species
of Northern European racial bigotry that would exclude all
"Mediterranean stock" from the superior race(s), and
"Anti-Semitism" seems as apt a term for this type of
bigotry as anything.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Raymond S. Wise
I have read in at least one source that "anti-Semitism" is a loan
translation, that the word was coined in German and entered English either
as a loan translation from German or as a loan translation from French,
which in turn got it from German. However, none of the sources I have

handy

Post by Raymond S. Wise
state that to be the case: The *Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé*
derives "antisémite" from "anti-" plus "sémite" and the English-language
dictionaries I consulted don't give an etymology. The following should be
obvious, but because people on occasion give a contrary argument it should
be stated that "anti-Semite"/"anti-Semitism" and their French and German
counterparts have never had any such meaning as "opposed to the

descendants

Post by Raymond S. Wise
of Shem" or "opposed to people who speak a Semitic language."

Thanks for the citations. If the Century is any guide,
the "anti-Semitic" sense does seem to have entered
general English usage around the turn of the century
with the specific anti-Jewish sense. But why wouldn't
"anti-Jewish" have served just as well?

I suspect that that was because, to Herr Marr, "anti-Semitic" sounded more
"scientific".

Most inventors of pseudosciences are lovers of nebulous verbosity. That is why
trhe propagators of the pseudoscience of "fundamental pedagogics" preferrred
"Historical Andragogics" to "History of Adult Education".

And the propagators of apartheid preferred "Bantu" (the name of a language
group) to "black" or "African". And it led to similar illogicalities, since
the Berg Damara, who were the blackest of the black, did not speak a Bantu
language.

[Michael West]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Michael West
Thanks for the citations. If the Century is any guide,
the "anti-Semitic" sense does seem to have entered
general English usage around the turn of the century
with the specific anti-Jewish sense. But why wouldn't
"anti-Jewish" have served just as well?

I suspect that that was because, to Herr Marr, "anti-Semitic" sounded more
"scientific".

After reading a couple of paragraphs about
Herr Marr, I wonder if that reflected an attempt
of his part to imply a distinction between "Jew"
in the sense of religion and Jew in the sense of
"race". It would never be enough, in other words,
for Jews to spurn their heritage and become culturally
"German": they were an indelibly different species
of mankind, and would always be so.

Today's news stories about concerns over a
resurgence of nazi ideology in Europe are grimly
apposite.

[Per Rønne]

Post by Michael West
After reading a couple of paragraphs about
Herr Marr, I wonder if that reflected an attempt
of his part to imply a distinction between "Jew"
in the sense of religion and Jew in the sense of
"race". It would never be enough, in other words,
for Jews to spurn their heritage and become culturally
"German": they were an indelibly different species
of mankind, and would always be so.

In Danish, you distinct between Anti-Semitism [a kind of racism] and
Anti-Judaism [a bias against the Jewish religion - the Jews should get
baptised]. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheran Christianity, was not
an anti-Semite. But for sure, he was an anti-Judaist.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by Per Rønne

Post by Michael West
After reading a couple of paragraphs about
Herr Marr, I wonder if that reflected an attempt
of his part to imply a distinction between "Jew"
in the sense of religion and Jew in the sense of
"race". It would never be enough, in other words,
for Jews to spurn their heritage and become culturally
"German": they were an indelibly different species
of mankind, and would always be so.

In Danish, you distinct between Anti-Semitism [a kind of racism] and
Anti-Judaism [a bias against the Jewish religion - the Jews should get
baptised]. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheran Christianity, was not
an anti-Semite. But for sure, he was an anti-Judaist.

This distinction is one which the Roman Catholic Church stresses, and
has stressed throughout the twentieth century. The ambivalence of
Augustine, teaching that Jews must not be allowed to prosper but also
that they must be allowed to survive, or of Benedict, who in sermons
telling the locals to stop killing Jews began by agreeing with all their
negative stereotypes of Jews, is spoken of in terms of this dichotomy.
That hardly explains the lust with which the Church chased conversos, or
why the Jesuits had a blood-purity requirement well into the 20th century.

There are some who refuse to make this distinction. Others, like James
Carroll, insist that modern anti-Semitism could not exist with the prior
"anti-Judaism" of the Church. John Dominic Crossan wrote "I distinguish
those two terms because anti-Semitism only arrives in history when
anti-Judaism is combined with racism. Anti-Judaism is a religious
prejudice: a Jew can convert to avoid it. Anti-Semitism is racial
prejudice: a Jew can do nothing to avoid it. They are equally
despicable but differently so." The Church would deny that her
anti-Judaism is a religious prejudice and that it is despicable. The
infallible Church, it infallible Councils, and its infallible Popes are
utterly and damnably wrong.

[Per Rønne]

Post by Martin Ambuhl
There are some who refuse to make this distinction. Others, like James
Carroll, insist that modern anti-Semitism could not exist with the prior
"anti-Judaism" of the Church. John Dominic Crossan wrote "I distinguish
those two terms because anti-Semitism only arrives in history when
anti-Judaism is combined with racism. Anti-Judaism is a religious
prejudice: a Jew can convert to avoid it. Anti-Semitism is racial
prejudice: a Jew can do nothing to avoid it. They are equally
despicable but differently so." The Church would deny that her
anti-Judaism is a religious prejudice and that it is despicable. The
infallible Church, it infallible Councils, and its infallible Popes are
utterly and damnably wrong.

Perhaps you should add that anti-Semitism predates Christianity. Pogroms
against the Jews took place in Ptolemaic Alexandria and after Cyrus the
Great's conquest of Babylonia 214 auc [ab urbe conditae, 539 BC]
attempts were made to convince him to extirpate the Jewish people.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Raymond S. Wise
There is no entry for "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic" in the Century, but
[quote]
*Anti-Semite* [...], _n._ One who seeks
by political or other means to lessen the com-
mericial, political, or social influence of the
Jews. The name is given especially to those who have
participated in the agitation against the Jews in Germany,
Russia, and Austria which began about 1878.

At that time there would, I suspect, have been hardly any
non-Jewish Semites in Germany, Russia, or Austria. The Arabs and
others were living in some distant part of the world and hardly
ever seen, whereas the Jews were right there on the spot.

That is, the Jews were the only visible Semites when the term
"Anti-Semite" came into use. For that time and place, "Jewish"
and "Semitic" were for all practical purposes synonymous.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Raymond S. Wise
There is no entry for "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic" in the Century, but
[quote]
*Anti-Semite* [...], _n._ One who seeks
by political or other means to lessen the com-
mericial, political, or social influence of the
Jews. The name is given especially to those who have
participated in the agitation against the Jews in Germany,
Russia, and Austria which began about 1878.

At that time there would, I suspect, have been hardly any
non-Jewish Semites in Germany, Russia, or Austria. The Arabs and
others were living in some distant part of the world and hardly
ever seen, whereas the Jews were right there on the spot.
That is, the Jews were the only visible Semites when the term
"Anti-Semite" came into use. For that time and place, "Jewish"
and "Semitic" were for all practical purposes synonymous.

I believe that's absolutely right.

By the way, Kipling seems to use "non-Aryan" to mean "Jewish" in his
autobiographical sketch _Something of Myself_ (1937)
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/SomethingOfMyself/>
or <http://tinyurl.com/ywwy3>, despite mentioning Arabs and other
non-Indo-European peoples. (That is, peoples whose main language was
not Indo-European.)

I was a bit surprised at how anti-Semitic he was.

[Mike Lyle]

[...]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
That is, the Jews were the only visible Semites when the term
"Anti-Semite" came into use. For that time and place, "Jewish"
and "Semitic" were for all practical purposes synonymous.

I believe that's absolutely right.
By the way, Kipling seems to use "non-Aryan" to mean "Jewish" in his
autobiographical sketch _Something of Myself_ (1937)
<http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/SomethingOfMyself/>
or <http://tinyurl.com/ywwy3>, despite mentioning Arabs and other
non-Indo-European peoples. (That is, peoples whose main language was
not Indo-European.)
I was a bit surprised at how anti-Semitic he was.

Kipling on 'ethnicity' is confusing to the modern mind. He seems to
swing from crude stereotyping of a quite abusive kind to a sort of
respect for difference which is almost like present-day
'multiculturalism'. I sometimes have the feeling that his attitudes
had something to do with the ups and downs of his private life:
there's sunny work and gloomy work. However that may be, it's clear
that he thought these divisions were important, even at moments when
(as he sometimes does) he makes a character racist simply as a device
for portraying the character as stupid.

Mike.