# hyphenated anti-semitism



## msalmog

The use of the hyphenated word (anti-Semitism) has been criticized since it both assumes "the existence of something called 'Semitism'" to which one is opposed and "reflects the bipolarity that is at the heart of the problem of antisemitism" (see James Carroll, Constantine's Sword [New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001], 628-29n.17).


----------



## panjandrum

An interesting point of view.
And your point in posting this is - what?


----------



## msalmog

msalmog said:
			
		

> The use of the hyphenated word (anti-Semitism) has been criticized since it both assumes "the existence of something called 'Semitism'" to which one is opposed and "reflects the bipolarity that is at the heart of the problem of antisemitism" (see James Carroll, Constantine's Sword [New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001], 628-29n.17).


 
How do you explain the fact that despite the unanimous agreement among experts, English sticks to this spelling, unlike other languages?

Almog


----------



## foxfirebrand

msalmog said:
			
		

> The use of the hyphenated word (anti-Semitism) has been criticized since it both assumes "the existence of something called 'Semitism'" to which one is opposed and "reflects the bipolarity that is at the heart of the problem of antisemitism" (see James Carroll, Constantine's Sword [New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001], 628-29n.17).


I prefer compound words to hyphenated forms in general and on principle (let's save hyphens for when compound terms are used adjectivally)-- but I appreciate the logic underlying your particular objection.  Yes, it makes sense.  
.


----------



## msalmog

to panjandrum`s query: I raised this issue here because I cannot explain it myself, although I have been preaching the removal of the hyphen for many years. James Carroll is just one in a long row of critics: historians, linguists, what have you. All in vain. Dictionaries and computer software are so arranged that the hyphen is always built-in. Enigma!

Almog


----------



## panjandrum

I have a little difficulty with the "English sticks to" phrase as there is nothing that represents "English" in this sense. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, reflects usage and lists only the hyphenated version.

The challenge, for those who are convinced of the argument, is to persuade the _*users*_ of English that they should switch from writing anti-Semitism to writing antisemitism.


----------



## msalmog

Dictionaries vary of course, but they seldom follow the speech habits of the users. It is rather the other way round: they prescribe and proscribe according to the editoral board`s decisions. This is now done by the computer automatic correction devices too.
anti-semitism is a loanword from the German Antisemitismus, how come it usually apppears in its hyphenated form? Surely it is not the general public that would decide on such an issue.
Almog


----------



## panjandrum

You miss my point about the Oxford English Dictionary.
It does not prescribe or proscribe, it describes usage. If the non-hyphenated version were to be used significantly it would be included in the OED, to which supplements are published every three months (on-line version).
It may be somewhat behind the latest developments, of course, as it relies on reported usage.


----------



## modus.irrealis

I'd approve of getting rid of the hyphen because I too prefer non-hyphenated forms in general, but I don't see how that avoids the problem brought up in the original post. Plus, I don't really think it is a problem, since anti-semitism is just a word whose meaning can't be predicted from the meaning of its parts, but it's not the only such word.


----------



## .   1

I may be thick and I am capable of pedantry but I perceive utterly no difference in meaning between anti-semitism or antisemitism.

.,,



			
				msalmog said:
			
		

> How do you explain the fact that despite the unanimous agreement among experts, English sticks to this spelling, unlike other languages?
> 
> Almog


 
G'day Almog

Could you please show me the unanimous agreement to which you refer?

.,,


----------



## Aupick

Semite, Semitic and Semitism all refer to a group of people, however dubious the designation or fictitious its target, and so require capital letters. Before computer software manufacturers started spreading bad habits, it was not possible to have capital letters in the middle of words: you couldn't say _antiSemitism_, so you had to say _anti-Semitism_ instead. And you still do.


----------



## ireney

Well the word "democracy" is not hyphenated but it still means the power/control of the people.(The same applies to words like "telephone" or "orangutan") It would mean the same if it was hyphenated wouldn't it? Any word created by the combination of two others means what these two words describe together.


----------



## A90Six

msalmog said:
			
		

> How do you explain the fact that despite the unanimous agreement among experts, English sticks to this spelling, unlike other languages?
> 
> Almog


As I see it:

I assume you mean that there is unanimous agreement among experts that the compound form of anti-semitism should not be hyphenated? If so, regardless of who agrees to what, it is usage that determines the spelling in English, as explained by panjandrum.

Aupick has also pointed out that capitalised words require a hyphen, as with, anti-English or anti-European. The only possible argument to this that I can foresee is the spelling of Antichrist. Christ here is not capitalised because the word, Antichrist, does not mean dislike, hostility or prejudice toward Christ. It is a name for an enemy of Christ.
While Aupick's comment is valid, in my dictionary anti-semite. anti-semitic and anti-semitism are spelt thus, with a lower case *s*.

When a word is prefixed with *anti-*, it almost always means dislike, hostility or prejudice towards the essence of the word to which it is attached.
When a word is prefixed by *anti*, it generally reduces the potency/prevents the onset/cures or eradicates the presence of the whatever is meant by the attached word.

One exception to the above is *anti-inflammatory*, but I suspect that is because *antiinflammatory* looks wrong with the double *i*.
Another exception is *anti-lock*, as in anti-lock brakes. I'm sure others could find more.

As .,, has already asked, why are you so anti-anti-semitism?


----------



## msalmog

The term "semites" refers to people using various semitic languages. It has become a *misnomer* *for Jews*. By retaining the hyphen one tacitly accepts the abuse of language. This could be verified by viewing the academic literature on the subject. For Instance, on H-Antisemitism on-line.
Almog


----------



## panjandrum

There are many features of the way English evolves that I am inclined to consider an abuse of language 

The narrowing of Semitism to become specific to Judaism began more than 100 years ago, as did the use of anti-Semitism.

It seems strange, to me, that those who object to this term on grounds of linguistic purity should prefer antisemitism rather than some alternative that avoids completely the apparent language abuse. How, I'm thinking, would they explain the etymology of antisemitism?

I can't quite get my head around this problem. It feels like an extreme example of linguistic puritanism - though I am open to persuasion that there's more to it than that.


----------



## .   1

msalmog said:
			
		

> The term "semites" refers to people using various semitic languages. It has become a *misnomer* *for Jews*. By retaining the hyphen one tacitly accepts the abuse of language. This could be verified by viewing the academic literature on the subject. For Instance, on H-Antisemitism on-line.
> Almog


 
So now I am able to understand that your argument has little to do with hyphenation and more to do with bigotry.

Anti-semitism is an ugly portmanteaux word that causes me to wince everytime I see or hear it and for that reason alone it is perfect.

.,,


----------



## Christine-Brinn

I personally have not seen much in the way of a problem, but I accept that I would not as I am not part of the social and religious group of people affected by it - which means debates like this are important in raising awareness.

Language is never, ever used in a vacuum; there is no such thing as 'pure' language use, taken out of context.  Such debates, even if they do not reach immediate agreement, are extremely important in keeping us all aware of how our language use affects others on a deeper social level than its everyday one-to-one purposes.

I am not sure exactly what I am saying, except that these things do matter.  There has been another, similar debate (or at least a few comments) elsewhere here on the use of labels to define people.  It is right that concerns about these things should be aired.


----------



## foxfirebrand

The ambiguity of _Semite_ gives me an opportunity to challenge the consistency of self-avowed "antisemites"  whose Middle-Eastern politics are pro-Arab.

Yes, it's an imprecise term-- gee, in English no less.  What are the oddds?*



*My preferred spelling-- the _dd_ in the currently evolved spelling is an even number, and this I find inconsistent.


----------



## Christine-Brinn

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> *My preferred spelling-- the _dd_ in the currently evolved spelling is an even number, and this I find inconsistent.


 
I am curious now.  Why?


----------



## ireney

Let me get it straight: Antisemitism is _not_ an abuse of the language but anti-Semitism is? Would something like "anti-Jewism" or "anti-Hebrewism"  be ok or would it have to be "antijewism/antihebrewism?" (my apologies if, in 'creating' these two words, I have overlooked some of the rules of the English language in creating '-isms')


----------



## foxfirebrand

Christine-Brinn said:
			
		

> I am curious now.  Why?


For satirical reasons, the point being that individuals can't just change "inconsistent" usage that is firmly established.  Everyone's idea of what is inconsistent is slightly different, and if people felt free to coin their own idioms, the natural state of creative upheaval in the English language would reach a point of diminishing returns.
.


----------



## msalmog

Thank you all for your interesting comments. 
I did not intend to start an argument on antisemitism as such. I am genuinely curious why the hyphenated form stuck to English, unlike the   usage of German or French, for instance. Even in English you will find find many variants: Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, Anti-semitism, anti-semitism, and sometimes of course 'antisemitism'. 
The supposition that dictionaries are not normative, that they just reflect
language behavior, does not really explain this phenomenon. The general public hardly pays any attention to such points, but is made to follow suit while using the computer`s speller. 
Almog


----------



## foxfirebrand

msalmog said:
			
		

> The general public hardly pays any attention to such points, but is made to follow suit while using the computer`s speller.


Please stop using that "utility!"  It is keeping you from learning to spell, and, to some degree, think.  Programs that "check" grammar are even more pernicious-- use them, and the camel's nose is all the way under the tent.  Next computers will be changing your text, then stubbornly reinstating the changes that you reject-- and eventually _writing_ everything for you, and offering you an "I accept" box for you to mouseclick a checkmark into.

If you refuse to, it will add the mark itself after a decent interval, save the file where you can't find it-- and go on with its life.
.


----------



## maxiogee

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Please stop using that "utility!"  It is keeping you from learning to spell, and, to some degree, think.  Programs that "check" grammar are even more pernicious-- use them, and the camel's nose is all the way under the tent.  Next computers will be changing your text, then stubbornly reinstating the changes that you reject-- and eventually _writing_ everything for you, and offering you an "I accept" box for you to mouseclick a checkmark into.
> 
> If you refuse to, it will add the mark itself after a decent interval, save the file where you can't find it-- and go on with its life.
> .




"Well said" that fox!
Spell-checkers are for dimwitted witches who might wreak dreadful havoc otherwise, humans should shun them. If you cannot spell, buy a dictionary, a printed one. You will accidentally learn new words while looking up the one you are unsure of. 
Dictionaries (with apologies to Mike K!) _need_ to be in hard copy to do any good. Flicking through a dictionary is a passport to an incredibly rich vocabulary. You cannot get that from a smell-chequer!


----------



## ireney

Plus, having used the spell-checker to make sure my paper was free of mistakes (just because -once again- I had reached the deadline and I was in a hurry), I had one professor asking me if the Greek high-school students really had to have a *r*est in each taught subject at the end of the school year in order to pass to the next grade.


----------



## southerngal

Hi, brand-new poster here.  This is an interesting forum!  I just thought I'd quote what the author Rabbi Joseph Telushkin wrote in his book _Jewish Literacy,_ William Morrow and Company, 1991, ISBN 0-688-08506-7, page 467:

*Few people know that the word antisemitism was created by an antisemite, Wilhelm Marr.  Marr's intention was to replace the German word Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with a term that would make Jew-haters sound less vulgar and even somewhat scientific.*

A few sentences later:

*The greatest antisemite of all, Adolf Hitler, had no compunctions about welcoming (Semitic) Arab leaders, including the Mufti of Jerusalem, to Berlin during World War II.  For this reason, many writers today have adopted the practice initiated by several Jewish and Christian scholars, and write antisemite as one word; spelling it "anti-Semite" in the conventional manner, only fosters the false impression that there is a wider ethnic entity atainst which "anti-Semitism" is leveled.*


----------



## A90Six

southerngal said:
			
		

> Hi, brand-new poster here. This is an interesting forum! I just thought I'd quote what the author Rabbi Joseph Telushkin wrote in his book _Jewish Literacy,_ William Morrow and Company, 1991, ISBN 0-688-08506-7, page 467:
> 
> *Few people know that the word antisemitism was created by an antisemite, Wilhelm Marr. Marr's intention was to replace the German word Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with a term that would make Jew-haters sound less vulgar and even somewhat scientific.*
> 
> A few sentences later:
> 
> *The greatest antisemite of all, Adolf Hitler, had no compunctions about welcoming (Semitic) Arab leaders, including the Mufti of Jerusalem, to Berlin during World War II. For this reason, many writers today have adopted the practice initiated by several Jewish and Christian scholars, and write antisemite as one word; spelling it "anti-Semite" in the conventional manner, only fosters the false impression that there is a wider ethnic entity atainst which "anti-Semitism" is leveled.*


Welcome to the forum southerngal.

Thank you so much for your post. At last! I can now understand what the objection to the hyphenated version might be. 

The Jews would prefer that *antisemitism* be used, as they feel that, if written this way, it would prevent the inclusion of any other members of the group of peoples who speak a Semitic language.

The question is: Is this because Jews don't want others of the Semitic group (viz Arabs) discriminated against by inclusion, or, is it because they are discriminating against other Semites so that the term, although negative, becomes exclusively theirs?

Why dont we just say, anti-Jew, anti-Jewish and anti-Jewism to make matters clear.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> Hi, brand-new poster here.  This is an interesting forum!  I just thought I'd quote what the author Rabbi Joseph Telushkin wrote in his book _Jewish Literacy,_ William Morrow and Company, 1991, ISBN 0-688-08506-7, page 467:
> 
> *Few people know that the word antisemitism was created by an antisemite, Wilhelm Marr.  Marr's intention was to replace the German word Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with a term that would make Jew-haters sound less vulgar and even somewhat scientific.*
> 
> A few sentences later:
> 
> The greatest antisemite of all, Adolf Hitler, had no compunctions about welcoming (Semitic) Arab leaders, including the Mufti of Jerusalem, to Berlin during World War II.  For this reason, many writers today have adopted the practice initiated by several Jewish and Christian scholars, and write antisemite as one word; spelling it "anti-Semite" in the conventional manner, only fosters the false impression that there is a wider ethnic entity atainst which "anti-Semitism" is leveled.



This is the presenting us the Jew in the _soi-disant_ role (which we are never allowed to forget) of "the world's only victims".


----------



## southerngal

Hi, thanks for the welcome!



			
				A90Six said:
			
		

> Why dont we just say, anti-Jew, anti-Jewish and anti-Jewism to make matters clear.


 
According to the book I quoted, it was to make antisemitism _sound_ more respectable.  How sad.


----------



## msalmog

A90Six said:
			
		

> The Jews would prefer that *antisemitism* be used, as they feel that, if written this way, it would prevent the inclusion of any other members of the group of peoples who speak a Semitic language.


 
*"The Jews"* do not care one way or another, I am sure. Whether you spell 'antisemitism' with or without the hyphen is a matter for historical and linguistic research. It concerns people who are interested in such things,
no matter what their personal background might be.
Almog


----------



## maxiogee

msalmog said:
			
		

> The Jews would prefer that *antisemitism* be used, as they feel that, if written this way, it would prevent the inclusion of any other members of the group of peoples who speak a Semitic language.



How? How do the _others_ come under "anti-semitism" (with/without a capital S) and not come under "antisemitism"?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How? How do the _others_ come under "anti-semitism" (with/without a capital S) and not come under "antisemitism"?


This question has been intriguing me and I am tricked if I can see an answer.

.,,


----------



## panjandrum

Perhaps I am (again) being naive.
When I read anti-Semitism, or antisemitism, or anti-semitism - my immediate mental response is "anti-Jewish".
I have no doubt that this is the majority response amongst English-speakers.

So, I wonder again, what is the objection to what seems to me to be a very well-defined and unambiguous word.

I suppose that in the world of academic Semitologists there might be a frustration at the imprecision of my understanding.  But surely that kind of imprecision is endemic for the academic   Specialist terms are often used with imprecision by non-specialists.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How? How do the _others_ come under "anti-semitism" (with/without a capital S) and not come under "antisemitism"?


Were I the victim of prejudice I should be quite happy to include as many other people in with me as possible.
It does seem passing strange that one of the main objections is that anti-semetism is not specifically anti-Jewish enough whereas antisemetism better because the prejudice is more focused.
I am still trying to get my head around this.

.,,


----------



## ireney

.,, even if the 'many other people' where Arabs? I mean if you hear some of them talk, they are not all that friendly ever since the Biblical times (and that is a tongue-in-the-cheek-yet-serious-question).

Anyway, even though there are those whose anti-Semitism/anitsemitism (sorry, I just cannot see the difference semantics and all) is targeted on the Arabs alone, no one, not even them would consider using either the hyphenated or un-hyphenated term for their feelings.


----------



## msalmog

My dear friends,

You have all taught me a lesson and I ought to be grateful for it. I have put a question to you, people interested like myself - I gather- in words.
I expected an answer that had escaped me, on the English usage of the term 'antisemitism'.
What I got in return were lots of responses: some quite interesting, some a bit annoying, others out of focus. This of course is just a personal impression.  
Mind you, I am 80 yrs. old and had to accommodate myself to the attitudes of so many people I do not know, mostly much younger than I,
whose points of view differ from each other. So, although I was rather disappointed not to get a straight answer, I have learnt my lesson. 
Thank you all,

Almog


----------



## .   1

msalmog said:
			
		

> My dear friends,
> 
> You have all taught me a lesson and I ought to be grateful for it. I have put a question to you, people interested like myself - I gather- in words.
> I expected an answer that had escaped me, on the English usage of the term 'antisemitism'.
> What I got in return were lots of responses: some quite interesting, some a bit annoying, others out of focus. This of course is just a personal impression.
> Mind you, I am 80 yrs. old and had to accommodate myself to the attitudes of so many people I do not know, mostly much younger than I,
> whose points of view differ from each other. So, although I was rather disappointed not to get a straight answer, I have learnt my lesson.
> Thank you all,
> 
> Almog


So I am only a youngster of 49 and have less difficulty accomodating dated views.
I read many well thought-out lucid responses attempting to grapple with an extremely esoteric linguistic concept that I have never and cound never conceive of as a possibility of confusion and I suspect that many forer@s have also experienced difficulty understanding your questions but they had a go and tried to answer your questions.

I am sorry that you are disappointed and I am sorry that you have learnt a lesson because I am left confused but you may have received answers more digestible to your pallet had you answered some of the many clarification questions that were posed to you.

I have learned nothing from this thread that was not already blindlingly obvious.

.,,


----------



## msalmog

This is an open response to my esteemed predecessor: Unfortunately, my previous message did not contribute to resolve our misunderstanding. 
The lesson I learnt is tolerance, not rancour. True, I did not get the scientific or linguistic answer I was looking for. Maybe I did not write well, or possibly expected the untenable. In any case, I did not foresee such a heated argument on matters beyond language.

Almog


----------



## maxiogee

No matters are "beyond language" - if the human mind can conceive it, the human tongue can express it.

I think the problem we come face-to-face with here is that, in order to answer a linguistic question, some of the members here (and I'm one of them) need to first of all understand fully the terms being used. 
I can see no reason why…
anti-semitism
anti-Semitism
antisemitism
antiSemitism
… do not all mean the same thing. Distinguishing the differences, and how and why they arose (and whether those reasons are valid) is at the root of approaching an answer to your question.

Perhaps the people you need to ask are those who tend to be the ones who make the distinctions - Jewish people.


----------



## msalmog

This thread began with a quote from James Carroll`s Constantine`s Sword - against the use of the hyphen in 'antisemitism'. I do not think that he is Jewish. Many experts, whatever their creed, agree with him. 
Jews as such do not express a common opinion on the subject. Most do not know anything about it, let alone care - one way or another.
Almog


----------



## panjandrum

This conversation has meandered around several circles without coming to any clear conclusion - except for some mystification at the question itself.
Academics suggest there is a difference between anti-Semitism and antisemitism.
The general public sees no distinction.
We see no distinction.
Jews in general see no distinction.

It appears that for all practical purposes the current meaning of all variants is the same.

I am closing this thread lest it once again set off for another lap of the arguments.


----------

