curious usage note

[Laurence Horn]

At 12:25 PM -0400 3/30/11, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>_New Oxford American Dictionary_ (2005):
>
>"Jihadist...There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for this
>English-friendly form since the Arabic term for a holy warrior, _mujahid_,
>has already made it into English. in the plural forms (_mujahideen,
>mujahedin_) along with _jihadi_, a form more in keeping with Arabic
>morphology."
>
>Weird, eh? Like being "English-friendly" could be a drawback, esp.
>in contrast with a harder-to-spell-and-remember foreign word like "mujahid "
>(my keyboard doesn't want me to include the diacritic over the "a.")
>
>But what of this?:
>
>"..._Jihadist_, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are
>vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam."
>
>Is this true? Do I even detect sarcasm? Doesn't the note imply that the use
>of "jihadist" is an identifying mark of the racist and/or religious bigot?
>
>On what basis specifically?
>
>JL

Right; I think we (or the bigots among us) ought to stick with
traditional suffixal usage and go with "Jihadite"--or, if female,
"Jihadette"--rather than adopting the much more neutral-sounding
"Jihadist".  (Cf. Trotskyite, suffragette, et al.)  Unfortunately,
"Jihadite" sounds more like an exotic rock or gem, possibly a
birthstone.

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org