"jew" as adjective and compound nouns vs. adj. + n.?

Thu May 16 00:54:56 UTC 2013

On May 15, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:

> A correction, interspersed below.
>
> At 5/14/2013 10:14 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>> At 5/14/2013 02:42 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>>> On May 14, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>>>
>>> > Is "Jew butcher" a compound
>>>
>>> Yes
>>> > -- "a butcher of Jews"?? -
>>>
>>> no
>>>
>>> There's no reason to assume that the meaning of a compound will be
>>> transparent.
>>
>> I don't make any such assumption.  I know the specific meaning of the
>> various C1.a and C1.b compounds of "Jew, n." -- or I learn them from
>> the OED.  The C1.a compounds to me are all adj. + noun -- I could
>> replace "Jew" with its corresponding adjective "Jewish" and have a
>> two-word thing that was good English -- grammatical and semantically
>> the same.
>
> I did not mean to say "semantically the same:, but rather,
> "semantically understandable."  As Larry pointed out, "Jewish lawyer"
> and "Jew lawyer" have distinctly different undertones.
>
> Larry wrote today:
>> This is why it makes more sense to distinguish adjectives modifiers

I meant to write "adjectival modifiers"

>> from nominal modifiers grammatically, whence the diagnostics I
>> alluded to below (e.g. "the lawyer looks/seems/sounds Jewish"--OK,
>> so adjective; "the lawyer looks/seems/sounds Jew"--not OK, so noun).
>
> Do I understand this to mean that Larry now regards some of the C1
> compounds for "Jew, n." as adj. + n. (and others as not)?

No, or at least I don't understand it that way; the contrast above was intended to show that "Jewish" is (always) an adjective and "Jew" (always) a noun in the constructions in question.  (Yes, "Jew" can also be a verb, if fortunately not as often as it used to could.)  I haven't seen a convincing example of a compound of the form "Jew X"--none in the OED's compendium, in any case--that strike me as plausibly analyzed as adjectives.  If "Jew" could be an adjective, it would have the grammatical properties of adjectives, and it doesn't.  And while we can agree on the sharp meaning difference between, say, "Jewish lawyer" and "Jew lawyer", whether or not these difference are truth-conditional in nature, I think that's a separate matter from whether the first element is or isn't an adjective.  After all, I'd claim that "atom bomb" is a N-N compound, while "atomic bomb" is Adj-N, despite their near if not absolute synonymy.

None of this goes to prove the impossibility of alternative definitions of the categories or parts of speech--"notional" rather than "grammatical" in traditional terminology.  I just don't see that that leads to a coherent or rational classification of adjectives, nouns, etc.

LH

>
> Joel
>
>
>> The C1.b compounds to me are something else -- in all of
>> them if I replaced "Jew" with "Jewish" I would get something
>> semantically confusing.  E.g., "Jewish hatred" -- is that Jews'
>> hatred of something, or somebody's hatred of Jews?
>>
>> And I come back to the OED's "General attrib. OR as ADJ."  Emphasis added.
>>
>>> "Olive oil" is oil of olives, "baby oil" isn't oil of babies, or
>>> compare "alligator shoes" vs "horseshoes".  A "monkey man" is a man
>>> who is (also) a monkey, but a "child psychologist" isn't a
>>> psychologist who is also a child.  Judith Levi, Pam Downing, and
>>> others have provided non-exhaustive classifications of compounds by
>>> meaning, with such categories as (from Downing):
>>>
>>>           Whole-part    (duck
>>> foot)                            Place              (Eastern Oregon meal)
>>>           Half-half        (giraffe-cow)
>>> Source           (vulture shit)
>>>           Part-whole     (pendulum-clock)                 Product
>>>         (honey glands)
>>>           Composition  (stone
>>> furniture)                   User               (flea wheelbarrow)
>>>           Comparison   (pumpkin
>>> bus)                      Purpose         (hedge hatchet)
>>>           Time              (summer
>>> dust)                      Occupation    (coffee man)
>>>
>>> No reason "Jew lawyer" wouldn't be an example of the monkey-man or,
>>> better, nurse-midwife, kind rather than a hedge-clipper
>>> kind.  Notice that the "hedge-clipper" or "duck slaughterer"
>>> relation seems distinct from all of Downing's categories; as noted,
>>> the list is non-exhaustive.  Is "nurse" an adjective in
>>> "nurse-midwife"?  Or "child" in the unlikely but possible
>>> interpretation of "child psychiatrist"?  This is why I think the
>>> grammatical criteria for adjectival vs. nominal status are more
>>> reliable than meaning-based ones.  And I'm a semanticist.
>>
>> I don't care about such classifications of compounds by meaning
>> (especially if they're non-exhaustive!), I only care about each
>> individual compound.  Given its meaning, does it act like adj. + noun?
>>
>> Joel
>>
>>
>>> Incidentally, I think that's why it's natural to take "Jew lawyer"
>>> to be racist and/or offensive; it plays off the function of nouns as
>>> categorizers/pigeon-holers and thus ideally suited for slurs and
>>> epithets, as we've discussed in past threads:
>>>
>>> I'm not a Jew, I'm Jewish.
>>> He's not a deserter, he deserted.
>>> She lost, but that doesn't make her a loser.
>>> Don't call them diabetics, they're persons with diabetes.
>>> etc. etc.  (discussed by Bolinger in _Language--The Loaded Weapon_
>>> and others since, including in our archives)
>>>
>>> LH
>>>
>>> > - or an adj. +
>>> > noun -- "a Jewish butcher"?  (Compare "Jew-drowning" under C2, which
>>> > I do see as a compound -- it can't be "Jewish drowning".)  Similarly
>>> > for "Jew pedlar", and probably others.  The OED seems either to
>>> > concede or be uncertain -- "C1. General attrib. *or as adj.* That is
>>> > a Jew; *Jewish*."  (Emphasis added.)
>>> >
>>> > Is there a case for separation of the C1.a compounds, for all of
>>> > which it seems that "Jew" acts like an adjective and could be
>>> > replaced by "Jewish", from the C1.b. compounds, where that is not the
>>> > case?  E.g., a "Jew bill" (in C1.b) is not "a Jewish bill", but
>>> > rather "a bill 'Of or relating to Jews.' "
>>> >
>>> > But if Larry is right, how then would one make the OED more
>>> > user-friendly?  If sophisticated dictionary users like myself and
>>> > George don't think to look for adjectival uses of nouns under (the
>>> > late-appearing) "Compounds", -- and especially when a "Quick search"
>>> > doesn't turn up any entries with "adj." characterizing them, just
>>> > "n." and "v." -- what about the ordinary yahoo?
>>> >
>>> > Joel
>>> >
>>> > At 5/14/2013 11:52 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>>> >> I would defend the label.  These are indeed, I would argue, nominal
>>> >> compounds rather than adjective + noun phrases.  "Jew" in such cases
>>> >> doesn't pass the diagnostics for adjective-hood:
>>> >>
>>> >> That lawyer seems {Jewish/*Jew}.
>>> >> Despite Brendan's proselytizing, Moises remained {Jewish/*Jew}.
>>> >> It's very kosher/Jewish/*Jew
>>> >>
>>> >> etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> LH
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 14, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > George, look way down under "Jew, n." for "Compounds" -- C1 is
>>> >> > "General attrib. or as adj."  I've missed this disguised and low (on
>>> >> > the page) artifice of the OED before, for this and other nouns.  I
>>> >> > think the heading in such cases should be "n. and adj.".
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Joel
>>> >> >
>>> >> > At 5/14/2013 10:37 AM, George Thompson wrote:
>>> >> >> Seems strange, but such is the case, if the on-line OED doesn't
>>> >> mislead me.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>            JEW BEEF. -- The subscribers offer their services
>>> to merchants
>>> >> >> who are in the habit of trading to the West Indies, that in order to
>>> >> >> complete a well assorted cargo for those markets, it will
>>> prove to be an
>>> >> >> acquisition to apply to them for the above article; they are
>>> in 5 or 10
>>> >> >> gallon kegs.  ***  Levy & Lyons, 26, White-hall street. N. B.  Regular
>>> >> >> certificates will be given.
>>> >> >>            Mercantile Advertiser, November 1, 1804, p. 2, col. 2
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> HDAS and Jonathon Green's dictionary have "jew" as a disparaging
>>> >> adjective,
>>> >> >> which isn't the case here.  Their examples are generally in
>>> the form of "a
>>> >> >> Jew xyz" which translates into "a Jew who is an xyz" -- a Jew lawyer,
>>> >> >> perhaps.  Here, it meant "kosher", and the ad was placed by a
>>> Jewish firm.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> GAT
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> George A. Thompson
>>> >> >> Author of A Documentary History of "The African Theatre", Northwestern
>>> >> >> Univ. Pr., 1998, but nothing much since then
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>> >>
>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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