curious usage note

[Dan Goncharoff]

Isn't "sodomite" derived from the people of Sodom, and would therefore fall
under the tribal source?

"Labourite", although tribal in the minds of some, doesn't really fit the
rule, I admit. I do believe there is a rule, however.

DanG

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: curious usage note
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 12:41 PM -0400 3/30/11, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
> >Isn't the "-ite" suffix normally restricted to tribes (Hittite) and
> >followers of people (Trotskyite)?
> >
> >Jihad is neither.
> >
> >DanG
>
> Nor is "sodomite", nor "Labo(u)rite".
>
> Then there's the pejorative -er we've discussed (flat-earther,
> birther, truther, et al.)--so maybe Jihader.  Naaah.
>
> LH
>
> >
> >On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >>  -----------------------
> >>  Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >>  Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> >>  Subject:      Re: curious usage note
> >>
> >>
>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>  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
> >>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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