”Moslem” is also a correct spelling, but capitalized like “Jew”. “Moslem” was the spelling my English teacher used back then.
This is getting a little bogged down, but in your first post you said this:
This sounds like you’re saying that fanatical opposition to Israel exists solely in the US, and that fanatical support exists everywhere else. That seems to me to be wrong on both counts. There is far more support for Israel in the US than opposition, as evidenced by the fact that American politicians are afraid to ever say anything critical about Israel. I also don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that opposition to Israel is not confined to the US. I doubt that any country is MORE supportive of Israel than the US.
“Moslem” is dated. “Muslim” is the current preferred spelling and is a more accurate transliteration.
I got the two mixed around. Much to my chagrin, **Sevastopol **corrected me in his subsequent post.
Who cares? WHo died and made you Emperor of English? No, don’t bother with the snarky reply. Nobody did. Aside from the miscapitalization, a really minor issue, it’s a perfectly valid word which is readily understandable and still used by some people.
[Dio]
[High Horse]
-
[Dio]
[High Horse]
[High Horse][Dio]
The irony of this thread is of epic proportions. So far, there have been zero instances of knee jerk, fanatical support for Israel (nor any excuses for the two convicted soldiers…the fact that they WERE convicted hasn’t even been mentioned). Instead, we’ve had several knee jerk anti-Israel posts whining and complaining about knee jerk fanatical pro-Israel supporters…
Pretty entertaining, really. I’m sure that at any moment a fanatical Israeli supporter will be in to explain why using a child as a human shield was a good thing, and rant and rave about the injustice of a legal system that would actually find soldiers who did this guilty…any time now…
-XT
Transliteration of Arabic? Why would you want to transliterate from Arabic? Also I’d like that “Denmark” from now on is spelled “Danmarg” which is a closer transliteration.
It’s a dated and inaccurate transliteration. It’s not valid at all, and it carries an air of archaic xenophobia. It’s a Montgomery Burns kind of spelling. It’s ignorant.
So I guess “Musselman” and “Mohammedean” are right out?
Because it’s an Arabic word and it only makes sense to spell it how it’s pronounced.
[quote]
Also I’d like that “Denmark” from now on is spelled “Danmarg” which is a closer transliteration.[/qupote]
But that’s not the English pronunciation. The English pronuciation of “Muslim” is "Muslim, not “Moslem.”
“Musselman” is a way better transliteration than both “Moslem” and “Muslim” - of Turkish and Russian, but since Danish is the superior language I think you should transliterate to “Måslim”.
Those are exactly the kinds of archaisms it puts me in mind of. I honestly think it carries a current of passive-aggressive hostility. Using an old fashioned (and inaccurate) spelling just to show a kind of affected indifference to accuracy. That spelling (“Moslem”) is never used in English language newspapers, and the people who use it know that. They are making a choice to use a non-standard (and incorrect) spelling. It’s not a spelling I ever see used by anyone who isn’t bashing Islam.
OK, everybody, just nod your head, let Dio win, and spell it however you want to in the future.
The support for Israel is neither blind nor fanatical. Their flaws are painfully visible. But what is also painfully visible is the fact that they are constantly under attack both militarily and politically simply because they exist. I can hardly begrudge them their actions without first recognizing that on a personal level if it happened to me and I had the means to fight back I would.
It seems fanatical only because what should be a done deal (Israel exists and will continue to do so) is somehow a bone of contention with a very large number of people. Stop talking about Israel and you’ll find that we will as well. If people would stop attacking them there is no doubt in my mind that it would be reciprocated.
Saying that hostility to Israel happens “because they exist” is facile and disingenuous. Israel “exists” because it was (and continues to be) carved out of territory which already belonged to other people. When you bulldoze people off their own ancestral lands, they are going to be hostile. Whatever the justifications for the creation of Israel (which I’m not necessarily arguing with), it was created at the expense of a lot of other people, and that’s what has been at the root of the cycle of violence and hostility, not just poor Israel passively “existing.” That’s crap.
Let’s get back to Ghandi versus Gandhi!
I think Israel vs. Isreal would be more appropriate.
Regards,
Shodan
Two men enter . . .
What ever happened to “Saracen”?
I believe the proper, respectful title is “Mr. President”.
Regards,
Shodan
I believe the latter is properly spelled “Mahometan”.