Is it a singular and plural form?
singular. jehudi, jehudim
It is almost the same in arabic, jehud, jehudine
For what it’s worth, I don’t feel the same way as Alessan. Quite the opposite, in fact. Steven Pinker has an excellent section in The Stuff of Thought on this matter. If someone says about me, “He’s a Jew,” he’s putting me in an all-inclusive category that comprises all the beliefs and stereotypes that go along with that category and is describing me in a one-size-fits-all term. And I don’t really like that. If, on the other hand, someone says, “He’s Jewish,” I have been given a descriptor that is limited and that doesn’t attempt to make an overall judgment about me. And I don’t mind that. It’s very subtle, I grant, but I know many people who feel the same way.
And, incidentally, if someone says “He’s a Jew lawyer,” the offense is NOT grammatical, contrary to an assertion above. It’s an attempt to characterize a person with a totally irrelevant but clearly meaningful stereotypical term. It’s as ugly as it gets because the people who use that type of language frequently would say that they’re “simply” describing someone in non-judgmental terms. B.S. That’s the subtlety and invidiousness of prejudice. Who me?? Some of my best friends are…
Swede’s not a slur in American Pastoral (Philip Roth). Neither is Jew.
For lack of a better way of phrasing this: what are the additional elements of “being a Jew” that are not implied by “being Jewish”? Are you saying the latter is solely a religious descriptor, while the former is ethnic and religions?
And when a jehudi takes on an apprentice, he/she is called a pahudawan.
They are opposed by the sihuith.
One of my best friends is Jewish. It sounds wrong to say, “He is a Jew.” It sounds much better to my ear to say, “He is Jewish.” Note that both sentences are four syllables long, so there is no efficiency gain one way or another.
Another friend is a non-practicing Jew. He’s Jewish-ish. 
I suppose it really depends on where the Jew goin’ with that gun in his hand. I said it depends where he goin’ with that gun in his hand.
Same thing, just a little more archaic. Since Muslim is closer to the normal pronunciation in English it tends to be preferred. I’ve had in my life older teachers that insisted on the spelling Moslem based on them being old, but they were wrong ;).
Mohammedan is even more archaic. However that one is considered borderline offensive since as an analog to Christian it loosely implies actual worship of Mohammed, a technically heretical notion to Muslims.
Essentially you’re saying the same as me - “people who use that type of language…” The choice of language is deliberately chosen by the speaker to be offensive. I don’t think there’s any attempt at justification or “Simply descriptive”. People who use that language are being deliberately offensive, intend to be so, and intend everyone to take it that way. It’s not grammatical, any more than “Jew” as a verb is simply grammatical; it’s a deliberate insult base on language usage and its perceived baggage, like calling a black man “boy”.
But there’s nothing inherently offensive about the word “boy,” it’s just the usage.
Crap. Ninja’ed by almost 24 hours.
Not at all. Here’s a stretch from Pinker’s book that makes it a little more clear (I hope). “The reason [for the common reaction similar to the one I mentioned in my earlier post] is that a noun predicate appears to pigeonhole [people] with the stereotype of a category rather than referring to them as an individual who happens to possess a trait. Logicians would be hard-pressed to specify the difference, but psychologically it matters a great deal. You can innocuously describe someone’s hair as* blond, brunette*, or* red* (adjectives), but it’s a trickier business to refer to the whole person, particularly a woman, as a blonde, a brunette, or a redhead (nouns). The terms seem to reduce the woman to a sexually attractive physical feature, and to typecast her, according to old stereotypes, as flighty, sophisticated, or hot-tempered.” etc.
Similarly, referring to someone as a Jew seems to reduce a person to a stereotype, and saying that they’re Jewish says only that among all other characteristics and factors about that person, that’s just another thing to be noted. As he says, more psychological than logical.
That help?
Personally, I’d rather be referred to as a Jew, than “a Jewish person,” so there’s another data point.
The offense is grammatical. It might be something else beyond, but “Jew” is a noun. In the sentence “He’s a Jew lawyer”, “Jew” is modifying lawyer, which means it takes an adjectival form, and the adjectival form of “Jew” is “Jewish”, so “He’s a Jewish lawyer” is grammatically correct. It’s the same reason that while you might say, “He’s Jewish”, you’d never say, “He’s a Jewish” (unless you were Chico Marx, who was a-Jewish).
There’s also the nuance that is introduced if the way in which the word “Jew” is employed differs from the way other national/community labels are employed. “I’m Irish”, “she’s American”, “you’re French” but “he’s a Jew”? If somebody uses “Jew” inconsistely this way, it sounds . . . off. But if their normal mode is to say “he’s an Irishman”, “he’s a Frenchman”, etc, then “he’s a Jew” fits right in.
From * Animal Crackers: *
CHICO: How did you get to be Roscoe W. Chandler?
SORIN: Say, how did you get to be an Italian?
CHICO: Never mind–whose confession is this?
Hijack time: I was once at a party for a Jewish coworker. No one was eating the birthday cake, so she cuts me a piece. I didn’t want it, but she starts shoving it at me. “Eat the cake. Eat the cake! Cake eater! CAKE EATER!!” she’s shouting at me. We’re all drunk, btw.
There’s a pause. One more time, she goes “CAKE EATER!” So yelled back, “…JEW!” Brought. The house. DOWN! Hysterical laughter for at least 3 minutes solid. I was king of the moment.
So, no. Not offensive.
But you’re mixing cultural and national identifies. I’m Basque and a Spaniard. One is my cultural/ancestry identifier, one my nationality, and they use different grammar.
Nationality is a cultural identity, Nava. I think you’re offering a false dichotomy here.
I was conscious, when I wrote my earlier post, that instead of national identifiers I could equally have used religious identifiers (also cultural identifiers, of course) - I’m Catholic, you’re Protestant, he’s Jewish. That’s fine. But if the usage was I’m Catholic, you’re Protestant, he’s a Jew - that seems just a bit off to me.