What's the most diplomatic and politically correct way to refer to non-Jews. Both in conversation, and in terms of this site?
-
1How about אינו יהודי? or Aeino Yehudi? or perhaps a Bnei Noach, if appropriate?– RCWJun 10 '11 at 22:08
-
3Goyim or shgotzim were the noms de guerre in yeshiva. They may not be too diplomatic, though.– TzviJun 10 '11 at 22:14
-
3Shkotzim isn't diplomatic, but goyim simply means gentiles in Hebrew. It only has a negative connotation when you say it with a negative intonation.– Adam MoshehFeb 19 '12 at 21:12
-
I propose that this question be moved to meta.– Adam MoshehFeb 19 '12 at 22:13
-
1@Adam Why? Is this question not about Jewish Life & Learning?– yydlFeb 19 '12 at 23:37
|
Show 2 more comments
I don't know of a problem with "gentiles", though "non-Jews" seems equally appropriate.
answered Jun 10 '11 at 21:18
-
1
-
6
-
@IsaacMoses - Yes, but if the context is not explicit, then it can be ambiguous. Feb 19 '12 at 22:36
I would suggest that the term "non-Jew" is both precise and neutral, and a perfectly acceptable halachic term as well, as halachic works such as the Shulchan Aruch often refer to א"י or אינו יהודי (non Jew).
I think that if people are talking in English, then the words "gentile" or "non-Jew" should be used. However, the terms gentile and non-Jew are likely to be inappropriate if the if the conversation is in more of a "Yeshivish" dialect, because these are both English words. How about Nokhrim (נכרים) or Zarim (זרים)? The latter terms both mean something along the lines of aliens or strangers.
answered Feb 19 '12 at 22:12
-
How is it "inappropriate" to use sufficiently descriptive English words in an English conversation that happens to be in a "Yeshivish" context? Given that Yeshivish is entirely a folk dialect, I don't get how prescriptivism makes any sense with respect to it.– Isaac Moses ♦Jun 25 '12 at 14:23