@IsaacMoses Given how visual sign languages are, I'm not at all sure I'd agree that those are bigoted slurs. It's quite possible for someone's sign name to be something like fat person whose name begins with F

@TRiG it is indeed (at least in American SL) but that's for a person who's fat. If you say using a "miserly" sign for "Jew" is analogous, you're saying Jews are miserly.

That said, there has been a movement to rid many sign languages of signs like this (similar signs include narrow eyes to indicate China). In fact, many sign languages are adopting other sign languages signs for themselves. So whatever the Israeli sign for Jew is (I don't know) may become common in other sign languages.

I mostly think it's a very poorly written article which leaves out a lot of context. And, in a world where sign languages have often been suppressed by hearing people, the entire tone of the piece leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

(Especially when you consider that Judaism specifically has often not treated Deaf people well, including not allowing them to give evidence in court, or to marry.)

@msh210 But the sign isn't "miserly", it's "having a beard" (or, in some langs, apparently, "having a large nose", which I didn't know). As I said, visual language.

@TRiG I don't have it before me now but IIRC it's "miserly" in a SL or two

@TRiG historically yes... nowadays it's much better, even in the most orthodox of circles

They can marry anyone same as anyone else, can (I'm pretty sure) testify, are deemed to be required to fulfill all commands same as anyone else (which they were not), etc.

@TRiG I believe it's "having a big, hooked nose" that people are objecting to, not "having a beard." IIRC, the latter is used in Israeli Sign Language.

And actually, @TRiG, you're being anachronistic when you say "Judaism specifically has often not treated Deaf people well". The term "Deaf people" refers to deaf members of the Deaf culture, which did not exist when Judaism did not treat deaf people well. The reason it didn't treat deaf people well is related to their lack of culture (they were [cont'd]

[cont'd] deemed unteachable, etc.); had there been a feasibility of Deaf people's even existing in that environment, presumably deaf people would've been treated same as everyone else, as they are now.

There's a relevant distinction between what terms people ought to use and what terms dictionaries ought to document, especially when those dictionaries are purely instruments of description.

@IsaacMoses But there's room for descriptivism with a bit of prescriptivism thrown in. Say, documenting the sign, but with a comment that says "(offensive)".

@msh210 Fair point. But there's a difference IMO between describing its offensiveness to some versus saying that something is categorically offensive. Even if it's describing a fact, the way in which it presents the material can give a value judgement, and hence be prescriptivist.

This is especially true of translation dictionaries, which people use to look up "correct" usage, often without having seen the material in the real world (from which they might learn appropriate contextual information from "people on the street").