It doesn't always work that way. In ancient times, the Romans were just one member of a family now called "Italic", which also included the Etruscans who dominated the Romans for a while, but there doesn't seem to have been an "Ital" tribe. And "Galic" applies to Celts in general even though there wasn't one group called "Gal" and not others. Nearly ALL Celtic people and locations occupied by Celts in the ancient world were called by a name based on "Gal", not just one particular subgroup or place.
Anyway, Jews are Semites, so the cultural/linguistic category including them is Semitic and includes non-Jews. Most Semitic languages and dialects are/were actually found in Ethiopia or Egypt. So you could see "anti-Semitic" as referring to somebody who hates the whole category, not just the Jews. But there's another way you could describe where that word comes from. Someone who hates Jews is an anti-Semite. There's no "ic", so it's not the category we're talking about here, but just the Semites alone, the Jews. But then what do you do if you want to make an adjective out of "anti-Semite"? You get "anti-Semitic". So there are two ways you could get to the same word, and each would carry a different meaning.
Those who say that the usual way "anti-Semitic" is used is wrong are seeing it as based on "Semitic" rather than "anti-Semite". But I say they're wrong because that's not where the word "anti-Semitic" really came from or how it was derived... or how it's used... and the definition they're insisting is "right", hatred of all Semitic people rather than just the Semites, describes something that doesn't exist so there's no need for such a word. What they're basicly doing is getting stuck on a superficial coincidence, that the adjective form of "anti-Semite" happens to resemble the categorical term "Semitic" despite being unrelated to it in derivation or use.
Edited by Delvo, 16 February 2006 - 10:28 PM.