Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 6.303 May 14, 1997 1) Moronmentsh and Yiddishisms in Hebrew press (Mikhl Herzog) 2) Personal romanization guides may be misguiding (Zellig Bach) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 May 97 16:02 EDT From: zogur@cuvmb.columbia.edu Subject: Moronmentsh and Yiddishisms in Hebrew press A propos of Leonard Prager's excellent piece (now one of many) "Reflections on _mentsh_" [TMR, 1.005]. It's possible that the following comments actually repeat earlier postings among the many that Leonard lists. Forgive me if I repeat myself. 1. In my own field research, conducted among Yiddish speakers in Israel in the early 60s, every speaker invariably translated the Hebrew word _ish_ as _mentsh_; never as Yiddish _man_: _dort geyt a mentsh mit tsvey froyen_; _der mentsh mitn vayn_, etc. Yiddish _man_ as the gloss for English 'man' is the rule only in America. 2. Note that _dos mentsh_ refers to a female. 3. In an 18th century Yiddish text (Moyshe Makuze's _Seyfer refues_, 1790), _an orimmEntsh_ (in contrast to _orimAn_) refers to a 'poor woman'. Uriel Weinreich lists both _dos mentsh_ and _orimmEntsh_. In general, the use of Yiddishisms in the Hebrew press, as well as in Modern Israeli Hebrew, is a subject worthy of study. Aside from Yiddish words of non-Hebrew origin, one should be on the lookout for variants like _bitOkhn_ as against _bitakhOn_, _shOlem_ as against __shalom_, _kIbetz/kibUtz_, _alIye/aliyA_, and the like. As for the press, in particular, I wonder how many Israelis recognize the Yiddishism in the name of the weekly (humor?) supplement to the newspaper _Davar_, _DavAr AkhEr_, better known in what the Even Shoshan dictionary describes as the _safa meduberet_ as _dOver-akher_. The joke is on those who fail to recognize this. PS: I'm sure Leonard intended to write _Ho-Rav Shloyme-Zalmen Oyerbakh_ rather than _Ha-Rov . . ._ Mikhl Herzog 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 17:31:24 -0400 (EDT) From: zellig@aol.com Subject: Personal romanization guides may be misguiding In _Mendele_ (6.291,2) Freydl Cielak wrote: I myself have done a transcription guide [for romanization] that I suggested for the beginners-level in my Yidisher Briv-Fraynd Club which I am not sure if it is the correct one. Freydl is right. It is _not_ the correct one. She stipulates in her transcription guide to use the letter /y/ for the initial sound as in Yiddish, yid, yidn. Then she offers two examples: "Shpyl" and "Shyikhn." What does the /y/ do in "Shpyl"? The Roman letter /i/ represents quite well the Yiddish-Hebrew khirek yud, therefore "shpil." And what does the /y/ do in "shyikhn"? The letter /y/ serves other romanization functions than the initial sound in Yiddish. It also represents the sound of the diphthong /ey/, representing the contiguous tsvey yudn, as she herself uses in the romanized spelling of her first name Freydl; as well as the diphthong /ay/, for pasekh tsvey yudn, as in _vayn_. Additionally, the letter /y/ _softens_ the sound of some consonants, such as the /n/ in "hartsenyu" or the /l/ in "Lyesin" (Yiddish poet). In Yiddish this purpose is accomplished by the addition of the letter /yud/ after the consonant. It took decades to rid Yiddish spelling of unnecessary letters, such as the "shtume" (silent) /heys/ and superfluous /ayens/. I therefore strongly feel that her attempt at re-introducing the "shtume" /heys/ goes counter to the spirit of modern Yiddish orthography. Her suggestion to add an /h/ after the letter /a/ would only _lengthen_ the sound of /a/ while in Yiddish it is short. It is often overlooked, or simply forgotten, that proper Yiddish romanization demands a well-grounded knowledge of the written/printed spelling of Yiddish. Otherwise, we may encounter such romanized monstrosities as a "glues tay" for a 'gloz tey' or "tzouris" for 'tsores.' In both instances the struggle to recapture the correct sounds and their Latin letter representations can be readily discerned. In connection with transcribing Yiddish in Latin letters, Max Weinreich wrote: Undzer yidisher oysleyg hot di groyse mayle vos er dint far ale dialektn. Mir shraybn _tog_,leyenen es vilner yidn mit /o/, un varshever yidn mit /u/... heyst es az undzer oysleyg iz zeyer a praktisher un a hantiker." [Our Yiddish spelling has the big advantage that it serves all dialects. We write _tog_, and Jews from Vilne read it with an /o/, and those from Varshe read it with an /u/. Thus is our spelling a very practical and accessible one.] (_Di Shvartse Pintelekh_, p. 23!.). I am fully cognizant of the anomaly in the life of Yiddish: Many lovers of Yiddish did not have the occasion to learn Yiddish as a school subject, and often go by the aural memories of the sounds of Yiddish spoken by parents or grandparednts. As I had occasion to mention in an earlier post, aural memories of words spoken in the long ago are not a reliable source for transcription. Besides, the speakers themselves were not necessarily schooled in Yiddish. As an ideal, Yiddish romanization must therefore aim to represent a supra-dialectal spelling If we were to romanize according to dialects, we would wind up with a fragmented, splintered Yiddish and lose the unifying, national character of one common romanized spelling for Yiddish. I naturally realize that such an ideal is certainly not in sight, not even in the near future, but it behooves us to discuss the problem and to articulate it now. This will certainly not be achieved by personally constructed guides that unintentionally may reflect individual biases and histories. A good, reliable romanization guide is found on p. xxi of Uriel Weinreich's _Modern Yiddish-English/English-Yiddish Dictionary_. Zellig Bach Lakehurst, NJ ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 6.303