Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 7.070 October 1, 1997 1) fisnoge, etc. (mikhl herzog) 2) fisnoge yet again (Hugh Denman) 3) language and dialect (A. Manaster Ramer) 4) Upside-down Yiddish (Elisheva Schwartz) 5) a new book for a new year (Miki Safadi) 6) Fisnoge ishor yerokes (David Herskovic) 7) language and dialect (Peter Slomanson) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:46:08 -0400 From: "mikhl herzog" Subject: fisnoge, etc. This is a reply to R. Harris' query of September 25, concerning Yiddish _fisno'ge_: 1. The standard Latin-letter transcription of the word is _fisnoge_, with initial _f_, not _ v_, and with one _g_. Even the German cognate of the first part of the word is spelled with _F_, not _v_. 2. The Yiddish word does, indeed, consist of near synonyms in two languages 'feet' in Yiddish, 'foot' in Polish. It parallels two similar constructions that I'm familiar with: a) _baldza'res_, a construction in which the Yiddish word _bald_ is joined by its synonym _zaras_ to mean 'soon', 'right away'. This is interesting enough but, it doesn't seem sufficient evidence to permit us to posit a regular pattern of such formations in Yiddish. I'd be happy to learn of other such pleonastic constructions. b) _fisri'be_ 'fish' which, taken together with _fisnoge_ reveals the mechanism at work--a device born of the need to disambiguate the homonymy that results from the merger of _s_ and _sh_ in Litvish Yiddish where [fis] or [fis'] represents both 'fish' and 'feet, legs'. _fisnoge_ is, thus, unambiguously 'feet', _fisribe_ 'fish'. 3. _fis_ and _fisnoge_ also designate "jellied calves' feet", also known as _petsha'(y)_ or _petshe'_ (usually eaten hot), or _kholode'ts_, the cold variety. The distribution of the different lexical items will be the subject of a map in a future volume of the Yiddish Atlas. A map in Volume III (now in press), shows the distribution of the regional preferences for the hot and cold varieties. 4. The food in question (German _Kalbssueltze_) , but not the cited designations, was also known in the West, where it is generally eaten cold. Any published reference to this information should be credited to the archives of the _Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry_, housed at Columbia University, New York, and published by Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tuebingen. Mikhl Herzog 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:12:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Hugh Denman Subject: fisnoge yet again Khaver Robboy provides a very nice summary of the state of the discussion so far, though one might wonder, whether it is really necessary for us to rehash the same topics so frequently. We risk boring our fellow Mendelyaner if we don't check the records before returning to subjects previously treated. One small amendment to Ron Robboy's remarks: It is not strictly speaking accurate so maintain that '[t]he Litvish speaker would characteristically pronounce the sounds /s/ and /sh/ in the same way, as /s/'. It is interesting that speakers of sabesdiker losn are perceived by Yiddish speakers from other areas not to pronounce all unvoiced sibilants as /s/ but to reverse the distribution of /sh/ and /s/. This makes it clear that in reality an intermediate sound between /sh/ and /s/ is being used, comparable to the Polish sound heard in words such as 'siano' or 'sroda' (with acute accent over the s). The IPA symbol for this sound is [c] with a small loop bottom right. The collapse of two sounds in a language frequently gives rise to the need for so-called 'disambiguators'. Cf. in Standard American English 'horse-riding' to avoid confusion with 'writing', where it is sufficient in British English to say 'riding' without fear of being misunderstood. Or in so-called Black English: 'writing pin' to avoid confusion with 'hair pin'. The loss of all (but nasal) final consonants in the course of the development of Mandarin Chinese led to a comparable need for disambiguators on a truly massive scale. shone toyve alemen Hugh Denman 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:46:19 -0400 (EDT) From: manaster@umich.edu Subject: language and dialect A partial dissent from Ellen Prince's recent posting re language and dialect [7.067]. I DO agree that it is good linguistics to use these terms (IF AT ALL) to mean, respectively, forms of speech where there is no mutual comprehensibility and ones where there is, and also that (just like with the parallel terms species and variety in biology), there are cases where the definition fails. Where I do not agree is this: many people who are perfectly good linguists use these terms more in accord with popular usage. In the case of Yiddish, Max Weinreich and Solomon Birnbaum were very emphatic on NOT using the term language the way Ellen and I use it, and hence on treating Yiddish as a language distinct from German even at the earliest times, i.e., when they were (in our terms) AT BEST dialects of one and the same language (which I like to call Old or Middle High Gerdish). And, although they were a bit old-fashioned even in their time, I find it hard to refuse to consider these two scholars to have been, at least part time, linguists. A. Manaster Ramer 4)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:28:14 -0400 From: Elisheva Schwartz Subject: Upside-down Yiddish While in no way excusing the recent gaffe in the YIVO fundraising letter (which I had nothing to do with, G-t zu danken!) Ron Robboy's suspicion is, apparently, correct. From what our fundraiser (who, by the way, is _FAR_ from in charge here!) says, the mailing house YIVO uses doesn't provide "final proofs," which would have included the infamous signature. (I'm sure that, in the future, whoever prints our mailings WILL provide such proofs!) At any rate, as embarassing (and funny) as it was, it is not an indication of the state of Yiddish at YIVO! (I sure wish I could write upside so well!) Elisheva Schwartz YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, New York, N.Y. 5)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:32:42 -0700 From: msafadi@ucla.edu (michaela safadi) Subject: a new book for a new year "Moln Di Amoln" - aza iz der nomen funem nayem bukh fun dem bavustn dikhter, Moshe Shkliar, vos iz dershinen in Yisroel (Farlag I.L. Peretz), mit der hilf fun Yidishn Cultur Club in Los Angeles. Dos bukh hot 258 zaytn un onhalt a gresere dertseylung in 12 kapitlen a.n. "Aleyn Tsvishn Shotns", vi oykh lider geshribene in farsheydene tsaytn. "Aleyn Tsvishn Shotns" iz a proze-debut funem dikhter Moshe Shkliar, velkher hot shoyn aroysgezetst in hebreyish, poylish, daytshish, rusish un english. Punkt vi zayne lider tseykhnt zikh oys zayn proze mit tifn lirizm, bildlekhkayt un introspektsie, di dertseylung "Aleyn Tsvishn Shotns" dekt oyf a veynik bakant vinkl fun yidishn sekulern lebn in farmilkhomedikn poyln, araynfirendik dem leyener in der atmosfer fun der yidisher shul, der batsiung tsvishn shiler un lerer un, firendik vayter biz di tragishe iberlebungen in varshever getto. Dos alts iz geshildert in a surreyalistisher form, aynhilt in likht un shotn. Moshe Shkliar iz der redaktor funem literarishn zhurnal "Heshbon" vos vert aroysgegebn durkhn Yidishn Cultur Club in Los Angeles un dershaynt shoin hekher 50 yor. Der prayz fun "Moln Di Amoln" iz $15 plus $2 post-optsol in land ($3 in oysland) fun dem shrayber: Moshe Shkliar, 469 North Orlando Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90048. Tsu ale Mendelyaner - a yor fun gezunt, glik un sholem. Miki Safadi 6)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:56:12 +0100 From: David Herskovic Subject: Fisnoge ishor yerokes This is the second time that the word 'fisnoge' has come up for discussion and I am surprised that on neither occasion has anyone mentioned the word 'galerete', sometimes abbreviated to 'gale', which is also jellied calves legs with lots of garlic. As this food is popular with gerer khsidim, who call it by the above name, I assume that it is a Polish dish and that the name is Polish too. While on the food issue, the UK Jewish cookery writer, Evelyn Rose, discussed recently in one of her columns the origin of the word 'chulent'. She claims it to be a makhloykes between Jewish food historians. Some believe it to be a corruption of a medieval French expression 'chauldt lente', pronounced 'sho lonte', which translates 'slow heat' and refers to the way chulent is cooked. Others however believe the word to be a corruption of Yiddish 'shul end' because that's when chulent is eaten. And then she had a question about another dish. 'The recipe is more or less the same - based on soaked matse or matse meal mixed with eggs, raisins and other good things. But how did it become Crimselich in Alsace, Gremshelish in Curacao (via Holland), Crimsell in Israel, Grimslechs in the oldest Jewish cookbook in the USA (published 1871) and chremslach in Britain. Can anyone help?' I was surprised by the question as the food she is describing has always been known to me as 'knaydlekh' while 'khremslekh' always meant fried cooked potatoes as opposed to 'latkes' which are fried raw potatoes. >From the midst of the whiff that this posting is bound to set off may I wish all friends here on mendele a ksive vakhasime toyve in a git gebentsht yor. David Herskovic 7)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 15:38:29 EDT From: peter_slomanson@franklin.com (Peter Slomanson) Subject: language and dialect Re Ellen Prince's posting in [7.067]: The problem with this view (that linguists do or should take absence of mutual intelligibility to be the criterion for determining that two language varieties are "languages" as opposed to "dialects") is the fact that the intelligibility of some related language variety often varies from speaker to speaker _within_ a speech community. If the intelligibility is individual rather than collective, this should throw up a red flag. The problem for the "mutual intelligibility criterion" (for lack of a better term) is how common these individual differences are. The differences may have to do with variations in individual (i.e. phonetic) sensitivity, individual language attitudes, and other external variables. This makes the mutual intelligibility criterion fairly problematic in my mind. A dialect for one speaker, and a different language for another? At that point, the distinction starts to become pointless. The morphosyntactic and phonological differences between language varieties are unambiguous (i.e. we can identify the rules/principles), whereas mutual intelligibility (or lack thereof) is too tied up with cultural/psychological/ performance phenomena to be useful to linguists. I agree with Paul Glasser that the "language or dialect" question is (or should be) beyond the scope of formal linguistic research. Naturally though, to say that two language varieties are "Yiddish" is not to say that they may not differ substantially, or that one is a "dialect of" the other. Peter Slomanson ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 7.070 Mendele on the Web: http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele http://sunsite.unc.edu/yiddish/mendele.html