Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 3.113 September 29, 1993 1) Pinkes (Ellen Prince) 2) The Yiddish Dictionary; plural of "tales"; yarmlke (Mikhl Herzog) 3) Vegn M. Shtaynlauf un zayn frage vegn loshn (Elyet Hersh Gertl) 4) Plural of "talis"; "Pinchas" (Amitai Halevi) 5) Hot...geven & maynse (Pe'rets Mett) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Sep 28 23:34:24 1993 From: "Ellen F. Prince" Subject: pinkes to dvora biasca, re _pinkes_ i think the word in the book is _pinkes_ (pe-yod-nun-kof-samekh), which means 'register'. _pinkhes_ is a man's name, so far as i know unrelated to _pinkes_. ellen prince 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Sep 29 00:01:47 1993 From: ZOGUR@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Subject: The Yiddish Dictionary; Plural of "tales"; yarmlke 1. Paul Ritterband speaks of the Yiddish dictionary project as having be _abandoned_. It was, rather, halted in its tracks, and it might be better to spe of it as _dormant_, although if it`s not revived in some fashion reasonably soon, this will be a distinction without a difference. Of late, there has a stir of interest in the possible renewal of the project. Actually, FOUR volumes have been published, through _aleph_. 2. Robert Goldberg ask if modern Hebrew changed the plural of _talis_ for some reason. Not likely. The Yiddish plural _taleysim_ is probably a _Hebreizati of an early regular Yiddish n/plural _tAlesn_. Yiddish _shabOsim_ from _shAbesn_ (cf. Heb. shabatot) is a similar case in point. Parallel instances occur when German origin n/plurals are Hebreized> poyerim, naronim, doktoyrim are probab~ ly all reinterpretations of poyern, narn, doktern. 3. Dan Slobin is right, of course. Turkish phonology would require _yagmurlUk_ not _yagmurlAk_. I copied it incorrectly from my own 1964 discussion of the subject. I don`t know now what my source was then, but I do think that I`ve confirmed the existence of a Turkish word of similar meaning with a Rumanian// born native speaker of Turkish. I`ll pursue the question. I know nothing about the regional origins of the word in Yiddish but it`s distribution (in the process of being plotted) appears to be largely on Eastern Slavic territory, as distinct from Poland where _kapl_ and _kapele_ prevail. The Yiddish Atlas materials do not specify Turkish elements as such. They do specify both Rumanian and Ukrainian ones in Yiddish, among which, I suspect, are a number of words of ultimately Turkish origin (e.g., _patlezhanes&baklezhan in their various `egg/plant` and `tomato` meanings < _prakes_, etc.). The person who probably knows a good deal on the subject is the much maligned Paul Wexler. Mikhl Herzog 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Sep 29 02:08:00 1993 From: EGERTEL@FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Vegn M. Shtaynlauf un zayn frage vegn loshn Kh'ken nisht redn far srov Mendelnikes nor kh'frey zikh mit Reb Maykl Shtaynlaufs flisikn yidish! Loyt mayn meynung, aderabe un gezunterheyt zolt ir shraybn af mame-loshn. Borekh habe! A gmar khisme toyve aykh ale. Elyet Hersh Gertl 4)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Sep 29 04:49:14 1993 From: AMITAI HALEVI Subject: Plural of "talis"; "Pinchas" Robert N. Goldberg writes: >My high holiday makhsor indicates in its introduction that the >plural of "talis" is different in Hebrew than in Yiddish. In >Yiddish it is "taleysim" while in modern Hebrew it is "talitot". >How did this difference arise? I know there are germanic plurals Hebrew-based plural ending? Could it be that modern Hebrew changed >the plural for some reason? According to Even-Shoshan, "talis" ("talit" in the Sephardic pronunciation) is a feminine noun of Talmudic origin, meaning a toga-like garment, without any specific religious function. Its plural form was usually "taliot" or "talitot", but the masculine-sounding variant "talitim" also appears occasionally. The latter is no-doubt where the Yiddish form comes from. The Rabbis of that period were pretty lax about grammar - gender in particular, whereas modern Hebrew retains the standard feminine plural form, "taliot" (or "talios"). 2) BIASCA DEBRA HALPERIN writes: >Can anyone tell me what "Pinchas" means in Yiddish? (Perhaps the >nayer mitglider vos heys Pinchas. . .) >A friend recently showed me a booklet she had obtained through >inter-library loan which was a "memory book" for a town in the >Ukraine called (I believe) "Kovel" or something like that. It had >photos and information about the people who had lived there, members of the Kahile (maybe)and biographical information, although I didn't >have time to read it then. It was rather lengthy and all in >Yiddish. My friend said this was called a "Pinchas" and that word >was in the title. In modern Hebrew, "pinkas" - spelled with a "kof" (it should be "qof" to avoid the temptation to pronounce it with a gutteral "ch") - simply means "notebook" or "ledger". According to Even-Shoshan, it original had this general sense in the Talmud, but in medieval times it took on the more specific meaning of "pinkas ha'kehilah", or "community record", as noted above. Amitai Halevi 5)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Sep 29 09:27:56 1993 From: P.Mett@open.ac.uk (Percy Mett) Subject: Hot...geven & maynse Shleyme Axelrod shraybt (Mendele 3.110) > >Some Yiddish verbs are made up of a Hebrew verb + the appropriate >tense of "zayn". But the past-tense auxiliary is sometimes "hobn" >and sometimes "zayn". For example, Maurice Samuel, on a single page >(139) in _In Praise of Yiddish_ cites the following: > >he exaggerates = er iz megazem >he exaggerated = er *hot* megazem geven > >but > >he decrees = er iz goyzer >he decreed = er *iz* goyzer geven > >he influences = er iz mashpie >he influenced = er *iz* mashpie geven. > >Is there a rule governing the choice of the past-tense auxiliary in >these situations, or does one have to learn which to use verb by >verb? I find the *iz* construction strange. I would not say "er *iz* goyzer geven" but "er *hot* goyzer geven" and likewise for =mashpie=. To my way of thinking, the past form of =iz ...= is quite naturally = ...geven=. This past form then takes *hobn* as auxiliary in common with the majority of verbs. Harold L. Orbach shraybt: > >Adding to others who report the use of 'manses' in their families, >mine came from Lodz and Tomashef in Poland and my recollection is >that all my relatives said what I always have said myself: "manses" >-- though perhaps they were saying something like "maynses" >[meinses]? Certainly there was an 'n' sound there. > A much more common example of nasalization arising from Hebrew ayin is =yankl= (I guess this should be transcribed =yaynkl= as in fact some (all?) litvaks pronounce it.) But are there really no others? a gut yontef pe'rets mett ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 3.113