Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 3.162 December 10, 1993 1) Af, uf, oyf (Mikhl Herzog) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri Dec 10 09:09:59 1993 From: ZOGUR@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Subject: Af, uf, oyf, etc. Time to talk about the word or words spelled OYF. Again a word of caution. My keyboard prevents me from using a number of diacritics which would make reading easier, question marks, etc. Please bear with me. To account for the, Litvish, i.e. Lithuanian//Belorussian situation which distinguishes two functions for the form or forms in question, we are compelled to consider the possibility of two historically different etyma. The Soviet spelling system distinguishes ALEF FEY, the preposition in AFN TISH from the verb complement ALEF, VOV, YUD, FEY in UFSHTEYN, the so called separable prefix of German grammar. For now, I will avoid the complication which UFRUFN introduces. In the Northern Ukraine, Volhynia, more or less, the two functions are also distinguished as AFN TISH but IFSHTEYN and, perhaps, a more southerly neighbor, OFN TISH and IFSHTEYN. neighbor. IF is a very specific regional anomaly to which I will return. It would complica the issue to deal with it now except to say that its form, together with the persistence of the differentiation, point to the essentially Litvish origin of t of its distribution. More later. In ALL other areas, the two functions are served by identical forms. In Alsace, UF. In Kurland, AUF. In Hungary and the Carpathians, OUF. In a narrow area between Poland and Lithuania, OYF. In Poland and the Southern Ukraine, OF. NOTE WELL that this OF is NOT the same as the OF which is paired with IF more to the Ukrainian North. Now to the history. We must have recourse to the facts of German. Modern German, in which both functions are served by the single form AUF does not provide an answer. As for a possible historical distinction in function it is not clear whether medieval German provides an answer either. BUT, medieval German DOES provide alternate forms which may have been regionally differentiated. My pocket Lexer lists OUF and UF, the latter with a length mark. It might be instructive to look first at the general development of Yiddish word that are cognate with these Medieval German vowels. 1. MG OU corresponds to the vowel in Standard Yiddish LOYFN, KOYFN, OYG, BOYM, hence, possibly OYF. However, these are words with Litvish variants LEYFN, KEYFN, EYG, but NOT EYF, and Western Yiddish LAAFN, KAAFN, AAG. 2. MG long U corresponds to the vowel in Standard Yiddish HOYZ, MOYZ, BOYKH, hence OYF as well. BOTH groups can yield a legitimate OYF variant although, in the absence of Litvi EYF, OYF cannot be traced to group 1. It is evident, though, that OYF, where it does occur in the language is, historically justified, however much the Standard spelling obscures the regional complexities. In fact, group 2 can account for ALL the Yiddish variants, EXCEPT where the two functions are formally differentiated. I return to these now. Consider Lithuanian//Belorussian AFN TISH but UFSHTEYN. UFSHTEYN is group 2, along with (largely Belorussian) HUYZ, MUYZ, BUYKH. AF is either a rare Westernism (from MG OU) , along with say LAFER, i.e. LOYFER, the bishop in chess, or a derivative of neighboring Kurlandish AUF, by means of the neutralization of the monophthong//diphthong distinction before the labial F, parallel to the similar development before the labial M in such wo as Lithuanian//Belorussian KAM, RAMEN, OPSHAMEN (elsehere OY, OU, O). Not so simple, right. Anyway, to the South of AFN TISH, UFSHTEYN, we find AFN TISH, IFSHTEYN in an area in which the vowel in the verb complement UF had already merged with historical U in RUFN, KUMEN, etc. Hence, Litvish UFRUF and in Volhynia, IFRIF. I doubt very much that there is a form UFRIF, although I stand ready to be corrected. This leaves us with OFN TISH and IFSHTEYN further South ans, still further SOUTH, OFN TISH and OFSHTEYN. The latter is easily derived from the MG OU form, as I think Ive shown. Of the former pair, IFSHTEYN needs no further comment. OFN TISH, however, does. In this area, it is derived from its northern neighbor AFN TISH by the same change that yields TOTE, MOME, HONT, KOLT VOSER and, in this area BOBE, NOT BUBE as in Poland, more clues to the relative chronology of change, not only among different vowel groups but also among different words in the same group. It will occur to some of you that I have not addressed all the issues involved. I have not considered UF in Alsace, but I want to see if I can find more Western Yiddish material before I try. I have not addressed the discrepancy betwee OF and OFN but HUZ, MUZ, BUKH in the Southern Ukraine. This may have to be dealt with in terms of individual word history. I intend to return to the quest once I have fuller and more precise maps in hand. These maps are scheduled for Volume V of the Atlas, az me vet derlebn. I am still working on Volume III which takes me abroad for ten days this afternoon. I look forward to finding you comments when I return on December 20th. Volume II, by the way, is in press and should see the light of day in the Spring. A gut yontef to all of you. Mikhl Herzog. ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 3.162 Mendele has 2 rules: 1. Provide a Subject: line. 2. Sign your article. Send submissions/responses to: mendele@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu Other business: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu Anonymous ftp archives available on: ftp.mendele.trincoll.edu in the directory pub/mendele/files