Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 6.016 June 12, 1996 1) In response to "Shul Daze" (Khayem Bochner) 2) In response to "Shul Daze" (Louis Fridhandler) 3) Shver (Moishe Kijak) 4) Shver (Anno Siegel) 5) Michael Rozenberg, Yiddish singer (Renee Steinig) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 16:07:24 -0400 From: bochner@das.harvard.edu Subject: In response to "Shul Daze" In response to "Shul Daze" by Ruth Wisse, _New Republic_, May 27, 1996: I can readily sympathize with Ruth Wisse's frustration with reporters who hope that she will provide them with a glowing report on the state of Yiddish, full of cute quotes they can use in a superficial, feel-good article for the Sunday supplements. But I'm afraid I can't consider her essay a balanced appraisal either. Much of Prof. Wisse's essay is focused on extreme comparisons of no direct relevance to the contemporary situation. Her main point is that the immigrant generation had good reasons for placing its emphasis on English. Of course. This is Sociology 101, as Joshua Fishman pointed out in response to a stir Prof. Wisse created with similar remarks nearly ten years ago (_Oyfn Shvel_ number 265, January-March 1987). But what relevance, other than historical, does this have for generations raised and educated in English? Even less convincing is Prof. Wisse's attempt to raise the specter of the separatist movement in Quebec. Does she really think there's a danger that Brooklyn will secede from the union? These comparisons seem to be an attempt to frame the discussion around an implicit assumption that embracing Yiddish requires rejecting English. That is, Prof. Wisse seems to want to convince us that there are only two possibilities for the modern Jewish community: complete linguistic assimilation, leaving Yiddish for academic specialists; or political separatism a la Quebec. The only third alternative she recognizes is the cultural isolationism of the Hasidic community. But Prof. Wisse does not actually present arguments that alternatives are not possible; she simply presumes it. Joshua Fishman asks, in the article mentioned above: "Vos hot bikhlal dos oyfhitn di eygene shprakh un kultur tsu ton mit ayngelebtkeyt in amerike un gut-bruderishkeyt mit amerike un aroyfarbetn zikh in amerike? Tsi zenen den tsveyshprakhikeyt un tsvey-kulturishkeyt take ummeglekhe, nit-vikhtike tsi ummoralishe aspiratsyes?" (_Oyfn Shvel_, no. 265, page 3) 'What does preserving one's own language and culture have to do with being at home in America, affection for America, becoming successful in America? Are bilingualism and biculturalism impossible, unimportant or immoral aspirations?' Prof. Wisse takes it for granted that the answer is yes; Prof. Fishman, a prominent figure in sociolinguistics, does not. Touching briefly on the current situation, Prof. Wisse points out that the primary mission of the National Yiddish Book Center is to save books that would otherwise be consigned to the trash, and she asks rhetorically if this can be considered a revival. In and of itself, of course not. But it may well be part of a revolution in popular attitudes. To take a serious look at the significance of the Book Center, we have to take into consideration the change it represents. Twenty years ago those books were being sent to the incinerator. Worse yet, they were being sent with the tacit understanding, by all concerned, that there was no point in saving them because no one could possibly be interested in them. The Book Center entered the scene too late for many items of physical culture, but at the right time to catch the wave of change that made its success possible. Its enormous success is paralleled by the success of Klezmer music, and by the upswing in popular events focused on Yiddish whose target audience is _not_ exclusively elderly. I would attempt to summarize the on-going change in attitude as follows: there is a growing appreciation in the Jewish community of the fact that our immigrant ancestors were not all ignorant clods; that behaving in a civilized manner does not require us to ignore their culture or to ridicule it; and that even as well- educated English speakers thoroughly immersed in modern American (or Canadian, etc.) culture we can enrich our lives by incorporating elements of their culture. How much change has there actually been? After all, the current upsurge is far from a mass movement. Furthermore, in some circles the 'new' attitudes are nothing new. By no means do I intend to deny the major difficulties Yiddish still faces outside of the Hasidic community. Nevertheless, my perception is that the change in attitude in Jewish community over the last ten or fifteen years has been quite significant. Certainly this is something that any appraisal of the current state of Yiddish in America needs to take into consideration. Prof. Wisse's essay seeks to reinforce the traditional attitude that Yiddish is something the general public is better off without. I think I see signs that this traditional attitude may be on its way to becoming old-fashioned. In any case, it is fortunate that Prof. Wisse's stance does not keep her from serving as a resource to those who do not see speaking Yiddish as a threat to their standing as English speakers. Khayem Bochner 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:36:32 -0400 From: lfridhan@aol.com Subject: In response to "Shul Daze" May I add my two cents worth of comment about a one-cent article? Ruth Wisse's title "Shul Daze" is a feeble pun heading a feeble article which exudes an authoritarian air. By that I mean she speaks as though ex cathedra. That is revealed in her statement that reference to her academic post reminds her that she is not being paid to lie. Neither am I. So what? That clothes no one in a cloak of infallibility. She does advance important facts. Then she blithely ignores other relevant facts (that Yiddish is not, in fact, dead) to cover the emptiness of her thesis. The question tackled doesn't exist. It matters not whether she believes that there can be a Yiddish revival or renaissance (whatever those terms mean). After all, her power to predict the future is equal to mine: absolute zero. It does matter, however, that she dismisses in an offhand sentence the towering achievements of the National Yiddish Book Center as though it doesn't matter that so many great Yiddish books were rescued from trash. I am grateful to have a number of them, and she probably does, too. As a matter of fact, she cites trashing Yiddish books as evidence of linguistic decline (but does it with a snide, gratuitously sarcastic tone). Further, her tone seems to trash the value of Yiddish work today. Perhaps she follows the adage: if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. I was irritated, not by her facts, but the pathetic air of unwarranted certainty. Nu, khevre, tsurik tsu der arbet! Lomir nit faln arop bay zikh. Azoyne gedanken shoklt men aroys, bashaynperlekh, funem arbl. Nishkoshe. S'iz do vos tsu ton. Louis Fridhandler Walnut Creek, CA 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:04:57 ARG From: kijak@einstein.com.ar Subject: Vegn shver un shver der khaver Bob Werman frgt zikh tzi es iz faran a kroivishaft tzishn di verter "shver" (fother in law) un "shver"(nisht laikht). Ikh bin nisht kain meivn in etimologie. vos ikh vil io dermonen iz der fakt az tzvishn di tzvei verter zenen oisgevaksn fil vertlekh. ikh vil bloiz dermonen ein vertl: aez der shver iz a laikhter, zenen di laikhter shver". vi es farshteit zikh, vert dos gezogt ven a shver vos git matones mit an hofene hant (di laikhter, geveindlekh fun zilber, zenen shvere). oib emitzn zenen bakant nokh azelkhe vertlekh, volt ikh zei gevolt leienen. zait ale gezunt un fargest nisht main naiem adres. moishe kijak 4)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:20:26 +0200 From: anno4000@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de Subject: Shver "Shver" (father-in-law) and "shver" (heavy, difficult) are unrelated. The former comes from the now defunct German "Schwdher" (the umlaut may not look right on all screens) which denoted a number of in-law relations, father-in-law among them. The latter goes back to "schwer", which means the same in Yiddish and German. Puns that draw on the homonymy are just that. Anno Siegel Berlin 5)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:40:01 -0400 (EDT) From: rsteinig@suffolk.lib.ny.us Subject: Michael Rozenberg, Yiddish singer I am seeking information on Michael Rozenberg, a Yiddish singer and actor born c. 1900. One of his recordings was the song "Shepsl Kanarik." Thanks. Renee Steinig ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 6.016 Mendele has 2 rules: 1. Provide a meaningful Subject: line 2. Sign your article (full name please) Send articles to: mendele@yalevm.cis.yale.edu Send change-of-status messages to: listserv@yalevm.cis.yale.edu a. For a temporary stop: set mendele nomail b. To resume delivery: set mendele mail c. To subscribe: sub mendele first_name last_name d. To unsubscribe kholile: unsub mendele Other business: nmiller@mail.trincoll.edu ****Getting back issues**** 1. Anonymous ftp archives are available. ftp ftp.mendele.trincoll.edu in the directory pub/mendele/files A table of contents is also available, along with weekly updates. 2. Mendele archives can also be reached as follows: via WWW: http://sunsite.unc.edu/yiddish/mewais.html via gopher: gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/languages/yiddish/mendele via ftp: ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/languages/yiddish/mendele