Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 6.145 December 17, 1996 1) A Slavonic component? (Jota Piasecki) 2) Dictionaries (Joachim Neugroschel) 3) Zakh/zikh (Al Grand) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:00:02 +0100 From: jpi@it.lth.se Subject: A Slavonic component? In Mendele Vol. 6.142-(3) Zellig Bach wrote: In another post (1.138,3) he [Joachim Neugroschel - jp] wrote: "The component tongues of Yiddish -- German, Hebrew, Polish, etc." This statement, too, is partly misleading. The three main components of Yiddish are: German, Hebrew-Aramaic, and Slavic. Polish is part of the _general_ Slavic component (that includes Belorussian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian), and is _not_ a main component by itself, as it would seem from the .. passage. I am unable to see what is wrong with JN's phrase ("component _tongues_ of Yiddish -- German, Hebrew, Polish, etc.") or, in fact, how it would be contradicted by [ZB's]: "The three _main_ components of Yiddish are: German, Hebrew-Aramaic, and Slavic" (Slavonic - jp). Joachim Neugroschel writes about different component _languages_, and does not assert the languages cited by him, among them Polish, being the _main_ components. What he wrote seems quite obvious, Polish being among the components languages of Yiddish. There is no way to read into his words for Polish language to be one of the _main_ components. Zellig Bach asserts (after a source, it seems) that there are three _main_ components of Yiddish and that one of them is [a component called] Slavic [? must be Slavonic. Slavic people - but Slavonic tongues]. But there is no such thing as a Slavonic language in general - it is an abstraction over a group of languages, and this abstraction cannot have any influence over the non-Slavonic Yiddish. As well as it would be strange to say that one of the three main components of Yiddish is (not German, but...) Anglo-Saxon; whose _part_ only is German :=). As German language, and not the _general_ Anglo-Saxon, is a (the main :=) component of Yiddish, so the real languages from the Slavonic group, as Belorussian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian are _the_ linguistic components of (even though I would prefer call them influences in) Yiddish, and there is nothing to do about it. It is evident. So Zellig Bach's (or his source's) somewhat curious formula must have another meaning than just stating known facts; I gather it could be stressing the message that German and Hebrew-Arameic are the _true_ or important components of Yiddish and are not to be put on the level with any other languages as the Slavonic ones. But is this not obvious, too? I never heard anything else than Yiddish being - leaving aside the strong Hebrew-Arameic impact on it which I am not competent to precise - a language with structure, grammar and primary vocabulary all German, and with - massive, but only as _vocabulary_ loans go - borrowing from Polish, Russian, other Slavonic languages. I can be in error, but I belive no Slavonic syntax peculiarities were ever grafted on Yiddish. I would guess there were historical reasons for it - as when Yiddish began be spoken on Slavic lands, the language being already formed. What has happended since - and gone through centuries - was only borrowing freely from the vocabulary of the native population. A process similar to the present borrowing terms from English by every language on the globe. Such loans do not change the structure of a language; I do not think the linguists everewhere conclude that English became a component of all borrower-languages. So maybe this, for Yiddish both massive and secondary, role of Slavonic languages in it have been the reason in Zellig Bach' sentence for naming as a third 'main' 'component' of Yiddish the 'Slavic' one. But it seems linguistically clumsy and otherwise unnecessary. It would be fairer to state that there are _two_ main components of Yiddish, and let the relevant Slavonic languages be no components at all, but influences - namely, on Yiddish vocabulary. Then one can if needed to sort those languages on some spectrum (not so more of the strenght of the influence as of the number of influences), and try to count, say, if Polish or Russian had more influence(s :=). But it seems a vain endavour; both's influence had plausibly the same impact - mere loan of words. It is up to a future computer dictionary to count the number of words' of Polish/Russian extraction and to decide about the `role' of which. Until this is done, on the historical and demografical grounds I would not exclude a possibility of a living majority of Yiddish speakers with large parts of foreign vocabulary of Polish origin. So what? It is I would think a good Yiddish. And there are, I am said, Yiddish influences on Polish, too. Much en vogue in Poland of the 50's word 'fajny' is said to be such an influence. Any truth to it? Jota Piasecki 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:06:19 -0500 (EST) From: achim1@cris.com Subject: Dictionaries In regard to the dictionaries one needs for reading Yiddish, Hugh Denman was quite right in pointing out more useful lexicons. in my posting I had actually talked about the dictionaries I have at my side when reading M. Weinreich's History and--foolishly--I omitted the Groyser Verterbukh, which I use constantly. But I should really acquire a white russian and a ukrainian dictionary. In regard to Zellig Bach's opinion [6.142] that such dictionaries are necessary basically only for the professional translator, I'm afraid I can't agree. I dont translate most of the books I read; but while I can get along with a single multi-volume dictionary for either french, german, or italian, I certainly need a dozen dictionaries for reading Weinreich's History, and at least half a dozen for reading even a modern Yiddish novel--Harkavy and Weinreich are excellent but inadequate, and I have to consult my Hebrew, Polish and Russian dictionaries (and soon, under Hugh's inspiration my Ukrainian and Byelo-Russian) just for reading Yiddish books for fun (if you can call it fun: thumbing through a dozen different reference books just to understand a regional word for "chaff" or "bike" or whatever). I think we should encourage readers to use dictionaries constantly rather than limiting them to professionals. and yes, I use my OED or my Webster's all the time, I can't even read a current american novel without occasionally stumbling over an unfamiliar regionalism or technical term or new slang (not yet in any dictionary). and when I flip through a dictionary of 1970s slang, I can't remember half the words that are listed. Joachim Neugroschel 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:36:06 -0500 From: savoyid@aol.com Subject: Zakh/zikh: a plea for simplicity I asked two simple questions and received some convoluted responses that didn't respond to what I wanted to know but went merrily along into the semantic stratosphere thus going well beyond my (admittedly) not very important and modest inquiry. So I'll try again: I would simply like to know (1) if the use of the reflexive _zakh_ is as admissible in standard Yiddish as _zikh_ and (2) wouldn't the diphthong _oy_ with an umlaut over the "o" be pronounced exactly the same as _oy_ minus the umlaut? And if so, then what function does the umlaut serve in Olsvanger's use of it in such words as _royte_ , Moyshe_ etc.? Ikh bet aykh, alemen fun di universitetn, hot af mir a bisl rakhmones. Kh'bin dokh a poshete mentsh. Please give me a simple answer! Al Grand ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 6.145