Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 1 no. 163 February 4, 1992 1) Various (Yude-Leyb Proger) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 92 11:11:53 IST From: RHLE302@HAIFAUVM.BITNET Subject: Mendele vol. 1. 160 to Ellen Prince: Thank you for pointing out the normalcy of variation. I had my sights on the transcription issue and may have gone overboard. I am pleased that your evidence confirms the authenticity of the singer's delivery, which I was not questioning. You are absolutely right that the term _contamination_ is value-loaded and inappropriate. But I am also grateful to you for confirming that it makes sense to use either SYR or phonetic transcription, since the actual realization of any text cannot be represented by the supposedly dialectal transcription we get in the Vidman song brochure. A considerable part of the pay-off of participating in _Mendele_ -- in addition to the fun -- is the virtually instantaneous corrections we get for our feebler or unsubstantiated notions. I appreciate this. to Meylekh: Re: vol.1, no. 160 Dear Meylekh: Of course I was being inconsistant. I should have written "the Weinreichs and Mordkhe Schechter" (I think that is how he spells his name in English) or "di Vaynraykhs un Mortkhe Shekhter". I normally give the Yiddish name in SYR followed by the common form in brackets. This is not the only possibility, but some formula is necessary in the making of bibliographies, which are used by all kinds of people for all sorts of purposes. (It is even conceivable that Moyshe-Nosn might consult a bibliography and be pleased that there is some system behind it.) In SYR Shekhter would have to spell his name _Mortkhe_, because the Hebrew-Aramaic component of Yiddish is transcribed phonemically, i.e. ignoring the form (which includes a daled) in the interest of the sound (best represented by a t). re: general comment on _Mendele_ and LP I am always interested in the reactions of our professional linguists -- of which fraternity I am not a member -- to my comments on Yiddish. I think of myself as a student of language and literature rather than as a linguist. My work in Yiddish literature and bibliography has forced me to learn something about Yiddish linguistics, including dialectology (especially with regard to problems of prosody) -- about which I have much to learn. I eagerly await publication of _The Linguistic and Cultural Atlas_, which will help us all be smart about Yiddish dialects. My work in Yiddish bibliography, especially, has forced me to learn how to romanize Yiddish in a sane, consistant manner. I have even wandered into the recondite field of onomastics -- where the linguists are truly liable to massacre me, into the history of Eastern European Jewry, of the Jewish labor movement and numerous other fields. For me, a self-confessed generalist (interdisciplinarist?) _Mendele_ is a learning tool. I am especially grateful to Mikhl Herzog -- who is a card-carrying Yiddish linguist -- for his running comments on many of our mistakes. But we should not be afraid to betray our ignorance if it leads to its removal. Too, we will all learn to romanize Yiddish correctly if we keep practicing. to Mikhl Herzog: On three different occasions I made the mistake of calling Naomi Shifra. This must be because I know a Shifra Ziv in J-m -- who, incidentally, works on Yiddish. Thank you for the Geniza comment -- I was not being sufficiently _pinktlekh_. The quadruple bypass was sent home after six days, which I think must be something of a record -- but of course graduates of Hashomer Hatsoir are a remarkable breed in general (as opposed to, say, graduates of certain other movements). I am a little late in sending in my talk subject for the J-m meeting, but I imagine they will accept my suggestion. In any event I will be on hand to listen to others and I would be very happy indeed to see the legendary vol. 1. yours, lp ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol 1.163