Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 4.224 December 8, 1994 1) A Reply to my Critics (Zellig Bach) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 10:42:14 -0500 From: zellig@aol.com Subject: Rejoinder: A Reply to my Critics I waited several weeks until all reactions to my Review Proposal were published in Mendele so that I could write my rejoinder all at once. (May I now have the floor, please, and the microphone? Thanks!) I should probably have preceded my communication with the following statement: . . . . . . . . . . . . . __________________________________ Warning: Impatient and injudicious reading may lead to miscomprehension and to a jumping to illogical and unwarranted conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __________________________________ 1. No Censorship was Proposed or Implied As co-editor of the daily Yiddish newspaper _Folksblat_ in Kovne (Lithuania), in the early and middle 1930's, I learned first hand the meaning of censorship. We, as well as other-language newspapers, were required by the censors, often minutes before going to press, to delete entire sections -- editorials, opinion pieces, feuilletons -- deemed by them critical of the regime. During one editorial conference, I remember, the chief editor jocularly suggested to print the paper with all the white spaces where the censors did their excisions, since this, in and of itself, would constitute a loud and powerful protest against the government's policies. (One newspaper, indeed, did exactly that, possibly as a dare, but the authorities promptly confiscated the entire issue.) So don't talk to me about censorship! Attributing to me the notion of trying to introduce some kind of censorship in Mendele is blatantly absurd, if not bizarre. It misses me by a mile, and then some! And, of course, there was never even a suggestion of gate-keepers! We have, got tsu danken, Noyekhn, and his gentle and generous gate-keepership is good enough for me! To have gate-keepers at the Mendele doors, like burly keepers at the entrance of disco night clubs to decide who should enter and who left out, is so far from my thinking that I simply lack the words to characterize such nonsense. 2. Proposal Solely Based on Freedom of Choice If my critics would have read my proposal not in haste, and were not so ready to react reflexively, they might have seen the voluntary character of the proposal. In my posting I clearly stated: "Perhaps Mendele itself should make such help available. Perhaps the Mendele moderator should ask _permission_ (emphasis added) to have [Yiddish] texts put into acceptable shape." Note the gently twice-stated "perhaps," and that permission to change would have been sought, NOT imposed. In my follow-up note it is even more explicit: "The author of a communication who _wishes_ (emphasis added) his or her Yiddish text reviewed prior to publication starts the message with a double R, for Review Requested.... This will flag the author's wish and _permission_ (emphasis added again) to proceed in such a fashion." It was further stated that the flag [RR] would promptly be deleted for the sake of confidentiality. 3. My Position: Always INclusionary Were my critics endowed with a modicum of recall, they might have remembered what I wrote not so long ago in Mendele in my essay on "Romanization and Beyond: Oyb Nit Nokh Hekher" (4.141) where I stated my steadfast position for an INclusionary policy. I wrote (p. 3) : "It was never, never my intention to exclude anyone... My purpose was by all means to strengthen Mendele and in no way to alienate anyone from our mishpokhe. It was and is my wish and hope to enlarge Mendele, not, khas vekholile, to shrink it." And again (p. 4, there): "Mendele's open door policy shall and will continue. All are welcome!" And in my recent proposal I practically restated the same position: "Introductions by new members are extremely important, and should by all means be welcomed and embraced." I continue to hold firmly and unenqivocally to the same beliefs, and it is, therefore, strange to find myself accused of somehow plotting an exclusionary attitude with regards to Mendele. As we say during the seyder ceremony, "kol dikhfin" -- all those hungry for a Yiddish word, please join our festive gatherings. 4. No Reason To Fear Homogenization In case somebody feared that my proposal might lead to a one-dimensional homogenization of the spelling and style in Mendele, or -- to coin a term -- a YIVO'ization of our postings, this, too, was totally unfounded. As I stated on a previous occasion, Mendele is no enemy to dialects. And although I speak an ekhtn litvishn Yiddish , I gave several examples of another dialect (A git harts, a sheyner punem). I further stated that dialects "add music and color to our language." The very fact that our highly esteemed colleague Dr. Mikhl Herzog, revered by many for his colossal work as the principal "cartographer" of the map of Yiddish dialects, promptly and voluntarily joined the proposed "minyen," was an assurance that the colorfulness of expressions, dialectal or otherwise, would be preserved. 5. The Other Meaning of Minyen I am a secular Jew in all respects, and it occurred to me that the choice of the term "minyen" in my proposal may have carried, unconsciously, meanings other than just the numerical number of ten and certainly not the exlusionary aspects of male only participants. Joining a minyen in this new, secular sense means to me that it has a special purpose. It is like joining a learning khavruse that has a focused and well defined function. In this particular case it would be a _mitsve_, a good deed, something helpful, something right for Yiddish. Many Mendele members express in their Introductions a wish to learn more about Yiddish, indeed to _learn_ Yiddish, and I am positive that they would find proper spelling and correct syntactical sentences quite beneficial. And I firmly believe that a subscriber daring enough, so to speak, to "flag" his posting with a double [RR], for Review Requested, would be happy to see the changes, and in the process find it helpful. 6. Two Opposite Yardsticks I read recently the following curious item: The National Odd Shoe Exchange has 19,000 members on its E-Mail list and plays matchmaker to Americans who wear different sized shoes. Say your left foot is size six and your right a size eight. The Exchange combs its database for potential shoemates and provides a list of phone numbers, so that the parties can coordinate their purchases. It occurred to me that my critics "wear" two different yardsticks: One for themselves when they write, for instance, a faultless English. And a totally different yardsick of _laissez-faire_ when it comes to Yiddish, an attitude of "hefker petrishke," of "anything goes," overlooking crippled words and mangled sentences, a blatant insult to the language they profess to love. 7. Analysis of Some Other Criticisms One critic gives me the unsolicited advice to "skip" those messages written in "attempted" Yiddish. Sorry, no go! I'm a habitual reader (at breakfast I even lurk unto the backs of cereal boxes. (Interesting reading matter: the percentages of RDA, the U.S. Required Daily Allowances of vitamins.). Besides, the moment you start reading a communication and encounter that the Yiddish is sorrowfully limping, it's too late. Not for me an attitude of "benign neglect," and certainly not one of cool detachment! Another critic states: "The purpose of language should be communication, not gate-keeping." But these are totally two different things! My position about the non-proposed gate-keeping was already stated above. And there is no quarrel whatsoever what the purpose of language is. No dispute here. But what is one to do when this very purpose is miscarried, when a statement made, and then _published_ in a bruised and tsekalyetshetn (mutilated) Yiddish to the point where meaning is lost and needs, in turn, to be translated into a clear Yiddish to serve the intended purpose? Another criticism: "Just as we (hopefully) do not correct our friends' grammar and pronunciation in the course of conversation, we should not impose ourselves as teachers in the course of an electronically transmitted written conversation." I beg your pardon! An E-mail mesage that is being published and disseminated to hundreds and hundreds of subscribers is not a one-to-one, person-to-person private conversation, and it therefore behooves the sender to write it in a generally accepted and correct manner, or-- if and when necessary -- to tag it with an [RR] for permission to review the Yiddish. 8. Positive Reactions by Cool-Headed Readers. I received a number of E-mail messages from Mendelyaners, taking issue with my critics, and supporting wholeheartedly my review proposal. David Gasser sent me a lengthy, interesting essay of his perception of Yiddish, and I quote here, with permission, one passage germane to this rejoinder: "I find it ironic that your comments have drawn such ire from people comparing your efforts to Czarist edicts. Are they not demonstrating the same degree of intolerance that they accuse you of?" My sincerest thanks to all those who wrote me privately but most especially to Arn Abramson, Louis Fridhandler, Miriam Halkin, and Yude Rozof who expressed in Mendele their opinions about the review proposal, seeing clearly its intent, spirit of good will, and -- yes -- merit for learners, the overall purpose being the love of and the defense of Yiddish. Miriam Halkin, in her two postings, restated my points in clear, unambiguous, definitive terms. She wrote: "...As I understood it, this would be a service available to those who want it and not one imposed on those who don't.... Zellig Bach's kind offer would ensure the reliability of Mendele as a vehicle for learning.... It is just gross errors of grammar and syntax that I'd like [to see] eliminated, if possible, and I think that's what [his] proposal aimed to do, no more" (4.204,3 and 4.209,1). 9. Volunteer Reviewers We have now four members who volunteered to do some review work: Mikhl Herzog, mentioned above, Dvosye Bilik, Louis Fridhandler, and myself. These volunteers would serve at Noyekh's pleasure who will, at his discretion, distribute postings flagged with an [RR]. Dr. Jeff Zucker, in his recent Introduction (4.211,1), asked for help with his Yiddish exercises from U. Weinreich's _College Yiddish_. As a faithful servant of Yiddish, I promptly E-mailed him my offer of help. Zellig Bach ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 4.224 Mendele has 2 rules: 1. Provide a meaningful Subject: line 2. Sign your article (full name please) A Table of Contents is now available via anonymous ftp, along with weekly updates. Anonymous ftp archives available on: ftp.mendele.trincoll.edu in the directory pub/mendele/files Archives available via gopher on: gopher.cic.net Send articles to: mendele@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu Send change-of-status messages to: listserv@yalevm.ycc.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