Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 4.264 January 6, 1995 1) Splitting the list (Ted Steiberg) 2) Splitting the list (Dovid Braun) 3) Splitting the list (Kathryn Hellerstein) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 9:49 pm EST From: steinberg@fredonia.edu> Subject: Splitting the list I would like to go on record against splitting the list. If there's something I don't want to read, I don't read it; but generally I learn at least a little bit even from the densest linguistic argument. But what I really want to say is in response to Daniella HarPaz's comment about rudeness on the list. It seems to be the case that critical comments on e-mail lists are generally taken by readers to be more negative and rude than their authors intend. (Please don't ask me for the source of this information 'cause I can't find it.) There is just something about email that makes criticism seem harsher than it is. Consequently, it's important to be judicious when making criticisms, and it's equally important not to be too sensitive when reading them. Finally, for those of us who live in small towns or far from places where Yiddish is loved, Mendele is a wonderful community. Ted Steinberg 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 1995 22:25:56 EST From: dovid@mit.edu Subject: Splitting the list A few quick thoughts: No matter how you slice it, there _is_ an anti-linguist sentiment on Mendele; but that's not new to linguists. Language is a thing we just _know_, and therefore few people in the world think about it seriously (how much time, for instance, have you spent thinking about what makes you right- handed or left-handed? A few people spend lifetimes on things like this, but the rest of us take them for granted). All the more so when there is technical discussion of a language which receives relatively little technical discussion (outside a few postings on Mendele and an infrequent book or article). You can't deny this sentiment, either. It is evidenced by the fact that quite a number of people involved in the recent discussion of Mendele have referred to *linguistics* as the "offending" topic, as if there were more than a half dozen linguists who actually participate in Mendele regularly; and as if *linguistics* were actually discussed in Mendele with any regularity. Here and there a word or a pronunciation or an etymology is discussed. Rarely a linguistic analysis or technical matter, though. When a person asks what _fonfen_ means and a disagreement ensues as to whether it means 'muttering into one's beard' or 'speaking through one's nose', this is not linguistics. It is unclear to many what linguistics actually is. It's too great a task for me to explain it. But know ye, at least, what it _isn't_. Since Mendele is the bulletin for "Yiddish Language and Culture" as its heading indicates, people discuss pieces of the language and once in a while a linguistic issue comes up and (usually a subset of the) half dozen linguists talk -- to each other -- about it. And I think it can be said that we're very grateful to have the opportunity to do this, albeit infrequently, so that we don't have to cc a copy to a colleague who might not be interested in the topic; so that our discussion is archived; so that our discussion may be read by non-linguists who have a thirst and respect for some technical knowledge; so that we can show (albeit modestly) that some work on Yiddish linguistics is being done. Anyone interested in Yiddish even in the remotest way can benefit from at least one, if not a combination, of these facts. An individual might not understand what "restrictive relative clause" means, but should be happy that Yiddish restrictive relative clauses either have been or in principle may be discussed on Mendele. That means we, in the broadest sense, have discovered something about the world and about Yiddish specifically. And a discovery about Yiddish should presumably please every Mendelyaner, whether or not s/he understands it. Halevay -- would that a professional (Yiddish) folklorist would pipe up on this network, or a historian or a literary scholar/theorist or a sociologist or a musicologist -- with material that s/he would normally discuss in a serious forum with his/her colleagues -- or with lay people. In actual fact, there are such people on Mendele who actively participate or who lurk, but most of them will not discuss their fields probably because they think the discourse would be _too technical_ for the presumed audience. To repeat: since this is a bulletin whose common denominator is a *language*, the discussion of *words* seems to take a front seat. This, however, is _not_ *linguistic* discourse. The tension that exists between the academic and the lay world, the tension that exists between the literary theorist and the literary historian, the tension that exists between the generative linguist and the traditional linguist (to give an intra-field example), the tension that exists between the "litvak" and the "galitsyaner" should be released by the depression of the delete or scroll key. Patty Becker, Daniella HarPaz and others do the correct thing by exercising this option. Please keep technical and non-technical discussion coming, and please keep it respectful. Since so many things are potentially interesting to so many of us, let us all remain under one roof. And let _nobody_ be dissuaded from posting a Yiddish-related entry of interest to him/her because s/he thinks it's potentially boring to some others. Dovid Braun 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 03:16:18 -0500 (EST) From: khellers@sas.upenn.edu Subject: The importance of cross-fertilization Dear Friends, To join the discussion on splitting the list, I'd like to add my two cents -- I find the discussions about transliteration and about details of language very interesting and even helpful, even though I am a literature person and not a linguist. Recently, for example, an editor of a journal wanted to retransliterate the Yiddish passages I quoted in an article according to that editor's sense of what the journal's readers would recognize as Yiddish -- Chutzpah for khutspe, for instance, Shabbos instead of shabes, tchinnes instead of tkhines... I made an impassioned protest for the standardized system system of transliteration that appears in Weinreich's dictionary (which we usually call the YIVO system) -- and I used some of the eloquent arguments that have appeared in this list. Although I'm still not sure what the final results of this discussion are (in terms of my article -- I have yet to see the page proofs), I am hopeful that the YIddish in the article will appear in transliteration that is consistent and systematic -- giving the Yiddish text the same dignity that the English commentary surrounding it has. But the editor did raise a real question -- at least in my mind -- How should we spell Yiddish words that have become part of American English when they are used within an English sentence? ( I would argue that the Weinreich/YIVO system prevail -- but what about words that have made it into the American dictionary? My Websters 7th NEw COllegiate Dictionary (already not so new, circa 1970!) has: "schnorrer [Yiddish shnorer] beggar; esp: one who wheedles others into supplying his wants". This technical question of transliteration leads to larger questions about language and culture -- is "schnorrer" English while "shnorer" is Yiddish? If so, what is the difference between the two words? How is each understood in its own language context? I think that I, as a literature person, might have some different answers than my friends who are linguists -- or at least I'd go about answering the question in a different way. (can't do in now, though -- have to get off the phone line) . Please, folks, don't split the list -- let's just open up the discussion -- use our various resources to explore YIddish more fully! al dos guts, Kathryn Hellerstein ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 4.264 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