Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 6.235 February 21, 1997 1) "Tate" af yidish (Bernard Katz) 2) "Tate" af yidish (Joachim Neugroschel) 3) Rosten's _The Joys of Yiddish_ (Al Grand) 4) Websites for Yiddishists (Andrew Cassel) 5) Gender in N.E. Yiddish (Hugh Denman) 6) Gender in N.E. Yiddish (Les Train) 7) Gender in N.E. Yiddish (Joachim Neugroschel) 8) Yiddish in the liturgy (Perets Mett) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:23:48 -0500 (EST) From: bkatz@uoguelph.ca Subject: "Tate" af yidish Regarding pronouncing TAte as taTEY, etc. [6.231]: As for the pronouncing of TAte as taTEY, I support Adrienne Maltz's second explanation, that it was a result of "an un-coached actress" attempting to do her best. Bernard Katz Guelph, Ontario 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:58:30 -0500 (EST) From: achim1@cris.com Subject: "Tate" af yidish The word "tate"--mispronounced on the X-Files--is always stressed on the first syllable in Yiddish, even when it's pronounced "tote" as in "tote-mome-loshn" used in Bessarabia. The X-Files episode in question, neatly fusing the golem and the dybbuk, managed to mispronounce every single Yiddish and Hebrew word that cropped up. And contrary to what the X-Files Jews or others may claim, the words "golem" and "dybbuk" were originally coined in Yiddish (presumably from Hebrew roots). But check out not only G. Scholem but also Paul Wexler. Joachim Neugroschel 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:05:43 -0500 (EST) From: savoyid@aol.com Subject: Rosten's _The Joys of Yiddish_ May I respectfully take issue with my friend Dan Leeson's characterization of Leo Rosten's "The Joys of Yiddish" as "a joyous book if there ever was one" [Vol. 6.234]. I also have more than a few objections to the way the book was portrayed in the New York Times' obituary page. To characterize Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish as "..the de facto standard reference work on the language" [Margalit Fox - Obituaries - 2-20-97] is tantamount to citing Jules Verne's 1873 fantasy From the Earth to the Moon as the standard reference work on space travel. Other than for some cheap laughs of the borscht circuit variety, anyone concerned about Yiddish or about the larger issues of Jewish culture in America would be well-advised to steer clear of Rosten's book. The inaccuracies, the misinformation and the quirky and often misleading pronunciation clues (e.g., meshuge to rhyme with Paducah, p. 237) which appear on every one of the 533 pages are enough to make one weep. Scores of superb Yiddish reference works have appeared in the last quarter century that should appeal to friendly Gentiles as well as to uninformed Jews. Although The Education of H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N is a very funny book, The Joys of Yiddish is anything but a joy. Al Grand 4)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:13:50 -0500 From: awcassel@philly.infi.net Subject: Websites for Yiddishists To Reb Noyekh's list of useful websites, may I add JewishGen, the home for Jewish Genealogy: http://www.jewishgen.org and (with all due modesty) the sub-section that I help coordinate, known (with all due apologies) as ShtetLinks: http://www.jewishgen.org/shtetlinks/directory.html It's a bit of a mishmosh, but I think there are some interesting contributions (and more are always welcome). Andrew Cassel 5)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:06:24 +0100 (MET) From: h_denman@maier.vol.at Subject: Gender in N.E. Yiddish In answer to the query posted by Adrienne Maltz [6,231:3], one could well describe NEY as having two genders, though it perhaps makes better sense to regard it as having four (but in any case it has no neuter). I forbear to say more, since the topic was long ago more than adequately covered by the excellent Meyer Wolf in his 'Geography of Yiddish Case and Gender Variation', in "Field of Yiddish" 3, 1969, 102-215. One might, however, ask oneself how it is that, if the number of genders is set in stone, English has none. Hugh Denman London 6)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 01:06:24 -0500 (EST) From: ltrain@chass.utoronto.ca Subject: Gender in Northeast Yiddish The fact that modern German has three genders doesn't mean that any language that branched off from an older Germanic dialect must also have three genders. Old English also had 3 genders; except in obvious cases, these have coalesced into a common gender. I believe Dutch also uses just 2 genders today. In another vein, Spanish, Italian and French come from a 3-gendered Latin, but only have 2 genders. Les Train 7)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:58:30 -0500 (EST) From: achim1@cris.com Subject: Gender in N.E. Yiddish in response to Ms. Maltz's expression of her friend's amazement that pre-YIVO North-Eastern Yiddish lost the neuter gender that is still a feature of modern German. Well, Yiddish has been around for at least seven centuries, so all sorts of changes are not only possible but have become intricate realities. Long before the birth/brith of Yiddish, German (unlike, say, the Slavic languages) had lost all gender distinctions in the plural. And in both the German and Yiddish singular, the masculine and the neuter are identical in both the genitive and the dative (though not in the nominative or accusative case). So it's not surprising that this process of reduction might lead to the disappearance of the neuter in NE Yiddish. German is holding on to its own neuter gender even though several languages bordering on German have each lost one gender. Dutch is down to two (living things and non-living things), and French and Italian, like the other Romance languages, neutered out their neuter long ago (aside from a few traces like the pronoun "ce" in French). The interesting difference between Romance and North-Eastern Yiddish is that the Latin neuter passed almost wholesale into the masculine gender of the Romance languages, while Yiddish neuter nouns were reassigned by Litvaks either to the masculine or to the feminine gender--and sometimes both (di kint/der kint). In the resulting confusion, certain feminine nouns became masculine in the dative: "di Hant" but "mit'n hant". As in the Romance languages, Litvak Yiddish still a few traces of the neuter: for instance, "es" and "dos". In the Yiddish used by certain Hasidic groups in New York, the speakers are down to a single gender (presumably under the impact of English, which shows gender only in pronouns). Much as I love turmoil, turbulence, and total chaos, I do regret the loss of the neuter gender. The Indo-European languages are the only group in the world to have a three-gender system--a precious commodity in a gender-flattening world. The Semitic languages have two genders, while certain Amerindian tongues have a few dozen (the categories are based on whether an object is long, round, curly, etc.). And Swedish actually added a fourth gender, the so-called "common gender" (despite the daily presence of Finnish, which has no genders at all). Conclusion: we should preserve Yiddish if only to preserve the three-gender system. Joachim Neugroschel 8)--------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:15:20 +0000 From: p.mett@open.ac.uk Subject: Yiddish in the liturgy Mit a por khadoshim tsurik (6.174) Reb Mechl Asheri wrote: [apologies but I'm a slow reader:)] ..the leader notifies, not invites. "Gentlemen", he says in effect, "Pay attention: we are going to bentsh". I like the 'pay attention' bit. In some circles this precisely what the leader says: her tsi, raboysa mir veln bentshn i.e. pay attention etc. as reb mekhl says. [Please excuse the nonstandard transcription - but I have never heard the 'her tsu' introduction from a litvak.] Perets Mett ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 6.235