Mendele: Yiddish literature and language
______________________________________________________
Contents of Vol. 6.242
February 26, 1997

1) Ende oysyes (Hershl Hartman)
2) Final consonants in Yiddish (Joachim Neugroschel)
3) Bney Odom (Ron Robboy)
4) Yidish un yidishkayt (Meylekh Viswanath)

1)----------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:48:04 -0500 (EST)
From: hershl@aol.com
Subject: Ende oysyes

I have always considered the Soviet attempt to eliminate the final
(shlus) letters as of a piece with the "phoneticization" of
Hebrew-element words, including replacing the sof with a samekh, as in
emes: ayin-mem-ayin-samekh. The goal in both cases, I believe, was not
as dramatic as a political assault on Hebrew, religion and Zionism,
although all that was on the Soviet political agenda long before the
State of Israel came into being.

Rather, the goal was educational: to simplify the learning process by
eliminating the final form of a few consonants and making uniform the
spelling protocol of all the words used in Yiddish, regardless of
their origins.

My impression is based on two observations.

First, if political ends were the motive, Soviet-style orthography
would have been rigidly adopted by Yiddish-writing Communists
worldwide. In fact, pro-Soviet Yiddish newspapers, journals and books
stuck with traditional (pre-YIVO) orthography, even as they
re-published the writings of Soviet authors. In such reprintings, the
traditional orthography was restored.

Second, the "phonetic" spelling of Hebrew-origin words was not limited
to Soviet practice. In this country, I have spoken with many graduates
of the thoroughly anti-Soviet Yiddish shuln of the Workmen's
Circle/Arbeter Ring who also did not learn to spell Hebrew-origin
words in their original form. I've been told of a photograph taken at
a WC/AR shule in the midwest in the 30s or 40s, where children held up
alphabet placards that spelled out "shabes":
shin-alef-beyz-ayin-samekh.

Hershl Hartman

2)----------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:30:12 -0500 (EST)
From: achim1@cris.com
Subject: Final consonants in Yiddish

In regard to certain final consonants in Yiddish:  the gender of the
letters in the Yiddish alphabet is feminine both in Harkavy and in
Weinrich's "College Yiddish".  However, in Weinreich's Yiddish-English
Dictionary, the descriptive (Yiddish-English) portion indicates both
the feminine and the masculine gender, while the prescriptive
(English-Yiddish) portion doesn't mention the letters at all.

The gender makes a difference in another name for the final tsadik:
"shlekhte(r) tsadik".  In this case "shlekht" has the older secondary
meaning of "straight"--which is still preserved, figuratively or
literally, in a number of German words and expressions:  schlecht und
recht, schlechterdings, schlechthin, schlechtweg, etc.  And the German
adjective "schlicht" means "plain, simple" (cf. the English cognate
"slight").

Harkavy lists the second meaning of "shlekht" in a separate entry,
implying that this adjective still exists beyond the letter name
"shlekhte(r) tsadik".  However, according to Mordkhe Shekhter, the
meaning "straight, etc." never occurs in modern Yiddish (beyond the
name of the final tsadik) and he has never found it in older Yiddish.

Back to the gender:  the pun makes sense only if "shlekhter tsadik" is
masculine;  if it's feminine, then the pun is (even) feebler while the
use of the word "shlekht" to mean straight might imply a wider usage
beyond this term.

As for the noun "ende": it came in from modern  German "das Ende" (as
you can tell by the final ayin), but is limited to hopelessly
Germanicized Yiddish.  Before posting it on Mendele [6.238], the
writer should have checked the various Yiddish dictionaries.  Harkavy
lists it and indicates an -s plural (as opposed to the German -n
plural), which indicates a certain degree of acceptance in Yiddish.
Weinreich doesn't even mention "ende" but lists "di end" in both parts
of his dictionary, though labeling it "of doubtful admissibility"--i.e.
daytshmerish.  To head off any die-nightmarish war, I don't much care
which words one uses;  in this case I'm perfectly content with
"shlos-mem" and, in other contexts, with "ek" and "sof".  I'm glad to
see, however, that Weinreich accepts "endglid" (limb, extremity) and
"endung" (grammatical ending) as well as some other cognates.  "Endik"
however is a "turkey" (it's a variant of "indik").

Joachim Neugroschel

3)----------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:46:10 -0800
From: rrobboy@cts.com
Subject: Bney Odom

As to the engaging question of what the chicken must be thinking
during the Bney Odom [6.227-34, 6.238], I suspect we will never have a
definitive answer.  But if the question is what Sholem Aleichem
thought the chicken must be thinking, I suggest turning to his story
"Kapores" (1903), in Book 1 of his _Maysyes far yidishe kinder_
(Folksfond oysgabe, tsveyte oyflage, 1918, pp. 113-126).

The chickens have had enough.  "A sof!  Oys kapores!" came the cry.
They call a general strike.  Did I say strike?  "Ayn emese milkhome!"
(p.119) But following the bloodletting, war must inevitably give way
to negotiated settlement. This process Sholem Aleichem spells out in
detail.

After flatly rejecting a proposal by the balebatim that the chickens
be represented by a delegation of turkeys, ducks, and geese, the
chickens place the principal issue on the table:  vu shteyt dos
geshribn? -- where is it written that Jews must shlogn kapores? (p.
122)  Difficult as these fundamental matters of recognition are,
however, the nuts-and-bolts issues of implementation call for even
greater flexibility and creativity.  For though it may be that during
Bney Odom the chicken is "held still, as opposed to the circular
motion made later," as David Herskovic wrote [6.230], the chickens
themselves obstinately link the two in negotiations, and a key feature
to the eventual settlement -- this is clearly a make-or-break issue --
is that "b'shas shlogn kapores un zogn 'Bney-odom' zol men nisht
dreyen mit di oyfes meshugenervayz..." (p. 125)

The outcome?  Chickens, Sholem Aleichem says, are still slaughtered
and plucked, cut up and cooked, then covered in sauce and brought to
the table. But no more shlogn kapores, and no more Bney Odom.

There is a limit.

Ron Robboy

4)----------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:51:37 -0500
From: viswanat@pacevm.dac.pace.edu
Subject: Yidish un yidishkayt

Mechl Asheri writes [6.228]: "you can have Idishkayt without Idish,
but you can't have Idish without Idishkayt".

I'd go further.  If Yiddish is not a Jewish language, what's the big
deal about it?  Why bother to keep it and speak it?  We don't have
other means of communication?  And further, removing it from
Yidishkayt will change the language and it's gayst.  I personally
don't see anything to write home about in recent developments where
more and more non-Jews are learning Yiddish, if their involvement will
further reduce the Jewish component of Yiddish (aside from the fact
that my mother couldn't care two hoots about the matter).

Meylekh Viswanath

______________________________________________________
End of Mendele Vol. 6.242