מענדעלע

At last Mendele is ready to go public. We have as of today a total of 22 subscribers (list on demand) and a very good roster it is. And while we're neither in Czernowitz or Vilna we may in at the start of something that none of might have thought possible 10 years ago. Let us hope so.

A word about my role. I'm the shammes. That means that everybody can (and should) offer advice, criticism, help. The only thing I ask of you is that you contribute regularly and often.

Please direct contributions to: mendele@trincc.bitnet and private messages to: nmiller@trincc.bitnet.

I am presently trying to decifer a number of letters written from Sedalia, Miss ouri around 1891 IN YIDDISH! The letters were kindly lent to me by the great-g randson of their author. Several years ago a rabbi in Kansas city was asked to translate the letters, which he did quite well. He also transcribed them in ro man characters, though interestingly enough this proved to more of an (unconcio us) translation into his own dialect of Yiddish than a transliteraton. At any rate, the hard part is not understanding the letters but decifering them and interpreting the vowels and diphthongs. There is no telling a vov from a yud or often an alef fron tsvey vovn etc. Spelling is also very inconsistent an d there is no punctuation. As a result I have no idea of the actual phonetic v alues represented by the graphemes for the vowels. For this reason, in the fol lowing excerpt I will not try to interpret the the value of the vowels, but wi ll represent them as follows: alef: ' , vov: u, yud: y, ayen: e. Tsvey vovn, ho wever is "v" to make reading a bit easier. The consonants are plain old YIVO. I hope this hastily conceived scheme doesn't cause too much eye strain. Sedalia Missouri July 13/91 (in roman characters)

Myyn lyber k'zyn 'hrn Lyyzer Shpyler. 'ykh h'be dyyn bryev 'yyte m'rgyn gykrygn 'nd 'ykh denk d's es vyl nykht l'ng zyyn byz 'ykh vyl dykh 'nd dyyn fruy und d yyn t'khter ts' zehyn [...]

'ykh byn f'n U'nuv (Yonev, Galicia?) avek gyk'myn 'yn y're 1855. 'ykh k'm glyykh n'kh Engyl'nd. F'n Engl'nd byn 'ykh 'n shyf gykymyn ts' 'rbyytn myt 20 t'l'r d's m'nyyt 'yn kh esyn fryy. 'ykh v'r 'n mytlershyn mer 'n shvartsyn mer 'yn K'nst'ntyn'pl, fyle pletsn ts' fyel ts' shryybn. 'ykh byn vydyr gyk'myn n'kh England bets'lt gykrygyn 'nd n'kh 'merik' gykumyn 'n tsyytyn t'g Rush Hshnh 1856 'yn der sht't B'ldym're 'yn N'rt Ameryk'. 'ykh v'r d' 'yyn y'r. 'ykh 'n gyf'ngyn ts' 'ndlyn v'ry tsu fyrkufyn klyydyr 'ly 'nd shnyt v'ry. He goes on to say he got married a woman who is "gyz'nt 'nd shtark, vegt 'n gyfehr 200 fund."



I would be interested in any comments regarding the language of this excerpt or anything else. (I'm not familiar with manuscripts from this period. Is the spelling always this erratic?) Thanks for your help.

Mr. Eshelman, some comments on your text. Forgive me if I dwell on things that are obvious to you. Some of us are in the business of being pedantic. (I'm copying this to "Mendele", by the way. You can "forward" to "Dave".)

The spelling in your document is not really erratic although I can see why you think so. The key to it lies in what you describe when you say that "there is no telling a vov from a yud". This reveals, first and foremost, that the writer's native speech is DECIDEDLY NOT northeastern: it has merged all the historical u-sounds (represented by vov in the Standard language) and i-sounds (represented by yud). ALL of them are realised as "i"; thus singular "bruder" and plural "brider" are alike: "brider". The writer's attempt to differentiate them in writing leads to hypercorrection (writing vov where one would expect yud, and vice versa) We find spellings like "kund" for "kind", "funger" for "fingerr", etc. It's a common feature of 19th century manuscripts (and even of published works) in Poland and the Ukraine. One puzzle, though, the name of the town. I'm surprised to see the substitution of vov for initial SEMI-VOCALIC yud (as the name Janow would imply).

Let me draw your attention to two other features of the writer's speech which the spelling reveals:

1) 'yyte (= hayte 'today') and 'andlyn (= handlen 'to trade') suggest that he "drops" his aiches; this is regionally distinctive.

2) tsyytn t'g (= tsveytn tog 'the second day'), in which the "v" is lost, is also regionally distinctive; essentially the same region, though.

Now then, both features ARE TOTALLY consistent with part of the area in which the u's and i's have merged in "i". and, from its location, Janow does seem to be a good candidate for the cooccurrence of all three.

There is definitely more, but other duties beckon.

One more comment, to close. I don't think that the grammar is heavily influenced by German. I see only one really German grammatical form "k'm" (= the preterite "kam" 'came'). The others all seem to be "Germanizations" (stylistic affectations) of spelling, mainly, in such cases as "'nd" (und for un), "bryev" (for briv) and in the form of some words "h'be" (= habe for hob) and "'yyte" (= ? German "heute"? No! "Yiddishized" "ayte" (and without the aich, yet!). These are better designated as "daytshmerish" not as "daytsh" (= German). Are you familiar with the concept? See Mordkhe Schaecter's "The Hidden Standard" (and accompanying bibliography) in THE FIELD OF YIDDISH, Vol. 3 (1969). OK?

Mikhl Herzog

i'd be very grateful if those subscribers who consider themselves native in yiddish would translate the following. please send your answers to me at ellen@central.cis.upenn.edu. a hartsikn dank!

1. a child was born every hour. 2. two people live in each house. 3. i went to a few funerals in each city. 4. i meet someone i know wherever i go. 5. all that glitters is not gold. (i'd like a literal translation--it doesn't have to be a proverb in yiddish.) 6. no news is good news. (again, a literal translation, please.) 7. everybody isn't as smart as you, you know. 8. everyone died in each battle.

A few little answers. By the way, you surely know the one about the field-worker learning an Amerind language. "Can you say XX?" "Yep". "Can you say YY?"" "Yep". "Can you say ZZ?" "Yep". "By the way, what does it (XX, YY, ZZ) mean"? "It don't mean nuthin!" SO . . .

1. A child is born every hour. i) ale sho vert gebo(y)rn a kind. ii) yede(r) sho vert gebo(y)rn a kind. ("yeder" can be treated as an invariant") iii) a kind vert gebo(y)rn ale sho iv) es vert a kind gebo(y)rn ale sho

alongside of iii, could you also say:

v) a kind vert geboyrn yeder sho. ? YES

also, does iii mean exactly the same thing as i, ii, and iv? I THINK SO.

2. Two people live in each house. i) in yeder/yedn hoyz vojnt men zalbetsveyt in yeder shtub vojnt men zalbetsveyt ii)in yeder, etc. voynt men in tsveyen iii) in yeder, etc. voynen tsvey/voynen tsvey mentshn/voynen tsvey ire.

is it possible to say iv:

iv) tsvey mentshn voynen in yeder/yedn hoyz/shtub. ? YES 3) I went to a few funerals in each city. in yeder shtot bin ix gegangen/geven af/oyf etlekhe levayes is it possible to say also:

ikh bin gegangen/geven af/oyf etlekhe levayes in yeder shtot. ? YES

4) I meet someone I know wherever I go. i) vu nor ikh gey, bagegn ikh/tref ikh emetsn vos ikh ken ii) vu ikh zol nit geyn, bagegn ikh/tref ikh emetsn vos ikh ken is it possible to say also:

ikh bagegn/tref emetsn vos ikh ken vu nor ikh gey/vu ikh zol nit geyn. ? YES, WITH AN INTONATIONAL ASSIST

5) All that glitters is not gold.

ni(sh)t alts vos finklt iz gold

is it possible to say also: alts vos finklt iz ni(sh)t gold. ? YES, BUT IT DON'T FEEL SO GOOD.

6) No news is good news. i) az siz ni(sh)to keyn nayes iz dos aleyn a gute bsure ii) az siz ni(sh)to keyn nayes iz dos aleyn a gute yedie (Is that what you mean by literal?)

no, that's a proverb. i mean literal-er. IF IT"SD A PROVERB, I MADE IT UP. I'M NOT SURE I KNOW ANOTHER REAL POSSIBILITY. 7) Everybody isn't as smart as you, you know ("you" or "ya"?) i) vejst dokh, (az) ni(sh)t yeder iz azoy klug vi du ii) yeder iz dokh ni(sh)t azoy klug vi du iii) ni(sh)t yeder iz dokh azoy klug vi du

does ii mean exactly the same thing as iii? CAN ANY TWO VARIANTS MEAN "EXACTLY" THE SAME THING? THEY "FEEL" THE SAME. THE FOCUS IS DIFFERENT.

8) Everyone died in each battle i) in yeder/yedn kamf zaynen/zenen ale umgekumen/geshtorbn ii) in yeder/yedn kamf iz yeder umgekumen/geshtorbn could you also say:

iii) ale/yeder iz umgekumen/geshtorbn in yeder/yedn kamf. ? ALE ZAYNEN/YEDER IZ UMGEKUMEN. . . YES. IN THIS CONTEXT, I THINK THAT UMGEKUMEN IZ BETTER THAN GESHTORBN.