מענדעלע

Oyb ir vilt zeyen epes a sheyns, un oykh a bisl modne, zeyt dem letstn numer Pakntreger (The Magazine of the National Yiddish Book Center, Fall 1997/5758 Number 26). A mayse fun Hirsh Dovid Nomberg (Tsvishn Berg) iz gedrukt af yidish mit hebreyishe oysyes zayt bay zayt mit der Englisher iberzetsung. Far di vos viln zikh oyslernen yidish ken es zayn zeyer nutslekh, ober amol zeyer farfirerish. Ershtns, di yidishe shprakh un der oysleyg zenen daytshmerish. Nokh mayn meynung iz der gantser yidisher stil daytshmerish biz gor, un der stil iz oykh shteyf, farglivert vi a kalter petse. Un s'iz do a sakh drukfelers in der yidisher opteylung.

Es iz shayekh un efsher keday far di vos viln zikh oyslernen yidish tsu fartseykhenen a por bamerkungen

Di iberzetsung ken amol firn tsu groyse umfarstendenishn. Ikh shrayb haynt fun tsvey zakhn:

1) Af zayt 30 leyenen mir af yidish: _ikh hob dertseylt Sonien vegn im un zi iz gekumen im batrakhtn vi epes an indianer fun amerike_. Af english: _I told Sonia about him and she came over to observe him as if he were a primitive tribesman_. Primitive tribesman? Farvos? Nomberg hot dos _nisht_ geshribn. Nomberg hot gemeynt, bashaynperlekh, epes a fremder mit a yikhes nisht tsu derkenen. Far a sakh yorn veysn mir shoyn az me darf nit meynen as Indianer fun Amerike zenen geven azoy primitiv. Zey hobn geboyt a rafinirter kultur vos haynt ruft aroys derkherets. Indianer fun amerike ken heysn af English: American Indian. Poshet un genoy.

_Native American_ iz a bisl tsu modern.

[Incidentally, Nomberg wrote (stopping about 1908) during Sholem Aleichem's lifetime so that his usage of _indianer fun amerike_ should help settle anybody's remaining doubt as to whether _indianer_ meant American Indian to Sholem Aleichem.]

2) Af zayt 32 leyenen mir _akh vi viderig dos ponim iz in di momentn gevorn!_. Af English leyenen mir, _Oh, how repulsive his face became at such moments_. _Repulsive_ past nisht. Dos vort, _viderig_, ken men nisht gefinen in Weinreich's oder Harkavy's verterbikher. S'iz oykh nisht do in Shtutskov's Oytser. S'iz do a vort af daytsh, _widrig_, vos meynt af English, adverse, unfriendly, antagonistic. Mistome hot Nomberg gemeynt unfriendly, hostile, vi dos vort widrig af daytsh. Nokh mayn meynung, _repulsive_ dertseylt undz epes gants andersh, un iz nisht shayekh.

Louis Fridhandler

I would like to thank all Mendelyaner who sent me letters about my last "Yiddish in the news" review in 07.109 (and of course, particularly I thank those who praised my posting).

(By the way, why is it that some of my posts generate many private and very few public responses? Am I touching on something unseemly for a public discussion? Being envious to the others' public success, I am seriously considering writing an essay on the proof that the word _dav(e)nen_ is not related etymologically to the Chinese _dao fen_ (which means kadish, or more precisely, prayer to the dead), because Chinese "f" never ever becomes a "v" in Yiddish. I know 7 native speakers and 43 linguists who can confirm this fact, so it is not an empty threat.)

Looking at the responses I received I would like to clarify two issues. First, in my message I did not intend to promote or discredit any particular ideological leaning. Which is due perhaps to the liberals' "voluntary preference for powerlessness" (Ruth Wisse, Yiddish: Past, Present, Imperfect, and other works). They (liberals) are so spineless, that they: a) do not hate their opponents, b) are seeking a dialogue with them, and c) even worse, are ready to find some reasonable common ground.

This common ground is the second, and probably more complex issue. In the whole world there are not that many of those who care about the Yiddish culture, that they can easily afford to antagonize each other. Yet this is exactly what's often happenning. If we were able to learn from history (either Jewish or general), we would have realized the destructive potential of such patterns: a small number of individuals and/or groups apparently pursuing the common goal, but unable to resolve their internal contradictions. Neither the goal, nor the parties involved ever benefited from those situations.

Again, I am not blaming either side. And this is not a call for an immediate and total peace or truce. The idea is as modest as it is unrealistic: if for the sake of the common cause everyone would give up just a small portion of his (or her) righteousness and correctness, the cause would eventually say "thank you".

Iosif Vaisman

Ikh lern yidish mit a klas dervaksene in Lake Worth, FL. Eyne fun di shilerns hot gefregt an interesante frage, af velkher ikh hob nit gekent entfern. Ikh hob arayngekukt in Vaynraykhs verterbukh, ober kh'hob dortn oykh nit gekent gefinen keyn entfer. Di shilerin hot bamerkt, az af appetizer iz yo do a yidish vort, forshpayz, un af dessert iz oykh do a yidish vort (m'stame a nay vort), nokhshpayz. Iz di frage, ober, vi zogt men af yidish, entre, dos heyst dos esn, gufe? Hot emetzer an entfer? Ikh vart nokh altz af di verter fun dem lid, "A Nyekter." Dortn tzvishn di Mendelyaner zenen zikher m'vinim vos kenen ongebn di verter. Iz vos-zhe vart ir?

I am curious if anyone knows which towns in Podolia Mendele Moykher-Sforim journeyed through during his time as a wanderer (in which he traveled with Avreml the Limper, possibly a model for "Fishke the Lame"). I do know that he wound up as a teacher in Kamenets-Podolski.

thank you Ben Weinstock

Can anyone give me a citation for Uriel Weinreich's famous quote "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy"?

A dank, un zayt gezunt! Alexander Maxwell

A non-linguist might not be the right person to try his hand at finding etymologies, but he might know enough about language to follow a linguist's explanation of an etymology. Within limits a non-linguist might even have some insights in language. Someone knowing Yiddish, German and English can safely say that the consonant 't' does often change into 'd' like in 'tokhter' and 'daughter' He might not know when this happened or how the linguist would describe this common phenomenon. For the same non-linguist it is easy to see that an 'oy' in Yiddish often represents Modern German 'au', as in hoyz Haus, Engl. house. The same non-linguist would not be amazed to hear that Yiddish written 'oy' might have been pronounced in different ways in different dialects, for instance like German 'au' or English 'ou'. If a linguist explains that there was a Western Yiddish word 'orn' which in time was replaced by an Eastern Yiddish word with the same meaning, 'dav(e)nen, it will be accepted by the non-linguist. It will also be taken for granted that the verb 'orn' was related to a verb related to Latin 'oro', which originally meant 'to speak'(comp. orator) and later acquired the specific meaning 'to pray', the same as Yiddish/German 'betn'. According to linguists there once was an Old Yiddish word with the same meaning: 'doynen'. With his general knowledge the non linguist might figure that: 'doynen' could have the pronunciation 'daunen' and that the 'd' comes originally from 't'.

Now, if 'orn' came from 'oro', 'doynen' or 'daunen' could be related to modern German 'toenen (e=umlaut), which goes back to Lat. 'tono' - to speak in a loud voice, thunder. This jump the non-linguist cannot make unaided, but when told that German indeed had a related form 'daune' and that Dutch still has a related form 'deun' (eu pronounced as German o-umlaut), both meaning 'tune' or melody, the non-linguist can easily follow the argument and make it his own.

The question a non-linguist might ask at this point is whether 'orn' and 'doynen' ever existed next to each other, as 'orn' and 'dav(e)nen did, and whether there ever was a clear distinction in meaning between them, such as 'orn'-to pray with speaking voice, recite prayers and 'doynen' to pray with a singing voice, chant prayers. If this was the case, if the two words originally were used to indicate a technical distinction, this might explain why a third word was taken over for the more general concept, namely 'betn'. That at a later stage all three words would have ended up having the same meaning does not seem improbable and that as a consequence one or two went missing altogether sounds believable. There seems to be some 15th century evidence that a form of 'doynen' [do "ent] was used to express the chanting of a cantor, the gazn.

The non-linguist is told by the linguist that at in the 16th century yet another word for praying appeared on the scene, 'daven' or 'dav(e)nen': "The meaning of davnen in Yiddish, from its appearance in the works of Rivke Tiktiner in the late 16th century to the present is 'to recite the prescribed prayers' -- whether silently or at the top of one's voice. The written form it is found in is "dvnin".[v=veyz] (Meyer Wolf).

If the word 'dvnin' was pronounced 'davnen' at the time, the now lay-linguist might think that it cannot be a long way from doynen=daunen to davnen. Anyone who has ever looked in an etymological dictionary knows that 'u', 'v', 'w' and 'b' are tricky characters and that especially in writing the 'u', 'v' and 'b' seem almost interchangeable, whether we are dealing with Hebrew, Sanskrit or Latin. But here the non-linguist will be severely ridiculed by the professional linguist. The notion that there could be any connection between 'daunen' and 'davnen' appears to be outrageous and nonsensical. We have to accept this criticism, because it is true, we cannot find any other Yiddish words with a similar derivation. Next we are asked to believe that davnen represents Hebrew 'davav', to speak, whisper. Why Hebraists, while introducing Hebrew words in the Yiddish language in order to replace words of Germanic or Romance origin, would take the Hebrew word 'whisper' instead of the normal Hebrew word for 'speak' - 'diber' is not explained. Moreover, if Hebraist had felt that the common Yiddish word praying needed a replacement, one would expect them to take a Hebrew word with the meaning 'to pray' in stead of finding the wrong Hebrew translation for a word originally meaning 'to speak in a loud voice'. It remains also vague why the forms related to, 'doynen' would have disappeared from the language without leaving any trace in one or another dialect. It appears that the non-linguist is not allowed to ask such stupid questions.

Claus Buryn.

Claus Buryn's contribution would be more useful if he paid more attention. When he says: 'In "der oytser fun der Yidisher shprakh" we find the expression: "dav(e)nen farn omed".Sholem Aleykhem has Motl use these words, speaking about the work of a khazn. This does not exclude other uses of the word dav(e)nen, but if the first attested use of the word is found in a "15th cent. manuscript in which der khazen do"nt", the original meaning could have been "chanting" instead of "praying" or "reciting in silence".'

he is buying into the idea davenen can be derived from the 15th cent. German-origin verb do"nen. But for the hundredth time, this is impossible. It is in my view useless to try to make progress by going back to the most elementary mistakes and repeating them.

More generally, I dont know if Meyer Wolf and Bob Hoberman would agree, but I HOPE they would, that there is a rather basic distinction to be drawn between the proposals made or endorsed by people who have SOME idea of linguistic methodology (e.g., Max Weinreich or F. Guggenheim-Gru"nberg or, it turns out, Hillel Halkin or even, dare I say it, me) and the ones which are put forward by people who violate every methodological principle that has been learned in the in teh last 200 years. I think it would help to organize the discussion by separating out those few proposals which have been made by the former group.

A. Manaster Ramer

I am more and more perplexed by Mr. Buryn's comments. There is no mystery about Dutch Yiddish 'ou' corresponding to 'oy' in certain kinds of EY. This is a well known and trivial sound correspondence. As for the word shpousering and where Beem got it, the answer must be that he got the same place as his other Dutch Yiddish forms, from informants (who I believe are listed in one of his two books). These are all forms which occurred in somebody's recollection of Dutch Yiddish SPEECH. Whether they also can be found in some text is something he does not address--and something which is of no relevance whatever. Many Yiddish dialects were never written at all, but that makes them of no less importance to teh historian of the language. So there is simply nothing in Mr. Buryn's comments which detracts from the force of my observation that there was once in Yiddish a stem of the form (Eastern) -shpoyz- (Western) -shpous- meaning 'to betroth' which survives in relics but must once have been quite widespread, which is of Romance origin, and which has been almost totally replaced in Eastern Yiddish by words derived from Hebrew-origin knas. Moreover, I cited at least one other suche xample, so that even if there WERE anything wrong with this one (and there is NOT), my general point against Mr. Warshawsky's ingenuous (pseudo)history of Yiddish would still stand, namely, that elements of Hebrew origin have in historical times in many cases become more frequent in Yiddish than they once were, sometimes. supplanting earlier eleemnts of Germanic or Romance origin.

A. Manaster Ramer

1. M. Kosover based his surmise on the derivation of davnen from doenen on the basis of his study of a rare early manuscript of of a book of minhogim in a library. Those of us who have more ready access to later printed versions are in a better position to study the text at length and to correct the inevitible mistakes Kosover made in poring over the ms. under less enviable conditions.

According to the text the khazn does doen, but from passages that Kosover missed, it is clear that the congregation also doens. The khazn as well as the congregation or, zing and zog prayers, even zog mit a nign, with no clear specialization of the verbs.

2. doenen cannot be the source of the variant of davnen, doynen, which has been recorded from a number places in Northeastern Yiddish. As Uriel Weinreich has shown, the oy diphthong in this word, in an area where voynen is pronounced veynen and the like, clearly indicates that the word is not descended from doenen. It is, in fact, the result of a regional development which also produced bahoynt from bahavnt.

3. The discussion of Dutch Yiddish dawwenen should not be allowed to obscure the fact that davnen is not only found among East European Yiddish speakers. Steven Lowenstein's map on p. 28 of Field of Yiddish III shows davnen found well into Germany. This is not recent; texts from the 16th and 17th centuries already attest to areas where both orn and and davnen are found.

4. The attempt to derive davnen from dovev is far older than F. GuggenheimGruenberg's etymology. In volume III of his Geshikhte, on pages 85-87, M. Weireich writes at length of a number of etymologies of davnen sent to him by A. Landau in the 1920's, this very one among them.

5. The usage of the DBB root in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic does not suggest that it is the source of davnen. However the root enjoyed a second career in the prayers and hymns of the middle ages, where it is found as a poetic synonym for other verbs of speaking and saying, as Even-Shoshan's Hamilon HeHadash shows.

Meyer Wolf