מענדעלע

tayere khavertes un khaveyrim,

do nisht lang tsurik geleyent an artikl in Mendele [09.009], vu me taynet az "yidish iz foyl" - loy aleynu!

Lucas Bruyn fregt, tsvishn andere kashes:

1. "tsi vet zayn amol a fule reshime mit di verter, vos faran in "oytser" (N. Stutshkov / Thesaurus of the Yiddish Language, Nahum Stuchkoff)?"

- ken men ale farinteresirte onzogn di psure: yo, faran aza proyekt tsunoyftsushteln a fule reshime, men zol vos gikher konen gefinen alts. ikh veys, az Shimen Noyberg (Universitaet Trier) hot gemakht aza reshime un lomir hofn az zi vet bekorev zayn tsutritlekh far alemen. heyst es: falt nisht arayn in aktsyonizm vayl me heyst aykh foylyakes... men arbet hasmodedik un me hot shoyn kimat farendikt.

men fregt:

2. "far vos kon men nisht tsunoyfgisn "Weinreichs", "Harkavys" un "Niborskis" verterbikher?" (d.h.: Uriel Weinreich: modern english-yidish, yidish-english verterbukh (tsveyshprakhik!); Aleksander Harkavy: yidish-english-hebreish verterbukh (drayshprakhik!); Yitskhok Niborski: verterbukh fun loshn-koydesh-shtamike verter in yidish (eynshprakhik!))

- hot men mit di oybn dermonte verterbikher dray eydes fun gor farsheydene kontseptsyes leksikografishe arbetn. faran leksikografishe arbetn vegn yidish un take azelkhe, vos hobn zikh ongeton a koyekh tsu brengen epes nayes. tsu vos darf men tsunoyfgisn dos, yens, loksh, boydem, tsibeles? a shtikl glik, vos me kon take gefinen alts vos faran in "Weinreich", "Harkavy" un "Niborski". lemoshl "Niborski" brengt nisht bloyz loshn-koydesh-shtamike verter geklibene fun Spivak, Pereferkovitsh un andere, nor hot bavizn optsuklaybn fun der yidisher literatur hebraizmen, velkhe keyner hot frier nisht gehat getaytsht. un ver redt - di verterbikher mit velkhe Mordkhe Shaekhter hot undz mezake geven! ("trogn, hobn, friike kinderyorn, akademishe terminologye")

men fregt:

3. tsi iz es in gantsn ummeglekh ontsushraybn a frish lernbikhl, es zol farnemen dem ort fun College Yiddish? afile di same klenste leshoynes geyen aroys mit mer mateyaln.

- reyshes: vos hot er tsu "College Yiddish"? tsvishn a sakh andere hot es take di mayle: s'iz ibergedrukt gevorn azoy oft, un derbay hot men farrokhtn di teusim un grayzn biz gor. vet men in dem bukh shoyn nisht gefinen keyn sakh felers - oyf undz alemen gezogt gevorn...

- vehasheynes: faran on a shir englishe lernbikher far yidish fun kol ha-minim shites, say moderne, say arkhaishe... vos se glust zikh a mentshn khotsh na zikh a bukh fun a biblyotek.

- un dritns: vegn frizish veys ikh nisht vos se tut zikh mit lernmateryaln, ober efsher iz der teyrets, az mit di shprakhn halt shoyn azoy shmol, az me darf shraybn a sakh vegn zey nutsndik di arumike leshoynes. legabe yidish kon men take shtoltsirn, az a sakh leyenvarg geyt aroys oyf yidish.

men fregt:

4. far vos zenen keyn mol nito keyn yidish-kursn far lerers?

- do in di arkhivn fun Mendele gefint men seminarn in Yisroel, in Oksford, in Vilne, in...

bekitser: ikh ze nisht keyn foylyakes oyf der yidisher gas.

Khane Kleine

I have not been a frequent participant in this forum. As a matter of fact my last posting was sometime back in November. At that time I spoke about an Elderhostel program I was planning to attend under the auspices of the University of Arizona at Tucson, the subject of which was "In Love With Yiddish." I also participated in a discussion concerning an article by Prof. Ruth Wisse on the subject of....."is Yiddish a dying language?"

As I read all these current scholarly comments and postulations concerning the past, present and future of Yiddish, I get the feelilng that it is "deja vu" all over again. It is almost as though that discussion never took place and I am reading the same thoughts and arguments, even by some of the same people, that were directed toward or against Prof. Wisse. All of this is by way of saying I think we are guilty of obsessively studying our collective navel. I do not write in academic language and with respect to those who do, I will say plainly, enough already...."hok nit kain tchynik!" Let's stop talking ABOUT Yiddish, and just start TALKING Yiddish wherever and whenever we can.

Gail Gaston

One of the more unusual questions that I fielded over the years was in a letter that I received about 18 months ago, from a Habad (Lubavitcher) Hasid in Israel, who was requesting the date of Isaac Bashevis Singer's death, so that he and fellow Bashevis-appreciators in his community might recite Psalms on the author's yortsayt.

Zachary M. Baker

Yiddish

Avrom Sutzkever

Zol ikh onheybn fun onheyb? Zol ikh vi Avrom Oys brudershaft tsehakn ale getsn? Zok ikh a lebediker zikh lozn iberzetsn? Zol ikh aynflantsn mayn tsung Un vartn biz farvandlen Vet zi zikh in ovesdike Roszhinkes mit mandlen? Vos far a katovesdike Vitsn Darshnt mayn poezie-bruder mit di baknbardn Az mayn mame-loshn geyt bald unter? Mir veln nokh in hundert yor arum do kentik zitsn Un firn di diskusye bay dem Yordn, Vayl a shayle nogt in noglt: Oyb er veys genoy vu Di tfile fun Berditshever, Yehoashs lid Un Kulbaks Voglt Tsu dem untergang-To zol er mir, a shteyger, Onvayzn vuhin di shprakh geyt unter? Efsher bay dem koysl marove? Oyb azoy, vel ikh dort kumen, kumen Efenen dos moyl Un vi a leyb Ongeton in fayerdikn tsunter Aynshlingen dem loshn vos geyt unter. Anynshlingen, un ale doyres vekn mit mayn brumen!

1948

Miriam Isaacs

Bruce Mitchell's comments on the Hadda/Vaisman discussion are very valuable, but primarily from a sociolinguistic point of view. They do point to a growing population, using Yiddish not only in their everyday lives, but also to create imaginative literature. However, behind Prof. Hadda's poorly phrased question about who will read this literature is an assumption about the lack of quality of this literature, one probably shared by most Mendelyaner. Suggestion: Khaver Mitchell should propose the three most interestingly written stories or poems he has read during the past few years to Prof.Hadda and her quality seeking colleagues and to other Mendelyaner. If he can fax copies of these works, I would be happy to distribute them.

Martin Horwitz New York

PS. Khaver Vaisman is to be congratulated on retracting his yellow journalism claim that Prof. Hadda said anything about Yiddish being dead. However, the results are already evident in some of the language of the responses (meshugas? azoi redt men vegn gelerne mentshn?). A moderator's job is not to arouse frenzied discussion; his job is to MOD-erATE. I would hope that Mendelyaner would follow Khaver Mitchell's tone and diction and "speak to the thing itself".

I would like to thank Bruce Mitchell at Oxford University for his very excellent and heart felt comments un tsu vinch im yasher koakh. I am not orthodox, but I do not believe it does anyone any good to disparage any group. Shabat shalom,

Bernard Katz

kh'bin maskim mit di mentshn vos shraybn oyf zeyer a komplitsirtn english az yidish iz nokh lebedik bifrat bay di khsidim (vos atsind lernen afile yidish in zeyere shuln vi a bazunderer shprakh). ober ikh farshtey nisht farvos zey brengen zikh nisht aroys oyf yidish. se zol zayn 1) a gute ilustratsye fun zeyer kamf, 2) a gelegnheyt tsu leyenen epes oyf yidish vegn hayntstaytike inyonim un zikh tsu farbesern i far di gelernte i far di andere.

anshl mihaly

Dear Mendelianer,

I would like to draw your attention to the publication of the Bund in Tel-Aviv, named 'lebensfragn'. I just received the May 1999 issue, number 565-566, 49th year, 28 pages. It has several interesting articles and colums, among others 'oyf der bikher politse'. Also a note 'tsum 110-tn geboyrntog fun dovid hofsteyn (dem 21-tn yuni), with the poem 'ikh gloyb!'

For those who thought Yiddish 'dead', here is a spring of life!

Details: "lebens-fragn" aroysgegebn durch dem "arbeter ring" in Yisroel redaktor: b. tsalevitsh, y. arturski, yitskhok luder. Redaktsye un administratsye: Rkh' Kalisher 48 [48 Kalisher Str.], Tel-Oviv 65165 Yisroel. tel. 03-5176764.

One pays a 'baystayer', which I think is a voluntary contribution. I sent mine in an envelope, folded in a card. I received a receipt and the publications (by slow mail - sometimes an issue gets lost in the mail).

They also have a wonderfull video about the Bund, made at their latest aniversary, for $20 (without mail). Send in your 'baystayer' and get the answer!

Lucas Bruyn.

I am glad that Janet Hadda's essay, originally published in the Jewish Quarterly and posted in Mendele (08.153 and 08.153a), inspired such a lively discussion (09.006, 09.009, and this issue). Although I hardly agree that my response to Janet Hadda's article contained any "reductive, distorting and insulting interpretation" or that I practice "yellow journalism", I respect the strong feelings expressed by the authors of these comments.

To clarify my point I would like to reiterate two major causes of my negative reaction to any explicit or implicit suggestion that Yiddish is dead or dying, especially when such suggestions are coming from renowned Yiddishists.

The first is ethical. Traditional Jewish medical ethics did not allow to talk about death in the presense of a patient, even in a despondent clinical state. From the Prophet Elisha answering "Go and say to him, you will recover, however the Lord has revealed to me that he will die" (Second Kings 8:10) to Hirsh Glick and his fellow partisans singing "Zog nit keyn mol az du geyst tsum letsn veg", this approach was strictly endorsed by many codifiers and interpreters of the Jewish Law. Even if the physician beleives that the patient's death is imminent, "he should still order him: eat this and do not eat that, drink this and do not drink that; but he should not tell him that the end is near" (Midrash Rabbah Eccles. 5:6). Somehow (maybe irrationally) I beleive that Yiddish now is far from being _goysesdik_. I also beleive that the Yiddish language and culture, and all of us, who will benefit from their continuing existence, deserve an attitude on the part of Yiddish academics similar to one prescribed by the Midrash for the physicians.

My second reason to dislike arguments about the death of Yiddish is practical. In an introduction to the recently published volume "Politics of Yiddish" (AltaMira Press, 1998) its editor Dov-Ber Kerler wittily paralleled the situation with anti-semites and Jews equally "consuming" anti-semitic literature to the situation with "those who continue the vexing notion of Yiddish as a "dying" or an altogether "dead" language." He limits the arena of "thanatological" discussions to "Yiddishists, anti-Yiddishists and seemingly informed well-wishers of different walks of life". In reality, there is another important group in the audience - a group that includes philantropists and executives of various Jewish organizations. At the moment this group is seriously concerned with problems of Jewish identity and continuity. This group is looking for new ways and means to augment these declining values and may be prone to beleive that Yiddish culture is one of the answers. If appropriately advised, they may fund Yiddish classes in day schools and Sunday schools, adult education, community events... However, all they hear from the foremost experts - people who occupy Yididsh chairs in many of the finest universities - is that Yiddish is dead. Very sad and very unjust.

Iosif Vaisman