מענדעלע

An interesting and provocative article by the NY Times science editor George Johnson "Scholars Debate Origins of Yiddish and the Migrations of Jews" was published today in New York Times (pp.B5 and B10 or http://www.nytimes.com/). The later version misses the map, that accompanies printed edition, having instead hyperlinks to the Spoken Yiddish Language Project Web site at the Columbia University and to the Virtual Shtetl. Due to the link, Shtetl enjoyed a huge influx of new visitors (in normal days Shtetl has average of 450 hits, today - 2,200 by 5 p.m.). It shows that NYT is still a popular newspaper, despite some sluggishness: in this particular case "the news that's fit to print" appeared in Mendele more than a year ago ("Origins of Yiddish" thread in Vols. 5.062, 5.065, and others).

Iosif Vaisman

in unzer haym flegn mir banutzn 'denken' in dem zinen fun a bashtimtn gedank oder gloybn (tz.b. ikh denk s'iz tzayt aheym tzu geyn -- I think it's time to go home); 'trakhtn' als a protzes fun formirn gedanken (tz.b. men darf a trakht ton vos der aruyskum vet zayn -- we ought to consider the consequences); 'klern' iz nit geven a teglekher vort -- men flegt mer nitzn 'derkler' (tz.b. derkler mir vos du meynst -- explain to me what you mean), azoy az ikh volt farshtanen dem vort 'klern' als a protzes fun klor makhn tzu zikh aleyn a kompletzirtn iniyon.

tzu Miki Safadi's tzetl darf men tzugebn dos vort 'maynen' velkhn ikh banutz vi in 'vos meynt es -- what does it mean'. vaynraykhs verterbukh git etlekhe iberzetzungen af english, zvishn zey 'think', ober beyde bayshpiln fun banutz zeynen nor 'think'. dos vort 'denken' batzeykhnt er als a daytchmerizm un zetzt iber als 'reason' oder 'cogitate'. Fun english af idish zetzt er iber 'think' als 'trakhtn' oder 'klern' un dermont nit 'denken', khotch dos folgendiker vort 'thinker' is ba im 'der denker'.

Mayne kinder lernen zikh idish un lernen zeyere kinder eykh. veynreykh iz ba zey di toyre! ober yedn mol vos ikh her 'ikh meyn es iz tzayt tzu geyn shlofn' vilt zikh mir fregn ' vi kenst du derklern di kinder vos du meynst, oyb du host frier vegn dem gornit nit gezogt?' eyb 'denken' iz a daytchmerizm zeynen dokh 'trachtn', 'klern' un 'meynen' punkt di zelbe daytchmerizmen. vos denkt ir?

Lyber Katz

Let me try to connect a few dots from past contributions to Mendele on this topic in hopes of clarifying parts of this fuzzy picture.

Life and generational continuity are supreme Jewish values and so most of us find it impossible to remain indifferent to assaults against and discouragement of continued life for Yiddish, and, by extension, potential interference with enjoyment and transmission of Yiddish cultural treasures. Hershl Hartman asked (6.058, 5) "Can any mental health worker out there explain the apparently urgently felt need to bury Yiddish? (Ruth Wisse, perhaps?)". Did he imply that this _apparently urgently felt need_ is pathological? I am not a mental health worker, but I would say it is more than possible.

Leybl Botvinik brought to us (6.014, 1) a particulary spooky quotation from a 1986 article in which Ruth Wisse is purported to have said, "I am certainly not one who mourns the decline of Yiddish in America..." and further, "It's a crime to be sentimental [about the decline of Yiddish]."

It is true that sentimentality can interfere with judgment and so mislead. But it is also true that sentiment is also feeling, passion, and can work to hold one firmly to a good, creative path, in spite of great difficulty. To suggest criminalizing (even metaphorically) a passionate attachment to a Jewish language and culture is nothing short of bizarre.

I think some people are frightened about feeling strongly about _anything_. That is a kind of self suffocation driven sometimes by a wish to fit into a social and political environment perceived as threatening, hostile to one's natural feelings.

Leah Zazulyer last June suggested (6.017,2) a political subtext for this general phenomenon. She referred to the association of Yiddish with the left, the Bund, etc. which frightens the orthodox. I would add the secular dimension as an aspect of Yiddish that repels them.

I also believe that association of Yiddish with the left drives some self haters to recoil from Yiddish as a way to hide from and/or appease the right wing whose ominous stock in trade is scapegoating. [e.g., Don't hate us, Pat Buchanan! We are just like you. Ain't nobody here but us right wingers.] I think Leah Zazulyer raised a core issue when she said: "I fear that we have learned nothing in the 20th century if self hate is fueling statements on the death of Yiddish, and the insistence on that death!"

A quotation from Modern Yiddish Culture, by Emanuel S. Goldsmith. New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1987, p. 68 is rather apt:

In Germany, Richard Loewe, a Germanics scholar, published an important article in a German Jewish journal in 1904 in which he analyzed the hostility toward Yiddish of his fellow German Jews. In it he wrote: The antipathy of the Christian European environment to the Jews evoked anti-Semitism on the part of the Jews themselves and the detestation which this environment cultivated towards the language of the Jews also became part of the Jews. It is noteworthy that even in the circles where Jewish identity has been reawakened, this hatred toward the Jargon (as the East European Jew himself refers to the language) continues.

I am encouraged, however, by the passion for Yiddish evinced by the young and not so young among Mendelyaners.

[Passion? Gevalt! Call the sentimentality police!]

Louis Fridhandler Walnut Creek

[On this subject a masterly article by Shikl Fishman ("Ongekhapt dem emes bay der bord") has appeared in the most recent issue of _Afn Shvel_. If we could say "required reading" we would. nm]