Last Yiddish Translation, I promise!!
R
>
> I tried to look this one up, but there seems to be 12 or so
> definitions. Im looking for the word "Power" standign alone as in "I
> have Power" or "I am a being with Power" or "There is Power within me
> to overcome this". Singular form, to be spoken about myself. Thank
> you!!
Macht.
I have power = Ich hab (die) macht.
There is Power within me to overcome this = Ich hab in mir die
macht dos beitzikimmen (or beitzukummen, depending on dialect).
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3EAD2A91...@concentric.net...
> jde wrote:
> >
> > I tried to look this one up, but there seems to be 12 or so
> > definitions. Im looking for the word "Power" standign alone as in "I
> > have Power" or "I am a being with Power" or "There is Power within me
> > to overcome this". Singular form, to be spoken about myself. Thank
> > you!!
>
> Macht.
>
> I have power = Ich hab (die) macht.
But don't people usually say koiach, or koichos, for this?
IS
Sheldon Ackerman
<myrealemailisia...@matrix.ru> wrote in news:b8jabt$abqof$1@ID-
98143.news.dfncis.de:
> But don't people usually say koiach, or koichos, for this?
>
Both terms would be correct. Macht is from the German. Koach is from the
Hebrew.
Micha Berger
: Both terms would be correct. Macht is from the German. Koach is from the
: Hebrew.
I thought one meant "ability", the other "strength".
AIUI, and I'm no Iddish authority:
"Hab nisht kain macht" would describe someone who lacks talent or skill.
"Hab nisht kain koyach" is someone who is to weak or tired to do it.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (413) 403-9905 strict justice?
Charles Vitez
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:b8k715$asj2a$3...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:13:49 +0000 (UTC), Sheldon Ackerman
<acke...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> : Both terms would be correct. Macht is from the German. Koach is from the
> : Hebrew.
>
> I thought one meant "ability", the other "strength".
>
> AIUI, and I'm no Iddish authority:
>
> "Hab nisht kain macht" would describe someone who lacks talent or skill.
> "Hab nisht kain koyach" is someone who is to weak or tired to do it.
***CV***
Yiddisch as she is spoke in Hungary (which is preferably as a second or
third language) would use "gevur" for "power", "macht" for "stupid strength"
and "kayach" for the good sort of strength.
***
Micha Berger
:> AIUI, and I'm no Iddish authority:
...
: Yiddisch as she is spoke in Hungary ...
Note to the peanut gallery: I wrote "Iddish" intentionally, as that
localizes which variant thereof I was speaking about. My grandfather
a"h spoke "Iddish", spelled with a leading alef, when he was a child
in Suvalk, N Poland, just outside Lithuania, and with a culturally
Lithuanian Jewish community.
Charles picked up on my implication, and therefore limited his
remarks to Hungarian Yiddish.
Translitation question: If you're using the German "sch" rather
than the English "sh", why not spell it "Jiddisch"? In Yiddish,
the last sound is inidicated with a shin either way.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
Fax: (413) 403-9905 forces the "judge" into submission?
Raphael
<rant>
Aaarrrghhhh!
Micha, I've said it once and I'll say it again. You drive me Qrazy with your
$#$%&^ phonetiqs! Q's, and I's and Parshas Sazria (which is just plain wrong!)
etc....
aaarrrrggghhhh!
</rant>
Raphael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you reply to a post I wrote, please e-mail it to me as well if possible.
Micha Berger
: Micha, I've said it once and I'll say it again. You drive me Qrazy with your
: $#$%&^ phonetiqs! Q's, and I's and Parshas Sazria (which is just plain wrong!)
: etc....
I won't bother arguing over taste.
However, Sazri'ah is the text being quoted. The verse is "Ishah ki
sazri'ah", the word is attached to the vowel of "ki" and therefore
the saf is unpointed (ie it's not a taf). Perhaps if I wrote Parashas
"Sazri'ah" and made it clear that the word was being lifted as-is rather
than reconjugated, you would be happier.
Alternatively, we could discuss the difference between Parshas Tazri'ah,
using normal usage for both words, with Parashas "Sazri'ah", which
conjugates the word "parashah" correctly.
The normal usage is inconsistant. "Shemos" is a connective form. Without
the following words "Benei Yisra'el", it should be "Sheimos". OTOH,
the verse from which we name the 4th book reads "Bemidbar Sinai", the
parallel connective form, but that most Ashkenazim do change to the
non-connective "Bamidbar". Rationale?
Sepharadim and whomever has been doing the vowelized reprintings of
the Gra's students' work are consistant: Shemos, Sazri'ah, Bemidbar.
Jess Olson
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:08:13 +0000 (UTC), Charles Vitez <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> :> AIUI, and I'm no Iddish authority:
> ...
>
> : Yiddisch as she is spoke in Hungary ...
>
> Note to the peanut gallery: I wrote "Iddish" intentionally, as that
> localizes which variant thereof I was speaking about. My grandfather
> a"h spoke "Iddish", spelled with a leading alef, when he was a child
> in Suvalk, N Poland, just outside Lithuania, and with a culturally
> Lithuanian Jewish community.
>
> Charles picked up on my implication, and therefore limited his
> remarks to Hungarian Yiddish.
>
> Translitation question: If you're using the German "sch" rather
> than the English "sh", why not spell it "Jiddisch"? In Yiddish,
> the last sound is inidicated with a shin either way.
Yes, that would be more consistent. The "correct" (English)
transliteration would use a "sh" and not "sch".
The only thing that is strange is the word "Yiddish" itself; it should, by
all rights, be transliterated as Micha does above...or actually, with one
less "d" (Idish), but we spell it by convention "Yiddish" (perhaps
because the standard way to spell the word "Yiddish" in Yiddish has a
double yud at the beginning...which is unusual), which doesn't
seem right no matter how you slice it. Not unlike the English word
"Czech", which makes sense only if you are transliterating the Czech word
"Cech" (with a "hachek" over the "C") into Polish, but not into English.
Yet another strange convention in English transliteration I've never
understood.
JO
Garry
<j...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Micha Berger wrote:
>The only thing that is strange is the word "Yiddish" itself; it should, by
>all rights, be transliterated as Micha does above...or actually, with one
>less "d" (Idish), but we spell it by convention "Yiddish" (perhaps
>because the standard way to spell the word "Yiddish" in Yiddish has a
>double yud at the beginning...which is unusual),
Wouldn't a single yud be pronounced Iddish?
which doesn't
>seem right no matter how you slice it. Not unlike the English word
>"Czech", which makes sense only if you are transliterating the Czech word
>"Cech" (with a "hachek" over the "C") into Polish, but not into English.
>Yet another strange convention in English transliteration I've never
>understood.
>
>JO
>
>>
>> -mi
>>
>> --
>> Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is
>> mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
>> http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
>> Fax: (413) 403-9905 forces the "judge" into submission?
>>
_______________________________________
A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
The entire purchase price goes to charity. http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
Art Werschulz
Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> writes:
> Not unlike the English word "Czech", which makes sense only if you
> are transliterating the Czech word "Cech" (with a "hachek" over the
> "C") into Polish, but not into English. Yet another strange
> convention in English transliteration I've never understood.
As in the Stone-Cech compactification arising in topology. The proper
TeX spelling of Cech is "\v Cech", the \v being the hacheck accent
(make up your own hachek <-> hat-check pun).
Interesting cultural point ... I've often seen it referred to as the
"Cech-Stone compactification" (which is more correct according to the
convention of alphabetical ordering), but this is especially so in the
Eastern European literature. Sort of like the Cauchy-Schwarz (perhaps
it be Schwartz--I've seen both spellings) inequality, which became the
Cauchy-Buniakowsky-Schwarz (CBS) Inequality, which (in the Eastern
European literature) becomes the Buniakowsky-Cauchy-Schwarz
inequality. In the words of Ensign Chekov, "It vas inwented in
Russia."
--
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: a...@cs.columbia.edu<a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
Charles Vitez
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:08:13 +0000 (UTC), Charles Vitez
<vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> :> AIUI, and I'm no Iddish authority:
> ...
>
> : Yiddisch as she is spoke in Hungary ...
>
> Note to the peanut gallery: I wrote "Iddish" intentionally, as that
> localizes which variant thereof I was speaking about. My grandfather
> a"h spoke "Iddish", spelled with a leading alef, when he was a child
> in Suvalk, N Poland, just outside Lithuania, and with a culturally
> Lithuanian Jewish community.
>
> Charles picked up on my implication, and therefore limited his
> remarks to Hungarian Yiddish.
>
> Translitation question: If you're using the German "sch" rather
> than the English "sh", why not spell it "Jiddisch"?
I was just trying to accomodate the "Anglos". I would normally spell it with
a "J". But I must admit that having the luxury of the phonetic Hungarian
alphabet, I am pretty sloppy with my transliterations.
In the very strange "Jiddisch-Teitsch" which I saw in my childhood - written
in Latin characters - and in which "maises fir jinglach" were presented, the
transliteration was relatively fixed and most definitely Germanic. The
implication had to be that for a boy of 7 or 8 it was easier to read in
Teitsch than in Hebrew characters. Whereas, it occurs to me, the contrary
must have been the case. The average boy started heder at 3 or 4 and only
started secular schooling at 6, so Hebrew characters would have come much
easier to me and my friends; particularly if written with nikudim - as in
the prayer books (I think for women) and in some chumashim (also I think for
women).
I only saw those "maises books" in Hungary (and they must have been produced
well pre-WWII) and have never seen such books in the UK or elsewhere. They
had lovely coloured illustrations and were a feast to the eyes - though I
cannot really recall any of the stories themselves.
****
In Yiddish,
> the last sound is inidicated with a shin either way.
***CV***
The "sh" sound is quite soft, while the "sch" sound is a little harder and
more like the end/emphasised "shin".
***
Jess Olson
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:01:52 +0000 (UTC), Jess Olson
> <j...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> >The only thing that is strange is the word "Yiddish" itself; it should, by
> >all rights, be transliterated as Micha does above...or actually, with one
> >less "d" (Idish), but we spell it by convention "Yiddish" (perhaps
> >because the standard way to spell the word "Yiddish" in Yiddish has a
> >double yud at the beginning...which is unusual),
>
> Wouldn't a single yud be pronounced Iddish?
Yes. And "Yiddish" is often pronounced "Idish" (that is "ee-dish", rather
than "yee-dish"), I think I've heard this most often from Hebrew-speakers,
which leads me to believe that it is at least in some sense correct as
well as "Yidish". But it is one of very few words with a double-yud in the
Yiddish language...in fact, looking at my dictionary, I see that it along
with most of the other words with a double "yud" are words whose origins
are Hebrew.
Another interesting point is that the word "Yiddish" in Yiddish as the
standard term by whcih the language itself is denoted is a rather
late development; in most of my experience, the word "Yudish" (that
is, yud-vuv-dalet-yud-shin) is much more common (and still is if you read
"Der Yud"). I don't actually know why "Yiddish" became the common word
instead of "Yudish", my guess is it has something to do with the
predominance of the dialect that used the word "Yiddish" rather than
"Yudish"; based on certain tendencies I've noticed among different
dialects, my guess is that the word "Yiddish" is from the Polish/Galician
dialect. But it's just a guess.
JO
Micha Berger
: Yes. And "Yiddish" is often pronounced "Idish" (that is "ee-dish", rather
: than "yee-dish"), I think I've heard this most often from Hebrew-speakers,
: which leads me to believe that it is at least in some sense correct as
I believe it's regional. Litvaks spoke of Idden, while much of the rest
of Eastern Europe used Yidden. And therefore Iddish and Yiddish.
Alternatively, you heard people speaking about virtual utensils off
which one eats one's e-chulent.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (413) 403-9905 necessary for a good relationship?
R
You have fallen prey to a common (and most unfortunate)
misperception. Yiddish has similarities to German, but it is not
derived therefrom. Macht is NOT "from" the German. It is Yiddish.
Koach (or koiach) is from Hebrew. While it has since become a
Yiddish word, macht is Yiddish in origin.
Jess Olson
You are absolutely right. Zer gut gezogt! (Except I'd say that "Macht" is
probably High Middle German in origin...the common ancestor of Yiddish and
Modern German).
JO
>
Talqcom
>From: raphae...@aol.com (Raphael)
>Date: 4/29/2003 11:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>and Parshas Sazria (which is just plain wrong!)
Why is it wrong? The thaf is a saf for Ashkenazim.
Ray
Talqcom
>From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org
>Date: 4/29/2003 11:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Alternatively, we could discuss the difference between Parshas Tazri'ah,
>using normal usage for both words, with Parashas "Sazri'ah", which
>conjugates the word "parashah" correctly.
"perasha" though. Third syllable from the ta'am cannot support a qames. Thus
qatan --> qetanim, perasha, teqana,etc.
Ray
Sheldon Ackerman
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030430...@elaine31.Stanford.EDU:
> You are absolutely right. Zer gut gezogt! (Except I'd say that "Macht"
> is probably High Middle German in origin...the common ancestor of
> Yiddish and Modern German).
>
Duh! Which came first? Yiddish or German? Did the word "macht" exist as a
German word before Yiddish became a language? Are you saying that the word
"macht" became a word in High Middle German AFTER it was a Yiddish word?
Then it is not of High Middle German in ORIGIN. Or am I misunderstanding
you???
Jess Olson
What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say "German"
the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the German that
German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
The German I speak of above is High MIddle German. This is not the German
I took you to mean. High Middle German is NOT GERMAN. It's High Middle
German. It is the common linguistic ancestor to BOTH Yiddish and MODERN
German.
Which came first, Yiddish or Modern German? NEITHER. They had a concurrent
linguistic development. To say "Is Macht a German word" both makes sense
and it doesn't. Yes, it is a modern German word. It is also a modern
Yiddish word. Both languages retain the word from another Germanic (note:
Germanic, not German) language, High Middle German.
Your earlier post (I think it was yours) reflected the common
misconception that Yiddish was somehow a form or dialect of Modern German.
It is not. It is a langauge that shares with Modern German a common root,
but beyond that has no connection to Modern German.
JO
>
Sheldon Ackerman
> What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say
> "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
> German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
Sorry about the Duh!
No, I did not mean modern German.
I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon roots. I
think our English word Might comes from the same word.
>
> Which came first, Yiddish or Modern German? NEITHER. They had a
> concurrent linguistic development. To say "Is Macht a German word"
> both makes sense and it doesn't. Yes, it is a modern German word. It
> is also a modern Yiddish word. Both languages retain the word from
> another Germanic (note: Germanic, not German) language, High Middle
> German.
My point was to differentiate between macht and koach.
> Your earlier post (I think it was yours) reflected the common
> misconception that Yiddish was somehow a form or dialect of Modern
> German. It is not. It is a langauge that shares with Modern German a
> common root, but beyond that has no connection to Modern German.
>
>
No it was not, although Credmore made it sound that way. Or at least that
was not my intention. I am aware of what the Yiddish language is.I was
responding to your "gut gazugt." My point again was simply to give the
individual a choice in which word he would want to use to mean "power."
R
What do you mean "before Yiddish became a language"? German
became a language at about the same time Yiddish became a
language. Despite what Yiddiphobes might have told you, Yiddish
id NOT derived from German.
R
>
> Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.03050...@elaine34.Stanford.EDU:
>
> > What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say
> > "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
> > German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
>
> Sorry about the Duh!
> No, I did not mean modern German.
> I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon roots. I
> think our English word Might comes from the same word.
> >
> > Which came first, Yiddish or Modern German? NEITHER. They had a
> > concurrent linguistic development. To say "Is Macht a German word"
> > both makes sense and it doesn't. Yes, it is a modern German word. It
> > is also a modern Yiddish word. Both languages retain the word from
> > another Germanic (note: Germanic, not German) language, High Middle
> > German.
>
> My point was to differentiate between macht and koach.
While mulling this over, I realize that there is yet another
Yiddish word, as original a Yiddish word as "macht" and therefore
far older as a Yiddish word than "koach." It is "kraft."
As in English, many Yiddish nouns have adjectives derived from
them. The adjective "strong" derives from the noun "strength";
the adjective "mighty" derives from the noun "might." Now in the
Yiddish equivalents, we also have mechtig derived from macht, and
kreftig derived from kraft. But it we use the noun "koach" there
is no real word adjective derived from it, unless you want to
make up a word, such as "koyachdik."
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
>> German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
>
> Sorry about the Duh!
> No, I did not mean modern German.
> I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon
> roots. I think our English word Might comes from the same word.
I think _many_ if not most of the English words that have a "gh"
come from such German words. Think about "night" "laugh" "eight".
Interesting.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
May Mikhah Shemu'el ben Lei'ah Yesharah (Michah Berger) have 1 2!
Micha Berger
: What do you mean "before Yiddish became a language"? German
: became a language at about the same time Yiddish became a
: language. Despite what Yiddiphobes might have told you, Yiddish
: id NOT derived from German.
But clearly a common ancestor.
There is a real reason why Yiddish resembles the language of the
Germans, and it's /because/ it is their language.
The origin of Yiddish is in the Crusades. To the Jews who fled from
Ashkenaz (N. France and Germany) to Eastern Europe, the language they
spoke in "the old country" was a tie to the past and tradition.
This transported proto-German, along with words and structures from
religious discourse in Aramaic and Hebrew, became Yiddish.
Yekkes, the German Jews, descendents of those Jews who didn't flee,
therefore never thought of the local language as anything but the
local language.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (413) 403-9905 state of harmony?
Charles Vitez
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2003May...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> Sheldon Ackerman <acke...@dorsai.org> writes:
> > Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> wrote in
> >
> >> What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say
> >> "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
> >> German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
> >
> > Sorry about the Duh!
> > No, I did not mean modern German.
> > I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon
> > roots. I think our English word Might comes from the same word.
>
> I think _many_ if not most of the English words that have a "gh"
> come from such German words. Think about "night" "laugh" "eight".
> Interesting.
A plea: couldn't we (even if I say please?) agree that both English and
German have common roots in early English?
***
Sheldon Ackerman
> While mulling this over, I realize that there is yet another
> Yiddish word, as original a Yiddish word as "macht" and therefore
> far older as a Yiddish word than "koach." It is "kraft."
>
> As in English, many Yiddish nouns have adjectives derived from
> them. The adjective "strong" derives from the noun "strength";
> the adjective "mighty" derives from the noun "might." Now in the
> Yiddish equivalents, we also have mechtig derived from macht, and
> kreftig derived from kraft. But it we use the noun "koach" there
> is no real word adjective derived from it, unless you want to
> make up a word, such as "koyachdik."
>
>
Had he asked for the word "energy" I would have responded with "kraft."
But you are correct in that kraft may be used for power as well.
R
>
> Sheldon Ackerman <acke...@dorsai.org> writes:
> > Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> wrote in
> >
> >> What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say
> >> "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
> >> German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
> >
> > Sorry about the Duh!
> > No, I did not mean modern German.
> > I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon
> > roots. I think our English word Might comes from the same word.
>
> I think _many_ if not most of the English words that have a "gh"
> come from such German words. Think about "night" "laugh" "eight".
> Interesting.
You are making the same mistake. English words that are similar
to their German equivalents do not derive from those German words
any more than their Yiddish counterparts do. These languages have
common ancestries but do not derive one from another.
Talqcom
>Date: 5/4/2003 10:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Yiddish
>: id NOT derived from German.
>
>But clearly a common ancestor.
>
As to lexicon yes, as to grammar and syntax, not necessarily.
Paul Wexler a Tel Aviv University linguist believes Yiddish is a version of
West Sorbian, a Slavic tongue, which underwent two lexical shifts; one ot
German, another later one to Hebrew. Thus the fact that some 40% of the
Yiddish vocabulary is Hebrew in origin.
Ray
Sheldon Ackerman
news:b93c5e$9b9$1...@titan.btinternet.com:
> A plea: couldn't we (even if I say please?) agree that both English and
> German have common roots in early English?
>
Or does early English have common roots with German?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Raphael <raphae...@aol.com> wrote:
> : Micha, I've said it once and I'll say it again. You drive me
Perhaps it's not a drive but merely a short putt? :-)
> Qrazy with your : $#$%&^ phonetiqs! Q's, and I's and Parshas
> Sazria (which is just plain wrong!) : etc....
>
> I won't bother arguing over taste.
>
> However, Sazri'ah is the text being quoted. The verse is "Ishah ki
> sazri'ah", the word is attached to the vowel of "ki" and therefore
> the saf is unpointed (ie it's not a taf). Perhaps if I wrote Parashas
> "Sazri'ah" and made it clear that the word was being lifted as-is rather
> than reconjugated, you would be happier.
I doubt it.
> Alternatively, we could discuss the difference between Parshas Tazri'ah,
> using normal usage for both words, with Parashas "Sazri'ah", which
> conjugates the word "parashah" correctly.
>
> The normal usage is inconsistant. "Shemos" is a connective form. Without
> the following words "Benei Yisra'el", it should be "Sheimos". OTOH,
> the verse from which we name the 4th book reads "Bemidbar Sinai", the
> parallel connective form, but that most Ashkenazim do change to the
> non-connective "Bamidbar". Rationale?
Comprehension. Understanding. We had this go-around not long ago. Do
I want to be right? Or understood? I had the same arguments with
Amitai. He refused on principle to use smileys. I miss him.
> Sepharadim and whomever has been doing the vowelized reprintings of
> the Gra's students' work are consistant: Shemos, Sazri'ah, Bemidbar.
But will they be understood?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
OK, so change my comment to read "...from the same place the German
words came." Like the story of Reb Zusyia of Anipoler and the
Vilna Gaon.
R
Yes and no. Depending on the particular Yiddish dialect. As
spoken in yeshivah circles (and among certain chasidim,
particularly Chabad), there is indeed a high percentage of words
of Hebrew/Aramaic origin (though I doubt that it's anywhere near
40%). But such dialects are more like jargon than proper Yiddish,
which has far less Hebrew/Aramaic words.
While radio station WEVD (in the New York area) was still
broadcasting a few hours of Jewish programing each day, they had
a newscaster named Moishe Rosenfeld, who would broadcast the news
in Yiddish. Pure Galitzianer Yiddish, with virtually now Hebrew
words at all. I used to listen to his broadcast faithfully each
day. A (non-Jewish) Sweedish woman working in our office would
also listen, and she was able to comprehend most of what he was
saying. Only at the very end would she require me to translate,
when Rosenfeld would say, "Und itzt, liebe tzuherer, zeinen mir
gekimmen tzum 'sof' fun inzerer heintigen neiyes bericht..."
"Sof" was the one and only Hebrew word regularly used in his
entire 15-minute commentary.
Micha Berger
:> The normal usage is inconsistant. "Shemos" is a connective form. Without
:> the following words "Benei Yisra'el", it should be "Sheimos". OTOH,
:> the verse from which we name the 4th book reads "Bemidbar Sinai", the
:> parallel connective form, but that most Ashkenazim do change to the
:> non-connective "Bamidbar". Rationale?
: Comprehension. Understanding. We had this go-around not long ago. Do
: I want to be right? Or understood?...
Here it's more than simple communication, there is a mesorah at stake.
There is a tradition about what te names of the parshios are, and it
would bother me to see our current casual attitude toward grammar
ruin that.
:> Sepharadim and whomever has been doing the vowelized reprintings of
:> the Gra's students' work are consistant: Shemos, Sazri'ah, Bemidbar.
: But will they be understood?
Aside from the third issue you overlooked, apparantly yes -- you
knew exactly what I was talking about.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (413) 403-9905 balance?
Jess Olson
> Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.03050...@elaine34.Stanford.EDU:
>
> > What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say
> > "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
> > German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
>
> Sorry about the Duh!
No problem.
> No, I did not mean modern German.
> I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon roots. I
> think our English word Might comes from the same word.
> >
Yes, perhaps the best way to be clear would be to avoid use of the term
"German" at all...it is misleading. "Germanic" works best, I'd say;
meaning "Not German, but rather exibiting the the essential qualities of
the languages in the Germanic family, including the various generations of
German, English, and other minor Germanic languages such as Yiddish,
Gothic, etc." That is what I (and it seems you) were getting at.
> > Which came first, Yiddish or Modern German? NEITHER. They had a
> > concurrent linguistic development. To say "Is Macht a German word"
> > both makes sense and it doesn't. Yes, it is a modern German word. It
> > is also a modern Yiddish word. Both languages retain the word from
> > another Germanic (note: Germanic, not German) language, High Middle
> > German.
>
> My point was to differentiate between macht and koach.
In that case, I'd put it this way: "Macht" is as Yiddish as "Koyach"; that
is to say, both are correct Yiddish words; but since Yiddish is a fusion
langauge, both words have sources in different linguistic families. I
don't think you can argue (not that you are) that one is more or less
"Yiddish" than the other, although "koyach" is certainly less "Germanic"
than "Macht".
>
>
> > Your earlier post (I think it was yours) reflected the common
> > misconception that Yiddish was somehow a form or dialect of Modern
> > German. It is not. It is a langauge that shares with Modern German a
> > common root, but beyond that has no connection to Modern German.
> >
> >
> No it was not, although Credmore made it sound that way. Or at least that
> was not my intention. I am aware of what the Yiddish language is.I was
> responding to your "gut gazugt." My point again was simply to give the
> individual a choice in which word he would want to use to mean "power."
Fair enough. No hard feelings, eh?
JO
Jess Olson
> Sheldon Ackerman wrote:
> >
> > Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> wrote in
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.44.03050...@elaine34.Stanford.EDU:
> >
> > > What's with the duh?!? You must define your terms. when you say
> > > "German" the presumption is that you mean MODERN German. That is, the
> > > German that German speakers speak today, and its dialectic variations.
> >
> > Sorry about the Duh!
> > No, I did not mean modern German.
> > I did mean Germanic roots. Perhaps I should have said Anglo Saxon roots. I
> > think our English word Might comes from the same word.
> > >
> > > Which came first, Yiddish or Modern German? NEITHER. They had a
> > > concurrent linguistic development. To say "Is Macht a German word"
> > > both makes sense and it doesn't. Yes, it is a modern German word. It
> > > is also a modern Yiddish word. Both languages retain the word from
> > > another Germanic (note: Germanic, not German) language, High Middle
> > > German.
> >
> > My point was to differentiate between macht and koach.
>
> While mulling this over, I realize that there is yet another
> Yiddish word, as original a Yiddish word as "macht" and therefore
> far older as a Yiddish word than "koach." It is "kraft."
Yes..but I would say that "Kraft" is a _very_ daytshmerish word, wouldn't
you? (Meaning: it is a word that is more or less explicitly borrowed from
later German, usually in the post-haskalah period, for the sake of making
one's Yiddish sound more artificially "elevated"). I could be wrong, but
that's my impression.
> As in English, many Yiddish nouns have adjectives derived from
> them. The adjective "strong" derives from the noun "strength";
> the adjective "mighty" derives from the noun "might." Now in the
> Yiddish equivalents, we also have mechtig derived from macht, and
> kreftig derived from kraft. But it we use the noun "koach" there
> is no real word adjective derived from it, unless you want to
> make up a word, such as "koyachdik."
Don't think that's really "making up a word," adding the "dik" suffix is a
pretty standard practice, probably so much so that just about any word
which you would do this to (I think Weinreich calls these expressions
"pariphrastic" or something like that) would be considered a "kosher"
Yiddish word.
JO
>
Jess Olson
Someone has brought this theory up before here...I think it is important
to say that it is the minority of a minority of Yiddish linguists who
accept this theory as even remotely possible. And those who do tend to
have other disturbing opinions about Ashkenazim in general (i.e., that
we're all descended from the Khazars).
Just thought I should point this out. The simple fact is that one must
take into account very seriously the syntax, grammar and vocabulary of
Yiddish as a language, which put it CLEARLY in the Germanic family. To
argue otherwise is, well...
JO
>
> Ray
>
Garry
particular words or words, High Middle German was the primary
language spoken in Germany from about 1000-1300. By about 1300, it
had developed into the language that is called just plain German. In
France at the time, they were using the kind of Old French that Rashi
tends to cite to. In England (a more backwards country at the time)
the language of the defeated Anglo Saxons and Norman French were
developing into Middle English, which reached full flower in the
thirteenth century.
In the early part of this same period, around 1000, Jews adapted this
same MHG to a language that could be spelled with the Hebrew alphabet,
using some common Hebrew words as well. (Modern Yiddish also has an
added vocabulary from Slavic languages, but that came later).
AFAIK, Once he or she understands some simple changes of grammar and
spelling, a modern German can understand middle high german, just as a
modern English speaker can understand middle english. Modern German
speakers and moderrn Yiddish speakers can communicate without much
difficulty either, although they won't like each other's grammar.
So yes, Yiddish was not derived from modern German, but was derived
from an earlier version. But calling MHG and German two entirely
different languages is, let's say, a matter of personal choice.
Yiddish was and On Sun, 4 May 2003 03:16:50 +0000 (UTC), R
<rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
_______________________________________
Jess Olson
> this seems like another one of these SCJM turf wars over who owns a
> particular words or words, High Middle German was the primary
> language spoken in Germany from about 1000-1300. By about 1300, it
> had developed into the language that is called just plain German.
Riiiiight. Would you like to supply a source which indicated that 14th
century German is anything like Modern German? Perhaps a document of some
kind that dates to the 14th century that is readily comprehensible to the
normal reader of modern German? I'd not waste my time looking if I were
you. Considering that the major leaps in the standardization of German
spelling and syntax, and thus of the language itself, really didn't occur
until well after Luther's translation of the Bible (i.e., after the 15th
century), this is like you claiming that somehow the English of the 14th
century was "just plain English".
In
> France at the time, they were using the kind of Old French that Rashi
> tends to cite to. In England (a more backwards country at the time)
> the language of the defeated Anglo Saxons and Norman French were
> developing into Middle English, which reached full flower in the
> thirteenth century.
>
I'm not so sure, considering that Chaucer wasn't even born until 1345. So
I'd put the "flowering" of Middle English somewhat later.
> In the early part of this same period, around 1000, Jews adapted this
> same MHG to a language that could be spelled with the Hebrew alphabet,
> using some common Hebrew words as well. (Modern Yiddish also has an
> added vocabulary from Slavic languages, but that came later).
>
> AFAIK, Once he or she understands some simple changes of grammar and
> spelling, a modern German can understand middle high german, just as a
> modern English speaker can understand middle english. Modern German
> speakers and moderrn Yiddish speakers can communicate without much
> difficulty either, although they won't like each other's grammar.
>
This is simply not the case, I'm sorry. Having known a number of Germans
who, unless they were simply lying to me for some reason, protest that
they can scarcely understand Yiddish, it seems to me your "AFAIK" is
"NVFAA" (Not Very Far At All). There is a significant difference in very
basic vocabulary between Yiddish and German that make Yiddish very hard
to understand, to say nothing of significant -- Very significant --
differences in syntax and grammar. I'd put it like this: a Yiddish
speaker can, with a little difficulty, understand a fair amount of
_spoken_ German. A German speaker can understand a much smaller amount of
spoken Yiddish. A Yiddish speaker who can read Roman characters (lets say
we are in the 19th rather than the 21st century, and there actually are
Yiddish speakers who would not have seen Roman characters) would be able
to comprehend a fairly sparse amount of written German. A German person
reading Yiddish, if they could read Hebrew characters, would probalby
comprehend an equally sparse amount. All this by way of saying, the two
langauges are far more different than you suggest.
I would say the one exception to the above would be a person with a fair
amount of Hebrew comprehension as well as German. Then, much of what would
be obscure to the non-Hebrew speaking German would be a little clearer,
although there are, in my experience, some shifts in meaning between the
meaning of a Hebrew or Aramaic word outside Yiddish, and the use that it
developed within Yiddish...the example that comes immediately to mind is
"adarabe"...which anyone who has opened a Gemora knows means something
like "on the contrary," but in Yiddish has the alternate meaning (from
whence, I have no idea) of "by all means".
> So yes, Yiddish was not derived from modern German, but was derived
> from an earlier version. But calling MHG and German two entirely
> different languages is, let's say, a matter of personal choice.
Right. It is a matter of choice...choosing to understand the nuances of
language change and difference, or choosing to ignore them.
JO
Talqcom
>Date: 5/5/2003 1:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Just thought I should point this out. The simple fact is that one must
>take into account very seriously the syntax, grammar and vocabulary of
>Yiddish as a language, which put it CLEARLY in the Germanic family. To
>argue otherwise is, well...
To be Paul Wexler.
Aside from resorts to authoritas, my style is a little different. I read the
book and then decide. His presentation is intelligent and linguistically
rigorous.
Ray
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Garry wrote:
BIG snip
> I would say the one exception to the above would be a person with a fair
> amount of Hebrew comprehension as well as German. Then, much of what would
> be obscure to the non-Hebrew speaking German would be a little clearer,
> although there are, in my experience, some shifts in meaning between the
> meaning of a Hebrew or Aramaic word outside Yiddish, and the use that it
> developed within Yiddish...the example that comes immediately to mind is
> "adarabe"...which anyone who has opened a Gemora knows means something
> like "on the contrary," but in Yiddish has the alternate meaning (from
> whence, I have no idea) of "by all means".
Jess it means the same thing! But you have to enter the Yiddish
speakers _mindset_. Very often he's responding with a question. ("Why
do you answer every question with a question?" "Why not?") In this
case he's responding to the _unasked_ question. A. makes a suggestion
and B. says "adarabe". What that one word means is; "You _may_ think
I disagree, but I don't". Simple, no?
Jess Olson
> Jess Olson <j...@stanford.edu> writes:
> > On Mon, 5 May 2003, Garry wrote:
>
> BIG snip
>
> > I would say the one exception to the above would be a person with a fair
> > amount of Hebrew comprehension as well as German. Then, much of what would
> > be obscure to the non-Hebrew speaking German would be a little clearer,
> > although there are, in my experience, some shifts in meaning between the
> > meaning of a Hebrew or Aramaic word outside Yiddish, and the use that it
> > developed within Yiddish...the example that comes immediately to mind is
> > "adarabe"...which anyone who has opened a Gemora knows means something
> > like "on the contrary," but in Yiddish has the alternate meaning (from
> > whence, I have no idea) of "by all means".
>
> Jess it means the same thing! But you have to enter the Yiddish
> speakers _mindset_. Very often he's responding with a question. ("Why
> do you answer every question with a question?" "Why not?") In this
> case he's responding to the _unasked_ question. A. makes a suggestion
> and B. says "adarabe". What that one word means is; "You _may_ think
> I disagree, but I don't". Simple, no?
:-) Very nice. Thanks.
JO