_The Mendele Review_: Yiddish Literature and Language (A Companion to _MENDELE_) ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 05.006 21 May 2001 1) On this issue of _TMR_ (ed.) 2) Joshua A. Fishman's _Can Threatened Languages be Saved?_ (reviewed by Sholem Berger) 3) Excerpt from Joshua A. Fishman's introductory chapter in Joshua A. Fishman, ed. _Can threatened languages be saved?_ 4) Excerpts from "Hebrew After a Century of RLS Efforts" by B. Spolsky and E. Shohamy in Joshua A. Fishman, ed. _Can threatened languages be saved?_ 5) A joke about liking _lokshn_ in Yiddish and Hebrew versions (ed.) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 2001 From: Leonard PragerSubject: On this issue of _TMR_ a. In his essay tailored for _The Mendele Review_, Sholem Berger justifiably focuses on a single chapter of Joshua A. Fishman's latest book, a chapter on the future of Yiddish in the great megopolis of New York (said to contain a population of 20,000,000 in its extended boundaries). I quote briefly from Fishman's introduction to the volume and give several excerpts from B. Spolsky and E. Shohamy's forthright and chapter "Hebrew After a Century of RLS Efforts." b. Elisheva Schonfeld's comprehensive Hebrew indexes to Alter Druyanov's annotated _Sefer habedikha vehakhidud_ ['Book of Jokes and Wit'] (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1963) may now be consulted in _The World of Yiddish_/_di velt fun yidish_/_haOlam haYidi_ website [http://research.haifa.ac.il/~yiddish]. They are the first of a number of items in what hopefully will be an entire section devoted to Jewish humor in Yiddish or with a Yiddish connection. Druyanov's three-volume collection of jokes is in Hebrew, but its predominant source language is undoubtedly Yiddish. Druyanov transformed a lively colloquial Yiddish into an elegant and often quite formal pre-State Hebrew. While his manifest service to Hebrew was in some measure a disservice to Yiddish, he must be credited for gathering in one publication a large corpus of humor which might otherwise not have been so well preserved. Moreover, Druyanov's classic anthology served an entire generation of _sabras_ as a wimdow to Eastern-European Jewish life and is widely regarded with affection. The anecdote given here is recorded in a number of variants. I give Ravnitski's Yiddish version and the considerably different one in Druyanov. Readers are invited to comment on the differences they see. 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 2001 From: Sholem Berger Subject: A review of Joshua A. Fishman's _Can Threatened Languages be Saved?_ Rx for Yiddish by Sholem Berger Joshua A. Fishman. "A Decade in the Life of a Two-in-One Language: Yiddish in New York City (Secular and Ultra-Orthodox)." In _Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective_, Joshua A. Fishman, ed., Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2000. ISBN 1-85359-492-8. In 1991, Multilingual Matters published Joshua Fishman's _Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages_ (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters). It was the first full-length work of its kind: neither a eulogy for languages dead, disappearing, or endangered, nor a linguistic dissection of these languages, but a rigorous guide to rescuing them from extinction. The theoretical centerpiece of the work was Fishman's Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, or GIDS -- a sociolinguistic taxonomy of threatened languages. In stage 8, for example, a threatened language requires reconstruction before it can be restored as a vernacular; in stage 6, perhaps the most critical in the scale, informal, intergenerational communication in the language is geographically concentrated and institutionally reinforced. In stages 4 and below, the threatened language finds functional expansion, first in schools, then in other cultural institutions and communications media. Ten years later, the GIDS is at the center of another work, edited by Fishman. _Can threatened languages be saved?_ is a collection of essays by sociolinguists and "RLSers" around the world which take stock of Fishman's classification system, their own efforts on behalf of minority languages, and the two-steps-forward, one-step-back progress of minority-language revival. ("RLSers" is Fishman's infelicitous term for minority-language activists.) The roll-call of languages in this book is a long one, ranging from Otomi [acute accent over i] to Quechua, from Maori to Irish. The experiences of language activists are enlightening and helpful, and the critiques of Fishman's GIDS are on the mark, albeit some of the proposed supplementary theories suffer from a lack of specificity and applicability. Readers of _The Mendele Review_ will be most interested in Fishman's essay "A Decade in the Life of a Two-in-One Language" [pp. 74-100]. (He also contributed an introduction and conclusion to the volume.) The descriptions of the status of Yiddish in the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities will surprise no one whose observation is unencumbered by ideology. However, his practical recommendations to the secular Yiddishist community are novel, clear and plausible, although (as the author himself points out) it remains to be seen just how workable his suggestions will be on the ground. Fishman admits a goal he acknowledges as quixotic: to "break out of [the] swirling mass of misinformation, wishful thinking and love-hate that has hung on" with regard to Yiddish "for well over a century."[75] an attempt to bring truth to the fore, the author presents parallel descriptions of the status of Yiddish in its mutually exclusive New York "realms" (which, as Fishman points out, do not communicate, nor have any interest in joining forces to strengthen Yiddish): secular Yiddishists and ultra-Orthodox Yiddish speakers. 1. As far as secular Yiddishism is concerned, the author has a thimbleful of good news and sociolinguistic barrels-full of the bad sort. First, Fishman recounts some of the small and not-so-small triumphs of secular Yiddish in the past years, most of which (the revitalization of the _Forverts_, the growing number of Yiddish "vinklekh," the triumph of the standardized orthography) are well known to followers of the "scene." "All in all," he writes, "although the secularist scene certainly has no reason to be self-satisfied or smug about its prospects, it can be pardoned for smiling more often than it used to. What a difference a decade can make, on the one hand, and on the other, 'the more things change the more they stay the same': neither the secular Yiddishist _practical_ aspects nor the _ideological_ underpinnings to the still substantial and varied efforts of this 'wing' of the Yiddish world are such as to currently engage either the attention or the adherence of the vast majority of American Jews, whether old or young, native or foreign born."[79] Next follows a short series of the author's "diary entries" which are meant to give the flavor of secular Yiddish events during 1999: with few exceptions, these are mostly literary and performance-oriented, without opportunities truly to learn and use the language. These entries are a preface to Fishman's dissection of secular Yiddishism, which will raise a few hackles and open not a few eyes to the movement's ideological and practical failures. "Yiddishism," says Fishman, "has become largely peripheral and even exotic vis-?is the mainstream of New York City Jewish life."[84] The author singles out some characteristics of secular Yiddishism which are, he says, "less than optimal" for more general RLS efforts: "(a) a penchant for 'Yiddish entertainment and spectator sports'; (b) an organizational venue and organizational longevity skills... rather than vernacular spontaneity" (Fishman here comments ruefully on the de-Yiddishization of the YIVO); and "(c) a 'theoretical' preference for Yiddish Literary ('high') Culture," 'theoretical' because precious little Yiddish literature in Yiddish is now generally read in [secular Yiddishist] circles." [84] The author issues a warning which is too late to be prophetic: "Few would maintain that these [characteristics] come anywhere near to making up for the lack of daily language use, or of demographic centers of informal speech-network concentration, or of explicit ideological self-definition, or of practical RLS prioritization within its own shrinking orbit."[84] According to the author, secular Yiddishists must straddle a huge GIDS chasm: there are still a surprising number of group activities in Yiddish (stages 1, 2, and 3), considering the small number of secular Yiddish speakers. However, the "stage 6" milieu, i.e., the geographic intersection of home, family, and community which both ensures intergenerational transmission and serves as an anchor for further functional expansion, is entirely lacking. What then to do? Fishman identifies two main dangers for secular Yiddishism: the overwhelming pressure of modern secular culture and Yiddishism's own ideological impoverishment and obsolescence. He offers two solutions, palatable only to a committed core of Yiddishists, who are themselves (like all groups) ideologically riven. First, says Fishman, those who wish to ensure the intergenerational transmission of Yiddish among secular Jews must create real, geographic, intergenerational communities of Yiddish speakers. In such communities (modeled on the Maori "kehanga-reo" model described in "RLS") native speakers would teach the language to children of nursery-school and pre-kindergarten age, while young adults of child-bearing age would learn Yiddish on weekends and evenings, in preparation for use of the language on an exclusive basis in the home. Further, the outmoded ideology of Yiddishism (which Fishman curiously characterizes as undefined), i.e., socialism, cultural autonomy, and Jewish (non-religious) "peoplehood," must be exchanged entirely for something more in tune both ideologically and socially with the great majority of American Jews. It is worth quoting Fishman's proposals in detail, although readers of his occasional columns in the _Forverts_ will have seen them before: "In the very midst of a generational whirlwind of 'return to English speaking but tradition venerating Orthodoxy (and even ultra-Orthodoxy', a return which has effectively robbed secular Yiddishism of any but the most minimal role in the consciousness of the last two younger generations, the time may have come to admit that progressive and secular culture _per se_ is also a great handicap for RLS and, therefore, a decided minus for the future of secular Yiddishism.... [S]ecular Yiddishism's high-tech, spectator-sport, and minimalist 'now and then'... Yiddish lacks the separation and the insistence on difference that are needed to maintain its own beloved language...."[86] "Secular Yiddishism needs to be recast from its original 'nationalism, anti-clericalism, socialism plus literature' model to a model that stresses 'Jewish tradition-friendly Yiddish secularism' or 'Judaism plus' as an add-on modification to any other model of traditional Jewish life. Most religious Jews do not aspire to a 'Jewish secularism' of their own. Yiddishists might proudly claim _that_ as a goal (via Yiddish theater, choruses, media, scouting and camping, etc.) in addition to the usual range and variety of traditional observances that define traditional American Jewish communities.... A conscientious shift from (a) secular Yiddishism to 'Yiddish secularism plus' and (b) from 'Yiddish appreciation' to 'active Yiddish use' via emphasizing the first language acquisition locale of home-family-neighborhood-community functioning, is obviously not for everyone.... But it is a beginning to the search for an answer to the dilemmas of 'being neither fully alive or fully dead'."[87-89] The first solution -- the creation of an intergenerational, geographic speech community -- is difficult enough, especially when one considers that small groups of Yiddishists have already attempted such linguistic experiments in past years. Those involved have characterized them as ill-planned if noble ventures (see, for example, Sheva Zucker's entertaining essay in the 25th anniversary issue of _Yugntruf_ about her generation's attempt at a "Yiddish house"). Nevertheless, Fishman, or a "Fishmanist", might say in response that these previous ventures lacked the proper basis in RLS theory. The second proposal of Fishman's, on the other hand, might be very troublesome to those who wish Yiddish to be a safe harbor from the problematic, anti-modern, or distasteful elements of traditional Judaism. However, the inconvenient truth is that love for the language as a cultural tool or symbol is by no means equivalent to a living commitment to its survival. If one wants to use Yiddish to remake Judaism, one might first have to adopt a more traditional Judaism in order to preserve Yiddish, or at least "secular Yiddish." In fact, the observer of today's "secular Yiddishism" might well find that Fishman's proposal of "tradition-friendly secularism" has been ratified by events. The leaders of most still-surviving secular Yiddishist organizations are much more tradition-friendly, even quasi-Orthodox, than would have been the case even 10 or 20 years ago. 2. The ultra-Orthodox scene, writes Fishman, is "almost the diametric opposite of the secularist scene."[88] In the Kharedi milieu, Yiddish is used for home, family, and community, and intergenerational transmission is a natural phenomenon (although problems may be cropping up with the younger generation; see below). However, despite the obvious and colorful "all- [or mostly-] Yiddish" life which is available just over the Williamsburg Bridge, those on the "other side," i.e., the Manhattan-based secularists, refuse to see it, and deny its application to their world -- much as the ultra-Orthodox often refuse to countenance the possible importance of secular Yiddish literature. (However, this too might be exaggerated in Fishman's description; anecdotal reports abound of Sholem-Aleichem reading circles among the ultra-Orthodox. Whether this is true is an open question.) Fishman cites the lively and sometimes hostile Mendele discussion that ensued upon Janet Hadda's "defection" from Yiddishism as proof, if any were needed, that secular Yiddishists "[reject] that language which exists within reach and [do not implement] that language which they [purport] to prefer." That is to say, secular Yiddishists agree that the ultra-Orthodox actually speak Yiddish, and that it is their children who will perpetuate the language in coming generations. However, they often and reflexively rail against the (a) fanaticism and (b) disdain for Yiddish literature present among the Khareydim. Fishman does not directly address the first "argument" of those secular Yiddishists, though one might cite the adage "Different strokes for different folks": i.e., the ultra-Orthodox do not benefit from a modern philosophy, but neither do they suffer from the dislocations and anomie that are endemic to the secular Jewish community. And their "fanaticism" manages to maintain Yiddish as a widespread and intergenerationally transmitted vernacular. The author does devote a considerable number of words (not uninterestingly) to Yiddish literature among the ultra-Orthodox, which, as he points out, "inevitably reflect ... the roles assigned to [Yiddish] in the the total 'linguistic space'... of the speech community."[92] That is to say, "Yiddish in print is still very often an _aide-memoire_, an auxiliary translation and commentary accompanying classical or rabbinic texts that simultaneously appear in Hebrew/Judeo-Aramaic."[92] In addition, Yiddish literature is very often used to complement and reinforce the educational efforts among adults and children that take place in that language. Fishman also demolishes one of the favorite hobby-horses of the secularists: the claim that the Yiddish of the ultra-Orthodox is somehow of a "lower quality." It is sufficient to quote him in full on this point: "For the language of some half million or more ultra-Orthodox daily speakers of Yiddish (combining their numbers in the USA, Israel, Montreal, and Antwerp) to be declared 'deficient' by a few thousand secular devotees, most of whom rarely utilize the language that they love so much and that frequently cannot do so correctly themselves, is ... a total misplacement of secular Yiddishist emphases."[94] Unfortunately, in a limited space it is impossible to summarize every trenchant observation made in the 26 pages of Joshua Fishman's essay. We can only briefly touch on Fishman's description of a developing "linguistic consciousness" among the Khareydim, whose emerging language advocates decry the growing use of English, or Anglicized Yiddish, among the young. The author's descriptions of secular Yiddishism's sanitization, and its discomfort when the naturally Yiddish-speaking ultra-Orthodox "intrude" into their institutions, are also worth the price of the volume. Perhaps the most important observation is made in the essay's final paragraphs: "If [secular Yiddishists] oppose religious fundamentalism, as they mostly do, then it is up to them to devise equally sheltering boundaries of a secular nature.... Language itself is not enough of a bulwark to defend threatened cultures and identities. Certainly when the underlying cultures are practically identical, the Big Brother's language must displace the smaller one. Language cannot be the ultimate defense for threatened cultures and identities, because threatened languages themselves need defenses: the distinctive values, cultural practices and beliefs (including uncompromising identity-beliefs) that make a distinctive language necessary and even possible."[98-99] This essay is just one of many eye-openers in an important and assumption-challenging volume. Yiddishists from both camps, and those who might seek to bridge the chasm between them, would do well to read it. 3)------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 2001 From: Leonard Prager Subject: Excerpt from "Why is it so Hard to Save A Threatened Language?" by Joshua A. Fishman, in Joshua A. Fishman, ed. _Can threatened languages be saved?_, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Inc, 2001. "...the true involvement of language in human culture and cultural identity is... quite amazing.... Such a huge part of every ethnoculture is linguistically expressed that it is not wrong to say that most ethnocultural behaviours would be impossible without their expression via the particular language with which these behaviours have been traditionally associated. Education (in content and in practice), the legal system (its abstract prohibitions and concrete enforcements), the religious beliefs and observances, the self-governmental operations, the literature (spoken and/or written), the folklore, the philosophy of morals and ethics, the medical code of illnesses and diseases, not to mention the total round of interpersonal interactions (childhood socialisation, establishment of friendship and kinship ties, greetings, jokes, songs, benedictions, maladictions, etc.) are not only linguistically expressed but they are normally enacted, at any given time, via the specific language with which these activities grew up, have been identified and have been intergenerationally associated. It is the specificity of the linguistic bond of most cultural doings that makes the very notion of a 'translated culture' so inauthentic and even abhorrent to most ethnocultural aggregates."[3] 4)-------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 2001 From: Leonard Prager Subject: Excerpts from "Hebrew After a Century of RLS Efforts" by B. Spolsky and E. Shohamy in Joshua A. Fishman, ed. _Can threatened languages be saved?_, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Inc, 2001. "The problem is that RLS is not an isolated event affecting a single language but rather is interwoven with all the other languages in the speech community. Successful RLS for one language may be death or extermination for other languages. In the case of Hebrew, its success came at the cost of the indigenous language ... and of the 40 or more languages brought in by Jewish immigrants. Its price was also the nurturing of a monolingual linguistic ideology that replaced the earlier general acceptance of the value of plurilingualism."[357] "In another marginalised group, among the _haredi_ (ultra-orthodox or fundamentalist) opponents of political Zionism and Hebraisation, RLS efforts have continued in favour of Yiddish, not of course for its secular and cultural values but for its maintenance of an enclave within which endorsed traditions can be continued. Here too, the evidence is of serious erosion -- most _haredi_ children, including Hassidim, appear now to be Hebrew-speaking or at best bilingual when their _heder_ (elementary school) teachers start a long process of bilingual education for boys in Hebrew and Yiddish.... Of the immigrant groups, only the English-speakers, the recent Russian-speakers and the Amharic-speakers ... have been successful in having the schools give a serious place to the teaching of their language.... English... has continued to grow in status and use...." [360] There are also signs of affection for the now virtually extinct traditional Jewish languages, illustrated by the passing of a law establishing national authorities for Yiddish ... and for Ladino....[361] "... most people involved [in Hebrew education] believe that the chances for Hebrew revival in the Diaspora are now slight.[361] 5)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 2001 From: Leonard Prager Subject: A joke about liking _lokshn_ in a Yiddish and a Hebrew version "a bisl filisufye" a geniter shatkhen hot gefirt a khosn ontsukukn a kale. der khosn iz geven, es zol im tsu keyn shande nit zayn, a rekhter lekish, lernt im der shatkhen vi er zol zikh haltn baym mekhutn in shtub. un der iker vos azoyns er zol shmuesn mit der kale ven zey veln blaybn eyne aleyn. "mit hayntveltikn kales," zogt er im, "muz men visn vi azoy tsu firn dem shmues. frier fun alts darf men redn fun libe, dernokh shmust men fun mishpokhe zakhn, un tsum sof muz men a bisl a shmues ton khkire, oder vi zey rufn es haynt filisufye, der guter yor veyst zey dort." der khosn hot dos genumen in zinen un zikh gut ayngekhazert. gekumen tsu der kale, firt men im arayn in der likhtiker, yontefdiker zal, vu es gefinen zikh ale shtub-layt. tsu bislekhvayz geyen ale, vi der shteyger, aroys fun zal un es blaybn dort nor khosn-kale aleyn. der khosn gedenkt gut, az er darf onhoybn dem shmues fun libe, git er a freg der kale: "zogt mir, ir hot lib, a shteyger, lokshn?" "far vos zol ikh nit lib hobn keyn lokshn," entfert zi. nemt er vayter fregn vegn mishpokhe-zakhn: "zogt mir, ikh bet aykh, ir hot a bruder?" "neyn," entfert zi, "keyn bruder hob ikh nit." itst hot zikh der khosn oyf a vayle fartrakht; er muz dokh redn tsum sof a bisl filosufye. getrakht, un oysgetrakht. "vi meynt ir, a shteyger," zogt er un farkneytsht dem shtern, "vi volt geven ven ir zolt, lemoshl, hobn a bruder, vi meynt ir, volt er lib gehat lokshn?" **** "A Little Philosophy" [A veteran matchmaker took a prospective bridegroom to look over a bride-to-be. The potential bridegroom was a proper ninny (may he never be shamed because of this!) and so the matchmaker had to teach him how to behave in the prospective in-laws' home and especially what to talk about with the bride-to-be when they were alone. "With today's brides," he said to him, "one has to know how to carry on a conversation. The first thing to talk about is love, after which you move to family matters and you end on a speculative note, with what today they call 'philosophy' -- whatever that may be." The suitor took all this in and learned it by heart. Arriving at the bride-to-be's home, he was ushered into a brightly lit amd festive room where all the family was gathered. As the custom is, the young couple soon found itself alone. The young man remembered that he had to open the conversation with talk of love and so he asked the young lady: "Tell me, do you -- for example -- like noodles?" -- "Why shouldn't I like noodles?," she answered. -- He then proceeded to family matters: "Tell me, I beg, do you have a brother?" --"No," she said, "I don't have any brothers." -- Now he paused to reflect; he had to end with philosophy. Creasing his brow and thinking hard, he asked: "Tell me, if you did, say, have a brother, do you think he would like noodles?"] [translation mine - ed.] Y.-Kh. Ravnitski, comp. and ed. _Yudishe [yidishe] vitsn_, Berlin: Moriah, 1922, no. 178. **** [untitled] bakhur kartani amad lehitvadeya lebakhura bat-kerakh -- lirot ulehitraot. kodem shehalakh lesham amar lo hashadkhan: "da lekha: isha nikneyt beshalosh sikhot: sikha rishona -- inyaney mishpakha, sikha sheniya -- inyaney ahava vesikha shelishit -- inyaney filosofya. im tatsliakh beshalosh eyle -- ashrekha." zakhar habakhur ma shelimdo hashadkhan. ukeshenifgash im hameshudekhet patakh vesha'al ota: "yesh lakh akhim va'akhayot?" "lo," heyshiva habakhura, "yekhida ani le'aba ule'ima." khazar habakhur vesha'al, "ohevet et itriot shel khalav?" "lo," heyshiva habakhura, "eyni ohevet itriot shel khalav." yashav habakhur vehirher:"kiyamti kehalakha shta'im rishonot -- mishpakha ve'ahava. akhshav eyni zakuk ela lesayem befilosofya." umiyad hosif vesha'al et habakhura" "ve'ilu hayu lakh akhim va'akhiyot, hayit ohevet itriot shel khalav?" [A provincial young man was about to meet a young woman from the town, to look her over and to be looked over by her. The matchmaker advised him beforehand as follows: "Mark what I say. In talking to a woman, there are three subjects that will win her: firstly -- family, secondly -- love, and thirdly -- philosophy. If you succeed with these three, you are a happy man." The young man remembered what the matchmaker had told him. Upon meeting his potential bride, he opened with the question, "Do you have brothers and sisters?" "No," replied the young woman, "I am my parents' only child." The young man went on to ask, "Do you like noodles with milk?" "No," replied the young lady, "I don't like noodles with milk." The young man thought to himself, "I have already covered the first two subjects properly, all I need to do now is end with philosophy. And he immediately asked the young woman, "If you _did_ have brothers and sisters, would you like noodles with milk?"] [translation mine -- ed.] Alter Druyanov, _Sefer habedikha vehakhidud_, #732 (vol. 2, pp. 231-2). ---------------------------------------- End of _The Mendele Review_ 05.006 Leonard Prager, editor Subscribers to _Mendele_ (see below) automatically receive _The Mendele Review_. Send "to subscribe" or change-of-status messages to: listproc@lists.yale.edu a. For a temporary stop: set mendele mail postpone b. To resume delivery: set mendele mail ack c. To subscribe: sub mendele first_name last_name d. To unsubscribe kholile: unsub mendele ****Getting back issues**** _The Mendele Review_ archives can be reached at: http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele/tmrarc.htm