philological encounters � (�0�7) 368-387 brill.com/phen The Semitic Component in Yiddish and its Ideological Role in Yiddish Philology Tal Hever-Chybowski Paris Yiddish Center—Medem Library [email protected] Abstract The article discusses the ideological role played by the Semitic component in Yiddish in four major texts of Yiddish philology from the first half of the 20th century: Ysroel Haim Taviov’s “The Hebrew Elements of the Jargon” (1904); Ber Borochov’s “The Tasks of Yiddish Philology” (1913); Nokhem Shtif’s “The Social Differentiation of Yiddish: Hebrew Elements in the Language” (1929); and Max Weinreich’s “What Would Yiddish Have Been without Hebrew?” (1931). The article explores the ways in which these texts attribute various religious, national, psychological and class values to the Semitic com- ponent in Yiddish, while debating its ontological status and making prescriptive sug- gestions regarding its future. It argues that all four philologists set the Semitic component of Yiddish in service of their own ideological visions of Jewish linguistic, national and ethnic identity (Yiddishism, Hebraism, Soviet Socialism, etc.), thus blur- ring the boundaries between descriptive linguistics and ideologically engaged philology. Keywords Yiddish – loshn-koydesh – semitic philology – Hebraism – Yiddishism – dehebraization Yiddish, although written in the Hebrew alphabet, is predominantly Germanic in its linguistic structure and vocabulary.* It also possesses substantial Slavic * The comments of Yitskhok Niborski, Natalia Krynicka and of the anonymous reviewer have greatly improved this article, and I am deeply indebted to them for their help. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi �0.��63/�45�9�97-��Downloaded34003� from Brill.com09/23/2021 11:50:14AM via free access The Semitic Component In Yiddish 369 and Semitic elements, and shows some traces of the Romance languages. Its Semitic elements derive from Hebrew and Aramaic, both of which are referred -loshn-koydesh,1 literally “the lan) לשון־קודש to in Yiddish collectively either as guage of the Holy [=God],” that is, the language of the Bible, Mishnah and hebreish), “Hebrew.” Accordingly, expressions) העברעיִש Talmud) or simply as such as “the Semitic component” of Yiddish or its “Hebrew-Aramaic compo- nent,” “Hebrew elements,” “Hebraisms,” “loshn-koydesh words” etc. appear both in Yiddish and non-Yiddish literature more or less synonymously.2 The Semitic roots, words, expressions, and even whole sentences within Yiddish, pose an ontological problem for linguists. Namely, there is an unre- solved ambiguity as to whether these only derive from loshn-koydesh (and are subsequently no longer loshn-koydesh, but rather Yiddish), or whether they remain loshn-koydesh. This is complicated further when one considers that certain loshn-koydesh elements may have been “merged” (i.e., phonologically adapted) into Yiddish more than others.3 In the 19th century, and then more so in the first half of the 20th century, language played a central role in Ashkenazi discourses on Jewish national identity and ideology. As Yiddish and Hebrew came to represent conflicting Jewish movements of secular nationalism, the problem of the Semitic com- ponent in Yiddish began to occupy Jewish linguists and non-linguists alike. Jewish philologists of Yiddish who dealt with this problem at the time were greatly influenced by ideologies such as Zionism, Diasporism, Socialism and 1 Transliteration of Yiddish and Hebrew in Yiddish contexts follows YIVO standards. Transliteration of Hebrew in non-Yiddish contexts follows the transliteration scheme of the Library of Congress. 2 Following Max Weinreich, Yiddish linguistics uses the term “component” to express a distinc- tion between “stock languages” (i.e. Hebrew, German, etc.) and their corresponding etymo- logical components which have been “fused” into Yiddish. See Max Weinreich, History of the Yiddish Language, trans. Shlomo Noble, vol. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 29. For the usage of the term “Semitic component” see Dovid Katz, Explorations in the History of the Semitic Component in Yiddish, vol. 1, PhD Thesis (London: University College, 1982), 31. 3 The categories “Merged Hebrew” and “Whole Hebrew” in Yiddish were introduced by Max Weinreich to distinguish the Semitic elements that were fully integrated into Yiddish speech (Merged Hebrew) from Ashkenazi Hebrew proper that may appear within a Yiddish context as a citation or in official speech (Whole Hebrew). The difference can be observed above all phonetically: the vowels of non-accented syllables are often reduced in Merged Hebrew, -blessing”] is pro“] ברכה whereas Whole Hebrew maintains them (for example, the word nounced /’broxe/ in Merged Hebrew, but /’broxo/ in Whole Hebrew). Weinreich is well aware that the border between “Merged Hebrew” and “Whole Hebrew” is not always clear: Max Weinreich, History of the Yiddish Language, vol. 2, 351ff. philological encounters 2 (2017) 368-387 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 11:50:14AM via free access 370 hever-chybowski Soviet Communism,4 which were not always mutually exclusive. Whether they criticized or defended Yiddish, they all saw it as a crucial instrument for any Jewish national project, as it was spoken by millions of Jews, more than any other language at the time. In this article, key works by four prominent Yiddish philologists who wrote on the Semitic component in Yiddish in the first half of the 20th century will be surveyed, analyzed and compared: Ysroel Haim Taviov’s “The Hebrew Elements of the Jargon” (1904); Ber Borochov’s “The Tasks of Yiddish Philology” (1913); Nokhem Shtif’s “The Social Differentiation of Yiddish: Hebrew Elements in the Language” (1929); and Max Weinreich’s “What Would Yiddish Have Been without Hebrew?” (1931). It will be argued that these philologists in their lin- guistic theories set the Semitic component in Yiddish into the service of their often contrasting ideological visions of Jewish linguistic, national and ethnic identity. The Ontology and Epistemology of the Semitic Component in Yiddish, Illustrated through a Yiddish Joke Before dealing with the philological works themselves, the complex problem of the Semitic component in Yiddish calls for another introduction. As we shall observe, the ontological status of the Semitic component in Yiddish was often measured by the epistemological criterion of how much of it (or how much loshn-koydesh) was actually known to the Yiddish speaking masses. The onto- logical problem of the Semitic component in its epistemological configuration A balegole) ”אַ בעל־עגלה אַ למדן“ ,can best be illustrated with the Yiddish joke a lamdn, “a Coachman-Scholar”). The joke, which has been cited as paradig- matic of oral Yiddish humor,5 was preserved by the Jewish folklorist Immanuel Olsvanger, who published it in Latin transliteration in his 1920 collection of Yiddish jokes and anecdotes Rosinkess mit Mandlen (“Raisins with Almonds”). 4 Moshe Altbauer, “Metanalysis of Hebrew Borrowings in Yiddish” [in Yiddish], Di goldene keyt 29 (1957): 224; Avraham Ya‘ari, “A Story to Prove the Abundance of Hebrew Elements in the Yiddish Language” [in Hebrew], Ḳiryat sefer: Bibliographical Quarterly of the Jewish National and University Library 40 (1964): 286. 5 See below, and cf. Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett and Wex Michael, “Humor: Oral Tradition,” YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, 2010, http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article .aspx/Humor/Oral_Tradition. philological encountersDownloaded from 2 Brill.com09/23/2021 (2017) 368-387 11:50:14AM via free access The Semitic Component In Yiddish 371 In the following translation of the joke,6 all words in bold type are of Semitic origin: [galekh ,גלח] gzeyre] was declared in town: a priest ,גזירה] An evil decree ,לשון־קודש] vikuekh] in Hebrew ,װיּכוח] wanted to hold a disputation loshn-koydesh] with the Jews. As the priest said that he understood porets] ordered that a ,ּפריץ] Hebrew better than any Jew, the nobleman disputation be held: the town’s Jews were to appoint one of them to test the priest [for the meaning of a word or a phrase in Hebrew], and the priest would then test the Jew. As for the one who did not know the mean- ing of the first word, there would be a soldier standing by who would chop [tomer ,טאָ מער] his head off before he might be able to cough. And in case the Jews had no one to appoint, then all of the them would be massacred, mistome] there was a ,מסּתמא] as many as there are in town. No doubt !mehume] and a commotion in town. Good heavens! Jews ,מהומה] turmoil What should we do? The devil knows this priest [and what he is capable -tomer] he really has a good head on his shoul ,טאָ מער] of]! And what if kashe] that the ,קשיא] ders? And what should we do if he poses a question ,רחמנות] tsores]! Mercy ,צרות] Jew cannot answer? This is truly a calamity asife] in ,אַ סיֿפה] rakhmones] on the Jews! They convened an assembly the synagogue [to decide] whom they should send [to represent them in the disputation]. But no one wanted to step forward. Then some coach- amorets], an ignoramus ,עם־הארץ] balegole], a simpleton ,בעל־עגלה] man bur] stood up and said: “What do you care? I will go. I was never ,בור] galokhim].” “What do ,גלחים] moyre gehat] of priests ,מורא געהאַ ט] afraid you mean, ‘you will go’? But you are a simpleton, an ignoramus!” But the coachman insisted that he should go. In short, they announced to the misvakeyekh ,מתװּכח זײַ ן] nobleman that Itzke the coachman will dispute zayn] with the priest. The next day, all gathered in the nobleman’s [pritsim ,ּפריצים] a sakh] people: priests, noblemen , אַ ס ך] house. Many yontef ]! Here stands the priest, here the ,יום־טוֿב] and the Jews. A festival coachman, and here stands the soldier with the sword raised high in his hand. The Jew had to begin the disputation. He said to the priest: “So ,eyneni yoydeye] אינני יודע tell me, dear priest, what is the meaning of “I do not know”]? The priest said: “I don’t know.” As the soldier heard ,ׂשימחה] I don’t know,” he immediately chopped off the priest’s head.