Talk:Yiddish language/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

regarding 'is jidisch a german dialect?' i followed the links to the boston jewish radio and listened to some audio samples. i am native german. a lot of people called in, all spoke mainly jidisch. there was a clear difference in the spoken jidisch, it ranged from clear german upto some hardly understandable, obvious slavic colored jidisch. i guess that jidisch itself is split into some dialects, depending on the roots of the speaker. in my opinion, a person able to speak jidisch and another, speaking german will have no problem at all to communicate, imho jidisch is much closer to german than dutch or british english. [mop]

From the article:

The word 'Yiddish' is used, however wrongly, to describe all Jewish words and expressions in English.

Really? Who does this?

Well, Wikipedians, clearly, since [[Jewish words and expressions]] redirects to [[Yiddish language]]. --Charles A. L. 01:14, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why is the transription used in the 'Orthography' section not SAMPA or IPA? isn't that the regulation? it seems to be YIVO's (www.yivoinstitute.org) transciption, which is alright - but should have it's own section and explaination. The orthographic section should be direct Yiddishe-Oysyes to SAMPA in my view.


I have replaced "decimated" with "largely destroyed" since I am sure that is what the author meant. Decimate means to reduce by one-tenth. The Yiddish-speaking communities were reduced by much more than that. Dr Adam Carr

I think that's being a bit pedantic. If you look at the entry in Dictionary.com, it states in the usage note that "decimate" can be used to mean a "large proportion of a group." Actually, they use the phrase "The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war" as an example. It's not worth changing back, but I'm not sure if it was worth changing in the first place. Bamos 03:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the United States, most Yiddish speakers tended not to pass on the language to their children who assimilated and spoke English. The major exception to this can be found in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in New York, especially in Brooklyn

Not so much "the ultra-Orthodox," I think, a vague term at best (he said without actually bothering to read the article on it), but more Chassidim specifically. --Calieber 04:32, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Los Angeles has a vibrant Yiddish community. YBS' Cantor Fox would be sad to see his musical contributions ignored. Plus the mythical Chelm was the fabled Yiddish-speaking ?town of fools? in Poland. It's worth a mention. Sparky 11:33, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Contents

[hide]

"Schmuck"

Is it not the case that schmuck literally means 'jewel', and its use to mean 'penis' is metaphorically based on this? (And then the use of schmuck to mean annoying person is metaphorically based on its secondary meaning of 'penis'?) Dominus 01:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is not the case. The root of the confusion is that the German word spelled Schmuck does indeed mean 'jewel'. But this isn't the word that the English schmuck comes from; the English word schmuck comes from the Yiddish shmok, which isn't related to the German word Schmuck. The dictionaries I checked tell me that Yiddish shmok probably comes from Polish. AJD 05:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
But szmok doesn't mean anything in Polish. There is a word smok which means "a dragon". Well, I suppose it could be a term for a very big penis :)
--Kpalion 23:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The general consensus is that Yid. shmuk < Ger. Schmuck, Slavicist explanations notwithstanding. The word has passed into some Slavic languages, apparently from Yiddish or German. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The general consensus among whom? The problem, it seems to me, is that (as far as I can tell) the Yiddish word isn't "shmuk", which would be cognate with German Schmuck. The Yiddish word is shmok, which would be cognate with a German word "Schmock" or "Schmake" or something. To make the English word schmuck cognate with the German word Schmuck would require disregarding the regular sound correspondences between German and Yiddish.
A caveat: this work isn't in my Yiddish dictionary. My information that the Yiddish word is shmok and not shmuk comes from the etymologies of schmuck that I find in English dictionaries, which I have no reason to disbelieve (at least to that extent). If you've got a Yiddish dictionary which says that the word in Yiddish is shmuk after all, I'll withdraw this objection. AJD 16:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a recent conversation I had with User:Olve. I've lifted it from his Talk: page:

Doesn't the word actually come from the word for jewel, and is used as a euphemism? Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roughly yes, I would say. The Yiddish word שמוק means ‘ornament’ — as in piece of jewellery or lace/s. A שמוקלער (m.) or שמוקלערקע (f.) is a lacemaker. I would tend to believe that it started out as sarcasm rather than as an euphemism — but I know my European Yiddish history far better than American usage, so I cannot claim to have the whole story here... -- Olve 22:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of this posting:
German _Schmuck_ rhymes with English _look_ and means 'jewel'.ÿ Yiddish _shmok_ rhymes with Yiddish _zok_ 'sock', and means 'penis'. It DOES NOT rhyme with the German word and there is no known way in which it can be derived therefrom. The two words are decidedly NOT RELATED, and appeals to a presumed reference to "the family jewels" in Yiddish are misplaced. In other words, Mr. Saphire's reference to "penile and ornamental origins of German-Yiddish _schmuck_" are completely off the mark. There IS NO "German-Yiddish _schmuck_". English _shmuck_ rhymes with English _luck_ and means 'fool'.ÿ It IS derived from the Yiddish word. Our best evidence points to the Slavic origin of Yiddish _shmok_. See, for example, Polish _smok_ 'serpent', 'tail'. [1]
Jayjg (talk) 15:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely interesting! But it seems a bit more confident than it needs to be... First, in the world of Yiddish, the word shmuk does exist, albeit maybe not in all dialects. Second, there is no 100%watertight wall between German and Yiddish: Almost anything that is said in some German dialect or other is also said in some Yiddish dialect or other. The two languages may be separate entities as written languages, but as spoken languages, there is about as much of a "sliding scale" between dialects/sociolects of German as there is within any similar "Sprachbund" -- e.g., Scandinavian, Low-German/Dutch/Frisian, etc. Third, the pronunciation of the short/lax /o/ and /u/ vowels in English are often similar, and in New York Yinglish they seem to be particularly so. All that being said, the theory of Polish "smok" as the/an etymology is interesting. I do not know of a Yiddish word "shmok" myself, so I can neither confirm, prove or falsify that hypothesis. The word "shmok" (which should be expected from the English form) or "smok" (which should be expected from the postulated Polish etymon) is not listed in Weinreich's Yiddish-English dictionary. My Yiddish is mostly a literary/linguistical one, so there is definitely a possibility for me to have missed a slang term...All in all, I am not really convinced, but providing of more specific references may convince me if the evidence is compelling enough. -- Olve 03:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind regular sound correspondences of loanwords, also! Yiddish /u/ shows us as short-oo in English: Yiddish shnuk becomes English shnook. So we would expect the minimally different "shmuk" to show up as "shmook". Yiddish /o/ often shows up as short-u in English: see below on bubkes from Yiddish bobkes. The fact that the English word is shmuck, not shmook, points to shmok as the Yiddish original.
What we really need is someone with a more comprehensive dictionary of Yiddish than Weinreich's. AJD 05:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other issues

The page says:

* Bubkes (also spelled "bupkis") - nothing, as in He isn't worth bubkes (from Yiddish babke 'babka, a sweet cake')

It was my understanding that the literal meaning of 'bubkes' was simply 'beans'. This is a much more plausible etymology. Dominus 01:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You may be right about this one. My Yiddish dictionary doesn't give this word for 'beans', but it does give bobes, which could have a diminutive bobkes. AJD 05:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One funny thing about the loans from Yiddish is that the word nudnik is actually made up from a Polish root nud- (as in nudny, boring) and a Polish suffix -nik. But there is no word like nudnik in Polish! The Polish word for "a bore" is nudziarz.
--Kpalion 23:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

which is probably the root of the Yiddish nudge and the Hebrew nudgiz, which are synonymous with nudnik. Danny 23:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I had always heard that nudnik came from Russian (or maybe Ukrainian); the verb is nudit'. Any Russian speakers out there who can verify this? --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing Yiddish language and Germanic languages in this and other languages, or you may be blocked from editing. Zw 22:00, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blablabla... If you have a problem with Yiddish language, or its classification, I cannot help you. I do not think many Jews appreciate your vandalism, even if you call it "help", either. But I tell you: Next time you vandalize one of those pages, I will make sure you'll be blocked. Your behaviour is not acceptable, and is causing a lot of work for other people to clean up after you. Zw 23:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to comment on this. Zw 00:11, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't "clarify" things without any knowledge of the issue. Yiddish is a Germanic language, not a Semitic. Why do you think people have reverted your changes everywhere where you tried to vandalize? If you, unlike the rest of the world, think Yiddish is not a Germanic language, please go here instead of starting massive vandalism campaigns against Wikipedia. Zw 00:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at

http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=@DOCTITLE%20Yiddish%20language http://www.bartleby.com/65/yi/Yiddishl.html

Zw 00:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ein, Zwei, Drei, Vier...
eins, tsvai, drey, feer....
ekhad, shneyim, shalosh, arba....
♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:09, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, the correct (modern standard) Yiddish is:
Eyns, tsvey, dray, fir... (narrow diphthong in eyns, tsvey; open diphthong in dray) -- Olve 03:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Germanic people" and "Germanic language" are two completely different things. Many African people speak English. It's still a Germanic language, though. Zw 01:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Stop de vandalism, please (in the Catalan wikipedia too). Yiddish is clearly a Germanic language that speak a group of people with a Semitic origin. Two concepts very different. My origin is Caucasian but I speak a Latin language, and not a Caucasian language. Two concepts very different. And no type of nationalism can change this. Llull 20:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


For the record, this rant is utterly ridiculous. Germanic was confirmed as a linguistic subfamily by Indo-Europeanists, including a large proportion of German scholars - look up Jakob Grimm, for one; and the Yiddish language is not only Germanic, it would almost certainly be considered a dialect of German itself if it weren't for social factors. Describing Yiddish as Semitic is as silly as describing English as Romance, or Japanese as Sinitic. Mustafaa 21:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Really, I'm curious about this. My question on this is what is the grammatical structure of Yiddish like? For example, English is very German in its structure, and directly draws many basic grammatical elements like prepositions directly from German. Then it adds new vocabulary from other languages. Is Yiddish closer in structure and core grammatical words to German or Hebrew? That should be a clear signal as to what it is. Thanks. PnGrata

To German. Danny 10:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Pacian's recent contribution: I really don't think this article is the place for a complete list of all the entries from Rosten's Joys of Yiddish, or whatever it is he's adding here. We've already got a list of Yiddish loanwords in English, and this isn't actually a list of "common Yiddish words"; those would be words like 'eat' and 'house' and so on. But I didn't want to up and delete Pacian's work without asking for other people's opinions here first. I really don't think what he's putting in is worth the space it takes up. AJD 05:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Obviously I strongly disagree. I wonder why you would judge the list I'm compiling as unworthy? I think it's great there's a listing of loanwords, and I added several myself. However, why would those be MORE worthy of listing than some basic Yiddish words that aren't loanwords? Perhaps describing them as "common" isnt' completely accurate, but I didn't know how else to describe them in a NPOV way. "Important Yiddish Words?" "Useful Yiddish Words?" The goal of the listing is not to give someone the ability to carry on a conversation entirely in Yiddish; it's to give a reference to a selection of vital Yiddish terms that are NOT commonly used in the English language. Perhaps it needs to be moved to an entirely different page, but to remove it completely is an act of great disrespect to the language, and to the people who use it. In my opinion, of course. Pacian 05:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd say the fact that you can't describe them accurately in an NPOV way is a very strong indication that it's not a coherent or purposeful list. They're not "basic Yiddish words"; they're not "vital Yiddish terms"; some of them aren't even Yiddish words at all. It's not a "reference to a selection", which it'd be fine if you gave; it's just a random list. Wikipedia isn't a glossary. AJD 21:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Every word I added very much a Yiddish word, so I'm not exactly sure where you get off claiming "some of them aren't even Yiddish words at all." I have to be honest: I understand and appreciate your concern, but you are coming off abraisively, especially since my only intent was to make a positive, well-thought out contribution. The fact of the matter is, the Wikipedia *IS* a reference source: if someone wants information about something, they should be able to come here and get it. It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who is looking for information about Yiddish may also want to peruse a list of SOME words in the language that are meaningful and may provide further insight on the language, it's usage, and it's origins. I find your suggestion that it is "a random list" extremely offensive, as I have stated on several occasions that I am putting forth a great amount of personal effort to find and accurately define a selection of words that I think may prove useful in the entry. In short, we will have to agree to disagree, and if you feel so very strongly about it, I fully support a decision to take it up with an admin. In either event, in the future, and with all due respect, you may try to be more thoughtful as to the feelings of other Wikipedians when exchanging commentary with them. Pacian 03:01, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Adonai isn't a Yiddish word. Adoshem isn't a Yiddish word. Alrightnik isn't a Yiddish word. Alter kaker is Yiddish, but "AK" isn't. Amain isn't a Yiddish word. Alav ha-sholom and aleha ha-sholom aren't Yiddish the way you've written them. Wikipedia is a reference source, yes, but the kind of reference source it is is an encyclopedia, and what you're writing isn't an encyclopedia entry. (I'm not even convinced that the list of Yiddish loanwords in English belongs in this article.) Again I ask, how are you choosing these words? It looks like you're just copying entries from one of Rosten's books, complete with his amateurish pronunciation spellings. What makes this list of Yiddish and pseudo-Yiddish words more worthy of including in an encyclopedia entry than any other? How exactly do they "provide further insight on the language"? If you want people to be able to peruse a list of words, refer them to a dictionary.
I am sorry that I come off as snarky. But I really don't get what the purpose of this list you're adding is, or even what the nature of it is. And I don't think you've done much of a job defending it, either. I hope someone else adds to this discussion; there probably is a middle ground to be reached here. AJD 04:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unless someone asks me not to in this space in the next day or so, I'm going to go ahead and delete Pacian's word list. This discussion seems to have stalled out. AJD 12:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


I don't think the recently added "cf. German such-and-such" in the Yiddish Words Used in English section adds anything. It's an article about Yiddish, not about German; the article states elsewhere that Yiddish is a Germanic language with a largely Germanic vocabulary (though I think 80% might be an exaggeration); I don't think it's necessary to point out in this word list each time a particular word is of Germanic origin.

You miss the point, about 70-80% of the vocabulary is High German (which of course also means that it is Germanic/of Germanic origin). In fact, this part of the vocabulary is closer to modern High German than some High German dialects. The different spelling system merely obscures that fact. But of course, that may just be the intention of the whole article ;). See Weinreich's dictum, "A shprakh iz a diyalekt mit an armey un a flot" (http://www.olestig.dk/scotland/weinreich.html).
First of all, regarding the 70-80% figure: In a highly nonscientific study, I chose five pages at random from a Yiddish dictionary and counted up all the words on those five pages, and I found that less than 60% of those were High German. So I still think the 80% figure is an exaggeration. Secondly: I have no objection to emphasizing in the article that Yiddish is more closely related to High German than anything else is, including some dialects of High German. However, the list of Yiddish Words Used in English isn't the place for it. It's no more appropriate here, than it would be if I went through, for instance, the German grammar article and added the Yiddish equivalents of all the example phrases. It's a list of Yiddish words used in English, not a list of German words used in English; which of them are Germanic and which of them aren't isn't relevant. AJD 00:24, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The problem with dictionary checks is that speakers of a language do not use all words in any given dictionary equally. If one were to carry out the same procedure for English, it would seem that English vocabulary is 60% French and that English is therefore a Romance language. But observations of normal speech, and to a lesser extent written speech, show that a very high percentage of the words used in English -- and in Yiddish for that matter -- are indeed Germanic in origin. Writers and scholars often add Romance/Latin words in English, and Hebrew words in Yiddish to enhance the style of their writing. In any event, Yiddish does seem to be something of a creolized German (although similar arguments could be possible for English as well). One could conclude by saying that every language and dialect is different and reflects a unique history.
Of course. So? English vocabulary is 60% French, but that doesn't make English a Romance language. And the point at issue was not "Is Yiddish a High German language"—of course it is. The point was "Is more than 70% of the vocabulary of Yiddish of High German origin?" And it's not; it's probably only about 60%. AJD 01:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yiddish vs. German

Removed this highly modern German-centric POV paragraph:

Yiddish and German share the majority of their respective vocabulary and have almost identical grammars. The pronunciation of Yiddish sounds to a German like a Slavic person speaking German. Trained speakers of Yiddish and German can understand each other. These observations indicate to some linguists that Yiddish is rather an elaborated dialect of German (like Swiss German) than an independent language. However, most Yiddish speakers are opposed to this view since it implies closeness to Germany, the country where most speakers of German live, and which was responsible for the Holocaust.
Nevertheless, many yiddish words entered the modern German language, like die Chuzpe (chutzpah) or meschugge (crazy). Also, some "German" words in American English were imported through Yiddish, like schwitz (to sweat) or Schmuck.
Yes, some Yiddish words have become adopted by other Germanic dialects. The words that have been adopted into American English are Yiddish words, which have cognates in other Germanic languages. Yiddish is no less a modern German language than the language taught in the public schools of Berlin. Jayjg 16:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Sounds like a Slaviv person speaking German"? According to whom? Jayjg 14:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Trained speakers of Yiddish and German"? Trained in what way? Jayjg 14:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Elaborated dialect of German [rather] than an independent language"? All versions of German are just "dialects"; the claim that the version spoken by the majority, or those in power, or those with University acceptance, is the "language" while others are simply "dialects" is nonsense that linguists have abandoned decades ago. Jayjg 14:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Most Yiddish speakers are opposed to this view"? Who says? How was it measured? Jayjg 14:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"since it implies closeness to Germany, the country where most speakers of German live, and which was responsible for the Holocaust"? Again, who says this is the reason of people who oppose this view (whatever it may be; it is not actually clear). Jayjg 14:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't find any of those additions to be POV. I think it would've been better to balance some of those points with opposing views rather than remove them entirely just because there are not references. After all, most statements on Wikipedia don't have references. Caveat: I am not a Yiddish-speaker - just a language buff. — Hippietrail 15:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You can't really have "opposing" views to fairly meaningless statements. What is a "trained speaker"? What is the difference between an "elaborated dialect" and an "indepedent language"? The whole insertion was written from the highly POV position that there is one "real" German language, and that all related languages are merely "dialects" (in the early 20th century they would have called it "jargon"). Modern linguists are nearly this prescriptive, and POVs that are unattributed are not of much value, particularly if they seem to be the POV of one individual. Jayjg 16:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The way I read it, he was trying to say that German and Yiddish are mutually intelligible to people who know both languages but the choice of wording is not very clear. It's very common when it comes to languages and dialects that there are two viewpoints: "these 2 are separate languages" and "these 2 are dialects of the same language". It's NPOV to include both views even when you don't agree with one. I read "trained speaker" as trying to describe somebody who is fluent in one language and has studied the other. I read "elaborated dialect" and "independent language" as the writer's attempts to make his claim of dialect vs. language less harsh. He's certainly used softer language than you have above. Even though I agree that Yiddish is a separate language I do think the article is more POV now that it only contains the "these 2 are separate languages" opinion. While each contributor may have their own POV, the article as a whole should contain each POV so as to be itself NPOV. — Hippietrail 01:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The author of the controversial paragraph in question is not promoting either the "these 2 are separate languages" or the "these 2 are dialects of the same language" viewpoint. Instead, the author is promoting the notion that Modern German is a legitimate language, and Yiddish is a dialect of that. This, of course, is not a position modern linguists take, since the two languages diverged at least 1,000 years ago, with Yiddish (unlike modern German) being in the High German family of languages. Your undestanding of "trained speaker" would apply to Dutch and German as well, yet no-one would claim Dutch as a dialect of German. I'm not sure what you mean by "less harsh". As for whether or not it is an independant language, if there are modern linguists who currently view it as a "dialect", then their views can certainly be quoted. Jayjg 00:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph in question as it currently stands: (1) Yiddish and German don't actually have almost identical grammars, though they are reasonably similar. "Almost identical" is a very strong claim to make. (2) "The pronunciation of Yiddish sounds to a German like a Slavic person speaking German"—again, according to who? (3) It's meaningless to say that "trained speakers of Yiddish and German can understand each other"—after all, trained speakers of English and Choctaw can understand each other, if the English speaker is trained to understand Choctaw and the Choctaw speaker is trained to understand English. (4) It can't be true that "these observations indicate to some linguists that Yiddish is rather an elaborated dialect of German": "elaborated dialect" doesn't mean anything, and linguists aren't in the business of deciding what constitutes a language and what constitutes a dialect. (5) It is not NPOV to state that some believe that Yiddish is a dialect of German because of its similarities to German, while others believe that it is a separate language because of a particular political agenda: Those who regard it as a separate language because they don't believe the similarities to German are sufficiently thorough are completely ignored.
Having written all that, I'm now going to go back and edit the paragraph to remove the issues I complained about. AJD 05:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is funny how controversial this seems to be. So far, no linguist has ever discovered a way of defining the difference between a language and a dialect. The two standard Norwegian languages, standard Swedish and standard Danish are considered to be different languages, but they are more similar to each other than they are to many of their dialects. The difference is a matter of convention. If for some reason two dialects suddenly begin to be considered to be two languages, they are two languages. It is as simple as that. BTW, I'd really like to see a historical section tracing Yiddish back to the Middle ages.--Wiglaf 21:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just to make my position clear, it is obvious that both modern "standard" German and Yiddish are High German dialects. However, any claim that Yiddish is a dialect of modern "standard" German is absurd, given their significant differences, and how long ago they diverged. Jayjg 14:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, if one also takes into account the strongly Alemannian-oriented Yiddish dialect of Alsace, as well as the other Western Yiddish (Judentâtsch) dialects of the past and present; and if one also compares the more easterly Yiddish dialects with the non-Jewish dialects of Bavaria, eastern Austria and the Czech republic; it seems pretty clear that there has been significant interaction between local Jewish and non-Jewish dialects of Middle and High German. There is very little linguistic evidence of Yiddish being isolated or even fully independent of neighbouring, non-Jewish dialects of the Germanic languages. That being said, the written traditions have been separated to a relatively high degree for a very long time — and the presence of separate, distinctive literatures and a different alphabet show that Yiddish passes two important tests for what can be considered a separate language; compare, e.g., Hindi and Urdu — a language cluster which shows many parallel traits to the Yiddish/German language cluster. -- Olve 03:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grammar affinities

I disagree with the statement "much of the grammar of Yiddish differs substantially from that of German, having been acquired from contact with other (mostly Slavic) languages".

Well, the only substantial difference is the formation of plural along Hebrew lines for some words of Semitic origin. No other radical difference comes to mind, really.

Not trusting my memory, I took a Yiddish book and tried to find some Slavic grammar influences, in vain. Even Russian loan-words I found formed their plural by adding a (non-Slavic) -s ending.

Maybe there are some subtle influences, especially in syntax, but they are by no means obvious.

The words I quoted earlier give a completely wrong impression that Yiddish grammar is mostly Slavic. In fact just the opposite is the case - it is mostly (overwhelmingly) Germanic.


According to one website:
  1. A Slavic-type rule of anticipatory (regressive) voicing assimilation, as in fus + benkl => fu[zb]enkl;
  2. A system of verbal aspect highly influenced by the semantics of Slavic aspect, as in the prefix tse-;
  3. A number of borrowed derivational morphemes, such as the agentive -nik (as in nudnik 'bore' from nudne 'boring') and the diminutives -tshik and -ke;

Jayjg 19:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. The last two examples are interesting. The first example has nothing to do with grammar, though. All in all I still cannot see how "much of the grammar of Yiddish differs substantially from that of German". Borrowed derivational morphemes or semantics of this or that prefix do not really constitute much difference. Do you see any substantial difference in grammar paradigms? There is the case of loaned Hebrew plural forms I mentioned earlier, but that is all. Please take into account I am well acquainted with both German and Yiddish, and I'm a native speaker of Russian. For what my personal opinion is worth, I see practically no Slavic influence in grammar.
You may not, but others do; both viewpoints are expressed. I'll add in a link for sourcing, which I had thought was in there earlier. Jayjg 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The voicing assimilation of point 1 above can be found in English "cupboard" as well as frequently in trad. Sephardic pronunciation of yitgaddal as yidgadál. The verbal aspect referred to in point 2 is likely to have a Slavonic connection. Borrowing of derivational morphemes as referred to in point 3 is not unusual between languages. -- Olve 03:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whether to count the first depends on whether you count phonology as part of "grammar", which is just a question of the definition of "grammar". Anyway, I don't know anything about Slavic grammar, but the main way Yiddish grammar differs from German grammar is in clausal word order. In German, nonfinite verbs appear at the end of their clauses, and in subordinate clauses even finite verbs appear at the end. In Yiddish, neither of these is the case. So consider the German sentence (I don't speak German, so I got this from babelfish) 'I would have seen the man if he had been jumping': Ich würde den Mann gesehen haben, wenn er gesprungen war. The verbs gesehen haben and war are at the ends of their clauses. In Yiddish, that doesn't happen: Ikh volt gezen dem man, ven er volt geshprungen. That is a very substantial difference between German and Yiddish grammar. There are other grammatical differences as well: Yiddish has no genitive case but rather a possessive marker -s similar to the one in English, for instance, and the accusative case is never used for the object of prepositions. Also, Yiddish has no inflected past tense or subjunctive; only auxiliaries are used. AJD 02:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on phonology states that it is a sub-field of grammar. Jayjg 19:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, I agree that certain differences do exist. The problem is I do not consider them substantial in grammar (will a German-speaking person as much as stumble for a second over Yiddish verb conjugation?) and most important, I cannot attribute most of the differences in grammar (even a small part, frankly) 'to the influence of Slavic languages'. Yiddish has no inflected past tense or subjunctive? Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish) do have. As well as genitive case... And finite verbs can appear at the end... But enough said. These two problematic words in the article ('much' and 'mostly') are not worth our efforts, really. If there is no consensus, no problem for me. Let people be deceived :) Try to read the 'problematic' passage as if you knew nothing about Yiddish - you will probably get the impression that large chunks of Slavic-type grammar were borrowed. And that is not correct, I'm afraid. But who cares :(
As I said, I don't know anything about Slavic languages: I was just answering the question "how much of the grammar of Yiddish differs substantially from that of German?" The answer is, more than you'd expect for such closely related languages. That a German speaker would not stumble over Yiddish conjugations is beside the point; the point is the more basic issue that German has inflected verb tense and Yiddish doesn't. That's at least as significant as the fact that the inflections that both languages do have are similar in the two. But anyway, I've got no idea if some or any of these grammar differences are due to Slavic influence; all I mean to point out is that they're there and they're significant. AJD 23:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"(I don't speak German, so I got this from babelfish) 'I would have seen the man if he had been jumping': Ich würde den Mann gesehen haben, wenn er gesprungen war. The verbs gesehen haben and war are at the ends of their clauses. In Yiddish, that doesn't happen: Ikh volt gezen dem man, ven er volt geshprungen. " Ok, you shouldn't rely too heavily on automatic translations, but anyway. Although the grammar is different from High German, it looks similar to other germanic languages, mostly english and scandinavian.
As a native German speaker this discussion is quite amusing to me. First of all the babelfish translation is somewhat incorrect, at least regarding the conjunctive cause at the end. Ich würde den Mann gesehen haben, wenn er gesprungen wäre . But the important fact is that I can easily replace the verbs to form Ich würde gesehen haben den Mann, wenn er wäre gesprungen. Every German speaker can understand that, although this is not the common way to build the sentence. Just to demonstrate how ease it is for a German speaker to understand Ikh volt gezen dem man, ven er volt geshprungen. 80.139.30.53 22:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"*Unlike the original Hebrew letter, pey does not change shape at the end of a word."

true, _pey_ does not change shape at the end of a word - however - this is _not_ unlike hebrew - in both - _pey_ (with dagesh) does not change shape, and _phey_/fey (no dagesh/with rafe) does.