Explorations in the history of the Semitic Component in Yiddish
Dovid Katz1982
visibility
…
description
252 pages
link
1 file
Yiddish arose in Central Europe. Nevertheless, the language includes a Semitic Component comprising thousands of lexical items that is synchronically fused with the Germanic Component within Yiddish. Theories from the sixteenth century to the present have contended that Semitisms entered a previously (nearly) wholly Germanic language from sacred Hebrew and. Aramaic texts used in the traditional Yiddish speaking civilization known as Ashkenaz. The thesis challenges the text theory. The alternative proposed is the continual transmission theory claiming that the Semitic Component entered Europe in the vernacular of the original settlers who were, retroactively speaking, the first Ashkenazim. Questions concerning the origin of the Semitic Component are also relevant to the determination of the relative age of Yiddish and to the contested status of the protolanguage within historical linguistics. The Semitic Component of all known Yiddish dialects is characterized by a system of long and...
Related papers
The Birth of Yiddish and the Paradigm of the Rhenish Origin of Ashkenazic Jews
Revue Des Etudes Juives, 2004
This paper introduces a methodology to approach the question of the origins of Yiddish. It stresses the importance of the defining the exact geographical locations and time frames of various elements of Yiddish, distinguishing between those peculiar to that tongue as a whole and those of only regional significance. Also of interest is the distinction between elements unique to Yiddish and those shared with German and Slavic languages. These methodological principles are applied for several purposes: (1) to compare different theories of the origins of Yiddish; (2) to introduce formal definitions allowing to address the question of mono- or polygenesis of Yiddish; (3) to extract the onomastic layer of Proto-Yiddish. The paper shows that important differences between various Yiddish linguists are partly related to purely methodological aspects of their analysis: these authors use (implicitly or explicitly) distinct definitions for several key terms. Concerning the historical conclusions about the origins of Ashkenazic Jewry drawn by linguists from their theories about Yiddish, it is shown – using the analysis of personal names - that the descendants of Jews who lived in the Middle Ages in the Rhine-Moselle valley played an important role in the formation of the Ashkenazic communities in various German and Slavic countries. As a result, contrary to the claim of certain Yiddish linguists, the Rhenish paradigm of Ashkenazic history should not be rejected
Unity of the German component of Yiddish: myth or reality
The article deals with the question of the unity of the German component of Yiddish. Before the 16th century, the languages used in works compiled by various Jewish authors from western German-speaking provinces show close similarities to dialects spoken by local Christians and do not represent texts written in a single specifically Jewish language. Texts dating from the 16th to 17th cen turies demonstrate the existence of two separate Jewish idioms: western and eastern. The former covers western Germany and northern Italy and is mainly based on East Franconian and Swabian. The latter characterizes works written in Bohemia and Poland. It is closely related to Bohemian colonial dialect of German. It is inappropriate to consider all varieties of modern Yiddish to be dialects of one single language. Indeed, the analysis shows that in many aspects, Southwestern Yiddish inherits features of East Franconian, while Eastern Yiddish is primary based on Bohemian. Its consonantal system was later adapted to the Silesian dialect spoken by German Christian urban population in Polish towns. These two Yiddish idioms inherit numerous features from the two languages, western and eastern, respectively, that existed during the 16th to 17th centuries. As a result, as a whole, Yiddish is not descending from any hypothetical Proto-Yiddish. 1 This article could not be written without Erika Timm. Firstly, her works represent a basis for numerous elements of the analysis presented here. Secondly, during the preparation of this text, she shared with me copies of numerous quite helpful sources and answered to many questions of mine.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF YIDDISH PRE-HISTORY
Slavic and East European Journal, 2022
Guest editor's preface, Yiddish, Special Issue of the Journal of Germanic Languages
Journal of Germanic Languages, 2022
A collection of articles on Yiddish, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-germanic-linguistics/issue/BEC67C09B1516A809A7B58908F9643C1
A thousand years of Yiddish in the European arena
2009
Honoured delegates, guests, and hosts: We are gathered here to consider the fate of a language and culture that have survived a thousand years of European history. The history of Yiddish is somewhat exotic, as European languages go, and if contemporary meanings can be read into history, then Yiddish may just have something to say about the borderless and the displaced among the minority languages of Europe, and about minority languages in general. The history of Yiddish, and the dialectology of Yiddish, have tended to ignore the political boundaries and divides within Europe. For centuries, the Yiddish territory constituted a vast "linguistic empire" in Europe, albeit as a minority language everywhere, in power nowhere. From a linguistic point of view, Yiddish was left free to develop entirely according to the external vicissitudes of history and the internal laws of historical linguistics, without the usual apparatus of normative academies and government edicts. Yiddish was and remained a folk language in Western and Central Europe. It was only in its "second home" in the Slavonic and Baltic lands of Eastern Europe that it evolved into a highly nuanced medium suitable for sophisticated literature of international status. It is that modern, Eastern European Yiddish that was exported by emigrés to the satellite Yiddish centres of London, Paris, and Berlin, to other Western European cities, and overseas, early in our own century. West to east progressions from the folksy to the sophisticated are, as, we see from Yiddish, every bit as viable as those going the other way. Let us not be the ones to predict where the greatest European creations will come from in the next hundred years.
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
Frontiers in genetics, 2017
Recently, the geographical origins of Ashkenazic Jews (AJs) and their native language Yiddish were investigated by applying the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) to a cohort of exclusively Yiddish-speaking and multilingual AJs. GPS localized most AJs along major ancient trade routes in northeastern Turkey adjacent to primeval villages with names that resemble the word "Ashkenaz." These findings were compatible with the hypothesis of an Irano-Turko-Slavic origin for AJs and a Slavic origin for Yiddish and at odds with the Rhineland hypothesis advocating a Levantine origin for AJs and German origins for Yiddish. We discuss how these findings advance three ongoing debates concerning (1) the historical meaning of the term "Ashkenaz;" (2) the genetic structure of AJs and their geographical origins as inferred from multiple studies employing both modern and ancient DNA and original ancient DNA analyses; and (3) the development of Yiddish. We provide additional vali...
The Semitic Component in Yiddish and its Ideological Role in Yiddish Philology
Philological Encounters, 2017
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 component in Yiddish, while debating its ontological status and making prescriptive suggestions 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 blurring the boundaries between descriptive linguistics and ideologically engaged philology.
Reapplying the Language Tree Model to the History of Yiddish
The article discusses several definitions of the notion of Yiddish that exist in linguistic studies. The Germanistic approach emphasizes differences between various German and Yiddish dialects. The Judeo-Centric approach, developed during the second half of the 20th century as an alternative method to that used by the Germanistic school, puts the uninterrupted chain of languages spoken by Jews in the center of its linguistic analysis. For the representatives of this school, Yiddish is a fusion language from its inception, the process they generally posit to the period when the first Jewish communities appeared in German-speaking territories. As suggested in this article, for the adequate understanding of the development of Yiddish, several notions used by the two approaches should be combined. Only the Germanistic approach provides appropriate frames for analyzing the genesis of Yiddish according to the Language Tree model. Its (re)application shows the inadequacy of certain basic positions of the Judeo-Centric Approach. Yet, several notions introduced by the proponents of the latter method still represent a major contribution in Yiddish studies. The notion of " fusion " creates an appropriate theoretical tool for studying the development of Yiddish varieties. The consideration of the uninterrupted chain of languages spoken by Jews sheds light on factors that were invisible within the Germanistic approach. The article also suggests a classification of languages spoken by Jews useful for the analysis of their historical development.
"Early Modern Yiddish and the Jewish Volkskunde, 1880-1938," Jewish Quarterly Review 107 (2017), 182-208 [Pre-published version]
As an integral part of the cultural history of German Jewry, early modern Yiddish and the literary corpus it produced found their way into the debate over the "Jewish question" in German scholarly discourse of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century. Focusing on the field of Jewish Volkskunde, this paper explores the place of Yiddish in the works of two ideologically opposing camps: the racial perception of Jewry on the one hand, and the liberal, integrationist definition of Jewry on the other. As demonstrated in the paper, the engagement of turn-of-the-century Jewish folklorists with early modern Yiddish did not derive merely from a scholarly ambition to encompass all aspects of Jewish culture, or from nostalgic longings to a bygone Jewish world. It was, to a large extent, an expression of cultural and intellectual resistance by a minority group, who attempted to promote an alternative to the hegemonic scholarly discourse of the time.
Dovid Katz
UnIversity College London
PhD Thesis
Submitted October 1982
Explorations in the History
of the Semitic Component in Yiddish
Vol. II
Vol. II
SUPPLEMENTARY
MATERIAL
comDrising papers completed during residence
at University College London
CONTENTS
1.
The Wavering Yiddish Segolate: A Problem
of Sociolinguistic Reconstruction 1
Intrtiona1 Journal
th Soctology
.Q. I..!1g-uaze , 214.
5- 27
] . . . . . . . . .
• . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 3 59
2.
Der semitisher kheylek in yldish: A
yerushe fun kadmoynim. Meto&n un
meglekhkaytn [= paper placed before the
First International Conference on.
Research in Yiddish Language and
Literature at Oxford, August 1979]... . ...... . . . 14.13
3.
Reconstruction of the Stress System in
the Semitic Component of Yiddish 1 = paper
submitted to the John Marshall
Competition, University College London]...... . .506
14. .
Yiddish Dialectology Iforthooming in
Iia1eic.o.1 gi .
in
d.biai zu
dtoh.ezi ufl. al1meine flalekors.thg
( IIanbJ
zir
ch- & .mliatioaiaaenehat, I), Walter de Gruyter:
Berlin & New York) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
359
The Wavering Yiddish Seolate: A Problem of
Sociolthuistic Reconstruction
I. HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIATION
New theories of language of recent decades cast a shadow
upon some of the principles of traditional historical
linguistics. The challenge scarcely emerges from the
generative model.
On the contrary, the generative
framework adds to its rigorous formulation a highly
standardized notation.
It is amicably suited to the
precise isolation and systematization of language
change (e.g. 1Cin 1969).
The shook to historical
linguistics emanates from the rise of studies of language
structure in the context of society. By demonstrating
the orderly heterogeneity of language, Weinreich, Labov
and. Herzog (1968) discredit the homogeneous image of
speech communities implicit in much comparative historical
study. The empirical counterpart of the theory of
inherent linguistic heterogeneity is provided by the
pioneering field studies of ongoing language change in its
social context (e.g. Bright and. Ramanujan 196 14. ; Labov
1963; l966).1
Labov's (1971: L.22_14.23) uniformitarian principle
claims that change in progress functions in a way that
is similar to change of the past.
Studies of ongoing
change have invalidated the assurntion that 1anuage
360
change can be a priori projected as a progression in the
direction of prestige forms.
It is precisely the
sociolinguistic school which rebuffs Tard.e's Law - °The
notion that all movement of linguistic forms is from the
higher prestige group to the lower" is shown to be "simply
a remark" (Labov 1973: 216).
As Uriel Weinreich
(1956: 614.3)
puts it, "innovations in language do not always slide down
prestige slopes".
It is this discovery which ironically reverts a great
onus upon the sociologist of language. Deprived of the
principle of' necessary spread of prestige forms,
the historical linguist may find, little use for sociology. He
may be intent, say, on discovering which of two variant
forms is a relative innovation over the other, where the
two are geographically complementary and. the day when
both may have been variants of a sociolinguistic variable
is long gone. A worker in language history is often
separated by centuries or more from the point in time at
which the change he is studying was ongoing and. observable
in its social context.
If such empirical-luxuries as
Martha's Vineyard (Labov 1963) or the Lower East Side of
New York City (Labov 1966) are not available for field
study and, the prestige principle stands disconfirmed, how
can the historical linguist avail himself of sociology?
He might pay lip service to "social factors" arrived at
In thought experiments, and continue
to seek out
361
genetic relations between language states at different
points of time and, space, unravelling transpired changes
by the isolation of the conditioning environments. The
comparative method undoubtedly continues to provide the
histories of languages with permanent contributions.
It is plausibly argued that its asocial application
represents a different but equally valid plane of reality.
It remains for sociolinguistics to develop methodology
capable of meaningfully taking into account social
correlates of the linguistic change that has completed its
course before being encountered by the investigator. While
sociologically conscious use of written monuments may
provide evidence regarding the social stratification of
the language of bygone times (e.g. Wyld 1936), such
documentary clues "can never replace the present as a
laboratory for the linguist" (Weinrelch, La'bov and Herzog
1968: 16l ).
evidence.
Noreover, there is often no documentary
-
362
The soclolinguistic framework succeeds in convincingly
challenging asocial theories of language change because it
makes use of empirical evidence, that is to say, proof using
knowledge derived from the language experience of the
investigator. Even after a change has been completed,
a sociolinguistic trace of that change, and, its social
correlates, may yet linger on in the modern speech community.
The isolation of such a sociolinguistic trace in two or more
varieties of the modern language may facilitate reconstruction
of the change. In II, an anomalous correspondence in
Yiddish phonology is presented and. its background outlined.
In III, an attempt is made to reconstruct the change leading
to the modern anomaly by comparative study of speakers in
two modern varieties of Yiddish. This is followed by
documentation in IV of soololinguistic variation in
four varieties of Yid,d.ish for a set of items related
paradigmatically to the initial anomaly. An attempt
is made to reconstruct variation at an earlier more
uniform stage of Yiddish. The principles of
sociolinguistic reconstruction are briefly sketched
in IV.
363
II. AN ANOMALOUS CORRESPONDENCE
A Yiddish protovowel called
(corresponding with
Proto-Yiddish *) appears as Central Yiddish 22
Northeastern Yiddish 22 . 2
'forever', bfávr
Hence, Central Yiddish ávbik
'explicitly', maxtá y s 'all right, with
pleasure', nav 'snow' are cognate in a regular way with
Northeastern Yiddish ybIk, bfévr, maxté, nev.
Another Yiddish protovowel called
L (corresponding
with Proto-Yidd.ish stressed open syllabic *) appears as
Central Yiddish
and Northeastern Yiddish &25.
Hence,
25
Central Yiddish béyt 'to request', maxtê y nsta '(fern.)
relative by marriage', nfa 'soul; (contemptible) person',
zeyn 'to
are cognate in a regular way with Northeastern
Yiddish bti, max3tnesta, nfe, zii.
represent masses of lexical items.
Vowels 22 and 25
Their geographic
delimitation on pre-World War II East European Yiddish
speech territory has moreover been carefully mapped (Herzog
19611. : 95).
The internal Yiddish phonological history of
vowels 22 and 25 has largely been determined by chain
shifts set in motion by the Great Yiddish Vowel Shift. The
Great Shift occurred In the Old Yiddish period (defined
phonologically as the stage of Yiddish preceding the rise
of Western Yiddish and Eastern Yiddish). A detailed
phonological history of the evolution of Central Yiddish and
Northeastern Yiddish is not within the scope of the present
inquiry.
The salient effects of the Great Vowel Shift,
resulting in the vocalisrn of Old Yiddish, as well as modern
3611.
reflexes in Central Yiddish and. Northeastern Yiddish are
schematically illustrated in Table 1. The mid back
protovowels, 11 . 2 (corresponding with Proto-Yid.d.ish *) and.
12 (corresponding with Proto-Yiddish *3 ) were analogously
processed by the Great Vowel Shift, and are therefore
included in Table 1.
Our problem is this.
Central Yiddish rivvx
'profit' (for some speakers also 'use, advantage, benefit')
is intriguingly cognate with Northeastern Yiddish rvx.
In terms of the protosystem, Central Yiddish 22
(normally corresponding with Northeastern Yiddish 22
appears in a lexical item displaying Northeastern Yiddish
-25 (itself normally orresponding with Central Yiddish
In the third major dialect of modern spoken Yiddish,
Southeastern Yiddish, vowels 22 and 25 are merged as
unitary 22/25' hence Southeastern Yiddish réivvx The
merger precludes the productive inclusion of Southeastern
Yiddish evidence in the work at hand.
In the Germanic Component of Yiddish (constituting
Yiddish forms descended etymologically from Germanic
etymons), vowel 22 is most often cognate with standard
Middle High German . (of.
ic,
standard Middle High German (cf.
and vowel 25 with
en, shen). While
standard Mid.dle High German forms may often be cited as
a convenient frame of reference, it must be stressed that
such comparison violates historical reality.
Weinreich's (1911.0:
N.
106; 19511. : 73-79; 1967) studies of the
diverse dialectal origins of' the Germanic Component in
36
c',l
-
c'J
H
H
z
'-I
C"
k
U,
C"
C"
'1)
0
z
C"
C"
U,
H
'-I
H
H
C"
I.-'
0
* *
4.
C"
O-4
4'd
-
O.rl
C.,
366
Yiddish are in effect the sociological correlate of
Prjlut g kj's (1917: 289-290) linguistic proof that the
key features of the Germanic Component in Yiddish (or
any Yiddish dialect) are not congruent with any German
dialect.
In the Semitic Component of Yiddish (constituting
Yiddish forms descended etymologically from Northwest
Semitic etymons), vowel 22 is most often cognate with
standard Tiberian , marked by the Tiberian vowel rapherne
sere (cf. bDfrii, mhx te), and vowel 25 with
standard Tiberian stressed open syllabic .., marked by the
Tiberian vowel grapheme segol (cf. rnThuttnL nf)•
Unfortunately, historical social realism has yet to be
applied to the history of the Semitic Component in Yiddish.
Having swallowed lock, stock and, barrel the haclmeyed
comparisons with Latin borrowings into European languages,
standard theory (the
t_thecr) maintains that Yiddish
acquired the Semitic Component from sacred Hebrew and
Aramaic texts (of. M. Weinreich 1973: I, 222-230; IV: 232-
23 k ). We contend that sociohistorical realism compels
the realization that a group with the degree of social
identity and cultural autonomy exhibited by the millennium
old. society of Ashkenazic Jewry i.tain. its lthuistica11y
inherited Semitic Com ponent, which was transmitted in the
367
usual fashion of generation to generation language
One
transmission (
phonological correlate of this claim is the nonconformity,
in a regular and. systematic way, of the Semitic Component
of each Yiddish dialect with the same speakers'
pronunciation of sacred Hebrew and Aramalc. In point of
phonology (but not by any means lexicon or grammar), the
traditional pronunciation of Biblical, rabbinlo and.
liturgical Hebrew and Aramaic on the historical speech
territory of Yiddish may be collectively called
One such systematic disparity is evident in
the highly pervasive rule of Closed Syllable Shortening
in the Semitic Component of each Yiddish dialect,
contrasting sharply with the absence of the rule In the
Ashkenazio of the same speakers. 7 Another is the
seolate nonconformity, and it is here that the
difficulty raised in the present inquiry, Central Yiddish
rvx vs. Northeastern Yiddish rvx fits in.
There is a set of Proto-Semitic stems which were
8
processed by Segolation In Northwest Semitic.
Part of
this extensive and, multifarious process, named after the
frequently epenthesized vowel segol, resulted in the
Tiberian nominal shape CCVC < Proto Semitic *CICC_, and
Tiberian CCVC < Proto Semitic *aCC_. Like many sound
shifts formulated in neogrammarian style, these too
account for many cases but not all cases. An initial
modification Introduced to accommodate the attested forms
notes that while <
, , < either
or *J,,.
The
368
standard Tiberian Bible exhibits ccnsid.erable Q.Q3
CCVC vacillation (of. Kimchi 152i.5: 52b).
The classical
masoretic work ascribed to the Tiberian master Aaron BenAsher points to cases where the çjQ.jQ CCVC alternation
may reflect a synchronic syntactic functional distinction,
the forms denoting the construct and the forms the
absolute state of the noun (35 In Baer and Strack 1879).
Yet many exceptions remain. Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley
(1910: §93k) posit coexisting *j and * stem protoforms
to account for resulting •
Eauer and Leander
(1922: §72y take note of the parallel variation in
stem vowels not processed. by Segolation which survive
In certain suffixed forms and conclude that the vacillation
indicates a partial merger of the two series.
Compounding
the linguistic Indeterminancies of Tiberian segolates are
the manifold discrepancies between manuscriots (cf
Sperber 196: 1l46_L49),9 It is obvious that simplistic
comoarisons of Yiddish forms with standard. stock language
cognates, while often valuable for the sake of convenience,
are linguistically fallacious.
The line must be carefully drawn between investigation
into the prehistory of the Semitic Component in Torthwest
Semitic on the one hand, and comparisons of Semitic
369
Component forms with cognate forms in the Ashkenazio
of each dialectal region (and in vocalized Tiberian texts current
among Ashkenazim) on the other. This latter comparison
concerns us here. In the entirety of its millennial
history, spoken Yiddish coexisted with nonspoken
Ashkenazic, which was in extensive use for written
communication and prayer. Linguistically, the Semitic
Component in Yiddish relates to Ashkenazic not as a
daughter to a parent language, but the two are cognate
structures. The social setting of the YiddishAshkenazic coexistence is characterized by Fishman
(1967: 31) as entailing both bilingualism and
(cf. also Pishman l95:
320; III,
1-6;
diglossia
M. Weinreich 1973:
I, 251-
253-331).
Yiddish forms cognate with standard Tiberian CCVC
segolate shapes may appear with a unitary vowel 25
realization (CY
li
NEY .) in both the Semitic Component
of Yiddish and the homod.lalectal Ashkenazic.
In as much
as the stressed vowel of such forms conforms with the
Ashkenazic realizations of the same speakers, these may
be regarded as the ie1
(see Table 2).
uromit IjLZb eiaea
Analogously, Yiddish forms cognate with
standard Tiberlan CCVC sego].ate shapes may appear with a
unitary vowel 22 realizatIon (CY
II NEY j) In the
Semitic Component as well as in Ashkenazic. These are
the cwe]. 22 cuomtst Itddth
A third group, co g
nate with Tiberian
1at (see Table 3).
shapes,
appears defiantly with vowel 22 in all Yiddish dialects,
370
while the corresponding Ashkenazic forms are in concord
with standard Tiberian. These vowel 22 Yiddish forms
digress, then, from the vowel 25 Ashkenazic forms used. by
the same speakers. 1 ° They are the zel
Ii.Zb
nctconQm
te (see Table 11.).h1 The troublesome anomalous
Central Yiddish rávvx LI Northeastern Yiddish rvx
correspondence is a
The
ILab
standard Tibertan form is rwah and. Ashkenazic has vowel
25.
Central Yiddish rávvx is therefore a vowel 22
nonconformist Yiddish segolate (ef. Central Ashkenazio
rvvax), while Northeastern
Y iddish rvx
is a vowel
25 conformist Yiddish segolate (cf. Northeastern
Ashkenazic rvax) •12
371
.1.
a
a
E
b
--
-
a
a
a
a C
c- I..
V.)
O
.a Z
-E -
O
—
c) a
E
E..i 0
E
-
.
4)
r.
—
ac
-
I.
-I
aN
Li.Z
o
z<
.
w%bO
)$ .
.
a
4.)
-i
X
.
4
)
.
S.
D
E
4
N
I.
a
a
d
o -
CJ
S.
D
-
á
S.
'ê)
$
'
S.
'.3
4'
E
N
a
N
c
.
•
a
c•4
aa
C)
4 'a
a .Q
5.1.4
v
a .i
d
'a
s
ID
4
W
'a
ID
.I
.
4.j
,-4
S.
'a
.
ID
r.4
'a
a
,-
S.
ID
ID
a
•)
'a
w
5.1
ID
b
'o
54
(d.
N
-
C
S.
N
I.'
C
5.
4'
N
f\
',
.
(
'a
.
..
'a
4.'
S.i
'a
.
4.'
.
S.
I..,
•
'a
N-
5..
',
-
.
'a
4'
.
'a
N
S.
a
372
C
I.
C
C
8-4
0.
...
C)
C
—
0
0
.
o
43.-(
8
.
.40
-
43
0
8 8 8
0.
O'
-czi -
C
0
0
8
r-4
0
8 8 8
.s0
.4.3 0 8
—p4 8
-• -
0
-4
.4.3
-
..4
.0
...I
.
8- C 43
-
-
C
43
•..-4
8.-I
0
.:o
04
CO
-_
;0
63
.0 8
.43
•
—
00 C
C
0
.1.3 0
08
0
-.4.0
>.
8
—o
C
-.4
.
'8
N I
OW
8
.
63
63
'C
'C
M
'8
.
8
.
-
43
•4
43
43
6)
6)
6)
'C
'8
'0
IC
..
C
C
C
0
- 0
I.
4-I
C
— 43
C
8.0
CC
'C
.O.-4
0
43 d
0 6-W N8
0 ..-1 44.
C
C
8
0
43
0
44
43
—
6-.
IC
44
>5 >5 >5 >5 >5
'0
'0
'C
'8
'C
C
C
IC
44
44
..
—
=
C
-4
.
>4
0
N
63
.
,-
'8
43
C
N I
.4 O.ZcO
4) C
40
0
0
0.4
N
8
>5
80
C
8
.4.3
63
6)
6)
43
.
C
.
4)
(6
63
6)
6-.
IC
.-4
644
>5 >5 >5 >5 >5 >5
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8
'8
6)
C
IC
44
44
44
0r4.O
C
*
0
.
0.
0>-I
'4
'4
N ,
6-
(6
#4
#4
>5
'8
44
0'
6)
8
0'
>s
8
>5
1.
(0
>
6-.
'8
'8
>5
16)
>1
6)
44
>5
'8
6)
0
—
6)
'IC
I
(
6I'
.43..-I
o, E-' .8
-4
43
63
.4k.
6-
4)
43
63
8
'4)
L.
'IC
10
'IC
>
'IC
6-,
'44)
'44)
.-I
N
r'.
.d
"%
'0
-
0
i-I
.0-
.0-
.0-
10
6)
'(0
373
0
4)
as
0a
-
-o
-0
.41
a
a
0
A
5..
o
s.
-
54
0
•--4
a
a- a
0
0
0
4).4 0- as
as
as
as as . .
0
540 04) Ii
--
-o.
_V
a
a
.
-
.-i 0
4) .4 0
as
s
.?
o
-
-
4)a ON
ass
.
.00
4).
5.
5...0
.1.)
0 0
a
0
'-4
0
4)
as
54
-
V
4..
II
54
54
41
4)
'4)
'4)
.
'a
)
—
4-.
..
•a
.
5.
a
.
'a
0.
5.
-
V
a
4-.
'41
4
.
a
.
4)
0
41
.
0
4)
,-1
'4)
'41
4
a
a
0
a
'a
0.
>..
'a
.
0
a
'-4
'a
)0
'a
0
a
.
4)
0
4,
-
'a
)O
'a
C
a
a
'as
'as
A
'41 • '4)
C,
)a
54
a
N V
ci
4
Cl
0
.
U
>.4
a
('.1
41f
0
as.o
00
V
•0
-
a
t'
54
a
4)
o .o.-,
4)V
a
s..
0-i
.0
a
0
I.
0
-
N
1-45
0
5.0
.e
5..
4)
.0
o aa
5.
4)
M
5
0
4)
bO
'a
54
4)
.
'a • 'a
.
0.
0
a
0
0
2
N
N .-4.0
so
54.-i
• .41V
X
o a-i
>
s
a
N V
N
>
'as
s.
—
'as
a
a
5..
'
'
0
•.
s.
a
.
>.
'as
a
b
O
a
0
a
a
5
54
4)
5.
'4)
as-
V
.0-
41
-
-
41
..
'4
.
N
5.,
4)
.05
a
,'4)
'4
C1-4
4
0.
0.
54
a•
0
4)
4)
6)
'43
'4)
'4)
'0
C'.
a'
a.
37Ll
III.
SOCI0LI!GUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION
The prospect of constructing a thought experiment is
tempting.
The pronunciation of Ashkenazic in prayer
has been largely limited to males. Its active use
in written communication has been limited to
males educated in traditional Hebrew and. Aramaic sacred
works (Bible, Talmud, Commentaries).
Now in
Ashkenazlc society, the class of Talmudic scholars
(lamd.ónim, :Ljrner, talmldev-khakhórnirn) has constituted
a social elite (cf. Mark 19 A1.l; N. Weinreich 1973: I,
219-222; III: 230).
Given, firstly that nonconformist
Yiddish segolates violate Ashkenazic, and, secondly that
Ashkenazjc is the province of a prestigious social group,
it follows then, firstly that a nonconformist Yiddish
segolate might be subject to ridicule as indicative of
ignorance in traditional Hebrew
and.
Aramaic, and, secondly
that such forms might be subject to socially motivated.
replacement by conformist forms. 13 We might surmise
that older Northeastern Yiddish *ryyax (with Northeastern
Yiddish !22) underwent replacement by the socially
prestigious conformist révx (with Northeastern Yiddish
while Central Yiddish rávvx (with Central Yiddish
22 preserves an older nonconformist form in the
language.
375
Not only does this thought experiment base itself
upon the Invalidated principle of necessary spread of
prestI ge forms.
It is, moreover, capable neither of
demonstration nor dlsconfirmation as lon g as no empirical
evidence Is gleaned from the modern language. Native
speakers who have grown up In traditional Ashkenazic
society have no sociolinguistic variation.
Thirty-six
Informants were interviewed., eighteen of whom are Central
Yiddish speakers and eighteen of whom are Northeastern
Yiddish speakers.14 All Central Yiddish speakers who
have the word have rávvx, while all Northeastern Yiddish
speakers who have the word. have rrn (see Table
5).
It
would appear that the social history of our problem lies
buried with bygone generations. R4vvx, which would
reflect Central !Iddish
and Northeastern Yiddish
22 occurs in neither dialect. Central Yiddish speakers
confronted with réyvx consider It the 'Lithuanian'
(Northeastern Yiddish) form while Northeasterners consider
it the 'Polish' (Central Yiddish) form.
These judgments
are objectively incorrect because of the anomaly of the
rávz
Ii
rvx correspondence and speakers of both dialects
are making use of their knowledge of the usual correspondences.
Central Yid.dish speakers considering rérvx "Lithuanian" are
making use of their (objectively correct) knowledge of vowel 22
Central Yiddish
II
Northeastern Yiddish .
Northeasterners considering révy "Polish" are analogously
making use of their (objectively correct) knowledge of vowel 25
Northeastern Yiddish ..
U
Central Yiddish
.
In other
376
0
C4
C..
•1(
4)
O4
zc,,
--
o
0
0
aIo
Jr-1
0
0
0
'C
0
0
0
4)
o
m
I.
'cj
%(i)
—
cr•.I
.
377
words the shift that resulted in the
rávvx U rvx
anomalous correspondence, whether 25 > 22 In Central
Yid.d.Ish or 22 > 25 in Northeastern Yiddish is no longer
In progress arid. Is therefore no longer observable. Any
erstwhile variation for one and the same speaker or
between speakers of one dialect has vanished. It is
characteristic that "the shift of the variable to the
status of a constant Is accompanied by the loss of
whatever social significance the feature possessed"
(Weinreich, Labov and. Herzog 1968: 187).
Can a
soclolinguistic variable that is no more be recovered?
The clue Is provided. by the qualification 'speakers
who have the word.'
While all eighteen Central Yiddish
speakers have ráyvx, only thirteen of the eighteen
Northeastern Yiddish speakers interviewed have rvx. A
number of social parameters Including age group, the
informant's characterIzation of his or her family's
economic status In the village of city of origin and the
involvement of an immediate family member in the merchant
trades (potentially relating to 'profit' as a trade word)
were unsuccessfully paired with responses. Factors which
do show a high degree of correlation with Northeastern
Yiddish speakers' responses are sex and, whether or not
the speaker attended kheyder (traditional Jewish primary
school).. Of the five Northeasterners who do not have
four are women and, none attended khevder. Of the
thirteen who do have rvx, eleven are men and ten
attended khe y dei. The three speakers (two women and, one
man) who did. not attend khevder were taught to read
378
traditional Hebrew and. Aramaic by learned parents or
private teachers, and, this brings us to the parameter
which shows a perfect correlation with each Northeastern
Yiddish response group (within our corpus of interviews)
4na;ic
ed.ng
(see Table 6).
The
thirteen Northeasterners who have rvx are Ashkenazio
readers while the five who do not are non-Ashkenazic
reading. Although the majority (eleven) of the Central
Yiddish speakers interviewed, do not read Ashkenazic, all
none the less have rávvax because rvvx is unambiguously
a Yiddish word in Central Yiddish. In Northeastern
Yiddish on the other hand, rvx lies on the hazy border
of learned Yiddish and Ashkei,azic. 5 While the target item was
elicited initially without prompting during the interviews,
informants were subsequently asked their feelings on the
word 1. 6 Central Yiddish speakers invariably consider rávv
a 'plain Yiddish word.!
Of the thirteen Northeasterners
who do have rvx, nine consider the word to be "Hebrew'
and, report that it was not used in the everyday speech
of their native village or city.17 Northeasterners have
Germanic Component fardlnst for both earnings' and
'profit'. Central Yiddish speakers who have fard1nt have
a semantic differentiation between fard1nst 'earnings,
wages' vs. 4vv3x 'profit'.
Still, most Central Yiddish
speakers consider frd1nt a fanoy-shinancy Germanism, .while
in the Northeast, it is the Germanic stem that is a "plain
Yiddish word.' 18 1n unprompted, elicitation, Northeasterners
prefer a verb construction with
rInn 'to
earn; to make
379
Table 6: Social
Central
Yiddish
Correlates of
Informant Responses - rá'rnx
1. S(
women
men
Northeastern
Yiddish
_____
Northeastern
Yiddish
18
1414
56
8
10
80
20
2
1].
15
85
14
0
2
39 10
17
1
0
15
77
8
0
8
1O_
1414
56
10
0
3
77
23
5
0
100
0
8
7
0
44
3
17
2
0
11
0
15
0
85
0
0
4.
0
1
0
80
0
20
100
0
0
0
100
1
2. !HEDER EDUCATION
BY SC
women/yes
women/no
men/yes
men/no
3. OVERALL I2YDER
EDUCATION
yes
—no
4. . ASHNAZIC BRADING
PROFICIENCY BY SC
women/yes
women/no
men/yes
men/no
5.
OVERALL ASHNAZIC
READING
PROFICIENCY
yes
no
6-
1
7
7
39
3
39
7
11
39
- 61
0
1
0
80
0
20
13
0
380
a profit', e.g.
ht far1nt drbáy 'He made a profit
(on it)'. There is a marked d.iøparity in the modern language
between the socially undifferentiated. knowledge and, usage
of nonconformist rvx in Central Yiddish and the
differentiated knowledge and, usage of conformist rvx
in Northeastern Yiddish. This is an empirical trace
of erstwhile variation and, subsequent completed shift
in Northeastern Yiddish. In Northeastern Yiddish,
* 4yy , with nonconformist 22 passed socially from
Yiddish generally to learned Yiddish and. Ashkenazic 9 The
phonological correlate of the, social shift is the
conformization to vowel 25.
381
If our conclusion is viable, the historical
implication is that at an earlier stage in the history
of Yid.d.ish, the cognate of stazidaH Tiberian rwaIi in
Yiddish had a vowel 22 realization and belonged to the
class of vowel 22 nonconformist Yiddish segolates (of.
Table k).
Older Yiddish documents usually divulge
nothing of the phonology of the Semitic Component due
to the historical orthography used for Semitic Component
forms in the Jewish alphabet.
We are fortunate
to be able to turn to Latin letter transcriptions of
Christian scholars. While non-Jewish letter transcriptions
are exceedingly rare for older periods of Eastern Yid.d.ish
(of. Joffe l9$L$.: 120-121), such transcriptions are
abundant t or pre-twentieth century varieties of Western
Yiddish.
The Christian descriptions of Yiddish
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have made
permanent contributions to Yiddish historical linguistics.
It was not until the eIghteenth century, however, that the
school of
flourished. The eighteenth century
compilers published large scale dictionaries, often for
missionary training, mercantile relations and Ucode busting"
of the language of the Jews (cf. Borokhov 1913: 8- 1 3). Many
of the compilers of these works were far from proficient
in Hebrew and, Aramaic, and, their transcriptions are based,
luckily f' or us, on the spoken language imown to them. These
382
compilations provide the richest and. most linguistically
reliable corpus for modern research purposes. Phonemic
structures hidden by the historical Semitic orthography
are uncloaked. by the Christian transcriptions in the
Latin alphabet.
Many of the Christian compilers use transcriptions
reflecting Western Yiddish dialectal areas where vowels
22 arid 25 were merged, usually using unitary <e> (rarely
<ee>) to transcribe both. Like modern Southeastern
Yiddish, such varieties tell us nothing of the status
of our target lexical item because the merger precludes
the establishment of either conformity or nonconformity.
The neutralization of the vowel 22—vowel 25 opposition
(whatever Its exact phonetic status) Is reflected in
the transcriptions of (among others) Wagenseil (1699), 20
Christian (1735), Bibliophilus (l7k2), Selig (1767),
Relzenstein (176k) and Tend.lau (1860). The lack of
contrast between the two vowels is moreover explicitly
commented upon by Chrysander (1750a: k; l7SOb: 2k) and.
21
Se].ig (1792: 20).
There are, however, two compilers
known to us whose transcriptions reflect varieties of
eighteenth century Western Yiddish where the realizations
of historical vowels 22 and 25 (whatever their exact
phonetic status) were indeed oppositional. They are
Philoglottus (1733) and. Fried.rich (178k) who transcribe
<ei> for vowel 22 and <e> for vowel 25. 22 Surely enough,
Philoglottus (1733: 28, Zi.1) has <Reivech> and <Reivach>.
Fried.rich (178k: 239) has <Reiwech>.
383
Of even greater import, given the primacy of empirical
evidence, are the documentations of twentieth century
rennints of spoken Western Yiddish by modern linguistic
scholars. In many parts of modern Western Yiddish, as
indeed. in much of eighteenth century transcriptional
Western Yiddish, vowels 22 and 25 are merged..23 We turn
to empirical studies of modern remnants of Western Yiddish
which maintain oppositional reflexes of the two vowels.
In Netherland.ic Yiddish, vowel 22 is realized. as
vowel 25 as .
and.
Indeed it is rvvox in Netherlandic
Yiddish, contrasting with Netherland.io Ashkeriazio rhax
(Voorzanger and. Polak
1915:
262, 263; 2 eem
596, 861, 862; 1975: 12, 14.0, 101;
1979).
1970:
nos.
315,
The same
opposition
occurs in the Yiddish of the
22 vs.
Surb River Valley in Switzerland.. There it is rvfx, again
with unambiguous 22 (Guggenheim-Grnberg
1958: 96, 102).
19511.:
62;
3814.
IV. SEGOLATE CONFO}INIZATION IN YIDDISH
The conformization to modern Northeastern Yiddish rvx
is but a vestige of a wider process of segolate
contorinization in historical Yiddish soclophonology. Like
the forms cited. in Table 14, Tibertan mlx 'king' is 1own
to have a nonconformist vowel 22 realization in Yiddish.
Our Northeastern Yiddish informant from Riga (born 1903)
uses méylx (with nonconformist Northeastern Yiddish
three times in conversation. When his attention is
subsequently drawn to pronunciation of the word, he hastily
corrects to m€lex (with conformist Northeastern Yiddish
A number of other Northeasterners, while showing
no variation themselves during our interviews, none the
less recall variation in their place of origin. Invariably
they tell of lesser educated people having mévl3x. Some
Northeasterners do not nave the word on its own (using
Germanic Component kévnig only).
Unlike rvx the word.
always appears in a number of popular compounds, such as
dvidainvlx d.vidam1x 'King David' and. levTnamévlax
levmanilx 'King Solomon'. While all our Central Yiddish
informants have má ylax (with nonconformist Central Yiddish
a number recall hearing méviax (with conformist
Central Yiddish 25 and regarding it as an elitist,
Hebraicizing pronunciation. Unlike Central Yiddish rávvx
which is a nonconformist constant and. Northeastern Yiddish
which is a conformist constant, Central Yiddish
miáy x m yl and. Northeastern Yiddish mél3x ml3
385
remain in sociolinguistic variation for some speakers
of the modern language.
There is evidence of analogous variation and
of ongoing segolate conformizatlon in modern remnants
of spoken Western Yiddish.
Guggenheim-Grtnberg's
(1961: 26-28) recording of the Yiddish of Gallingen,
a village on the Swiss-German border, includes this
recollection of the informant (born 1896): "A
[with
nonconformist Gailingen Yiddish .y22] is a king. We
said inlax [with conformist Gailingen Yiddish A 25 ].
Our
informant from Den Bosch, In the southern NetherlanIs
(born 1905) tells us 'With us it ['Passover', of. Table
was pronounced. psax [with conformist Netherlandie
Yiddish
In Amsterdam the proletarians called It
DYS [with nonconformist Netherlandlc Yiddish
We said m13x but the common people said mvlax'. The
usual Netherland.ic Yiddish forms are of cou.rse pvsax and
mvla.
Hartog Beem, the master of Netherlandle
Yiddish remarks that while the cognates of Tiberian
klev aM ger are nonconformist kvla 'dog; vicious
fellow' and gr 'lie, falsehood', one could also hear
conformizing këlev and. kar under the "impact of the official
Ashkenazic synagogue pronunciation" and. the norms of the
Nethex'land.jo khevd.er.
Beem's judgment on klv and.
sekr: decidedly "nicht VolksspraoheN (Beem 1977; 1979). The
Latin letter transcriptions of Philoglottus (1733: 22, 23,
31, 35, 61)
Kei1ef> arid. <Scheik'r>, like those of
Fried.z'ich (l78Li.: L.li., i8L., 211)
<Keilew> and. <Scheiker>,
386
have unambiguous nonconformist Transcriptional Western
Yiddish <el>22 .
There can be little doubt that both
words are historically nonconformist in Yiddish. The
usual realizations in present day spoken Eastern Yiddish
Central Yiddish k4vlv,
II
Northeastern Yiddish
klv, jjç are conforrnlzatlons, probably not unassociated.
with the competition from Germanic Component alternants
resulting in more socially restricted usage. 25 Yet
Bjrnbaujn (1918: 136; 1932: 32) documents Central Yiddish
kávle y .
Mieses (192k: 2k) and. Bin-Nun (1973: 273; 1979)
document Central Yiddish sakar. 26 There is a marked
similarity in the modern language between ongoing
conforinizatlon in Netherland.lo Yiddish, Gailingen Yiddish,
Central Yiddish and. Northeastern Yiddish.
In the
four varieties, there is vowel 22 vowel 25
sociolinguistic variation, where 22 is indigenous and.
25 is a consciously innovating prestiae form
7 The
variation and the direction of change associated with it
can be seen to have existed in earlier Yiddish.
387
V. THE NATURE OF SOCIOLINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION
Let us imagine, for the sake or exposition, that part
of a hypothetical dialect area with the phonemic system
of Northeastern Yiddish has
in conformity with
the prestigious Ashkenazic pronunciation of the same
speakers. Another part of the area has nonconformist
r.
Let us suppose, moreover, that we find that
speakers of the révvx area all have the word. Only
speakers proficient in Ashkenazic have the word in the
____ area.
Now let us imagine that all of Yiddish realized
historical vowel 22 as
and vowel 25 as (as in real
life the Yiddish of Gailingen does).
Let us suppose,
moreover, that we find that speakers in such distant
corners of the speech territory of Yiddish as the
Netherlands, Gailingen, Poland and. Lithuania all show
mvl3x
variation.
In each of the areas,
mthl3x is the more frequent Yiddish realization while
ntlx is a prestigious conformizing form.
Each of these imaginary experiments bears a
superficial resemblance to the methods described above
in III and IV. Yet the difference is vital. Both these
imaginary experiments are statements of synchronic
phonological and social dialectology. Extrapolations
regarding the history of the variants remain speculations.
388
Genuine sociolinguistic reconstruction begins with
the Isolation of two or more genetically cognate entities.
It proceeds to discover the social correlates of the
cognate entities in two or more language varieties
available for empirical study. Recovery of erstwhile
sociolinguistic variation, whether leading to shift (as
in Northeastern Yiddish
or to no shift (as in
Central Yiddish rávv) or to continuous variation
(as in Netherlandic Yiddish n&1x nielx) can be
achieved if and. only if the genetically cognate entities
appear as divergent concrete entities in the several
varieties. The divergence of concrete realization on
the level of the oppositional phoneme is the historical
proof of descen from an earlier stage of the language
rather than horizontal diffusion through space. The
reliability of sociolinguistic reconstruction, as of any
other, depends upon the strength of the evidence.
Reliability
is proportionate with the number and
noncontiguous geographic spread of the several varieties,
the extent of the empirical evidence from the modern
language and the degree of disparity between the
concrete realizations in each variety.
In the first actual experiment, III above, we
find a
of Yiddish.
rii
between two varieties
Central Yiddish rávv3x is nonconformist
vis-à-vls Central Ashkenazic and its use is not restricted
to Ashkenazic readers. Northeastern Yiddish ri
is
conformist vis-â-vis Northeastern Ashkenazic and its use
89
is indeed restricted to speakers proficient in
Ashkenazio.
The complernentation reflects the native
Yiddish status of the defiant form and the
innovative character of the conformist form. 28 The
reconstruction hinges on the vastly divergent phonemic
history of the two dialects (see Table 1).
In fact,
the two dialects demonstrate a theoretically optimum
disparity of concrete realization. Phoneme X
is the modern reflex of Proto A in one variety and
happens to be the reflex of Proto B in the other, given
that A anti B are the genetically cognate entities
compared.
Central Yiddish /ey/ Is the realization
of historical vowel 25, which is a prestigious conformist
vowel in a certain group of items.
Northeastern
YidtIish /ey/ is the realization of historical vowel 22,
which is the nonconformist vowel in the same group of
items.
In the second actual experiment, IV above, we find.
a consta
orej
between four varieties of Yiddish.
Variation documented includes Netherlandic Yiddish
mvlx ml3x, Gallingen Yiddish mv1
Central Yiddish m&v! lX
mlax,
nêl9x, Northeastern Yiddish
mêvl3x mlex. In each variety, the first cited
is the vowel 22 form diverging from the prestigious
Ashkenazic norm of that variety. The second is the
390
vowel
25
form conforming with Ashkenazic. The constancy
reflects a state of vowel 22 vowel 25 sociolinguistic
variation at an earlier stage of Yiddish predating the
rise of the four varieties.
Moreover, the direction
of shift is determined by conscious adoption of the
Ashkenazl.c norm at this earlier stage of Yiddish. Again,
the defiant forms are native Yiddish reflexes while
the conformizations are innovative.
The reconstruction
hinges on the disparity of the concrete realizations
in the four varieties (see Table 7).
To sum up, the Proto-Yid.dish cognates of standard
Tiberian
mlx, rwa}i and. iQer were vowel
29
22 nonconformist Yiddish segolates. For centuries
they have been in variation with conformizing
variants. The variation has followed the phonemic
history of each variety of Yiddish where 22 and.
25
have not merged.. In the modern language, they are
the handful of wavering Yiddish segolates, appearing
here as vowel 22 survivals, there as vowel
Un&
ffi
j.t(. C1le Lord.on. and Oxford. Ctre
jides
25 innovatIons. 30
LQ
Postzyute
391
C,
ow
- .
N
C
0
- 43
0
In
-.0
N
N
-
.-
C
ii
C.)
43
-
-I.
0%..
00
t
43
U
V
-
U
-4
-
C.-
C
43
-V
43
CV.-
.4.-
C
....4
CC
.4
V_
C.)
Oi
Z
392
NOTES
1.
I have been privileged, while preparing this work, to
benefit from the discussion and advice of Raphael Loewe
(University College London), Richard A. Hudson (TJCL),
and. Daniel Frank (Harvard University); from correspondence
with Harto g Beem (The Hague) and. Jechiel Bin-Nun (Jerusalem).
Full resoonsibility for the proposals herein and for
errors of fact or interpretation rests squarely with the
author.
2.
The double di g it designation of Yiddish protovowels
represents Herzog's (1965: 228, note 1) symbological
modification of the (now standard) protosystem of Max
Weinretch (1960), revised. in M. Weinreich (1973: II,
321-382; IV, 3 6L_ 38k ).
Note that use of the protosystern
does not hinge on acceptance of the phonetic reconstruction
posited in Table 1 or any other reconstruction. The numbered
vowel represents an emzirically real synchronic diaphoneme
denoting spatially differentiated realizations of cownate
entities.
weL.22, as used herein corresponds to M.
Weinreich's E 2 and. E3 (I.e. vowels 22 and. 23). Katz
(1978: 2.2) argues that the notion of Yiddish vowel
23 is bereft of empirical reality. The dispute does not
affect materially any of the issues at hand.
39 3
3.
The evolution of Central Yiddish and Northeastern
Yiddish from Proto Eastern Yiddish is discussed by
U. Weinreich (1958: 237-2)49, 252-257), Herzog (l9S5:
159-233, 27 )4-290; 1969) and Katz (1978: §3.6-3.8).
l. •
The terni enr1. Iiddih is used, herein in the
stricter sense of the Yiddish of the area roughly
congruent with Congress Poland. In the Yiddish of Eastern
Galicia, an area delimited geo2raphically in the map
appended to Bin-Nun (1973), it is rêvv. Bin-Nun
(1973: 101-102; 1979) aptly characterizes this variety
as Transitional Central Yiddish (in his terminology
Transitional West Central Yiddish; his East Central
Yiddish corresponds with. Southeastern. Yiddish). In light
of the many features which Transitional Central Yiddish
shares
with Southeastern Yiddish t its immediate
east, Bin-Nun (1979) notes that révvsx may have entered
under Southeastern Yiddish impact. The problem deserves
a special study.
5.
Historically, part of Southeastern Yiddish
(or 25' but in modern
distinguishes 22 from
25
Southeastern Yiddish the two are generally merged as
Prilutskl
unitary Southeastern Yiddish 22/25
1920: 17-28; Veynger 1929: 6k; U. Weinreich 1958:
236-237; Herzog 1965: 178, 181; 1969: 62-6k; M.
Weinreich 1975: II, 359-350). There are
3911.
documentations of unitary 22/25 for Vlshkeve in
Poland (Prilutskl 1921: 272; Herzog 1965: 178) and
Shafov (Schaffa) in Noravia (Beranek 1936: 72).
6.
We consider the notion of a fused "HebrewArarnaic"
to be linguistically and historically fallacious. The
neutral eitc monent is used with the understood
limitation that no Semitic other than Hebrew or Aramaic
may be involed.
Ti.brjan denotes
the classical
phonological system of Biblical Hebrew and. Aramaic
codified in the late first millennium A.D. As a
phonological system, its application Is. not restricted
necessarily to forms attested in the Old Testament.
7.
Closed Syllable Shortening results in automatic
alternation (in the sense of Jakobson) in the Semitic
Component of every Yiddish dialect where morphological
paradigms give open vs. closed syllabic allomor phs. The
patterning contrasts sharply with the lack of alternation
(rarely, dirferent alternation) in AshkenazIc. Cf. e.g.
Central Yiddish kk
'screams' vs.
'voice',
'details' vs. sg. prat, mávsrn 'corpses' vs. sg.
and.
Central Ashkenazic cognates (where stress is variable)
ky1vs, lul.;
utiin, prt; ntaisini, rna.
Analogously,
395
Northeastern Yiddish kéiv1, ki].,; prtirn, orat; ntésim
ws oontrastin with Northeastern Ashkenazic
keyl; pr-t2.rn,
8.
-t; me y sliii, meys.
The most s y stematic account of Northwest Semitic
Segolation within a modern linguistic framework is
provided by Malone (1971).
The Pan Yiddish
nominal shape C)Cé reflects a. classical Aramaic
segolate and, those at issue in the present paper reflect
classical Hebrew segolates. The differentiation between
the two 'doos not constitute an absolute isogloss"
(Malone 1971: 4) as there are substantial attestations
of Hebrew
9.
and, Aramaic CVCVC.
In a well known instance of textual vacillation,
Isokhor Ber (1808: 9b) reports that Elijah of Vilna
(z vllner g en) had Tiberian zxr
Iremembrances
in a text while Chaim of Valozhin believed he had seen
10.
Diverginz
Yiddish segolates are listed and.
discussed by (among others) Lebenzohn (1866: 2k),
Tshemerinski (1913: 63-6k), Reyzen (1920: 81), Birnbaum
(1922: 27), Mieses (192k: 2k), Veynger (1929: 98),
Bin-Nun (1952: 156; 1973: 273) and M. Weinreich (1973:
II, 1i'6—k7, 291, 33k-335; IV, 1k, 65).
396
11. Attempts to derive both the vowel
25
conformist
Yiddish segolates (cf. Table 2) and, the vowel 22
nonccnformist Yiddish seolates (of. Table 1.)
from
common protoforms are unsuccessful because both occur
in the same environment (stressed open syllabic
osition).
M. Weinreich (1960: 68) posited lengthening
to account for the latter series but saw the error and.
reverseS himself (1973: II,
12.
.7,
291-292, 33$.-335).
In our honemic transcription, Dosttonl.c reduced
vowels are unitarily marked by . Note that in many
varieties of Yiddish, posttonic , is realized as [a)
preceding /r,x/, hence the frequent realizations
Central Yiddish [ráyvax) and Northeastern Yiddish
[révax]. The coinciding of the [a) allohphone of ..
with historical g of Tiberian renders the Yiddish
realizations minimally contrastive with Ashkenazic.
But note that while the most ex1ioit Ashkenazic style
is transcribed in Tables 2_LI. (i.e. with oositiona1
osttonic vowels), the pervasive
Y iddish rule
of
posttonic reduction is indeed often a pplied to
Ashkenazjc. Conformity and nonconformity are both
determined by tonic vowel realization.
397
13. Instances of conformization to Ashkenazio in other
areas of phonolo gy are documented in our own time. Cf.
e.g. H-S (1957).
1L.. These interviews were taped in London between
November 1978 and April 1979.
friends A. N. Stenci (ed., Loshn
Lisky (ed.,
vid.ishe
I am indebted, to my
lebn) and I. A.
U) for their very kind
help in the location of informants and arrangement of
interviews.
15. While the Semitic Component Is characterized on
the whole by a marked de gree of Pan-Yiddish uniformity,
there are documentations of other items whose everyday
usa'e is eorathicallv differentiated (cf. Mark 1941:
69).
16.
'Prompting' is here intended to include both
direct prornptin ("Do you know what - meansV') and
indirect prompting ('How do you say - in Yiddish?').
Elicitations were achieved by relating a brief story
and asking -the informant to comment and predict at
various points.
17.
It is probably not a coincidence that the reat
Yiddish lexicowrapher, Alexander Harkavv (1898: k86). Minseif
a Northeasterner, adds the usage label "Hebrew" to his
entry for
398
18.
Bin-Nun (1979) believes that fard.int is a
recent borrowing into Yiddish from New High German.
19. Richard A. Hudson points out ar guments in favor
of an alterrmte formulation: Older Northeastern
Yiddish nonconformist rv was re placed by La.d1nstJ
fardIn3n. Subsequently, rv was to some extent
reintroduced from Ashkenazic and. from literary
Yiddish.
Nany speakers will have had. it all along in
Ashkenazic (it occurs, e. g . in the frequently recited
grace after meals).
Its renewed use Is socially
restricted and. phonologically conformist — both symDtoms
of reintroduction.
20.
Historically, Waenseil is a notable exception
within the cited. group. His main work was a literary
Yiddish chrestomathy (provided with Latin letter
transcriptions of entire literary texts) and. his
motivations were largely founded on intellectual
appreciation for Yiddish literature (of. Borokhov
1913 : no. 26; M.
21.
Weinreich
1928: 715-732).
It Is likel y that the phonetic realization
wa g 1ev] 22 1 2 5 . Where the syllabic element was (J or
lower in historical vowel 22, merg er with IëJ/[e y ] 2 5 was
Renerall y averted.
399
22.
The works of Philolottus (1733) and Friedrich (1781i.)
are deservedly praised by M. Weinreich (19 L1. 0: 103;
1957: note 7).
Accordi.n to Avé-Lallernant (1858-
1862: III, 233) PhiloElottus is the pseudonym of J. P.
LUtke.
23. The relevant Isoglosses and the phonetic status
of the merged 22/25 are not yet clear for much of Western
Yiddish. On the merger of the two vowels in Western
Yiddish, see Beranek (1957: 1975; 1961: 296-297; 1965:
114.6-114.9), Hutterer (1965: 126-127) and Bin-Nun (1973:
201).
214. In Voorzanger and Polak (1915) nonconformist
seolates are cross referenced to corresponding Ashkenazio
forms.
25. Bin-Nun (1979) points out that both these words
are more figurative and, metaphorical semantic alternants
to Central Yiddish }iint II Northeastern Yiddish hunt 'dow'
and. 1jg 'lie'.
Unlike fardinst (after Bin-Nun), these
Germanic Component items are undoubtedly of old Yiddish
stock. A number of semantic and phonetic properties of
the forms cited in Table L may account for their special
tenacity in resisting conforTnizatlon.
kQQ
26. Bin-Nun (1979) believes recalling the older
generation in his native Rohatyn (East Galicia) using
ayk3r In the phrase ávkr-b. £ false plot; total
lie; blood libel'.
He and, his generation have
There are etymological dtfftculties with the phrase
k k 3f t1 it
'two inept/helpless people!',
popular throughout Central Yiddish.
27. This jibes with well known findings that conscious
Innovation (e. g . borrowing of prestige forms) is often
characteristic of prestigious social groups (Bright and,
Ramanujan 196k: 1112; Labov 1973: 217).
28. Conformization in Yiddish apparently followed
the standardization of the classical form in Ashkenazic
itself. Older Ashkenazic texts often have <rwah>
(with çere), e.g. p. 9k of an Ashkenazic prayerbook
manuscript (British Library Oriental Add. 27,556)
dated paleographically by Nargoliouth (1905: II, no. 653)
as "thirteenth to fourteenth century." So also
Levita (lSkl) and, later editions including Basel .1.557,
1601; Grodno 1805.
401
29. Unfortunately, comparative historical treatments
tend to treat the conformized Northeastern Yiadisn model
as a norm for classifying the protovowel In these Items.
E.g. Zuckerman (1969: Lt. 9)
lists Alsatian Yid.d.ish kêylv
25; N. WeinreIch (1973: II, 361) lists
the cognate of Tiberian qr under vowel 25.
wider vowel
jO. The list of wavering and conformizin,g Yiddish
segolates could be expanded by Including items which
have fallen out of use in modern Eastern Yiddish. For
example, nonconformist <Seiwel>
was in variation with
oonforinizIng <Sewel> in the eighteenth century Yiddish
known to Fried.rich (178 L1. : 37..
LO2
REFERENCES
Av-La11emarit, Friedrteh Christian Benedict
1858-1862
dutsQh. Qnthum. Leipzig,
F. A. Brockhaus.
Baer, S. and. Strack, H. L.
1879
Di Digduo Ha-Tearnim d.e. Ahon ken
Leipzig, L.
Moscheh b.
Fernau.
Bauer, Hans and. Leand.er, Pontus
1922
Historisch Grammati1 der hebrtschei
rache es aten estarnentes. Halle,
Max Niemeyer.
Beem, Hartog
1970
rshe. Jtd&tjc'ie pr.Qekwoorden n
Zeswijzen.
1975
sten
Assen, Van Gorcurn.
T&al...
isder1andse J1&discji.
ordenboe3c.j. van h
Assen & Amsterdam,
Van Gorcum.
1977
Persoa1 communication, Hilversum, O Dec.
1979
Personal communication, The Hague, 28 March.
14.03
Beranek, F.
1936
NYldish in tshekhoslovakay" in Yivo-bleter,
9.63-75.
1957
1 Jidd.isch'
in eataJi Phi1o1oge liii Aufrt,
Vol.1, Berlin, Erich Schinid.t, pp .
1961
1955-1998.
N IDIe frnkische Lanischaft des Jiddisohen" in
Landesfors.chun,
Jahrbuch ii
21. 267-303.
1965
Wtj[d1scher Stractl.
Marburg: N. G.
Elwert
Bibliophilus
ischer Zacfl-M1ter
1714.2
Teutsches W$rtex-t.
HebrgischFrankfurt am Main
& Leipzig.
Bin-Nun, Jechiel
1952
'Haivrjt shebeyidish' in Haju ha1aij
lemadaei liavahadut, Jerusalem, Hebrew University,
pp. 1514-161.
1973
Jidflsc}i j
. jj d.eutschen jyiarten.
Tibingen, Max Niemeyer.
1979
Personal communication, Jerusalem, 12 March.
L.OLI.
Birnbaum, Salotno A.
1918
Grarnmati1 &e.
Vienna
1922
&
iddischen Straphe.
Leipzig, A. Hartleben.
s helbx4ische imd. araische Element in &z
idd.ische Srache. Leipzig, Gustav Enge]..
1932
fld.ish verterbilthl. Lod.z: Beys Yankev.
Borokhov, Ber
1913
'Di biblyotek funem ytdishri filolog' in Sh.
Niger 1913: 1-67 [separate pagination at
end, of volume].
Bright, William and. Rarnanujan, A K.
196 l .
' Soololinguistic Variation and. Language
Change' in H. (3. Lunt (ed..),
ocee1ng
.th. Ninth International Congress
1
Linguists,
The Hague, Mouton, pp. 1107-1113.
C[hristian], C[hristoph] G[ustav]
1735
JMischer Dolmetscher od.er Hebrisch- j
Teutsohe Vocabula. Nilrnberg.
Chrysand.er, N. Wilhelm Christian Just
],750a
Jidisoh-Teutsche Gramrn&tick. Leipzig &
Wolf enbUttel.
1750b.
Unrricht vom Ntzen
Wolf enbrittel.
Jdn-Teutchen.
li.05
Fishrnan, Joshua A.
1965
YId.d.ish
America.
Analysis. Bloomington,
DescrilDtion
1967
Socio-lingustic
Indiana University & The Hague, Mouton.
'Bilingualism With and. Without Diglossia;
Diglossia With and. Without Bilingualism" in
Jlournal
S,ia1
Issue, 23,2.29-38.
Fried.rich, Carl Wilhelm
178 11.Unterrioht j der Jud.ensDrache
Prenzlau.
Schrift.
Gesenius- Kautzsch-Cowley
1910
GeseniuQ' Hebreiw Grammar,
. L jitzsch,
re!. &. . Cowlev. Oxford, Clarend.on.
Guggenheim-Grinberg, Florence
19511.
'The Horse Dealers' Language of the Swiss
Jews in Endingen and Lengriau' In U. Weinreich
19511.: 1l.8-.62.
1958
1961
'Zur Phonologie des Surbtaler Jid.d.ischen"
in Phonetic, 2.86-108.
G6ttingen, Vand.enhoeok &
Gailinger J1id.disch.
Ruprecht 1 = Lutbib1iothek der d.eutschen
Mundarten, heausezeben i Deutsehen
Stracharchiv, 22].
406
Harkavy, Alexander
1898
English-Yid.dJ.sh Dictionary . New York,
Hebrew PLiblishing Company.
Herzog,
196k
Marvin I.
1965
1969
Herzog, M.
1969
"channels of Systematic Exinction in Yid.d.ish
Dialects" in For M Weinreich ., bi
Seventieth Bflthdav. Stud.ies jj
wish tanuages,
Literature,
Society, The Hague, Mouton,
pp . 93-107.
Yiddish Lgag ii Northern Poland.. Its
Georahv
. History . Bloomington, Indiana &
The Hague, Mouton.
"Yiddish in the Ukraine: Isoglosses and. Historical
Inferences" in Herzog, Ravid. and. Weinreich 1969:
58-81.
W. and. Weinreich U.
(eds.) Th Field.
Yiddish. Third. Collection.
The Hague, Mouton.
I., Ravid.,
Hutterer, C. J.
1965
"The Phonology of Budapest Yiddish" in U.
Weinreich (ed.), The Field QI Yiddish. Second
Collection, The Hague, Mouton, pp. 116-146.
Isokhor Ber [ben] Tankhum
1808
Maase
,
Zolkiew, Jud.a Meyerhoffer.
Joffe, Jud.ah A.
1954
"Dating the Origin of Yiddish Dialects" in
U. Weinreich 1954: 102-121.
Li.07
Katz, Dovid.
1978
Genetic Notes on Netherlandi.o Yiddish
Vocalism. Unpublished paper, Dept. of
Linguistics, Columbia University.
Kiinchi, David
l5L5
Sefer Mikhlol. [with commentary by Ella
Levita]. Venice, Daniel Bomberg.
King, Robert D.
1969
Historlca Liguitics
Geerativ
Grammar. Englewood. Cliffs (new Jersey),
Prentice-Hall.
Labov, William
1963
"The Social Motivation of a Sound Change"
in Word, 19.273-309.
1966
Social Stratification
En1ish in
ew York C&y. Washington, D.C., Center for
Applied Linguistics.
1971
Methodology" in W. 0. Dingwall (ed..), , Survey
Linguistic Scienc, Univ. of Maryland., pp.
kl2-1.91.
1973
"The Social Setting of Linguistic Change" in
T. A. Sebeok (ed..), Current Trends in Llngulstic
XI, The Hague & Paris, Mouton, pp . 195-251.
4.08
Lebenzohn, Od.om hakoyheyn ben Khaylm [ Dov Ber
Mikhalishker = Adam Hakohen]
[Commentary to] Sevfer talmud 1eshovn lvr1.
1866
Vi].na, Horn.
Levita, Ella
1511.].Sefer hatishbi. Isny.
Malone, Joseph L.
1971
"Wave
Theory, Rule Ordering, and Hebrew-
Aramaio Segolation N
in
Journal
1
the American
Oriental Societ y , 9l.Ll466.
Margoliouth, G.
Hebrew
Catalogue
1905
?lanuaori;ta
Samaritan
j the British ?useum. London,
British Museum.
Mark, Yude].
1914.1
"Lomir ufhltn dl. ashires fun dem talmidkhokhems shprakh!" in Yldishe shDrakh,
1.65-77.
Mieses,
19214.
Matthias
Jidd.ische SDrache. Eine historisehe
Grammatlk des Idioms
integralen Juden
Mjtte1euroa. Berlin & Vienna,
Benjamin Harz.
L'.09
Niger, Sh.
1913
(ed.) De. pinkes.
Yorbukh far
geshiIhte
yldisher literatur i shDrakh,far
folklor, kritik bib1vorafe. Vilna, B.
Kletskin.
Philoglottus
1733
Kurtze
grfind1ihe Anweisung z Teutsc-
Jdischen SDraohe. Freiberg, Christoph
Matthi.
Prilutski, Noyakh
1917
Barg aruf. Warsaw.
1920
Tsum vid.ishn vokalizm. Warsaw.
1921
Dialektologishe Daraleln in1 bamerkunen. Warsaw.
R-S, T.
1957
'Vegn rikhtilm aroysreyd. fun a tsol
hebreizmen" in Yid.ishe
shDrakh, 17.25-26.
Reizenstein, Wolf Ehrenfrled von
176 L$.Der vollkommene Pferd.e-Kenner.
Uffextheim,
Joh. Simon Meyer.
Heyzen, Zalmen
1920
Gramatilc j
der yid.isher shDrakh. Ershter
te1. Vilna, Sh. Sh.reberk.
410
Selig, Gottfried.
1767
Xurze .und. rihid1iche Anleitun2 Zn elner'
].eichten Erlernung
SDrache.
1792
idischd.eutschen
Leipzig, Christian Fried.rich Hu!npf.
Lehrbuch z grindiichen Erlernung der
id.ischd.eutschen SDrache.
Leipzig.
Sperber, Alexander
1966
*, Historical Grammar
Biblical Herew.
Leiden, E. J. Bri].l.
Tendlau, Abraham
1860
Sprihwrter j. Reden.sarte deutsch-jidiseher
Vorzeit. Frankfurt am Main, Heim'lch Keller.
Tshemerinski, Kh.
1913
"DI yld.Ishe fonetik" In Sh. Niger
1913 : 47-71.
Veynger, N.
1929
Yidishe dialektologve. Minsk, Vaysrusishez'
melukhe- far lag,
Voorzanger, 3. L. and. Polak, J. E.
1915
Het Jood.sch j Nederland. An
Hebreeuwsch en and.ere talen ontleeride
woord.en en zeswiizen. Amsterdam, H. van
Munster en Zoon.
Wagenseil, Johan.n Christof
1699
Bl&rung d. Jidi h-Peiitshen R1- ]md.
ireibart. K6nigsberg, Paul Friederich
Rhode.
Weinreich, Max
1928
'Di. yidishe shprakhforshung in l7tn
yorhundert' in Tsavtshrift (Minsk), 2-3.
689-732.
1914.0
"Yidishe filologye' in A1grnevr1e ent&k1ot'ede.
Ytdn bevz, Paris, Dubnov-fox2d, pp. 101-108
195Z
'Prehistory and Early History of Yiddish:
Facts and Conceptual Framework' in U. Weinreich
195: 73-101.
1957
'A shprakh-dokument fun arum 1800' in Yid.tshe
shorakh, 17.146-52.
1960
'Di sistem yidishe kad.men-vokaln' in Yidihe
shDrakh, 20.65-71.
1967
'The Reality of Jewishness Versus the Ghetto
Myth: The Sociolinguistic Roots of Yiddish' in
Honor Roman Jakobson. Esas , JJ Occasion
hJ.. Seventieth Birthday, The Hague, Mouton,
pp. 2199-2211.
1973
hikhte
der yldisher shtrak.
Barif, raktr, medn. New York, YIVO
Institute for Jewish Research.
412
Weiltreich, Uriel
1954(ed..) The.
Fi1d.
YicMish.
Yiddish Language, Fok1ore,
1956
1958
ucIis jr],
Literature.
New York, Linguistic Circle of New York.
"Notes on the Yid.d.ish Rise-Fall Intonation
Contour" in For Roman Jakobson.
avs
the Opcasion
Sixtieth Birthda,
The Hague, Mouton, pp. 633-643.
"A Retrograde Sound Shift in the Guise of a
Survival: An Aspect of Yiddish Vowel
Development" in iisce1ea hornenaje André
Martinet. EstructuralisinQ
istorta,
Universidad. d.e La Laguzia, pp. 221-267.
Weirireich, Uriel and Labov, William and. Herzog, Marvin I.
1968
"Empirical Foundations for a Theory of
Language hang" in W. P. Lehmann and Yakov
Malkiel (ed.sJ, Directians for Histhrtca1
Sivrirnosium, Austin & London,
Linguistics.
University of Texas, pp . 95-195.
Wyld, Henry Cecil
ern Co11oquial Epg4sh.
History f.
1 93 6,
Oxford, Basil Elackwell.
ZuckerTnan, Richard
1969
"Alsace: An Outpost of Western Yiddish" in
Herzog, Bavid. and. Weinreich 1969: 36-57.
L.13
'
(y 'iu.ii
r
1 y
rT
1
,t
iy n)
y
1 y 1
D
11
ltK 1Y
2
. .... . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ?i'
6
. ....... ... .•...... . ... . . .
11
15
S S •SS•SS•
...
,yp(I.tj,yjy;p,
eS. . - _ II
_-r •. •...... See...... •........ • •.
.
I'
.4
1 /
K
.5
y V '1ilD
.6
-
IT
:p1ibIDyD
'z
.1
.2
.3
.
.
29 .•................ . . ...... •Se.... .. .
33 .............. p'iKDy
35 •..S........S...............
y3
43 . ..
54
r'',xpn fly 1 K
.7
.8
1
•••••• •••• ...•••.. . ... . .. .. ..
)71
T'Kp11
y'
yii
'n
p'n jV'DD
in y'
5•S•Se '?11
. ..
'713
137V'l
flIT
DT 17I
..•••........•.........•••.•...•
ir r p
59 . .. . S.....
62 •..•
;p'K1tk
ui
S.S S ••S••aSS •. .
13 flM 12
Cyi1
?Kf l '
67 .........................
71
p,n
1979 ot1'1K 9-6
K1V
p,
.10
.11
.12
.13
3'K
76 ............. •................
79 ......................... TD'V,
flV 1 1y5 1K
1IK1yt 17 IlK
.9
DyV IV 1
/"wn
.14
.15
L'.'L'.
j10 -Tj
vii' x
:v'r'
v'po
'x pn
*iippyD ii
x flp
iy
.1
opyt
11
r'x
i'
1V7 OI
T1"1'
1
fl
x xiv
yyt'x
v ''nx i'x flix.i
-p-i iyi ix
.r1p-Tix
1pp'yx
pjD'nhJV rx
yoxo
ipipix ,y,
'i
.x yl) n1pvrt1yp
opny.'x
j
'.
ii"s
riI. r 'x
' x'p
pix
t 'ix
ix
' ' ' rinx
iypn
.(1953 -r'-'
iii
.irn 1p'x1v
;y
yp1 on ypx-p.1
r'r 'i
i"r
x
' ' t 'xi
xi'u
?p pi'?
kT
x
yopy yryi'-x yp
p
'x
x op
-
(*
x
kt
:'i
,pyriox
l"B3
niyi tu rn 3;1il yyn
1p.
V 'EU3 1'O tT
'111
'.1
•1''p'''P
x'perxi:x
?D1p 1 pi T'1X
y'y.io'ix p 1
-i
(192 y-xv on.) py' '
,y'1
krT poxix
"
yyy.i
'o
"p
oT ,, 1x .1p1EJk
pv"'x
1
.10-9 §
7J"T
ix
'k
x
liyn on
(i''iii)
iji)y ii
1J-
L k 1 1T"fl
-i
"I
n
i n x
p
"11yonx i
'-r rx
in c,kp p"yflk
.'7X VX
Li.]. 5
C'1
'3 b1J
fl1i
kU
T1t' yD ,"
IY° ,
y''cp
y"? pC iy'i
tt7Efl
.;
rvri
yflyX
1'n
fl1D11T n
y
'I
1
,r111p-I"1
I
1P1k
;yy.i
y y ny .'t
j1
DyiJ"1
1'!
p1
'n13'"y3"
?1U
1kP'PY
'1
y,
1 T'
719
n
yi"?
1J1Db
-ItrV
1
D ,1?&?1
1L
1Y°'P "? ':
,D91
1l P'
.1p'1
.VO'fl1)? "D V'1k
i:
1
y.ii'1
py
TflV 1 ir1
?'t (1fl I11
- I
yT 1D
1 1 1 p
kD111
"?
pt'1y 'T
DyP'
. ii iy-i ny
V
'1
,IY 'Y "
n1
1y'p lyl
'1
.IbflV ;i
y?yy
1JT ,1yp'y1 1-' 1V j)
ID1fl1C
111
v,yy'
't -I'T
p m'?1p
U 't'Dy19
l)
fl'1T1T
P''
,, flDflD
1Y
JyCp?y
MD'? D2r ,'bD'fl1'pV'1t'T '1
1fl1
,1"1Yl jr '1
'1
11
,p'p iy r -'r
416
,yv,_to'I, 1y, fl
D'U.0
"0
1
TD'V
Ik 1"
'ID
'i
iy
ii
FT
V -fl
,yfl
uDpy, P
Dpy
1'Y
1yT
F' ,1r1v iy'
T'
- '
t
t )
;'
7 TT
r'o
T' 0U V'l"
V11
'?fl
V''Dy0 0yi
' 0p0
.1 P
1 11-i ;ni 1 -fl,
0
j'?
1
I't p?rT
1y
D1"X 'T
r'i
1bV1 ipi
V''Dp0 C31
1 '
rDyo 1V'i1)'D
lyV'1" 1)?") lyl
,"
i'p
1)k{
?FI lyV'b'DyD -ip,
t3i
Dy,
"-Z'
0
'0 V'11 V1yiy1
yo
-1
V '
Oyly' Iy3p"x t
V'
V'J13'0
)$11
'U
1
"-li"fl DK0
0
y 1
0J"b'
' x i'
-)y
b"fl
•'Y
7U
yi
,1p?
;i
'in:
''
?'I D)"t ,yO'up.l
yiyon flI't
yiv''y1
0p
T iy
U1PYflU1Y1
1'
ycyy
.(iyiyt'yr)
1ybDp'i"fly3' lyT
OyJi ;": 'T 1
y''D
pD'ny. X
"c (ii ' o)
y3y013y1.3"u
'
'kU 1'
I1 ,y'
3y0y?y yv'BD ,yv'y1:yi ,yV",,,
"i
?'UD ,Z'y1yrT ,Vt"1
yi"r "t
"T
i':'c,, ,(9 :1913)
iyr
I.17
1k IY IDY I
119
I
t
,r
p'1,y-1
%l
'
T'
bi ,V 1 1 ' t
Dfl
pr,llj
y"n fl1T ?"y1k
r''"
:yi
Dfl
1' t
I'
Iyb1py'I
?p'rT 1yV'yD I ,y9"
1'1y-tr9v ,yv''yo 1y!
r i Y DbD PYP
,PP-1
.tV
3V
1D ID
yP .I,p l y '11
?''pD ?'
3
1rrUD1y
iD TV11'
'TTfl
?
DB
ryi
t7! DkII
fl
rT
p
;YP
IP
V 'D)D
?b b
' 1
liD
'
y1
_q3 1r
—
V I
C
—
rr
1flp.
I1b3"1
?'
U70 IYP
1Y1PI,JI
. lyv q vi lp-r
'1 T
yr3T''DyD
'T
D11i
3"n
Di1 D'1p1yT
yi"r
y
ptD
p'r
liD
1
:Ipy.iyo
' r'
'1 fl ,p7rr V'DyD
1•1
DT
''
;i
1'X
iyu ,D1
brp 1 yI
V.1D 1 i
?1fl
?
TY1
yiii
yp'rTv liD Ti1 r'
?
D1T
93D11y1'
iy i .y
1
p
1
p
'T
?U 1D
.$' ' D
7Dfl r'
1 9tX
Iy)yP
p
ri
p
po
,'Vf 'T
3XII
D
p
.p'Pr!
17V 'y
t
.2
,-,,teTjID 'i
1pvr' iyr
'x p 'yup,i y'1yt-
1
'1 T 'I '? ,1V1-1V
T'
fl'flflT '
yn
lyr
y 1 1y-1'1r7JD 1p1
'' 'T b'
r
pr
n
1T
•Pfl I"
3P "
V 1f )7D
p'r
yf l
f liT 19 'i T
-py
ip,
,y-i
y 'pn y
V
ID'TY 1 bT1
'D
DD
bD11
1V ,y V -'' ip i
'iv ,p'n ,yvi
:1928) -,i'u
;
1
cp,
,y 1
iy,
(20
'Si
i
yip"?
V ',''
'n
.(251 ,I :1973 j""u .o)
?'
D1JJ
p:'rt iy v ''Dy D -12
y11
y1
.',i'n
D'Pfl
V 'TU
"iypy yv'n'
r'i i
bp'D
iy :k
'
i:
:prr v''oyc Cy3
u
,
I
y iyi
ryo'DPy
iy1''p1
1"1J
DkD
yo'ny1 x
rT
JUy.1
1"j" •)
p'r 'ye'yo ,y,
nrnp
DJ
i ni
,ii
.(20 :1928
iy,
i
1y,y11'19V ,y?1yfl ,Dynr
;
,I:1973
'ip'u .) "
xyo
:'i
:p'ni
,1yr1yu ;"i
ynn
y
'o'u1.'
,,
''io
yi no ,y" .(222
pri 1y"'cyD ,yi pyn
r
1O
1 -ni
-11-T 1)
.(264 ,II :1973 r i
,D'1
'1
'
I Y
P
t,'i' (341 '
I1D1
1y11
y'13y1 '1 1
1E
.1'u,x
'
D'I1
yc T
-ipr ip,
P
P
hi
VT
'-t n
'?yu
iyi ,yi
:1913)
1
, pt
nriip
1 Cyi IYY1
?1tDyD ly)p 1
?'
onp'ivr ,,'
V''DyD
?T7
D
r , ny1jk
' n .)
OU 'i I?
b
)7
y3"r
V '1
hi
y'yn
(8 :1P1O)
"k1
fl 'U 9'1
'0
'i ,y
2O
crr bpyTi
,1kU
yD
7i
:i
V
V
pD 1 fl13 1 '7
y, 1 1 Y"
y'7.iy.i
Vr1
ylD1p
,i pipn
pi
1973
'-'n .D)
cyn
i'7
b ny,1
'1i
iy iy n
yn cn
y y p1b
"
'r tipy.i
1y1k
n',: ;
.(233 ,III ;227 ,I
ipry, ', un
,y-Tt - " ni
i
,' '7pTn'
n't'r,
,'
I,
1c
?n
;n i
iyi
r'n
.yi,'t
p'rr
n .inut
r i'7p
I
'1
rn-u ;i
pI
iyi
____
n
kT
iy'
I fl
iyn
.V I'1 v
'T
I
pv',o'
k1 1'? rDlylO
p3T'n
-IPY
1)11
n ,in'7n
"VI1II
,yr i
V I jy1t. fl1 1y, t'D
.(
:1961 pir
11''T
po 1
,O)I
39
,5 irt.
yk')
i
I,
rr v'i" n
,11
ip1i ;
.(234 ,III :1973
,
28 nti'
i'n .D) 12
14.21
iny.i
p'ty.1
X
'i
r'
y'ly
iy'i
,y,'.T%% iy"i lyi
yyT Dyfl I Hfl$t-V'V'
'1 T
7flyI
iy
ypm1, 10'
rNr
1y1 1
1'''
$73T 1p?D?''TyD
I'y ;'n
. iV-y,
np ,yv' v",
r: ?'
,y-T 'K '1
1Y'
Tfl?
yI1y.1
' 0 1 ) 1 '!
1uiy
J)? 01I ,p11"
?1 fll
",v ([141-140] :1592) pxv
in
I3
91
lU 'Us,, V1'
pv' v' i .r
'c
,yi,yn yv 1 r-
oi
')
______
'?
r'
D'1
-i
12
...
T
(152 :1603) iopi: ."'ri
1'jr
1609)
T
v' lyn'p ply"r
yfly1)yIi"X
fl
IP''DYD
'1
cio
'
yi1y
'1Z' ]'T
••
________
.1yB
Dli
1 y " r 1yT''DYD
T'
73"T
1yik
n,
. , flp
.1
(657
fl'' '1 fl'?pn irr
iDp:
yiv -$i
2312i -"T'' 1DC'1 I rT
Ii
'1
D2'
i'
1y3'rIT.
22
1i1?1k
y.ip.i 1pik pp'7yr
"n.
(65-64 :1666)
1p -tiu',p
fl
t 1
ppOh1p
1b 'p'p )p
-I' r
y:pri
DO
'?
•yir jyJ
pL
nno
T
p'o1u3'' yyi
i i pyn
,oioip :o 1 -r'
.vi''
t1yyr ':
.(241 :1742)
1Y"'
1piir'ij
i
'i
pv (3 :17O)
p?'DyO r'' ri
i
rT"
,D1;-19v1pvp-yi1pi
op
'
;
-ti
y
iyp''n
1 yru yp'o
pn
T
ipi
prr 'r
;ip
Dpi ?
tt?
I'r
Dpp
.'ny (281 ,II :1714)
nv .
V1-19v 1y7'-r'
iyipu pv'pi.yrr "i
opp iyi
1C
ç
P'T?
1p,
ii-pi'
91L
n "r ;'
1yV''yo iyi ?
'x
11n D73t
T'J
1y
i1y'7p. tT1p1JI'
DDT1V 9'tb
1pp3'
1y1T31PyD
D1 ly
Ii,,
Ip'D
T ,D
Y3D'II ,yTi3
•I? l
iyi )p T'
1p)"lp1
T ti7 ,y 11 p. 13'P
i ,p1pb Dfl'
iJtj
ipi
'1V T'
,'-1'n '1
i
p3'r
iptrr
D YtOY
1?i3fl 'i
bDpy
?'
i j)
fl
423
IE3
p',ri
,
1
"0 ,ptJ y,y'
'D
11y
?'
' p
.3
n1?nO iy
y'
'flpD
DyO
lyl 1
y v y .i ,yi i
i'' 'kU r'
piri 1pi
1pV'V' iyi
DkU 711
.1y1
. e'v
i
y'vpi ,.,r
yi"r v 1 -r
'
SJ/pII
f'i7fl
y;v ?'
ta"?
.p7rr
flE
?''?3y0 0y)
T't'7
1JyT
0'C X 1jfl T
fl
lylp,3X ipi
.,'0'Dpy
k
"'p D
?'0t
ni
3yo'cpy ''1
'TyD 0p31
tT V'1
ID
r;
.'rT
b"T
1yDyf7I
.D11''? 1YV'1kD'
p
T,
t
1P
KT p',p-0pp
ny. vi''
'1' "g
11k
1
T ,1y1pU p1pTJ
'lp&?y 11J" fly '!'7
ipp ipp;•T
?'1
3T
l'
in
pt'?y
T
r IY 3 '"
'Ty.1i
.y'3
,yy
y-pnx 'o
•i
1"' yv?' n
uytpi pi'
(438 :1832)
rn
-1858)
-pn
.v",
p,p.i
"
,pip (207-204,111 :1862
p)p1"t
opn
'i' t1'ro
0;yT?
7Ifl
?'
0pT TT0 Dp'1y0S
,DpflipD!1
y1r t
yvvt,
"i.
i'x ,y'-yii
ntni
yyi'y.i
'ii
ni
Dtfl
11 ?
pv'tv
Jk
yipivpi DyDk. yv%!;l
y3'
ivyi
ii
v'V'
i'
pi'
'ii ?'T''
i' °'
?'
-'
r
1yT
.n"v
y-yIu
iyipn yv''i
'p
1 i Dk
V',' 1y 'T 4
1b1 'T
V'l'' ?
V'
1
p'1D
IiflIY1)
D1D
1yr: 1 21
yrV '1
V'73D '7
lyT
yi',T yty
.V "1 yi,y1D yJ'
y0
ipr 'n
yiyrnp 'D
V -'21 1yR
'U
yV'1y.l .I,T
.':ii
y'
'r
1-1!4Z' 1yv'n1y1
yV''' 121
12 ,V'f''
'1
I1p',Uy1y,'
1' D11
y
rIypy
1$7 ,yl ,1y1yU"7
D1''y
?'X DVII
•v1,1'
rT rn
n'-tx TV''' cpi'
.v"-i t-yiyi
npt
.i'
1
flTfl1
b')
1ttyD yVy
U''
'-I
.y'yi
Ip'j"r
'?
2'T
121
U
bDJ'11b
"T
yp,."'
425
I1
317 :1913)
yr
fliB
V'B
j
'vinj
yDp-y1I
yi' ip:x pi?3ypi (321
(10-3 :1911)
(192 ,1.91 ,189 ,184 :1922)
iyv''
iyyp ipni
T,q
i ,
r
T
T
IY' 1'Y '
fl'o iyV'''?
fl
?'
,iytp!v 1)),
flTp
..i1'
,Iyop,'1
i
t9y.1
t,$7tiyp1
''?3y
yfl!
in'yv ip',rrnvD ,y,
p?ri i
pD lyi iy
p'?pr opi tDrp.1 trt
'iyp',iy'i
kT
lrv'1v
-U iy"i
i)1
?'
?krkty?
V
tv
'k
O DT
J1
p'rip
.piTp1'
iptp' (16-13 :1929)
i.i
1"i
''
i- v'ip1
iyp'
'pn
ly-T
prp'
'
1
.(200-198 :1931) -r'-''"
(1924) ,p'v pri
yi!ip3'
1VO1L1J'? ipT l •,1, V'T''
(1933) ,p'v
ippv
.'np
'i
U
p'i"n
;i
pp1
yi"r n'i
&'26
- p -
-i
1Dy
.tpy
niiyr
oi
''IT p'?k1u
3'V
1 ,V'T''
rnipi 'i '?k
r'P lYP
'flDpi
yy1
n
'p
C1
y,
yV'
' ip
11)? 1p'1pDb
yV'
i'D '1
yi
D". 1yZ7 1E Dyfl VIFT V'1fl
1V1
83 :1933) p9'v .n1rT1-'1V ypr-v
TpIp,1 1V
'r
'I
t,'J 1p'T
, ;•tipn ,pv','
P'k
isu
ri ,pv c'n'
i
v'''
'i
'i
'
r%
D"fl p'
pi
Dk1
1b
1940)
U1
y' ' 1' r
.ti 'TB
it' yi
' r' n
"
V11
"3
1'rTo,y,
,(1953) ip'
,'pt
.p'-lin
y''pi iy
•j)p
:1955-1954) ",j'n
-
(30
-'r
't'7 t
y' ,pi'pr ipp
1o,p,
'r
pnn (13
y'_yt -
:p'1 1' b1flT t'
v'yDv
r'
vlB
17,
(1960)
1yy
,y,
p
r
r'ip,'.i
pv
Db '1
(1959)
27
,'
1Y yD1pD'1
.DpyT$p 1yvr-uo'p
TL
,,
DtU
P'
D11
T
?'D
?D
1y)yT)
i'
1y3"
11D ;'p
.y'l
r'
lytDDpl
iyp''yr ly, 1
b
-DpyD iyi
y'
.1
?'
vi' 1
13y13
jt
?D1V
3 iy:
3
y
9'
D1
lyl
1J7
7'c
p'Pfl 1ytDyD iy,
rripn fll?D lyl
iyT ,["3'II
)
?'
' fl b
b
I
.(4 §) --
yt-1tcpyD 'T
'7
.11V
1p3yyy.l1y.'
V'
'fl.U''P
itny fl'1.yl po
v'i''
11J1)
'? I
D
1 "Y
r
•P
1y1 '
I"31P.1
i"n lyD y'1 b-nvr
i r
•I
.4
I
r'pn 'i
1y1
'D
yii
"1J
?TT
V'DyD cyi
1'?
%,
'1
;p :-
' 1i
'T
4.28
y'1kyt-Tv1-1
p'yb'
'1'7
pV'T''
'1
1 DI iy
'3
?
lfliyl,
yp'?koy
y'
tY'1'1
s''no
'1
• Y'''' T' '°
'?
y'-py
ti Tvy
V'1V yV'1173'' yV'''&?
I
iyr
'1
DJ
't
i'niyi
u
P'°PY I ?'
jriv y'i'jy.i
'?
Ik
, p. .uy py"n cyn v'r'
9
, ,y , ,y ,yi ;yny
i
,yp'yr iy
y7'vT
(354 :r1913)
(26 :1920)
yV'T''
1I711'1,,
'flJ
u
T
pit' b?1y.1
.v'r'
1
1
1 ED'1
yr bk
y
1
DD T
1 iv p.i y n
nrr
'1v
'p
flI1y.1
'DptD
y'i
iyi
y3T
y'
,, ,(41 :194O)
iyp?i ,y,
.M-flfl
,plu
73
ri
,
rr1y.
yv'yD 1D
iyi'
np.i
-,y y n y 3
1T
k1T
pu
T'X y'r"?'Dc, IyT t
OT
T
'fl
'1
•n
I3.21
i
.1382
29
fl'-9'
'?kU
•Pn V 1 ),y1
1'
yo? 1 b'oyD
fl
.jlT jp?
.n1ov fl-P
-75
tt
'oip
,yp'yj
'n (76
y, ,yDn flyn y'yU
-VT
ni"'ii
.p y r p ;iu
1T"U
I
$7I 111
. :-9"t
iyk
yny
y Df l11p1 "i-i
yn
on (.i
1526
TV
PJU
;y
yi
.p'rt
.(212-209 ,179-178 :1975 pi,pv yr)
fl
1?j
)
113111311
OY .3
fl.V rr
131,
Tfl3
V 'r '
P,3111 ''
'X
IYI"1
,1'TT
v'it1y.
ryn[310
'?
T
?F1
I
11T.
•1"b'0P0
1.i ?'. 1tfly0'?
p'?rT
yT?'tO 1311
-
i
rioti oyi
-'
1y
U
?1'1J14
?J'1
c''yo
bv
"1V
,t'
11I
iy-
1p 1
y-uw
1'!
1''
i'
lyT
yv'i
ip.i
'7yflV iyi
't 'CO iyi
7tfl
1i
:1977) ptiyc' crr •i
'
Un
-
1i1 '1
:b1n I'
'D
.'1''
10IO 1'T
1y
I ;T 1311
1031
tU?
1
31
0
14.30
-V'r'
yp?o',p
.
91
yD)y
'1
U
)'1
yvy
11y1
,yi
1yT 1Y
y'r
p'ri
(652 :1609)
1'
Cy3
v'Dy
-,vi
yD
yJ'r ,V','
I'?y
iin.
n ,yiyn yv'yy
,I'D ,y, i'
% D
k U Cyt
) .flO11
____
7Jf 1y1y yV'iy1'
"I
'I
'iyi
yiyn
y'yr-'n (1545)
pi'r
'1
D'y1
''oyo
oi"X ,?
.v''
D,1rI.
yn
v
T '?kT
1yTy.1
yu
'y
rr v o''
lyP
iv'
(87 :1699)
1 flT
1 . 7D
V ' 1'
1D11'?
yv'v' i
D1
V''D
V1 '1 n
1yvlv,,y,
T'
U
/?
F1D
'B ?')'D
j'
p?n
v'1ko'1
V''oyo
11-"T1
1)
'1 .'"II 1yb$1II y)'y12yT
DT
'1 '
;'s
.'rT '?
9'
DU T'l1
'1t'yflk irr iyr
fl
yTy''?y1
9't
Y 'Y '
'1
l ip '
y3"
.cy1!
iyiyII
y'?.flhhflpy
14.31
1y,yu yvXy,:yr '1 :
'
.
3X
II
yiyL1K 1y'yfl1bo
0
D11T
0
OyT iy, o
''tD
'?Dy1 oyn
X
1n
TX
;yr
yD
yD '?
pritc ''
JD1T
pi
1 fl).1
oy, pyy on ,kn-91D 0y
)'3 y fly)yU
yff
ly1pu y y y
y,yTX
D
1X
'T y'r
X1X
.XDJL
1yflX ip i ;iy t1V , D , n ''y ,flt1UT
1'D
'1
yyi
.(yonrTy.1) runn'.i
'X flX fl0i-.'1V y1yT'?X
?yT 0y1
"V0ITT
X9X
'
X
p?yT 0yT IlK
1ilp?1yX-C'Tfl01lrT
.
K
11'J jVy?
y)%'? 11JP'1X
V ''DD 0y3l
K
v''i
p'l
filly y 'lX ly ''?0lX
11p .T D3D0
'?rT
iyn lyT
1P 1.'IX
'X ,l'
"X
n
D'
1
lyi"K
3.3'ipryly
0''yD 1 I11 I'X ny'
' 1
11lp1
XU .1)1pTly.'K 'T T'X1yp11kl00T
0y1
.I13'P'?TX
1'l '1
.lyPl
lyl"K f1Vfl
ly.T
lylyDyl
K
432
tT1 1
tp DJfl
tyi
i'
vi
iyy ni'ir (391-385 :1959)
ny
r''o n (XXIX-XXVI :1957) op
1)'J
o
r,
opyrp
yit
(21-19 :1961)
(196o)
-r r
IIV'?
'iii
(251 :1965)
r'
1pn"
(30
1yty jiy.'
'i;•i
yO
,piy niin
i' i
fl
opy,kp Cy3
.fl1$1
1Y P' iyi
194O)
'in p
'?p'V
1
'1"11
1V? DkT ?
o
r'
r
&'T
yp tiypi
.yny1
( l :
;y
- y.i1,iyi pip- r'c
TJ1
1k'7P
DPP1kD
T
" V'1'' "0
u'
r'
$rI
'?T
pyTkp
7J1
fl?
yD'? 01 ?
&?op
yi"r lyJ"? pn iyv''oyo
,opyrp i
I1
,)
y1'-D''?1fl DIJT
11fl l ? ytI&?% iyi
0b
.1flt
l,
1''T1
_1y_T
'
p,yn y ?
'"t
-Iyo jo
iy -r
:yn:
".33
yvtu.r,yl•,
W'T''&?X 'f Tt 1i1iyp1y
iopy
yt1'T''?'tD
I
?yV 1y.k -i'? ?
'
UJ'7 '
' -uny'
'T n"V
.yp'flyitU1y-r
y,ohnJ'
I
D
U
,y-
ly .T
1
'7? 1J11 -1bfly? 1),
p' ri' :yi
1y,
c1'-9
i' ' p
117?
73'
fl'JO.1O 9'1b
Dy'
D 1$1111 Iyi
t7iyL1b
'1 ,.Ty1kfl3
',
'b
MD1 y)y7yi ''
D71
;i
r'i
T
'
y1it71
'i ,'1-r yc"1tyD
?kT
,p'o'nii'
I
y1y?,Jt
;pni
bk r
1YP
rv
cn
iyp '
nri yp'-fnr'nD "p rr'rr
yP ' D
M
yV'i'' '_r
.v'_I'' PY'Y 1y'
o'
'r
yi1y'7
y'1'?y1
;n
yv9'
17''7 ,yV''''
V'1''
1321
'T ?b
1D'
?k'?'
'
•T)y1Ty1
yJI
' PT1
?'
Yty,P)P
''
3I4.
u'?1y rI1
C".
Dy )p,1iy r
'?'1tD
1pT
O91j lyl ?
X T
pp'1
..1tII't1 'II
.D 1 9 1
1yT t'II1J''
IJ1
jy y o11
iyD iy
D11
i".U't
1J
T'
iyo
Df lhi
1y'1yy?
iyi Iyl tyJ1 1p?
yvI
.yyt:v1
1!
ml
T.111D
DflT '
1y?'ofl).)''7
rr1y1 1'?
tk T
1"? D11 D 1
?11
1fl-mr
y
'
11p
nPTy-n.1
n11,n
V'1I'?D'9
fl
jtI1V
yI?ysirT
7-t'
k' my i " r
1j'y
ip-r
y.j1'c?
-
yp''n DD
'1
1
1pt11I
'nu'' ly,
1T
1
7I1
1lfl
l
1f
fl1IDfl1 9'1I
iry'
-r ;x (1929
.1600
II'1
1X
,1588 t'l
$7T
j1
'1
r mJ
1YYP '7yii] ''
'7111 ro
.(58 :1937
'tl1 r1TK i "
'1)"II
)
"Dy
ç :u' n
Pp
m'
'7111 T3D'7 1p''7vti'
14.35
"
1566
T'
''
'T flr
yn
"o,,
1?
:Ti'3.1 iy,
.(66 :1942
".)
' iv
1yDyuv .i
1478
jt
vip pn
1
:1r
,ypri
tV77fl ii..,,,
Cprr
1y
'11
.(106 :1939
'r t'v
1DD
i:i DU
•1yV'Y
.(27 :1937
vt'
ip,
Dtfl
T
JD1JD
.'?rT 1V'DYD DJ
vo
[oynJ
c ,pv' ;
I1
;i
1]
" a ) "r' y' t ni:
1p3
p'rT
rJ
:1454
tyu vr' ,yn
J
't
tJ
'i3y
v'
yit
:1532
.(344 :1938 I.iiYaDI s':)
":)
'i 'r
(y 1uutn. ;.)
in
;'
Thy
C1'D 1yl
iy
ok1
i.36
'
.5
?p'nr 1y'ri'oyo
Dy'1ky yp',np 11j
UP ,1-T '1'
p?fl V''Op
lix '1
1)1
p7rT
%'
yp
'D ripn
V''DD
pix' y3Jr'V1x '1 1'rx i' 1y p
i
y3yr"Vix j'x p?rr
u
1
Dpy
1I y '1y -opy
yi
.1p1y3x jb
y3
x
T
.i?'ix
ix
p'r
'I t1 iy .
v ixty
v 1oy ,y
1 flU tpD 1y,
p'-rD
rx
?'x
'JikU
'1,y1Jk
1
D71
T'x y h 1ky-r,l1' Iyi 1
y i .i 1
.rix
rr p'7Tr 1y"'D$iD 1yT
b 'II
nrii 'i
,'oy c p'y y '? C3
'b'Dy
1 p ) p
pb1y3T?y
ipi
:iypix
p 1 x
lE
x'
7J' Clix 'tfl
Ts,orhi1y.1 fllo? 1fly1
ntxnvix
px tp p11-I yyD1py"1x
1'? kI
ifiro vx i: .fllfl??
p p r! 1yv'riyo ipi
'I
I_I
.p?rT
V hflC DyJyC1jJfl
fll''fl 1'17fl1.1 '7 ?$ DJ
t'?
yi$y
11.37
1D
$t
O'IIy1
yii
vt'DyD
.p'n
t n
'r
,c'i
tpyr '1
Dpr
yii
Dpy
1UV1E iyi t k'
fl1
OJOb
DyD
') '1)
1)j)
V'
1flv'7 pc1y,y1 p '1D'1pbkp '
D
'1y, DTi
kU
?
11.ist,
D'llp
p?rT yV'b'pD ,y r
iy," v'v'
niy.i
p'?yrS
,V'T
pP'r
DyD
D3tk1)
.'J iy'r
yDYj
p
o1 pi"r
i.y i'i
r D
'7
y1y1
yyy
p1
"7
r'
1'D
'1V ,OP'I
'bI i'C
cy-T
IV',''
çu
yY.1kb
.I
"?O
-v' -r'
'1'1t
p'3I1bCD yp'r"tj"7 ',
1
k
p31V
.l1D
'
'i
,yp1?
jitr
117
-I
j"T TflD yn
.-ux
iyy
yp ytlktD t'fl
y)' p'rr iyv'opo iyi
P
'1
1fl111'
'i
tyyr
31
iy v i
4.38
'I
v'
V?
bpb'iO'fl
?
yJ"
y pnv '
,ply ly ,
)ci ç
T'U
F
uu flD, ,(12 :1913)
nc 'py y i
.11yt,tst?_1flV
r
'f p41 ;1Dkp '
y rI
tu
ly'T
v' cpp
p'ri
i
pt i'o
yn
Dk31
1961)
'i'' 1p.3't iyDI3
V''1T
r'I
'?
IYDT''YD '?k
111
yr p'i
yJ'
II
.v'i'' .iyD
T
ciyto cr
fl
,,
T
''i
D ny"?
i:pu U$'7'
'T
yV'bpr
% 1U
ytD"1?1
;
yyfli
yiyr'fly1J '
'-1 ?'
(1964)
PyB (18 1962
y1n1T1
1ycy, -
Pz?TT
1,1tv
n ,y ' -
-i'r
i-
n 1619 ;i
.y1y1D'r
(1911)
it,,
P1V r
'in
L39
,yr'K iyp'i"n
'1
D)7
I' D
K?'7'O
I1
'T
X'1X D11 TTCI) C'11D ,yy11y.0
j",J"fl
Cy31
pyii
'1V yy1çF1O '_T .tV 1 Dy'1fl
IPY Y'Y
IY'
' -I
(1958)
X3I
X V'l''
'lTbt
7'?U b'7
I
I
y?y1 p P'
"a.
ok fl
y
I
V'yy
flp3't
1y
t1X! V'1 1 '
C'?fl
yD ti'y1
't'Do 1'1 '?
ir,t
DK1T
i'v'
p'' rT' ?
n
yD on p"n
.1ip1 jD
U73'? I
ml
ID)
&9Dp
1 D11
V 'l TX
I 1 Y 1 3X1TK
1'
D'D X
3 T'X'
pppp' iyi ' -uy ;pny.1
rr r -
" .i
yp D'1?'
PU
1p"r I'
X ___
1211
IY11Y
'1 (33 :1733)
p
'op
D'X
-pfl
3p'
piy.i
,DI1,' 111
IT T'X
111
fyy' X T')
X-
i. Y',Pfl'P in
-T *?pt1X
D1k
'r'n
i'x '9'V'
-flJ1
T.3'D
y.1J'11
"a.
'J.1
,y"3 '%'t3'
Ix
yp
'pivr'
' Oxt
U'
nn
.noti
k'
'i
1y,
,xo'v'
.(103 :1736)
yn
yxp
y.3rrn
'11t'?V'
'n i''x
.,ivn yuy. ivx
ii
-n
.(49 :1742)
Vfl3
(E210J :1764) jyi"vy' " twpyip 'P_I
rrv ,y
vr
fl_I.
fl11fl
yr
'$n
:p
nii ___
.'VY1!3k ''LI'
_IlDyI
'r r r -.nx ix
x
ynu
"i.
D'T Vn) '71L1 ixII
1pn-ix '
Jypp.1
Tr'11D'1
'tx ,y
'p 1J.1x
)yi 1Y
"r ix ((222) :1764)
iynii
i'x
:1767)
.u'tpy'-x ipp'" x
:.ix ,(202 :1764) yir
,y_I
ix
,y
ppriip 'i xix ix (78
'u np
___
(149 :1784)
i"r rflx r'x
1Dy1
Dy
ni nu
1
1-ri
iypyii
''
bI"B ,131V1 -1V ,y_I'
iyiiir
I
pi !I1Dt$P
yy.
fl
Iy3'"
'1
Ot'y
1y'3 'iD b'
DbO
u1p1-i
yir'v
--tr1?v
yv'i''
yo 1yr
y3p-r'v
.y13T1b
tk
yi'
?k
1ybU
Tyy
y31
yByi pD b
ni y'uv
;p'Dpy'
.v'v1
'1 '
1C
.y' E
T'I D11 V'
1yT 1K
yV'7'
fl
y
,yC
rT.1y 9b'II
'1
1
y11p,y
.1
?fl
1 3
1
k
y3Ur rT-'11
'D C1
'
YD
b'?11 "1''
b
D1D
D'FT
7py. ?') 1V
yn
'
1YY
'?H
11-1yt1pfl tC 1yn
C3
1y
LY"Y1 t711'D
jD?rT lyV
lp,
1'" Y'Y
YPY''
.6
V)1)D
p'1
.p1tfl ;i
'11y1D'1
''1
yny.i
?fl ,r'c
1 CyO lyl ?è ?'iily1 1yp'1y'1y.'t
9' 11
')
1'11J
1,rJiC
'TI 1'D1y. iyi
B
y? 1 tDy DD
yi'r
'lIHL ,, 'U
'J
'7VD'7 'fl ,719?'9
,ni
11I
,PTT ,T11
rrv ,nr
'?
,1't1 ,1V
nri'vy yv'ioyo 'r
.y'iy-ivr'
i
-ir yy'
yii x y$ '? '
pn v''y
p?
i'u n'
.',17p
pn
ly,
it
'o niv
.i
yv'-i
yv'v'
(vi
;P1,,D'fl y3v,
1)1
,rriy ,1flv'n
_____
r (439 :1832)
pn
,yny'
cyn
y'1yb-1tpy
p1
Y"P '1 F1TU
11
?'? 1?$7U
,rT3D
,nj ,tonoo
.t'vp
y, 9'U
'171 1V'V'
V''yD
rn
in
'r
.iyp '-i
i
-r1-t'j
yn
rny,i
,y1
.1'7
y''D?p
'3D'U
yp'?t'
'U T'?U
1yfl
'?P
-I
•
'-I
7V'iDyD
i'D
71'
Dfl
DiO11 ,(139 :1)O3)
'.1
'
T'
''?j
D'1
1"T i':
i43
1
,IYY'?X
1T
tkrr ,v'-r'
1,, ?
?
T1T
n
"r
kn i'n -Ir 'r ,y'1
3'y1 131
LYP fliD'lfl 31D
O11 fl).D 9191)
3I191)tU
fl1
r''o
1V
Ipn,
II
'1{
"T D1t4
Y'
DU1
t"i, :'ini y 1fl31
131° ' , D1Uo 1y1 1E1k
1k
I
'"
"p ttb'J ?'
'1 191
'$11 OU 131131U
1y' t'1'7 131D31.1
PII
.1'Z' i IT T1)
okn 1y1yu
'o ni"v iy"r
'U b 3119.LDb
1D
191
Ii
fli'H1I1 1y1k
'O
I'1
1V ,y1y1p.1 1311
?' 1y'1y ...
t
rio
1'uk
kU ,1p1yn yi'y1yr yp%n
IYY
...
.p' ?p
9lD T
k ' T y "r 91D
i
131
y'lyo'0
(183 :1908) y ro
"311
31?
1E
.-Iy'fl"fly1 t1yt?p
1311
D't"
'r ,n ' t p y
19?3111 19'1k
,y1y11
r1
y'1y
(135 :1903)
r vo
a7J
1
py'i 1311 1
1D
1Y
y'7k
1
T P'?rT 1V't3'OYO
i' 1 1311
i93
.f l
1O
,nlro ,i-1
.w'yp'v$ y' 1
L.L4
TYIJ1 "I '?"TT
D$ 1
o'n
p 1 'n 3t'oy
cyi
'?rc7' r'
p'i 11
lyl
. rr' y v 'r v t
n
r'
yryi
nfl IJ1
yfl
.(217 :1924
I" t v r,
11X
(184 :1908)
71
TT
;yr) prr
Dyr'
r yyr i'i n
1yU j'?yfl 1J
Y14
'J
tYY
(27 :1922)
t'ii
rTyvT '7
yiI
'1
y
XU nhT
'JP
y'i'y,
yUy,
t1'1
p'y.3y.1
1'V
YV'3Y
?'U jyI
;y31r
yr
t'
D271
7ti111y7
'1 r"
r
.t-i$
i'
D13 '1
pyryi
yt3'
1i
y'?P3
'
?"U
111'
pn 1yV''r,ic 1)'T
yfl
flV?
ic
'7'fl
1k
'
pyn
t Pfl y'?'$D
,'
'I jV1D'
&?fl
.tO11
•p t,rT TV
9't
yyp
i'i
c
1
7''Dyo
.flDO TX)1(3IbI
7U'C 1fl
n
'I
Dti
'U
.p' yi
'1
•''''
''
r'
p':'yr
'1
14.45
YP3
11L UP
'Y
1
1fly.1
1 '?flO y1'?
II
1'1b
.'yIu lyo111y.1
'V
yt7yp
T'
1v r'r
'b
1'1
MO
fllflV'7 Vflz
1pVyJy.1
yn I fl1O'1 1y1
)'1 Cy
Dfl
YV'1D,
S
1 1 po
.?fl T V ''OPD OyJ1
'1
;
'I
.i
TlVrr
7)1
TV1D'1'
911 .1yp1y1
" r?kr 1
9tIW
'DyO 1J1 DU
3 1I
•1 Y
P3OD
I ;
p
T
b opyp
.3
t
pn
11 ,
.7
;yo &,k.n y'1y-jDpy? ly-r
Y
I
!k *?U
v1r1' ;'
okD 1
TJS
11tD
p'Pn 17'
1
jix 1yp'i'u 1yk lpO
?l
OJOO11O
y'1ytD-tV11
1 DyD lyl ?
1' tk1 yO Dfl
I,
.rTEC1 ,O'fl ,flfll
-'J y'o'Oo)e1 11'
O3
'
T7
D.3fl
.D7C1
1T
T)'i1
V
J
V1.I'
'?Ii y1
0
0
-TV11' lyr
yO1
L.Z.6
)yV1" Iy
D1
.'ou-i,,
;y
)1
Ok1
VDX1 'lyT
ii
9 y ir
rt ypiyry iio
'iyuyT
.p'rT
'u
y13
pn.tv
iy-.nvi'
!
'7I1 1 V ' ' ? 7O
V'
rn
y' yi
.p7flV
yi
y.3yp
?fl
riy y? 1T 1flv1k-tI y'T"fl
rv ,y
yyr
1 .3 h p .3 " V
j1
k
pi
1311''tb1
(E3 :1889)
t
'-
p
T yD,k
ipn
pv
.
' pV
T
-X19V 1y"'!pD ,p,
pU
T
1?
I
v"
1.3', 1, ,p
.3
.y?1b
1 ,
DpD1
i 1 p b p 9 V
p
1D1p 1p'yJ'
r'
TKI
IV? k1D.1 t1p")
rb D'11
1V?
ta') Tk
____
flV ___
r.
',
1p
) ___ ___
•i'
'II
''L1'?1 yV'7'7
yp1r'
I,1
J)V
"1b
'r
—
p*7 l 1.3 ti
b1y'i
"1
pri
'1 .D'fl1
,'tV'p'bp1p.1' p,,'fl'1 x
.1L7? 1 fl s"
opt
p V '
.3
p
___
1.47
yi
',yt3y;,ypp',n'
n ,'v y i' c
v'i"
yr)
.(42 :1898
te
t$7.1i'tI
i
7)'? V'
onv ;536
V''DyO Dy1
p%?r!
I3I
u'"
I,
.TJV
i
.rivt
1tp%nc iyp'rie
y'P11oikpy1
I''
1
yVyi
3y D1iD
T
VDI1U3?
y?k?1
'D r
iy'
I1
y3'r
IIy.1Jk (300-2.97 :1916)
y-
-no , x 'II
g,-))
kT
9O1 'T
7?y'71
Dr
li
I,
10
D k fl
kfl
'rpi 1'T
p'
L7'
yt11
pnli y,
nipn
'Y'
Y'VY.1 '
.8
'DD yT
.TkLyr
1'pok19 Dyi1
.'D'fl.1)'? 1yV'10'T 1
l7
1n'py ,
1ynPy2y11x.
y'1ky01fl
?D r iyyp y''y-pri7 T
fl1
'P kU I
t1
iyi; oy1
1y
L8
1y
.flV'?
;
1
1yD
1fl'py9ok19
TTD iy
.iii' i
,y,
U7D ?b
•t
lyi
'b
.i.y y, j1'11Dpp
T
IU2JI? 1'1O,1
-j t ev
y .3ru1p1
'T b'pp'71yD
1yt'?y •ID
DD73
iypi
'Tt
t
yi
yiD
C'?y
I
y1i1'flyI j
PIDIil12,PV,,OI.T
I7y,1y"B1y,
b'?1.
D'1
?
r3y, h Jly ,r3'ny 1ye l- 'oy t'
.y3'I
'vin ypit
't ?'
X
1 11! O1p
.TyD
1yv1
iy Dt13
,yfl'pyDkry1
D'C
ppiO
,1py1
iy
y
1
fl
r'
u y'11o.3py1
1y3tX119I'r .b1y31rr1'
9'1 I"?fl
y7TDk9
I'
ty3"3
1D ckfl
.3
'p D
I,
T
i
yP'
I
11D
?X
T
1D I'Y
1-1t. ' t
P 1'jD1 fl'fl.
p7rT
.y,y.1
VIy
D3I
,flyp U)D JB
tD"b'
'II p''JLx.3'?
14d4.9
v'n: 1'?rD 1ytrip ,y .rtn p
.yi)l?
-1'p iyi
ny
pn
r1
-n r'
'ii
pi
'i
fl
iyn
yy
_Iy, 1'
r
1
IY)Y1 ?'
')
'' P'11YrV
yr
1yc'p
?' Dfl9
,
z' yv'
'1 p1P1y1 p?
TX
X
1yV'DyD TX
&?XT'Pi
X ?'X
;yr'r
IXX
Dpy
.1pp
1?U T 1 X
XT11
T1X . 1X
'flT flrIfl
1
,y1y.X
iyn
I
1y try ,7,
n D
1$7 -T
T 'X
I
11y1 D?y) ?'X
yT'
1 11-X i
3k
1 -fl1 X1?
1y_1 'O' fl'iX T'X ,y
fl
D 1 O X T'X
V'111i?
D1py'U pn
X
pii-cpi p'
1 DyD
p''p? C'
'u
' .1 X
,y1yfl
j)11 ,eTfl
flD
yD ;n --
'Y
o;
r'
iy
3'?
)Ui
fl
p 'i'ti 1n
"fly i' 11mD ,
Il
v l.I ,'
çi'
): 1y'?yr 1y, T1
1Y'Y' T'
%ifl
ip-i
TI
' v y-Vrv '
1
flI
fl'TT1
iiflyi 'N-D X I'X
''
fl
450
t?B p r T 1y v 'op D iy i
71 Cy)
I' ,
y1o'
fl1
T
y?y.1 'T jyD &?$fl 1y,p1flrT1' '
iyr 'x
v,yi yv',yi y b D?kp
3'D'fl y1yTJ
D
r
9'U
1JtDjtfl
3ypp1 -i'? &?$fl p'?rT V1D Y D CP3
' Xpkfl
KTX
D
D iy
1
'fl1y.
rT
I,
y31
D3'X Iy
7J'T
iopn'fl
1.JT
1V
j'
I,
•y " 1 Y' I'
pU'Dt
yi"
1Jf l
?t
1y1
111 VT"
'T
y .TO
O'IU? 1V'1DrT
lnt'i' 1yv
DJ
?
;,y q
pn
i"? j'irit
iypy.
oy''n
J'?'1
'piy,
1yp1pp lyt 'I
'1
,
y'
yv'yJk
py' ?T
'?flfl?D ?'X ?n
IUJ
p'ni
17V''?DyO ,y,
'-
fl
o1y,f lr
-1y11y.
op r'
i (ru-p
1yO'T. K
451
L1
1V '1
C,1
y, 't 1 y ir'1
ycyo
?
1973 u —yr)
y '? .Iptn
i'°
r'
D'7ptu v'-r
.(278-267 ;238-183 ;72-61
'
i"
;py' -r
yv'r'
iE
'i
1p1'9?y ipi
3vr
Dy, '1
iyrr
'D ,yi" vi"
i'
y t1y '
p-T1yD-;1
'K ,V'V'
y 'i-1v
tbI ,V'v'
1)
Dyfl
1bJ
1yV'1kbD'1
iyi
'1ypt2y 1y1 a
'1
Dy21
Vb!
"D .
-?tD
,
'i' row p
D1I '7tpn p''y r Dyl
.'t,V'
','n
V'1Jy1yT'3
'ru' r'ua ,''r'
xud
'1
11 D! p ( 368-343,11 :173 ;1%O)
'pj , n
1n
•V '1" I1P
.y,JI
iyt
1
.y y o
.I t
"pyy '
Dp'iri '-t j,-jp
oo (228 :1965)
'1i1pi 1y1.
i
y1olfl
,yp'b'
'i"
ut
'1 1'
•1flfl1
'1rflD'siuxr
yy
"i"
9'
1yi
PP
1'1fl
ctn
,sxr ,:ui.1 ,.a.i.t ,i._ta ,br-.1t ly11y1
't
yiy
,rej ,zreis ,breitiyp
,xéjd.
rr',
v'i"
i 1'?
.Ajta
)1bD
42'pu1y
%,
1b Li. VV' fl1fl-1
•1PY''' y?r yyii
'p'n '1
'
.
rn
r
131
yv
yi
11
131)1
tpy t,' ,
1'y.'
,y,pii lyi ;I
y''tfl1
I1
pv'p'
.fl1'1fl iy-
1'31y ,Y1 1
P' 1PV''IPD 1y, T
1pn 1ytD&?y ,y, ;
1
?1p.1
1i1
1311 lt?Xyl
31'V1
fl
111
1y
yD'1l
;yn p'o'rçy
.1 1 1
, 1 t17 I 1T p 1$T
•fly
1t
'-u: -p,
p3v''1X
I
r
n
p
pi'tiyi'
i
_I
y'
'u 4 2 ,
iypy.
b' J
II ii "r'
1p, ;
Cy3
1
,Sj3I
:' i
?!V'" 'Uyry'J
IYP 1Y '
,&1. p'?yT
'
flrT
?'
VT UD
-VT
T1?Dy.1
'?
?1'D
VT 1U 1YYP
ci
311t111'
r'n
1p!ntDis
Li.53
V1V' ;
ntv
.r'tcpu ;'r'
1' fl
yi
pv'tiyi
nv
ipp''n ji
14
ir' in
Iy3r1'T''y, yy13
yty1jDkp yiyvv,x
' 1Y
Dkfl
j1tV
pj
ri Dy'I
D13
pp Ci1
V'.I,p
'p'n ' -r
1'
1fl1y1p '1
i'o
nnoJ
pt--n'
'yiyx ;y)'? on
by
1-tt
.py'?T yrr'
'p'
-t' ,yp,y? ly'i pn3
py1, 1P'Y T
T
P1P
?Uo
'•
t 1"
CriD
bI
D1 yn D??Pkfl
ptn Tl ? 1P I7
T'uTt
_1, 9fl 1k
iy ip
;ju
•PYt , , y'
'''
yp'12
iy-i
'1
.nii
2
'b
tT flP ,1C)rT
?'
,]ty:
.Lv1
1
,TTD
22
tpi;
11
,
'T
fl
':)
'PtpT
,llrT ,--b1'
7'I)D
n
'B' ,P'"fl
,j
V' -'
1'
$1 ?
j]
i.iirn
,o'isx ,xid3r
yip,')
,j
25 ''" "1)y?1y')
'D
i
4514.
xeid3r
22 "r'
nr?-11r
1c
'ID
'Lt25 ''
22 V1 fl- 1 1
'D
éj1TTI ,DejX
c1m
,xdr
pliiv lyp
,y, i'
Il L
t'1
,jSX
ci1rn ,éjsx ,éidn.! W,,i
flh?D-flL
25
a11m
52
yT t1
T
.'flV ,j1? ,yT11 9'
iy D
13U'D
1"
iy
,bfl1rT ,1?1n
r
'7pT;
p'yr
X ____
yi'
r'
51 'pu t'i
V'1'
-
i't Ifl3ZUZ3
iVT" V
,
iy
''t
,ipj-i
I'
pn,
)7
'T3
Jy'1y1')
'52
vr'
rn3stse
1yDf'y t.ID
Vi
V r'
ZZ3
5
I 2
52
1y.L'l)l2 1'r p
1y .1
t)Vik
D Tfl3Z!Z3
'"
51 rn j"v
ir
iyp
v'i
-iyi .
21
lyi n cr
Vt)1D ,,yDy 3't ,yi
,fl
Pni j'r
in ,.. y i yy i y_ip
'pkB
,n. urnyi-n
'
"r
pyr
y - tk
iv"'
j
,22
pn ioiyi
•'
1.55
v'i"
x —
'13yryvi
py 'i v 'i" y
;xjn ,rjs ,vL1s
v'1'
n1n-,,
;xajji. ,ral ,vaJs ,bais "r'
,xeji ,reji
vit
,bez vr'
Diy n'n jD Z..fl
i
1'v - y p"w
y i'i
pii'i 1'7 J1
iyvr' iy-r
1?T
IlL
V '1" 1pDbU'p
,r.i 1flzJ!La
j iy '.'
V 1 1'
y1iy
1i
y'P1
DDJ
yn ,p'rT
'TIt)V 1y "y ik y ly i
x
Df l
y-,1D
rpn
pr
u
Iy Y
z ' Dr iy r ' v r ' ;
3IL
D?y
yi
;"i
;'
p'n
,y i'cy o iy-
c'lh
'''
''?1tD
1T
17''DP
yyt1
y 'r
r"n,yi i
''
r' r'
piyb-ppt
T1n ,yD?y 1$/i
'r ckn
pri
py
3IT 1L?1
111 IlL 'P'
tf l
'1
.9
,cyn"1
''?yo
:pf lL
'i
.(S
Y y
Py
§) pn
11,
1L
f
D
1i
ui
r
1! n'V'
I yp
icop ,yi
P' • P' ' ' ' iy'
'
y'Vy. 1y1
. P' TT
v'no-y
V'tDD
' ir
t' '7y3
DO ,y
yvi ,y,
yJ
?n
fl
1L
fl1Db
flO
V'Di
1V
D1D i1?VJ
Dr yJ'T
1y fl y1
r)
V''yD
'7y
.1y -IyB ppi"x 11
y,
"
pL
'1D1
&? ,1I'?O
li D
P
9'x p;t1
'oy
t'O V'l"
p'tD'1p '1 "
-(285 ,11 :1714)
iny.i
fly1y,y
t p?rT
up,yo
.3
r1
iifl
k1
pr
iy-i
1y1fl 1 ,y1
1
'-1
'
i ,b'1p iyT
;•; 1y
tyo
r
V'?y
yP P?TT
V'JD1y
?1oy.1
p'?n
,vnp iv
t'i
1i
yn
1'1D1
V'1
(85 :1699)
,nv '
yn
i '
P 3
yn
p
iyp.i yv'1ktc'i
3133
pv ytviy '-I
'
ixp
'B
I
li.57
,' iyi t'
i"T ?'
1"fl1, 1'
,i -r
ri
p:yt?
Dll
'r
t1y1fl. 1yyT
.11P2 1
ty
pipo ;i
p (
"-
'-I
1y'by1yr
x n'n
'ii 1byt
1
vtr
iy
y;;yi 7C
') ,yp'''i
(25-19 :1874)
i'
Dn) rii
prt
cyi
y'7to'1p
;it
y,
iy .,iV
.vt,",
D
q
rr
yvtbo11I1.jp 1
r
p
-Dyr
1 Dy
lyT 'i
-
.n: ' - 1v ' u
vyiy
DiT
',
P2
T
yo'r
?1
b3 T"b'D
I*7fl
1YYY p"ri
i
-r lx
i
1D 'T ,V'V 'b pt7 1yV
,
.iiivi-'tiv iyv'r' ,y
1P yi
,pv'pk
,y .T
tiy' :w
i1
p'_1y ,y1
P2
nLlv;, yy
yTIic1
I yP
"r'irlyl,,
': -r
y.3y1
1yVkk 1to ny i
'V
'i
iy.
1yJy1yrT ,y-
'
(v'yi.yr
D
y j '1
Iy J k t'1
P2
P
iyi t i
V11P
Ll.58
'1K ?'K
P1py.1
'1'D yJ
ki;
'1K tp1py..
1K Cy1
'i
yu
pp ,y
;
t'j
.r1,n
K
1Y'
yi
yp
?lb':1 jiU
y iy , ?'K
K 1y3"r 1''K3K
'II'V '1'?k 'D T 1y V bV O'f l1)'?V 11'.
TD 1$71
yV '?JV K 'T
'D
1r yv'rJvK ' .r
?K
D
11K 1YT
?' ll y1D
',
('f l-u
xpu ,yi 't
iy
yy'
yv'?Kpkll 1yp b
K
I11?"?K y1
yop=)
y&n:
flyu rii 1yv'-n
yT 1y1
1yV ''?KPkB
r
11i
ly , 'K .f l'K
'O bl'T''7ttyl
"11 ''
K1KE ypKt ?'K'D '
.fl1'K
y .T
K p 1''r 1y '?r 1.
rK p1iy i'y 1
y31
,;f l'
V "T
T 1K
,'7LD
r'viytn
ytyipitp 1
y)1
1
UT
b11y 1Y '
'11L D '!
I iy t kT C1D
D
.izi
f I
V K
'1
c'1n
K DK IK y D'ny l
n
1T '?K 1 '1 1k2
KU
VT
cyn ;
,'?1.D
1K
Pr
1y v 'n1y i
T I1
,p1
.1YflYP'?PL
1'J
y 1)11 VIK
jI'"TT
i
iyp
;
ThyDV
y V 'I1y .i,,
'u
pij
1y 'i'?1K iK
O $k 1
1y pIT Df l3
l9
1E
y1fl1'?''?y1 y t n
1y, i
ip'i py-rnpyo
,;ri'z
r
-y"'
1rii
.oPyy'1'?''?xpkn
'
DTT
1y
Tb
1y"fl4 iyi
r17t
,DT"
-
O
VT
In flD ,
_____
P' 3J"T
'
,L1
iy'
jDJ
y"; r -1T
1? ,C p t
I7%
n b1
1II 12! ,fl
1
,ip1
o
t?pku iy-r
'T3 V'
,T1
Uu
rq
u. n n; -in
ri:
tP
jb
ri' VT
"fl'1:L,,,) 't
r
' flr ;'
1y1 '?VD'7
pk n t'T
i
'Y O
P'fl
' 1
nr ,fl
i ?T3
V'V'
pi FTfl3
'T V't3.3Vt V'i"
f l!1
Jp
•1P V P
,r'ri
y1fl1p
I L ?. i!
1 D11D
in
,fl0
,D
'T
lyT 1' .T
p7D?y1
,y,
,yb3U
1
lpl ,b1
?fl 1T/'t'TPD C3
tk
1yr
pOy1 pp'iyiy:p'
DX _1y,
.1'1P 1YP I
.r'r
yD1py.1'u rt o?n r',p 1y v 'rJ:<
.tpfli
,y
p1b OTT
B
r p''
,;•Tn
,pL p
1D
T 1'
pn V''DyO cyi
r
i!2.
Dj
I1
D
iyi '?1T?
'nn-
flfl
,pl
-.3 j"T j'
(89 1908)
vyr
.v
____
?'I
rp1o1r,
yV''DyD iyi fl.i'o '
'yprut
fl11 flUy1
yTpk
7'1y
DTT
poJ1ycp
.?
D
'U
TIfl? rx p'n
ip'n
'r fl1T 1913
.n fl
?DU 17
1Y1
O3'1yDyV . y' 1 Pk'? ' 3 yv'v
t'o
•
b1n'
"i '1
pI p',,yon ?'x
p'i
'U flU)lDfl
O y?
(i1913)
iy
nriya
r,yr iyiiy ,y, (63-61 :1913) 'poi',ycy
y iI
yp'1n'V
.p'TT 1V 'OyD Cy)'t
y?r1LC,,
yjy11yfl 'fl '1 flE
flD1
'1
'vr
1'? ILp,t
flv yvyJk
11ri/fl'C/1 ,/_n/zz.p_ n^/r^/i.
/'/DU
I,
•
1
y
1
y1t1LlD/nD/fl1O
1b
IyT
'D fl1)V yV 'LyJk
y y ty o'
', I
D'7fl V'i0,y1
'poiiyoyt'
D,p,pLiy -t
pn yiip
r'
D''?yT ipi 0 l p %?r1 yr3
1'
r'
pUtfl 1yT
1?'flfl'?
iy n upor
1'tV1
po)-1ybyv
1flfly? ' U iyi ?'
)13)
1y.iJ'B .0
191
n
0P3
yp'yr
'ny.ii 1y
10
fly1
1pi?hfl
kt
t'
P01P
p7yT
.t1t
'k
yior (82-80
iy .nuy"y iyo
i
fl0'
•1 'pD
1pp'1pb"ll iy,
,y
,y
.U1V1
7&?y
1?1
.flh)
j00
'k
;66-63 :1938)
in tt
1r-r
7B71 1'
-rviip
1V'
yv'rrv yr'
-51 :1943 ;:1942 ;1942 ;34-33 :.1939 11 :1939
oyru
,y,
'i rx
rp
•.pqj 1'T)
1
10
7.flV1t y11rII
'o'
y?)
,37-34 :1965
ey"pn y''y?
t-n'
1
;217 :1957 '
.(45 ,40 :1976 ;207 :1975
;73 :1951
;102-1O1
it
P'Y '
''
10
DkU
L.62
?
IP'k?
TK11fD
'
b1
?LD'D
TT
Jb
yuy.,.
yO O11
1,y .T
''
,fliT
rp
p?r Iv''Dy
'i cyi"
yi yn
bpyv'r
iiy (27 :1942 ;63 :1936)
a
n
ofl .Tx'lp iyp' '
oi1'
y'r
,y1 ;
iyiyiy. 1y,
in
D1
nyi -i'r
flyt.Py C3
iyi
ui (1130 :1971)
(48 :1976) ir
pn v'DyD y, iyn
pr
T
p'thJ
-i
r"rn r
;•i u;ri
,yO'D yvpiLJ
fl;y 1k.1
T
' .1
p';Rfl ,TpV
1y'Vb"1
.'pD'1iDy
1yv'1P
Di
t'i
iyi'
u1P
1y1 tk 1
;99-93 :1954) p','n
ly:
(32-31 ,II :1973 ;326-325 :1964-1963
y'1y
-i
I,
'n
1
yy'
;:i y t?pfl
1yv'::,, iy
''
11
pi'r D
p?t7y,
."ty2y1,,
1kU.1
j0
,'73 ,j
cyr ;
i'p''p
?'
-13 ,11-1O :1965) n'pc'r 'T V' fl
'k
,1y'k
,(1130-1128 :1971)
(315 :1974)
.(48-47 :1976) i-r
y "y yrpy 'i
y3yp,
prU yp 1'-t
'r' ,y
,(14
1DT y3
1
piyin:y' cynt
1TJ 1yT
V
iD'fl
'ir :ynt
,yr,ii
yJ1
y '-y :
fl
r ."cny y i,,
Tflt1 p
y'?C
iyi
.p'?n
v '?y :yii
'T
?D
) rp ynt
': ; (275 ,18 ,12
i'y
iy n1iu ;'i
blyn
D3Dyiy1,,
1y- '
,II :1973 ;235 :1964-1963 v"'n
n'r'y i . ip
y p ''y c ip,
; (19 ,1O ,II :1973 ;235
; (33-32 ,II :1973 ;327-326 :1964-1963
:1964-1963 '"1
iy n
y'vy
,''n' b1bDk
p964-1963 r'" •)
"'
,v y ii
'1"n .T)
.) tnn,
'B
'
'n ip,
; ( 36-35 ,II :1973 ;327
;(36 ,11 :1973 ;328 :1964-1963 1", ' n .)
1',j
.D)
;
''
ipi
(38 ,II :1973 ;329 :1964-1963
.(40 ,lI
:1973
'ii'n .T) rt
1 :1954) -i'n
u
y pn o-
(21-20 ,II :1973 ;241 :1964-1963 ;92
;pfl',.
;ymn ,Tpo3'1yTyvt3
9)'
1YY1
FTfl?
y'T
PrT
iit
iin
'rt j''pn yiip
y-
.rT
ip
ll y.1iI'7 ?
$72'
IV''Y
'ri
ip
y"r i'
p'i'-i'
'ii
D'
fl 1jfl 3rn1y1'1 1fl1py
i5p
'? ;i
y,
flDLJ
'y '
17n
7'
)D11
y3'
r'
Iyit
yi'
b
(68-66 ::1960)
',i"n
7tpu
''
Di
1p, ;u
r''" ,y
*pn "ii
np
y ' (354-352 ,334 ,II :1973)
,Y,fliyD yip
y? lfl 1y1y-r
47 :1976) ii
y)y1
',
.p'n
(1130 :1971)
ij ;y.'
py-i: 1u 1l
1y: 1Cy3'
)'
.Dii1
Qrfl 1fl
1U17
yI
(4
'rpy ,y
.y1y
yp
Ls.6 5
C' 1ypb7 ipn p1113"4 iyi
fl p'?rT
pu
1D1y1 y3
T
fl
T1)
''r' 1 1
VD1y1 T1
p
i
YT
rr
•I?
ipi
p)
y PO 1 1
yJ"? DT T
V'?i ipi
1pI1 j1
1pfl flp1J
i3Vt
lyr
'"
yiip y'r)k iyr
1? D 1 Vfl!
)yl
txp
(124 ,II :1973)
vr'.
yyuç p I?rT
'n
.1yD'1
1yb7
u
1'pn
yp''pr
?'x
1
pOV'1
Iyi
(274 ,II :1973) i"ii"n
p'NT3y
P'
n
t 1 D j'
p '
C'VDn
'T
'i
1ynho
pyu
-11brUttD ,y,
p'
v y '?
1y1k
.iii: yp' p!D
.(2S5-278 ,269-267 :1973) p11-:
FTI DT
p,n
B
t
1
11
Pk)k 1YV'1kO
p'pn 'i yp'p 'r
yn
y'1yt-11rTflRD '
I
fl11D' li LY1"T
'Y'
1874
.1'T ly
ipii
p
.(2 §) p'?rT 1' T 2D C)J1
k66
.10
' "Y
p"ri 1V't1DYD
,?1 t'D
tP' 1V
pvy.i 1yi 1yK 1fl)D
P
fl) DT
F
'T
v-r"
1
yvyx ly, 1
.ju
y'
;i'-n
n
yi'r
1
1yiy1 iyn 1y,y,n iy
1'1.t '1
v','ri
cy
1 '1
T,
UO
i
'1
t'3 jL1
jv-.n
DU
1T71
.V'1"
T
p'?fT
')
'C jDFT I V '
V''IDyO
;i
T
1)
t'
"
i p 1 p .1
p'?kJ
qT
pp''i
pp'-r
1yr
v1ktc
?tfl
_1j
fln
jy3y"
)1k
D
i
ty_
i1P3
'-i
.y.1U3V-D1 yv'F'1p b
)'
flVTT
W1
pri
'<
:-flfl
I-;
nr 11J
DD
11'
0Pkfl
'1
kJ
Vi?DD
rp
'k
r°p
py?,J'y,
tk
"bD'O
IyT
J1J'D
,V'r 1t
11
T'
bjy'?'1
y, ,rv u
'b1
iyi ___ T.0
______ v'i' jv'l iri'
3
- _____
'-v
ui
't
;.jrrm .scurr ,ort " ______ ,
r1t9m ,d MJd3m
;sfrTn ' iIfr ,Drat
rrn
sifr ,Drat
lfar ,pra
'-
rüt3m
ortm ,j
p ;tip
py
itp
,pv'ri'
U1
nn
ri
iy
'yk 3?J'?
pp"?1p7
yi"r
'Pr! ;yJ"? IbP
1'3
'1'r
?
pn
"o
"0
ui yp
n
- '11
y,p,J
'' éidrn V'V'
iyiyip
'1
.
.1d.irn V'1' fl1??
JyPyT
!p1
- I"' ID') 1
"p
'''?p!i
1Y "
p
CU
;orit ,ortir ;sjd. ,id1r
if()rirn
rP
'T2'
alr ;or-t ,orutim ;iaid ,iaidim
tj;e
,QLtJn
T3'
fll
;soif)r
;s-,if()rtm ,siei ;or,t
t$
.seif()rin ,.efeJr ;prit
ritiin ;ed.
'n
1X
'in
r
lIT
yt7,y
'?rI 1y?'byo 1y1 fl T'b '11'1
1
yvT:t
'
r
T 'II
p
Tr
'x 'r n
t p $u
'n.)
puy
i'r'i
p',n lyV 1 b'opo lp,
.(piv 'y
Y '1''
"D pJk
E
jy
i
lpr
TV
'U
pny. -'i yi" pn
y1.n
npI1D
pn v''ipc cpn
'v,pi
' i
psn pnp
-"D
:pi;
llt J'kt Ty'D p
p
y, i
'P
'p
i'
i's' ppy 'n1p1npy o
,11?1
1111
jt;
i
y''pn 'i .pny.i
p'iri
" 1V'D'DYD D1'X
i1
'1T
T
pp''
.Tb'1p
pn 1y1p 11J
v'r'
y''
p'''? '1
iy '' p'T
'
'trw
iy
yflj 13
T
pD1
'T
p'rr 1y''b'pD Ip, fl T'
pv I TV
'1 'II
'7flD
fl;fl k I
p
-ny.i
;pD'
p:'
'1
.(ypy'iyi.ny
1p1 1k v r
i' i'y
j'1
'r'ri
i'
'?fl 1p'T)D
LI.69
7fljD ?I?
I"P'
,y
1y'?pn j
1y3'T
D1 Y
'?rT T
?t '1r
•
;
tri
yC'D pV'?I11 ''
'i
•1YY
y?!
'1'
T'
'b
'I
prt jZ'7
pn
'I 'fl
Tt''1D y
'P
t ?'
•i- iy
1p-i'
pTe1
y'1i1y1J
.i1p
7i
fl
1yv'TVy1!31yT
cpfl 171tp
1k
rP
9'by .1 r3
b'ryD
ypri
r
y3'I "TT )1J" nfl)
ipij y 3p-rv 1
'3m ;
yy
L1J
py 'b'
'1 I
Qfl1D
'x
bhjin
-T.1j
-r.j
bhá1rn
3t1fl3St3
;r XS ,1)D!?3m
i
Dn3m
1 y o fl
npyo
;i
náx
rnax3téjst3
b3héimp ?'
T"
r'
;nxs ly
riii-i.
________
"i"
y'
X3S -Uj
1
i:
b3hélnta
Ufl
v ' fl1?C-11 '1U
x rrLax9tenst3 uj ______ /'T" fl1Tr1
'-I
.flX3S1.ii
'
'11
11.70
T
ir
.p,rT
)'DD
DJ
'
1'Y
OII
73
nn7
pkn yrnp
.(9 §)
p'Prr 1y'!yD Iy, fl{ P'.I T1U
f1K
y .).)"1
uy .i
?
'?
i'i
Ii ?
11D
nu
.1
flfl
o
fl 1yflp -u1
1'D1DV 1y1
'7ptii 1y3)'P yrt
'i oyo
yV"'7pkI '!
'r'
Cy3'
,ri-i. y,p '-i
r' p'7n V'yO
1
,rI11
1flDk P"n
'1'?
_fl
p'7rr
.1t
p
1 p p
'7
T
yiyk
1'r
p p
3 1 p
1T''71t") iy
?'
'2o
'1b -
l
T'
ly,
T?
7I1"
O"T D1
y?yD1D
1y1i
,1V T13
UJ
y tD 3 V 1
Ip'3
'
D
2. L1J
I
.?J'
p'-n
I
V
'1
1y'1, iyi 1
IY J "
D'
•1
yy.i
Tb
p1
,
'1
.:'n 1'3D11.i
cpn
p'fl
?D0 yJ
0 1 p
-i
'r
1p
1
10
?1D1 p'7rT 1y1'yD lrT '7u ii 1yt"n ip,
Li. ?
1
IKPII ynp
1fl1JP? 1$rI I K
1 K
11'?Di
Dfl
'I r'K D1K '1K
'DyD yJI
p'?rr I'3H?D1y.
.Kp 1pV?3'K ly!
fli"1K jK'1 1k.1
K
"1K jTiOPKII 11D K
'1JD
$7fl71 1 y
Vrfl
'1IK
y,, ',
ri
'K
.(5 §)
7)1
ppy 'r
1 $7 p
t1'?ttD
,y' 1ky-TVr1'
fl '
1$71
TT
1
t?
l
T
1$71
1$7b)$7$7i
"VKL
K 1'
'7D'
K
'n
P tP
K
yp
V$1D D$7flD
1
1 T
D$7
.11
T,U Uj
VP YP
1DiD$71
$7
$7
1 k tDD " .1
lyi '
iP r p
Y,
K
%7
?b'?$7D
U1W1K
'1
yii '
1$7 ,42
P?fl
$7'3'K j1
,I--wn'
p'
ny. (n
cpn p)
T
Y1
1 u ')
.pppnu1y,
yfl
ir
py
,11?T ,n1rT i''V fl1TT1MD
p yp yn ,y,yty i
(cnri
I'K
'K
,41
72
iy y n o" ,y v py ,y np1 ,y p'" iy-i
r
__ ''
'y '
''
'1
Ifl
'p'y ''
DJT
'II '1?
1yTi7jDyD
Un ?'
•ryiy.i
11 u1i''r
'p
•c
n
'r
vitt
D
--'
'-I
oyo
yi
ytpy,y
11 r
'?PB
-
25
_____
'
• .25
41
'i
yiiy' ir n
-n 'n
42
-'r br'?.1y? -
1
-
"p
-11D-k' yyiy,.1
J
I
r'
..fl1'3'Dy.y1y
jpy ?,l.r r '
n
'y
-
'P' 1k'
I ?'
Dfl
iry iy, nn
?' tii
i
TUt
'1
IT (?1D 9rT
22 ,21
y1y1.2"1) 'PUD
y -r 'r ,o1y1yr.iy yv'v
'iy, ,21
____ ,v
,nt
22
ip ,icn ,ii.
___
_____ -uJ ,hfk3r •tz
;krr ,xs1 ,bd.-I3
i1Ji ,kái1rn ,gá.1r3
hfkr
I1rri
,rns
1i
,k.119rn
1téfkr
TI1T-1T .
, xe.s3d.
kérii
,béd
Ll. 7 3
1g3d. ?'D 1bn
Lefk3z
I1)
i1y
,rfl3S V'T'
'H
krn ,xisd
...
'ji_T y'
'1
pii ,Iyyi$'1
U .i. v'"
-iyny-ri)
v 'i" nir -ii II ..j.
ri
i-p-ip
'flip
,kêi1rn ,géir
( eJ. v -r' 1r-1
pn ;
25
.1é
L) 21
y
U e..tv'i"
ry-ri)
;kfrn,xsad.
ci
'
y.39
,(py*i
•ii
'L
1yDP,]qnyjl
ui
'-r
II ..
; yv (i v -r'
;
ii?
1
21
.ypr1opr
.fltV 3V 1y'1flp )U11 1pbp1p
25
iy:p
n y
' y'
iy
'?'?.
5
Tb
i'
ii
21
1u
r' 21
D11C 'T
(uD
n
21 2'rk
'o
111'
'?)'73
p't. )
i ;u 2
'-)
9'
ir
7'?
I1k1y
1,y1 1y1flyD r'
:i.
;' 22
x
pn UIP
Y1
,nhJ, 1yV y.3
yP-j
21
•fl $iJY kt
•1
25 u 21 iy:
fl
V11kD'T
25
___
v'i"
n1rr-1t Iii.
17I
y3"r 25
22
pn
1y?yT
l
(22
pn)
(25
Li.7 L
iyi u
ycipyi'
'!3 ' y
.V'V
JO1i1)
lyTflpyo TI 1y,ytip
Tqp
t°P
opi
X1
TP
1flTO TV 1
31
O1p
.j
)p,
flLlD 1y1D'
rn'
.12
D'1 oyfl
'T -T
11bJ9 (r° p ipp
'1
' Jk)
op
'D 11 1JUJy'?fl
p ;yi"r '
,y,
pO1pp11r1flp;:D
( 9 §)
In
;yny
oip ;"
.(1O .)
y.it 'i
'Tk 1PV I
yIIi 1%?IO1 iy
141
1p'tp3k
3n
'v J 1
p v 'i
( 192s-1923
i
pn
n
c
io
'
,ypii
'pyi
yi t
n'vn
'n
i i'
JkE
Tj
TrTn',O
p h— tv ii1 '-i
top pi ,yyn 'c
r 'o
r
yJk
on
pnpi ?'
.fln3 ipi ,p1'
Poll-U
-j u
;5o :128) 'p
trr on
,(16-1 :1924)
11ry, py'-r'pp
'i r
(1931)
'Cy2'
-; ?'
v'v' f l . ipn
Ip.1 Jl
J'D
'1 f
lril.
lyl
'I?
'3
Ty"r
top
-
L.75
yp)y.i ,y,
I
1y
;n' ip
r
11i
flfl
k)k
p
1
;pp cy.k-
IT" 7
.
Il
y3?
'J"1
1'I
fl
$11'
,fl
r
r-n
,y .i
cr; nrro
;yp '?k
C$7flt
.yT
y p'.:'t?
,7Y'1 iyp y?Dp ,y, ip
7rr
orI
Dfl
_pfl T?'p '!'
;i
,rt
,fl
py'i IV'V
'D
yv'Dpy'? D1DI
,DI?fl ,)!?
9
11
i
Dv') L y k3
,L1? ,L' ?, tJfl
'
____ v-r'
112fl
-
, i y " ,y1 '
zön ,b1zn ,övnt
'PYD
( v'v
'iy',y-r i
,oarns ,Ater
rrui-cii-r
,x1m
;nrnn ,nd.1 ,tg
LAZ22 , üTflt , k1u1 , Darr1t
, D1t3r ,küv d xü13 rn , alrnün9
')
; (y-iip
numr ,nô.d.1 ,jg ,zürj
1II
'? y 1?1
1,-TI
k1].
,parns ,ttr
1 1
jD"fl 1
y3
1D
D'tJI
py7D'8
;'
I"V1
iDyfl
v' nn-:rii
,kSvd. ,xcl9rn ,2jmrt
.11rfl3n ,d.1 ,.tj. ,zgn
iytiyn O1 Dy3 '
i"
,b].czn ,vmt
76
pyr
1T?y1
;
'r y)"r wr'
y1yiy
1' fl$J
1-'?
3
yi
iJJy
on
'i
"ny
i'p
,'?L
,b)
'D 191 ,b1sen ,bent
J9?D)
name ,.agen ,±a.
'1;,
Dr ,'np.i
D
-
iy'n iyi
pn j-np
p1
,11t
pt-rurT.3D '1
,1'rT
iiyyi 1131D
,yP'', '1
1D1 17,yt$
,_1j
iy
-
.flkilyl 1Jp'?y.1
'b
1i
'T
tT ,pp'b'1
"p ,;Df l)
11p T7'f1fl'7
,C1'?r
'1
'1?1
$lt
,TJ?D'?b
,193
.Pk1
1T 1'?
,j11
O'7tk U
pr'i
cy f l
'nn:"
yy-?T1' 1 1
,1Tb
uipi
'pn
'r
1!
2.
pn p'o
,t)il -
1y,npyc
?
'o
'713
-
j. ,Ll kU ,.1
flYy
-lIT
D
3?
n?
1i
V r'
..1.3U b
.3 IO
rn 3y.t. -ip "u
1 Y.1'1)
IPP
rr (20 :1O2)
'
iyi
1v
•IY''
77
r
"p'iynz,
;
,p- T''
1p't
cyn
nn
1p
T 1pn7)
(1 2
iyn)
(239 :1915) i'o
pn
(1 3
.
ip
iyyu (58-57
ii
''fl?1
V1'
:i y 1 'nv VT
'P' ?' VT
;1-rp
yy
iyy 1pnpyD
p
'I T1T"fl
'
n
p
D11
DT
'?fl
V
,54 :1920) 'pi''i n
.,y'yy
iyi
'? 12
piyr
)1
pr:n
ly
T',,
y 'i r
r'
13 jy'yi
,"13 b
Ii,,
1 p V
I
.Py1"
yl'K
pV D'1p1
j
ly itr
x 12
ipi
1y :'
131t'1k
ipi tD k t
pn
,pn
-t
.11''i
p1;i 'ij-;)
ku.;
i"e,
i
'ir-'i uut
pi"t.
1y
r
hf
lpl
icT,yi
pn
13
(49 :194O) 1"n'n
,, i
p
':'iir
<a>
478
1pV 'i' 'iy iy 'p 1y T
fl
1flP1y
1592)
'K
', '?k
yiv
1
'n' ,<a>
689)
Y1
'1''
<0 > D'X 1p, ;i"
V)
': ,(522 :1680)
42)
': ,([141)
y ,y rr : ,(285 ,II :1714)
64) p"i : ,(4 :1750) ip
784)
ii'i '.
jn
,(34
u'ip '
,(237
(36 :1767)
: ,(t2183
' rink
LY
1''b
tiv
iy T 1fl 1! <I>fl
.(197
'J
1J -jr yp n k n iyi .<a>
' -iin
iv
:inyv
if l9
V'1
.
y'py
(42-41 :1923)
Q7iy .1 tT j1?
ip,
.'pi
'1
/'1b
?)3
,1yT
')'1
1''1 91/ fl1"U
"
PT)?
f lSt
a>
o1y 1p y y z T T -"J 'T
1
<a>
36 ,119 ,85-84 ,80-79 ,42-41 :1923
.(708 ::1928 ;162 :1926 ;158 ,155 ,137
bS
k' nv ly
?.1
)
ir'
.vi'i-'j
;
'1"1t ,tflD
'1I (1542) D1fl
':<l> ly. r
,y,
Tp1) ?
•r
op' j1
(ozvi-C7
1'
.j
11.79
12
13
Pk11 '1
.13
?iDX
p,n
v'J31y.1
71'
yvo nT1y. 'i
;•r
nt' y 1
'nitip.i
. ty1y
i
v'1' r-'3
I,
1DO D1
1J? T?flfl? V'V1'-3'D yi1
Dy1
ynyi
1I
"
3j'7i.
1yD1D DT
y3
'i
p3L 'O
t!
D1y1JJ '1
1'
fl
'1)'fl
rru
p1I
•.. ?T"
,y,
1&23
II
V'V fl),1
iynu ip ,i.n':
':n'. iyr) p'i
pp&,y cy.3's
tv
1y1;bkp
'yD'1
'1 kT
PkU
.p
(14-13 :1932)
ii'.
Cy11y1by1y !'
1396
yO1p1Cyfl
7' y1
,p, ny.
I r'
,
yp
r'
(ri'p
pny -'j
1vtt
'ITs
,
SF
ynyx 1'r
13
12
''
11.80
1p'1i
;'iv v'r' 1pt pp&,y
13
1
(37-35 :1960) iprn
y''pyi
,(114-105 :1354) y'
pi'pD'r
oyn1 ,yp'-np'y yi .(43 :1970-1969)
'3 j'r
;'?
.13
'
?
{til
yk i
1y)-t'i
1'1
T'
bD
t:ii- ly:
P'?Yn
yn 12
pn
.(43-29 :1974 yri
V
•,Yt 1)1"T IPpO'!
'n
'r
PV'
.p,y,x
iu
flD
nirb ,yr" ,yp'n
' .7
y) <>
V1I1
'v
'771
.,
b'i
y''k' 1yVlv'1y,
D y*1 1
•fy
y
3i
iyri
yp
yo'nn
lD?
i
1k3 V1'
• "fl .0 1T) "tpp''-t,,
:1784)
i7'i
'rn.p
.(177-176 ,165 :198
(103 :194O)
tJ'1
.<Woes>
yiy
'1'
:<Was>
1_fl_I
ID)
1YP (52
,py''1
'1
;c' r' '
t
91
1)
iyn p1*?In
'
C' J'D
L.81
.1y L T 11
a':
nya 12
13
py'p-t
y]
1
't
r
pn iyr
'r
yT
ypyu
'P
O1)"il
i'
r
riy
10
.12 'tpk
o"n
e'v iy
t'
r' .ni'c
DU
p.0
y '1n
Y'P
y"py.1 1yi'r 13
1i
r'
,E'
.
ipo '?'
.v 'r'
op t
11" '1
b"19V1
rol
jD17II
3T
.'?fl V0y0 Cp)'b 1p1y)y
'1
t'
'
YP
iy-i
.v r'
'T
(no
1
rpn
1
y1y,"v,
•11?
• ' ' Y' '
P'P" '' 1'
?pi.
-iny.i
t'.3
1
ri
pkfl•'p1 yn)
,p
y)"T 01I
9'U
i't
1V',p.1 fl11y Dpi
'°
lyl 1
pn
n 13
ci
') i'b :kT 'ifl
iiy i
.f lJ?D
y.11
on yo ,y
I 1U rP r
r!
o 12 'D
?'b
U7J
S7
i'yx ot
P'YP
0:v D oy .1y 'p y ly "T
,P)l,"
fl
.1y?
,i'y 'y
1?1
'
•'
''
bpJ'?IT
.'b'1
j11
1y , 1It
'
82
i
(i13 :1954) y '
yyi ____
(1798)
y, niru "v'v' :iy
i'
i" p i
y niy :'
yiy171
V 'V 1'-
1E .â
yi
ix 'p :y i.i ,y ,
pn 1p,y iy
Jfl y uc'x iy
1y'?y1T
r'c ,y y n) p in
'i ;
i
9'
lyT
y'
,y x iy i
1y3
'I
y ii p'?yr
'fl
r' •<"r
%
I
&7T
yi"r "1 211
1
I3 T?kD
.12
rn
iy
Ir'ily.lJk
13
p
pn
spn ;i
.Pr' .1y?D
1y
2
11
vp''py
p'1J1
ryi jTin '1
'p
y3
py ''
y i tiy ,
D 'U y'1kb'1y
p'1
(33 :1923) Ip?"l
(225 :1915)
,1D
i' 13 "pn
i
_uy
"p
')
'D
on 12 'ii
1976 r'po'i
;yit 1854 • i
Ttp
''''
iyr)
,yti'
i
.(112
483
lyT
13
,y .T
pu
r
'v'
"
'fl
'II
?k?D
p'1.1yr
pnc
io'
.yop'
"
'na
)-U -'
y'
'n 'i "
1
i'
T"1 1
u <ij
. 9-flri
$
1flD
"n
,yp' ip'
'-r
' i i' r' y, 13
is 12
.1'? 1
,yi
y ',y oo' r
9
'D
ypy
'U
.14
r'y i'iny.i
'ifl
j'r ti
iyii
P?T 1V'J,Y
''n
'
.! ,1 T k ?: ,1Bk
'q
Dt/1
1'D'T
,n
'3
YO 1YP 1''
J'U
'?D
it 12
13
n"
IY
Tp
9?D2 ,
pJy
9'
'tpn 'r iu
p''
I'
1DD
T'
I-;
fl
1,1 •1'
1yfl p
11pb'
p
DI''1
p'1'
'1 'r'n
y?1
'i
') 1
.p,r,
''D
L4.814.
V'JD1y.1
'fl
pt1k
y)y11X. y1y'
r'
y1D'1
yDT''yD ',
Ifl
•r'"'
pr'
'
i
1V '1
' T
'1
TD
1' Jfl1
7J'?
Dyr
7C
fl r3y 1'p
) 1 yIYP
V'1"
prIk'
'1?
yV'1930y '1 :fl1p
p',J,yTJ"
,1y3'r Ty 1 ,v,y,
tir'
jnyi
1'?'y1 rrri
, 'U
iyi) 44 "pn
'UZR lyI
,yn 13
U1)
1yTU ';i
-i n1'
ii ,bArd. ii.
c ,ppj1
-t
1 y
,zj
rrt
yi)
;46 :169
1 1
-
y' p)
,'n 'i
,trg
-t 1i'
,;,'
(4,I
ppu ,'
II {Dfl1
iyi) 24
yt DU
yp
pn
b'TD
,'?y
V'1?'nk1
V'v'
nd1 ,b1zn
c1.i ,"t' h.zii ,'''' glAb
' kia
'1
11'y1 '
1y1 n.ud1 ,b1uzi ,uvnt
;'t
T"1 yp'1yy
. 12 'pu
a
to'un'"
ip
ynv ,pi flL
v'v' Cy3'
.11
yY'1n
,gLrt
____
1yp
i'
;lLf5_136
9 ;1961 ;92-91 :198 ;1954 .x'iy:',.i- 'ya11 y'i1'
li.8 5
,y .- Dri .r
'
OI
.(288 :1961
'U
py iciy . ;y p.sri
r'n
1$7
y iy ip 3!
,12
inr' ,y
Lmn ,y'yi ,<pn
v'r'
pi;
,yi
,a1rnu
ic11
,otr ,kv35. ,xLm
xifl3rn ,Jjgjrie ,y,
1ub ,DarnuI ,Piti ,k5uv
a1rn.
t'
"p iy k11 ,Darüs ,t3r ,ktvd.
,*t3r ,*k!7d. ,*x1
'vo', yr) *kl!13
2 :1973 .1p:i'1i-"uy.xu ;125-124 :1965 pyiiy:
ciyp1
;194-193 :1921
ri
yri
ny'u-'ruy.iu r"' y;295 :1961 pyirp
'i
iyn
PtU 'U V '1'
.(197-1973
yiy
rP iyi
'i ,1yD'
J11yJy1
1
lyv'r'
pil 1y1pDU ?p'n
13
y-tp
'-I
,y
1'
1'
i1y;1y
1i1y?
n .rr y"i
y ,i
;48-47 :1969
ypi iy.'a ;93-92 :1958
'r
.(9 §) 9r
;63
'y'
D'D
'Dy Cyi' 13
y'fl
I''
1'?
jkI n
'II
1y1
p'rr 1'
lyp' rRJ
y
Iv
Cp3'
,ii'yp
'' '
1'
n' 13
'?FT
yJ'
1'
r't
,12
.1'1J
iy
a-np pu po 9mT 13 'Kpn
3il
,
,1i)ypK
IP''
'Y'
ipi
fliTT3
1
Tfl
yp
b3 yUy. i'nn" It "tV nn lyi p'yIi
ka11 ,arinv
y]'? D113
;i yvy ,yi
riy .abb9
1H
ly-
nn
1
r'
.1'oy.1yi
;'
91
71
iy
- 13
flV1T ,?:,y:
n
pn
iu1y'? 1yi ny:
')
?b
.flfly.1
,ji
?
'i
Iy)t,y
)t
r'i
'JD
1L1y1
iyr b
ri
1fl
17UJk :i
yny :1LI
1'Pk H pp')k) "II
init *It?y
optn
yP'r
13 'ipn
flyn
H 1Hil
nr
H
I , - ,rT:
,1áha
;a3" ''t
rinJ ,?r7 ,'r-i'
$
,1Da41'?
u1u
)3
H
.L:L
)')
487
,p'y ,
r1Im ,iAin. bAis
i'
V1'
rii
'
.Dx3d. ,z1Axs ,]Jx
ly
'O
T)T
iy) p',n
JAk
.44 jix 24
y1yo '.1
pn
3yPk 13 '?n 1fl
1" :1pr
p k n
'7'EN
j'? bT
1)J
y)'
pn v'
1yv'1Dyo
24
pt?n
pn
$?.31
___
?D
1J"r ,''i'
11
D3'
1p'-Tn,r
y'Dy?
cn1T?
b1JII ?T"
IP':1prD
13
yo
TP'Y C
3y3.3t j
ji
r
.44
'1 t
p'ii
'?"
3
13
pn
(i
12 xp n
''fl
13
,y.i yi'
'Ty1U
fl
,?Z.)11l
yi
?,) 34 1?Hpk1T
iyn c'1-r
,ichia
c
.v' r.dn ,
.
tAbl ,
,.j3ri1i9!1
____
1rrUT
;
1T
fl
:'n
13
1T
. 'i
.3 t1
1ypTn?'nn "T
yDOC
'1 Ofl
Jfl7.
yjD'?W
yiyr
'1 T
pp'? ,LDIJ?
Q
y'byJ
yciyt
31''KT
nv
'?
41
T ..
L3
.ivn
'pi;
D 7Jyk
'I3 2111
j
Jfl3r
r'a
iy
1V
?1
.11 'pn
l
91
11rT?
r'ni
iy.i
v'
,y
i'
''
D111121
:11
VT
fl1
.(3
7717
i"
r
T t
yiyp
:y
1y o'2"f ly .2
lIt"? Dpl'
.15
pn
yp
'py ?1y o py
13
1fl
'
9'T
.v'-r
;yn 'r
r
1
"p
r'
pnp1 'k ?D
1i1iiu:
yi
'T
,yp't'i
1D
D
91
'11
Ufl' '?713
iy, ;i
in yv'1yV 1k
'1J1
1iifl'y
1112
.i
nirr
'D
' fltV p'1"V1X
i ?
iy
L2 ?
'II
f l Vr'
yiy'c'i
"2tDy1
t'i
iyn 1y'?y1T ,11
i' r' yi
1'
T
i'
iy-i
1y2"
r
'1r
1V 23'P 2y l1t
'? ;1
) v1-r'
li
ri
489
)
k lD1y1 ?T3 1 D
'PV
X
D'IT.j'? 1pVItD 1
y.i 1y11y'X
I,
ly
111)?
k1
.T
1YJ"
fljD'y
D$7'1y
11X11
111
'X
'? IT7
Vp.i 1y1 1X ,y1'X lyD V'V'
'p HIU
T'X 1X1)T £D
.iyu
'
r'
X1
?'"
FID
'X f?TI
yi'T fli1V'
7flT D?X1I
T
.(1).y1k'p
i:
TX
'yiy
'3
11.3p
X
flX
tT
T'I1
I'X
'T
.y)1y'? i
7I1
.lfl1)y'?
. (14-11 §)
17)11
1
.21
pn
"T
p
yi.3y17y..i ,y,
.12 17XPk11 T
D • fl cyT
.22
yp 22
i
1X
nlrro 11
r'
.25
9X1t3 3bX?D1X
1)111)11 11
)1v'r'
1X
in: 12
yiiiy
17XDfl TX
y,
1y.iiy17y1 j"
1)1T
1'X
$n
yry
nnr 21 17Xpn
Dp
"X Pkn
TX
ou
X1V
yip
'to'D'?DyD '1
X
j' p
yiiy.1
1TX
X ;1X
DIf Dy37 1'IK
X 9X1
yD 1I
y-3Dpy1y
X y
I
£7T" y' II
X
'
XtD
'1X
yD piyp
TX D11X
.11flV1?
X",yX?D lyV' X'?k'7'
'1
.)7i'1 T
.3
ii
P'X
T
j"?
'.3
)1
.11
)1717)11 1)11 T'X
p3"
12
7Jy
21
22
"Xfl
'X
in: 22 op''r
'i
14.90
p.1 'T
'1'??r1"3
1Y )T
1
..1k
T
p
V'l"
T't
"1
,yp'-r t
"1
i"v
-i
1J
V.TyD :y'
1 CyD'D yV'pl1
1y.1j
'Y '
1V'il
1yyT1y.1
.'T Iy'y1)
1JT
T
y!3k't
1r!-,
Dy'rk
?fl
?'
,' r'
1yV 'OyD 1y1
T
IT
1T'1
C7D
'jfl
.1'1t"i
1_fl,
x .it
yir
riy. 9wu
ii
yJy
Dtk k
)
U11
1J1
1'
'17I1
.V'??D .1yD-1
L
'1
k'
In
yV'l" pi '1 ?
Tb yO'
1 n"p
.(2
1 II1
'-u
ii
§)
I-;
T1D
-jr
VPPk1
OII Oy'1Jt
'X
' .1
pOlD
i
y y '.11
V ' 1 "
ipu
V'V'
y'V y.1 1)1
bC
/i
rr
y1
rnxJ
1y:-.i
P UT
io ,u p
,X1
flI1
r'
"n
1874
J1?flT
It,l, Itn
. y .3 ?' 31
y7
p..y33t
t
•, •p .
riedrich Christian Benedict Av-La11emant, 1862-1858
deutehe Gaun.erthus j seinez Locialolitischen, literarisohen
Unuistischer
ubi1dtm zi $elnern heutien
stand.e. F. A.
rockhaus, Leipzig.
r13v IyTiin
.98-85
:4
yiyii y' 1 Ee11ky1
ç
y,'
i'
(yjTi11)
1908
(i'-u) 1T'?
,"h13 13Trr?.
71D
7
T.111
.216-192 :39
-r'
ip'iiv i'iffn
,( ' ryi) ;ni
,"i,-'w
,' fl
1D1'fl
______
)D
______ ;1,
3V'P
-
1976
'YTr
fl'yl 1fl
.48-39 ,r'n
.rii
____ ______ % 1j _____ _____ ___
. 1
1975
rr?x _____
1
___ ______ ___
1542
L.92
flv
D"'fl V1
V
1
i' 11r1
1'1'D '
V'
91 !1T
:py
1
1
L'
T''
n
u'p
1545
'1?1fl 1D
11 V11!1
_______
___
j
1DY?
.T
inrich Ainrnersbach, Neues Q such. Johann
aniel Mi11er, !adeburg.
1689
.v
iv 'r:
,fl'
1942
.72-65 :7
ii:i: is;:
.
py':':
.1913
1 .v
1'"
? k'? ' 3
'y
y ?'' iyv'r' 11T
:1913 ,yi
.22-1
"p'-
.v
,r'
yJ1p1yD),,
•'.
i.1913
.7-71
ç
1913
"1' ybt'?p 'i,,
1915
.356-351
?rTi
.v
'-ç :1913
[1913 p'iyvt=J
nrr i',, i
",
''r'
;pi
'i x1913
yy'
:1913 ,y
,n:k,k: iy: ,('iyi)
.225-222 ,196 ::
n
ii:
ohann Buxtorf, Svaoza
Lg
1 60 3
sanct.
1609
Uden Schul. S. Renricpetri, ase1.
ftesaurus gmrnaticu 1tnu
onrad. Wald.ktrch, Easel.
.
LI.9 3
I
£trach-Meister, odr
brà1sch-Teutsches W5rter-uch. Frankfurt a.
& Leipzig.
Lbliophilus, Jid.ischer
': '.
1742
TV
1923
Liomo A. Birnbaum, "Ubersicht ber den
Lddisohen Vokalismus", Zeitsc?rift rile
scfle Mund.arten, 18: 122-130.
.149-147 :1 ,iyy-u"
= rD
1931
)as älteste d.atierte Schriftstüolc in
Ld.d.ischer Sprache", Beitrag zur
schtchte
deutschen Sorache
I.Literaur, 56:
1-22.
1932
y&b '
y'1kD1T '.7,,
1934
1_..,
'y os -I,,
yi .. ,'o ..J ,IpIt
yTy1-fl&Plp pv'i" ,jtik v'-r1
1939
1Y1<'P-
.60-25 :6
.
•1
,(
'
iyi)
.109-106
:2
1
,c1p'x,,
1d Yiddish or Middle High German?", Joura1
Jewish tudi, 12: 19-31.
1961
rit-n'. ':'
29
,nv
,'r'ui p " p iurn
rnp'i,,
.102-80 ;46-27
1965
'?'rt'
utschen
nd.arten. Unter benderer BerQksjur
stal±ziscben Jddisch. Max Niemeyer,
ohie1 Bin-Nun, Jiddts.ch j
1973
Ebingen.
.317-313 :38
,iin
,11yTV17V,,
1974
14.9L$.
ranz J. Beranek, "Die frnk±sche Land.schaft
es Jidd.ischen", Jahrbuch £il frnkische
aesforschun, 21 C = Festschrift Ernst
1961
estiidischer Sracbat1as. N. G. Elwert,
arburg.
1965
chwarz 113: 267-303.
'
.111J1V f l D9?''-V 'y 1.y
1910
.'f lV '7
.yi'n
I
.
.
lorence Guggextheim-Grinberg, "The Horse
ealers' Language of the Swiss Jews in
nd.ingerx and. Lengnau", U. Weinreich 19524: 11.862.
1954
Zur Phonologie des Surbtaler Jid.dischen",
1etica, 2: 86-108.
1958
•ai1inr Jiddtscfl. Van.d.enhoeck & Ruprecht,
i3tti.ngen C=Lautbibliothek der deutsohen
udarten, 22].
1961
dinger Jidd.isch", Herzog,
Ravid. & Weinreich
1969
969: 8-15.
ddich
urich.
1ernann[sche2 rachgit. Juris, 1973
'i-I
'x "1533 i
y i"
.344-325 :13 ,iy-U'
n1.1
193S
k1Y .l .'
cob Gerzort,
Ln.
nats oh-i exi
isc-dtsch SDrache.
trsuchu
is .eusohen rube5tandes.. J. Ka.zIfmann,
'ankfurt a. M.
1902
.?
ax Grc.nbaum, Jiid1schdetsche Chresrnt}.1e.
1582
A. Brockhaus, Leipzig.
1'tD
erd.inand. d.e Saussure, Cours
1iustique
énra1e. Pubité par Charles Bally et Albert
echehaye. Librairie Payot, Lausaime & Paris.
y
1916
.
ranciscus Haselbauer,
dameta grarnmatica
ri
ctuaru Unguarurn rientai
ci1iet hebraic .
erd.in, Prague.
1742
ha1dai. Carob-
y,q;
anf red. Gernot Heide, raDhematischhoneatiach Untersuthiunen z Altjtdd.ischen.
Toka1jrnus. Herbert Lang, Bern & Peter
1974
ang, Frankfurt a. N. C=Europisohe Hochschulchriften, Reihe I, Bd. 1063.
'';•t
aphael Loewe, "The Nediaec-al Christian
ebraists of England", Hebrew Uon Colleg
nnual, 28: 205-252.
?1
1957
riy 9C1'
..T
niy: ', ____ ____ 1854
iyrt ':'
fl
Lrvin I. Herzog, The Udish Lngu
rther, Poland: I.
rahy and Bi.sto.
Ldiana University, Bloomington & Mouton, The
Lgue.
1965
Lj.9 6
Sfl
•;
.
arvin I. Herzc, Wita Ravld. & tJriel
einreich (ed.s.),
Fteld
fldd.ith.
tud.ies j. Lagu, Folklore,
Literature.
hird Collection. Mouton, The Hague.
1969
?'rJysB .p.'
Dhan.n Christof Wagenseil, elehrung
______
j
s chen
Schre I ba.rt. Paul
ried.rich Rhode, K6nigsberg.
1699
T'tfl [y'7XT 11r
•
ti: .''1
.c
-T,c
'ir j x _______
,r:;'
21
1798
'1?
1yL 1ifl .?
" -viv iyvr lp,
'yi:yç
pp
.84-79 :1913 ,y.i'j .v ;'t
1913
.1J"31 .
,,
u'i: py
188 i' p
p'-tt, 'iyi-i
(y p:
,('iy i) ,y it .
.67-43 :2 ,yJ''fl ,E1i'
1J37
ne]. Weinreich, L.anuaes i, Ctact.
Problems. Publications of the
____
inguistic Circle of New York, No. 1,
ew York.
1953
udies i
e.rature.
1954
ed.), The Leid.
i4di Ji.
ish Lrivag, Folklor,
.inguistic Circle of New York,
i'Tew York.
14.97
:22
noi
.66-54
,"',"-13.yT '1Drt
,!)flV
•r'-i'11
iyv'r' yi
.'vy1_,1_yc
"1666 k'
1
''
'
-'
lI? 1u.v'--iev
.'?1)
'nV
.ipn
1'?
'r' ç
.:
.172-159 :1
1y1t,
y 'v y i-,1,y '' iy ii' ,y
__
T
l
.y3,'ii ,1y1yrp 9
,( '-iy,)
,i-nii
,
y'v
T' __________
.108-101
iyi 'x
:15 ;110-97
p'-iyi
1940
.1940
"y'k'
ax Weirireich, "Prehistory azd Early History
f Yid.dish: Facts and. Conceptual Framework",
Weinreich 19521.: 73-101.
lyV'r'
1928
1931
ry'x
-158 ,p-i'-'
1926
yny.i vr' '?B cfl,,
,
.205-194 :36
.90-23
'i "v'i"
1923
.1928
fli11'
'?V'bp1yfl ;
"v','
.19-12
pxo
ç,
in"
17 'b
,( ,y,)
oitv, . 1b
.732-689 :3-2 ,(pc'o)
a i
1958
:14
1954
p'y,, 1955-1954
jv'-r'
p-'vi,,
,('iyi) pi
Old. Yiddish Poetry in Linguistic-Literary
esearch",
16: 100-118.
1958
.194
196O
98
yV''
_____
ytD'D 'T,
l96O
.71-65 :20
':'
i'u
p'r.
1964-1963
, n I T)VrT n'1y1
'1 V'T"T '?V
-318 ,251-230 ,147-131 :28-27 ,13flv'
.339
•1V 12!"
1973
Lt £'Y
1y' )o' n iyv 1 -r'
•I'Y
DJ'
• 1 k'- 1' J
,jpDqr 1r.J
Nv.re
iyi
1953
;iyn
.108-97 :13 ,v v1r'
" n1flP7yV '1"
.17-1
_____
1965
:25
yvr'
1970-1969
V' -' b'
.64-43 :29
llt,yT .1
ottfried. Selig, Kurz
rUnd1iche
z ether letchten r1er?1ung der
üd.ischdeushen Sorac^e. Christian Friedrich
unrnf, Leipzig.
neitu
1767
riyiyr .
rid.reas Sennert, Rabbinisrnuj
rta
argumico-ta1mud.jc-r pbbjnjca. Typis &
umptibus Fince].ianls, Wittenberg.
1666
.rT.'
rr
tD)
.C'r'J
:1913
,"u1:1n•tn1,1Drr,,
144-126
i'
.
;'
1903
:3
'i,,
.71-47
1913
L.99
Pk1 .
ud.ah A. Joffe, "Dating the Origin of Yid.disI
laleots", U. Weinreicri 195k: 102-121.
a-fl'
1954
.
__ i
,(;'yi)
1ivij'r
.1 it
7'O
.]11
iyv l ," ip,
i:iyiyi
.pi'-1'j
V'.P'
1'
1961
J-iv
1L3F
'237?
D'Ditp
.78-62 :1 ,i:yrr
, " ivp 'in 'p
v i v ii': c'pi,,
.11-9:2 ,n'i:9r L1VT '7'7
i2T
IVT ')yCit
.35-33
'V i 'V i% i
'iD 'fl''.
:2
'f l1 n1
.31-16:1 ,tv ' ''y
,n'i
fl'iitD
'17T,,
nrui:i
'rT n"2r
.36-31 :1 L!!?
, " 'rn
'7y p "
ii 'v T '
.52-49 :2
1"d'
lfred. Landau
riratbrje
1938
1939
:1939
1942
:1942
.J'y
'n''.i:,,,
1943
'i'
flT .:
1b 'U'?
J1 jsche
dern Jp hre 119, Wilhelm
& Bernhard Wachstein,
1911
raumuller, Wien & Leipzig,
ypni
1'
;45-37 :33 ;33-2 :32
yz'
'i,, 1975-1973
.43-3T :34
500
fl
ames W.
[1957
archand, Word, 15: 383-39L1..
p'?yy1J
1959
Three Basic Problems in the Investigation of
any Yiddish", Ortis, 9: 314_Ll.1.
1960
The Origin of Yiddish", ommuications et
Prem1e Conres International
taiectoloie zénéra1e, Centre International de
talectolozie genérale, Louvain [Travau.x
Libliés par le Centre International de
ialectologie générale de 1'Universlté
atholique d.e Louvain, IX], 3: 2L.8-252.
1965
IflD T?V
htelomo] M o[rag ], "Pronunciations of Hebrew",
1pdIa Jndaioa, 1!acmillan, Jerusalem,
3: 112O-1l45.
1971
OT?D 1T'1cID
iyi
ipn
yoyr
-ir'n opt ;
1908
_________ _____ v' , ' yviy ', ,( 'ryi)
__
1YPJ
jii Jp iy'iiyv
,pyvJo,n
.193-143
______
yv' i ,1908
,1931 ,yf'n
atthias ?lieses,
1ddIsche Sorach.
h
Grarnmatlk
&e Id.iom der
is toris c
Nitteleuroias.
egren Juden Cstenjarnin Harz, Berlin & Wien.
ixie
':$
1UV
_1_1
,yV'1'
1964
,
iy nn' 17
j'T
PY" ,T" "i
.trt
tv
1962-1961
hiorno Noble, "Yiddish Lextcogra;hy",
ish Book Armual (New York), 19: 17-22.
' v'i"
?v-7'
_____ ___
1924
1
501
,y1'J .w
V s ,1 iyi i
,
..
____ ij
-,t' t;'
.9U''?2'L
1y7'1'.'
113
-1j1
trip ______
.yjt,'fl ,p.y1__
i'D .y
d.ward. Sapir, "Notes on Judeo-Germai
honology", Jewish uarter1 y Review
Philadelphia), 6[new series j : 231-266.
j1,:
rn'pri .n',jr
-fl'iIo'T P1D
,y'.n' -rnr
:1
,i 3)tV?
''n
.'fli?I1T
1915
____
1Lr
p"
v
•'
?V
1928
ii
n'iinn",,192S-1925
vri
• Porgs, "Rernarques sur leYidisch
ue des Etude2 Juives
Paris), 72: 192-200,
•i
1921
isacien-lorrian.",
yi'
T'L
1fl2tr', ]V'1" 121
.1V1il r'' •
_______
1911
•1b90 ik'
iy.0
ugust Pfeiffer, Citta
übner, Dresden.
Gabriel
•
1680
502
%pntiv3 fll
T11
'1"1
.T'
.L11DY
V''T yii=]
.U7111V1$
I .Ti
"
11 1,p-yfl
vry
,11x ip"i .[IV
1920
i"r'
.
ft
Fuks,
0le& Known Literary Documents
Yid.d.ish Literature (. l82). E.J. Brill,
.eiden.
1957
Cl
1733
Mlozlottus [=J. P. LütkeJ, Kurze
rhidliche Anweisung zj Teutsch-Jüdischen
oracb.. Christoph Matthäi, Freiberg.
'1'l
arl Wilhelm Fried.rich, Uterricht j er
Tuden g orache und. Schrtft zum Gebrauch
elehrte
UnEelehrte. Chr. Gottf.
agcczy, Prenzlau.
.U.p
1784
fl
eopold Zunz, Die gttesdienstltchen Vortrg
Iw&n, histQrisch entwickelt. A. Asher,
3erlin.
r
1832
.1
Uchard. Zuckerrnan, "Alsace: An Outpost of
1estern Yiddish", Eerzog, Bavid. & Weinreich
1969
L969: 6-57.
1J
_________ ___ .L Y''
11z-i
1")
r1-Tv ly-i r':
.y3B ,1kOk
=
1937
503
1py?p .rt.
rohan Heinric}i Caflenberg, Jdischttscs
rterbiichleth. Buchd.ruckerei des jud.ischen
nstituti, Halle.
i'pr .
1736
..i
11
obert M. Copelan.d. & Nathan Siisskind,
Anguag
Herz' s Es thr: A £tudv jn Ju&-.
erman [sic] Dia1ect p lor. University of
Liabama Press, University [Alabama].
1976
1'?p .
133H' ," j
i ''
1iyr
.75-72 :17
1951
1y)u'-1p •'l.,.n
lilhelm Christian Just Chrysander, JtdischLeutsche rmrnatik. Joharm Christoph
eisner, Leipzig & WolfenbUttel.
i
n
1750
[uv=] ;ivi pr
n1y-nI':1 ywi',,
1929
1Vn-n'v i
XVII 9D
i
XV :"i
.
yw'i'r ,('ryi) iynp1iyv
.196-115 :1 ,yvnni ,y'-iu''p ,[n'
v.11
1YT J
___
i
.liT'1tJ
nv
'i)
'i
riv ,y,'-r"
1.922
. yv, n
ly r' 1 1?'??
.v .-t-'
,y
_______
.pfl, 'fl ,p1y.y-i
1920
5011.
'
itrr .12)JD ?
-nt iyv'-r' iyi
1923
]OJT)y?D
.17T'1 11 ___________
yvy. iy i
1' ________
.yw_ufll ,y '•7-,uf lp
Vp' 1
olf Ehrenfried. von Heizensteln,
roilkommene Pferde-Kenner. Johann Simon
ieyer, Uffertheim.
.y
.n
1764
y.f lv .y
1592
lias Schad.e, My sterium. Simon Meyer,
trassburg.
.
i
Tohann Jacob Schud.t, JUd.! .che
1erkwtirdike1ten. Samuel Tobias Hocker.
'rankfurt a. M. & Leipzig.
,p1&?
'vrrt 'i-:n
,Th
,46-37 :4
S
1714
'pep,,
1898
_______ ______
.229-221 ,112-106
rr)
[1911
OyJ'9
y r)y y 1J
.348-313 :1913
, 1,_ 1 ?
,flr '?y.
.i ,(1y ?1p .')
1922
'p
1929
______
'p
.22-1 :(15-17)5- ,(ny'p
1913
7
_____
•
T
1. Staerk & A. Leitzmar2n, Dj iiidisch5eutschen Bibelbersetzun
Ar.fnen b i s z Au s sang des 1.
hrhundert s.
J. Kauffrnarn: Frankfurt a. M.
ipv
.11
1923
505
J"V •7
3.zr aineariu, Stuiu iaLcto1ogic asure
aiu1uI Evreo-Gerrnai. Ed.uard. Wiegand.,
zcharest.
iy
a'i
't
'ryi) 1y?"i
;D?T
ix
:1 ,yvin ,y''-nt'np
15
" l"
,(i,y,)
-i
-9t' ,
1V1fl ,1X?1
,
1889
1y!3'
pn'
, -1,.
1924
.J ,.j"li"n
y"i
.287-272 ,112-1O1
I4 ny:
t'',,,
1933
'jD"1
ry'? .V
.J
) D11-17 iy7'rj 1
1$7'J ,'Jt3J
I
________
.90-79 :1
)fl
yr'&?x 'i,,
I
lix
ix
,('-in)
op
___
______ ___
yyD'?yfl'?x ,3!O Y1 I ix _________ ______
,,-,1t;p
)'1'
-139 :3 ,pi'-t
.218
,
:-jt
IDp3kp y1yO1
yi'
hone Shmeruk, "The Hebrew Acrostic in the
osef Hatsa
Pem of the Cambridge Yiddish
od.ex", Nichian Ceriani £u.je (Ann Arbor),
.2: 67-81.
1975
1977
D. Katz
University College London
May 1980
John Marshall Essay
Reconstruction of the Stress System in the Semitic Component
of Yiddish
1.
2.
3.
Li..
5.
Contents
. ......... . .
Introduction. . . . . .........
2
• • , • .....• • , • •
Synchronr. . . ...... ........
Relevant Germanic and. Semitic Stress............... 10
Solution. •
..............• 1 ............... •.. 1k
..................... . . ...
Ty'polog3r. . . . . . •
. . . . . . 36
. .......
.
References. . ......
..
Li.
33
Tables
Semitic & Germanic Component Stress in Yiddish.
1.
Impact of Syllable Addition on Stress..............
2.
Autonomous Stress Systems Within Yiddish........
Tiberian Stress.........
Semitic Component Stress
De velopment of Vowel 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . .
5.
Yiddish Cognates of Middle High German <e> and
6.
Tiberian <5> and <> in Lengthening Position....
Development of Vowel 13b.... .......... . .... .....
7.
Yiddish Cognates of Middle High German <a> and
8.
Tiberian <a> and <a> in Lengthening Position.......
Contrasting Word. Level Features of Stress..........
9.
10. Contrasting Typo].ogical Features of Stress.........
1.
2.
3.
5
7
8
12
22
2k
28
29
32
35
Ma s
The Historical Speech Territory of Yiddish......... 20
21
Vowels 21 & 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . ......
Vowels 11 & 13b. . . . . . . , . . ...... . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . .
27
507
1.
Introduction
Yiddish, the thousand year old language of Central and
East European (Ashkenazic) Jewry, is of unique interest to
comparative philology from a number of perspectives. Not least
of these is the fusion character of the language. All of Yiddish
through time and space is characterized by the joining, in
a forinulaically specific way, of Semitic (postclassical Hebrew
and Aramaic) with Germanic (dialects of Middle High German) and
at least a sprinkling of Romance (languages cognate with Old
French and Old Italian). The Yiddish of Eastern Europe of the
last few centuries has been enriched by the accretion of the
Slavonic Component.
Max Wejn.rejch (19511. ;
The term conrDonent is used here after
1973: I, 32-33) to denote historically
diverse items that are synchronically Yiddish in the same way
a modern English word of Old. French origin is synchronica].ly
English albeit of known extraneous extraction. The philological
literature on the types of Germanic and Semitic that have entered.
into Yiddish is vast. A closer scrutiny of the history of Yiddish
may well prove to be continually rewarding to specialists in the
fields of Germanic and Semitic philology as well as to general
historical linguists.
Yiddish affords the comparativist the infrequent opportunity
to supplement the usual corpus of forms gleaned from related
languages with the genetically unrelated. but synchronically
fused forms of a single language. While each dialect of Yiddish
has a unitary phonemic system encompassing all its historical
components, there remains noteworthy synchronio differentiation
508
between the components in phonology, morphology and, syntax. By
isolating the several components on the synchronlc plane on the
basis of the empirical evidence inherent in the modern language,
the constant interraction and mutual impact of the components
through the ages may be recovered by reconstruction.
We seek here to apply comparative reconstruction in an
effort to recover the key lines of development of the stress
system of the Semitic Component in Yiddish. The Semitic
Component, according to the standard theory prevailing in
Yiddish studies, entered Yiddish through Hebrew and Ararnaic
texts of Bible, Talmud and, liturgy which were in extensive use
in traditional Yiddish speaking society (N. Weinreich 1928:
20; 1973: I, 222, 227; II, 26L1.; III, 233-23k).
We have
proposed that the greatest portion of the Semitic Component
was genetically inherited in the usual manner of generation
to generation language transmission (Katz 1979 a ). This debate,
the question of the ultimate descent of the Semitic Component,
need not interfere with the more limited goal of the present
paper. Assuming standard theory (the text theory), any Semitic
impact upon the stress system of the Semitic Component will have
come from the graphemic system employed in vocalized Hebrew and
Aramaic texts, in which stress is cl-early marked. After our own
view (continuous transmissIon theory), such impact will have
resulted from continuous language transmission by way of which
Semitic stress patterns were brought to Europe by migrating
Semitic speakers, were inherited into Proto Yiddish and underwent
subsequent phonological development.
509
2.
ynchronv
Recent advances in the theory of historical linguistics
emphasize the need, to achieve a synchronio analysis of a
structure in language as a point of departure for the leap into
the past (e.g. Welrireich, Labov and. Herzog 1968). As Anttila
(1972: 3) puts it, "in order to study change in an object, one
must first know the object itself". By comparing the stress
pattern of the Semitic Component with that of its sister
Germanic Component within Yiddish, a first step is taken toward
the identification and isolation of the identities, similarities
and diversities.
An illustrative corpus of thirty-six Yiddish lexical items
is provided in Table 1, half of which derive from each of the
two main components in Yiddish. Words are cited in a phonemic
transcription of their Standard Yiddish forms. The dialects
do not diverge with respect to stress of the cited forms. It
is promptly evident that disyllabic Yiddish words are normally
stressed on the first syllable (the syllabic nucleus of which
is a full vowel or diphthong), while the second. syllable is
unstressed and has as its syllabic nucleus reduced vowel
<
,
This identity is a
or syllabic sonorants 1,
temptation to conclude straight away that as far as concerns
stress, there is no empirically discernible Semitic Component
from a synchronic point of view. There is a Yiddish stress
system which pervades the words of the language without regard
to their historical origin.
510
a)
4.)
a)
0.
£4
0
C.)
a)
.4
a)
£4
a)
1-4
.0
a)
a)
-
- a)
0
-
a
0.
.j.)
-
r4
- - £4
It,
-4-I
£4.-- E
£4- ..a4
ow ID- 0- £4
.0
4.'
£4
a)
4-'
a) 0-a) £4
cii
w-4-4
01 a) bCO- 0C.0 • .0
4 0rl £4
'-bf4''Cu-4 0
El
00
cii
- 4)4)
w- £44)
0.a) 00
- .0 - - 4) - 0
a) .1-a 0 - 0. 4.) - .4.)
.0 .4
I,- - c.
.-.
- - C.)
a)
.
.4
- £4 lb
lb
lb
-P
lb b('-I-Plb
-I 0
E
• C.-. 'C) £4 -) £4
lb -I-) '.4
U)
0. ct, .
£4'w
£4' ' c' a)-' ' C' a)
'a).0'CC.-&.0.0.r-r4 0)W4)4)
C
-"I
£4
'.4)
d-4 C)
d 0
.-i - C)
) -
- -
4 -
£4
'
b
-
'N
a)
.4-4
-4
.-4
v-I c' r'.
4 t4
CJ C
'-c c'-
' o - c' c
C
t4 t', C'J C") r\ C
1\ F C
C
0
-4
0
a)
E
a)
C)
£4
4,
4.)
0
0
0
0
0.
E
0
o
o
0
a)
E
£4
C)
a)
C)
C)
"-I
a) -P
-4-4
.0 E
'
.0
Cl)
It,
£4
.4
a)
-I
-P
0
Ct,
C)
0
C)
0
-
.0
4)
a)
.0
- .0
0 a)
C)
0
-4
-i
-00
E
0.
.1.)
•- - .1.)
O.E4)1-I
- E- 4)0
£4..- C)r-4T.a)
OoOa)
C)
r-4a)C)rC)C)'dC...'0a) Ct,'01
b L E-P E £4w- £4.0'dC.-. 0 E
01 ON E4'.Q0.0 £4U)Ea)
' It, a).4 0 k-.-s a)
8
C)
Cii
.-ir-i PCa)4)bC
00
£4
4:4
£4. b(4)-.-4
0
01
c4
-1
-
El
'-4
a)
'-4
In
r4
-
G.1
11)1
-
-
a) ' - -
- -
0
0
(br-4 E
a) - -P - 0 E CI) a) - '-' C. .
-
-
)
0)U)
lblb -m0lb
ml
- - - 0
0
C).Om O'd
a)
a -
m)W
EmE
E
E-4.' bfN)Er4E £4 PC P<.0PCp-4r-4,-4
r- 'C3 '
' ' CII 'a) 'a) -a) '4. 'a) 'CII 'a) 'Ci 'l 'a) 'a) 'a) 'C
'a).0'-a)
'-4
0
C'J
v- c'. r'.
Cs..
F'
PCPC PC
-
'(\
O' v-I -4 ,-1 -
N
i-i v-I v-I v-I
511
The apparent identity emerging from Table 1 vanishes
when morphological derivatives of the same lexical items are
examined in paradigms engendering syllable suffixation in
Table 2.
Comparison of Tables 1 and 2 compels the conclusion
that Initial stress is a s y stematic feature of the Germanic
Component but only an incidental feature of disyllabic Semitisrns.
GermanIsms are dynamically processed by Initial Stress
Assignment (V 1+ stress] / ##C 0_) while Semitisms are
processed by Penultimate Stress Assignment (V - [+stress] /
____C0(VC0)##). The contents of Tables 1 and 2 are combined
in Table 3 to facilitate formulation of the phozo1ogical
structure of words in each component. Both components share
posttonic reduced vowels. In the Semitic Component,
Penultimate Stress Assignment causes a jump in stress to
conform to the process upon syllable addition. This applies
equally to a three syllable word becoming a four syllable
word, e.g. mex'it; 'in-law', p1. maxatnim. The Semitic
Component exhibits a marked reorganization of internal
word-level phonological relations ensuing from syllable
addition. For example, a vowel stressed in the singular of
a noun, e.g.
in xávr (no. 17), becomes unstressed in the
plural, xavéjrim. At the same time, the reduced vowel i of
the singular now appears as stressed diphthong . In the
Germanic Component, primary stress may indeed be relegated
to secondary stress upon affixation of a stressed clitic,
512
-bC4-
I.
C)-
..
i
4)
C)
L at4)O)
C) U)-.4-.4 C) U)
.0
.0Q)
C)
Q)
C) r.4 C) 4)
r-.4v-4U)
>at--
.1.)
C)
o
C)
E
S..
o
E
o
.)
C)
.-
-
5.
C)
C.
..-44
4.4
-
U)
U)
...4
43 bØ
C)
4
4)4)-E
- .
>U)
O OC).'-1
•
u-I Z
., '
- __
C)
Ov4 LWu-iU)
r4
U) 0
0 C) C)
4) >
C Q-.
P...' -C).0-.- u.4
- - _.4
-0
-4
- .13-I-'
t,.. )U)
' ,..4.
u-I )U)
-.4 X
at .
r-4
.
c-4
5.
(
I
E,-4
E
C)
-.4
.
4O
-
U)
o
-
.4'(,
•
5., C)U).0,-44) Iti
r-I43
-13 -.4 '-)
U)
-
- 5.,
*W (fl
at
s( . i-I 'd
£.'C)'c.''r
r-4''('ai S..'w
)W4)4)u-)N
c-.,at.X,-4r.4
'
U) 5.
c-I
C/)
0 0 4 (\ C'- 4.
-
C'. CJ CS CJ C
0)
a,
-
C)
0)
5..
.1.)
Cl)
0)
o
o
--4
.1.3
..-I
'C
'C
C)
.0
4..,
o
4)
U)
C\4 t\ C'.J
-
-
54
0
4)
00)
54
'd
.0
0
C)
0
.0
0
54'-4
4)
•0)
'Cl)
C)
. .C).1.)
a, 0)- •,-i
'd.-I .0)C) 0)
Ou-4 Q0).. 0)
0) 0) - 0) 0
4' 0) 0 v-I
.13 b
4'
C) U)4 54-.4
0)
u-C)--4
C)Wb(C)C)-454
E
0E4)r-IC) C)S' C4)d)
0) .
NE4).0u4540)0)
.r4 C)
54u-I
0.-4
0 U)4)C)4)-.-i54 54
0 P-4)
0
54540)at54-.4 C) E-40)c-'C
C.
- - C)
C.') . - 4-. - E
- U) - - .4.) v-I -
0
v-I
Cf)
0. 0 i-f CsJ C\ 4.
'D N-
C4 C'.J
C)
-4
.4.3
..F
0)
C/)
-
- -
-
- -
-
U)
0) E
0)0)
E
E 0)
E
mU) E -.4 E m
E 0)u-4 a,,.4
0)w-4
-.4
)0) tt 0) 5
(
-.4m'C ti 54 E
,m - -'
'r 'C
' f )Tfl s r
sr •c 'r a,
'r v-f E '
F 'r s •r
,- 4 '
C) .0 'r
'C F r
<.
0'U)r-Iv-4v-4
E4)at54N54EP-I ES )
C
.Q'C4)
C.)
-
.0 0
Fi-f
E-' 4-4
.0
i- C\Z C 4-
t VTh 4- '\ '-C) N- aD C'- - '-' i-f -4
"t
'.0 N-
i-f u-f u-I u-I
5]. 3
.
u-I
4)
-I
CD
E
CD
4)
Cl)
4$
..-4
0'
r+->4
4bC
-4
m
E
c
U
E
Cl
I
•,-
CDt
E
.4
WI
,t
.
CD
.ri
W
4-. '
'CD
m
'-4
CD
4)
4.)
i+
.
'n
4)
'CD
.
bC
t.
-4 )Cl)
.4)
m'd.
CD
)W b
>4rl
.1)
CD
'Q)
ci
4-. . '4.) '( 'CD
'r
,-1 ,-4
CD
P.
s.
4)
4)
CD
br+
'C
. —
N
4)D
CD'r-4>4rl.--4 b
qS(.)
r4'4)
'CD'(p..4%4.J'(S
)4)4)
'CD.'C4-. bQ...,-4r-4
U)
0" 0 '-4
CD
0' 0 '-4 C' Ci 4' ' '0
4. \ '0 t'-
i-I C\J ('.4 (',i ('.4 C.4 ('si ('.4
('4 ('.4 ('4 C'- F'. C". ("b
F'
C'- ('-s
CD
4)
U)
CD
0
E
0
0
4)
"-'I
CD
.4.)
4-4
E,
Cf
U
o
o
c.1
u-i
o
CD
4)
("s
I
Cl
CD
-4
E
CDI
Cf)l
CD
E
E
CD
E W.,l
CD CD CD
CDECD)CDD)CD CDE
E
u-4
E CD
'd CD-41D
C'(
.p4'()W
CD'f
u-4 D).-I CD
.. E
r-4
.-4 * * r .
'I
E U) CD E CD u— -1-)
E '
.. C, r-4 '(
N
i-I '( 'CD
>4 '(
ECDbCCDCDECDECD >4CD."-CD-4r-4
'W
)O) >4
CD
P.
>4>4>4
CD
u-I
CD
CDct)
CD
CD
(Dr-IE m4C).0 CD'dE Cl,
E mID CD
E4-)b4N'-E,-4 E>4>4.0 I4r-4r-4r-4
.-4
'CD CD 'CD 'CD ' ' CD 'CD 'CD 'CD 'C 'CD 'CD 'CD 'C
'CD.'d'CDbr.E
P.P.cOo4) >4>4>4
CD 0
0.
E- 0
.........o-orc-'.
4 u-I ,4 u-I u-i u-4 i—i u-i
'0
0'
u-i
e.g. létdik 'empty' but
in any and. all paradigms,
j of
1k.
sTh.1dik, '(to) empty out'. Still,
remains stressed vis vis the
The relation, therefore, of a full vowel to a reduced
vowel in a given word. is a fixed relation in. the Germanic
Component. This implies on a deeper level that Initial
Stress Assignment is itself an incidental, even if regular
feature of the Germanic Component. Stress is ultimately
root bound and. nonphonological, as ind.eed in German. In
the Semitic Component, by contrast, the relation of a full
vowel to a reduced vowel in a given word is a variable relation.
A hypothetical Germanism processed by Penultimate Stress
Assignment, e.g. •
js1jMka,
and a hypothetical Semitism
processed by Initial Stress Assignment (or root bound stress),
e.g. •xávejrlm, are equally nonsensical to the native speaker
of Yiddish. (We use the black circle • to denote synchronically
spurious forms, reserving the asterisk * for historical
reconstructions which are at any rate not meant to be spurious.)
We may say in summary that Semitic Component stress is
phonological
lexica).
shifting while Germanic Component stress is
. nonshifting.
515
3.
evant Germanic
Semitic Stress.
By relevant Germanic and Semitic stress, we refer to
those forms of Germanic and. Semitic which by reason of
cotemporality and. coterritoriality could have had impact
upon Yiddish. The status of stress in modern German or
modern Israeli Hebrew is as immaterial as its status in
Proto Ind.o-European or Proto Semitic. It is a methodological
fallacy for the historical linguist to tie together entities
untied in history. It is well established. that stress in
Germanic was fixed. on the root syllable which was most
frequently the word initial syllable in a time predating
the oldest monuments, albeit following the application of
Verner's Law (of. Kienle 1969: 16-17; Paul 1975: 211_26;
Penzl 1975: 52-23; Veynger 1929: 32). One long term effect
of initial heavy expiratory accent was the eventual reduction
of unstressed. vowels. The application of posttonlc
reduction on a mass level is characteristic of the development
of Middle High German (cf. Bach 1956: 125; Kienle 1969: 55-58;
Paul 1975: 55-63; Penzl 1975: 97-98, 105-106; Waterman 1976:
85). It is hence apparent that Germanic stress is prehistoric
from the viewpoint of Yiddish while posttonic reduction is
contemporary with early Yiddish The oldest period. of the
language begins, in the opInions of Birnbaum (1939; 1979:
Z44.57) and M. Weinreich (195LI1955), in the ninth century.
The Germanic Component in Yiddish has in both cases
516
stress assignment and pcsttonic reduction
preserved the
inherited Germanic system, occasionally behaving more
Germanically than modern Standard German, e.g. Yiddish árbat
'work' vs. German árbaJt, Yiddish 1bdjj 'alive' vs. German
1endi.
Having established that the Semitic Component has an
autonomous stress system that cannot be explained straightforward1
in Germanic terms, it is now apropos to compare Semitic Component
forms with their cognates in Semitic. Both traditional Hebrew
and Jewish Aramaic were meticulously codified by a brilliant
school of scribe-philologists on the western shores of the
Sea of Galilee in the late first millennium. The codifiers,
often referred to as the Masoretes, were themselves apparently
native speakers of Jewish Aramaic (Rosenthal 19714.: 9; Schrainm
196 14. : 18). Their precise system of vocalization and, accentuation
was intended primarily to standardize the phonology of the Old
Testament, but as a phonological system, their work is by no means
limited to forms attested in Biblical texts. The Masoretes'
phonology, equally applicable to Hebrew arid. Aramaic, is generally
known as Tiberlan, after Tiberias, the city where much of their
work was carried out.
In Tiberian phonology, stress is ultimate in the overwhelming
majority of cases. In Table 14., our Semitic Component corpus
(Tables 1-3, nos. 1-18) is confronted with cognate Tiberian
forms. Unlike the Semitic Component forms, which are processed
by Penultimate Stress Assignment, the cited Tiberian forms are
517
9
sff)
p4
,r.4 '
'q 'i.-t IC) 'IC) 'I
IC) 'tO
)fl 9
cc 9
9
9
IC) IC) C— II •c, 't .- tr t
)o •r tr x
iC 't
h-8 I( '8
MO
.-4)CD W..O 0. .Q
9 i—I IC)
9
'
9
r1 ..). 9 t
N t
9 ,-4 c&
ci .0 I)
8 r4 i
tO
ci ci
ci .4Ct1 Dl
ci Dl
Dl )4 ci
't O 9
C-.DtCDbOIc)C4E
I III ii
'tC) 'IC) 'IC)
CD
Er-I E q
'IC) )CD 'IC) 'I
r-4'IV).0)
tI,CDI
xc
'eC)
CD
9 'IC) 'IC) 9 'IC)
'h-f 'IC
'R,0'iO)
9
EMCDMO
.0
N
Ev-40,-4
4r4r-4
..-I
DlDllWDllWDlDlwDlDlciDlICDlDl,c)c
E-4c' -.O' - bOOE
CD
0,
.1.)
TI)
Dl
'-4
CD
.0
--I
E-'
02
4)
a'
.1)
TI)
.8.)
CD
o
9
o
O
-
0
9
CD
0
9
0
0
9
9
CD
4 9 a,w-4
CD CD CD
9 CD
CDE
.-4 CD)CDCD U) CD
'dU)u4 (V
E
m 'C) D .rI 'f )CD
4 m . E
'C) ..-I CD
'
CD 'C)
r-I 'C)
,-4 ' 'C) .0
'C) 9 0) CD 9 )CD ) 'C) 4.' E 'l N
'C)
' '
0 r-1 'C)
,-I 'C) 'CD 'C)
CD
a,
EDlccc
Dl
'da)
CDEDlEDlDl.0'-Dl,-8r8
.
xc
'CD
I
o
'-4
4)
,-f
I'd
CD
tD
(Dr-4
CD(V
9 94)
C)
'-I 'CC '
TI)
E(Vr-f
'-'
4-mCD I m)WE
-c
C).0
'ci 'C) 'CC
CD
V
E
'cC ' 'Ci 'CC '
.0
'CC
ECD
CD
CD
'C) 'CC 'Dl 'tC 'C)
C) .4.'
.r4
,0 9
CC C) .
Cl)
'i C',j
r .
'r '.
0 c'.j C' .- V
,—i '- ,-.
,. ,.4
4
518
processed by Ultimate Stress- Assignment (V - [+stress] /
- C.##).
This ultimate pattern does not, however,
account for the entirety of Tiberian Hebrew and Aramaic.
There are a number of penultimate paradigms, the most
prominent of which are the so called segolates (of. Malone
1971). In such cases, Tiberian and the Semitic Component
in Yiddish share penultimate stress, e.g. Tiberian m1cx
'king', Yiddish mjlex. The coexistence of the peiu1timate
minority within the largely ultimately stressed Tiberian lexicon
is one of the characteristic features of Masoretic phonology
(cf. Bauer-Leander 1965: 175-18 L1. ; Bergstrsser 1972: 200-227;
Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley 1910: 911.; Cimbi in Chomsky 1952:
26-28; Moscati 1969: 67;
Schramni 196 L1.
35-36). The
presence both
of penultimate and ultimate stress patterns implies that stress
may be margirally phonemically distinctive in Tiberian,
a situation in principle impossible when stress is purely
phonological, as in the Semitic Component in Yiddish. Indeed,
there are a few minimally contrastive pairs in Tiberian, e.g.
Hebrew Lvfi 'they returned' vs. 5vfl 'they took captive'.
Tiberian stress cannot be classified as phonological because
of the ultimate-penultimate ind.eterminancy. Neither can it be
deemed lexical, because stress is after all governed by one of
the two phonological stress assignment rules (ultimate or
penultimate) and it does shift upon syllable addition. We may
for the purposes at hand, characterize Tiberian stress as
uasi-hono1oica1
lexical
thonological
shiftIng, sharply distinct from both
r..cnshiftin Germanic Component stress and. the
shiftIm stress of the Semitic Component.
519
4.
Solu±ion
During the past century of Yiddish studies, scholarly
opinion on the origins of Semitic Component stress has largely
fallen into one of four distinct groups of theories.
(a)
errnani theories.
Saineanu (1889: 56), Wiener (1894:
178), Sapir (1915: 264-265), Bin-Nun (1951: 141-111.2; 1973:
4-5, 262-267) and Leibel (1965) explain Semitic Component stress
as a result of Germanic impact. Occasionally, note had. been made
of the inadequacy of the explanation in light of the discrepancies
between the two components. Saplr (1915: 264) did. inject as
an apt word of reservation the qualification that "words of more
than two syllables, however, cannot be accented back of the penult"
Bin-Nun (1973: 266) calls Semitic Component stress a compromise
solution to the conflicting Semitic and Germanic patterns within
Yiddish. Leibel (1965) implausibly argues that Semitic Component
stress was indeed initial stress at one point, and only later
shifted again to penultimate in certain environments. The most
serious shortcoming of Leibel's proofs is his untenable corpus of
cited forms. He cites, for example, the learned names of Talmudic
tractates jrvin and gé1rin, while ignoring the nearhomophonous everyday words that are indeed penultimately
stressed (cf. Tables 1-4, nos. 4,6). Most of the handful of
exceptions to penultimate stress in the Semitic Component are
d.ialectally restricted (of. U. Wenreich l965a: 37-38) and in
all probability the result of late analogical levelling. Other
exceptions are only apparent and result from the chronological
520
precedence of unstressed vowel reduction. Leibel did. succeed,
however, in classifyin g the most frequent conditions for
exceptions to penultimate stress.
These exceptions merit
a new monographic study, but are outside the scope of the
present essay, the task of which is to unravel the system
rather than to tabulate anomalies.
(b) £erntic theorIes.
Segal
(1928: 75) postulates that
penultimate stress was inherited into Ashkenazic territory
from an ancient Semitic but non-Tiberlan penultImate pattern
of stress. He cites as evidence the existence of penultimate
stress of Semitisms amongst non-Ashkenazic Jews of certain
oriental communities. M. Weinreich (1963_196 11. : 326-327; 1973:
II, 32-3 1. ), citing no evidence, daringly contends that
penultimate Semitic Component stress was secondarily imported
from the Near East into the Yiddish speaking area as part of
a hypothesized "Babylonian Renaissance" in Central Europe of
the Middle Ages.
(c)
].avonta theories.
Tshemerinski (1913: 57) proposes
Polish influence as the determining factor. He is countered
by Borokhov (1913: 77) who correctly notes that penultimate
Semitic Component stress pervades the entire area of the
massive historical speech territory of Yiddish, most of which
is not coterritorial with Polish. Western Yiddish, mostly on
German speaking territory, is virtually untouched by Slavonic
influences.
(di Inde p endent tnries.
Jakobson (1953: 75-76) seeks to
521
explain Semitic Component stress in terms of universal
tendencies of language. He argues that when a language
does not distinguish long and short vowels in both stressed
and unstressed syllables, there is a marked inclination toward
stress shifting from a boundary syllable (i.e. initial or
ultimate) to the penultimate syllable. It follows from this
that Semitic quantitative vocalic distinctions in unstressed
syllables were first to vanish under the impact of Germanic
phonology. This loss of distinction would have subsequently
effected a shift from ultimate Tiberian to penultimate Semitic
Component stress. One theoretical difficulty encountered by
Jakobson's argument is posed by the status of distinctive
vocalic quantity in Tiberian itself. In unstressed syllables,
Tiberian vowel length is a redundancy predictable from syllable
structure. Another independent proposal comes from Birnbaum.
At first, Birnbaum (1918: 25) implicitly agreed with the
contention that an originally ultimate stress pattern shifted
to penultimate during the history of Yiddish.
Later, Birnbaurn
(1922: 17-18) reversed himself and argued in favour of a Semitic
origin, contending that an ancient non-Tiberian Semitic tradition
is preserved by Yiddish, a view for which he is criticized by
F. (1923: 1LI.l) and Bin-Nun (1973: 264). At present, Birnbaum
(1979: 66) believes that a stress shift from Tiberian ultimate
to Semitic Component penultimate did indeed, transpire, but he
explicitly rejects the view that ncn-rythmic (lexical) Germanic
stress could have been responsible for the transition from
one rythmic (phonological) stress to another (ultimate to
penultimate). He concludes that "this accent shift must therefore
522
be considered as an independent Ashkenazic development. How.
and, when it took place has yet to be discovered".
We propose to confront the issue by applying comparative
reconstruction to two Yiddish vowels and, their cognates in
Middle High German and. in Tiberian. Although the one to one
correspondence between Yiddish vowels and their Middle High German
cognates is far from perfect, it was an immense leap forward when
in the late nineteenth century the Austrian philologist
Alfred Land,au and, the Rumanian linguist Lazar Sainéan (Saineanu)
discovered the profound genetic links between Yiddish and, Middle
High German. The first to tabulate the correspondences in
classical neograrnmarian fashion was apparently Gerzon (1902:
2 0 -29).
A far more sophisticated scheme was 1r]deendently
devised by Sapir (1915: 237-250). Prilutski (1920; 1921)
pioneered. the study of the di,alectological diversification
within Yiddish, relating his findings both to Middle High German
and, to investigations of individual German dialects. A conceptual
advance was achieved by Reyzen (1920: 51-69) who used the vowels
of Yiddish, rather than those of Middle High German, as his
point of departure. Birnbaum (1923) was apparently the first
to establish a comprehensive systematic scheme using the vowels
of Yiddish as a starting point and accounting for all the
components of the language. In the nineteen thirties, Jechiel
Fischer (the later Bin-Nun) successfully posited a system of
Proto Yiddish vocalism in which the various geographically
differentiated reflexes of the modern language were traced back
to protovowels which in turn were related to cognates in Middle
High German, Tiberian and. Slavonic (see now Bin-Nun 1973:
183-238, 267-278). The most systematic scheme to date is
N. Weinreich's (1960; 1973: II, 321-382; IV, 36l4_38Li. ) numerical
protosystem. It posits twenty protovowels utilizing neither
Middle High German nor any one Yiddish dialect as its point of
departure but rather all Yiddish dialects. This interd.ialectal
accountability is achieved by replacement of the monod.ialecta].
phoneme by the interdialectal diaphonerne as the base unit of
comparative and. historical Yiddish phonology. In the present
essay, the Yiddish protovowels under discussion will be referred.
to using the double digit designations of Weirireich's protovowels
devised by U. Weinreich and explained in Herzog (1965: 228, note ii
The first vowel we shall consider is the Yiddish d.iaphoneme
cognate with the Middle High German vowel designated <> in the
literature (cf. Grimm 1840: 135-lk3). Sapir (1915: 239-2 L.0) was
convinced. that its cognate in Yiddish, ., even in open syllables,
e.g. gbçi. '(to) give'-,
'life' wa. a relic of Middle High
German times that escaped. the lengthening so characteristic of
most dialects of German. This vowel is known as vowel 25 in
the protosystem. Now Sapir's study relied exclusively on the
author's native dialect, Northeastern Yiddish ("Lithuanian
Yiddish"), in which vowel 25 does Indeed appear as , merged
with the original short . of the protosytem, vowel 21, hence
the homoiymy in Northeastern Yiddish of b 'bed' and bt
'(I) request'. From the vantage point of the monumental strides
that have been taken in Yiddish dialectology in the years since
the appearance of Sapir's study, we can examine the reflexes
52L1.
of vowel 25 throughout the historical speech territory of Yiddish
(Map 1). The boundaries in Map 1 follow Herzog (1965: 7) but the
dialect classification fol1ows Katz (1979b). Virtually all the
Yiddish spoken today is Eastern Yiddish. Western Yiddish died out
as the language of a substantial speech comun.ity in the late
eighteenth century as a result of the assimilation of its speakers
to German and other coterritorial languages. Still, a number of
empirical field studies have succeeded in documenting the speech
of the last surviving Western Yiddish informants, e.g. Voorzanger
and Polak (1915) and Eeem (l95l4; 1970; 1975) on Northwestern
Yiddish; Tend.lau (1860), Beranek (1961) and Lowenstein (1973-1975;
1975) on Midwestern Yiddish; Weill (1920-1921), Guggenheirn-Grünberg
(1951i. ; 1958; 1961; l96Ll. ; 1973; 1976), Zivy (1966) and Zuckerman
(1969) on Southwestern Yiddish. This corpus is su p plemented by
eighteenth century Latin letter dictionaries and grammars, e.g.
Philoglottus (1733), Bibliophilus (17 L1. 2.) , Tirsch (1773), Friedrich
(l?8Z1. ) and Selig (1792).
In Map 2, the modern Yiddish reflexes of vowels 21 (the
original short . that has remained short) and 25 (the original shor
.. subject to open syllable lengthening) are presented. The minimal
history of vowel 25 is sketched in Table 5. It is evident that
Sapir's native dialect, Northeastern Yiddish, is the only Yiddish
dialect rernerging vowels 21 and 25. Far from being a medieval
relic, the merger results from the relatively recent loss of
distinctive vowel quantity and is in effect a retrograde sound
shift (cf. U. Weinrich 1958: 2524.; Herzog 1965: 163; Katz 1978:
3k, 38- 11.2). It is paralleled amorst the back vowels by the
collapse of Old Yiddish 12 with
was unitary l2/kl
525
0
o .,-' £..
o a.'
a,
,-lI
'
'
= C)
E-'u 0
526
.1.)
CD
'-4
CD
0
.0'-
527
528
Our evidence concerning the development of the Semitic
Component stress system is provided by those Yid.d.ish dialects
in which vowel 25 retains a unique phonetic representation,
distinct from vowel 21. The systematic correspondence between
Middle High German <> on the one hand, and the dialects of
Yiddish on the other, is illustrated in Table 6, nos. 1-7.
Gerrnanists believe the phonetic value of Middle High German
was [ c J, as distinguished from [e corresponding to <e>
(cf. Penzl
1957:
L$. 71;
Russ 1978:
73-74). Significantly,
semitic_Component cognates of the Tiberian vowel seo1 ( •,)
also appear as vowel 25 in Yiddish in stressed open syllables,
as illustrated in Table 6, nos. 8-14.
Historically, the
Middle High German vowel and the Tiberian vowel both correspond
to a unitary Yiddish protovowel which un.erwent
lengthening and raising in Old Yiddish, and, developed
subsequently to the modern diaphonerne Western Yiddish ,
Mideastern Yiddish / Southern Southeastern Yiddish Li.
Northern Southeastern Yiddish
j II
II
II
Northeastern Yiddish .
Now there is a series of Ti'berian lexical items in which
Tiberian . (or ,) was not lengthened as expected in the stressed
open syllabic environment. These items are illustrated in
Table 6, nos. 15-21.
M. Weinreich (1973: II, 49) accounts
for nos. 15-18 by arguing that Tiberian behaved differently
from in the history of Yiddish, although in Tiberian. phonology
itself,
is virtually an allophone or allograph of ,, limited
in Tiberian to post pharyngeal position in unstressed open
529
-4
0
0
bC
a,
a,
.-(
W -
-4
.
-4
-
a,
'.. ;_
a, Wa,
C-
o
C Ia,
.
.&
oW
C
0.
0.
a,
I.
-
V
c
c
4'
C
-).' J
CC
a, q
Ei
1
-4
I0.
•oi
a,
-44
V
a,- I.
.4
01) C-a,
a,
C a CC4.'
C- V
OE.0
>C
a, a,E-E.
a,
.;C
--4
a,
•0 C--
'
--
' - .I - a, a, W C
Z 0
- c
-4'
..
5 04' a,4)
a,
C
£.. E
Q C
a,
o' V E
&
-4.
o
--------
4.,
.0
A 0
V
V
I
C..
C.
z .o.0
C.
'I.
'4.
NI V
a, C C' C' CC' C'
)1
4• s4 '4., '4.: 'I
Cx
'
Z
0..4'
V
D
M.)
t..
a, C' C' 'V
N
a,
e
i 'C - C C 'I.
s. s,
.0 .0 .0
I
-
I.
.4., Z
-.
0
V).0
A
4.
- __
- V
.4
-(
C.L.
5
a, a,
a, C.
.o.0
z
C
-4
4'
4.,
.0
'CMV
a, a,
i - L.
Cl,
I,
e
5 - 1. W
C' I C' C' W4) N
'a, - C C '4.' '4.: '4.;
CCC' a,
- 4 _d
-I .0 V M 0..X p.4'
'I.' '4.) '4.)
.0 .0 .0
a
4'
E
-d - a
4.,
A-
A
•l
-
'a, 'a, a, S a,
tr
{f
a,
a,
a, C. C. - ."
SC - .. • S a, 'a,
cC
•o.o0.4.''.
'CMV
a,
a, 4' Cm a,
bI.W
- - - - _, -I
'a, • 'a, a, 'a, 'a, 'a,
'CM
1,1
.0
L. X
- I. W C' CV
C' W 4' (4
CD (V
' e - I I ' i.' ' ' '
'a, '4.'
'4.) .0 .0 .0
W
V CC
V
- -4
4'
1
E
C C.C.
C'
. -: V
•
N
-: •.a, - _,
s
a,
;_
'a,
.a,
.a,
'a,
=
L -.
r
L
Ca,
a,
.0
-•
V MV
a, a, C C' CC' C
I.W - I. b
- - - -. - -a,
V $ 0.x
I
5 - I. W
e a,
Ct CV ft 4K
' C- E E.' w.
' 4.' ' .0 .0 .0
Li '
.(t
C WV
a,
o
E
-4
;1 ".! '
C
'-
C 000
AA
A
a,A A A 0 CA
C C 0-4a, a, c
0
A
4)
ç
a,
a,
0
a,t
Ep4 I. W
CD CI' d
C'
'C-
EL
"'
CV "V
J
K
"'4.'
.0.0
Wa,
0 0 £.
.0
'CMV
C' C C' C Ct ft
bC . W •4•
SC 'iC 'Ia, MW 'IC) 'IC)
V M 0.X 4'
e
a, a,
CO
o -
a,
_d
C.'
s c o.iai v
Q .. 'Ia, SC
'
;o :a,
•a,v
:o :i
04'
V V '' V V V V
A
V
-
A A A
AAA
V MA C' -' "CC
c.' (• .'
)'• L W - I. ).
'4.' 54.) 'N 'N 'N 'N 'N
.0
0. 0.-i•.
.4 V VVV VVV
•
.4C' - -s - -I -.
AA A
A A A A
a, - . C 'Ia,'4W 'IC
.,
4' K
V wC'MO'N
-
•;
'.0
- ES W4' K
4.
c 4-. c- e- , .0 .0
VV VVVVV
-4
4
4
C
(%J
530
syllables (cf. Schramm 19614. : 27-28,
314.).
A serious problem
with the analysis is Its Inability to account for nos. 19-21
where Tiberian has . rather than ,. A claim that nos. 19-21
escaped lengthening because in Tiberian their syllables were
closed by the following 'eminate consonant (a1thouh they are
unquestionably open syllables in Yiddish which has no geminate
consonants) is likewise ad-hoc and cannot account for nos. 15-18.
In oar view, the common factor responsible for blocking 1engthenin
in words 15-21 is the differing Tiberian stress. The dotted
box in Table 6 encloses the dialect forms which provide the
crucial evidence. In all cases where Tiberian , underwent
lengthening and, subsequent phonological development differing
in each dialect area, the vowel was already stressed in
Tiberian. In other words, these words belong to the minority
of penultimately stressed Tiberian forms. At a certain point
in time in the history of Yiddish, a sound, change > I >
in stressed open syllables was effected. in Yiddish, apparently
under the impact of the contemporary lengthening of Middle High
German short vowels in the same phonological environment. At
that point in time, nos. 15-21 were still ultimately stressed,
as indeed in Tiberian, and were therefore immune to lengthening.
We conclude that Semitic Component stress shifted from ultimate
to penultimate sometime after the application of lengthening.
An analogous proof presents itself from the Yiddish
d.iaphoneme cognate with Middle High German <a> in lengthening
position, i.e. .in open syllables or their closed syllabic
allornorphs. This vowel is known as vowel 13 in the protosystem.
531
In Map
3,
the modern Yiddish reflexes of vowels 11 (the
original short & that has remained short) and. 13 (the
original short , subject to open syllable lengthening) are
presented. Unlike vowel 25, vowel 13 did not undergo unitary
development in both the Germanic and the Semitic components,
except in Southwestern Yiddish where it was uniformly lengthened
to in both components. We shall f or the sake of clarity
refer to the Germanic Component reflexes of vowel 13 as
(see Table 7). In
and. its Semitic Component reflexes as
dialects other than Southwestern Yiddish, Germanic Component
13.
was rounded to Old. Yiddish *Q 13a and developed subsequently in
unison with vowel 12, the diaphoneme corresponding most frequently
to Middle High German
<P
and Tiberian
.5.
(see Table 8, nos.
1-7). Let us now turn to our primary concern, vowel 13b,
which merged with the local reflexes of vowel 11 in most
of Mideastern Yiddish and in all of Southeastern Yiddish and
Northeastern Yiddish, as illustrated in Map
3.
Our evidence concerning the development of the Semitic
Component stress system is provided. by those Yiddish dialects
in which vowel l3b retains a unique phonetic representation,
distinct from vowel 11. The systematic correspondence between
Tiberian and. , on the one hand, and the dialects of Yiddish
on the other, is illustrated In Table 8, nos. 8-21. In our
view, the factor responsible for the differing realizations in
nos. 8l l4. and nos. lS-2l Is the differing Tiberian stress.
The dotted box in Table 8 encloses the dialect forms which
provide the crucial evidence - those dialects in which vowel
l3b
has not merged with vowel 11. In all cases where Tiberian
532
i-I
ri
C)
0
-4
4)
C)
-4
533
534
.0
C
-
c
'C 0
0
C)
.
CC-'C.
C
C
0
C
— 0C
-1
C
C
'C'-I
).- L. C)C C kO C4
4) C,4)4)
C C"
£ )-ik
.0 .0 0 'C U)
4
C
.0
I'
- --C
P.,
CP.
'C
C.
C
C
.X- 'C bC
X C
C
CC 0
0 0
L.W C C
>'.
'..
C
C
- C C
d
C - -4
-4
- E4)
?-1
I
C
1.4) CC.)
X
C0
P
P.0
P.
'.
-4
- ON 0.0
C C C
CCC.
C.'i.0
CCC C.
C
f'C'--.
Cl) -.
C
C
-,
'C
C - -'C
- -
C
C
4) -' )-,
C-
0-
'C
;.
C>'
C, C
4, CL.
C LC
C) 4)
4, C
CCC
C)
.0 C)
'C
I.
C) 'C 'C - .4.) C
.0.0 NPCPC 4)4)
A .C4)
4, C
V CO
CU)
C
C
0.
'C P.C4)
L. L.
'C C
C
.0 .0 p PC PC
CC A
PC
0.
>'
4) 4)
14
0)1
1. C.
PC
C
C C C C CD
I 11.0
C N-
'C. 'C 'C ' 'C. 'C '4)
$N
EECPC
C)
>4
14
Cl
C C C C C) C
K C. $ N N C
'C C 'C 'C ' '
I.0
-
C CINPO C'C) N
C C C 4)
C
. K I- N N K C
'C 'C
'C 'C 'C 'C
)'C 0.0.
C
C
"
0'C) P. C
L. L.
).'= IC t•'C
.-4
4) C L..
'C
V
.0 .0 N PC PC 4) 4)
.0 G)4)
-4 .1.) C
00C. I.
MC IC bCMC
t ( 'IC •-.4 4, IC I..
4,
- - N PC PC
'C P.
-4
It
'C
C. 1..
PC
C
CD lb CCC
4'
>4
.B
C
C
14 'C 'C 'C 'C '0 '0 'C
L! N NX I C 110
C C)
>4
14
I
CC,
CD C t4D
IC
C
4)
EN-4.E 11.0
'C 'C 'C • ' ' '0
N N
C
"CC
>4
14
C
C
4
"C
C
C 0)0 10CC NI
N C. N N N C
Z 'IC "C ______
') M4)
'IC '44) "C
______ C 0. E
4-
'C
"C
>4
N
4'
-
C
C
'C
C. C.
C
4)
'C
bZMC
IC) 'C 'IC IC C.
.C) .0 N PC PC 4) .4.)
.
'...
>4
X
C. C.
ft C
C
It
IC
C
C
C
EDXEN.0
'C 'C 'C '0 'C 'C 'C
N N .P C I E PC
U
"-,
—
'IC
C)
C C) PC 10 C 'C N
C' C) = C It C C
K C. N N N C
' - '
42 '. '2.
C
C
-P
-I 'C
C )1
'C
Cz
=
PC IC C 'C N
NI-N N N N
>4
14 "C 'C C) 'C 'C 'ç '.
--
'C
C
14CC
C) C
'C
'C
C
A
C
v — b-
C " -
C OPCPC C'C N
—,
MC
—
.CC
- C 'C
I-.
-. ' 'C
C
C
—
N
C
>4
2
E N.0
i3
'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C
Zj MN.EE EPC
CL.C
'0
,I
CCC
1$
C)
.4 .0 C) 'C
'C 4)'C V
•0 L. -
CC
L..CI. L.
C) C
C
4) 4)
C C C C
C CCC
4)
C
C 4) .0 =
C -' .4.)
CL.
CC CC
C. C. U) Z
C
C
0P.
'P.0-b4)
bC
C. b.IC IC b'O
'10 - 43 so .
II PC IC 4) 4)
lI
A
A
CA C
C
C A C CCA
C
4)>. CbC4,A bt
V
C. I. btCC C) C
C
E v VVVVVV
—
-
.2.2
— cJ
4
.0
P4)
'C I. I.
>4
I
A
C
14)
A A A
AA A A100
C. C. 'IC MC MC MC 'IC
V MC'P.4.K C 11.0
E K - X C 11 .0
ICI
l-
ID
C
ft
41CC
C41
C 11.0
1
•C'C'0'C'C'C'C
K N
CE EPw
C C) PC PC C 'C N
PM
0'
—
-
—
-
—I
C C
N C.
-''
C) CCCI
N N N C
C
•
A
C
'C
A A AAA A A
0- PC PC C
.0-
V
IC
)C 0 C C C C C
C C C I'-4
.o. .
VVVVVV
V
II
•
IC
C
P
C C C
, .
. ,. .
'C
'C 'C 'C 'C
'
' - C C. 0.
V
VVVVVV
'C
—
—
—
-
—
r
C'
535
a underwent lengthening, the vowel was already stressed in
Tiberian. Like the segolates in Table 6, nos. 8_i ll. , the forms
cited in Table 8, nos. 15-21 belong to the minority of
penultimately stressed Tiberian forms. At a certain point
In time in the history of Yiddish, a sound change a >
in
stressed open syllables was effected in Yiddish. In all
likelihood, it occurred simultaneously with the lengthening of
vowel 25 and other short, stressed open syllabic vowels as
part of the general development V > V in the open syllabic
environment. During this sound change, the forms cited in
Table 8, flo g . 8-14 were still ultimately stressed, as indeed
in Ti'berian, and were therefore as Immune to lengthening as
were the forms cited in Table 6, nos. 15-21. Once again, we
conclude that Semitic Component stress shifted from ultimate
to penultimate sometime after the application of lengthening.
The mighty force of Germanic initial stress did not
entirely overcome and swallow Tiberian stress in Yiddish. It
exerted a force of attraction which engendered the collapse
of ultimate and, penultimate forms as a unitary system
of penultimate accentuation, while the shifting nature of
Tiberian stress rmained systemically intact. As a result,
monosyllables appear stressed in Modern Yiddish in all components,
and d.isyllables are penultimately (= initially) stressed, again
in all components. The divergence of the Semitic Component
stress system from its original Tiberian state, and its equally
sharp divergence from Germanic stress (to which It was attracted,
536
without merging) is evident in words of.three or more
syllables (see Table 9). The new pattern, present-day
Semitic Component stress in Yiddish, is the result of
Germanic pressure on a Semitic system, leading to the rise
of a new system which is neither Germanic nor Semitic,
but uniquely Yiddish.
537
538
5.
ToloEy
In Tiberian phonolo gy, lexical items are generally
assigned a stress which shifts forward upon syllable
suffixation. Tiberian stress is thus demarcative in the
sense of Martinet (1965: 83-87), denoting position relative
to the word final boundary (cf. Borokhov 1913: 75-76). But
the existence of penultimate in addItion to ultimate patterns
renders Tiberian stress quasi-phonolo g ical and indeed, only
imperfectly d.emarcative.
By merging both patterns into a
single system of penultimate stress (as a partial
accommodation to Germanic stress), the stress system of the
Semitic Component in (id.dish is curiously more perfectly
phonological than Tiberian stress Itself.
There can be no doubt that the reduction of posttonic
vowels in the Semitic Component Is the direct result of
pressure by the well known process of Germanic reduction of
unstressed vowels. Now In the synchronic phonology of the
Germanic Component of Yiddish, as indeed In any modern dialect
of German, phonetically reduced vowels are generally
derivable from likewise reduced vowels on a more abstract
phonemic, morphophonemic or underlying level of representation.
One camiot establish a unique nonreduced. underlying
representation from the evidence provided by the modern
language. Thus Yiddish [a] in [btlir] 'beggar', [Ictirj
[kümn] '(to) come' Is svnchronically derivable from
underlying
ki
in Ibtlj.rI,
Rct.rI, Ikumnf.
539
Due to the phonological-shifting nature of Semitic
Component stress, reduced vowels often alternate systematically
with full vowels or d.iphthongs in suffixed forms (of. Table
3, nos. 1-18). Thus Yiddish [e) in [álm2.n) 'widower',
[málb] 'garment', [xcijn] 'dream' is synchronically derivable
from underlying 1,1, lul and. I:,jI respectively in Iaimn1,
ImalbuI, Ixol.j.mI (cf. suffixed forms alm,n 'widow',
ma].biIim 'garments', xa1jm3s 'dreams'). Modern Yiddish
Seinitisms are synchronically processed by Penultimate Stress
Assignment j.çj Posttonic Reduction (V
[-tense) / [+stresg)C.
By preserving a shifting stress pattern (as a partial relic of
Tiberian stress), the Semitic Component in Yiddish also preserves
Posttonic Reduction as a
living rule
in the synchronic phonology
of the modern language, while no trace thereof remains in the
Germanic Component which caused it (see Table 10). History works
ironies.
)
51i.O
541
REFERENCES
Anttila, Raimo
Introduction
1972
Linuistics.
Historical
ComtDarative
Macmillan, New York.
Bach, Adolf
1956
Qschichte &.I d.eutschen S Dracb.. Queue &
Meyer, Heidelberg.
Bauer, Hans and Leander, Pontus
1965
Historische Grammatik
hebrischen SDrac}e
a a1en Testamenta. Georg Olms, Hild.esheim
[originally
1922].
Beem, Hartog
19511.
"Yiddish in Holland: Linguistic and Sociolthguistic
Notes" in U. Weinreich
1970
1954: 122-133.
Jersehe. JiddischQ. Spreelcwoorden
Zeswizen
Nedlerlandse Taalebted. Van Gorcurn, Assen.
1975
Rete
een taal. Woordenboekje
Nederlandse Jiddlsch.
n h.t
Van Gorcum, Assen & Amsterdam.
Beranek, Franz J.
1961
"Die frnkische Landschaft des Jiddischen In
Jahrbuch
frnkIsche Landesforschung,
21.267-303.
51+2
Bergstrsser, G.
1972
Diq4uQ ha1ash
haivrit.
Translated from German
by Mordechai Ban Asher. Manes, Jerusalem.
Bibli ophilus
171+2
Jiidischer SiDrach-Meister, oder Hbräisth-Tej.tsches
W5rter-Buch. Frankfurt & Leipzig.
Bin-Nun, Jechiel
1951
1973
"Haivrit shebeyid.it" in Leshonenu,
17.139-11+14..
jj. deutschen Nundarten i..ner
besonderer Berficksichtiung des ost1izichen
Jid.disch
j
Jidd.isch. Max Niemeyer, bthgen.
Birnbaum, Solomon A.
119183
Paktische Grarnn,atj der ji4ischen SDrache
den Selbstunterricht
[= Pie. Kunst der Po1yg]ttie,
128]. A. Hartleben, Vienna & Leipzig.
1922
Das hebrische
ararnische Element jj
z
jiddischen Strache. Gustav Engel, Leipzig.
1923
"Ubersicht fiber den jiddischen Voka1ismus in
Zeitschrlft £Li deutsche Mundarten,
1939
18.122-130.
"The Age of the Yiddish Language" in Transactlons
•J Phi1o1oical Society, 31-1+3.
1979
Yiddish.
survey
University, Manchester.
Grammar. Manchester
5L1.3
Borokhov, Ber
1913
"Onmerkungen tsum forikn artikl 1 = Tshemerinski
1913]" in Sh. Niger 1913: 71-78.
Chomsky, William
(ed.) David imhi's Hebrew Grammar (rlikhlol).
1952
Bloch, New York.
F., S. 1 = ?]
[Review of Birnbaum 1922] in Zeitschrift £1Z
1923
deutsche Mundarten, 18.114.1-114.2.
Fried.rich, Carl Wilhelm
178k
tjnterricht j
Judensrach ia Schrift .zuiii
Gebrauch £jji Q1ehrte
id
Unelehrte. Chr.
Gottf. Hagoczy, Prenzlau.
Gerzon, Jacob
.jiMiscfl-deutsch Sprathe. Eine grammatisch-
1902
lexikalische Untersuchu,g Threa deutschen
Grundbestandes. J. Kauffmann, Frankfurt am Main.
Ges enius-Kautz s ch- Cowley
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar,
1910
. . Kautzsch,
A. .. Cowley. Clarendon, Oxford.
Grimm, Jacob
1814.0
fleutsche Grarnr'!atik, I. Dieterische Buchhandlung,
Gttingen.
544
Guggenheim- GrünberE, Florence
1954.
" The Horse Dealers' Language of the Swiss Jews in
Endingen and. Lengnau" in U. Weinreich 19511.: L1.8_62.
1958
"Zur Phonologie des Surbtaler Jidd.ischen" in
Phonetica,
1961
2.86-108.
C-ailinger Jiddisch
deutschen
[ Lautbibliothek
Nundarten, herausgeeben
deutschen $Dracharchiv,
22J. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G6ttthgen.
1964.
"therreste westjidd.ischer Dialekte in d.er Schweiz,
im Elsass und. in SUddeutschland"
,
hi.
Seventieth irthd.ay. Studies
Languages, Literature,
Hague,
1973
Fr
in
x Weinreich
Jewish
Society, Mouton, The
72-81.
Jidd.isch
alemanrtlschem SDrachgebiet. Juris,
Zurich.
1976
Wrterbuch
Surthta1e Jiddisch. Juz'is, Ziirioh.
Herzog, Marvin I.
1965
The Yiddish Language j Northern Poland. Its
eora!tY
History. Indiana University,
Bloornirgton.
Jakobson, Roman
1953
"Der yiclisber klangen-bashtand in farglaykh mitn
slavisbn arum" in Yidishe shr pkh,
13.70-83.
Reprinted in Y. Mark (ed.), Judah A . JQfe Book,
YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, New York
207-220.
1958,
51s.5
Katz, Dovid
1978
"Genetic Notes on Netherlandic Yiddish Vocalisrn".
Unpublished paper, Department of Linguistics,
Columbia University, New York.
1979a
"Der semitisher kheylek in yid.ish: A yerushe
fun kadmoynim. ?letodn un meglekhkaytn". Unpublished
paper placed before the International Conference
on Research in Yiddish Language and Literature,
Oxford.
l979b
"Di ineveynikste klasifikatsye fun di mayrev
yidishe dialektn". Unpublished. paper placed before
the 53rd Annual Conference of the YIVO Institute for
Jewish Research, New York.
Kienle, RIchard von
1969
HIstorisch Laut- j. Formenlehre
Deutschen.
Max Niemeyer, Tübingen.
Leibel, Daniel
1965
On Ashkenazic Stress" in U. Weinreich
1965b:
63-72.
Lowenstein, Steven
1973- 1 975 "Di sheyres hapleyte fun yldish in franken" in
Yidishe shoraJ, 32.24-33,
1975
33 . 3714.5 , 34: 37-43.
"A mayrev yldishe pyese fun onheyb nayntsetn
yorhundert" in Ylvo bleter,
45.57-83.
5L.6
Malone, Joseph L.
1971
"Wave Theory, Rule Ordering, and Hebrew-Ararnaic
Segolation" in Journal
ith American Oriental
£ocietv, 91.114_66.
Martinet, André
1966 Elements General Linguistics. Translated
from French by Elisabeth Palmer. University
of Chicago, Chicago.
Moscati, Sabatino
1969
(ed..)
, Introduction t. 1i Comparative Grammar
the Semitic Languages. PhonologyMorpholQgy.
Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Niger, Sh.
1913
(ed.) Der Dinkes. Yorbukh far der geshikhte Lun
yldisher 1teratnr j
hprakh, j
folkior,
kritik j bib1vorafye. B. A. Kletskin, Vilna.
Paul, Hermann
1975
Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 2., iurchgesehene
Auflage y
Hugo Moser j
Max Niemeyer, Tü1ingen.
Iigeborg Schrbler.
524.7
Perzl, Herbert
1957
[Review of] H±storische Lautgeographie des
gesamtbairischen Dialektraurnes von Ebehard.
Kranzrnayer, in Language, 33.4.67-I4.75.
1975
Urgermanischen zn Neuhochdeutschen.
Ethe historische Phonologie [ Grurid.lagen
3J
Germanistik, 16]. Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
Philoglottus [ J. P. Lütke]
1733
Iurtze j
grnd1ic1ie Anweisung jj TeutschJiidischen Strache. Christoph Matthi, Freiberg.
Prilutski, Noyakh
1920
Tsum yidisbn vokalizm [ his Yldishe dialektologishe
forshungen, Li.].
Nayer farlag, Warsaw.
1921
Dialektoloñshe paralein
bamerkurgen t = his
Yidishe dia1ekto1oishe forshungen, 3 = Nov
Pri1utski ksovim, 9]. Nayer farlag, Warsaw.
Reyzen, Zalmen
1920
Gramatik
Vilna.
der yidisher shprakh. Sh. Shreberk,
Rosenthal, Franz
19711.
Grammar
Wiesbaden.
Biblical Ar9maic. Otto Harrassowitz,
514.8
Russ, Charles V. J.
1978
Historica1 German Phono1ogv
Normhcicgy.
Clarend.on, Oxford.
aineanu, Lazr
1889
Stud.iu Dialectologic asura Graiului EvreoGerman. Eduard Wiegand, Bucharest.
Sapir, Edward
1915
"Notes on Judeo-German Phonology" in Jewish
Quarterl y Review, n.s., 6.231-266.
Schramm, Gene M.
196 11.
The GraDhemes j Tiberian Hebrew. University
of California, Berkeley.
Segal, M. Ts.
1928
Yesodey hafonetika haivrit. J. Junovitch, Jerusalem.
Selig, Gottfried.
1792
Lehr'bueh
grilnd1ihen Erlernung .er
iidischdeutschen S prache. Voss und Leo, Leipzig.
Tend.lau, Abraham
1860
Srichwrter j
Vorzei.
Red.erxsarten deutsch-1idischer
Heinrich Keller, Frankfurt am Main.
51j.9
[Tirsch, L.J
1773
Niitzliches Handlexicon
jüdischen Sorach.
Johann. Edlen von Sch6nfeld, Prague.
Tshemerinski, Kh.
1913
"DI yldishe fonetik" In Sh. N iger 19 1 3 : 47-71.
Veynger, M.
1929
Yid.ishe dlalektolcçve. Vaysrusisher melukhe
farlag, Minsk.
Voorzanger, J. L. and. Polak,
1915
ff
J.
E.
Jcdcth in Neclerland.
1
Hebreeuwe,
dere Talen on±leende Woorden n Zegswizen.
H. van Mimster en Zoon, Amsterdam.
Waternian, John T.
1976
Historythe German. LanguaEe. University of
Washington, Seattle.
A
Well]., E.
1920-192].
"Le Yid.isch alsacien-lorrain" in Revue des tud.es
juives, 70.180-194, 71.66-88, 165-189, 72.65-88.
550
Weinreich, Max
1928
Bild.er
fii .
vidisher literatur geshikhte. Farlag
Tomor fun Y. Kamermakher, Vilna.
1954
"Prehistory and Early History of Yiddish: Facts
and Conceptual Framework" in U. Wethreich 1954:
73-101.
1954-1955 "Ikrim in der geshikhte fun yidish" in Yidishe
shrakh,
1960
14.97-110, 15.12-19.
"Di sistem yidishe kadmen vokain" in Yid.ishe
shDrakFi,
20.65-71.
1963-1964 "Reshit hahavara haashkenazit beziqata leveayot
kerovot shel hayidish veshel haivrit ?iaashkenazit"
in Leshonenu,
1973
eshikhte
27-28.131-147, 230-251, 318-339.
der yldisher shDrakh. Bagrifn,
faktn, ntetodn.
4 vols. YIVO Institute for
Jewish Research, New York.
Weinreich, Uz'iel
1954
(ed.) ne Field
Yiddish. Studies in Yidd.ish
Languae, Folklore, and Literature [= Publications
of the Linguistic Circle of New York,
3].
Linguistic
Circle of New York, New York.
1958
"A Retrograde Sound Shift in the Guise of a Survival.
An Aspect of Yiddish Vowel Development" in
Mjscelánea Hornenaje a André Nartinet. Estructuralismo
e Historia,
2.221-267.
551
Haivri
1965a
ashksnazit vehaivrt shebevidish:
be1inatan haeoraf it 1 = Lshonenu 2.2k2252 (1959-1960), 25.57-80, 180-196 (1960-196UJ.
Jerusalem.
1965b
(ed.) The Field
Folklore,
Yiddish. Studies jj, Lanzage,
. Literature. Second Collection.
Mouton, The Hague.
Weinreich, Uriel and Labov, William and. Herzog, Marvin I.
1968
"Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language
Change" in W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.),
Directions j
Historical Linuisjcs, University
of Texas, Austin, 95-195.
Wiener, Leo
189k
"On the Hebrew Element in Slavo-Judaeo-German"
in Mebraica, 10.175-187.
Zivy, Arthur
1966
E1ssser Jiddisch. Easel.
Zuckerman, Richard
1969
-
"Alsace: an Outpost of Western Yiddish" in M. I.
Herzog, W. Ravid, U. Weinreich (eds.), Ib Field.
Yiddish. Third Collection. Mouton, The Hague
1969, 36-57.
552
YIDDISH
DIALECTOLOGY
1.
Introduction
2.
History of Yiddish Dialectology
3.
Schemes of Classification
1;.•
The Diaphonemlo System of Pan Yid.d.ish Vocalism
5.
Western vs. Eastern Yiddish
6.
Western Yiddish
Southern Western Yiddish
Southwestern Yiddish
Midwestern Yiddish
Northwestern Yiddish
6.1.
6.11.
6.12.
6.2.
7.
Transitional Yiddish
Southern Transitional Yiddish
7.1.
7.2.
Northern Transitional Yiddish
8.
8.1.
8.11.
8.12.
8.2.
9.
9.21.
Adjacent Areas of Inquiry
Emigration Dialects
Yiddish Social Dialectology
Standard Yiddish
Bibliography
References Cited
10.
4*4*
Eastern Yiddish
Southern Eastern Yiddish
t'!id.eastern Yiddish
Southeastern Ydd.i sh
Northeastern Yiddish
*44*
*4*4
*44*
4*4*
*4*4
*4*4
*4*4
*44*
*44*
4*4*
*44*
*44*
*4*4
*4*4
znr. deutcen id
p11gemeinn Dialekt orsiung t = Hardbuc z.z Sch- und
forthcoming in Dial o1gi.
jz2, Hbueh
Kemimikatienw±!en g hpft, Ed.. IL Walter d.e Gruyter: Berlin
& New York.
553
YIDDISH
1.
2.
3.
DIALECTOLOGY
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Introduction
History of Yiddish Dialectology
Schemes of Classification
The Diaphonemic System of Pan Yiddish Vocalism
Western vs. Eastern Yiddish
Western Yiddish
Transitional Yiddish
Eastern Yiddish
Adjacent Areas of Inquiry
Bibliography
1.
INTRODUCTION
LI..
Yiddish arose roughly a millennium ago in consequence of
the linguistic fusion of Germanic elements gleaned from various
medieval dialects of Upper and Central German with tw elements
migrating Jews brought with them in their speech into thi Germanic
speaking territory: Semitic (postclassical Hebrew and. Aramaic),
and, to a considerably lesser degree, Romance (Jewish correlates
of Old Italian and Old French). The internal differentiation
of Yiddish through space presents the researcher with an array
of extensively divergent features. No less striking, however,
is •
underlying Pan Yiddish systematic unity, which is somewhat
surprising given on the one hand, the vast spread. of the historical
speech territory or Yiddish - stretching at its zenith from
Anisteriiam to Venice and from Strasbourg to Smolensk - and on
the other the constant pressures from the languages coterrttorial
with Yiddish. The most striking manifestations of systematic
interrelated.ne g s amongst the dialects of Yiddish are firstly, the
analogous way the Pan European oomponent1s of Yiddish (Germanic,
Semitic, Romance) have fused throughout the language territory
of Yiddish - the Slavonic Ccmponent is virtually restricted to
Eastern Yiddish - and, secondly, the oveiall constancy of the
interdialecta], correspnd,ence g between the systems of stressed
vocalism of the several dialects.
5514.
The study of Yiddish dialectology in the modern period
has proven interesting to bilingual Yiddish-Slavic dialeotology
(U. Wetnreich 1952; 1958a; 1963), Yid.d.ish-German dialectology
(Aithaus 1963; 1965; 1967; 1969), history of Ashkenazic Hebrew
ana Ararnaic (11. Weinreioh 1958), Jewish history (Herzog 19b);
1968), general theory of structural dialectology (U. Weinreich
l95L a)and the theory of language change (Weinreich, Labov and.
Herzog 1968). The goals of the field as set forth by the preWorld War II master of Xidd.ish dialectology, Noyakh Prilutski
(193 0 ) include the enrichment of modern literary Yiddish by
gleanings from the study of the dialects as well as the
utilization of dialect evidence in normative decisions in the
areas of Yiddish orthography and pronunciation. Yiddish
dialeetology has followed the numerous developments in fieldwork
methodology, theoretic1 framework and sociological context
experienced by all forms of dialeetology. If the present article
seems biased in the direction of traditional structuralism, this
is a reflection of the predominance of structuralist studies in
the field in the years since the Secoiid. Worla. War.
2. HISTORY OF YIDDISH DIALECTOLOGY
Johann Buxtort the Elder (1609: 652, 658) made scanty
remarks which point to his awareness of basic differences between
Western Yiddish (larg,ly coterritorial with the German language
territory) and Eastern Yiddish (coterritoria.L with the S.Lavonio
ana Baltic languages). The first known attempt at an actual
classificatory scheme of Yiddish dialects is that of Carl Wilhelm
Friedrich (178 21. : +8-52), himself most familiar with the Yiddish
of Prussia. Notwithstanding inevitable theoretical and. factual
shortcomings, Fried.rteh's word contains a gold.mine of
dialectological data on many varieties of eighteenth century
Yiddish.
Modern scientific studies could only begin with the
development of the comparative method in the nineteenth century
and the ensuing interest in dialect. Important major advances
were achieved, by the Rumanian linguist Lazar aineanu (1869; of.
555
Gininger 1938; 195L1. ) and the Austrian philologist Alfred Landau
(1908) lame efforts, Yiddish
(1895; 1901). After j2s4'S
dla.Lecto.Logy was set on its new and most fruitful path of
ambitious expansion in consequence of being incorporated into
the new field of self-conscious and seir-centered. Yiddish
philology and. linguistics, founded by Ber Borokhov (l913a-d'.
The new school, based
Easte.n Europe in the midst of a
concentrated. Yiddish speaking population, viewed Yiddish
studies as a universe of disciplines in its own right rather
than a satelilte or Germanic studies. This so called 'Yid.d.ishist
School' was destined to prv,iuce a proa.igious quantity of high
qualtty-aoademio work in Yid.d.ish in philology, literary history
anu. folic.Lore. Noyakh Prilutski (1882-l9'4l) singlehandedly
compiled an amaziugly vast corpus of data and, analyses culled
mostiy from the living dialects but to an imprss1ve degree also
from older literary monuments, which he published in massiv
collective volumes (e.g. 1917, 1920, ly2.L, 192L1. , 1937).
The rise of research institutions dedicated primarily or
exclusively to Yiddish studies gave d.ialeotology new Impetus.
The leading institution, tne Yithilsh Scientific Institute, known
as th IIVO (from its Yiddish acronym), founded in Vilna in 1925,
engaged itself in a number of noteworthy field. projects (e.g.
the YIVO l92J questiunnaire on substantival genaer). Working
with the Jewish Seeton o th Byelorussian Acaaemy or Sciences
in 1iask, M. Veynger (1925) launched a questionnaire for
his fielaworkers which included sections on phonetics, morpxiology,
syntax and lexicon. Veynger t1929) proa.uoed. a synthetic
treatment of the dialects o.. modern Eastern YIddih. His work
was culminated by te posthumous publication or his atlas, the
first Yidaish language atlas iL history, by his pupil Vi.Lenkin
(1931 ). Although still invaluable on a number of points, the
Soviet Yiddish atlas surfered from ia.eoi.ogical trappings as well
as its limitation to the contemporary politial borders of the
Soviet Union, thereby exclud..tg much of the heartland. of the
Yluctish territory. Reactions to the 193]. Atlas were d.zez'vediy
unenthusiastic tof. N. Weinreih l9j Birnbawn l9i3).
556
Like all of Yiddish scholarship, Yiddish d.ialectology
suffered a devastating blow with the annihilation by the Nazis
of most of European Jewry. Noyakh Prilutski perished along
with scores of other Yiddish scholars. Of the few to escape
were Max Weinreich, cofound.er of the YIVO, and his son Uriel,
an escape that would prove pivotal In the reestablishment of
Yiddish scholarship generally, and Yiddish d.Ialeotology in
particular, in the decades following the War. In Germany,
Yiddish dIalecto].ogy was researched by F. J. Beranek, whose
iddischer
work culminated in the 1965 publication of his
8racFt1as. The dubious findings and grievous methodological
fallacies of the Beranek atlas were, however, far graver than
those of the Veynger-Vilenkin effort, hence the strongly
negative scholarly reaction to Beranek's atlas (of.
Guggenheim-Grnberg 1966/1968; Althaus 1972: 1377-1378) . Studies Ir
Western Yiddish were happily advanced by the dedicated, efforts
of Hartog Beem, the master of Netherland.Ic Yiddish who
singlehand.edly pioneered its study in modern times, and
Florence Guggehneim-Grnberg, whose studies of Swiss Yiddish
complemented the long tradition of studies on the Yiddish
of Alsace. Her efforts culminated In the publication of a
highly significant atlas of the southern regions of Western
Yiddish in 1973.
The future of Yiddish dialectology lay largely in the
United States. The postwar efforts of Beatrice Silverman's
(later Silverman-WeinreIch) unpublished phonograph surveys of
Yiddish dialects in 191.8 and Jean Jof en's (1953) dissertation
on the dialect geography of East European Yiddish helped to
demonstrate that accurate and. indeed invaluable data could still
be culled from expatriate informants far removed from their
places of origin. Uriel Weinreich, a brilliant linguistIc
theoretician who pioneered structural and, multilingual
d.ialeotoloy launched the Language and. Culture Atlas of
Ashkenazic Jewry (of. TI. Weinrelch 1960). Uriel Weinreich built
up a massive fieldworker!s questIonnaire designed f or interviews
lasting about twelve hours In a number of sittings, divided. the
map of Europe into sections of varying density depending upon
region, and set out to map the entire speech territory of Yiddish
as it had never been mapped before, making use of the most
557
meticulous and sophisticated methods of linguistic analysis,
cartography and computer science. The untimely death of Uriel
Weinrejch in 1967 at the age of forty was a heavy blow to the
project but it is now being successfully pursued by Marvin I.
Herzog of Columbia University, an acclaimed authority on
dialectological science and former pupil of Weinreich. The
Atlas will be the grand achievement of twentieth century
Yiddish d.ialectology.
3. SCHEMES OF CLASSIFICATION
The criterial isogloss internal to Yiddish sets off
Western Yiddish from Eastern Yiddish, a divide proposed by
Alfred Landau (1895) and defined by him (in Landau and
Wachsteln 1911: xli) as delimiting the west (i.e. establishing
as Western Yiddish)
the area displaying the unitary reflex
. where standard. Middle High German has ei and
(cf. Western
Yiddish fl
'meat', IçIAz], 'small', biu 'tree', kfn '(to) buy'
vs. Middle High German fleiscth, klein, bourn, koufen). Borokhov
( 1 9 1 3ab), dividing each of these major areas - Western Yiddish
and Eastern Yiddish - temporally as well as geographically,
proposed a north-south division for the Western Yiddish of old
Yiddish literature of the sixteenth and. seventeenth centuries,
and. a three way division of modern Eastern Yiddish along quasi
popular ethnographic designations: Polish, Lithuanian and
Southern (comprising Voihynia, Bukovina, Rumania). These
designations, to some extent in popular use even today, do not
of course conform with any contemporary or former political
boundaries in an exact way. As in so many other areas of
Yiddish studies, Borokhov's initial division proved to be a
fruitful basis f or further classificatory work. Birnbauin (1918:
16) grouped. the two southern dialects (Borokhov's "Polish" and.
"Southern") together, as they share many features which set them
apart from the Northeast ('Lithtarian").
Seeking at the tirn3
to avert geographic nomenclature, Birnbaum called the southern
areas the u. dialect (after the U. or . which corresponds with
the Northeastern ) and, the "Lithuanian" area the . ja1ect.
$58
He subdivided the u dialect into an a,j, and, an e,j. subdialect
(in his transcription: aj. and. àj).
This analysis was in its
essentials followed by Mieses (192k), elaborated upon by
Fischer (1936) and, restated in geographic terms by Birnbaum
himself (1979).
Seeking to classify the entire, speech territory of
Yiddish - the nearly defunct Western Yiddish alongside the
modern spoken Yiddish of' Eastern Europe - Prllutski, taking
the Yiddish cognates of' Middle Hi g h German ei alone, launched
a three-dialect west to east classification: Western Yiddish
ä (f1j, klAn), Central Yiddish aJ. (tiaji, klsjn), Eastern
Yiddish e (r,i.ejj , k1.e,). Prilutaki's scheme became quasi
standard, in good measure due to M. Weinreich's acceptance
of it
1953: kl-L1.2, 1973). Nevertheless, it surfers from
two deficiencies. The Pan Yiddish classification on the basis
of' a single feature, a meritorious feat for traditional
dialectolog, is achieved at the expense of lumping together
tiic, - vastly differing subvarieties of Prilutskt's 'Eastern
Yiddish': Nor heaster1r (-1 Li th aiiian )'-rnid Southeastern ("Ukranian')
while severing the latter from his Central Yiddish ('Polish')
with which it shares overwhelming similarities. Secondly, the
term 'Central Yiddish" is somewhat misleading as it implies an
area intermediate between West and East when indeed the a
dialect occupies much of the heartland of Eastern Yiddish.
It is the Yidd.ish of' Eastern Prussia, of Bohemia, Moravia and
the adjacent areas that is truly from a linguistic viewpoint
intermediate between the two great blocks of Western and Eastern
Yiddish.
The various schemes are of course not mutually
contradictory when considered within a more modern framework
sympathetic to the description of the complexity of empirically
real language phenomena rather than to neat
classifications. Table 1, outlining some of' the major proposed
schemes, is intended as an aid in coping with the extant
dialeotological literature. In the present article, Western
559
0V
l9l 3a I Birnbaum 1918 IPrtlutski 1920
?'!ieses 1921.
I
Present
Article
Pischer 1936 Iairnbaum 1979
0
I
C
0
0
I
z
0
I
C,
Cl.
3.
a
C
C
C,
a
Cl'
'4
'4
C,
•1
- Cl.
3'
C
a
a
a
C
0
C?
Ce
'4
- a
I-
C
g.
C
Ce
3.
0
C
C
3.
C
3.
3.
O 10
3.
C
C,
0
3.
Northern
trrensttton
Tiddish
0
• ol'renitton
'j Southern
p.
0
3.-
Yiddish
0
0
Q3
C
3.
CI)
I
•0
.40
C,
a
p.0
Cl•
5C
'.4'
0
0
p. C?
cf
p.
•
3'
3.
C
Cf
C
3.-
C?
3.
C
C
3
C
C
I
3.
C?
CI)
,
3'
a
p.
C
0'
0
C,,
'4
(
I-
pp
C?
Si
I
PC
-
,
P.
P. P.
p.
0
P.S.
q
CPI
p.,
C'
3.1
0
I4'1
C
C,
0
P.
I-'
C
C
pp
IC
p.
pp 1
-I
.
p
'.4
Ipp
t..
p.
pp
$
'
p. Cl'
p.
Op.
0
CP.
00
(.p
C'
5''.4
)
r
-
OP.
0p. -
ftC
5.
0
PC
I.P.
P.
IC
5.
0
I
C'?
'3'
TABLE 1: PROPOSALS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION CF YIDDISH
DIALECTS
p.
.3
Ip4
'.4
-I
IC'?
•1
I
p.
00
C
C
p.
0
3'
z
0
'41
p. C?
P.
P.
p.
C
d
560
Yiddish is divided for expository purposes into Northwestern
Yiddish 1 Midwestern Yiddish and Southwestern Yiddish. The
latter two, sharing many features, collectively comprise
Southern Western Yiddish. Analogously, Eastern Yiddish
consists of Northeastern Yiddish, Mid.eastern Yiddish and.
Southeastern Yiddish, the latter two collectively comprising
Southern Eastern Yiddish. The area intermediate between the
West and. East is called. Transitional Yiddish, composed. of
two primary branches, Northern Transitional Yiddish and.
Southern Transitional Yiddish. The approximate geographical
spread of the several dialects is very schematically sketched
in the appended. map. Accurate cartographical representations
can only emerge from the forthcoming Language and. Culture
Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry.
Li. .
THE DIAPHONEMIC SYSTEM OF PAN YIDDISH VOCALISM
Present space limitations dictate an emphasis on the
most salient features of the Yiddish dialects: the system of
stressed. vocalism.
Table 2 presents a revised. version ot
M. Weinreich's (1960; 1973: II, 321-382; IV, 36k-38L1. ) scheme
of Pan Yiddish vocalism. Unlike classical
systems, the
Weinreich system is more a synchronio systematization of
geographically disparate realizations of vowels in cognate
lexical items than it is a protosystem. Whereas Weinreich
postulates twenty Yiddish diaphonemes, the present discussion
uses only those sixteen with unique diaphonemic realizations
in the actual dialects (cf. Katz 1978: §2.l-2.LI.. The
four towels omitted., E 3 /23, 1 3/33, 0 3 /Li.3, U 3/53, are in all
Imown varieties of Yiddish fully merged with E 2 /22, 12/32,
0 2 /Li.2 and 132/52 and. are therefore incapable of contributing
meaningfully to a d.ialectological inquiry. In the double
digit designations ( cf. Herzog 1965: 228, note 1), the first
digit corresponds with the upper case character of Weinreich's
systemaccord.ing to the cod.eAl, E = 2, 13, O4', U5
and. the second. refers to Weinreich's subscript. The double
digit designations, while consciously making no reference to
any presumed. absolute phonetic quality of a Proto Yiddish vowel,
5t5].
Schematic Map of the Historical Speech Territor7 of Yiddish
XV Outer boundaries of the historical speech
territory of Yiddish
Internal Eastern Yiddish dialect boundaries
(determined by 20th century field work)
Theoretical internal Western Yiddish dialect
boundaries (determined by graphemic analysis
of 18th century texts and supported by 20th
century descriptions of speech remnants)
w.'u-w One version of the historically shifting
divide between Western and Eastern Yiddish
- .-
. .
, .-
, - - . . :;t; -,_.
;
.
:
62
I
'
.
: I
'
_--6
--------------:
- r
•
:—
-
-
:-'
-
.
-
.
' _ - --
..-
.
.
'
z
t
.
;
.-..
. .
.
-
0
Ii1
:- <
.
- ..
-
-
-
t
-
.
-.
\(n
J
'-
..
'
_ >.
.
-
.
•
.' -.
, - .
'. .
I
-.
0 ,
Lr
_
i()
.;
-
.
'
•._
JL
-
z
_
4'3
,
-,
:
.
-•c
•:
,.
—
..
-.--
-'
L:
t
-
e-
-.
"
0
-.
.
-
I-
.AI
_
I#IJ_ \
'T
_,.I
,---
!
. -
V
I
t
.-.
•
...
0
'
/
9
•%
' ., '
.. ;
- -
I. • -
- ._:_..
•
- :
•
.I
•t
e
I
'
-.--
,,
i
'
--
'
.
- .
-
I
t
k:
.t
'
.
I
I
-ir.1._
z
_
;
..
....', .
_i;
:
t
'
eV
I
..'
.-
:::
__I& I.
• -
••'
--
\:
-
;:*
I
.-, at
:'
F•-
I
•4.
'
I
.
•
:&
I-
_%- I
14.
.
-0
\
'2—r-::
_-___;r-•'__
-r
I
'.
:
.
• ''
A
lh
-'•
-,--
i;
.
.,- .'.
,.
,-
•
:_-'
:' -
-
•-
=
4
,
•
i
!
- -
I
:
!
:
-
-.-'-,IIr.l••_
-
'
-
I
.
t
:
.-:z
'
¶'._
-.-,'..
•a';
:
.
_f
-
.c
•
-I
..
:
—
-
-
.
—
:
I
-
-
--
_ 1r
-.
-
t
_
L
It
;•f t-:t
III
.
•
-
'':i__.4
'
I
I
;Z
'.
i
:-
.'
-_;__-
;
-
11
4
I
e-.
•
•:
-
L
'• .h
4
,.•
,_&.
. - -
-
-.
-
-
r- i_
1r
r
i
I
•
o
1f ',IS
-
::
1--.
.,
--!;i-1
-.
f •I•,
I
-.
-
-r
•
-
-
-
.:.
L
'.
l
--
-
-
-
.1;:4'
-
-
.
-.
-
'r
.
.
7
Jf .
L ii•y rti'__
:_.
I _..
I
-
-
.,IJ
i.
-
-P-I-) C)
•s::
0 c--.
>-
,, C X
-
f
cn
-i
5
c.. o
. . . . '
''
2-!__•.
-. . •
•
•...
-
r
-;
-' -'
. . • - -'
563
conveniently permit subscript affixation to real dialect
means
variants. Thus, for example, Northwestern Yiddish
that the vowel of presumed protoquality a. (indicated by 1)
of the series 3 (originally short, subject to lengthening)
appears in Northwestern Yiddish as /J. In Table 2, each
d.iaphoneme is tabulated, follewed by its designation by
upper case character plus subscript in parenthesis, a proposed
Proto Yiddish vowel quality, and, ten lexical items illustrating
the d.iaphonerne. The lexical examples are provided in their
Standard Yiddish forms. To avoid confusion in coping with
the literature, no changes ha been made in the actual number
of any individual diaphoneme, but the omission of four series
3 vowels sakes room for the grouping of vowels 13 and. 25
together as both are originally short vowels subject to
lengthening in open syllables and their allomorphio alternants.
5. WESTERN vs. EASTERN YIDDISH
The earliest Yiddish phonological development lending
itself to reconstruction is the Great Yiddish Vowel Shift
(Table 3), by which the Proto Yiddish lower-mid, long vowels
open syllabic Proto Yiddish allophone of *i) and. 212
were raised to upper-mid Old Yid,d.ish
while the
original upper-mid 22 and. 2k2 were diphthongized to
22 and
The Primeval Split into Western Yiddish and, Eastern
Yiddish (Table 14.) is defined by the Interaction of the Great
Yiddish Vowel Shift with two original diphthongs - * j and
- which were themselves not involved in the Great
Shift. In the Itdd.ish which was to become Western Yiddish,
214 and. 144 apparently underwent continual nucleus-lowering
followed by rnonophthongization, finally merging as unitary
Western Yiddish
The loss in Western Yiddish of the
low-nucleus diphthongs .J, and.
was compensated by nucleus-
561k
TABLE 2:
DIAPHONEMIC SYSTEMATIZATION OF PAN YIDDISH
VOCALISM: ILLUSTRATIVE CORPUS (in Standard. Yiddish)
Series Q: Historically Short Vowels
Vowel U (A1 ) < Proto Yiddish *a: alt . 'old', gast 'guest',
'bride', lam '(to) laugh', maim 'angel',
.j.am 'sea',
xt 'night',
bs 'Saturday; Sabbath', z j z .r 'swine',
alt 'salt'.
fr 'maybe', rnes 'true,
Vowel 21 (E1) < Proto Yiddish *..:
truth', L n '(t o) eat', g1t 'money', gt 'divorce', h1fn
'(to) help', mLa 'corpse', nm3n '(to) take', i. 'ghost',
y..1.t. 'world.'.
Vowel 31 1i < Proto Yiddish *i: din 'thin', f jj. 'fish',
g{ b9r 'strong man', kind. 'child',
jf 'magic', midbr
'desert',
i1. 'boat',
1kr 'drunk, drunkard',
'fool',
{lbar 'silver'.
Vowel li]. (Oi)
Proto Yiddish *.: lzn '(to) let', kal 'voice',
'ox', aa 'secret', t.xtar 'daughter', y 1f. 'wolf',
vm 'week', x5g3 'non-Jewish holiday', xxm 'wisdom', j5nt
'(Jewish) holiday'.
Vowel 51 (U 1 ) < Proto Yiddish *u: frum 'reli gious (Jewish)',
'exaggeration', buxit 'dog', ktiin
'(to) come', pi-t
partnershjpV,
'butter', xILci
ta
Igtup1d/nonseflsjal thing', z
'sun', znu.. 'prostitution'.
Series 02: Historically Long Vowels (and lengthened vowe],.z
indistinguishable from their originally long
counterparts)
Vowel 12 (A 2 ) < Proto Yiddish *3:
'(to) blow', .j..z 'year',
'vein',
k3y. d. 'honour', n5d1 'needle',
3j 'trade,
livelihood',
5nia 'face', .aak j . 'danger',
.L5fl1 '(to)
sleep',
j].ii 'peace'.
565
Vowel 22 (E2 ) < Proto Yiddish *: JJik 'forever, eternal',
jtik 'necessary',
jr 'piece of advice', a&1x 'king',
jm 'ghosts', ieifi. 'beautiful', aiLi '(traditional Jewish)
book', Z..i.t1J 1TDain',
ZJ11J 'part'.
Vowel 32 (12) < Proto Yiddish *1. : b3kf,i . 'expertise, mastery',
'letter',
1sn '(to) pour', grin green,
'Talmudic
'ugly', nv1ni 'prophets',
academy', m3dmn 'country',
ttf. 'deep', z. jz. 'sweet'.
Vowel k2 (0,) < Proto Yiddish *.: brijt 'bread', grij 'large',
jta
h.ij.1cui 'hunchback', l5 j u.a 'languages', rut 'red',
'fool', s jn 'enemy', aS 1 i 'merchant', Viflfl '(to) dwell',
'month'.
x54d
Vowel 52 (U2 ) < Proto Yiddish *,: bidr 'brother', bi'ia
'disgrace', bi '(nontraditional) book', nialbani 'garments',
nviIa 'prophecy', niz 'Well! Come on!', riüi 'remedy, cure',
'oath'.
ju] 'synagogue', iux. 'shoe',
Series 03, 05:
Historically Lengthened Vowels (distinguishable
from Series 01 and 02)
Vowel 13 (A 3 ) < Proto Yiddish
in stressed open syllabic
position (and its allomorphs): bird 'beard', hii 'barefoot',
f,r'z1 '(to) ride', g.a 'altogether; surprisingly', grbn '(to)
dig', nmn 'nane',
lgxi '(to) hit', tg 'day', vgn 'wagon',
'(to) say'.
Vowel 25 (E5 ) < Proto Yiddish * in stressed open syllabic
position (and. its allomorphs): b1gd. 'garment', k.z 'cheese',
tita 'son/daughter in law' s mother', in.J 'flour',
mr
p1 'wondrous event', rg
mn 'be
ashamed', ty 'habit, nature', z.. '(to) see'.
566
Series 04.: Historical Diphthongs
Proto Yiddish *.j.: ejns 'one', fle.ji 'meat',
Vowel 24. (E4
.)
g1 JJ n '(to) believe', hój llik 'sacred', helm 'home', klejd
mejnan 'be of the opinjofl, nejn
'dress', keJn
'no', vej '(I) know'.
<
.)
Vowel 311. (14
Proto Yiddish *1.1: b.jtn '(to) change', eajt
'people',
fajn 'nice, fine', l&jlax 'sheet', 1a
nájdr 'tailor', vajn 'wine',
m.aj,fl
jnn '(to) shine',
x ia. 'white'.
<
(04
.)
Proto Yiddish *j: bojm 'tree', d2rljbt
Vowel
jg
'permitted', 1u
. 'eye',
'(to) buy', ljfn '(to) run',
j,i(t4
'smoke',
zi
tz,Ik 'smoke', tjb 'deaf',
t-jgn 'be good/fit f or'.
4.11.
<
Proto Yiddish u, b 1 xi '(to) build', bJx
Vowel 54. (U4
.)
'stomach', fj1 'rottefl', hjz
lz 'louse',
I5fl33,
mj1 'mouth', mLz 'mouse', pi.jk 'drum',
z3r 'sour'.
<
DiphthonEization
TABLE 4:
T
PRDIEVAL SPLIT ITO WESTERN .kND
EASTERN YIDDISH
PRO TO
WESTERN ________________Old Yiddish
PROTO
EA STERN
YIDDISH
YIDDISH
j24.
"22/2k
*e
"22
*ouL1.2
569
lowering of Old. Yiddish
22 and, 1Li.2 giving
and,
These values,
Li22
-'Zi.2 remain valid for Western
Yiddish in modern times. In the Yiddish that was to become
Eastern Yiddish, vowels 22 and 214, merged as unitary Proto
Eastern Yiddish
and in a parallel development amongst
the back diphthozigs, vowels Li.2 and L4 merged as unitary
Whatever the phonetic realization, these
are invariably merged in all varieties of Eastern Yiddish.
A number of lexical differences have become characteristic
distinguishing marks of the two key branches of the Yiddish
language. Some of these lexical variants are supplied in Table
5. Eastern Yiddish items are here presented in their Standard
Yiddish representations. The antiquity of each contrast merits
a special stud.y.
Yiddish writings preserved from the thirteenth, fourteenth
and. fifteenth centuries are generally confined to the southern
environs of Western Yiddish, and indeed, they are often stylized
on models of German, rendering them linguistically unreliable.
This is especially the case with respect to Yiddish versions
of Middle High German epic poems and, romances. During the
sixteenth and, seventeenth centuries, there arose amongst
Yiddish authors and publishers ambitions of reaching a Pan
European market through the use of a standard written language
intelligible to speakers of both Western and Eastern Yiddish.
To cite a classic example, Bible translator Yekusiel Blits,
whose translation appeared. In Arnsterd,am in 1676-1679, writes
In his Introduction "rn
dáv(a)nan' f or '(to) pray',
thereby insuring clarity for readers from both the West (xi)
and the East (dv(Jnji).
At about the same time, publisher
Yosef Etiash, in his own introduction to the Bible translation
of Blits's competitor, Yoyzl Vitsnhoyzn (Amsterdam 1679),
boasts with commercial pride that he hired the illustrious
bibliographer Shabbethai Bass from Prague as an expert in
the Yid,d.ish dialects of the 'lands of Bohemia, Moravia, Austria,
Poland and Germany in order that one may be able to well
understand It everywhere and no words are used in the book that
are common [only) here in Holland or Frisla but not understood
elsewhere. And, f for this) I paid him well...'
570
TABLE 5: CRITERIAL LEXICAL ISOGLOSSES
etern
Yidjh
brx
East
Yiddish
s/brxa
hâ.la
mrn
r1Qa
'Sabbath loaf'
tt
'father'
be
'grand.rnother'
zjd
'grandfather'
má
'mother'
cejl arixa
'(to) count the k9
days from Passover
until the Feast of
Weeks'
'(to) pray'
I
tts,
trnc5iL
i5drn
bL,zrl sojz
'(to) blow the
traditional ram's
horn'
a1dj
'prayerbook'
dr1d1
'teetotuin'
rn9nádr
'(to) pledge to
contribute'
571
6. WESTERN YIDDISH
As a contiguous geographic block, Western Yiddish
differs from Eastern Yiddish in ways far more profound than
the sum total of relevant isog].osses. Ethnographically,
nearly all of Western Yiddish corresponds with the territory
of the Western Ashkenazim, their customs, order of prayers and
folklore. Temporally, Western Yiddish corresponds with the
center of gravity of the Yiddish speaking community during
the earlier centuries of' its existence. Not only did the
East catch up and eventually exceed the cultural, literary and
sheer numerical strength of Its Western counterpart. It was
destined to overridingly eclipse the West. Concurrent with
the leaps and bounds of' the Eastern Yiddish speaking population,
the Yiddish of' the West, coterritorial with German and. hence
more susceptible to attrition by German in any case, began to
suffer a sharp decline in the eighteenth century. The
slow but steady demise of Western Yiddish Is in large measure
attributed to the so-called Berlin ilightenrnent of Moses
Mendelssohn and his circle of followers who despised and
campaigned against the folk language of German and Dutch Jewry.
In as much as the language of so many older Western Yiddish
texts, including some of the great classics of Old Yiddish
literature, are stylized either on the model Of German or for
purposes of Pan European consumption, the researcher must look
elsewhere for evidence of the dialectological composition of
Western Yiddish in Its many centuries of vitality. There are
three major sources for dialectological inquiry into Western
Yiddish. Firstly, there are the scores of Yid.d.ish dictionaries
and grammars that appeared in Latin-letter transcription In
various parts of Germany in the eighteenth century. Whereas
the traditional Jewish alphabet Is not likely to divulge a great
amount of d.ialectological data because of its orthographic
norms, the Latin letter transcriptions generally reflect local
572
varieties of the spoken language. Many of the authors of these
compilations, which were frequently reprinted and plagiarized,
had anti-Semitic, missionary and. commercially oriented motives.
Although their academic quality is dubious at best, these
books are of inestimable value as primary sources for the study
of local forms of Western Yiddish. Amongst the more important
of the compilers were J.W. (171L1?), Christian (1727).
Philoglottus (1733), Calleriberg (1736),
Bibliophilus (17 14. 2), Reizenstein (176k), elig (1792) and
Stern (1833a). Interspersed, between the large corpus of
dictionaries and grammars are several works whose authors
had an intellectual interest in Yiddish per se and whose
analyses and compilations were especially competent. Amongst
these one can include Chrysand.er (1750), Friedrich (178k) and
Tend.lau (1860).
Secondly, recourse may be had to the handful of satirical
dramas of the late eighteenth and, early nineteenth century
written by proponents of the very Berlin Enlightenment which
sought to destroy Yiddish. These authors depict traditional
characters as speaking the local Yiddish dialect in contrast
with the "enlightened 1 characters who speak local or standard
German. Although these authors used Yiddish to mock the
language, they unwittingly made lasting contributions both to
Yiddish literature as a whole and, to modern dialectological
research into Western Yiddish specifically. The most famous
of these Enlightenmetrt -authors were Yitskhok Aykhl (cf.
Heyzen 1930), Aaron Halle Wolfssohn (cf. Reyzenl923 23-68), and
Joseph Herz (of. R e y ze n 1 923 : 69-73; Copeland & Siisskind. 1976).
Finally, and. of paramount importance, are the living
remnants of spoken Western Yiddish In the twentieth century.
Pockets of Yiddish continued to survive in Alsace, in several
Swiss villages and. in parts of the ether1ands nearly until
our own time. The modern Investigator, coupling the empirical
evidence of the spoken remnants of Western Yiddish on the
fringes of its erstwhile territory with the two enumerated
types of literary monuments, can piece together much of the
internal geographic differentiation of Yiddish In the West
which would otherwise be lost to scholarship.
For general treatments of Western Yiddish, ct. M.
Weinreich (1953), Beranek (1965), Lowenstein (1969),
Guggenheirn-Grinberg (1973) and. Katz (1979).
73
6.1. Southern Western Yiddish
Southern Western Yiddish is the geographically most
extensive and the graphically best represented portion of
the Western Yiddish speech area. Amongst its characteristic
features, aside from the Pan Western Yiddish featire of
are the following: vowel 13, unlike the rest of Yiddish,
retains its unrounded quality although it is lengthened,
giving merged Southern Western Yiddish ãl3,2l1.,k; final -ri, is
lost, hence A z '(to) ride', tzg '(to) carry', zk2 '(to)
say' (rather than frn, trn, z'o gn as in Northwestern Yiddish).
Southern Western Yiddish also represents an intra-Jewish
ethnographic unit, characterized by special customs, e.g. the
child-naming ceremony of hl3kr which is generally unlmown
further north.
It is evident from all the available forms
of evidence that Southern Western Yiddish was further subdivided.
The most salient subdivisions sever the Southwest from the more
central area. Although the lines have been blurred by the death
of Western Yiddish as a full fledged language, traces of many
erstwhile isoglosses are evident in the atlas of GuggenheimGrinberg (1973).
6.11. Southwestern Yiddish
The best documented portion of Southwestern Yiddish is the
Yiddish of Alsace where Yiddish was spoken nearly until the
present and from which extensive documentation has been made
C e.g. Weiss 1896; Weill 1920-1921; Zivy 1966; Zuckerman 1969).
Supplementary material of paramount importance on the surviving
Yiddish of idingen arid Lengriau in the Surb River Valley, of
Gailingen and other points has been recorded and documented by
Guggenheim-Grnberg (1950; 19511.; 1958; 1961; 19611. ; 1966; 1973;
1976). Table 6 illustrates the stressed vocalism of a variety
of Southwestern Yiddish. Each numbered subscript affixed to the
phonemic symbols refers the reader to the relevant illustrative
lexical Items in Table 2. In a number of conditioning phonetic
12 have d.ipthongized, merging with
environments 25
57L.
TABLE 6: STRESSED VOCALISN OF A VARIETY OF SOUTHWESTERN YIDDISH
!32
13
us'
e25
012
111.1
21
a11
aj3
575
hence Southwestern Yiddish ja 'ten', náu.1
'needle' (rather than c, nd1 as in the Northwest). The
iL (or .) realization of vowel 52 is especially characteristic
of Alsace.
6.12.
Midwestern Yid.d.ish
Midwestern Yid.dish, n the heartland of the former
Western Yiddish territory, was the first to vanish as a living
language and. its death was more complete than that of any other
Western Yiddish area. Only residual traces have been recovered
from informants (of. Beranek 1961; Lowenstein 197-l975). As
if in compensation, Midwestern Yiddish Is overwhelmingly
represented in the eighteenth and nineteenth century Latin
letter textbooks and, dictionaries (cf. § 6). Most useful
for study of Midwestern YIdd.ish are the works of Christian
(1727), Bibliophilus (17k2), Reizenstein (176 A1. ), Stern (l833a;
18 33b; 1835), and Tend.].au (1860) and. the studies of Lowenstein
(1975) and, Copeland and Sfisskind (1976) on Midwestern Yiddish
satirical d.rarna of the early nineteenth century.
Phonologically most distinctive in the development of
Midwestern Yiddish is the monophthongizatlon of diphthongs
k2• resulting either In merged e22125
l2/k2'
or in a push chain which forces older
and. l2 to raise
to . and ü. giving merged 1.25/32 and l2/52• This latter
development Is illustrated. in Table 7, where the hollow
arrows point to the synchronlo system resulting from the
èhifte noted, These developments may be interpreted. as later
effects of the Great Yiddish Vowel Shift (Table 3). Cf.
e.g. Midwestern Yiddish
(22) 'head of cattle; fool',
lm
m!L'1 (25) 'flour',
(Li.2) 'dreams', matn3Imatn
(12) 'gift' (rather than bhUaa, m1, a1uia,
tria as in.
the Northwest).
576
2:
DEITELOPMENT OP MIDWESTERN YIDDISH
25/32
a25
e
a12152
e22
OULI.2
577
6.2.
Northwestern Yiddish
Notwithstanding the prominence of Amsterdam as a center
of Yid.d.ish publishing for generations, the works printed
there did not generally reflect the local varieties of Yiddish.
Aside from the celebrated memoirs of Glikl of Hamel, published
by Kaufmann (1896), and masterfully analyzed by Landau (1901),
there are only a few Imown literary monuments that can be
considered representative of Northwestern Yiddish (cf. Shatzky
1936 for an inventory). Voorzanger and Polak (1915) published
a dictionary of Netherlandic Yiddish, which is not however
entirely reliable. Nearly all of the credit for the opening
and exploring of the field of Northwestern Yiddish belongs to
Hartog Beem who has laboured. f or decades compiling splendid
lexicographic and phraseological inventoriea.(see Beem l95j.,
1970, 1975). Scanty material on the Yiddish of Hamburg
is included in Hee's (18 114 book about Yiddish but not enough
material is available to determine differences between the
Yiddish of the Netherlands and that of northern Germany.
Characteristic of Netherlandic Yiddish, which we are taking
as a representative form of Northwestern Yiddish, is the
merger of vowels 22 and 31i. as unitary
and the
22/3k
rounding of vowel 13 leading to its merger with 12, giving
unitary Netherlandie Yiddish a12/1 y This latter merger
occurs throughout Eastern Yiddish and may suggest closer
genetic ties between Northwestern Yid.d.ish and Eastern Yiddish
than those of other Western varieties. Thus, Netherlandic
Yiddish has merged Ji 'beautiful; shine' (vowels 22, 3k) where
Southern Western Yiddish distinguishes ki. 'beautifur' from
j4 'shine'.. On the other hand, Northwestern Yiddish
differentiates between tAk !be goodlf it for' (vowel Z4) and
t.k 'day' (vowel 13), where Southern Western Yiddish has
unitary tAk. Netherlandic Yiddish lowers the short high back
vowel (51) to closed . (distinguished from open.
hence
ötf 'partner', xp 'wedding canopy' vs.
taf, xiipa elsewhere
in the West. Sporadically this is paralleled by lowering of vowel
31 to ., e.g. Netherlan4ic Yiddish tpa 'fool' vs. t &p4 elsewhere
The stressed vowel system of Netherlandic Yiddish is illustrated in
Table 8. On Netherlandic Yiddish vocalism, cf. Katz (1978).
578
TABLE 8: STRESSED VOCALISM OF NETHEELANDIC YIDDISH
32
U52
31
e25
22/311'
012/13
'41
21(/31)
a11
OUk2/5k
579
7. TRANSITIONAL YIDDISH
Centuries of cross-migration and shifting cultural
centers apparently precluded the emergence of a single
linguistic border between the
area defined as
Western Yiddish and the dialects of the East. The
intermediate dialects that have arisen, and. to a considerable
extent stabilized over the centuries may be collectively
referred to as Transitional Yiddish. They share salient
features of both West and East. Transitional Yiddish may
be divided into Southern Transitional Yiddish and Northern
Transitional Yiddish.
-
7.1. Southern Transitional Yiddish
Southern Thansltional liddish, spoken in parts of Hungary.
and Czechoslovakia until well into the twentieth century, was
even detectable to Noyakh Prilutski (1920: 72-73, 152; 1921:
Lj. Ol) in a corner of Southwestern Poland, surrounded on three
sides - north, east and, south -' by the Mideastern dialect
of Eastern Yiddish characteristic of Poland generally.
Prilutski's Western Yiddish Npeninsul&t, schematically
illustrated on the appended map in the area of Bendin,
demonstrates the historical dynamic forces at work in Southern
Transitional Yiddish. A n older variety, with
as in
Western Yiddish and doubtless other linguistic features
characteristic of the West, was being pushed out by the culturally
aggressive force of Eastern Yiddish. Today, one can still hear
older speakers from Prilutski's Peninsula recall that
was
replaced during their own childhood. Southern Transitional Y1ddis}
delimited geographically by Beranek (1936), has been the object
of' a number of studies (e.g. Shplrn 1926; Stalek 1928; U.
Weinreich 196 11. ; Garvin 1965; Hutterer 1965; Thost 1965;
Schnitzler 1966). Of monumental importance to research into
580
Southern Transitional Yiddish are the Prague-Vienna letters
of 1619 meticulously published and, analyzed by Landau and.
Wachatein (1911). A meritorious eighteenth century
dictionary of Southern Transitional Yiddish is the Prague
Hend..1exicor, of 1 773, reprinted numerous times, attributed to
one L. Tirsoh. Not only is Southern Transitional Yiddish
intermediate between West and East. The dialect also
exhibits phenomena transitional between Southern Western
Yiddish and Northwestern Yiddish. Thus both the southern
I! (vowel 13) 'rabbi' and, the Northwestern i appear in
Southern Transitional Yiddish, but with a new semantic
differentiation. In the Prague Ua4exicon, iär is any
rabbi while r1 is the chief rabbi.
7.2.
Northern Transitional Yiddish
Unlike its southern counterpart, Northern Transitional
Yiddish was not spoken in the twentieth century and there are
no empirical studies of last surviving informants. The input
of West and. East also differs from the mixture characteristic
of the southern transitional area. The only substantial
source for Northern Transitional Yiddish is Friedrich's
(17811. ) masterful treatment of the Yiddish of Eastern Prussia,
Pomerania and the Posen region. This work deserves a
monographic study. Frledrich's Northern Transitional Yiddish
had apparently only traces of
in most cases the relevant
lexical items showing aJ.214, characteristic of Mideastern Yiddish an
au1 (possibly lou]) characteristic of an earlier stage of some
varieties of Eastern Yiddish. Frled,rich's dialect has both
581
ba1bs (vowel 12) 'landlord; boss', typica]. of Western Yiddish,
and. bal(e)bi, characteristic of Mideastern Yiddish, but with
a new semantic differentiation: the first means 'landlord',
the second 'Christian landlord'. Of consonantism, the most
notable feature of Northern Transitional Yiddish is the
affricatlon of initial . to
([tsD, hence Un Fried.rich's
transcription) zu.ier 'merchant', ztfe.x '(traditional) book'
where other varieties of Yiddish have initial i.-, as do the
relevant Semitic etymons.
8. EASTERN YIDDISH
When the modern layman speaks of PYiddishN he means
Eastern Yiddish. It Is Eastern Yiddish that blossomed Into
the language of a great world literature In the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, that became a vehicle for the most diverse
political, cultural and social movements, that was carried
around the world by Jewish immigrants from the Pale of Settlement,
and that is today spoken by millions. By the beginning of the
nineteenth century, the written Yiddish of Eastern Europe shed.
the last archaic traces of older forms of Western Yiddish that
had previously dominated the written language. The modern
spoken language was cultivated both by the ChasaidIc movement
and its opponents, the advocates of secularization. The three
classlcists of modern Eastern Yiddish are Mendele Moykher
Sforim (Sholem-Yanke y Abrainovitsh, l83z-1917), I. L. Peretz
(1852-1915) and Sholem Aleykhem (Sholem Rabinovitsh, 1859-1916).
The most salient feature of Eastern Yiddish as a linguistic
block Is the accretion of the Slavonlo Component of the language,
which has c'ised. modifications in phonology, morphology and
syntax besides contributing masses of lexical items. One of
the most conspicuous structural contributions of' the Slavonlc
Component Is the development of the aspectual verb system, where
Germanically derived verbal prefixes and, complements acquire
Slavonic-type aspectual powers, e.g. xhb geiri,bi, a brlv
'I wrote a letter' where grIbn alone would imply tacitly that
the letter was somehow not completed.
582
For extensive treatments of Eastern Yiddish, see e.g.
Prilutski (1917; 1920; 1921; 1924.; 197), U. Weinreich (1958b),
Herzog (19614. ; 1965), M. Weinreich (1965), Green (1969),
Schwartz (1969), Wolf (1969), King (1980).
8.1. Southern Eastern Yiddish
Analogous with the dialectal situation in the West,
two of the three major dialect areas of Eastern Yiddish share
many features and. may collectively be called Southern Eastern
Yiddish, the variety of the ma3ority of modern Yiddish speakers.
Southern Eastern Yiddish consists of Mid.eastern Yiddish (popularly
"Polish' and often designated 'Central Yiddish' in the literature)
which is on the whole the more archaic of the two, and.
Southeastern Yiddish (popularly 'Ukrartian'), which is somewhat
closer to the Northeast. Southern Eastern Yild.ish retains the
historical three genders and. inflects the reflexive pronouns
for personand number.
8.11. Mideastern Yiddish
The set of chain shifts characteristic of the development
of Mideastern Yiddish (and, with the exception of the shift to
of all Southern Yiddish) is illustrated. in Table 9.
Once again, the hollow arrow points to the synchronie system
resulting from the illustrated. shifts. Of greatest antiquity
(cf. Birnbaurn
was the fronting of 52 and 51 to 52 and.
19314.). These rounded variants, incidentally, were preserved
in parts of Southern Transitional Yiddish. In Southern Eastern
Yiddish, they were unrounded, merging with the old high front
vowels. The stressed. vocalism of Mideastern Yiddish is
For descriptions of Mid.eastern Yiddish,
illustrated in Table 10.
see e.g. Birnbaum (1923; 1979); Viler (192k), Gutmat.. (1926).
583
5811.
TABLE 10: STRESSED VOCALISM OF MIDEASTERN YIDDISH
! 32/52
U12'13
31/51
ë/ej25
/ous14.
c21
°kl
a11
a3
aj22,2k
0
585
8.12.
Southeastern Yiddish
The point of departure for the development of Southeastern
Yiddish is a Mideastern-type vowel system. Given the
monophthongization of vowel 3k, it is altogether likely that
Southeastern Yiddish shared in all the chain shifts illustrated
in Table 10 but that the nucleus of 22/2k was reraised. on the
prestigious Northeastern model. Three main developments
characterize the further evolution of Southeastern Yiddish away
from a Mid.eastern-type system. Firstly, the upper-mid. long
vowels, and were raised giving I. and 11. This raising is
reminiscent of the development of Midwestern Yiddish (of.
Table 7) but the two are not genetically related in any special
way as the of the system when the shift took place in
Southeastern Yiddish was vowel 5k, not vowel 12 as in Midwestern
Yiddish. While there had been only one phonemic in the system
(itself resulting from the raising of older l2 with which
vowel 5k could merge, there were two vowels with which A 25 could
merge: 32/52 and.
In different localities, the raising
produced varying results, as illustrated in Table 11. Raising
led to merged I25/32/52 to i.25,31151 or even to a wholly
collapsed i.2 5131132 15 1152 . Secondly, vowel length was lost as
a distinctive feature. The contrast of vowels 31/51 vs. 32/52,
where maintained is phonetically realized. as [I) vs. (i],
i.e. an older length contrast was maintained by qualitative
difference. Now, loss of length would have led. A3k to merge with
. Perhaps to avoid this structural consequence, there came
about the third major innovation of Southeastern Yiddish: the
rounding of vowel 11 to ., mergL'ig with kl as unitary 11/ki
most but not all environments. This development is sketched in
the lower portion of Table 11. As a result, Southeastern Yiddish
586
TABLE 11: DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHEASTERN YIDDISH
!2 5/32/52
25/31/51
25/31/32/51/52
-
a11
U12,1 3/5Z1.
587
is known in Yiddish folklore as tit.-mSm language after the
Southeastern realizations of the words for 'father' and 'mother'
which are elsewhere realized táta and. rnáin. The typical
Southeastern realizations of vowels 25 and 5i, e.g. zi, '(to)
see' and huz 'house' were socially stigmatized and. have for
most speakers been replaced by a general Southern Eastern
Yiddish zeji and houz.
A typical Southeastern
Yiddish vowel system is illustrated in Table 12. Like Northeastern
Yiddish, the Southeast has voiced consonants in syllable fixial
position. On Southeastern Yiddish, see e.g. U. Weinreich (1958c),
Herzog (1969).
8.2. Northeastern Yiddish
Northeastern Yiddish (popularly "Lithuanian") is the most
conservative of' the Eastern Yiddish dialects in retaining
historical vowel qualities and, at the same time the most radical
in completely doing away with quantitative distInctions. The
four major quantitative collapses of Northeastern Yiddish, of 31
and 32 as unitary
of .5]. and 52 as unitary 5l/52' of
1.1.1 as unitary
21 and. 25 as unitary
l/25 and. of 12/13 and
are illustrated in Table 13. To cite well known
homonyins, am, means both 'sense' (vowel 31) and. sons ' (vwel
32), zun means both 'sun' (vowel 51) and 'son' (vowel 52),
bt means both 'bed' (vowel 21) and '(I) request' (vowel 25)
and .dsi means both 'or' (vowel J..l) and 'vein' (vowel 12).
In Nideastern. Yiddish, for example, all these pairs would be
distinguished. - zin vs. n, am vs. z!n, ht vs. be4t an3.
____ vs. !&r. In Southern Eastern Yiddish, the words f or 'son'
and. 'song ' have merged (zmn.), as have the words for 'sense' and
'sun' (zin).
A farther collapse of the historical vowel system in
the Northeast IS the four way merger of vowels 22, 211, 12 and. 114
as unitary ej . Thus, for example, where a Southern Eastern
Yiddish speaker distinguhes vj.ln?n '(to) dwell' (vowel 12)
from vjni or vjirin '(to) cry' (vowel 2l.), they are both
€in for the speaker of Northeastern Yiddish (known to Yiddish
speakers as the 2.. jtzak). Hence ztt vntj. is embarassingly
ambiguous. It can mean 'Where do you live?' and 'Wher3 do you
cry?', a problem resolved by Northeasterners by introdueinE
588
TABLE 12: STRESSED VOCALISM OF A VARIETY OF SOUTHEASTERN YIDDISH
1(251)32/52
- Ui2/i3/5L
(251)31/51
ej/ j22121•
'ii/1.i
21
a3
1
589
TABLE : DE TELOPITT OF 1ORTHEASTRN YIDDISP _____
a52
!32
U51152
31/32
e 25
£
£21
21125
0
012/13
12/13/.1
590
iu frejta zx? (literally 'Where do you rejoice?') in the
sense of 'Where do you live?'. The stressed vocalisrn of
Northeastern Yiddish is illustrated in Table 111..
Northeastern Yiddish has collapsed the hissing and. the
hushing series of sibilants. It is therefore 1iown in Yiddish
folklore as Ibdik.z Lien 'language of those who say sábas
['Sabbath']' - Standard Yiddish requires àbe sd.ikj
Other characteristic features are loss of the neutral gender;
collapse of dative and accusative to a unitary objective case;
loss of number and gender inflections of' the reflexive pronouns;
loss of final d.evoicing of obstruents. It must be noted that
distinctive vowel length and. other more conservative features
were preserved in the Courland. region but nearly all speakers
switched early in the twentieth century to the classic Vilna
variety of the dialect (the type depicted in Table li)
On Northeastern Yiddish, see e.g. Sapir (1915), M. Weixireich
(1923: 193-2 L. 0), Kalmanovltsh (1926), Veynger (1926-1928), Y.
Mark (1951) and U. Weinreich (1952; 1969).
9. ADJACENT AREAS OF INQUIRY
9.1. Emigration Dialects
The most extensive emigration dialect, and the most
intensively studied is the Yiddish spoken in the United
States (of. e.g. Mark 1938; Neumann 1938). From a historical
viewpoint, the emigration dialect of pre-Israel Ashkenazio
Jewish settlers in the holy land is of paramount importance as
it is of several centuries' vintage. Palestinian Yiddish has
been etens1ve1y studied by Kosover (1932; 1966).
59].
TABLE hi.: STRESSED VOCALISM. OF NORTHEASTERN YIDDISH
U51152
e i22/2k/1I.2/14
21/25
°12/13/Ll1
a11
aj3
oj51
592
9.2. Social Dialectology
Although Yiddish social d.ialectologyis itself a field
waiting to be explored, Yiddi dia1cto rlogy has contributed
to the much acclaimed work of Weinreich, Labov and Herzog (1968)
which helped bridge the concepts o:r sociolinguistic variation
and historical change. Levy (l92k studied differences between
the speech of men arid, women in the Yiddish of Alsace and. Katz
(1980) proposed socio].ingulstic reconstruction of erstwhile
variation to help account for an anomalous nominal paradigm in
the Semitic Component of Yiddish.
92l. Standard Yiddish
The best known and. indeed the most controversial issue in
Yiddish social dialectology is the issue of the Standard Yiddish
pronunciation espoused by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research
and. generally taught to students learning Yiddish in formal
academic settings. The standard pronunciation is based on the
vocalism of Northeastern Yiddish (Table 1k) with one important
modification: vowel k2/ 214 appears in Standard Yid.d.ish as aj.
and is therefore merged with vowel 5k. Thus, t3jb means both
'pigeon; dove' (vowel 5k) and 'deaf' (vowel ku.) where a Southern
Eastern Yiddish speaker distinguishes toub/jh vs. tjb and. a
Northeasterner distinguishes toib vs. teib. Traces of the
standard pronunciation can be found as early as the beginning of
the nineteenth century when massive orthographic hypercorrections
demonstrate that Southerners themselves intuitively felt the
Northeastern pronunciation to be more "correct' while the
Northeasterners' own hypercorrections demonstrate that they
regarded their own e pronunciation of vcwel k2/114 as clef icient.
The formula for Standard Yiddish pronunciation thus arose long
before twentieth century linguists and, academic institutions
593
proposed it formally. Borokhov (1913c: 18) explicitly
recognized Vilna Yiddish as the basis for the standard language
and it is little wonder that the YIVO, located in Vilna, in the
heartland, of Northeastern Yiddish territory, continued to
regard this variety as standard. Among the arguments eventually
put f'orward to justify its standardization in spite of the fact
that Southern Eastern Yiddish speakers constitute the vast
majority of speakers of modern Yiddish is the excellent one-to-one
overall correspondence between grapheme and phoneme in Standard
Yiddish (e.g. U. Weinreich 1951). A number of Yiddish scholars,
most notably Birnbaum (1926; 1 93 8 ; 1979: 100-101) and Gininger
(19k9) have opposed the standard pronunciation and. proposed
that if there be a standard at all, it should be based on the
dialect of the Southern Eastern Yiddish majority. In recent
years the standard pronunciation has become well entrenched in
university Yiddish courses but at the same time new attitudes
toward dialect generally and an. interest in Yiddish dialects
specifically have engendered. respect for nonstandard varieties.
Speakers of southern varieties are encouraged to maintain their
native dialect while nonspeakers learning Yiddish from scratch
are taught the standard pronunciation but are made aware of the
major differences between the several dialects. In matters of
lexicon, morphology and syntax, Standard Yiddish is shaped by
all the key dialect areas of the modern language in truly
representative proportions. All of the modern native dialects
are mutually intelligible.
10. BIBLIOGIU'tiY
For bibliography of Yiddish dialectology, see (in addition
to the appended References section) Borokhov a913d: nos. 32-55,
165-167, 3L.6-350, il.78_ ll.83); M. Weinreich (1923: 30-37);
Habersaat (1951-1952 [to be used with caution!]); U. &. B.
Weinretch (1959: nos. 109-161); Herzog (1967); Aithaus (1972);
Birnbauni (1979: nos. 113'0-189; 2211-291a).
5914.
REFERENCES
CITED
Aithaus, Hans Peter
'Jdisch-hessische Sprachbeziehungen',
1963
Zitshrjft fiiI
30.1014.-i 56.
"Wortgeographische und. sprachsozioiogische Studien
1965
zum jid.dischen Lehnwortschatz in Deutschen",
Zj.tshrift fIi &eu±sch Sache, 21.20-14.1.
1967
1969
"Lehnwortgeographie und Entiehnungsvorgang",
314..226-239.
Zitscthrifi fiiz
"Anstze und. Mg1ichkeiten elner kontrastiven
Sprachgeographie. Jidd.isch - Deutsch',
Zeit cflr if t fz
eJo1ogj, und. Linguistik,
36.1714.-189.
1972
"Yiddish", Current Tend.s ij, L1ngu1tic,
9.1314.5-1382.
Ayznshtat, Sh.
1908
"Di geografishe grenetsn fun undzer shprakh un
ire oysshprakhn", Literarishe niont-tir-iftn,
'1.85-98.
Been, Hartog
19514.
'Yiddish in Holland: Linguistic and
Sociolinguistic Notes", U. Weirireich 195kb:
122-133.
1970
1975
Jershe. j4&tsc,he Spree1oord.en
uit. het N'rJande. T.aal.geb i ed..
e.n Zegswi.jze11
gewt .1 zi,g
cjiuk. Van Gorcum: Assen.
e
Resten
b.t
e.n Taal. WQord.eLbQk.i..
N1I4S.. jd. j ch. 2 d.uk. Van Gorcuin:
Assen & Amsterdam.
* yiddish names and titles are cited in the approved
transcription of the Ylvo Institute for Jewish Research, ew York.
595
Beranek, Franz J.
"Yidish in tshekhoslovakay", Yivo b1etei,
1936
9.63-75. Revised as Beranek 1914.9.
1914.9
"Spraohgeographie des Jiddischen in d.er Slowakei",
Zeitschrift rili Phne.tk und. p11geeine
Srehw1nhaft, 3.25-14.6.
1961
1965
"Die frnkische Land.schaft des Jid.d.ischen",
L,ndesforschug, 21 [=
Ja}uh fi
Festshrift Ernst ScIiwr, II], 267-303.
Westidd.jser Sachat1aa. N.G. Elwert: Marburg.
Bibliophilus
17142
JIhei SDa-Meister Qdex
Wter-Buch. FrankThrt & Leipzig.
Bin-Nun, Jechiel
1973
deutshen
dxten. tbiter
bsnd,rer eisihtj gurig d.e. Q.tga1 I z tC1311
Jjdd.izr.h. Max Niexneyer: TUbingen.
Jjdd.jsh und.
Birnbaum, Solomon A.
Patjgcjie Grammatik er jiddIcien. paja
11918]
buzerrich. Mi Lees.tiicken
den,
und. ejjim Wrerbu.ch 1 flit 1cunai d..e P1yg1otti,
128]. A. Hartleben: Wien & Leipzig. [Reprinted
as Birnbauni 1966]
1923
1926
1933
19314.
"trbersicht über den jid.d.ischen Vokalismus",
Mundartn, 18.122-130.
Zej thrift iir de
'Dialekt un literatur loshn", Filologishe
shr1,th, 1 f = Landoy bukh], 89-92.
uhonista, 9.179-181.
IReview of Vilenkin 1931],
"DI. historye fun di alte u. kiangen in yid.ish",
flvo
1938
1966
1979
6.25-60.
"Shutfesdik shrayb losbn un shutfesdike havore",
Yidish far a., l.214.Sf.
tchen S pracM . Helrnut Buske:
Qtxt.i1c d.ez j
Hamburg.
Yiddish.
Survey and. a, Grnin. Manchester
University: Manchester & University of Toronto:
Toronto.
596
Borokhov, Ber
1913 a
"Yazyk razgovorno-yevreiskii. iii zhargon",
Y evreiskaa EntsiJ1oed.iya (St. Petersburg),
16.372-377.
1 9 1 3b
"B. Borokhovs plan far a geshikhte fun yldish"
Iposthuinously published by Sh. Niger in 1926
in] i]..Q1Qginhe. shi1tu, 1 [
l913c
1913d.
Buxtorf, Johann
1609
bikii3,
21-28.
"Di ufgabn fun d.er yid.isher filologye", Sb.
Niger 1 91 3 : 1-22.
"Di biblyotek funem yidlshn filolog", Sh. Niger
1 9 1 3 : 1-68 [separate pagination at end. of volume].
The srus Gjniicu Lin. Sancjiebr.
Conrad. Wald.kirch: Basel.
Callenberg, Joh. Heinrich
Jsctutsches Wrterbacthle&n. Buchdruckerey
1736
des jüdischen Instituti: Hai.le.
Christian, Christoph Gustav
1727
Hekrish und.
itsQh LQaia1a und
Wrterbuchlj.n.
Chrysander, Wilhelm Christian Just
1 75 0
G
a.tiCk. Johann Christoph
Meisner: Leipzig & Wolfenbüttel.
Cope land, Robert M. & Süsskind, Nathan
Herz' s Esther : A Study in
1976
ThA Lngjag
Jueo-Qma [sic] Di]] g . University
of Alabama: University [Alabama].
Fischer, Jechie].
flaa J111 unit sein Verh1tr4s z.0 d.en
tben
1936
Mj1art. Erser Teil.
Oswald Schmidt G.M.B.H.:
Leipzig. Isee now Bin-Nun 1973]
597
Friedrioh, Carl Wilhelm
178 11.
___ ij àer
t,fl
__
___ fiZr Ge}ut und. ge1e1t. Chr.
Gottf. Ragoczy: Prenzlau.
Garvin, Paul L.
1965
"The Dialect Geography of Hungarian Yiddish",
U. Weiri.reich 1965: 92-115.
Gininger, Kh.
1938
1911.9
'Di. korespond.ents A. Landau - L. Shayneanu",
Yivo b1eer, 13.275-300.
"A bukh tsu lernen di yldishe kulturshprakh",
Ylvo
19511.
33.2011_2l1.
Accomplishments in Yiddish Linguistics",
U. Weinreich 19511.b: 111.7-178.
'Sainéan's
Green, Eugene
1969
"On Accentual Variants in the Slavic Component
of Yiddish", Herzog et a].. 1969: 216-239.
Guggenheim- Grinberg, Florence
1950
flj Sprache d
1958
hweizer J.ui
j gn
unl. Lengxiau. JUdische Buch-Gemeind.e: Zirich.
"The Horse Dealers' Language of the Swiss Jews in
Endingen and Lengnau", U. Weinreich 19511.b: 11.8-62.
"Zur Phonologie des Surbtaler Jiddischen",
1961
Phonetl.a1 , 2.86-108.
GUJge Jjddisch [ Lajbibiothek
19511.
196 11.
1966
detttex2, MJmd.art.eJ2,, 2Z]. Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht: Gtt1ngen.
"Uberreste westjiddischer Dialekte in d.er Schweiz,
im Elsass und. in Siddeutsch1and", E ?ax Winrej.ch,
Mouton: The Hague, 72-81.
Surbtaler jdj.ac [ $h q J.zer i&2kte. in Text
.e.g1eittexte zi c1.e Srechpiatten d.e.a
und. Ton.
PIonog-jy d.e.z Uiversit ZthziLcth, I,
$cjejz, Heft 44). Huber: Frauenfeld.
598
1966/1968
IReview of Beranek 1965], Zeit hr if £
Mdrtfoshung, 33.353-357, 35. 1k8-1LI.9.
1973
1976
Jiddish ai a1enniscem Sr a thge1iet 1
Bejtre zj Geschicte j
Vo1kskwid dei Tnden
tx. de Schweiz, 1Q]. Jun g : Zurich.
Wrterbuch z.0 Sbta1
Iid.dj 1 [ Bettrge z.0
ec1ij cht u
d Ju, j &z Shweiz,
11]. Junis: ZUrich.
Gutman, Teod.or
1926
"A pruv fun a fonetik fun lodzher yidish",
Filologjshe shrifn, 1
[= L,nd.oy
bUkII], 377-388.
Habersaat, Carlo
1951-1952
"Beitrge zur jidd.ischen Dialektologie", Rivista
degli Sud.j 0jena1i, 26.23-26, 27.23-27.
Herzog, Marvin I.
196 z1."Channels of Systematic Extinction in Yiddish
Dialects',
Jlax Wfijjueich, Mouton: The Hague,
93-107.
1965
Th j .dts Igug ira, Northern, Q1nd. Its.
Qegraphy aj.4 Hisoy 1= Inter iQua],. Journal
Amerios., Ligi.s.tjcs., VQ1. 1i,
1967
1968
1969
1969
1980
a, Part IIfl.
Indiana University: Bloomington & Mouton: The Hagu
"Bibliography of Uriel Weinreich", Language,
Ll. 3 . 607-610.
"Hageografia haleshonit besherut toledot
hityashvut hayehudirn beukraina", Fourth W1d.
Congress
i1j Studies, World Union of Jewish
Studies: Jerusalem, 189-193.
"Yiddish in the Ukraine: Isoglosses and. Historical
Inferences", Herzog et al. 1969: 58-81.
et al., eds., Th
IJ..dizh, . tjj
k1ra, ni Itrature. Mouton:
j Laiae,
The Hague.
et al., eds., 'flt. Ftici c
idith, .
ae..s.
in. Lnguag,
Institute
for the Study of Human Issues: Philadelphia.
599
Hutterer, C.
3.
1965
"The Phonology of Budapest Yiddish", U. Weinreich
1965 : 116-11i.6.
J.w.
[17111.?]
Jjcher
zcji-Meister.
Jofen, Jean B.
1953
19621.
etoogica1 Makeip
fitsh.
h1gjLa1 e Iexico1ogja Qj1teri.
Columbia University Dissertation, New York.
Microfilm dissertation no. 6639. (Pub1tshe&s
Jof en 19621.]
A Linguij. Atlas o Eastern Eurcpe Yiddj.s.
New York.
The.
Kalmanovitsh, Zelig
1926
'Der yid.isher dialekt in kui'land", EjLo)gjshe
hx'if'ti, 1 1 Lad.o bukh], 161-188.
Katz, Dovid.
1978
1979
1980
"Genetic Notes on Netherland.ic Yiddish Vocalism".
Department of Linguistics, Columbia University.
"Di ineveynikste klasifikatsye fun di mayrev
yid.lshe dialektn". 53rd Annual YIVO Conference,
New York.
"The Wavering Yiddish Segolate: A Problem of
Sociolinguis tic Reconstruction", I,nternati.onal
Journal.
. Sociology c^1. Langiage, 211. . 5- 27.
Kaufmann, David
1896
flj I1emiren der Gliicke].
am Main.
e.1n.
Frankfurt
King, Robert D.
1980
"The History of Final Devoicing in Yiddish",
Herzog et al. 1980: 371-11.30.
600
Kos over, Mord.khe
1 932
"Vegri yid.ish fun altn ashkenazishu yishev in
erets yisroel", Yiv
11..L1.3-50.
1966
nients
etj2ja Yi&ish.
Arabj
QU.
Ashkenazic Comnwity jz, 1estine, its. Risto and.
i±.a I.a]gi.1age. Jerusalem.
Th
Landau, Alfred
1895
I
1911
Das Deminutiviim der ga1izisch-jd.ischen Mundart",
Deutche ndrten, 1.11.6-58.
"Die Sprache der Memolren Glckels von Hamein",
Mitteiligen z ii jdischei Vo1kskd., 7.20-68.
& Wachstein, Berrthard., Jd1sche Pr1vatbrIef a.u.s.
d.eni Ja re 1619 ( Qi11n und Foracb.Wlgen ZJ2Z
dex Ju
in u±.ch- Qt.errei ch, 3].
Wilhelm Braumüller: Wien & Leipzig.
Levy, Ernest-Henri
192 1
MLangue des Hommes et Langue des Femmes en
Judêo-Allernand", Mj1ange offers a. 1 j . hr1es
And,er
s..e.s. ámi
aea é.].e.a. t = Pulbl I cat zia
da l.a. Fu1t d.e.s. Lra d. LUn&ersj
d.
Strabourg, 21]. Strasbourg & Parts.
1.
a. e..t.
Lowenstein, Steven
"Results of Atlas Investigations among Jews
1969
of Germany", Herzog et al. 1969: 16-35.
1 973-1975
"Di. sheyres hapleyte fun yidish in fran.ken',
Xitits1a shp raJh, 32.214-33, 33.37-21.5, 314..37_l4.3.
"A rnayrev yldishe pyese fun onheyb l9tn
1975
yorhundert", Yivo b1.tez, 11.5.57-83.
Mark, Yudl
1938
195].
1958
"Yldishe anglltsizmen", Y r.Jth Lun aaQte.y.1,
1.296-321.
"Und.zer litvisher yidish", N. Sudarsky et al., eds.,
Lite, 1.11.29-14.72.
ed,
Ylvo: New York.
A. I.Qfe.
601
Mieses, Matthias
192k
Die.
.j1ddjrhe SrcheL
historische.
Gimatik d Idioins er ite p 1en J,en Qs..tjjte1eura g . Benjamin Harz: Berlin & Wien.
Neumann, J.H.
1 93 8
'Notes on American Yid.d.ish', Journ.1 oj . g1ih
Grni jiiJ o1ogy , 37.14.03-21.21.
Niger, Sh.
1913
ed.,
pflk. Yt-rbukb. fa d.e. gh1t
fu d
11eratui ui,
Thlklor,
1tik i bib1vray.e. B. A. Kletskin: Vilna.
Philoglottus r
. P. Lttke:1
1 733
Kurtze und. grin1jche &jeisung zi Teutschd..ishe, Sprache. Christoph Matthi: Freiberg.
Prilutski, Noyakh
1917
1920
1921
fl yjisher kozisonantizn 1
his Yid.ishe
dialektologishe forshungen, 1 = iqygkh Prfluakts
ksoiin, 2] . Nayer farlag: Warsaw.
Taua y tiji zi c1caflzm, 1 [ his Yid.ishe
dj1e toJ.ogjsh forshgen, k]. Nayer farlag:
Warsaw.
ia1eto1ogishe pa1n. w banerkungen [= his
X1d.ta1i &ia1ektQ1ogih
runge, 3 =
Pi'i1utkjs kim, 9]. Nayer farlag: Warsaw.
192k
1930
Name
r= his Yj j Sh dia1ekto1ogj
1 rshurge, 5 = his Iidjahe. sprkhvisnshaft1ekhQ
fraretii, 1].
Kultur lige: Warsaw.
'Yldishe d.ialektologye ,
Utht fin d.ei kcerent.
d. yj
jnsha±t1ekbn institnt QehLti
21 s tn bjz, 22
ii). vil
aktr 1,99, Ylvo:
Vilna, 124.3-158.
1937
D&.1ekto1ogtshe forarbet 1 = his Xid.i.th.
fxJwzigen,
I1a loshn, yid±sh
aktich frie..tz, 2]. Ylvo:
Vilna.
602
Rae, Anton
18 1i4
fli S
hverJltnise er heuttge J.idxi, im
iterese der Qeg att taM mit besc,ndrer RiZckicht
ezf Voljcserziehu. Herinann Gobert: Hamburg.
Reizensteln, Wolf Ehrenfried. von
176 11.
' Anbang, woraus d.iejenigen Redens-Arteu k6nnen
erlernet werden, deren sich die Juden in ihrem
Umgang gegen e1nnder und sond.erlich auf RossMrkten bedienen' in his D vO1lkQmene Pfrd.s-
Knner [unpaginated. supplement, following index and
preceding diagrams
?leyer: Utfenheim.
Reyzen, Zaimen
1923
1930
at end. of volume]. Joh. Simon
ne1soxi bi eMe1e . Han.tbukh f d.z
gshik
fun dei J.d.ishe haao1e 3jtU1
mit re thkszea un bildez. Kultur lige: Warsaw.
'Di manuskniptn un di drukn fun Its 1k Aykhls
'Reb Henokh", Y Shatzky, ed., Akhiv
geshiIc)2t fun, yj4ish,n, t.epter wn 1zani, Yivo:
Vilna & New York, 1.85-111.6.
n,
aineanu, Lazr
1839
Stud..lu Dialectologl.c asuDQr, Qa jn,1uj EyreoQrman. Ed.uard Wiegand.: Bucharest. [Revised
as Saiz4an 1901-1902]
Sainan, Lazare
1901-1902
'Es sat star le Judo-Allemand et spo1alement sin' le
Dialeote Parlé en Valachie', I1moires
Soc1t d. Llngujstigue d. Pang, 12.90-138,
176-196.
Sapir, Edward
1915
'Notes on Jud.eo-Gerinan Phonology', Jewish
uarterl.y Re ylew, N.S. 6.231-266.
Schnttzler, Leopold
1966
Prar Judendeut.cji. Em Beitrag zj Erforschung
d ea W eeii agz Judendeusch in 1autliher taM
jhex B ieJiz (a Ad.albert
ib eiier e in, J cx
603
Stitter Verein e . V., Mfnchen, Vrffent1jchungen
d.e ____ schafiIie bt&1ung, lz). Edmund
Cans: Grafe1fig bei Niinohen.
Schwartz, Rosaline B.
'The Geography of Two Food. Terms: A Study in
1969
Yiddish Lexical Variation', Herzog et al. 1969:
240-266.
Selig, Gottfried.
1792
Lehrburh z gn1icei, E.1erxijiyig
d.er
jiidiheutschn Spracthe
Bemte,
Carl htsverwant e, Ad.yocan und. &nbas ond.ere
fj Kailute. Voss & Leo: Leipzig.
Shatzky, Y.
1936
'Di ].etste shprotsungen fun der yi&tsher
shprakh un literatur in holaiid', Ylvo bJeer,
10.232-265.
Shpirn, Tail
1926
'Di yid.i she shpralth in urigarn', Filologj.sfle
shrif.t,, 1 [ Landoy buith], 195-200.
Stalek, fl.
1928
'Materialn tsusn burgnlender yidish. Folkior un
d.ialekt', i1o1og jsha s1, tn , 2.265-280.
Stern, Itzig Feitel
1 833a
1 833b
Lexicon
jjschen Gsehfts- i. Umgsjrahe.
Minchen.
Israels Verkehr uzd G js. F. W. Goedsohe: Meissen
1835
Sc}abes Grt1e
unnere Leut. F. W. Goedache:
Neissen.
Tend.lau, Abraham
1860
irte und. Edensarten d.eutsc1.-dlscher
Vorzejt. Hejm'jch Keller: Fran1cfur am Main.
6OLi.
fTirsch, L.]
1773
NitzUhAs Hanler1.cc d.er 311d.ischen Sprache.
Joharm Ferd1rmrid Ed.len von Sch&ife1i: Prague.
Trost, Pavel
1965
'Yiddish in Bohemia and. Moravia: the Vowel
question', U. Weinreioh 1965: 87-91.
Veyziger, Nordkhe
Fait yj4ish da1ej! Prcgram £.rn mteria1925
1926-1928
k1aybe. Yid.optey]. fun invayskult: Minsk.
'Vegn ytd.ishe dialektn', [Minzker] aythrift,
1.181-208, 2-3.613-652.
1929
Yjd1i1 ja1k1og. Vaysrusisher inelukhe
farlag: Mirisk.
Vilenkin, Leyzer
Iidinhex srkhatlas fu sQveti-aed, a grunt
1931
Thfl d.j d iale1ct ].p gishe materialn os zaynen
toyfgeam1t
d.e shDra-kQJniv
yid.ishn sekter
imtex T. !eyngej
d.e yasrusisher aka1enwe
enftrmi. Vaysrusishe
visnshaft-akademye, yid.isher sekter: Minsk.
Viler, Y.
1921$.
'Fonetik fun mizrekh galitsisirn yid.ish", Yid1he
ffl.Q1Cg3, 1.23-33, 111.1-151.
Voorzaxiger, J. L. & Polak, J. E.
Eet Jood.
in jeer1and. a.n h&t
1915
1end
en Zegswizen.
en1 s114er'e Ta]..en
N . V. de erven H. van Munster en zoon: Amsterdam
1Photomech1oal reprint by H & S Publishers,
Utreoht 197k]
605
Weill, Emmanuel
1920-1921
'Le Yidisoh Alsaoien-Lorrain, Revue d.aa
tude
70.180-19 11. , 71.66-88, 165-189, 72.65-88
[see also 72.192-202].
Weinrei oh, Max
1923
1932
ht1en. Eiz a..tzz& ti d.e. y ijshe shk hvhft ,
Wostok: Berlin.
'Der m inaker shprakh-atlas', Ylvo biter,
4.168-179.
1953
'Roshe prokim vegn mayrevd.ikn yid.ish', Yish
shpra1th, 13.35-69. [Reprinted
Mark 1958: 158-194]
1958
with ad.end.uin in
'Bney hes im they khes in ashke1mz: di problem
Un vos zi. lozt und.z hem', Sh. Biki & L. Lehrer,
ed.s., Shmuel Ni.ger bukh, Yivo: New York,
101-123.
1960
'DI. sistem yid.ishe kadmen-vokaln', Yldishe
196,5
hDr.1th, 20.65-71.
'On. the Dyraznics of Yiddish Dialect Formation',
U. Weinreich 1965: 73-86.
1973
Gehikhte. tu & yj
1980
History Yid,,ih Language. Translated by
Sh. Noble with the assistance of J. A. Fishman.
University of Chicago: Chicago & London.
sJier ahDx1th.
Caktn, mi&t. Yivo: Nec York. [partially
translated as !!. Wel.nreich 1980]
Weinreich, Uriel
1951
1952
1951fa
l954b
1958a
'Thu d.er frage vegn a nortnirter oysshprakh',
Yidiphe sh.pralc.b,, 11.26-29.
'Sábsjker losn in Y iddish: A Problem of
Linguistic Affinity', Ward., 8.360-377.
'Is a Structural Dialecto].ogy Possible?', rLor.d,
10.388-400.
ed., Thft ____ j
Stutlleg j Xidih
Laa,
J1ax, and Literature. Ltnguistic
Circle of New York: New York.
'Yiddish and. Colonial German in Eatern Europe:
The Differential Impact of Slavic", Aieri..c.a
606
ti1..buion t th Foui'th Intermti,nal C.gres
Siaviist (Moscow, Seat. l9 8 ), Mouton: '5Gravenhage, 369-1421.
1958b
1958o
'A Retrograde Sound Shift in the Guise of a
Survival: An Aspect of Yid.d.ish Vowel Development',
Emtracturalising hlstoria,: Miace11nea
a, And.r tlartjnet, Biblioteca Filo].ógica,
Universid.ad. de La Laguna, 2.221-267.
'Di klangike struktur fun. a pod.olyer reyd.enish',
Mark 1958: 221-231.
1959
1960
& Weinreich, Beatrice, Yiddih I g iaz and
F.]1 ore. A 8ectjve jbiogray
. Rearch.
Mouton: 'S-Gravenhage.
'Vegn a nayem yid.ishn shprakh- un kultur-atlas',
j g1dea keyt, 37.11.7-57.
1963
'Four Riddles in Bilingual Dialectology", American
otjution t
Fifth InternAtional ngrea.
s1avit g (SiA, Seat. 1')), Mouton: The Hague,
1.335-359.
19611.
1965
1968
1969
Weiss, C. Th.
1896
'Western Traits in Transcarpathian Yiddish',
Max Weinreich, Mouton: The Hague, 211.5-26k.
ed.., Tha Field
Yiddish, 2. Zudie j Langjm,
_______ bfl IJt atur e. Mouton: The Hague.
& Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin I., 'Empirical
Foundations for a Theory of Language Chge',
W.P. Lemn-nn & Y. Malkiel, eds., Diectiong f
!jsojc1 Ljzig i stjcs. A Sypoiiim, TJniversity
of Texas: Austin & London, 95-195.
'The Geographic Makeup of Belorussian Yiddish',
Rerzog et al. 1969: 82-101.
'Das Elsasser Judendeutsch', Jahrbach fj
Geschhte, Sprache jj,j, IJtteratur ElssIQ.thiz2gen, 12.121-182 [see also 13.171-183,
1k. 78-82].
607
Wolf, Meyer
1969
"The Geography of Y id.d..tsh Case and. Gez4er
Variation", Herzog et al. 1969: 102-215.
Ylvo
Litjsh ankete. Heft 1: 1iii
livo: Vilna.
1928
Zivy, Arthur
1966
substat.v.
E1sser Jiih. Basel.
Zucicernian, Ri chard
'Alsace: An Outpost of Western Yiddish",
1969
Herzog et al. 1969: 36-57.
4*41*
*4*41
*44*
4*41*
*44*
*414*
****
****
*441*
*414*
*44*
*4*4
*4*41
4*4*
Related papers
Ενίσχυση της Κοινωνικής και Συναισθηματικής Μάθησης μέσω
διαμεσολαβητικών ψηφιακών εργαλείων στην μετά‐κορωνoϊό εποχή
International Journal of Educational Innovation , 2020
REVIEW JURNAL TENTANG BUDIDAYA TANAMAN PADI
Review tanaman padi, 2024
Ethics of Listening to the Silence: Voices, Archives, and the Unspoken Past
TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 2023
Gerardo Martínez Delgado y Mario Bassols Ricardez (coords.), Ciudades poscoloniales en México.
Número 5, Julio-Diciembre, 2017
Pendidikan Akhlak Pada Anak Usia Dini
At Turots: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 2019
In Vieques, Life Amid Devastation
NACLA: Report on the Americas, 2018
Identités feintes – Anthroponymie et migrations atlantiques, XVI e -XVIII e siècles
Nuevo Mundo, Mundos Nuevos , 2015
The Performance Analysis of Space Resection-Aided Pedestrian Dead Reckoning for Smartphone Navigation in a Mapped Indoor Environment
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2017
The evolution of handedness in humans and great apes: a review and current issues
Journal of anthropological sciences = Rivista di antropologia : JASS / Istituto italiano di antropologia, 2008
Recruitment and Retention in Diverse Cohorts: Lessons From Community-Engaged Efforts
Innovation in Aging, 2021
Cosmetic use of Tikshna Kadalikanda Kshara application in management of Charmakeela (Common Warts) - A Single Case Study
International Journal of AYUSH Case Reports, 2019
Sequenced allelic ladders and population genetics of a new STR multiplex system
Forensic Science International, 2001
Rehabilitating workers aged 55 and over: professionals’ perspectives and solutions
Research Square (Research Square), 2024
Depletion of Dendritic Cells Enhances Innate Anti-Bacterial Host Defense through Modulation of Phagocyte Homeostasis
PLoS Pathogens, 2012
Quadriparesis After Bariatric Surgery: Case Report
Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science