Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect 9783110898736, 9783110172584

Citation preview

Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish

W G DE

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 136

Editors

Werner Winter Walter Bisang

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect by

Paul Wexler

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York 2002

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Wexler, Paul: Two-tiered relexification in Yiddish : Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian dialect / by Paul Wexler. p. cm. — (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 136) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3 11 017258 5 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Yiddish language — Lexicology, Historical. 2. Relexification (Linguistics) 3. Upper Sorbian language - Influence on Yiddish. 4. Ukrainian language - 1300-1700 - Influence on Yiddish. 5. Ukrainian language - 13001700 - Dialects - Pripet Marshes (Belarus and Ukraine) 6. Khazars - History. I. Title. II. Series PJ5118.W49 2002 439'. 13028-dc21

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication

200201651

Data

Wexler, Paul: Two-tiered relexification in Yiddish : Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian dialect / by Paul Wexler. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 136) ISBN 3-11-017258-5

© Copyright 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Dedicated to the memory of my father, Harry Wexler (25.9.1901 Xmel'nyk, Vynnycka oblast', Ukraine-15.1.1999 Philadelphia), who knew most of the languages from which Yiddish drew its components and who took an active interest in the history of the language and its speakers

Contents Abbreviations and symbols Introduction Chapter 1 The Relexification Hypothesis in Yiddish Chapter 2 Approaches to the study of Yiddish and other Jewish languages Chapter 3 Criteria for selecting German and HebrewAramaic and for retaining Slavic elements in Yiddish 3.1. Component blending in Yiddish 3.2. The status of synonyms in Yiddish 3.3. Constructing an etymological dictionary for a relexified language Chapter 4 Evidence for the two-tiered relexification hypothesis in Yiddish: From Upper Sorbian to German and from Kiev-Polessian to Yiddish 4.1. Sixteen observations about the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish 4.2. German morphemes and morpheme sets fully accepted by Yiddish 4.3. German morpheme sets blocked fully or in part in Yiddish by the Slavic substrata 4.4. The status of individual German morphemes and semantically related sets in Yiddish 4.5. Slavic gender and markers of plural and dual in Yiddish 4.5.1. The assignment of gender in Yiddish nouns 4.5.2. The gender of Yiddish simplex nouns in compound constructions 4.5.3. The assignment of plural suffixes in Yiddish 4.5.4. The Slavic "pseudo-dual" category in Yiddish 4.6. Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian elements in Yiddish

ix 1 9 63 79 116 131 137

145 148 176 181 349 391 393 419 430 447 488

viii

Contents

4.7. The Khazar component in the language and ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews Chapter 5 Future challenges References Index of names Index of examples Index of subjects

513 543 555 631 638 692

Abbreviations and symbols acc adj adv ag Ar Aram arch Aus Bav Bg Bib Br C c(c) Ce Ch coll Cz dat dial dim Du Ε Eng f Fr G gen Gk Gmc Go Η He Hg hum IE impf inf inst intr

accusative adjectival, adjective adverb agentive Arabic Aramaic archaic Austrian Bavarian Bulgarian Biblical Belarusian Common, consonant century (centuries) Central Church collective Czech dative dialect(al) diminutive Dutch East(ern) English feminine French German genitive Greek Germanic Gothic High Hebrew Hungarian humorous Indo-European imperfective infinitive instrumental intransitive

Iran It J Κ Kar Kh L Lat Li lit Lus m Μ Mac Mod η Ν No nom 0 Ρ part. ±PD pej Pers pf pl Pol Polab Port R Rom Rotw RP1 RP2 Rum S

Iranian Italian JudeoKiev Karaite Khazar Low(er) Latin Lithuanian literal Lusatian masculine Middle Macedonian Modern neuter North(ern) Norse nominative Old Polessian participial, participle presence or absence of the pseudo-dual pejorative Persian perfective plural Polish Polabian Portuguese Russian Romance Rotwelsch first relexification phase second relexification phase Rumanian South(ern)

χ

Abbreviations and symbols SC sg SI Sin So Sp st t Talm Tat

Serbo-Croatian singular Slavic Slovene Sorbian Spanish standard tantum Talmudic Tatar

Tc tr Tu U Uk V voc W Y

Turkic transitive Turkish Upper Ukrainian vowel vocative West(ern) Yiddish

° denotes a Germanism of doubtful admissibility in standard Yiddish (according to U. Weinreich, Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English dictionary, New York 1968) * denotes a term (usually of German origin) that is inadmissible in the standard language (according to U. Weinreich, Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English dictionary, New York 1968); elsewhere, an ungrammatical or reconstructed form 1f denotes a Yiddish word of German origin, believed to have been borrowed after the second relexification phase, or a German word not attested in Middle High German texts # indicates a German head term discussed in chapter 4.3; all terms are German unless marked as Middle High German ## indicates a German head term discussed in chapter 4.4; all terms are German unless marked as Middle High German A denotes a Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew word or Judeo-Aramaism used in Yiddish A. denotes a "Hebrew" or "Aramaic" word with unique form and/or meaning ("Hebroidism") invented by Yiddish speakers (or possibly by speakers of another Jewish language), or a Yiddish Hebroidism used in Modern Hebrew • denotes a Slavic word in Yiddish (either substratal or post-relexificational) • denotes a Slavic word in Yiddish with unique form and/or meaning ("Slavoidism") invented by Yiddish or Judeo-Slavic speakers

Abbreviations and symbols

xi

( ) plural forms are placed within parentheses; the notations (-"efrj) denote German and Yiddish plurals that require the fronting of the preceding root vowel (Umlaut) Standard Yiddish examples are always cited orthographically unless stated otherwise (thus, ojf and not [af] 'on', xavertorin 'female friend' and not [xavertorn]), but dialectal examples are phonetically transcribed. For the schwa vowel in non-Hebrew examples I use the symbol a; in Hebrew examples, e. The symbol μ denotes a labiodental nasal. In Old Hebrew examples, a dot under a consonant indicates historical pharyngeality (except that h denotes the voiceless pharyngeal glide), q denotes the letter qaf and s denotes the letter sin. All postMishnaic Hebrew examples are spelled according to Modern Israeli Hebrew pronunciation norms. The Language and Cultural Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry (see Herzog et al. 19922000) has only been published in part so far; unpublished data from the atlas files are cited by the original questionnaire number. The Grojser verterbux fun der jidiser sprax (see Jofe and Mark 1961-1980) and the Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen (see Sadnik and Aitzetmüller 1963-1975) were discontinued long before completion. Articles published in the Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur in Halle are marked as such. The Slovar' russkix narodnyx govorov (see Filin 1965ff), Etimologiceskij slovar' slavjanskix jazykov (see TrubaCev 1974ff), Slownik praslowianski (see Slawski 1974ff), Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy (Minsk 1978ff), Etymolohicnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy (Kyjiv 1982ff), Histarycny slownik belaruskaj movy (Minsk 1982ff), Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch Iff (see Anderson et al. 1989ff), and Slavjanskie drevnosti 1-2 (Moskva 1995ff) are ongoing publications.

Introduction

Anton: "Mein Vetter war ein Wende; ich kann Wendisch; und das können Sie nicht." Damis; "Er hat Recht. -Mein Bedienter soll eine Sprache verstehen, die ich nicht verstehe? Und noch dazu eine Hauptsprache? Ich erinnere mich, daß ihre Verwandtschaft mit der hebräischen sehr groß sein soll. Wer weiß, wie viele Stammwörter, die in dieser verloren sind, ich in jener entdecken könnte! -Das Ding fängt mir an, im Kopfe zu gehen!" (Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Der junge

Gelehrte)

In Lessing's satire, Der junge Gelehrte ("The young scholar"), first performed in Leipzig in 1748 and first published in 1754 (reprinted in his Werke 1: 285, Munich 1970), Damis, a pompous young student, boasts to his servant, Anton, that he was barely twenty years old and already had a command of several languages; Anton countered that he could speak Sorbian, a language unknown to his master. This prompted Damis to remark that the Slavic language was very closely related to Hebrew, and that many stems lost in one language could be uncovered in the other. All audiences would no doubt agree that Lessing (born in 1729 in Upper Sorbian-speaking Kamjenc/Kamenz) had found an entertaining way of heaping ridicule on the conceited Damis. However, unbeknownst to Lessing and to most of his audiences, Upper Sorbian can be shown to be related to two forms of "Hebrew"Medieval Ashkenazic (North European) and Modern Israeli Hebrew. The genetic link between Sorbian and these two forms of "Hebrew" goes back to the Middle Ages. It was then that Yiddish arose when Jews speaking Sorbian (a West Slavic language spoken in the mixed Germano-Slavic lands) first "relexified" their language to High

2

Introduction

German (and to a lesser extent, Hebrew or Hebroid) phonetic strings approximately between the ninth and twelfth centuries. This made Yiddish a West Slavic language with the unusual feature of possessing a predominantly German lexicon. Yiddish speakers who created an original literature in Hebrew, in the total absence of native speakers of Hebrew, had to use their native West Slavic grammar with superimposed Classical Hebrew vocabulary to write "Hebrew"; this made the unspoken Hebrew of the Yiddish-speaking Jews a bizarre Slavic language of the same magnitude as Yiddish itself. Some time after the fifteenth century East Slavic Jews in the KievPolessian lands, comprising an unknown number of descendants of the Judaized Khazars, relexified their native Kiev-Polessian speech (the forerunner of contemporary southern Belarusian [Belorussian] and northern Ukrainian) to the Yiddish that Ashkenazic immigrants brought to their area. Yiddish itself, readjusting to contemporary High German pronunciation norms, became now a lexifier language for Kiev-Polessian. Since Khazar Jews are known to have migrated westward both before and after the collapse of the Khazar Empire in the late tenth century (see chapter 5), it is conceivable that their descendants, if they were also speakers of Kiev-Polessian, and if they had contact with Yiddish speakers, could have already relexified to Yiddish prior to the Ashkenazic migration to Kiev-Polessie. Hence, the language known since the late sixteenth century as Yiddish (i.e. "Jewish"), and spoken by ten million Jews on the eve of World War II, comprises a mixed West-East Slavic grammar with a mainly relexified German lexical component. In some areas relexified Upper Sorbian and relexified Kiev-Polessian could have coexisted, while in others they could have assumed a complementary geography (e.g. relexified Upper Sorbian might have prevailed in Poland and parts of the Ukraine while relexified Kiev-Polessian reigned supreme in the Belarusian and most Ukrainian areas), and, finally, in some areas, the two Slavic Yiddishes, drawn together by a similar relexified German lexicon and similar Slavic grammars, could have fused. Yiddish makes limited use of the resources of German and often ascribes very idiosyncratic functions to what it does borrow. Most native speakers and non-native observers have assumed that Yiddish

Introduction

3

was either a "deformation" or a "creative Jewish outgrowth" of High German, with attrition of Germanisms and acquisition of Slavicisms resulting from prolonged contact with the Slavic languages, while all historical attestations of Hebrew were regarded blindly as instantiations of Classical Semitic Hebrew. In the late nineteenth century, some East European Jewish nationalists, led by a Belarusian Jew, Eliezer ben Jehuda, proposed replacing almost the entire lexical component of their native Yiddish by Classical Hebrew phonetic strings, while a far smaller group of Yiddish speakers, likewise headed by a Belarusian Jew, Ludwik Zamenhof, simultaneously advocated the replacement of the Yiddish lexicon by a Latinoid lexicon of their own creation. The result of the former act of relexification (now spoken as a first or second language by over seven million Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs) is known universally as "Modern Hebrew"; the Jewish revivalists' choice of name for this type of "relexified Yiddish" was intended to foster the link with Classical Hebrew (which died out as a native language in approximately 200 A.D.) and thereby to strengthen a claim (which, otherwise, had almost no historical basis) to control Ottoman-British Palestine. The result of the second relexification act was Esperanto (on the Slavic or Yiddish grammar of the latter, see Goninaz 1974; Gold 1980; Piron 1982); Esperanto is the only "variant of Yiddish" to be spoken by a predominantly non-Jewish population. It follows then that Yiddish and its three offshoots-Modern Hebrew, unspoken pre-Modern Hebrew and Esperanto-are all genetically related, by virtue of employing a common Slavic grammar. Most of the first Hebrew "revivalists", like almost all speakers and observors ever since, naively believed that they could restore a colloquial function to a language that had been for centuries only a medium of written and liturgical expression by "reviving" the unspoken Semitic Hebrew grammar. In time, the growing body of monolingual native speakers of revived Hebrew only strengthened the impression that Old Hebrew had been successfully "revived". Nowadays, most speakers react either with vehemence or consternation at the suggestion that Modern Hebrew is not genetically related

4

Introduction

to Old Semitic Hebrew (Lessing's audiences probably would have found the Sorbian-Hebrew link merely comical), or that the contemporary speakers are not to a large degree descended directly from the speakers of Classical Hebrew. Speakers of the now obsolescent Yiddish in the main also tend to react with consternation (but usually without venom) to the parallel claim that their language is a mixed West-East Slavic rather than Germanic language. Many speakers of Sorbian and German (in particular the linguists among them), seeing their nationalistic and academic agendas called into question, usually react with disbelief as well. Not surprisingly, only the speakers of Esperanto (most of whom are not native speakers), with their international rather than national agenda, find the genetic assignment of Esperanto of little import. The choice of glottonyms (Old vs. Modern "Hebrew") cannot alter the fact that Modern Hebrew can only be a direct continuation of Yiddish, which is itself a direct continuation of Sorbian of a thousand years ago and/or Kiev-Polessian of five centuries ago. Fortunately, the "revival" of Hebrew took place only a century or so ago, and the actual participants have left copious notes that support my contention (based on an independent linguistic analysis) that Modern Hebrew is not a direct descendant of Old Hebrew. More than one Hebrew speaker at the beginning of the 20th century perceptively and candidly admitted that Yiddish was the catalyst for the revival of Hebrew because of its considerable Hebrew corpus; they recommended that by inserting more Hebrew vocabulary into Yiddish, the latter would simply turn into Hebrew (Izgor 1903, 1910: 19-20; Tavjov 1923, cited by J. Mark 1958, fn 5; see also Wexler 1990b). Izgor and Tavjov also recognized that Modern Hebrew could be created just by relexifying Yiddish vocabulary, while leaving the grammar of the latter intact. The process by which Yiddish (and other) speakers created unspoken written Hebrew in the Middle Ages (Yiddish, French, etc., with a Hebrew lexicon) was replicated in the 1880s, only now Hebrew was given a spoken function. Verifying the relexification hypothesis in the genesis of Yiddish is more complicated, since no Yiddish relexifiers left protocols. Nonetheless, I believe

Introduction

5

that contemporary Yiddish still bears ample signs of its two prior relexification processes (see Wexler 1991b). It is now some ten years since I first articulated my claims about the Slavic genetic classification of Modern Hebrew and Yiddish. All too frequently emotional responses have taken the place of a serious examination of claims and evidence. Nevertheless, the vituperative reactions that greet publications on these twin topics have encouraged me to seek more evidence and better ways of presentation. The twin goals of the present study are (i) to strengthen the relexification hypothesis for Yiddish by presenting fresh evidence from Yiddish which, I believe, will corroborate the new major diagnostic test for relexification, the "component predictability" test, and (ii) to explain why it is necessary to expand the hypothesis from a single to a dual act. If my claims are valid, then Yiddish will be the first twice-relexified noncreole language to be so identified, and the first relexified language to be studied in detail in a diachronic context (for suggestions of two African substrata in the genesis of Haitian Creole, see Singler 1996: 223-225). As to Lessing's Der junge Gelehrte, the present study may detract from the satirical force of Damis' dialogue with his Sorbianspeaking man-servant about the Hebrew-Sorbian nexus, but Lessing's satire will lose nothing of its charm after some two and a half centuries. Many studies of Yiddish morphosyntax and phonology have demonstrated the similarities between Yiddish and Slavic grammars (I exclude from this generalization studies of most Old Yiddish texts, which are genetically Germanic and unrelated to contemporary Eastern Yiddish dialects; on "German" and "Slavic Yiddish", see Wexler 1995a). The student of the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish has essentially two options: (a) to broaden the study of comparative Yiddish-German-Slavic grammar (this is the aim of the research by Ewa Geller in Warsaw), or (b) to explore in detail why it is possible to predict most of the Yiddish lexical corpus-in all its componential variety. Indeed, much work remains to be done in the comparison of the three grammars. For example, future study would need to try to determine whether parallels that obtain exclusively

6

Introduction

between Yiddish and German to the exclusion of Slavic are postrelexificational developments in Yiddish (i.e. postdate the 1500s), and whether features shared by Yiddish, German (in the main not the standard language) and Slavic are due to a common Slavic substratum in the first two languages (Germanists all too often forget that most of the contemporary German and Austrian lands supported a widely dispersed Slavic population a millennium ago). However, it is the second path that I have chosen in the present study, because corpus predictablity is a major diagnostic text for the relexification hypothesis, and because the results are more dramatic and quicker to attain than the results that could accrue from a painstaking comparative study of Yiddish, German and Slavic grammars. The ability to predict with incredible accuracy the Yiddish lexical corpus inclines me to prefer the relexification hypothesis over any of the other models of language interference postulated, say, by U. Weinreich (1953) or more recently by Thomason and Kaufman (1988), Van Coetsem (1988, 2000; see especially in the latter two the discussion of the transfer of linguistic material via borrowing as opposed to imposition/interference through language shift) and Louden (2000). The present study will show in detail that the early German corpus of Yiddish can be predicted with considerable accuracy by comparing the lexicons and derivational machineries of German, Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian (in modern terms, southern Belarusian and northern Ukrainian; in the discussions below, I will usually cite modern Ukrainian forms as the representative of Kiev-Polessian). The ability to anticipate which Germanisms are likely to be acquired through relexification and which are likely to be blocked for incorporation in Yiddish, and, hence replaced by newly acquired Hebraisms (and innovative "Hebroidisms") or retained (unrelexified) Slavicisms is the ultimate test of the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish. The high volume of blocked Germanisms in Yiddish, predictable only by the relexification hypothesis, accounts for the unusually large corpus of Hebraisms and Hebroidisms in the language, far in excess of the Hebrew corpus of other Jewish languages. When the reduced extant Semitic Hebrew texts failed to supply replacements for blocked Ger-

Introduction

7

manisms, Yiddish speakers had to invent new Hebrew forms, as well as new meanings for old words. Germanisms used in Yiddish exclusively in violation of Slavic norms are few in number, and most of the examples can be identified as relatively recent post-relexification loans (usually in consciously Germanized speech). Yiddish Slavicisms manifest few formal or semantic surprises. Significantly, only the relexification hypothesis can explain in a uniform manner the criteria of selection in Yiddish of its three major components: German, Hebrew and Slavic. The data relating to the criteria for component selection will be presented as entries for an etymological dictionary of Yiddish; to the best of my knowledge, this is the first attempt to write an etymological dictionary of a relexified language. In addition, I will show that the assignment of gender and plural suffixes in Yiddish nouns of all component origins can only fully be motivated by Slavic grammars. As a final piece of evidence for the relexification hypothesis, I will also show that Yiddish, unlike German, originally had a dual number which it may have first inherited from its Upper Sorbian substratal grammar, and then radically reshaped during the second, Kiev-Polessian, relexification phase. The possibility that speakers of Kiev-Polessian relexified their language to Yiddish vocabulary by the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries presupposes the existence of a significant Eastern Slavic-speaking Jewry. The latter, in turn, could only have its roots, for the most part, in the Judaized Turko-Iranian Khazar population that became Slavicspeaking after the collapse of the Khazar Empire in the late tenth century (and probably also before, limitedly). Hence, Yiddish offers the most reliable indication of the fate of the "lost" Khazar Jewry and very compelling evidence for the claim that the contemporary Ashkenazic Jews are not in the main descendants of Palestinian Jews. I wish to thank Hanka Mikanowa of Budysin/Bautzen, Germany for calling my attention to the passage in Der junge Gelehrte and Katrin Mikanec of Tel-Aviv for countless hours of discussion about Sorbian and German. Professors Tetsuo Mochizuki (Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo) and Robert Johnson (Russian and

8

Introduction

East European Centre, University of Toronto) deserve thanks for providing library and other facilities at their respective institutions in 1999-2000 where I could carry out much of the research. My gratitude to Professor Werner Winter for accepting the present monograph in the series and to Frau Birgit Sievert at Mouton de Gruyter for her editorial assistance. Last, but not least, thanks to Victoria Mokhonko for technical assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication. Locating the voluminous references cited here was no easy task, and I must express thanks to countless anonymous librarians in a host of libraries and one museum for their assistance over the years: the University of Pecs; the British Library; the Slavonic and East European Institute at the University of London; The Taylorian, Oxford University; the University of Glasgow; the Sorbian Institute, Bautzen/Budysin; the Slavonic library at the Jagiellonian University, Krakow; the National Museum, Novi Sad; the Belarusian State University, Minsk; the Slavonic Library, University of Helsinki; National Taiwan University, Taipei; RELC Library, Singapore; National University of Singapore; the Slavic Research Centre and the library of the University of Hokkaido, Sapporo (which houses the personal collection of George Y. Shevelov); Columbia University and YIVO, New York; The Ohio State University; Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati; The New York Public Library; University of Pennsylvania; University of Washington; University of Toronto; the private library of Salomon A. Birnbaum and St. Vladymyr's Library, Toronto; Tel-Aviv University. Paul Wexler Tel-Aviv University

Chapter 1 The relexification hypothesis in Yiddish

In 1991 I proposed that Yiddish was not a Germanic language but rather a Western Slavic language whose vocabulary had been largely replaced by (i.e. "relexified to") High German. I speculated that Jews speaking (Judeo-)Sorbian between the 9th-12th centuries had resisted the pressure to switch fully to German language and religion (Christianity) that resulted from the migration of the Germans into the largely Sorbian and Polabian lands (1991b). While most of the Slavs in these areas eventually shifted from a Slavic pagan to a German Christian identity, the indigenous Jews-who probably comprised mainly a local proselyte population with a minority ethnically Jewish population-made only a partial language shift to German (for details on conversion to Judaism during the first millennium, see Wexler 1993c, 1996a). The partial shift entailed the retention of Sorbian grammar, phonology and phonotactics and the replacement of most of the Slavic lexicon with German phonetic strings in a process known in the linguistic literature as "relexifiation" (on relexification in the genesis of Creole and non-creole languages, see Lefebvre 1986; Lefebvre and Lumsden 1989, 1994; Horvath and Wexler 1994, 1997a, 1997b; Singler 1996 and Lumsden 1999a, 1999b). The term "relexification" was first used in the 1950s in Creole studies, in the context of the Afro-Portuguese Monogenesis Hypothesis of Caribbean Creoles (see Horvath and Wexler 1997b: 13-14). The earlier linguistic literature described relexified languages as manifesting the "lexicon of language A" in the mould of the "grammar of language B"; such formulations may represent roughly the correct insight impressionistically, but they clearly are inconsistent with current conceptions and results in the Principles and Parameters framework of generative grammar regarding Universal Grammar and the source of cross-linguistic differences. The term is not altogether foreign in Yiddish linguistic discussions either, e.g. M.

10

Relexification hypothesis

Weinreich used it to refer broadly to any kind of component shift within Yiddish, e.g. between German and Slavic components (1980: 546, 640-641). Other scholars seem to recognize relexification in the history of Yiddish, without calling it such. For example, while Hutterer never strayed from the traditional classification of Yiddish as a Germanic language, he did write (contradictorily) that "die slawische Durchdringung ist im Jiddischen der Neuzeit an einem Punkt angelangt, wo man trotz der deutsch bedingten Oberfläche der Sprache schon von einer slawischen Grundstruktur des Jiddischen sprechen darf' ["the Slavic penetration of Yiddish nowadays has reached the point where, despite the limited German surface structure of the language, one can already speak of a Slavic deep structure of Yiddish"] (1975: 359). Again in the absence of the term "relexification", the phenomenon was also clearly identified in discussions of Sorbian lexicon superimposed on the syntax and derivational strategies of coterritorial Lausitz German (Bellmann 1977: 253). In the early 1980s the linguistic mechanism of relexification was initially introduced into theoretically oriented discussions based on the phenomenon of so-called "mixed languages". Specifically, the phenomenon was first defined explicitly in Muysken's analysis of Media Lengua (lit. "middle language"; also known as Utilla Ingiru "little Quechua"), spoken in Ecuador (1981). This language was shown to exhibit Quechua syntax and Quechua forms for affixes and other functional (grammatical) items, but to use almost exclusively Spanish forms for all major lexical categories. Muysken attributed the creation of Media Lengua to the process of relexification, "the process of vocabulary substitution in which the only information adopted from the target language in the lexical entry is the phonological representation" (1981: 61). The topic of relexification became the subject of further discussion a few years later with the suggestion that this mechanism might underly the genesis of some Caribbean Creole languages. An important milestone in the development of the relexification hypothesis was the research of Claire Lefebvre and John Lumsden and their associates at the Universite du Quebec ä Montreal where the relexification hypothesis for Haitian

Relexification hypothesis

11

Creole genesis was first put forward systematically (Lefebvre 1986, 1993, 1997,1998; Lefebvre and Lumsden 1989). A study of the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish would be expected to make an important contribution to the comparative study of relexification, since it offers four variables which are lacking in the Haitian Creole case: (i) The Slavic substrata in the case of Yiddish can be identified with reasonable certainty, (ii) Unlike Haitian Creole, where the substratum language was thought to be a West African language, Fongbe (spoken by the Fon people), and/or Bantu, and the superstratum lexifier language was French, the Slavic substratum and the German superstratum of Yiddish are both IndoEuropean languages (which have long been experiencing, independently of relexification, a considerable degree of mutual interference). (iii) Unlike Haitian Creole, where historical documentation is limited to about two centuries, the first relexification in Yiddish dates back about a thousand years, and a large part of this history enjoys some degree of textual attestation, (iv) Unlike Haitian Creole where relexification probably involved a single primary lexifier (and a single act, unless it proved to be ultimately relexified from more than one African language), I believe that Yiddish evolved through two separate acts of relexification, first, when a Western Slavic language, Upper Sorbian, was relexified to German and more limitedly to Old Hebrew by the 12th-13th centuries (to produce the V

language known since 1597 in a Krakow text as Yiddish: see Sacki 1935 and M. Weinreich 1973, 1: 321-323 for this and other glottonyms) and second, when an Eastern Slavic language, Kiev-Polessian (a contributor to both modern-day southern Belarusian and northern Ukrainian), was relexified to Yiddish, German (the latter two in a Modern German form) and secondarily Hebrew by the 15th century at the latest. In spite of great linguistic interest in the long-debated issue of Creole genesis, the process of relexification itself has still received only limited attention. For the most part, the discussion of relexification revolved only around the issue of whether it could account correctly for the phenomenon of creolization, given the linguistic and sociolinguistic conditions associated with the emergence of the

12

Relexißcation

hypothes is

various known Creole languages. There has been no real attempt to further investigate this curious process in its own right, in order to determine the linguistic and sociolinguistic prerequisites for its application, the role it might have played in the evolution of various languages, and to explore its potential implications for the theory of grammar (though see now Lefebvre 1998). Nothing has been done on historical relexification of any significant chronological depth and there is little discussion in the linguistic literature of how a synchronic or diachronic dictionary of a relexified language would necessarily differ from a dictionary of a non-relexified language (for a rare discussion, see Mühlhäusler 1982 and further discussion in chapter 3.3). Horvath and Wexler addressed two important questions in their 1997b: (i) the conditions under which relexification was likely to be used, and (ii) the possible linguistic outcomes of relexification. Of interest to us were the variations, if any, that are possible in the linguistic output of this processs, how various non-obvious cases of relexification could be diagnosed; and finally, how the observed differences among relexified languages could be explained. As to question (i), it appears that speakers resort to relexification by default, i.e. when no other option of acquiring a new language appropriate to the sociolinguistic needs of an emerging community is readily available. A comparative, and a diachronic perspective is clearly called for here. The detection of possible relexification in the evolution of a language is a difficult task. Successful detection involves historical and sociolinguistic evidence, in addition to the linguistic evidence. Obviously a language is created from a combination of factors, among which, as has been observed many times before, are both linguistic and non-linguistic (political, social, communicative, identificatory) factors. According to Lefebvre (1986), relexification is the process by means of which phonetic strings of the vocabulary of the superstratum language are substituted into the existing lexical entries of the substratum language. The relexification hypothesis claims that what determines which superstratum phonetic string gets copied into

Relexification hypothesis

13

which substratum lexical entry is an approximate matching of meanings, i.e. some shared semantic features between the entries involved. The essence of the process is that the new lexicon is incorporated into, and is moulded by, the phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic structure of the substratum language (i.e. the language being relexified), so that in the resulting language, the vocabulary is recognizable as being from one (superstratum) lexifier language (I would add that usually a secondary lexifier language is also needed to compensate for blockage of the main lexifiers), while the phonological, morphological, and syntactic processes and categories are recognizable as being from another (the substratum) language. As Lefebvre notes, the process should not affect the definition of a lexical entry but only its phonetic representation: thus, it would not be expected to involve the creation of new syntactic categories, or any other drastic changes in the grammar of the substratum language being relexified (1986: 284285; see also Singler 1996: 217-218). Hence, what indeed would constitute counterevidence for the relexification hypothesis would be if Yiddish, especially in its initial stages, exhibited syntactic categories existing in German but not in Slavic (the alleged substratum language). But this turns out probably not to be the case (with the possible exception of some non-verbal clitics, which might date from the post-relexification period). The prediction made by the relexification hypothesis that Yiddish exhibits no (or few) German grammatical features that violate Slavic grammar obviously renders the examination of Yiddish syntax a task of central importance. Complicating the assessment of the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish is the fact that Yiddish in Europe, despite its enormous geographical expanse from Holland to Russia and from the Baltic to northern Italy (in Europe matched by Romani-if the latter is indeed an Indie language and not merely a modest Indo-Iranian-Byzantine Greek lexicon-and surpassed only by Russian), never lost contact with German, its lexifier language; this fact could lead to the typological Germanization of Yiddish after the close of the relexification processes (a phenomenon called by native speakers, sometimes pejoratively, as dajemeris, German-

14

Relexification

hypothesis

ized Yiddish; on the latter, see chapter 3). In this regard, Yiddish is similar to many Caribbean Creole languages which never lose contact with their European lexifier language long after relexification. Similarly, the grammar of Modern Hebrew seems to manifest parallel tendencies, i.e. (i) the absence of most properties known to be characteristic of Old Hebrew and other Semitic languages which do not coincide with Yiddish and/or Slavic properties, and (ii) the presence of a host of Yiddish and Slavic features that are unlikely to be the result of subsequent borrowing. We very urgently need comparative grammars of Yiddish, Hebrew and Slavic that would enable us to flesh out the details of Yiddish and Hebrew genesis. This in turn would eliminate much of the extraneous emotional outbursts that discolor many discussions of relexification. While the present study treats in detail only a small number of Yiddish grammatical features, it does address a crucial argument in support of the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish, i.e. the ability to "predict" reasonably well the component makeup of Yiddish. The Yiddish findings would allow for predicting a sizeable amount of the (Slavic) Modern Hebrew lexicon too (see Wexler 2002a). Following are a few examples of how Yiddish has introduced many changes into its German component. Future studies will need to determine the relative chronologies of these changes, and to try to separate substratal Slavic grammatical patterns from latter postrelexification acquisitions. For instance, the Yiddish verbal paradigm has very often been simplified, in comparison with German, e.g. Y ix zej Ί see', du ze(j)st sg 'you see' vs. G ich sehe, du siehst,; Y ix es Ί eat', er est 'he eats' vs. G ich esse, er isst; Y ix nem Ί take', du nemst 'you take' vs. G ich nehme, du nimmst; Y ix brex Ί break', du brexst 'you break' vs. G ich breche, du brichst ßbrach); Y ix gib Ί give', du gist 'you give' vs. G ich gebe, du giebst (see Weissberg 1988: 139 and #Gabe). There is no precedent for these German morphophonemic alternations in Slavic; hence, they are not accepted by Yiddish. Conversely, morphophonemic alternations can be introduced into Yiddish Germanisms, if required by Slavic grammar, e.g. Yiddish distinguishes the infinitive from the 1st person pi in gejn 'to go'/ mir gejen 'we go' (see also stejn/ mir

Relexification

hypothesis

15

stejen 'to/ we stand', zen! mir zejen 'to/ we see', respectively) vs. a single form in G gehen! wir gehen (stehen, sehen), since the Slavic grammars always distinguish the finite and infinitival forms (see Uk oraty 'to plow', oremo 'we plow'). Future studies need to determine which Slavic alternations are retainable in the German lexical replacements. Where German has three past tenses, Yiddish is reduced to the perfect, consonant with the weakly developed temporal resources of Slavic (see Simon 1991: 257). Yiddish has lost case markers on nouns except for a few kinship terms, e.g. (m)tate 'father', mzejde m 'grandfather', (»)mame 'mother', mbobe f 'grandmother' > (m)tatn m acc case, etc. (Geller 1994: 112-113; Jacobs et al. 1994: 393; when consecutive nouns have the same gender and/or meaning, I will only mark the last example). The terms for 'grandmother' and 'grandfather' are of Slavic origin, possibly also the other two. The retention of case with these four nouns might have a precedent in Ukrainian. For example, the ending for the vocative singular of masculine nouns in Ukrainian depends on the quality of the stem. With hard stems, the vocative ends in -e and there are alternations in the final consonant if the latter is a velar, see e.g. druh 'friend' nom > druze voc vs. student 'student' nom > studente m voc. However, if the velar belongs to a suffix, then the vocative ending is -u, as in robitnyk 'worker' nom > robitnyku m voc. Historically soft stems take the vocative in -u, e.g. pryjateV 'friend' nom > pryjatelju voc, tovarys (< *-sb) 'comrade' nom > tovarysu m voc. An exception applies to stems ending in -c \ which form the vocative in -e, see e.g. xlopec' 'lad' nom > xlopce voc, kytajec' 'Chinese' nom > kytajcju ~ kytajce m voc (since -ec' < *-ekb). Curiously, there are four masculine nouns in Ukrainian which violate the distribution described above: these are the kinship terms syn 'son', svat 'matchmaker; kinsman, relative through marriage', tatο 'father', did 'grandfather', all of which unexpectedly form the vocative in -u. The distribution of Yiddish abstract suffixes (all of German origin) with adjectival and substantival stems (mostly of German origin) matches that of Slavic abstract suffixes rather than German. This suggests that Yiddish formed many of its compounds independently

16

Relexification

hypothesis

of German. See e.g. G Eile f 'haste' vs. Y ajlenis η ~ Uk pospisnist', kvaplyvist' f; G Enge 'crowdedness' vs. Y engsaft ~ Uk tisnota ~ tisnyna f; G Ernst m 'seriousness, gravity' vs. Y ernstkejt ~ USo chutnosc, Uk serjoznist', vazlyvist' ~ povaznist' (Grimm and Grimm 1854-1871 list Emstlichkeit 16th c); G Treue 'loyalty' (see ttgetrauen) vs. Y trejsaft ~ getrajsaft ~ USo swera ~ swernosc, Uk virnist \ viddanist' f; G Geiz m 'greed, stinginess' (see MGeizhals) vs. Y gajcikejt ~ USo skuposc, Uk skupist' f; G Wärme 'warmth' (see #warm) vs. Y varemkejt 'warmth' ~ Uk teplo n, teplota f; G Leere 'emptiness' vs. Y mpustkejt f (< Uk pustyj 'empty'; USo pusty is now 'desolate, deserted') ~ USo pustosc ~ pustota, Uk pustka 'wasteland; abandoned house; uncultivated ground' ~pustota f 'emptiness'; G Finsternis f, η (but note also MHG finster f) 'darkness' vs. Y fincter f 'dark(ness)' ~ fincternis η 'darkness' ~ USo cmowy 'dark' vs. cma, Uk t'ma ~ temin' ~ temnota ~ tempjava f 'darkness'. See also Y mplonter f ~ uplonternis η 'confusion' (< Pol plqtac 'muddle up' + G -er [as in Y feler 'error'?] + -nis) ~ Uk plutanyna ~ plutnja f vs. G Gewirr η (with a zero suffix) ~ Verwirrung f (Yiddish has the surface congener -ung); G Kühle 'coolness' (see #erkälten) vs. Y kilkejt 'coolness, aloofness' ~ USo chlodnota ~ chlodnosc, zymnosc f. The distribution of specific Yiddish abstract nominal suffixes, e.g. -kejt, -hejt and -saft, tends to follow that of Slavic suffixes, e.g. Uk -ist', regardless of the distribution of stG -schaft (see #beschaffen) and -keitl-heit f. Examples are Y grejtkejt 'readiness' ~ Uk hotovnist' ~ pidhotovlenist' vs. G Bereitschaft, Y tifenis, Prague Y tifnis (Schnitzler 1966: 27) 'depth' ~ USo hlubokosc vs. G Tiefe, but Y tißejt f ~ Uk hlyb m ~ hlybyn(j)a ~ hlybin' ~ hlybokist' f 'depth, profundity'. (The distribution of the German suffixes -heit/ -keit in Yiddish and German differs, see e.g. G Schönheit 'beauty' = Y sejnkejt, but sejnhejt 'beauty; beautiful woman', G Grobheit 'coarseness; rudeness' vs. Y grobkejt f 'rudeness, obscenity'; see also discussion in Kerler 1999: 165-167, 231-232.) Cases where Yiddish usage also corresponds with that of German, including dialects that served as lexifier dialects for Yiddish, need not diminish the claim of Slavicity in Yiddish. Often, Yiddish

Relexification hypothesis

17

appears to parallel Middle High German rather than Modern German derivational practice. This is not necessarily because Yiddish preserves Middle High German norms but is due to imitation of similar Slavic norms. Even if Yiddish acquired lexicon from Middle High German, the form of the German component of Yiddish is now overwhelmingly that of Modern High German; since contact with German was uninterrupted, the speakers of Yiddish chose to modernize their Germanisms (phonologically, but not morphologically; on modernization, see chapter 3). See e.g. G Reichtum m 'wealth' vs. MHG rich(h)eit ~ Y rajxhejt f ~ USo bohatstwo n; G Armut ~ Ärmlichkeit 'poverty' vs. MHG armecheit (see #arm) ~ Y oremkejt ~ USo chudoba ~ chudobosc f; G Geschwindigkeit, Schnelligkeit 'speed' vs. MHG swindekeit ~ swindecheit, snelheit, gcehede ~ gcehte ~ Y gesvindkejt, gix(kejt) ~ USo spesnosc f (see Y °snel in U. Weinreich 1968); G Güte 'goodness' vs. MHG güetecheit ~ güetikeit ~ Y gutskejt ~ USo dobrota ~ dobrosc f. There are also numerous cases where Yiddish lacks an overt derivational suffix altogether, in keeping with the Slavic usage of using a zero suffix or a vocalic ending, in contrast to an abstract suffix required in German, see e.g. Y gezunt 'health; healthy' ~ USo (arch) strowjo ~ strowje η 'health' (< strowy 'healthy' vs. contemporary strowota ~ strowosc f which follow German), Uk zdorov'ja η 'health' (< zdorov 'healthy') vs. G Gesundheit (though see MHG gesunt f 'health'). I would regard the parallelism between MHG gesunt f and Y gezunt η as coincidental, but even if the latter is indeed of Middle High German origin, it survives in Yiddish because it enjoys support from the Slavic languages. (If Y gezunt η were the relexification of a Slavic neuter noun, then it would be expected to be feminine; this fact suggests a late acquisition of the noun. Since a neuter gender cannot be ascribed to German, I assume it is the result of an internal Yiddish recalibration of gender; see details in chapter 4.5.1.) See also Yfincter f above. Also of Slavic origin is the distribution of the reflexive pronoun zix; the "tautologous infinitive" to express emphasis (an infinitive + cognate finite verb, followed by the subject; see Blanc 1948: 37, 39;

18

Relexification

hypothesis

Schaechter 1986: 305); the use of two diminutives (see details in Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #36); the double negative (on negation in Yiddish, see M. Weinreich 1980: 423; Simon 1991: 258; Jacobs et al. 1994: 417; the double negative also exists in German Yiddish where it may have an independent source); analytical expression of comparative and superlative adjectives; calibration of German verbal prefixes (see Wexler 1964, 1972 and #Wahl-under the latter see also discussion of the future auxiliary vein); psycho-ostensive expressions (see Matisoff 1979); possessive adjectives formed from names of animals; a resumptive pronoun (see Lötzsch 1974: 458; Dyhr and Zint 1988: 199; Jacobs et al. 1994: 416-417); lexical expression of defmiteness (by removing the stress from the demonstrative pronoun); the interrogative particle ci with subjectpredicate inversion; the analytical expression of possession; no verbfinal position in subordinate clauses; the elimination of the past simple. See also the discussion of compounding in chapter 4.5.2. This enumeration is very partial. In some cases, a Slavic pattern of discourse appears in the Yiddish relexified to unspoken Old Hebrew in the Middle Ages ("Ashkenazic Hebrew") and to spoken and unspoken Old Hebrew in the 1880s (the latter now popularly known as "Israeli" or "Modern Hebrew"), but not in Yiddish itself; I assume that Yiddish originally had the same early Slavic (Sorbian) patterns of discourse but lost them under the later impact of Ukrainian or German (if the latter differed from Upper Sorbian). For example, ModHe Apaxot ο joter 'more or less' (not attested before the 19th century according to Kna'ani 1960-1980, but clearly much older) follows the unusual order of 'less or more' vs. Y mer-vejniker, fil-vejnik, (mid 19th c) mer oder miner (lit. 'more or less' < German), which imitates German or East Slavic word order. The Hebrew word order could have been modeled on USo mjenje (abo) bole (vs. USo wjetse abo mjense) or Pol mniej wiqcej, while Uk bil's (abo) mens (lit. 'more [or] less') could have set the Yiddish norms. ModHe baxurcik 'young boy' < OHe bähür 'boy' + SI -cik dim is matched in Yiddish by boxerec 'brat', but Ukrainian and Belarusian also had the Hebraism, see e.g. Uk baxurcyk, Br baxurcyk m 'child'; the non-

Relexification hypothesis

19

diminutive is found in Ukrainian beginning with the late 16th century (see Wexler 1987a: 201-202 and chapters 3.1 and 4.7). See also ModHe buxta 'pile (of cash)', which I presume is derived from USo, LSo buchta 'pile of wastefully thrown straw or hay' (Bielfeldt 1933); I do not know if Y boxte 'kind of coffee cake' < Pol buchta f 'cake' is also related (on the former, see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #91). The neutralization of definiteness and optional word order to express indefinite subjects in Modern Hebrew may both be reflections of the Eastern Slavic substratum, which lacked lexical (but not syntactic and morphological) expression of definiteness, see e.g. ModHe boger hauniversita (lit. 'graduate' + 'the university'), which is ambigu-ously 'the/ a university graduate', harakevet higia 'the train arrived' with definite noun + verb order vs. higia rakevet with optional verb + indefinite noun order rakevet higia) 'a train arrived', following Uk pojizd pryjsov 'the train came' vs. pryjsov pojizd 'a train came' (though this sort of word order is also found in article-bearing languages). Whereas Modern Hebrew can express an indefinite 3rd person plural subject by pronoun deletion (as in Russian or Ukrainian), Yiddish follows German syntax, see e.g. ModHe (hem) medabrim rusit, R (oni) govorjat po-russki '(they)/ people speak Russian' vs. Y me(n) redt rusis, G man spricht russisch 'people speak Russian' ~ Y zej redn rusis, G sie sprechen russisch 'they speak Russian'; see also USo wolaja mje 'people call me, I am called' (see also He kjdämöt 'blood' and milUm ~ millöt f 'words' in chapters 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, respectively; on the dual in Modern Hebrew, see chapter 4.5.4). Speakers of a relexified language are usually unaware of the role of relexification in the genesis of their language, unless they have participated in the act themselves. But they may be aware of a break in the transmission of the language. In the case of Modern Hebrew some speakers have tried to cover up the effects of relexification by flooding the language with archaic rules from the allegedly original grammar that help to reestablish structural similarities between the new language and the ancient language from which the former is supposed to be derived (see Bolozky 1994: 81, 1995: 132); but "typological" similarity between Modern and Old Hebrew is quite

20

Relexißcation hypothesis

different from historical, genetic links. Discussions about the "typology" of Modern Hebrew are reminiscent of the voluminous discussions of the so-called "creole", "dialect" or "interlanguage continuum", whereby a creole that remains in contact with its European lexifier "acrolect" allegedly may approach the latter to the point where it "merges" with it; here too there is a confusion between typological and genetic classification (see DeCamp 1971: 350; Lefebvre 1974; Escure 1981, 1997; Rickford 1987; Holm 1988, 1: 52; Schneider 1990; Sebba 1997: 211, 222-223). Unfortunately, it is probably impossible to determine how earlier speakers of Yiddish regarded the relationships between Yiddish and coterritorial German and Slavic speech. Althaus has assumed that the use of MHG tiutsch, diutsch 'German' as an early epithet for Yiddish shows that the Ashkenazic Jews recognized the relationship of their language to medieval German (1972: 1345), but this evidence is at best only suggestive, since the Yiddish terms tajc(n) m, f 'meaning', tajcn 'interpret', fartajcn 'translate, especially from Hebrew into Yiddish', tajc-Lxumes 'relexification of the Hebrew Bible into German vocabulary, traditionally read by women' (lit. 'meaning' + 'Pentateuch'), suggest that Yiddish speakers were aware of the fact that the syntax and derivational strategies of the tajc-Axumes m were mirror images of Hebrew, with only the vocabulary being of German origin. Readers would have also known that the German component of these Bible texts differed from that of relexified Yiddish, see e.g. Y Ajeruse(s) f vs. Y Bible "translation" arb < MHG Merbe η 'inheritance'. Since the 18th century, Yiddish speakers probably all defined Yiddish as a form of German, manifested in the fact that standard Yiddish was much more receptive to German than to Slavic enrichment. Of course, for many speakers, almost all Hebraisms had the right of citizenship in Yiddish, though this did not incline any native speakers to define Yiddish as a dialect of Hebrew (for the view among non-native observers, see below). A common claim in the discussions of the creation of Creoles, both within and outside of the relexification framework, is that creole genesis is motivated by communicative needs. However, in his

Relexification hypothesis

21

study of the mixed Media Lengua, Muysken reaches the important conclusion that a new language can also be created independently of communicative needs, and not necessarily in a situation of interrupted or otherwise incomplete second language acquisition (1981: see also below). Consideration of the circumstances found in the emergence of the set of allegedly relexification-induced languages, such as Modern Hebrew, Haitian Creole and Media Lengua, led Horvath and Wexler to propose a somewhat stronger hypothesis (1997b). We assumed that the creation of a new language by means of relexification has one fundamental and necessary motivation behind it, namely the creation of a new group identity for the relexifying speakers. While we recognized that there are additional communicative benefits that accrue from creating a new language by means of relexification, we claimed that communication needs by themselves do not induce relexification, with the intention of creating a new language. The identificatory motivation that we argued was needed for the creation of Creoles, as well as new non-creole languages via relexification, can arise in two distinct types of situations: (i) when the self-defined group is linguistically heterogeneous, or (ii) when the self-defined group has a (possibily homogeneous) linguistic identity that is not unique to it and cannot delineate the group from linguistically identical surrounding speakers. The problem facing historical linguists and students of language interference is to distinguish cases where Language A has been influenced by Language Β from cases where Language Β has been relexified to Language A. It is imperative to recognize that relexification is radically different from massive language interference in conditions of bilingualism. In some discussions, relexification is mistakenly understood to be a form of extreme borrowing (this is the error of Tobin 1997: 326). In language interference, a target language that accepts loans or translates non-native patterns of discourse usually (at least initially) uses the non-native material or models according to the semantic parameters of the source language. Thus, English borrows R sputnik with only one of its meanings'artificial satellite' (but not in the meaning of 'travelling companion'); this is typically the case in language borrowing.

22

Relexification

hypothesis

Furthermore, R sputnik is not used in English as a replacement (or relexification) of a pre-existing English word. In a certain sense, relexification can be construed as the mirror image of loan translations. In both processes Language A taps the resources of Language B. The difference lies in what is being tapped. In loan translations, Language A borrows patterns of discourse from Language Β but substitutes its own phonetic strings in place of the foreign strings; e.g. R yygljadet', Uk vyhljadaty 'seem, appear' (< native R, Uk yy- 'out' + R gljadet', Uk hljadity 'see') is a loan translation that copies the component structure and meaning of synonymous G aussehen (< aus- 'out' + sehen 'see': see #.Angesicht). In relexification, Language A takes the phonetic strings of Language Β which are recalibrated according to the lexical and derivational parameters of Language A, as when Yiddish uses German vocabulary with gender assignment, plural strategies, and meanings dictated by Slavic. A further difference between relexification and loan translation resides in the extent of the process; loan translations tend to be atomistic and quantitatively limited; in relexification, there is an attempt to lift almost the entire lexicon from the lexifier language. Finally, it is important to note that, in contrast to most writers, we regard relexification as a secondlanguage (L2) rather than first-language (LI) phenomenon. Relexification differs from the usual L2 acquisition in one important regard: speakers of LI often create mergers of LI and L2 translation equivalents, especially when LI and L2 are closely related, but such "interlingual" creations tend to be eliminated soon by the pressure of the correct L2 norm. In relexification, there is usually no pressure from the speakers of the L2 lexifier language to alter the deviant use of their material by the relexifiers (see chapter 3.1). In relexification, the lexifier language only provides phonetic strings, while the "relexified" substratum language determines their semantic, syntactic and derivational calibration. In Yiddish, the German lexicon acquired in relexification is calibrated according to Upper Sorbian or Kiev-Polessian rules. Thus Yiddish Germanisms very often differ semantically, syntactically and derivationally from their German surface congeners. Moreover, the actual corpus of

Relexification hypothesis

23

German material that Yiddish can accept is determined by Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian (see chapter 4). We do not know enough about the upper limits of language borrowing to be able to distinguish readily between cases where Language A has been heavily influenced by Language Β and cases where Language Β has been relexified to Language A (though the status of substratal parameters would help distinguish the two types). Could so many Slavic patterns of discourse, syntactic and derivational patterns have been borrowed by Yiddish-while the lexicon remained overwhelmingly German? This dichotomy in Yiddish looks suspiciously like the paramount diagnostic test for relexification cited above (on this and other tests, see below). Rather than conceal the act of relexification, the preponderance of High German influence in the lexicon of Yiddish primarily makes relexification in the genesis of Yiddish suggestive. Hence, I prefer to assume that the Slavic imprint in Yiddish grammar is native; other diagnostic tests support this assumption. Gumpertz and Wilson have shown in their study of Indo-Iranian/Dravidian contact that grammatical convergence and relexification are incompatible (1971), since in the presence of the former, a unique lexicon is the only barrier preventing complete merger with a coterritorial language. Hence, if relexification indeed played a role in the genesis and evolution of Yiddish, we cannot hope to claim along with U. Weinreich that "Yiddish appears in many respects to have joined the East European 'convergence group of languages'" (1958: 412). Historical linguists do not often cite relexification among the likely processes in the genesis or evolution of non-creole languages. They clearly believe that prior instances of relexification are exceedingly difficult to identify since the relevant sociolinguistic information is often unrecoverable. Nevertheless, quite a number of Creole and non-creole languages have recently been identified around the world which owe their genesis to relexification, e.g. Mbugu (or Ma'a) in northeast Tanzania, Michif, a mixed CreeFrench language spoken in the Canadian Prairie provinces, North Dakota and Montana, Haitian and other Caribbean Creoles, Media Lengua in Ecuador, Callahuaya (or Machaj Juyai) in Bolivia, Damin

24

Relexification

hypothesis

in Australia, Shelta in the British Isles, some forms of Irish English, and Esperanto (see Horvath and Wexler 1997b). Earlier, Horvath and Wexler (1994) proposed that relexification was a factor in the creation of unspoken languages of liturgy and culture such as Medieval Latin, Old Church Slavic and Medieval Hebrew. Here we argued that unspoken languages of liturgy and literature, given the absence of native speakers, by definition utilized the grammar of the scribes' spoken languages (or the original Greek language of the texts in the case of Old Church Slavic), with a hieratic lexicon (e.g. Hebrew, Latin) serving as lexifier. Horvath and Wexler (1997b) also suggested that there were other languages in which the possibility of prior relexification merited a closer examination. The list included in particular languages spoken in territories of historical conflict between two or more languages, such as (i) Rumanian, which crystallized in a totally Slavic milieu in the early second millennium, (ii) contemporary Sorbian in the face of German encroachment, (iii) Iberian Judeo-Arabic in the face of Castilian (between the 11th century and 1492 in Spain and until the mid 16th century in the Eastern Mediterranean diaspora), (iv) contemporary Belarusian and Ukrainian in the face of Russian, and (v) Romani. I hypothesized that "Romani" was not an Indie language (as is almost universally maintained), but rather a set of European grammars on which a modest Indo-Iranian and Byzantine Greek lexicon (sometimes together with a modest morphological machinery from those languages) was grafted (1997b). In counterdistinction to the standard view that Rumanian is a direct descendant of Latin brought to the Balkan Peninsula in the 2nd century A.D. (which subsequently underwent intense Slavicization beginning with the 6th century A.D.), I entertained the possibility that Rumanian was an indigenous Balkan Indo-European or imported South Slavic language that became relexified to Romance lexicon after the 10th century (1997c). Based on a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic evidence, I also suggested that Iberian Judeo-Arabic was replaced by two languages between the 11th and late 15th centuries: Spanish (that became only marginally Judaized in its lexicon-a sign of its relative recency of use among the Jews) and relexified Judeo-

Relexification hypothesis

25

Arabic, i.e. Arabic relexified to Spanish words. The latter survived briefly in the Sephardic diaspora that took root in the Eastern Mediterranean, before being supplanted in the 16th century by modestly Judaized Spanish (1996a). A major task facing students of the relexification hypothesis is to identify the features, linguistic and partly non-linguistic, that might suggest the existence of relexification. Seventeen diagnostic tests for the identification of prior relexification have so far been isolated. The first four tests cited below have been proposed by creolists; of these the first two also apply to Yiddish (examples are given in chapters 4-4.4): 1. The primary test is that in relexification-based languages the grammar and phonology are derived from the substratal language of the community, while most of the lexicon has a non-native source; very little of the original lexicon is retained. A dichotomy in the origin of most of the lexicon on the one hand and that of the grammar and phonology on the other is precisely what we find in many so-called creole languages which are thought to have arisen from the rather rapid merger of two distinctly different linguistic sources, e.g. a European and an African, Asian, Polynesian, source, etc. In these languages the European "parent" supplies most of the vocabulary, while the non-European "parent" is responsible for the grammar and phonology. For example, in the case of Haitian Creole, some scholars believe that a West African language, Fongbe, was "relexified" to French in Haiti (Lefebvre 1986; Lefebvre and Lumsden 1989, 1994). The Fongbe grammar, phonology and phonotactics remained more or less intact in the process. A crucial fact about relexification is that the French lexicon in Haitian Creole was calibrated according to Fongbe rather than French requirements-in other words, it was not just "borrowed" but used as the now displaced Fongbe vocabulary had been used; this is tantamount to saying that the native Fongbe vocabulary was simply replaced by phonetic strings from French, so that the French morphemes are not used as they were in the source language.

26

Relexification hypothesis

In the case of contemporary Yiddish, the grammar and phonology are predominantly of Slavic origin, while approximately 75% of the vocabulary is High German (see Wiener 1898: 621; S. A. Birnbaum 1922: 53; Jofe 1928: 240-241-all of whom give similar ratios-and Wexler 1991a: 33-34, 108-109 for further discussion); the remaining lexicon is split roughly between Hebraisms (and innovative Hebroidisms) and Slavicisms-only a small part of which can today be derived with certainty from the Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian substrata (due to the magnitude of the two relexification processes and to the probable replacement of many originally unrelexified Sorbianisms retained in Yiddish by their Kiev-Polessian and even Polish cognates). The blockage of many Germanisms necessitated recourse to a second minor lexifier (Hebrew and Hebroid elements: see diagnostic test 5 below). A sizeable part of the Hebraisms acquired by Yiddish was intended to replace Germanisms that could not be accepted by Yiddish (due to Slavic substratal requirements, which I will spell out below). After the two relexification phases to High German and Hebrew were completed, Yiddish continued to acquire Germanisms, Hebraisms and Slavicisms (from both old and new sources, like Polish) as outright loans, but the bulk of the Yiddish Germanisms and possibly also of the Hebraisms were acquired originally in the process of relexification and thus can often be expected to differ from the functions of the host etyma. J. Mark estimates the Hebrew corpus of Yiddish at between 10-12,000 words and delineates other factors encouraging Yiddish receptivity to Hebrew, e.g. the educational background of the speaker, stylistic considerations, or the subject matter being discussed (1954a). The use of Hebraisms and Hebroidisms to fill in lexical gaps in Yiddish that could not be filled by Germanisms constitutes dramatic proof of the relexification process. In order to facilitate the identification of Hebraisms, Hebroidisms, Slavicisms and Slavoidisms and the assessment of their relative importance, and to enable the reader to identify where in the lexicon blockage of Germanisms takes place, I will highlight Yiddish Hebraisms and Hebroidisms by the symbols • and A, and Yiddish Slavicisms and Slavoidisms by the symbols • and •, respectively; unidentified examples are Ger-

Relexification hypothesis

27

manisms in Yiddish. By Hebroidism I mean new Hebrew forms and/or meanings, coined by Yiddish speakers to fill lexical lacunae due to the blockage of Germanisms. While there are some important studies of Yiddish Hebroidisms (e.g. Elzet 1958; J. Mark 1958; Nobl 1958; U. Weinreich 1961; Gold 1981; Kaddari 1984, 1991; see also Lejbl 1929: column 216), no dictionary of Yiddish Hebraisms makes a distinction between genuine Hebraisms and Hebroidisms. A future study should compare Yiddish Hebraisms and Hebroidisms with those in other Jewish languages (where a smaller number of Hebroidisms are not necessarily motivated by the needs of relexification). A major goal of Yiddish linguistics should be to determine the relative chronology and changing corpus of Hebraisms in Yiddish. This information is particularly crucial in assessing the claims of the relexification hypothesis in the genesis and early development of Yiddish. For example, in the course of the 20th century, Yiddish poetry gradually came to use more and more Hebraisms (J. Mark 1954a: 38). Schaechter cites examples of earlier Yiddish Hebraisms that were replaced by Germanisms in the 18th-19th centuries, see e.g. OWY Abal-melxome 'soldier (lit. 'possessor of war') > Y zelner > soldat (< G Söldner, Soldat m) in the 19th century (1991: 262-263). Unfortunately, there are no Yiddish historical dictionaries for any period. Yiddish dialects differ minimally (as the relexification hypothesis would lead us to expect) in their Hebrew corpus; an example of a difference is LiY Amistäme vs. PolY Aminastäm 'probably' (J. Mark 1954a: 45); LiY • rak 'only' and Ahexrex m 'necessity' are not usually found in other Yiddish dialects. It is also unclear if all Hebrew synonyms in Yiddish were intended to replace blocked Germanisms (note that some synonyms have other or original Hebroid meanings), e.g. 'shame' is Y Axarpe, Abuse f, • bizojen, Aumkovedm (also 'disgrace, dishonor', see also Aumkovedik 'derogatory'), 'joy, pleasure' is Asimxe, Anexome (also 'consolation, solace'), Agdule (also 'glory, grandeur, something to boast about'), Ahanoe f, tajneg (also A'zest, delight; thrill[s]'), Aojneg (also 'enjoyment'), Anaxes 'sorrow' is A car, Asivre-lev m, Ainuim pit (also ine f A'torture [rackY),jesurim pit

28

Relexification hypothesis

A'sorrow' (also 'agony, anguish, pain'). Motivations for accepting Hebraisms independent of relexification are discussed in chapter 3.2. It is noteworthy that Yiddish has a number of grammatical and phonological rules that apply only to its Hebrew and Slavic components or only to its German components, respectively. This split between the patterning of Yiddish components depending on their origin suggests that Yiddish once had only Sorbian rules which applied to the Sorbian and Hebrew components while the German component was acquired later (for an early, but skeletal, attempt to posit functional links between the Hebrew and Slavic components in Yiddish, see Spilrejn 1926: 8-9). There are reasons to believe that the former are real rules of Sorbian grammar while the latter are only "relics" of phonological rules acquired through German lexicon during relexification (see details in Wexler 1991b). Old Sorbian phonological features that are attested in most dialects of Yiddish but not of German include final voiced consonants in all the components of Yiddish, Μ (including after front vowels), initial /s/ and /x/, as well as a rich inventory of consonant clusters in the Hebrew and Slavic components of Yiddish (including clusters unattested elsewhere in Slavic languages, such as xk-, xs-, xs-). Sorbian morphosyntactic features are also attested in Yiddish, see e.g. the verbal infix m/A-en- in mainly Hebrew verbs, borrowed German verbal prefixes displaying Slavic prefix functions for the most part, and noun pluralization strategies shared by Hebrew and Slavic components (see discussion of u/±-[e]s in chapter 4.5.3). On compounding of adjectives and nouns without a conjunction, possible with Hebrew and Slavic components, see #Angesicht. The consonantal system of Yiddish, unlike that of German, is also strikingly monolithic throughout the Eastern Yiddish territory (Kiefer 1985: 1204). Yiddish speakers also had a tradition of producing "literal Yiddish translations" of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible, which required fidelity to Hebrew-Aramaic syntactic and derivational strategies. Strictly speaking, such "translations" are really relexifications of the original Hebrew-Aramaic text to German lexicon; this explains why the

Relexification hypothesis

29

Yiddish Bible "translations" have almost none of the Hebraisms that abound in colloquial Yiddish (on relexifying unspoken languages of liturgy and literature, see Horvath and Wexler 1994; on the blockage of Spanish Arabisms in Iberian Judeo-Arabic relexified to Spanish, see Wexler 1996a: 154-163). Both Slavic substrata of Yiddish grammar-Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian (Belarusian and Ukrainian)-have been for centuries absorbing considerable German, and Polish-Russian influences, respectively, as well as losing speakers through language shift to the more prestigious coterritorial languages. With the demise of the USSR, the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages have reassumed functions they were deprived of by Russian in the early 1930s (see Wexler 1974). Some residents of Belarus' and Ukraine are finding it advantageous to speak Belarusian and Ukrainian rather than Russian, which was formerly their dominant language; but many only acquire Belarusian and Ukrainian vocabulary, while keeping their Russian grammar relatively intact. There is also a modest Sorbian revival in Upper Lausitz. Thus, relexified forms of German (with Sorbian vocabulary) and Russian (with Belarusian and Ukrainian vocabulary) are coming into existence. These phenomena are, paradoxically, the mirror image of the relexification processes experienced by the Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian Jews centuries ago. 2. Certain semantic domains can be used as an "index of origin" (see discussion of the retention of Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian elements in Yiddish in chapter 4.6). For example, Sorbian elements denote concepts intimately connected with "Jewish" culture and religion. A problem with this test is that we cannot be certain about the original scope of the Slavicisms, since often the latter have been replaced by recent Hebraisms lifted from Old Hebrew texts, inspired by a tendency to "Judaize" originally non-Jewish concepts. See also test 17 below and discussion of lexical bifurcation in chapter 3.2. 3. Radical changes in the grammar and phonology of a language in a relatively short space of time. For example, impressionistically

30

Relexification hypothesis

speaking, Modern Hebrew changed more dramatically in the first one or two generations after its genesis in the 1880s than Semitic Old Hebrew did in some 1200 years of normal, uninterrupted development. 4. The absence of a body of children in the speech community suggests the possibility of prior relexification. There are other diagnostic tests that raise the suspicion of prior relexification in Yiddish (for non-Yiddish examples, see Horvath and Wexler 1997b: 60-71): 5. As I noted in the first diagnostic test above, blockage of the primary lexifier source may necessitate recourse to a second minor lexifier. Hence, the first diagnostic test may be strengthened when the lexicon (of a different source than the grammar and phonology) consists of a major etymological component (e.g. 75-80%) and a minor etymological component of a different origin (10-15%)-with the remainder consisting of unrelexified native lexicon and postrelexificational acquisitions. A confirming example is Yiddish with a major Germanic and a minor Hebrew/Hebroid component, or Haitian Creole with a major French and a minor (non-native, i.e. non-Fongbe) African lexical component. 6. A comparison of the lexicons of the putative unrelexified substratal and superstratal lexifier languages would allow us to predict the component structure of the relexified substratal language. If the prediction is close to the actual corpus of the language believed to have undergone relexification, then the chances are good that relexification indeed took place. Indeed, the corpus of Germanisms that we would predict for Yiddish (and the location of Hebraisms, though not the morphemes themselves) very closely follows that of U. Weinreich's Modern English-Yiddish YiddishEnglish dictionary (1968). The paramount advantage of this dictionary is that it carefully distinguishes between primeval Yiddish Germanisms, and accepted and unrecommended new Germanisms

Relexification hypothesis

31

ν

(Sapiro 1969 criticised Weinreich for puristically "eliminating" many Germanisms, sanctioned by Soviet Yiddish language planners, e.g. in Sapiro et al., Russko-evrejskij [idis] slovar' 1984; the fact that Weinreich's "puristic" recommendations match so well the presumed original German component of Yiddish suggests that many recent post-relexificational acquisitions from German can be identified fairly easily). This diagnostic test is as significant as the first test listed above. 7. If one member of a language family differs radically from other members of the family in the amount of inherited lexicon from the (alleged) parent language, it is possible that the speech form with the smaller lexicon may have acquired it via relexification or borrowed it rather than inherited the latter. Yiddish has a strikingly reduced German component (and is especially poor in synonyms of German origin) compared to the native component of any single German dialect (see chapter 3.2); conversely, Yiddish has an inordinately large Hebrew and Hebroid component in Yiddish in comparison with that of any other Jewish language. I can conceive of two reasons why Yiddish lacks the volume of German-origin synonyms found in most German dialects: (i) Not all synonyms were used in the German lexifier dialect(s) at the time of the relexification. (ii) The number of German synonyms to which Yiddish can relexify is a function of the number of synonyms that are available in (Judeo-)Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian. Contemporary Upper and Lower Sorbian retain the smallest percentage of Common Slavic roots of all the Slavic languages (Kopecny 1968: 136). This is undoubtedly a function of the long-term language attrition and obsolescence in German-speaking milieux that began before and during the first relexification phase. A reduced Sorbian lexicon would have limited the opportunities of Yiddish to acquire a substantial German vocabulary via relexification. Considering that Yiddish has been exposed to German for about a millennium both as a lexifier language and as a source of post-relexification loans, it is surprising how small the German lexicon of Yiddish is (for a parallel discussion of the impoverished mixed Asian corpus of

32

Relexification hypothesis

Romani, see Wexler 1997b). The reduced German corpus of Yiddish testifies both to the relexification hypothesis as well as to an early date for Sorbian lexical depletion. The Yiddish lexicon might have expanded significantly in the second relexification phase, since Kiev-Polessian shows less attrition in its Slavic corpus; this hypothesis cannot easily be proven, given the absence of early Yiddish texts, but it might from time to time be possible to postulate which Germanisms were probably first acquired in Kiev-Polessie. The phenomenon of "lexical bifurcation", where synonyms of different component origins are ethnically calibrated, is discussed in detail in chapter 3.2. 8. A unique reflection of the Sorbian substratum is the parallel lexical gaps in Yiddish, Polabian and Sorbian: where Yiddish used Hebraisms in place of Germanisms, the two Slavic languages spoken in the mixed Germano-Slavic lands, Sorbian and Polabian, tended to borrow Germanisms. The parallel distribution of loans finds no match in other Slavic languages (even in Czech and Polish, which were also very widely receptive to German enrichment), see e.g. Y Lrecejex 'murderer' < He röceah m and Y • hargenen 'to kill' < He härag 'he killed' ~ USo mordar m 'murderer', mordowac 'to murder' (since 1597) < G Mörder m, morden, respectively (see #Mord). Originally I believed that Hebraisms were one means of blocking the on-going process of Germanization of Sorbian and Polabian (1991b); while it is difficult to motivate the specific corpus of Germanisms selected by Sorbian and Polabian since these are usually straightforward cases of borrowing, this is not true with most of the Hebrew component of Yiddish. Hebraisms were not just selected by Yiddish in response to the German component flooding Sorbian and Polabian. It is clear to me now that the reason that Yiddish rejects most of the Germanisms accepted by Upper Sorbian is precisely because lexicon shared by German and Sorbian (and sometimes even Polabian) could not be defined any longer by the native speaker as unambiguous "Germanisms", and hence had to be blocked in relexification.

Relexification hypothesis

33

As I will show in chapter 4, there are also a great many Hebraisms in Yiddish required by the relexication process that lack parallel Germanisms in Sorbian. (Throughout I will cite Sorbian examples mainly from the Upper Sorbian variant [spoken in Bautzen/USo Budysin and surrounding areas of Upper Lausitz], since the Yiddish parallels with Upper Sorbian are more striking than with Lower Sorbian [spoken in Cottbus/LSo Chosebuz ~ USo Chocebuz and surrounding areas of Lower Lausitz].) The broad overlap between the distribution of Germanisms in Sorbian and Polabian on the one hand and Hebraisms in Yiddish on the other hand is a crucial fact which encourages me to place the first relexification phase in the Sorbian lands, rather than in another Slavic territory, say, e.g. the Czech lands, which had a documented Jewish community in the 10th century (comprising mainly Byzantine Greek rather than Ashkenazic Jews). Future studies should try to determine the extent to which the Hebraisms that parallel Upper Sorbian and Polabian Germanisms have been in Yiddish longer than Hebraisms that do not. 9. The absence of most of the derivational morphology and allomorphic variants in one language in contrast to other allegedly related languages is a very strong indication of prior relexification. An example is Yiddish, whose German lexicon displays very few productive German derivational processes used without major constraints. 10. The high number of Yiddish loan translations of Slavic patterns of discourse presupposes a fluent knowledge of Slavic languages (at least at the time of relexification). While loan translations of Slavic could, in principle, be ascribed to bilingual interference, there are too many suspicious signs of relexification from Slavic in Yiddish, especially the ability to predict the selection and calibration of German elements in Yiddish. Most Germanisms in Yiddish are calibrated according to Slavic norms. Bilingual interference might be expected to bring the meanings of Germanisms in Yiddish into line with the meanings of their Slavic "translation equivalents", but

34

Relexification hypothesis

could never (i) lead to systematic loss of all Germanisms that differed from Slavic derivational and semantic patterns, or (ii) determine the criteria for selecting Hebraisms. Moreover, the relexification hypothesis demonstrates clearly that Yiddish speakers had a good control of both German and Slavic. It is only during the last two centuries that we find many Jews not conversant in the coterritorial Slavic languages; e.g. the first Polish grammar for Yiddish speakers was Liondor (1827; see Schaechter 1990 and Geller 2001: 12-13, 20, 30, though 12th-century coins minted by Jews have Polish inscriptions in Hebrew characters [see Gumowski 1975]). However, see Wexler (1994) on idiosyncratic Slavic title pages of Yiddish and Hebrew books and the praise of the Belarusian spoken by early 20th-century rural Jews in Jadvihin S. (1910), suggesting that the use of Slavic by Jews varied from place to place. 11. There is much that is original in the German component in Yiddish (apart from the occasional retention of forms that are either archaic or obsolete in German). The creative use of the German component stands in sharp contrast to the relatively few innovative forms and meanings in the Slavic component of Yiddish (most unique Yiddish Slavisms turn out to be of considerable antiquitypossibly original coinages of Judeo-Slavic?). The Hebrew component of Yiddish also provides more innovative forms and meanings than the Slavic component ("Hebroidisms" invented by Yiddish speakers), but these are usually replacements for Germanisms that were blocked in Yiddish. 12. Evidence of "updating" or "modernizing" the shape of loans according to the sound changes in the donor languages points to widespread bilingualism which often accompanies (cyclical) relexification. This contrasts with ordinary cases of borrowing where we expect the rules of the target language to apply to the loans after the borrowing process. A possible parallel may be Rumanian, where the Slavic influence is known to have begun as early as the 6th-7th centuries with the very arrival of the Slavs in the peninsula (as in coterritorial target languages), yet the actual shape

Relexification hypothesis

35

of allegedly early Rumanian Slavicisms shows a form and meaning characteristic of the 9th-10th centuries and following. The form of most Germanisms in Yiddish is consonant with Modern rather than Middle High German norms. The ability to modernize is tantamount to having a knowledge of German lexicon beyond that which is licensed for use in Yiddish itself. Yiddish differs from Rumanian modernization, in that in Yiddish, it is the German superstratum which undergoes (constant?) adjustment to Modern German norms, while in Rumanian it is not yet clear if the sizeable Slavic component is the unrelexified substratum or an adstratum/superstratum. If it was a Slavic substratum that Rumanian modernized, then Yiddish does not offer a counterpart. 13. A language that is largely incomprehensible to speakers of an allegedly related language as well as to the speakers of the alleged substratum may have undergone relexification. Yiddish is unintelligible to speakers of Upper Sorbian, Ukrainian and Belarusian; while German speakers may identify the bulk of the German component of Yiddish, they are not always able to understand it (e.g. Y blien = G blühen 'to bloom' but Y farblien 'to bloom forth' vs. G verblühen 'fade'). Comrie notes that the Quechua in Ecuador relexified to Spanish, known as Media Lengua, is incomprehensible to monolingual speakers of Quechua, including those dialects which are rich in Spanish lexical influence, and to Spanish speakers who have some knowledge of Quechua (1999: 616). 14. Studies of bilingual interference suggest that frequently used words are less likely to be replaced by loans than infrequently used words (see Haugen 1953, 1: 97; Mühlhäusler 1986: 113). Assuming that Yiddish was a variant of High German, then the Hebrew and Slavic elements were loans-but replacing both frequent and infrequent vocabulary. This raises the suspicion that German is not the native element in Yiddish. There are still other diagnostic tests for relexification that are not applicable to Yiddish:

36

Relexification

hypothesis

15. If a significant non-native component found in the dialect spoken by the majority population is lacking in a closely related dialect spoken by a (religious, ethnic or national) minority, we may suspect that the latter dialect arose through relexification from the very language supplying input to the majority dialect. A striking example is the enormous Arabic component in Spanish dialects versus a paucity of Arabisms in Judeo-Spanish (for details, see Wexler 1996a). 16. A diagnostic test related to the above says that if an apparently non-native influence common to two reputedly related dialects assumes a radically different form and semantic calibration, we may assume that one of the "dialects" may have borrowed the non-native elements, while the other may have inherited them; the latter speech form may be a relexified form of the language which supplied the non-native elements to the first target language. For example, JudeoSpanish Arabisms often preserve the original form and meaning of the Arabic etyma better than the surface congeners in Christian Spanish dialects. 17. Inadequate native resources in a given semantic or stylistic domain are a strong suggestion of relexification to a deficient lexifier language. For instance, when Yiddish was relexified to Old Hebrew vocabulary in the late 19th century in order to create Modern Hebrew, almost all of the Yiddish lexical terms were abandoned, yet Old Hebrew lacked the resources to replace the Yiddish vulgar component. Hence, the bulk of Modern Hebrew vulgarisms had to be taken from Yiddish, Arabic and Russian. See also test 2 above. The claim that Yiddish was in fact a Slavic rather than a Germanic language goes against received tradition and has struck more than a few observers as downright provocative or unserious. The traditional assignment of Yiddish to the German family tree is based on the facts that the bulk of the Yiddish lexicon is obviously of German origin and most extant Old Yiddish texts are indeed Germanic in

Relexification hypothesis

37

origin (i.e. they are Judaized German, created on a Romance substratum). Due to its prominent German lexicon, native speakers and non-native observers alike have long come to regard Yiddish as an (albeit "distorted") variant of High German-a "Nebensprache" ["adjunct-language"] of German (contrary to the Polish assessments of Yiddish from the 13th-14th centuries cited below by Zientara 1974!). For example, three centuries ago Wagenseil suggested that Yiddish differed radically from German because of its Hebrew component; though he did not go as far as to label Yiddish a "form of Hebrew" (1699, preface, quoted by M. Weinreich 1928: column 726), Yiddish was called a "corrumpirt ebräischen Sprach" ["corrupted Hebrew"] in a 1736 edict issued by the Prince of Brandenburg-Quolzbach (cited by Koitzsch 1928: 204). For 19th20th-century writers, the "deviation" of Yiddish from German norms was supposedly due to the long contact with Slavic. Yet, since lexicon is the element of language which is most amenable to manipulation (e.g. to borrowing or puristic rejection), we need not assume that lexicon (and the accompanying regular sound correspondences: see more immediately below) can reflect the origin of a language unambiguously. Besides my relexification hypothesis that proposes that Yiddish developed when Slavic-speaking Jews relexified their language to German, I know of three other writers who also reject the view that Yiddish is a fused Germanic language from birth. None of the three writers has a coherent theory and/or convincing linguistic evidence. Szulmajster-Celnikier accepts the traditional definition of Yiddish as a "fusional" language at birth, but objects to the "arbitrary" genetic assignment of Yiddish to the Germanic family (1991: 6). Unfortunately, her confused presentation does not make clear whether she views Yiddish as Slavic or "genetically unclassifiable". Then Tupajlo has suggested (on the basis of lexicon primarily?) that Yiddish is, alternatively, a merger of Old Ukrainian and German dialects spoken by Jews and a "Germano-Hebrew dialect of Ukrainian" (1992: 24-25; see also Lytvak 1995: 103). Finally, Snejder claims that Yiddish was created when Khazar Jews, speaking natively an Aramaicized dialect of Hebrew (and not a

38

Relexification

hypothesis

Turkic language, as is generally accepted) and an unidentified local Slavic language, switched to German in Poland after the 13th century (1998: 383-393; see also chapter 4.7). He does not bother to explain why the Germanic component of Yiddish is so different from German. The large common lexicon of Yiddish and German has led many Yiddish and German speakers to believe they can understand much of one another's discourse; hence, the belief that the two languages must be related (see the example of G blühen ~ Y blien 'to bloom' cited above). It is therefore not surprising that German scholars were the first to take a professional interest in Yiddish. Yiddish became the subject of study at German universities in the early 18th century, and still today most students of Yiddish linguistics owe their interest in the latter to a prior background in German linguistics. The association of Yiddish with German studies has predominated up to the present, though Yiddish now enjoys an independent status within German linguistics (see Frakes 1988; Strauch 1990). The critics of my specific suggestions that Yiddish is JudeoSorbian relexified primarily to High German lexicon and that Modern Hebrew is Yiddish relexified to Old Hebrew lexicon and thus a form of Sorbian (see Wexler 1991b and 1993c, respectively), reveal both a widespread confusion about relexification as well as strong emotional reactions devoid of objectivity (the most detailed and objective critique to date of my relexification hypothesis in Yiddish was written by a "neutral" Bulgarian reviewer, Gesev 1996). Many detractors of the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish and Modern Hebrew either tend to wax emotional, without attempting to present counterevidence or divergent analyses (see e.g. Jochnowitz 1994; Simonsohn 1997: 64-66) or neglect to confront the main claims objectively (e.g. Geller wrote that my "hypothesis is then rather controversial, [and] particularly for the time being cannot be supported by contemporary investigators" [1994: 28]; hopefully, the present work can provide confirming evidence). Eggers 1998 has a lengthy rejection of my relexification hypothesis that omits mention of some of the most important indices of the Sorbian origin of Yiddish that I proposed, e.g. the fact that

Relexißcation hypothesis

39

Germanisms in Sorbian tend to be matched by Hebraisms in Yiddish (other critiques of the Yiddish-Sorbian nexus were appended to Wexler 1991b; see also Schuster-Sewc 1993). Proposals that have been advanced for the identification of relexification in other languages also tend to meet with fierce resistance or, at best, scepticism. For example, Versteegh (1982, 1984) proposed that colloquial non-Arabian dialects of Arabic may have developed through a pidginization process of Arabian (or "Classical") Arabic carried out by speakers of other languages who switched to Arabic and Islam in the Near East and North Africa after the 7th century A.D. He was, in effect, proposing that Aramaic, Coptic, Berber, etc. were "relexified" to Arabic vocabulary. In time, the impact of education and the spread of bilingualism in normative Arabic allegedly led to the erasure of many local features in the relexified Aramaic, Coptic, Berber, etc. (now known as "Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian Arabic", etc.) and the convergence of the latter with unrelexified Arabian Arabic, and hence, with one another. In a negative evaluation, Ferguson wrote, unreasonably, that the burden of proving relexification fell on Versteegh's shoulders (1989). The widespread nature of relexification makes it incumbent on all scholars to confirm or disconfirm historical relexification in the genesis of every language. Relexification is most convincing when we are able to identify the motivation behind the rise of minority ethnolects. Thomason and Kaufman are right to emphasize that there is no full phonological analysis of loans without a description of the contact situation that provides the sociolinguistic context for the borrowing (1976). See also Versteegh: "It is obvious that the argumentation [for the relexification hypothesis] must consist of two parts: socio-historical arguments must be combined with linguistic ones, if we wish to find a correlation between the [socio-cultural context in which wholesale L2 acquisition took place] and the language changes..." (1982: 372). Furthermore, knowledge of prior relexification is a prerequisite to evaluating the role of linguistic universale in pidgin and creole genesis (Mühlhäusler 1986: 113).

40

Relexification hypothesis

Another reason for scepticism over the Yiddish-Sorbian nexus stems from the fact that historians have nothing to say about the subject and there are no records of major Jewish cultural centers in the Sorbian (or Polabian) lands. Yet, there is a Jewish mikve (ritual bath) preserved in Görlitz on the Neisse river which is believed to date from the 11th-12th century, and which is unaccountably omitted in discussions of extant mikves in the German lands (most of which are located, to be sure, in the southwest of the country, e.g. at Andernach, Cologne, Friedberg in Hesse, Speyer, Worms); Görlitz and its immediate hinterland are presently German-speaking, but were formerly part of Sorbian-speaking territory. Hence, Lötzsch's assertion that Yiddish and Sorbian have never been in contact (1996: 50) is incorrect. For further evidence of Slavic-Jewish contacts in the German and Austrian lands, see Wexler (1987a). The notoriously poor historical records from the east German lands (in comparison with the west German area) account for our scant knowledge of Jewish-Sorbian contacts. But the chance survival of fragmentary historical documentation can hardly invalidate hypotheses motivated by linguistic considerations. Linguists and laymen alike are reluctant to recognize relexification (even within the domain of Creole languages) for two reasons: 1. Among linguists, relexification poses a danger to genetic and reconstructive linguistics. Historical reconstruction and a common genetic classification of two or more languages depend heavily on the revelation of sets of sound correspondences obtaining between morphemes in two or more languages. Consider the fact that /s/ in both Semitic Biblical Hebrew and Slavic Modern Hebrew corresponds regularly to either /s/ or IM in colloquial Arabic, as in He seva' 'seven' ~ Ar sab 'a, He sinaim 'teeth' ~ Ar 'isnän, or He sälös 'three' ~ Ar θαΐαθ. If I had been unaware of the recent history of Modern Hebrew, specifically of the fact that Yiddish speakers replaced most of their Yiddish (Slavic-like) lexicon by Old Hebrew phonetic strings to create Modern Hebrew, I might have assumed that Modern Hebrew was an uninterrupted continuation of obsolete Semitic Hebrew and a cognate of Arabic. But if it turns out that

Relexification hypothesis

41

most Hebrew elements in Modern "Hebrew" were borrowed rather than inherited from Old Hebrew, then the Hebrew component could not automatically establish the Semitic origin of the former. No more than the massive French lexical component in English would allow us to assume that English was a Romance language. Knowing that Hebrew was no one's native language for some 1600 years was an important datum which led me to suspect relexification as the mechanism of the Modern Hebrew language "revival"; the proof came when the grammar of early Modern Hebrew turned out to be nearly the mirror image of Yiddish grammar. Until we can be sure about the origin of the Hebrew vocabulary in Modern Hebrew, we should not use the material for purposes of reconstruction and genetic classification within Semitic. As Mühlhäusler wrote, "it should be obvious that ongoing relexification poses special problems of language identity through time" (1986: 14). 2. Relexification often provides evidence relating to the ethnogenesis of the speakers which runs counter to prevailing national myths. Relexification is a process that is motivated solely by identificatory needs; there is never only a communicative motivation for a speech community to trigger the process. For example, the explicit purpose of "resurrecting" Old Hebrew was to justify the claim of most contemporary Jews to be descended from an earlier Palestinian Jewish people, and hence the sole rightful heirs to Palestine, their historical homeland. The initial participants in this linguistic experiment had no difficulty communicating with one another (they were all speakers of Yiddish and other Slavic languages) so that the creation of spoken Hebrew was not originally intended to fill any communicative lacuna (this would be the case only with the later arrival of large numbers of non-Ashkenazic Jews). Resurrected Modern Hebrew was one tool for creating a new "Jew" in his ancestral homeland, allegedly speaking a modernized variant of the group's ancestral language of some two millennia earlier. The suggestion that Modern Hebrew is a Slavic language is today seen by many as a threat to the Zionist ideology reigning in most Jewish circles. Hence, it should not come as a surprise that my

42

Relexification hypothesis

monograph presenting the relexification hypothesis in Modern Hebrew (1990b) elicited merely one single negative attack in an Israeli publication (but no journal review). In addition, altering the genetic classification of a language may also be seen by some linguists as a threatening act. Often relexification is accompanied by attempts to fabricate new ethnic origins for the speakers. Just as Modern Hebrew is "Hebrew" only in name and in its massive borrowed lexicon, so too is the claim of a Palestinian origin for the contemporary Jews highly unlikely (for details, see Wexler 1993c and 1996a). Similarly, the Africans who were forcibly shipped as slaves to the New World between the 17th-19th centuries found themselves detached from their native environments, and very often thrown together in motley groups of African slaves of heterogeneous linguistic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The inability of the African slaves in the Americas to identify with the language and culture of the white slave-owners, e.g. French, English, Spanish, etc. and the need for a new "American" identity distinct from their heterogeneous African identities must have been a major cause for the relexification of African languages to French, English, etc. The speakers of Modern Rumanian (allegedly relexified from an indigenous Balkan IndoEuropean or imported South Slavic language) sought to link themselves to an ancient language of high prestige-Latin-and to a colonial Roman population in the Balkans. It may not be a coincidence that the Rumanians, in counterdistinction to almost all the other Romance speech communties (with the exception of the tiny population of Romantsch speakers in Switzerland), chose to call themselves after the "Romans". The need to demonstrate the "Latinity" of the Rumanian language frequently surfaces in Rumanian scholarly and popular literature (see e.g. Graur 1965; on the choice of name for a relexified language, see Horvath and Wexler 1997b: 68-69). Why would Slavic-speaking Jews have needed to relexify in the first place? The most compelling explanation is that the confrontation of Germans and Slavs was resulting in the widespread erosion

Relexification hypothesis

43

or extinction of Sorbian language, religion and culture, leaving the Jews increasingly isolated from the Christianizing Slavs. The failure to switch fully to German, following most of the indigenous Slavs, might have struck the Jews as a good way to avoid Christianization-a concomitant factor in the Germanization process. Furthermore, Judaism might have been attractive to pagan Sorbs because no political commitments were involved (unlike Christianity which required espousal of German language, culture and political hegemony; on political neutrality among the Khazars, see below), and because Judaism offered Sorbs an opportunity to escape the status of slaves which was being imposed on them by the German settlement of the Slavic lands (see also below; for further discussion on slavery and the conversion of Slavs to Judaism, see Szajnocha 1862-1864; Zivier 1916 and Wexler 1993c with further references). In the 15th century, Eastern Slavs accused of "Judaizing" might also have been inclined to join existing Jewish communities (on this movement, see Oljancyn 1936; Obolensky 1948: 241, 263-264, 278-281; Halperin 1975; Williams 1977: 47-48, fn 10; Kochev 1978; Luria 1984; Wexler 1988a; Xoulett 1993: 64-65; Ostrowski 1998: 6-7; for an Iberian parallel in the so-called "crypto-Jews", see Wexler 1996a; on the Russian "Subbotniki," see Koz'min 1913 and Nejman 1915). Given our ignorance about Jewish life in Kiev-Polessie prior to the arrival of Yiddish speakers, we can only guess why Jews residing there might have relexified to the newly imported Yiddish. The reasons for joining the Jewish community in the steppes in the period of the Khazar domination and possibly also in the KievPolessian lands no doubt must have differed from the reasons that propelled Sorbs and others to accept Judaism in the Germano-Slavic lands or in the Balkans several centuries earlier; in the first two cases, I would assume the desire of the Turkic Khazar ruling class to preserve a neutrality vis-ä-vis the Byzantine Christians and the Arab Muslims in the Baghdad Caliphate, and the cultural influences of visiting Jewish merchants made Judaism popular. Most linguists and historians have assumed that the Ashkenazic Jewish immigrants arriving from the Germano-Slavic lands vastly outnumbered the indigenous Slavic-speaking Jews that they encountered in the

44

Relexification hypothesis

Eastern Slavic lands (see Balaban 1933: 191, 216 and most recently Geller 1994: 26). This assumption is based on the paucity of Yiddish-speaking observors who mentioned encountering monolingual Slavic-speaking Jewries before the 17th century (for details, see Wexler 1987a) and the high regard in Eastern Europe for Western European centers of Jewish learning. Yet, the revelation of Kiev-Polessian traits in the grammar of Yiddish (see e.g. the dual category) suggests that Slavic speaking Jewries were widespread at the time of the Ashkenazic eastward migrations. In order to affect such changes in Yiddish grammar, one would have to assume the numerical preponderance of the Slavic-speaking Jews over the Yiddish-speaking immigrants. I wonder if the Slavic-speaking descendants of the Khazars, who presumably shared a common culture with their non-Jewish neighbors, may have regarded Yiddish (and Ashkenazic culture in general?), in periods that prized a heightened ethno-religious identity, as a tool for accentuating the growing differences between themselves and the coterritorial Slavs who were gradually undergoing Christianization. The closeness of Western and Eastern Slavic languages at the time would also have facilitated the second relexification process (on the Iberian Jewish emigration to the Balkans after 1492, see below). In addition to asking why the Slavic-speaking Jews in KievPolessie might have been attracted to relexifying to Yiddish, we must also ask why the Ashkenazic immigrants did not become monolingual speakers of Polish and East Slavic. Bin-Nun assumed that the failure to give up Yiddish was due to three factors: (a) the Ashkenazic immigration was massive, (b) the East European towns were mainly German- rather than Slavic-speaking, and (c) the migrating German Jews remained in contact with their brethren who did not immigrate to the east (1973: 151). I only find his second factor plausible; indeed, Jews also formed compact groups that were often the majority in small towns (the so-called shtetls), unless these Jews were primaraily of Slavic origin. I suspect that the importance of German in East European urban centers was far more important a reason for the successful retention of Yiddish (regarded by Jews and non-Jews alike as a form of German) than continued contact with

Relexißcation hypothesis

45

German speakers. If my assumption that the indigenous Slavic Jews outnumbered the Ashkenazic immigrants is correct, than the major impetus to retain Yiddish in East Europe would have come from the Slavic Jews. There is no simple way to know in what precise areas Slavicspeaking Jews resided at the time of the Ashkenazic eastward migration. Nor can we determine if and when Khazar Jews merged with Jews of other origins (Nestor's Povest' vremennyx let "Primary Russian Chronicle" used different labels for the two groups; see Pinkus 1988: 4 and Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor [1953]). Presumably, the Mongolian/Tatar invasion in the early 13th century propelled large numbers of Jews and other Slavs northward into the Belarusian lands (which had escaped the Mongols relatively unscathed) and westward into what was to become the Eastern Polish lands (kresy), in which a majority Ukrainian and Belarusian population resided. The westward migration of Turkic Cumans and Turkic-speaking Armenians into the West Ukraine and the Eastern Balkans in the 13th century may also be connected with the Tatar onslaught (see Mutafciev 1943: 95 and Dachkevytch 1982: 389, respectively). Future research should try to determine whether KievPolessian Jews also participated in other westward migrations, e.g. in conjunction with the Ukrainian Lemko migrations from the Halyc-Volhynian principality in the 14th century (see Pan'kevic 1958). In that case, the Tatar invasion was a sine qua non for the crystallization of Ashkenazic Jewry in the Kiev-Polessian lands and the second relexification phase. After the Tatar onslaught subsided, the Polish rulers invited German and Sorbian Jewish settlers inter alia into the depopulated Eastern Slavic lands that they took over (see Martel 1938: 197; Kuhn 1963: 149; Zamoyski 1988). The Polish colonization of the Eastern Slavic lands, by encouraging the eastward migration of Sorbian Yiddish-speaking Jews (and westward migration of Slavic Jews?), was also a prerequisite for the second relexification phase. While Jews and Germans are frequently found side by side in some of the Polish lands, this is rarely the case in Belarus' and Ukraine. Moreover, Polish Yiddish differs from that of the Eastern Slavic lands. These facts hint at a non-Western origin

46

Relexification hypothesis

for most of the Ashkenazic Jews. The use of a German lexicon by Jews need not automatically mean that the speakers of Yiddish must also have come from the West. The suggestion made by the Polish anthropologist, Czekanowski (1960; reiterated by Feller 1994: 91), that Polish Jews fell into two distinct anthropological types-one of Khazar origin, the other West European (largely correlated with economic standing)-while tantalizing, cannot be corroborated. There is also no way to corroborate Janusz's assertion that Karaites in Eastern Europe were especially similar in physiognomy to Jews in Western Belarus' (1927: 54-55). Future study of Ashkenazic migration patterns into Eastern Europe should take into consideration the facts of parallel German immigration. There is good reason to believe that the number of German migrants to Eastern Europe was relatively small; for example, Kuhn estimates no more than a quarter of a million German migrants to the East throughout the entire 12th century (1963: 148; see also Putschke 1968 and Dralle 1991: 95). Assuming that Germany had an estimated population at the time of ten million, then an annual out-migration of some 2,500 migrants would have constituted only 2.5% of the total German population. A topic that calls out for immediate study is whether Germans and Jews emigrated into the Slavic lands in parallel waves and routes. There is some reason to think so. Herzog has noted that Jews initially went from Western Poland to Belarus', skipping over Mazowia (1965; 1969: 68); a similar development has been noted among German settlers as well (see the map with dates of settlement in Kuhn 1967). In addition, Khazar Jews joined Hungarian tribes in their migration into Central Europe before the 9th century. Place names based on Khazar tribal names (e.g. Kabar) appear in Hungary, northern Yugoslavia (Vojvodina), Poland, Austria, Slovakia, western Rumania, as well as in Ukraine and Southern Russia (see discussion in chapter 4.7). Hence, the second relexification could actually have been initiated in Western or Central Europe, if contact was made there between Sorbian Jews speaking relexified Sorbian (= Yiddish) and Khazar Jews speaking Eastern Slavic ([Judeo-]Kiev-Polessian).

Relexification hypothesis

47

This raises the possibility that the time lag between the two relexifications might have been quite modest. It is also likely that Yiddish speakers enjoyed a higher cultural and material level than the indigenous Slavic Jews, thus making Yiddish an attractive language for the latter communities. The conjectured paucity of Yiddish speakers (regionally or overall) would have presented Kiev-Polessian Jews with the difficulty of acquiring native Yiddish norms, thus reinforcing the Kiev-Polessian "impact" on Yiddish (for a similar argument regarding the relexification of Iberian Judeo-Arabic to Castilian, see Wexler 1996a: 96-97; the Sephardic Jewish emigres who settled in the Balkans eventually assimilated most of the local Greek-speaking Jews, but we need not accept the popular view that the former were the majority). The presence of a prosperous German middle class in many urban centers of Eastern Europe (see Martel 1938: 195-196) could also have contributed to the attractiveness of Yiddish, which looked like a form of German. The significance of German in East European towns finds confirmation from an unexpected quarter. The Kipchak speakers who adhered to Armenian Christianity in the Western Ukraine as early as the 13th century use nemig, the Slavic term for German, to denote Poles, alluding to the intense Germanization of Polish and West Ukrainian towns (Deny 1957: 22-23, unless the Slavicism denoted non-Armenians generally; note that the corresponding Hebrew term, 'askenaz, while now denoting Germany and German Jews, originally denoted also Khazars, Scythians and Sarmatians: see Modelski 1910: 40, 78, 85, 92; Poznanski 1911: 76; Krojs 1932, 1935: 387-389; Wexler 1987a: 3, fn 9, 160, fn 49 and chapter 4.7). Polish sources from the 13th-14th centuries regarded the local Jews as speakers of German, i.e. as a religiously defined subgroup of the German colonists (Zientara 1974: 25-26). The identification of Yiddish speakers with the prestigious German language also could have swayed the Kiev-Polessian Jews to adopt Yiddish. A benefit of these Polish sources is that they provide a terminus post quern for the first relexification phase: the 13th century. The latter date is also confirmed by the fact that Sorbian Jews began to migrate to Poland at that time, and they are not described

48

Relexification

hypothesis

by contemporaries as being Slavic speakers. Given the practicality of German as a language of international trade, the burgeoning urban middle class and the legal system (see the application of the Magdeburg Law to Slavic cities), we must also reckon with the possibility that Yiddish could have spread from the German lands in the absence of significant numbers of native speakers. A refreshing departure from the stale tale of Ashkenazic masses allegedly swallowing up the Slavic Jewries is the article by Faber and King (1984). They find it implausible that the enormous Jewish population of Poland and the Eastern Slavic lands (already in existence by the 18th century) could all be descended from Jewish immigrants coming from sparsely populated Jewish settlements in the Rhineland that had been subjected to repeated decimation and dislocations due to the Crusades that began in 1096. They hypothesize that the Eastern European Jewries must then have descended from a larger number of Jewish immigrants from Bavaria, where the population records were poor. They doubt, however, that the Khazar component in the Eastern European Ashkenazic communities could have been substantial. One cannot motivate a Khazar origin for Eastern European Jewry on the basis of the large Jewish population that resided in Poland and the Russian Empire in the 19th century. In the 1500s, the Jewish population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was perhaps no more than several tens of thousands. The population of the 19th century tells us nothing about the origins of the relatively small founder population (probably sufficient to generate the massive Jewish population prior to World War II), which may or may not have been of Khazar origin. Considerable expansion also characterized the Polish population between the 10th and 16th centuries (Gieysztorowa 1976: 32). Hence, in theory the East European Jews could have descended from a modest German Jewish input; it is the linguistic and ethnographic facts that tip the scale in favor of the hypothesis of a Khazar component in Ashkenazic Jewry. It has long been appreciated that the isoglosses dividing presentday Eastern European Yiddish dialects owe their genesis mainly to local developments rather than to the importation of different

Relexification hypothesis

49

Yiddish dialects from Western Europe (U. Weinreich 1958: 400). Weinreich further observed a significant difference between the Yiddish and German dialects transported into Slavic Europe: in contrast to Yiddish which was consolidated into a few well-defined dialect groupings in Eastern Europe, the German speech enclaves experienced modest leveling on a local scale, while remaining a mosaic of islands determined by the origin of the settlers. In contrast to the consonantal divides that are crucial to German dialectology, Yiddish consonantism is relatively uniform. The features that are critical to Yiddish internal differentiation are nearly all in the system of stressed vowels (Herzog et al. 1992, 1: 11). The latter fact also reflects the situation within the coterritorial Eastern Slavic languages. Weinreich's findings could support the relexification hypothesis, for if the Yiddish dialects of Eastern Europe were created in situ, then the defining factors in their crystallization could have been solely the coterritorial Slavic languages. While the case for relexification in Yiddish and the non-Jewish origins of the contemporary Jews has been presented during the last decade, three developments have necessitated amendations and expansion of my original hypothesis: 1. My conception of Jewish language genesis has changed radically since I suggested a comprehensive characterization of the field of "comparative Jewish interlinguistics" (1981b). A dozen years later (in 1993a) I had occasion to rescind a number of earlier claims which I had once supported; I also suggested then that relexification might prove to be a major criterion in the classification of Jewish languages. The present study confirms that claim. As to the Ashkenazic Jews, relexification can be identified no less than six times over the last eleven centuries: five acts of relexification of a Slavic language (a, b, d, e, f) and one act of relexification of Old (Semitic) Hebrew (c); the six acts are listed below in chronological order; stands for "became relexified to": a. Upper Sorbian -> High German, Hebrew and Hebroid vocabulary = "Slavic Yiddish I" (9th- 12th cc).

50

Relexification

hypothesis

b. Yiddish Old Hebrew and Yiddish Hebroid vocabulary = "written Ashkenazic Hebrew" (12th-19th cc, if not earlier), which is a bizarre dialect of Slavic. c. Old Hebrew -> High German vocabulary = "literal Yiddish Bible translations" (14th-18th cc), which are bizarre dialects of Old Semitic Hebrew. d. Kiev-Polessian -> Yiddish, High German, Hebrew and Hebroid vocabulary = "Slavic Yiddish II" (15th-17th cc, though possibly even earlier). e. Yiddish -> Old Hebrew vocabulary (minus many Hebroidisms used in Yiddish and Ashkenazic Hebrew) = "spoken and written Modern Hebrew" (late 19th c), which is a bizarre dialect of Slavic. f. Yiddish -> Latinoid vocabulary = "Esperanto" (late 19th c), which is a bizarre dialect of Slavic (the founder of Esperanto, Ludwik Zamenhof, was a native speaker of Yiddish). To be sure, the six acts of relexification are not identical in all their details. For example, in "relexification (a)", Yiddish restricts the input of Germanisms, replaces blocked Germanisms with Hebraisms and Hebroidisms and occasionally unrelexified Slavicisms. Germanisms are modernized according to High German norms (formal clues distinguish old and new Germanisms, see e.g. OY sprox 'incantation' vs. ModY sprax m 'language', dame 'lady', mase f 'mass', with standard German final schwa preserved). In Yiddish Germanisms with multiple meanings, often one meaning was acquired from Slavic (presumably via relexification), another post-relexificationally from German, e.g. Y oplebn 'wither, become decrepit' (< G ableben 'die') and 'come to life' (< Uk ozyty; see further examples in M. Weinreich 1928b and Serbo-Croatian parallels in Gusmani 1981; for gender options of German and Slavic origin, see chapter 4.5.1). Positing relative chronologies for the acquisition of Hebrew elements in Yiddish is also very often

Relexification hypothesis

51

possible, e.g. most Hebroidisms are by definition coinages motivated by relexification. After the termination of the two relexification processes, Yiddish could borrow from all its original component sources (as well as from new Slavic sources such as Polish and Russian); straightforward loans, which are not subject to substratal Slavic considerations, can often be identified by semantic clues. For instance, Y mojre f 'fear'; A'danger' continues OHe mörä' 'fear', but the second meaning must be attributed to USo strach m 'fear; danger' which was required to replace the blocked G Gefahr f 'danger' (see details in chapter 4.3). Other Yiddish Hebraisms, such as • ejme f and •paxed m 'fear' do not also mean 'danger', probably because they were acquired either in the second relexification in the Kiev-Polessian lands, or in the post-relexification period, and thus could not be affected by Sorbian lexicosemantic parameters. For 'vomit', Old Hebrew provides qV m, but Yiddish prefers the unique Lkeje f, possibly to match the feminine gender of Uk bljuvota. Finally, it is also possible to posit cautiously the relexification stage during which a Germanism was likely to have been acquired, e.g. G Anker 'anchor' > Y anker m probably in the Sorbian lands, since USo kotwica f would have presented no problem to relexifiers; however, in the Kiev-Polessian area G Anker should have been blocked by the surface cognate, Uk jakir m, acquired from Scandinavian (Vasmer 1958, 3). Ukrainian also has kitv(ycj)a f 'anchor', but Yiddish shows no inclination to accept two terms. In "relexification (c)", there is no restriction on Germanisms, and almost all Hebraisms and Hebroidisms (traditionally pronounced differently from Yiddish Hebraisms) are rejected. "Relexification (c)" results in the production of "literal Yiddish translations" of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible, which required fidelity to Hebrew syntactic and derivational strategies. Such "translations" are relexifications of a Hebrew-Aramaic text to German lexicon, which explains why they have almost none of the Hebraisms that abound in colloquial Yiddish (see Horvath and Wexler 1994). In "relexification (e)", speakers accept all Old Hebrew lexicon, select and archaicize (i.e. "Semiticize") Yiddish Hebraisms and Hebroidisms (in contrast to

52

Relexification

hypothesis

"modernization" of Germanisms in "relexification [a]"), form many new Hebroidisms via truncated compounding and phonosemantic transposition, and retain a few Yiddishisms (of non-Hebrew origin). Despite the Semitizing trend, formal clues permit distinguishing old and new Hebraisms in Modern Hebrew (see e.g. OHe lefaxot 'at least' vs. ModHe lepaxot 'for less than', OHe hitxaber 'connect' vs. ModHe hitxaver 'become friends with'). Hence, Yiddish represents a language which underwent "twotiered" relexification, where each phase involved multiple lexifiers: Upper Sorbian was relexified initially to both German and Hebrew, and Kiev-Polessian was relexified to (newer) German, Hebrew and Yiddish. The complexity of the Yiddish situation may have been matched by relexification in some Creole languages, but this is often difficult to ascertain, e.g. Nagamese in India, like Yiddish apparently had multiple relexifiers in a single phase (Assamese and Bengali: see Sebba 1997: 44-who also notes correctly, 25, that most Creoles and pidgins seem to have a majority and minority lexifier, where the latter may contribute approximately 20% of the lexiconwhich is slightly higher than the customary percentage of Hebraisms in modern Yiddish); examples of successive relexification phases are those European-based Creoles relexified from an earlier AfroPortuguese Creole, itself possibly relexified from Arabic-based trade languages (see Mühlhäusler 1986: 107-108). In cases of "gradual relexification" postulated by the latter, two or more relexifier languages are expected; unfortunately, there is no precise data on the approximate length of time required in relexification. 2. Ever since the early 1990s, when I first presented my view that Yiddish was a relexified form of Judeo-Sorbian (the Judaized nature of the latter was extrapolated from Judaized Slavic languages such as Czech, Belarusian and Ukrainian and cannot be supported by textual evidence), I have been seeking further evidence to strengthen my claims, partly in an attempt to answer reviewers' criticisms. I now have substantial new evidence which not only supports the original hypothesis of a Sorbian origin for Yiddish (with relexification from Sorbian to German vocabulary between the 9th and 12th

Relexification hypothesis

53

centuries in the German and possibly western Polish and northern Bohemian lands, where Sorbian was also once spoken), but also reveals a second relexification process in the Kiev-Polessian lands (probably not before the late 14th or early 15th century) from (Judaized?) Kiev-Polessian to the newly imported Yiddish. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the concept of Kiev-Polessian has been mentioned in a discussion of Yiddish. In fact, most historical discussions of historical Ukrainian and Belarusian linguistics also ignore this language. Up until about 1400, the Eastern Slavic lands were broadly divided into four to six major linguo-political zones: moving from north to south, they were Novgorod-Suzdal', Polack-Rjazan' (the first two groups possibly comprised independently defined dialects), Kiev-Polessie and Galicia. After the 1400s, political realignments led to a radical restructuring of the four territories and their dialects. All of the Novgorod-Suzdal' dialect combined with the northern part of Polack-Rjazan' to form the new language "Russian", the southern half of Polack-Rjazan' and the northern half of Kiev-Polessian formed "Belarusian", and, finally, the southern half of KievPolessian and Galician merged to form modern "Ukrainian" (for this and different conceptions of how the Eastern Slavic territory was broken up dialectally, see Shevelov 1953, 1979: 753, 1982: 366, 1994: 8; Wexler 1977; Pivtorak 1988: 236). This substantial realignment explains why the modern linguistic border between Ukrainian and Belarusian is so hazy. It was in Kiev-Polessie (with its capital Kiev) where many Slavic(ized) descendants of the Khazar Jews settled both before and after the collapse of the Khazar Kaganate in the 10th century (see Golb and Pritsak 1982). At the time that the Sorbian Jews first brought Yiddish into the Eastern Slavic domain, the indigenous Jews would have been speaking Kiev-Polessian. The second relexification phase meant that KievPolessian speakers continued to use their grammar, while adopting Yiddish (and new German) vocabulary. Due to the broad overlap between the Old Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian grammars, few radical changes are to be expected in the Yiddish grammar (on the reformulation and expansion of the dual number due to the Kiev-

54

Relexification hypothesis

Polessian substratum, see chapter 4.5.4); Kiev-Polessian also deposited lexicon in Yiddish (see chapter 4.6). In the wake of the Eastern Slavic dialectal realignments mentioned above, Eastern Yiddish became receptive to loans from the three newly created languages, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian after the termination of the second relexification phase (for a pertinent discussion of the changing dialectal links between Ukrainian, Belarusian ["Lithuanian"] and Polish Yiddish, see M. Weinreich 1932: 176178). The relexification hypothesis is the first and only hypothesis to motivate the selection of early German and Hebrew components as a unified process. To be sure, a dependency relationship of Hebrew and German elements in Yiddish was, I believe, first propounded by Zunz-but for different reasons; for him, Hebrew (along with Slavicisms and archaic Germanisms) had to enter Yiddish in large quantities because the German spoken by the Jews had become impoverished due to their centuries-long isolation from general German society ([1832] 1892: 453). 3. A deeper assessment of the genesis of Yiddish and the nature of linguistic Judaization is made possible now thanks to the publication of many new materials in six fields over the last two decades. While these findings will necessitate rewriting of some of my earlier views, they also substantiate most earlier claims: a. The domain of Jewish history: Originally, I had suggested that the Jews who settled in the Slavic areas of Germany (as well as Prague) were immigrants from the Balkans (see especially Wexler 1992). As such, these Jews were in small measure descended from Palestinian Jews, but were for the most part descended from Balkan proselytes to Judaism before the close of the first millennium A.D. For that reason, I identified the Ashkenazic Jews-as the German Jews and their coreligionists in the Western and Eastern Slavic lands have called themselves for close to a millennium-as of Slavo-Turkic origin. Future research should try to determine whether the migration of Balkan Jews and

Relexification hypothesis

55

proselytes into the southeast Germano-Slavic lands was related chronologically to the putative migration of Slavs from the Balkans to the German and Polish lands (which Schuster-Sewc 1977b, Herrmann 1983 and Kunstmann 1987 support, but of which Eichler 1974: 97 is sceptical). H. Birnbaum has predicated the northward migration of Slavs from the Balkan Peninsula on the deceleration in the 800s of the Slavic invasion of the Balkans and the Slavic withdrawal from Greece and Albania (1989: 57). Significantly, the Slavic languages spoken in the southern parts of the West Slavic territory (e.g. the Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak areas) have important parallels with South Slavic (Udolph 1979: 627). If my hypothesis of a second relexification from Eastern Slavic to Yiddish after the 1400s is correct, then I can envision a second mixed Slavo-Turkic (or perhaps it should be called Turko-Slavic) contribution to the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis in Eastern Europe in the 15th century. This is because the first Jews in Kievan Rus' must have been Khazar Jews. I believe the merger of a small Jewish population with a mainly Slavic and partly Turkic (Avar, Khazar) proselyte population in the Balkans and Sorbian lands laid the foundation for the Ashkenazic Jews in eastern Germany, while in the Kiev-Polessian Principality it was primarily a Turkic (Khazar) and smaller Slavic and possibly even Finno-Ugric proselyte population which fused with a small number of Ashkenazic "Jews" coming from the West (see the evidence for conversion in Wexler 1991b and 1993c; linguistic and ethnographic evidence are also the basis for my claim that the Sephardic [Iberian] Jews are largely of North African Berber origin: 1996a). It is not a coincidence that conversion to Judaism is usually attested in large Jewish communities. In fact, conversion may well be a prerequisite to the "Judaization" of a non-Jewish language. The large Jewish population in the Iberian Peninsula and in the Eastern Slavic lands are confirming examples. Conversely, throughout the English-speaking world where conversion to Judaism never played a major role in the formation of the Jewish communities, we find no significant use of a Judaized English (other than in ultra-Orthodox communities, on a Yiddish substratum). If conversion to Judaism is

56

Relexification hypothesis

the major source for Jewish communities outside Palestine, then the very act of linguistic Judaization may have been initiated by nonJewish converts. Just as the spread of Palestinian Christianity to Europe did not require a massive migration of Palestinian Christians to Europe, so too there is no need to assume that Judaism reached Europe with a large Jewish migration following the Roman conquest of Judea c. 70 A.D. (a popular assumption which is totally unsubstantiated). Hence, it would be more accurate to define the "Jewish" languages as "languages of converts to Judaism". The absence of evidence for "Jewish linguistic creativity" also inclines me to ascribe most of the "Jewish" languages to converts, who would have had a strong motivation for creating a separate linguistic profile to accompany their new ethno-religious identity. Exceptions may turn out to be apparent. For example, Italian Jews have developed varieties of Judaized Italian in the absence of widescale conversion of non-Jews to Judaism in any historical period. The reason for the variegated Judeo-Italian speech may lie in the foreign (Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Greek and German) origins of most Italian Jews and internal migration (e.g. Roman Judeo-Italian reveals some features that appear to be of Sicilian origin). If the claim that the contemporary Jews are genetically, culturally, religiously and linguistically unrelated to the Palestinian Jews, then the two assumptions of Max Weinreich's model of Jewish language genesis and evolution (1973) are untenable: (i) an unbroken chain of language shift leads from Old Palestinian Hebrew up to the present; (ii) a Judeo-Romance (Latin) parent language split into separate dialects parallel to that of the non-Jewish cognate (e.g. Judeo-Latin > Judeo-French, Judeo-Catalan, Judeo-Spanish, etc.). Most "Jewish" languages were created independently in a mixed proselyte and ethnic Jewish community out of coterritorial non-Jewish linguistic stock, e.g. Judeo-French and Judeo-Spanish are independent creations in French and Spanish speech communities at diverse historical periods and not two cognate derivatives from Judeo-Latin. Even in the proselyte scenario, Yiddish could be expected to preserve (and actually does) elements from prior languages created by the descendants of Palestinian Jews in the absence of relexifi-

Relexification hypothesis

57

cation, e.g. Balkan Romance and Greek; hence, unique JudeoRomance words in Yiddish would not suffice to disprove the relexification hypothesis for Yiddish. Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of Jewish studies in the universities of North America and elsewhere; given that their funding comes largely from wealthy Jewish donors with traditional and nationalistic agendas, it is not surprising that such academic circles have, for the most part, failed to become centers of innovative research (this is specially true of Hebrew and Khazar studies-on the latter, see point [b] following); the contemporary Jewish preoccupation with Hebrew and things Israeli has tended to eclipse the study of Yiddish altogether. b. The study of Khazar and Avar migrations into Europe: New materials on the geographical diffusion of Judaized and nonJudaized Khazars and Avars in Eastern and Central Europe make possible the reevaluation of previously known materials (see Chekin 1990; Novosel'cev 1990, 1993; Magomedov 1994; Gammal and Kaplanov 1995; Gol'del'man 1995; Gershenson 1996; Veres 1996; Zeiden 1996, 1998; Orel 1997; Petruxin 1997; Brook 1999 and discussion in chapter 4.4). c. The fields of Germanic and Slavic linguistics: The publication of new East Slavic, German and Yiddish linguistic atlases and advances in German and Slavic diachronic morphology and lexicology enable us to explore in greater detail the chronology of Yiddish developments and the origins of its Slavic components (see Trubacev 1974ff; Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1978ff; Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996; Mackevic et al. 19791986; Etymolohicnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 1982ff; Atlas ukrajins 'koji movy 1984-1988; Nazarova 1985; Koller et al. 1990; Herzog et al. 1992-2000ff; R. Ebert et al. 1993; Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993-1998; König 1996-1997; Obsceslavjanskij lingvisticeskij atlas). There are new studies in Yiddish historical linguistics and in the Hebrew component of Yiddish (see Jacobs 1990b; D. Katz 1991a, 1991b, 1993; Simon

58

Relexification hypothesis

1991; King 1992; Stankiewicz 1993a, 1993b; Weinberg 1994; Niborski 1997; Jacobson 1998). Also indispensable are the dictionaries of Ashkenazic Jewish family names by Beider (1993, 1996) and the Sorbian historical phonologies by Schaarschmidt (1998). d. The field of early Slavic ethnography: See in particular Moszyriski (1992, 1997) and Slavjanskie drevnosti (1995ff). e. The study of early Jewish-Eastern Slavic relations: A number of scholars have suggested that some early Eastern Slavic translations were made directly from Hebrew and by Jews. (For the pros and cons from the beginning of the debates to the present, see Gorskij 1860; Harkavi 1884; Evseev 1902; Sobolevskij 1903: 396-428, 433-436; Speranskij 1907, 1908; Barac 1908, 1912, 1913, 1924-1927; Peretc 1908, 1915, 1926; Bedrzickij 1911-1912; Eisler 1927; Oljancyn 1936: 187, fn 42; Chadwick 1946: 6, 69-70, 97; Mesöerskij 1956a, 1956b, 1958, 1960, 1964, 1978a: 29-30, 47, 1978b; Dunlop 1974; Ryan 1978; Shevelov 1979: 403, 407; Alekseev 1979, 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998; Farrall 1981; Arxipov 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1994, 1995; Mathiesen 1983; Altbauer and Taube 1984; Luria 1984; Taube 1985, 1992, 1993, 1995; Borisov 1987; Uspenskij 1987: 40; Lunt and Taube 1988, 1998; Wexler 1988a (with additional references), Altbauer 1992; Moskovich 1993; Petruxin 1993, 1995; Toporov 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1995; Xoulett 1993: 64-65; Chekin 1994; Nazarenko 1994; Smorgunova 1997; Ostrowski 1998: 6-7; Pritsak 1998. Barac [often uncritically] derives many aspects of early Rus' culture from Jews [and Jewish Khazars] in his 1908, 1924, 1927, 1/1: 7, 1/2: 683, 745, 747-751. See also chapter 4.7.) On the mention of Jews in early Slavic literature, see Jakobson (1954: 65) and Rawita-Gaw^ski ([n.d.]). f. The study of Creole language genesis: New breakthroughs in our understanding of the relexification hypothesis in Creole languages (principally Haitian Creole) have provided important stimuli to the study of Jewish languages

Relexification hypothesis

59

(Lefebvre and Lumsden 1994; Lefebvre 1997, 1998). Thus far, I believe that three relexified spoken Jewish languages can be identified: Yiddish (relexified < Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian), Iberian Judeo-Spanish (< Arabic, obsolete in the mid 16th century in the Balkans) and Modern Hebrew (< Yiddish; see Wexler 1990b, 1996a; Horvath and Wexler 1994, 1997a, 1997b). On the variety of relexification among the Ashkenazic Jews, see above. (For a rich discussion of relexification [for and against] in pidgin and Creole languages beginning in the 1920s, see Scerba 1926; Roberts 1939; U. Weinreich 1953: 10-11 [using the term "subordinate bilingualism"]; Lado 1957: 11; Thompson 1961; Hymes 1971; Silverstein 1972; Voorhoeve 1973; Bickerton and Odo 1976; Valdman and Highfield 1980; Alleyne 1981; R. Andersen 1983; Boretzky 1983: 26-29; Meisel 1983; Todd 1984: 23-26; Mühlhäusler 1986: 107-113; Holm 1988-1989; Sebba 1997; DeGraff 1999; Lumsden 1999a, 1999b [for a refutation of Singler's scepticism about relexification in the latter's 1996].) The linguistic evidence for my two-tiered relexification hypothesis in the genesis and history of Yiddish falls into seven categories: a. German morphophonemic alternations (derivational patterns) that do not enjoy Upper Sorbian and/or Kiev-Polessian parallels are blocked in Yiddish. b. German roots which match roots with similar form and meaning in Upper Sorbian and/or Kiev-Polessian (the words in question may or may not be cognates) were usually blocked in Yiddish, since they were apparently perceived as Slavic elements. It is difficult to determine how much similarity in form and meaning is required to cause blockage of a Germanism. The following German words are available to Yiddish apparently since their Upper Sorbian (pseudo-)cognates are formally and/or semantically sufficiently different and the genetic relationship apparently was not immediately clear to naive bilinguals, e.g. G heilen 'to cure' > Y hejln, G Heilung 'cure' > Y hejlung f, a cognate

60

Relexification

hypothesis

of USo cyty 'all' (curiously, G heil 'whole, uninjured' is not regularly used in Yiddish). G flechten 'to braid' > Y flextn ~ USo plesc- G Gold(e) 'gold' > Y gold ~ USo zloto; G Wasser (zero pi) 'water' > Y vaser(n) η ~ USo woda f (see Vertränken)·, G Gans(- "e) 'goose' > Y gandz (gendz) f ~ USo huso n, husy pi; G ^Gänserich(e), older Ganser, etc. 'gander' > Y goner(s) ~ USo husor, ganzor; G Mast(e ~ -en) 'mast, pole' > Y mast(n) ~ USo most m 'bridge'; G Malz(en) 'malt' > Y male ~ SI *molto/ OPol, dial mloto, mloto n, miota f 'draft (in beer brewing)'. The term is not known in Upper Sorbian or Ukrainian, which have slod, solod m, respectively-also the root for 'sweet' in Slavic languages; this might explain why Judeo-Sorbian relexified to G Malz η. G Wespe(n) 'wasp' > Y vesp(n) ~ USo wosa, Uk osa f; G Tausend(e) η 'thousand' is acceptable to Yiddish as tojznt(er) since the cognates USo tysac m, Uk tysjaca f are too distant formally. G Lachs(e) 'salmon' > Y laks(n) m '(smoked) salmon' due to the formal distance from cognate USo loso η laks m, which must have been borrowed from German after the relexification of Upper Sorbian to German, otherwise G Lachs m would have been expected to undergo blockage in Yiddish). See also discussion of ##Saat and Slavic metathesis in Μ Arbeit. c. German roots are blocked in Yiddish if Upper Sorbian and/or Kiev-Polessian translation equivalents do not broadly overlap semantically. Future studies will need to determine whether the matching of German and Slavic lexicon by relexifiers (leading to the decision to relexify or block Germanisms) operated on the minimal domain of individual words or on the maximal domain of root sets (see discussion in #Jahr). For example, Upper Sorbian has a set of derivatives that includes moc f 'power', moc 'be able; possess', pomhac 'to help',/?owoc f'help', mozno 'possibly'. The likelihood of finding a German root with derivatives matching most or all of these meanings is small. The relexifiers would then have to choose between (i) linking all the Slavic and German forms as a set, and (ii) matching only parts of the two root sets, in accord with the principle of semantic similarity. It would appear that the second option is

Relexification hypothesis

61

almost always elected. Thus, USo moc 'power', moznosc, moznota 'possibility' are relexified to Y maxt, miglexkejt f, but USo moc 'be able' > Y kenen, while USo pomhac 'to help' and pomoc f 'help' > Y helfn and hilf f. If the first option had been selected, much more of the German lexicon would have been blocked, thus necessitating an even greater number of Hebraisms and substratal Slavicisms; in other words, relexification would have been in practice impossible. The problem is that if Hebraisms (replacing blocked Germanisms) were also acquired to express some of these meanings, it is not immediately clear if their presence is due to the failure to match all the forms of USo moc with a single German root, or because of disparallels between parts of the two paradigms. For example, alongside kenen 'be able', Yiddish also uses zajn Lbekojex, zajn Lbixojles, hum Ajoxlen; for 'perhaps, possible', Yiddish has • eföer, Ltomer alongside miglex < German. Most likely, these Hebraisms were acquired because of the awkwardness of the unSlavic alternation of G kennen 'know'/ können 'be able' and the use of different Slavic roots, e.g. USo snadz, snano 'perhaps' (see #.Bekannte, #Fülle). One of the above factors suffices to block relexification. d. Yiddish frequently lacks the volume of German-origin synonyms that can be found in most German dialects. Other than the compendious Yiddish thesaurus compiled by Stuckov in 1950 which includes synonyms along with (unfortunately unidentified) dialectal variants, there is no proper Yiddish synonym dictionary; a large variety of German synonym dictionaries can be consulted (see e.g. Tetzner [1895] and Bulitta and Bulitta 2000). e. Yiddish uses the plural marker «/A ~(e)n with German nouns in violation of German norms and often in imitation of the "pseudodual" in Kiev-Polessian. This suggests that Yiddish once had a dual category. f. The gender assignment of many German and Hebrew nouns in Yiddish dialects follows the gender of the Kiev-Polessian rather

62

Relexification hypothesis

than of German and Hebrew translation equivalents. As the second component of "compounds", simplex nouns also often change gender according to that of the Slavic translation equivalents. g. The Eastern Slavicisms in Yiddish are very often characteristic of southern and western Belarusian and northern and western Ukrainian-precisely the core area of the original Kiev-Polessian dialect up until its disintegration in c.1400.

Chapter 2 Approaches to the study of Yiddish and other Jewish languages

Genetically unrelated and non-contiguous Jewish languages often share a number of synchronic and diachronic features. This fact led a number of students of Jewish languages (e.g. M. Weinreich 1973 and S. A. Birnbaum 1974) to set up the field of comparative "Jewish interlinguistics". In his posthumous magnum opus (1973) exploring the external and internal history of Yiddish, Max Weinreich cited two reasons for the need to study Yiddish in a comparative Jewish linguistic framework: 1. Jews had been creating Judaized languages out of coterritorial non-Jewish languages in a cyclical process since about the 6th-5th centuries B.C. in various parts of the world whenever spoken Hebrew was abandoned. Weinreich devoted considerable space in his history of Yiddish to describing the creative force of Jews in adopting and adapting numerous non-Jewish languages over a period of two and a half millennia in Asia, Africa and Europe. In his view, Jewish languages reflected the need of a minority community to develop a unique linguistic profile, parallel to its unique religious and ethnic profile. Thus, while the history of Yiddish naturally has its starting point in the German-speaking lands of the 9th-10th centuries, the creative principles of Judaizing German had evolved a millennium and a half earlier and shaped the way German dialects were adopted and adapted by Jews. Furthermore, Yiddish could be traced back through an unbroken chain of language shift from the 9th-10th-century German lands to the Middle East of the 6th century B.C. 2. The process of Judaizing German dialects was to a large extent also shaped by the languages which Jewish emigres brought with them to the monolingual German and mixed Germano-Slavic lands

64

Approaches to Jewish languages

in the 9th-10th centuries (Judeo-French and Judeo-Italian) and by the (Judeo-)Slavic they encountered there. These three languages continued to be spoken in the German lands for an unknown period of time, and exercised an influence on Yiddish. For a long time I espoused Max Weinreich's conception of Jewish interlinguistics (see Wexler 1981b). However, a decade ago, I began to harbor doubts about Weinreich's model of Yiddish genesis, in particular about the population that carried out the process of Judaization (see Wexler 1993a, 1993c, 1996a). Given the rampant conversion to Judaism on all continents up to the beginning of the second millennium A.D., I now suspect that some "Jewish" languages may have been invented by proselytes rather than by ethnic Palestinian Jews themselves. The paramount role of relexification in the genesis of at least three spoken Jewish languages (Yiddish, Iberian Judeo-Spanish, Modern Hebrew-and one non-Jewish offshoot of Yiddish, Esperanto), makes it necessary to refine (and supplant?) the suggestion of a four-way typology of Jewish languages that I proposed in 1981b: (i) actively Judaized languages, (ii) Jewish languages created by default (due to changes unique to the non-Jewish cognate dialects), (iii) unspoken Jewish languages of translation (of Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic hieratic texts) and (iv) embryonic, minimally distinct Jewish correlates of non-Jewish languages. As major non-linguistic factors leading to the creation of Jewish languages, I had originally proposed segregation from the non-Jewish population, religious separatism and migrations (which had the effect of propelling the Jews into contact with a greater variety of coterritorial non-Jewish dialects than most nonJews, presumably more sedentary in nature, would experience: 1981b: 102-103). I ignored at the time the widespread conversion of non-Jews to Judaism in many parts of the world before the second millennium A.D. which would have reduced the original Jewish component of each Jewish community to a minority. Only my original type (iii), unspoken "languages of translation" (from Hebrew > Yiddish, Spanish, Arabic, etc.), was predicated on the process of relexification. It is now clear that spoken languages were also relexified, e.g. Upper Sorbian (to German lexicon), Kiev-

Approaches to Jewish languages

65

Polessian (to Yiddish and German lexicon), Iberian Judeo-Arabic (to Castilian lexicon) and Yiddish (to Classical Hebrew lexicon). Arguably, the first three languages were spoken by a significant body of new converts and their immediate descendants. A major weakness in the traditional definition of Yiddish as a Germanic language which underwent massive Slavicization is that there is no way to explain how Yiddish speakers decided to accept or reject German components. Determining the criteria of component selection was one of Weinreich's main goals, but he and others could only advance arguments about the selection of the Hebraisms in Yiddish, which they assumed were needed whenever German failed to provide suitable lexicon, e.g. in the domains of Jewish religion and culture. The advantage of the relexification hypothesis is that it allows us to predict which elements of all three components-German, Hebrew and Slavic-and not just Hebraisms (which feature in many semantic domains, beyond religion and culture), will be selected by Yiddish, and often, as I will show in chapters 34, in which relexification phase. It is important to note that while Yiddish constituted the lexifier dialect for Kiev-Polessian, German remained perpetually in close contact and could also serve as a lexifier source in the second relexification phase. While the relexification hypothesis to some extent might predict which semantic fields would be prime candidates for unrelexified substratal Slavic vocabulary, it obviously cannot specify precisely which substratal Slavic words will be retained in Yiddish. Scholars who regard Yiddish as a form of German have proposed two models for the genesis and evolution of Yiddish: (a) the traditional and, until recently, most popular view, mainly advocated and developed by Max Weinreich, saw Yiddish conceived in the Rhineland in the 9th-10th centuries, and from there transported to the southeast German lands, (b) An originally minority view, advocated in the interbellum period (e.g. by M. Mieses 1924) argued that Yiddish began in the southeast German lands and spread from there both to the southwestern German lands and eastwards to Slavic Europe. The latter view has recently been espoused anew by Faber and King (1984); Katz (1991b, 1991c, 1993); King (1992) and Eggers (1998).

66

Approaches to Jewish languages

Except for the direction of migration within the German lands, both schools of thought are in agreement on the following three points: 1. Yiddish is a Germanic language. (It has never occurred to Yiddishists to propose any other genetic affiliation.) 2. The Yiddish of southeastern Germany (Bavaria-Franconia) was transported eastwards to the monolingual Slavic-speaking lands. The city of Regensburg, where the first mention of Jews dates from the 10th century, was a major Jewish center in the Middle Ages. It was also a major mercantile center with trade connections to the Slavic world and a center for missionary activity to the Slavs; one of the lucrative activites of the city was the slave trade, in which Jewish traders were apparently represented (see discussion in Nazarenko 1994: 26, 33-34 and fns 121, 123). While discussions of Yiddish genesis do not mention Austria in this connection, it is relevant to note that the root "Jew" may be the basis for some toponyms in Carinthia, on the route to Villach and Italy (Nazarenko 1994: 27 and fns 64-65; see also discussion in chapter 4.7). 3. Eastern Yiddish dialects were historically derived from Western Yiddish (spoken largely in non-Slavic lands). This assumption is the guiding organizational principle of Herzog et al. (2000, 3; for a critique of the latter, see Wexler 2002b). Until the early 19th century, Western Yiddish norms were the basis of written Yiddish in the Slavic areas as well. A comparison of 16th-century Polish Yiddish texts demonstrates the diglossic situation that required speakers of a Slavic Yiddish to write in a Western or Germanic Yiddish (= Judeo-German), see e.g. ModY burik 'beet', breg 'riverbank' (see #Berg), brem 'eyebrow', nextn 'yesterday' (see Wacht), box 'river, stream' (see chapter 4.5.1) vs. written Y bet, bort, bro, gestern, bax (Krakow 1590 ~ G Beet, MHG borte, G Braue, gestern, Bach: examples cited by S. A. Wolf 1993). In the early 19th century, as Western Yiddish became obsolete in most of its native territory, the norms of written Yiddish in Eastern Europe

Approaches to Jewish languages

67

came to be based on the local dialects (see Kerler 1988, 1999 and below). The recently renewed preference for M. Mieses's claim of a southeast German cradle of Yiddish solves the problem of why there are no Rhineland features in any form of Yiddish. It is counterintuitive to believe that absolutely all Rhineland features would have been replaced by cognate features in the allegedly new BavarianFranconian homeland of Yiddish. Many of the salient features of Yiddish (contemporary and historically attested) appear to have their origin in the Bavarian-Franconian dialect area (see most recently Manaster Ramer and M. L. Wolf 1996). A handful of traces of Rhineland Jewish language may survive in the earliest forms of Western Yiddish. The extant texts represent a vast array of mixtures of (i) "Rhineland Jewish", (ii) various authors' and copyists' conceptions of contemporary standard literary German, and to a certain extent, (iii) Yiddish. This explains in part the lack of correspondence between "Old Yiddish" texts and all known varieties of Yiddish. In short, "Rhineland Jewish" in the west German lands and neighboring Lorraine and the Yiddish in the east German lands and Slavic Europe were from the very start two different Jewish languages (Wexler 1995a). Nonetheless, I think the preoccupation with determining the dialect origins of Yiddish Germanisms does not hold the clue to Yiddish genesis, given the tendency to "modernize" the German component. Though the Bavarian-Franconian venue of Yiddish genesis is superior to that of the Rhineland, there remain two problems with both models: (i) There are numerous facts of Yiddish grammar that point to a Slavic origin; indeed, the Slavic "imprint" on Yiddish grammar is far more impressive than on the Yiddish lexicon, (ii) The claim that Eastern Yiddish, allegedly a form of High German, became heavily Slavicized when it came into contact with Polish and the Eastern Slavic languages would make Yiddish in its Slavic milieu typologically bizarre from the point of view of linguistic interference phenomena, considering that other languages in contact with Slavic languages (some of them for almost as long as Yiddish itself), appear to be considerably less receptive to Slavicization (which is, moreover, manifested primarily in the lexicon): see

68

Approaches to Jewish languages

Turkic (Karaite and other Crimean Turkic dialects spoken by Jews, Armenians, and Gagauz), German, Baltic and Finno-Ugric languages. The only minority language that is broadly coterritorial with Slavic languages which would appear to match the "Slavicization quotient" of Yiddish is Romani. This is not surprising, since all European Romani dialects seem to employ a coterritorial rather than an Indie grammar (see Wexler 1997b). European Romani stands in striking contrast to Singhalese, an Indo-European language brought to Sri Lanka as far back as the mid-1st millennium B.C., which still preserves numerous Indo-European features in its new Dravidian environment. Katz argues (1991c, 1993) that the Ashkenazic pronunciation of Hebrew (both in Yiddish and in monolingual Hebrew texts) suggests that Yiddish derives from German dialects spoken much farther to the east than the Rhineland, since there is no trace of the old Rhineland loss of He /h/. As Katz rightly points out, the linguistic facts contradict a major tenet of historians of Jewish settlement in the German lands, according to which the Jews migrated in an uninterrupted eastward line, from the banks of the Rhine to the banks of the Danube and finally to the banks of the Dnepr (1991c: 117). The linguistic facts suggest, rather differently, that Jews migrated from the area of the Danube both to the Rhine and the Dnepr. While early Rhineland "Yiddish" (better called "Judaized" or "Judeo-German") became obsolete in the late Middle Ages, for Katz the Yiddish of Regensburg was destined to spawn the Yiddish dialects of Eastern Europe and the new Yiddish dialects of the west German lands as well. Katz thus challenges historians to elucidate the westward migration from the Danube to the Rhine that is missing in their paradigm but is strongly suggested by the linguistic data (1991c: 118). An eastward migration of the Jews within Germany and the shift of the cultural center from west to east was prompted by the demise of the great Rhineland Jewish centers of Speyer, Worms and Mainz caused by the massacres of the Jews during the Crusades (beginning in 1096) and the Black Death (13481349). But this population did not participate in the creation of Yiddish. Katz is also right that the case of Yiddish shows the lengths to which historical linguists (e.g. M. Weinreich) sometimes went in

Approaches to Jewish languages

69

order to avoid conflict with received views of history (see also Wexler 1995a for the claim that there were two Yiddishes and 1991b for the suggestion that hypotheses based on linguistic data are far superior to hypotheses advanced by historians that enjoy fragmentary or scant confirmation). I do not accept the common postulate of the two models of Yiddish genesis sketched above that Yiddish is a Germanic language and that the gap between Western and Eastern Yiddish dialects resulted from the differential impact of Slavic languages on the latter. In my view, Eastern Yiddish is a Slavic language and is genetically unrelated to the Judaized German that developed in the monolingual German lands (notably in the Rhineland, and elsewhere), incorporating some lexical and possibly even grammatical features of the French and Italian (maybe Judaized, as M. Weinreich emphasized?) that were spoken by the early Jewish migrants to the German lands in the 9th-10th centuries. (A separate question that should be explored is why Max Weinreich chose not to entertain the possibility of a Slavic origin for Yiddish, in view of the fact that quite a lot of the evidence was known to him.) The evidence that I have mustered in the present study suggests that it may be more prudent to speak of three genetically different Jewish language groups on the territory stretching from Germany in the west to Belarus' and Ukraine in the east: (i) Judaized German developed in the Rhineland on an imported (Judeo-)Romance substratum, (ii) (Judeo?)-Slavic developed (probably separately) in parts of the intervening Slavic territory, depositing attestation in the Czech and Eastern Slavic lands. Two dialects of Slavic underwent separate acts of relexification to produce two types of Slavic "Yiddish"-in the Sorbian lands between the 9th and 13th centuries (to High German lexicon), and in the Kiev-Polessian lands by the 15th-16th century (to Yiddish and High German lexicon), (iii) Judeo-Turkic languages in the Kiev-Polessian (Khazar, Karaite) and Polack-Rjazan' lands (Karaite). Future research will need to explore the extent to which Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian Yiddish maintained separate existences in Belarus' and Ukraine and whether different mergers accounted for some of the differences among contemporary Eastern European Yiddish.

70

Approaches to Jewish languages

I have been assuming all along that relexification took place in two separate venues: the mixed Germano-Sorbian lands between the 9th-13th centuries and in the Kiev-Polessian lands beginning with the 1400s. But relexification might have been a single uninterrupted continuum rather than two distinct processes separated in space and time. The first relexification process might have spilled over into the territory along the eastern banks of the Oder-Neisse (Odra-Nysa) rivers as well as Northern Bohemia, which were inhabited by Sorbian minorities (for Sorbian-Polish contacts, see Olesch 1956; Stone 1989; for Sorbian-Czech contacts, see Eichler 1965: 27, map #1; 1968: 23). Furthermore, the second relexification phase could actually have begun before the 1400s in Western or Central Europe if the East Slavic-speaking descendants of migrant Khazar Jews there encountered Sorbian Jews speaking Yiddish. Hence, it may be best to view the Germano-Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian lands as the end points of a single relexification process, beginning in West Slavic and terminating in East Slavic lands. It is not clear how long the second relexification process was in progress. To answer this question we need to find the approximate date when Kiev-Polessian (Ukrainian and Belarusian) ceased to determine the lexico-semantic and derivational parameters of Yiddish. This is difficult to do given our ignorance of the relative chronology of the earliest East Slavic lexical developments and a paucity of Old Yiddish texts (the oldest printed Yiddish text from Slavic Europe is the Mirkeves hamisne, Krakow 1534, but it is not without Western Yiddish features). At present, I can only state with certainty that Ukrainian and Belarusian cease to determine the selection of Germanisms by the early 19th century-with the opening of Yiddish to Modern German influences ( / in newly closed syllables, etc. (for Ukrainian and Belarusian features, see Swoboda 1979-1980, 1990). I suspect, though, that the failure of many Yiddish Slavicisms to display distinctive features of individual Slavic languages has little to do with the cultivation of pan-Slavic lexicon, but stems rather from the fact that the Kiev-Polessian lexicon was deposited in Yiddish before most of the language-specific features developed in Ukrainian and Belarusian. The closeness among the East and West Slavic languages contributes to the impression that Yiddish cultivates panSlavic roots (see chapter 4.6).

108

Criteria for selection

A comparison of the German component in Yiddish with that of any German dialect reveals two interesting facts: 1. All Yiddish dialects have a considerably smaller German corpus than any potential German lexifier dialect. Students of Yiddish typically ascribe this state of affairs to lexical attrition in the Slavic lands, 1.e. physical separation from German dialects led to the replacement of a great many Yiddish Germanisms by Slavic terms. This argument would be convincing if the absence of individual Germanisms in Yiddish were haphazard and unpredictable, but it can be demonstrated that a considerable German corpus is "missing" in Yiddish because it could not be accepted in the first place due to the requirements of the Slavic (either Upper Sorbian and/or Kiev-Polessian) substrata. Furthermore, many allegedly lost Germanisms in Yiddish seem to have been replaced rather by Hebraisms, which would be independent of Yiddish physical separation from German and new contacts between Yiddish and Slavic. 2. There is no single German dialect area that provides the German component of Yiddish. If we match up each German component of Yiddish with a corresponding German dialect area or areas (necessarily based mainly on contemporary evidence, given our ignorance of most historical situations), Yiddish would end up as a bizarre "mosaic" of a language. It is difficult to determine the German lexifier dialect(s) that were available to Yiddish at different historical periods for several reasons, (i) Detailed information about German dialects does not go very far back in time, (ii) The geography of German dialectal features today need not reflect the state of affairs of several centuries ago. If a given German feature in Yiddish had surface cognates in more than one non-contiguous German dialect, we would have no way of making an unarbitrary determination of origin, (iii) If Slavic-speaking Jews relexified to German (or Yiddish) cyclically, over a period of several centuries, then the German lexifier dialect(s) might well have changed through time. One piece of evidence for the change in the German component of Yiddish lies in its "modern" phonological (though not necessarily morphological or

Criteria for selection

109

semantic) look. These three facts complicate any attempts to distinguish the two historical phases of relexification or to ascribe to them an approximate relative chronology. Modernization of Germanisms in Yiddish usually seems to affect form but not meaning or derivational behavior. By form, I mean that Yiddish cultivates regular sound correspondences with Modern German, though not necessarily full phonetic identity. An example is Yiddish high and mid front unrounded vowels ~ Modern German high and mid front rounded vowels, as e.g. Y brider m pi 'brothers', texter f pi 'daughters' ~ G Brüder m pi, Töchter f pi, respectively (see #Saat). Modernization tends not to take place in Yiddish Germanisms (a) if the latter are no longer used in standard German, or if the Yiddish Germanisms do not follow common sets of German-Yiddish (b) phonetic or (c) semantic correspondences: (a) MHG wetac, wetage 'pain' > Y vejtik ~ vejtog(n) m vs. ModG Wehe f (though the term survives in Bavarian German, see Schmeller 1872-1877; for the geography of G Wehtage, see Ising 1968, 2: ΙΟΙ 1). Yiddish also maintains ind(n) 'wave' in the face of ModG Welle(n) since the former (of French origin and attested as MHG ünde, und f) is now dialectal in German (see Ubewegeri). I assume that the ability of original Y fruxperdik 'fertile, prolific' to resist total replacement by cognate ModG fruchtbar (U. Weinreich 1968 rejects the common *fruxtbarj suggests that speakers were unable to identify -bar and -per(-) as the same morpheme (see Stif 1928: column 1, fn 1 and #Bahre). V

(b) Y kinig(n) 'king', until recently, withstood readjustment to ModG ##König(e), since there are no examples of Y / ~ G ö (but see the newer Y kenig[η] m). The first Yiddish form < MHG künec ~ kiinic m, while the latter variant reflects the High German lowering of /ü > 0/ before a nasal, which was not manifested in the Germanisms acquired by Yiddish through relexification. The inability of Yiddish speakers to match Y volvl or the sporadic velvl 'cheap' (probably a back formation < velveler comparative: see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #104) with G wohlfeil prevented modernization to *vojlfajl,

110

Criteria for selection

presumably since Yiddish had vojl 'good, nice, well' but lacked *fajl = Gfeil 'for sale'. (c) Absence of semantic overlap means it is more likely that the distinctive Yiddish meaning will be retained intact. For example, Y bajtn 'to (ex)change' retains the Middle High German meaning now lost to G beuten 'to rob' (also a possible meaning in Middle High German); Bavarian German still has beuten in the meanings of 'divide up, distribute'. From the existence of this dialectalism in Bavarian German I cannot conclude that Bavarian German was the lexifier dialect for Yiddish, since there are other features in the German component of Yiddish which point to non-Bavarian lexifiers. Pre-modernized and modernized Germaisms often coexist in Yiddish, especially when they are semantically distinct. Compare older Y tajc(n) m, f 'interpretation, meaning' (vs. MHG diutnisse f 'meaning': see Mandeuten) and newer (19th c) dajc 'German'; the latter variant failed to cause a reshaping of the older Yiddish cognate because of the semantic differences and because the set of correspondences in which Y / ~ G d is unproductive (see also Y tunkl vs. G dunkel 'dark' ~ MHG d- ~ /-). See older Y ojsgob(n) m 'change (money returned)' vs. newer ojsgabe(s) 'edition, publication', both < G Ausgabe(n) f 'edition, publication; expense' (#Gabe), and older Y kort(n) 'playing card' vs. newer karte(s) 'map, chart' < G Karte(n) f with both meanings. Yiddish originally accepted MHG krage (zero pi) 'collar; neck (of a human, animal)' with the full range of meanings, see e.g. Y krogn(s) 'neck of a fowl; collar'-possibly in the Kiev-Polessian lands, to judge from the semantic overlap with Uk komir m 'neck; collar'. Later, Yiddish modernized krogn > kragn(s) but only in the meaning of 'collar', since G Kragen (zero pi) m no longer had the meaning of 'neck'. Yiddish still retains older krogn(s) m 'neck of a fowl' (MKoller). Y smic(n) m 'kick, spank', smicn zix 'lash about', a smic ton 'to fling' (lit. 'make a fling') < MHG smeizen 'to twitch; whip, beat' resisted modernization, presumably because the reflex in Modern German, schmeissen, has the new meanings of 'fling, throw, kick (horse)'.

Criteria for selection

111

The modernization program did not end with the second relexification phase. Even now some Yiddish speakers regard German as a perpetual source of new enrichment and selectively replace Yiddish Germanisms which differ in form, meaning and/or derivational behavior from their Modern German cognates. These Modern Germanisms are known as dajcmerizmen ("[unwanted] Germanisms") and are usually earmarked for elimination by puristicallyoriented Yiddish speakers, who fear that an influx of such "new" Germanisms would threaten the unique profile of Yiddish and ultimately lead to the replacement of Yiddish by standard German (on the topic of dajcmerizmen, see Kalmanovic 1938: 214, 216; Robak 1964: 60-71; Herzog 1965: 58; Schaechter 1969, 1977, 1986: 53-60; S. A. Birnbaum 1979: 79-80; for a discussion of chronological strata in German Yiddish, see Wexler 1997a). Yiddish has German sound changes that took place at the end of the Middle High German period; theoretically this could be an indication of a relatively late chronology of relexification, but this does not jibe with other available facts. Hence, I assume that relexification was earlier than the sound changes in question, and that the forms of Germanisms in Yiddish were constantly subject to modernization. For example, MHG i > aj, ü > aw between the 12th-16th centuries, depending on the area; the resulting diphthongs are consistently reflected in Yiddish Germanisms but may reflect modernization (see Bin-Nun 1973). Presumably, the unrounding of G ü, ö > i, e and the apocope of final schwa took place in the German lexifier dialect(s) prior to relexification. Secondary Umlaut entered German dialects around the 12th century; Polish has /a/ in a number of Germanisms corresponding to the new MHG ä, see e.g. Pol garbarz 'tanner', handlarz m 'dealer', hartowac vs. G Gerber, Händler m (#Arm), härten (#hart). The problem is that Old Middle German dialects developed ä < a and ä more recently. Thus, Polonisms with /a/ for ModG ä could be either old loans from High German or more recent loans from Old Middle German (for further examples, see the integration of Germanisms in Old Polish described in Kaestner 1939). The process of modernization that I am proposing for Yiddish, which would have taken place in the Kiev-Polessian lands during the second

112

Criteria for selection

relexification phase or thereafter, could account for the present phonological parallelism between Yiddish Germanisms and Modern German (and offers further support for the hypothesis of two-tiered relexification). Evidence of "updating" the shape of loans according to the sound changes in the donor language points to widespread bilingualism and amounts to a sort of "cyclical relexification" (see the overlap between the two relexification phases that I suggested in chapter 1). This is in contrast with ordinary cases of borrowing where we would expect the rules of the target language to apply to the loans. Rumanian provides a parallel. Rosetti (1964: 10) and Shevelov (1965: 160) have both claimed that the Slavic influence in Rumanian begins in the 6th-7th centuries, but the actual shape of allegedly early Rumanian Slavicisms suggests borrowing not before the 9th-10th centuries. In Schramm's words, Rumanian-Slavic "bilingualism was so rampant that the Slavic loans [in Rumanian] never got 'uncoupled' from the original forms" (1981: 67). The early Rumanian Slavicisms can be hypothesized from the Slavic corpus found in the other three Balkan Romance languages (Istro-, Megleno- and Arumanian) and from occasional "arrested Slavicization" in Rumanian Slavicisms (due to the belief that the loans in question were not from Slavic?). Incontrovertible historical evidence confirms that the first RomanceSlavic contacts predated the close of the first millennium. Hence, it would be strange not to find a plethora of Slavicisms in Rumanian in a marked Old (Common) Slavic (as opposed to later Bulgarian, Serbian or Ukrainian) form. The absence of a marked early Slavic form of Rumanian Slavicisms, however, can find a smooth explanation in the relexification hypothesis (Wexler 1997c: 168, 179-82). Rumanian speakers, after relexifying possibly from South Slavic, succeeded in modernizing their Slavic corpus in an atmosphere of prolonged extreme bilingualism in Slavic. Where there is no widespread bilingualism or relexification, modernization of loans is not likely to take place. For example, English has an enormous corpus of French loans acquired over a period of several centuries, mainly after the decline of French (and concomitant bilingualism) in England, yet there is no evidence of "modernization". Eng Charles [carlz] shows

Criteria for selection

113

no signs of changing into *sarl to match ModFr Charles [sayl], even though English also has Fr Charlotte [δ-]. German is a perennial source of lexical enrichment for Yiddish, independently of the two relexification phases. The cyclical nature of German enrichment is easy to demonstrate from even a cursory inspection of variant forms of individual Yiddish Germanisms. The first relexification to German took place in the Middle High German period, to judge from the fact that there are no specific Old High German phonological or lexical features in Yiddish (see Simon 1991: 253). I make this generalization not because Yiddish Germanisms generally display a Middle High German form; in fact, they do not. The Middle High German origin of most Yiddish Germanisms is based rather on the corpus of Yiddish Germanisms, whose coinage can be dated to the Middle High German period. However, from the Middle High German period onward, Germanisms could enter from a variety of dialects and either directly or indirectly via a Slavic intermediary language. Thus, when a Yiddish Germanism exists in two distinct forms, I assume (i) borrowing from two distinct German dialects (each with its own reflex), (ii) direct vs. indirect borrowing (via Slavic), and/or (iii) pre-modern and modernized forms of the same Germanism. For example, Y (m)karp(n) 'carp' < G Karpfen (zero pl-directly or possibly through a Slavic intermediary, such as USo, Pol karp) on the model of Y hop (kep) 'head' < G Kopf(- "e), Y top (tep) 'pot' < G Topf(-"e), Y knop (knep) 'button' < G Knopf(-"e) m. On the other hand, see Y kamf(n) 'struggle, fight, combat' < G #Kampf(-"e) m; the non-existence of *kamp suggests a borrowing from a different historical period or from a different German dialect; see also Y damf 'steam' < G #Dampf(-"e) m. The difference in the plural of (m)karp(n) and kamf(n) on the one hand, and top (tep), kop (kep) m on the other, also suggests different chronological strata (see discussion of the dual category in Yiddish in chapter 4.5.4). Yiddish has G Donner (zero pi) 'thunder' in two forms, doner ~ diner(n) m 'thunder(bolt)' and donerstik(n) η 'Thursday' < G Donnerstag(e) m (#Tag). Sometimes German doublets in Yiddish can be accounted for by direct/indirect channels of transmission, e.g. Y obntojer 'adven-

114

Criteria for selection

ture' < G Abenteuer (zero pi) η vs. avanture(s) 'adventure, scandal, risk' < German via Pol awantura f, etc. (see further discussion in Geller 1994: 121-122). See also Y mgvalt ~ ugvald f 'violence, force', ugvalt ~ ugvaldfn ~ es) m 'cry, scream, shriek; emergency', mgvaldik 'immense, mighty, terrific', mgvaldeven 'to cry, shriek' ~ Uk gvalt 'help!' ~ m 'force, violence, rape', gvaltuvaty 'break, infringe, violate, rape, cry for help' < #Gewalt(en) f 'might, power, violence'. As I indicated above, the possibility of modernizing the appearance of many Germanisms makes it difficult to posit the relative chronology of many Germanisms. It is not always clear whether a modern-looking Germanism was acquired during the first relexification phase and only later underwent formal modernization, or whether the "modernity" of the term reflects a recent post-relexification borrowing from standard German. The relexification hypothesis sometimes helps to posit a relative chronology of acquisition of a Germanism. For example, if USo swobodny covers the semantic range of G ledig and leer, then Yiddish should only be able to relexify to one of the two Germanisms; however, since Yiddish has both lejdik and ler 'empty', I could assume: (i) one of the terms came into Yiddish via relexification, while the other was acquired as a post-relexification borrowing-say from standard German, or (ii) relexification was originally either to ledig or leer depending on the area; subsequently, the two terms merged in the lexicon of a single Yiddish dialect (see also discussion of G leer, etc. above and below). "Modernization" also affected the unrelexified Sorbian component of Yiddish in the Kiev-Polessian lands; there many Sorbianisms appear to have been replaced by the Eastern Slavic or Polish cognates, to judge from doublets of possible Sorbian and Eastern Slavic origin. For example, for 'heel of a foot', Yiddish uses a Slavicism, see e.g. Y mp'ate ~ mp'ente (< USopjata or U k p ' j a t [ k ] a and Pol piqta f, respectively). Y mp 'ente f might be a recent (Polish) replacement for similar-sounding but unrelated USo pjenk m 'heel of a shoe'. Pan-Y mmucen 'to torment, torture' < USo mucic has been replaced by the Polish cognate, yielding Y mmencen in some dialects of Polish Yiddish (see also chapter 4.1 and G Nachtigall in #Nacht). Some Polonisms even reached Ukrainian and Belarusian Yiddish-

Criteria for selection

115

though often via the intermediary of Ukrainian and Belarusian (or Kiev-Polessian), see e.g. general Y mparenc 'railing' < Pol porqcz m (probably via Belarusian, to judge from /a/ in the first syllable). For such substitutions to have taken place we need not only the adjacency of the two languages, but a real bilingualism with constant switches from one language to another. Intra-Slavic loans are quite common and well documented in the literature, see e.g. Belarusian > Ukrainian, Polish > Eastern Slavic, Eastern Slavic > Polish, Polish > Czech, etc. Substitution began as a morphological phenomenon, but with an accumulation of established, morphologically conditioned substitutions which contain a certain recurring relationship of two sounds, a purely phonetic correspondence could be established (see Shevelov 1971a: 320). It is curious that U. Weinreich in his pioneering Languages in contact (1953) made no mention of phonetic substitutions. If my hypothesis about sound substitution (and even morpheme substitution when Upper Sorbian and Eastern Slavic have different Slavic roots) is correct, then this would prove that the Eastern Slavic Jews knew Slavic intimately. Sound substitution casts doubt on the assumption that Yiddish speakers coming from Western Europe became Slavicized. The Yiddish literature on Slavicisms does not always pay adequate attention to the phenomenon of sound substitution within Slavic. For example, Geller suggests two explanations for why Polonisms in Yiddish have /r/ vs. Pol rz [z] (< CS1 *r'\ 1993: 177): Yiddish /r/ either reflects (i) the situation in Old Polish before the sound change of *r' > ζ (s) or (ii) the Yiddish Slavicisms derive from Eastern Slavic languages rather than from Polish. She doubts the validity of the second proposal since /r/ appears in Yiddish Slavicisms which are clearly of Polish origin (e.g. they also have nasal vowels, which only exist now in Polish). There is no suggestion of Ukrainianization of Polonisms in Yiddish. The possibility of sound substitutions, by "disguising" Slavicisms in Yiddish, vastly complicates the task of identifying the origins of Slavicisms in Yiddish on the basis of formal clues.

116

Criteria for selection

3.1. Component blending in Yiddish While a common lexicon generally puts a block on the relexification of a Sorbian word to German, nevertheless Yiddish has a small number of words which appear to be idiosyncratic blends (or "conflation"-see discussion below) of Slavic and German roots which are semantically and/or formally similar. I do not include in this discussion words consisting of a root of one component combined with an affix of another component, of which there are myriad examples, see e.g.Y Abal-gajve(nik) 'haughty person' < He ba'al 'possessor' + ga 'avah 'pride' + m-nik ag (see ##-er). On the surface, component blending contradicts the generalization given above that shared Germano-Sorbian lexicon of German origin (but not Slavicisms borrowed by German) is not ordinarily relexified by Yiddish. There are two conceivable explanations for the presence of Germano-Slavic blends in Yiddish: 1. As I indicated above, relexifiers may not always have agreed on the application of the blockage principle during relexification, or relexified based on a poor understanding of German allomorph sets. Hence, for some speakers conflation, a common enough phenomenon accompanying L2 acquisition (of which relexification is an instantiation), was a productive way of integrating Germanisms that shared form and meaning with Slavicisms. 2. In contrast to the situation in Tok-Pisin (see chapter 4.1), many blends appear to have been created after the completion of the two relexification phases. In that event, there is no contradiction with our assumption regarding the blockage of vocabulary shared by German and Slavic discussed in chapter 3. There are altogether five types of blends in Yiddish (six if I count untruncated compounds composed of synonyms of diverse originssee examples below), and some of them can be given an approximate chronology and venue of creation. While most cases of blending probably date from the post-relexification period, some blends may

Component blending

117

date from the first relexification phase or thereafter, i.e. (a) they were formed from German + Upper Sorbian morphemes of similar shape and meaning; (b) other blends may date from the second relexification phase or thereafter, i.e. they were formed from German + Polish or German + Eastern Slavic morphemes. Two characteristic features of types (a) and (b) are morphological truncation of one of the components, and the selection of form from one component and meaning from another. The venue and relative chronology of the three other types of blends are not so easy to determine: these include blends (c) adopted readymade from other Slavic languages, (d) composed of two Slavic languages, and (e) involving the replacement of German or Slavic roots by Hebrew (or newly composed "Hebroid") words of similar form and meaning. The occasional examples of Slavo-German blends in German dialects spoken in bilingual Germano-Slavic milieux do not surface as a rule in Yiddish, see e.g. Silesian G pläken 'bleat, scream, make noise like a child, wail, stick out one's tongue', possibly < G blöken 'bleat' + Pol plakac 'whine' (Olesch 1970: 199). An example of a Common Slavic blend may be *gösb < *zösb + G Gans 'goose' (Vasmer 1953, 1: 324). Following are examples of the five types of component blends in Yiddish: a. German + Upper Sorbian blends: There are a few Yiddish blends which might have been created in the Sorbian lands, but an Eastern Slavic venue cannot be ruled out conclusively. These blends involve Slavic semantics and German form (i.e. the present Yiddish shape can be derived only from a German phonetic input), e.g. Y mjojx 'broth' < G Μ Jauche (now universally 'liquid manure') + USo jucha f 'broth' (unless Yiddish acquired the Slavicism from German in the meaning of 'broth' prior to a pejorative semantic shift in German). Y mkojp(n) m 'hill, knoll, pile, heap' < USo kupa f 'hill(ock); island in a river; pile', kop m 'elevation; pile' + G dial Kaupe f 'haystack; hillock covered with growth' (< Slavic). The Slavicism is found in a number of German

118

Criteria for selection

dialects, e.g. Saxony, Southern Brandenburg, Lower Lausitz, Poznan and the Fuhne area (see Bellmann 1971: 102). On formal grounds, the Yiddish word clearly points to an immediate German source, but its meaning has more in common with Slavic. Theoretically, the blend could have been created in the Kiev-Polessian lands, see Uk kupa 'heap, pile, hoard; crowd, mob'; the meaning 'island in a river', attested in USo kupa and cognate Pol kqpa f, is foreign to Yiddish. Y msmejxlen 'to smile' might be a merger of MHG smeicheln 'flatter, cajole' + USo so smejk(ot)ac 'to smile' (or cognate Pol usmiechac siq, Uk usmixatysja; see discussion in Machen). Y mingber (no pi) 'ginger' is unlikely to be directly from MHG ingeber ~ ingewer ~ imber, which would have been blocked by the Upper Sorbian Germanism himbjer m. The Germanism appears with Ibl in all Slavic languages, see e.g. Uk inbyr, Pol imbir m. Thus, Yiddish should have retained its original Sorbian form, with the velar nasal due to ModG Ingwer (zero pi) m. Y mkojl(n) 'sphere, ball' < USo kula 'ball; hump, bump' (or Pol kula, which spread to Uk, Br kulja) + G Keule(n), Kaule(n) f 'pestle, club'. Y umuzn 'must (verb)' < G müssen + USo musac, Pol music (since the 14th c; Polish > Uk musity, Br music" \ expected is Y *mizn\ on the use of this Germanism in six other Slavic languages, see Hansen 2000). Since the Germanism is first attested in Ukrainian only in the 15th century (Hansen 2000: 82), I assume acquisition by Yiddish in the first relexification phase, though at present the term is dialectal in Upper Sorbian (Hansen 2000: 84; see also Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 969, under musac). Y msmocken 'smack (the lips)' appears to blend G schmatzen 'click (with the tongue); kiss loudly' and USo cmackac of similar meaning (see also Pol cmokac, Uk cmokaty 'smack the lips'). The Slavic and German forms are probably independent onomatopoeic forms. See also my hypothesis (discussed in chapter 4.5.3) that the Yiddish plural suffixes ( m ) - ( e ) n , A!m-(e)s and (m)-er are derivable jointly from the German plurals -{e)n, -er and the Ashkenazic He pi ±-(e)s (< OHe -öt), and three homophonous Slavic nominal infixes, -en-, -es-, -er-, USo broda f 'beard; chin' appears to have merged with G Bart m 'beard' > Y mbord (berd) f 'beard; chin', where the semantics,

Component blending

119

gender and final voiced consonant ~ the Slavic root, while the syllable -or- ~ G -ar-. (Viler's hypothesis that Y mbord acquired feminine gender by association with peje(s) f 'side curl', both of which orthodox Jews do not cut, is also not unreasonable: 1926: columns 261-262.) This suggests that Yiddish gives up the distinctive Slavic metathesis of liquids in medial position, e.g. CS1 *tort, *tert, *tolt > So CS VC (where S[onant] = r, I and V = ο, ό, e, e). See also metathesis in MArbeit and Machen, #Nase, #scharf. b. German + Polish or German + Eastern Slavic blends: In the examples of conflation of German and Slavic (usually from Polish and Eastern Slavic) roots given below, it is noteworthy that the gender assignment of the Yiddish blend usually follows Slavic rather than German norms (see also chapters 4.5.1-4.5.2). Examples are BrY mhlejm 'clay' < Y lejm f, η + Br hlina f (vs. G Lehm[e] m); BrY mhron(- "er) η 'horn' < Y horn(- "er) m, η + Br roh m (vs. G Horn [-"er] η: #Gehirn; the neuter gender of BrY mhron suggests a postrelexification formation); Y wojstrice 'oyster' < G Auster(n) f (see also Y ojsterfs] m) + Uk ustrycja, Br ustryca f; LiY wxl'ebl 'loaf < Y lebl dim η (< Laib m 'loaf) + Pol chleb, Br xleb m (this is a rare case where the inputs to the blend are possibly cognates, unless Slavic borrowed early from Germanic; see also discussion of Y barg and mbreg under ##Boderi). I suspect that these examples do not reflect the Slavicization of German surface congeners but are rather an attempt to accept Germanisms that were blocked during the initial relexification phase due to similarity with Upper Sorbian terms, or for lack of semantic parallelism between German and Slavic. For example, G Lehm m may originally have been blocked for relexification because of its formal and semantic similarity with USo hlina f. G Horn η 'horn' might have been blocked originally since the corresponding CS1 *rogb denoted both 'horn' and 'corner', see e.g. USo rozk 'corner', Uk rih 'horn; corner' (note Y mrog[n] m 'street corner'). Moreover, the concept of 'antlers' is expressed in Upper Sorbian by a compound morpheme or the plural of roh, e.g. (pa)rohi pi, rohizna pit. German, on the other hand, uses a different root altogether for antlers, Geweih η.

120

Criteria for selection

Y mhencke(s) f 'glove' < G Handschuh m + Uk rukavycja, Pol rqkawiczka (or < USo rukajca f, assuming that Y -nc- < G -dsch[c])-with subsequent replacement of USo -jca by Uk -cja, Pol -ka (see also Swabian German forms in König 1997, 3, map #7 and MHG #buntschuoch); presumably, Y -e- < hentl η dim 'handle'. Unblended OUkY morke(s) (mid 17th c: see M. Weinreich 1928: column 712) contrasts with ModY mugerke(s) f 'cucumber' < Uk ohirok m + G Gurke f(?). (Curiously, Upper Sorbian has replaced a Common Slavic root by a Germanized form of the Slavicism, see e.g. gorka, gurka, which are more frequently used than original korka, kurka f: Bielfeldt 1933: 169.) The likelihood of a blend between Ukrainian and German is more plausible since G Gurke f is not attested before the middle of the 16th century (ibid.), which would eliminate Sorbian. PolY, UkY • maxn mit 'wave' < Y maxn 'make' + Pol machac r^kami, Uk maxaty rukamy (U. Weinreich 1955: 605). See also PolY mda- ~ udar-, a verbal prefix formed from G der- and Pol do-, Br daand Y lejb 'lion' under G Löwe m discussed in chapter 4.2. Y lajbcudekl(ex) 'the undergarment worn by orthodox males which covers the chest and upper back, and which has an opening for the head and tassels on its four corners' is also called by Aarbe-kanfes[n] and the merged Germano-SIavic ulajbserdak(es) m < Y lajb(er) η 'body; flesh' + Uk (?) sardak, serdak m 'sleeveless shirt worn by Carpathian mountaineers' (first attested 16th c). The phonetic similarity of serdak and -cudekl may have facilitated the creation of the blend (for further details, see Wexler 1987a: 183-185). G Scherbe(n) f 'fragment' ~ (pit) 'broken glass, broken china' appears as Y sarbn(s) m 'skull'. The semantic shift from 'broken pottery' > 'skull' is typical of a number of Slavic languages, mainly Eastern Slavic, but also occurs in Slovene and Sorbian (see details in Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 126). While USo crjop means only 'fragments', the cognate Uk cerep m denotes both 'potsherds' and 'skull'. Because of semantic and formal similarity, Y sarbn(s) acquired the meaning of 'skull' from genetically unrelated Uk cerep m, and then, presumably, lost the original meaning of 'fragments'. But it is also conceivable that the shift took place in the Sorbian lands, where unrelated USo, LSo nop m 'vessel; skull' offers a plausible model.

Component blending

121

On mergers of German and Polish, see Geller (1994: 83, 116). Y mpatil('n)ice 'nape of the neck' (in the variant with -«-) may also reflect the merger of Uk potylycja f and G #Genick η. c. Blends adopted readymade from other Slavic languages: In Slavic languages, the word 'cotton' is a conflation of G Baumwolle + native SI *vlbna 'wool', see e.g. USo balma, bawtma, Pol bawetma, (O)Cz bavlna, Uk bavovna f, Br bavel m. See also Y mbavl ~ mbanvl m 'cotton; thread'. Considering that the stress fell on Baum-, we would have expected Y bojm- (see also Wexler 1987a: 93-94). Merger also explains LSo bawol (older), USo buwol (?) 'buffalo' < Czech (ultimately < Latin) with interference from CS1 *volb m 'ox' (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 22). Y mbufloks(n) is a mirror image of the Slavic forms, being a blend of "SI" buvl'buffalo' + G Ochs (~ SI volb m). If the first component had come from German directly, I would expect Y *bifl ~ G Büffel m. Y mpamelex 'slow, tardy' < G *gemelex (the latter is also found in Yiddish in the Smuelbux 1544; see also G allmählich 'gradually') + Y mpavol'e (< USo powolny 'slow') or USo, Pol pomalu, Cz pomalu (see Wexler 1987a: 186; Timm 1987: 333-334 cites an example from Brzesc in Kujawy 1584). German dialects spoken in the Czech lands, as well as in a broad belt encompassing Prussia, Poznan, SchleswigHolstein, Silesia, Bavaria and Austria, also have this blend, see e.g. NCzG pumälich, SCzG bumäh. This raises the possibility that Yiddish acquired the blend ready-made from German. See also Y mpamelexke 'slowly; on the sly' ~ USo pomalku, R potixon'ku. Optionally, -k- is also found in synonymous Y povol'e ~pavolinke 'slowly' ~ Ukpovoli, povolen 'ky. Kiparsky has proposed that "contamination" of German and Slavic best explains the variant CS1 *bersky 'peach' which was the basis for the term in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Upper Sorbian and SerboCroatian. Y mferske(s) f 'peach' in turn might be < G Pfirsich(e) m Pfirsiche[n] f: see Paul 1968: 103) + USo bresk m, Uk broskvyna f, which triggered the use of Y m-ke (f ag, dim) (for reconstructed Common Slavic dialectal forms, see Knutsson 1929: 12 and Kiparsky

122

Criteria for selection

1934: 121). On Germano-Slavic blends in Polabian, see Polariski 1962, 1: 55, 57-59,129,1971,2: 314-315, 1973, 3: 429. d. Blends composed of two Slavic languages: There are also a few cases of intra-Slavic blends in Yiddish, but far fewer than the number that can be found between neighboring Slavic languages. One example might be Y mpamjantnik 'diary, memorial(?)' < R pamjatnik + Pol pamiqtnik m (Jofe 1928: 297). Consider also Y mhin()en 'to rot; linger' < (?) Uk hynuty, Br hinuc' 'perish' + Pol gnic 'perish, linger, tarry' (Swoboda 1979-1980: 825, fn 1). Occasionally, unstressed vowels are dropped in Yiddish Slavicisms; see NEY mjagde ~ SEY mjagede f 'berry', Y m{o)ceret m 'reed' < Pol jagoda f, Uk (o)ceret m (mapped in Herzog et al. 1992, 1, map #4); the result is that Eastern Slavic roots sometimes assume a Western Slavic form, see e.g. Y mbreg 'riverbank, coast' ~ Uk berih, Pol brzeg m. I assume Y mbreg m < Uk berehy pi, where the final stress led to the loss of the first syllable in Yiddish (alternatively, M. Weinreich proposes that mbreg was not original to Polish Yiddish, but came from the Polish spoken in the Eastern Slavic territories: 1980: 588; however, northwest Belarusian also has the Polonism, which might be the source of the Yiddish Slavicism; see Woolhiser [ms]). See also unique Y mbrez m 'birch' ~ stY mbereze f (dialectally, in Poland, and occasionally in Belarus' and Lithuania, and in the Carpathian Ukraine: see Herzog et al. (#102060) for this and other variants such as mbzez and mbzoz m in Poland), Pol brzoza, Br bjaroza, Uk bereza f (see also discussion of SI dubt 'oaktree' in paragraph [e] below). Y mxalture f'hack work', mxaltureven 'do hack work' resembles more closely the form of Ukrainian but the meaning of Russian, see e.g. Uk xavtur(a) f 'tribute; payment taken by priests (money of food); remainder of food after a feast in commemoration of the dead', xavturuvaty 'receive bribes, victuals; take food blessed during the service for the deceased' vs. R xaltura 'hack job', xalturit' 'do hack work'. Y mplix(n) 'bald pate' < Uk plis + Br pie:t m 'baldness' (while the adjective in Belarusian and Ukrainian can be expressed by the same root, see Uk plisyvyj 'bald-headed', Yiddish uses a different Slavic root for 'bald', e.g. Y mlise, Uk lysyj); Y

Component blending

123

mgrabl'e, mhrabl'e f 'rake' < Pol grabie pit + Uk hrabli pit, though Y g may have been substituted for ESI h (see Swoboda 1979-1980: 821). See also discussion of Y mgribe f 'mushroom' in MSckwamm. An interesting case is Y mspru(n)zine 'spring (in car)' ~ (s)pruzine, which is either a blend of Br spruzyna, Uk (s)pruzyna + Pol sprqzyna or < Br spruzyna, Uk (sjpruzina f with the insertion of an East Slavic argot infix -n-. Shevelov's discussion of this infix cites examples such as Uk vataha f 'band, gang; flock' ~ vantaz m 'load, 'freight' (1954); while he does not have an Eastern Slavic model for Y mspru(n)zine f, Yiddish may have inherited from Eastern Slavic. Other likely examples of the m - n - infix are Y smonces plt-f 'nonsense' (also attested in many Russian dialects, usually in the meaning of 'loafer; joke; thievery': see Vasmer 1958, 3 under smon m) < Y Asmue(s) f 'rumor; piece of news' and Lsmues(n) m 'talk; chat' < He smü'äh f 'rumor' (though a nasal reflex for the Hebrew letter 'ajin is occasionally found in various Jewish languages; see also discussion in chapter 4.5.4), Y mkundes (kundejsim) m 'prankster; brat' < Eastern Slavic (see Mbezaubern) and Y (A)naronim m 'fools' < German and Hebrew (or Iranian?), discussed in paragraph (e) below and in #Narr. For a possible intra-Slavic blend in the 16th-century JudeoBelarusian caique language, see zatecb m 'reaper' (unique to Codex #262, which Altbauer 1992 defines erroneously as "Judeo-Belarusian"). See also OBr zatelb, znataj and znecb (the latter also appears in #262: Altbauer 1992: 421 and as OR znecb 1406). The use of -(e)c(') m ag also characterizes USo znjenc(ar) m. The "Judeo-Belarusian" form appears to be a blend of Uk zaty 'reap' (or the Belarusian cognate prior to cekanne) + -ec' m ag. See also discussions of #schade, MSchwamm, as well as discussion of Y skov(e)rode(s), skavrode(s) 'pan' in chapter 3.2 and in MPfanne. On unique JudeoSlavic terms in Yiddish, see also chapter 4.6. e. Blends involving the replacement of German or Slavic roots by Hebrew roots with similar sound, and sometimes also related meanings.

124

Criteria for

selection

Non-Hebrew words are occasionally reinterpreted as Hebraisms and restructured accordingly. Since there is no compelling reason to believe that speakers erroneously regarded the non-Hebrew words as Hebraisms, I assume that these are conscious attempts to eliminate undesirable Germanisms and Slavicisms. I include replacements by Hebrew roots and the Hebraization of non-Hebrew roots together with formal blends, since they function as the latter. For example, G Narr 'fool' is found in Slavic languages, see e.g. USo nora m 'clown'. In Yiddish G Narr has been partially reformed to look like a Hebraism in the plural, see Y nar (naronim ~ LiY narojim), with • -n- added as the agentive suffix (as in Akasfn 'writer' ~ He katvän m 'scribe'-see M-er, but it is possible that Y A/m-n- is also the Slavic verbal noun suffix; see chapter 4.4). The reinterpretation of Y nar as a Hebraism might have been facilitated by similar-sounding He na'ar 'youth'-but the latter is not used in Yiddish (naar m is only attested in Rotwelsch [German slang lexicons] beginning with 1822 in the meaning 'young': S. A. Wolf 1956, #3757). I do not know why the A/m-n- does not appear in the singular stem as well; maybe there was analogical interference with Hebraisms such as Y gojlem m, which forms the plural gojlomim A'artificial man'? Slavic languages also have words for 'fool' with a suffix ending in -η, see e.g. USo blazn, Uk durenblazen' m, which might have provided the -n- model for the "Hebraism" in Yiddish. See also SI -an to describe a quality, used in all Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Lower and Upper Sorbian, e.g. Mac gluvan 'deaf person', Cz veliMn 'giant', Br puzan 'pot-bellied person', Uk huban' m 'pouter, person with thick lips' (see also #Narr). Alternatively, Y nar might be from the name of Ossetian epic heroes, found in Nestor's Povest' vremennyx let ("Russian Primary Chronicle") as ESI «arc/, nor(i)ci, etc., with -tci pl ag (< Pers ner 'man': see Kunstmann 1996: 243-244), which could be the model for Y naronim pl. The shift from 'man' > 'fool' could have taken place under the impact of G Narr and/or the obsolescence of the Iranian term among Slavic-speaking Jews (many archaic ethnonyms become pejorative, see e.g. OR dulebi pl, the name of an Eastern Slavic tribe > R dial duleb m 'fool'). It would be interesting to know what the

Component blending

125

westernmost extension of naronim in Yiddish was. Similarly, Y tajvl 'devil' has two plural formations: tajvolim ~ tajvlonim m. The A-nin the latter variant could be due to the Hebrew masculine agentive that surfaced in naronim and/or from the -n- in the derived forms of synonymous Uk cort m, see e.g. cortenja, cortenjatko η dim, cortivnja f coll. Y Lylad(n) 'fetus' < He väläd + Uk (vutrobnyj) plid, Pol ptod m; alternatively, this could be a blend of Hebrew consonantal structure and the productive Slavic template CNd (see discussion of Y mbord above and # Bahre). I know of one possible blend of a Slavic and Hebrew root in the Slavic languages, see e.g. OBr baxura gen sg (Brest 1577) and OUk baxur-b, baxort m (1616) 'Jewish child, brat, child born out of wedlock, stubborn child; lover; fawning person' (Rudnyc'kyj 1962, 1: 89-90); the earliest Polish example (typically in the eastern areas inhabited primarily by Ukrainians and Belarusians; for details, see Wexler 1987a: 201-202) appears to be bachurowie from a Przemysl text of 1743 (see W^grzynek 1999: 30). Contemporary Eastern Slavic and Polish dialects provide a slew of further examples, in a variety of meanings and stress patterns, see e.g. Pol bachur, bachor 'young man, brat, small child; vulgar person; unmarried youth; bastard; Jewish child' (Rastorguev 1973: 50; see also Karfowicz 1894-1905, 1900, 1; Karas 1980, 1), Br (W Brjansk) baxur 'lover', NWBr baxur, baxor, bexur 'child born out of wedlock; small pillow' (Mackeviß et al. 1979, 1: 175), Ε Mahilew, Hrodno Br baxurcyk m 'young man' (ironic) (Ababurka 1979: 13), Ε Mahilew area Br baxyr 'lover; dissolute person' (Bjalkevic 1970: 82). Nosovic (1870) lists a number of citations: Br baxur 'fat-bellied; uncastrated pig; young married Jew occupied with the study of the Talmud'; baxurok m 'Jewish schoolboy; rather fat youth'; baxurstvo η 'debauchery'; see also Br dial baxur 'bastard; boy' (Hrodna: Scjaskovic 1972, MinskMaladzecna: Zydovic 1970), (Brest) 'child' (hum, pej: Aljaxnoviö et al. 1989), stBr 'chubby child', Riga R baxur 'bastard; juvenile' (dial of the "old timers": Nemöenko et al. 1963: 26), Jaroslavl' R bäxar' 'talker; braggart' (Mel'nycenko 1961), Don R bäxor('), bäxar('), bäxur(') 'lover; talker' (Slovar' russkix donskix govorov 1975, 1), stUk bdxur m (pej) 'child; brat; dissolute person; Jewish child',

126

Criteria for selection

(WUk) 'boy, lad; badly brought up boy; suitor, lover; lame sheep' (Semenova 1983: 164). The only East Slavic reflex with a rounded vowel in the first syllable is Vjatka R buxara m 'liar' (1881: Filin 1968, 3)—if this is indeed from Hebrew (for further details, see Wexler 1987a: 201-202, 209, 1993c: 118). On the possibility that -ur is an expressive suffix and that the etymon is a native Slavic root, see Laskowski 1965; Trubaöev 1974, 1: 136 also insists on a purely Slavic etymology (see also chapter 4.7). Vasmer (1953, 1) and Etymolohycnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy (1982, 1) derive the Ukrainian term uniquely from He bähür m 'boy, youth'. I agree with Sadnik and Aitzetmüller (1964, 1, #106) that the existence of Hebrew meanings suggests that the Slavicism has been crossed with a similarsounding Hebrew root. The co-etymon might be Slavic terms meaning 'bloated, swollen, fat', see e.g. Uk pux 'down' (also > Y upux), puxyr 'blister, pimple' (> Y mpitxir m 'blister'), puxkyj 'soft, tender, plump (hands, face)', puxlyj 'swollen, bloated', puxtij m, puxtja m, f 'fat, paunchy person'-with cognates in other Slavic languages (several Common Slavic etyma are involved; for details, V

see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 14, 1196; for meanings related to 'stomach', see Machek 1971 under Cz bachor and puchnouti; see also Varbot 1984: 208, 222). The striking feature of these Slavic examples is that they reveal a decidedly non-Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation of He bähür m. In Yiddish the Hebraism is pronounced as A boxer (im) 'chap, lad, young man, bachelor', Aboxerec(n) m 'brat' (with a Slavic suffix). Curiously, in the Polish dialect spoken by interbellum Galician Jews, the Hebraism appears as buxer (in the Yiddish manner), but switches to baxurek m when a Slavic suffix is attached (Brzezina 1979: 86). The form of the second Hebraism points to a non-Yiddish Jewish speech community, possibly either of Slavic or Turkic origin; significantly, the term also appears in contemporary Trakai Karaite in the form baxurcox dim < baxur m 'young man, bachelor' (Semenova's attempt to derive the Slavic term from Turkic is not convincing: 1983: 164-165). It is unclear whether the blend was initiated by Slavs or Slavic-speaking Jews in the Eastern Slavic lands. Since there is no trace of the blend in Sorbian, I assume the blend was created in an

Component blending

127

Eastern Slavic or Polish area. (For a discussion of the hypothesis that the Yiddish pronunciation of Hebraisms points to a pre-Yiddish tradition, see Jacobs 1990a; Wexler 1990a; Katz 1991a; Jacobs et al. 1994: 396-397.) There is no corresponding Yiddish feminine ~ OHe bähüräh f, since the Slavic languages generally used different roots, see Uk xlopec' m 'boy' vs. divcyna f 'girl'. The facts of Yiddish thus suggest that the corresponding USo hole m ~ holca f are a later formation (< 'naked'). On the oldest Hebrew tombstone inscriptions from Silesia (beginning in the 13th century), there is no trace of He bähür(äh)·, instead, the terms ncfar m 'boy' and na'aräh f 'girl' are used (see Wodzmski 1996: 101). It would be useful to explore the possible non-Hebrew origins of a number of Yiddish "Hebraisms". For example, a Yiddish Hebraism which has no immediate monolingual Hebrew source is dibek (dibukim) m A'in Jewish lore an evil spirit or soul of a dead person residing in the body of a living individual, which can be expelled only by magic means'. In Old Hebrew dibbüq m means 'sticking, joining'. While one can imagine the semantic progression from 'sticking' > 'obsession', there may be a Slavic reason for the semantic innovation in this Hebrew root, i.e. in the formal resemblance with the Slavic diminutive form for 'oak(tree)', see USo dub, dim dubik m. The oak tree, both in Germanic and Slavic folklore had magical or divine properties (see Der neue Brockhaus 1938, 1: 646 and Miroljubov 1984: 88; Vinogradova and Usaceva 1993; Slavjanskie drevnosti 1999, 2: 141-146, respectively); see also discussion of Y bereze(s) f 'birch' in chapter 4.6 and paragraph (d) above. Y mnadn, mnodn, mnedart m 'dowry' are spelled ndn in Yiddish, i.e. as if they were a Hebraism. I suspect the term is originally < SI *nadan(n)e, consisting of the prefix na- and the root 'give', see e.g. Uk prydane η 'dowry', nadaty za moloduju 'give a dowry' (see Wexler 1987a: 182). Minority variants like Lgedinje ~ • kedinje ~ • gedunje < JAram nedünjä', described by Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #66, p. 182) "[as] defy[ing] explanation in terms of regular phonological variation", appear in Western Yiddish and the Eastern Yiddish of Western Poland; the ge- looks like the perfect prefix (as in gebn 'give': gegebn 'given'), which suggests Yiddish speakers recog-

128

Criteria for selection

nized the Slavic verbal etymon of mnadn, etc. It became reinterpreted as a Hebraism in Yiddish, falling together with existing He nädän m 'sheath' (though the latter is not used in Yiddish). The neuter form SI *nadan(n)e would be expected to yield feminine gender in Yiddish (see also synonymous USo poslanje, Uk vino n). The masculine gender of the Yiddish term matches Br pasäh m 'dowry', used primarily in Western Belarus' and at scattered points in the eastern regions (see Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #109: in eastern regions, the term appears as pasäha f) and Uk posah m (see also discussion in G #Gabe f), as well as OHe nädän. For discussion of other "Hebrew" examples, see the discussions of gojlem (gojlomim) m A'artificial man' in Wexler (1993c: 132-133), Axale(s) f and Lbarkes ~ berkes pit 'festive braided bread' in #Frau Holle and Ltaslex dim 'pockets' in MBeutel f. See also discussion of Y kurc 'short, brief < G ttkurz and L_kicer (kicurim) m 'summary', a kicer ~ bekicer (with the preposition 'in') 'in short'. The matching of Slavic with Hebrew words on the basis of similar form (and often also meaning) is first attested in the 13th-century Hebrew grammar of the English Jew Mose ben-Jicxak Hanesia, which cites the opinion of a Jew from Öernihiv that He j-b-m 'levirate marriage; marry a childless brother's widow in conformity with the (now abolished) levirate marriage' was the source of ESI ("R") j-b 'fornicate' (Klar 1947: 11, 142; see e.g. Pol jebac, with a nasalized vowel in the 1st sg ending; Y • mejabem zajn has the meaning of the Hebrew verb); the "genre" of matching Hebrew and Slavic roots continued in the 19th century and even led some observers to derive the Eastern Slavic languages or selected Slavic lexicon from Hebrew (see Hegewald 1850 and Tugendhold 1848, respectively), but there is no evidence that such intellectual exercises played any role in the relexification of Slavic to German and Hebrew lexicon. Yiddish offers some examples of affixes that could be of both German and/or Slavic origin, e.g. (m)-ke < dialectal German and SI -ka. See also the discussion in Jofe (1928: 303), cited by Szulmajster-Celnikier (1991:53) of Y (a)-se f ag < MHG -se(n) (> G -sehe in the 14th-15th centuries, e.g. G Schneidersche f 'seamstress' < Schneider [zero pi] m 'tailor') + SI -8a (e.g. in Russian),

Component blending

129

allegedly most common among bilingual Yiddish-Russian speakers in "South Russia" (Ukraine?). See also discussion of German plural suffixes in chapter 4.5.3. Discussions of conflation in Creole languages are vague about the chronology of such "shared morphemes" (see also chapter 3.3). In the Modern Hebrew case, it is clear that the process of conflation (or "phono-semantic transposition", in the terminology of G. Zuckermann 1997) could not take place until after the relexification of Yiddish to Classical Hebrew vocabulary was completed. Then, and only then, new sources of lexical enrichment had to be tapped to fill remaining and (newly emerging) gaps. Desirous of resisting nonnative roots, many Modern Hebrew language planners tended to favor phono-semantic transposition as a means of creating vocabulary which would appear to be "Hebrew" to the naive speaker. The very fact that phono-semantic transposition became such a popular device (hun-dreds of examples were coined and many became successfully integrated into Modern Hebrew) means that the lexicon of Modern Hebrew is much less "Hebrew" than it appears. A diachronic study of phono-semantic transposition in the history of Modern Hebrew is a major desideratum of Hebrew linguistics; the process is attested in Ashkenazic Hebrew in the 18th century as well. For further discussion on the topic of morphemes shared by the sub- and superstratum in Creole language genesis, see discussion in chapter 4 (and #kurz). The data show that Yiddish relexifiers occasionally blended allomorphs belonging to a common German paradigm These examples are valuable evidence that relexifiers were aware of the genetic relationships among German terms (see ttblähen, ttdicht, #Fliege, MHG ttinziht, G #schaben, USchaufel, #schnauben, #Zaum). Compounds consisting of synonyms of the same or different component origins deserve a brief comment since they are functionally similar to blends, and may be of Slavic origin (on Slavic reduplicated adjectives, see Mel'nycuk 1986: 135). Very often such compounds have an expressive connotation, see e.g. Y • tate-foter 'father' < Uk tato 'dad' + G Vater m 'father', mprost Lposet 'simple' < Uk prostyj 'straight; simple' + He päsüf, Amesune mmodne 'bizarre'
adj; see also Eng [the] dark) and idiomatic expressions of the type fis-nohe f 'jellied calves' feet' < G Fiisse pl-m + Br nohil Uk nohy pl-f, Y • hojl-naket 'nude' < Uk holyj + G nackt, vejnen-bitern 'weep' < G weinen + MHG bittern, mjavne vejasne 'open and clear', both < Uk javnyj, jasnyj + He ve 'and' (M. Weinreich 1980: 640, 642), wcvek-negl m '(metal) nails' < Uk cvjax + G Nägel m (Kristal 1928: column 889). See also discussion in #Angesicht, #Antwort-, on my theory that the Yiddish plural markers klm-es, m-er, m-(e)n derive both from German/Hebrew and Slavic, see chapter 4.5.3. A special type of blend involves encircling tautologous "affixation", see e.g. Y Abal-cuvenik m 'penitent' where the agentive is expressed twice by He ba'al and SI -nik (see details in M-er). Yiddish occasionally also has tautologous expression of possession. Normally Yiddish uses German possessive pronouns with nouns of all component origins, e.g. undzere Aoves pit 'our ancestors' (< He 'avöt 'fathers'), majn bruder 'my brother' (< G Bruder m: see #Saat). Yiddish uses Hebrew possessive suffixes with some Hebrew nouns lifted out of a Hebrew text, which are not ordinarily used in Yiddish, e.g. • ox 'brother' (< He 'ax) and Aoxi 'my brother' (ironic < He 'αχϊ m). Occasionally, Yiddish uses both German and Hebrew possessive markers with monolingual (so-called "whole") Hebrew pronunciation, see e.g. undzere avojs-avojsenu pit 'our ancestors' (lit. 'our fathers fathers-our'). Note that He 'ävöt pi 'fathers' > avojs pronounced in a monolingual text by a Yiddish speaker ("whole Hebrew") vs. Y Aoves (i.e. "merged Hebrew" within Yiddish). Multiple pronunciation norms apply only to Hebraisms and do not trigger semantic differences. For further examples of Yiddish-Slavic and Hebrew-Slavic blends, see Wexler (1987a: 184-188) and discussion in #Genick. For a possible Hebrew-German blend, see discussion of Y sodn in Usehade; for a possible blend of two German stems, see Y siklen in ttscheel.

Status of synonyms

131

3.2. The status of synonyms in Yiddish Often Yiddish has synonymous pairs where one term is taken from Hebrew and the other consists of German morphemes calibrated according to Slavic patterns of discourse. Unfortunately, there is often no way to say which term is the oldest. For example, for 'entertainer at a wedding' Yiddish has Lbatxn (batxonim) m; see also Y farvajler(s) m 'entertainer', farvajln 'entertain' < German. The Yiddish Germanisms have a formal parallel in G verweilen, yet the latter means 'to stay, stop, linger'. Y farvajln is patterned on Uk bavyty 'entertain; delay, tarry', zabava f 'entertainment; delay, procrastination', zabavnyk m 'amusing person, entertainer', zabavyty(sja) 'amuse; detain, stop for some time'. While Y farvajln preserves only the meaning 'entertain', the Yiddish simplex preserves the link between 'entertain' and 'tarry' expressed by the Ukrainian simplex, e.g. Y vajln 'to stay' vs. vajln zix 'enjoy oneself, have a good time' ~ Uk bavyty 'amuse; tarry', bavytysja 'enjoy oneself, play' (for 'tarry, linger', Yiddish uses a different Ukrainianism, hajaty [> Y mhajen], a Sorbianism [USo hinyc > Y mhin'en], and Germanism, zamen zix ~ arch G säumen). The question of interest to the student of relexification is whether Y farvajler is older or younger than Lbatxn m. If older, then this would be evidence of an attempt by Yiddish speakers at some historical stage to bring the German component of Yiddish into conformity with standard German norms, by replacing the "aberrant" farvajler by Lbatxn m. In other words, Hebraisms paradoxically might assume the task of "de-Slavicizing" Yiddish. Conversely, if I could show that Lbatxn was older than farvajler, I would have evidence not just of a later anti-Hebrew trend in Yiddish, but also of a deep knowledge of Ukrainian among Yiddish speakers which enabled the latter to construct farvajler(s) m in a distinctly non-German meaning modeled on a Ukrainian root (see also ##weil). This question requires future study. Another synonym pair is Y Ldojxe zajn ~ opzogn (zix fun) 'refuse, annul' (< G absagen 'revoke, refuse') ~ Uk vidmovljaty. See also Y Ldojxek zajn ~ unterjogn 'to press, urge (on)' vs. G * unterjagen ~ Uk pidhanjaty (the German equivalent would be zur Eile treiben).

132

Criteria for selection

There are cases where the Yiddish meaning of a Hebraism moves away from a German synonym, see e.g. Y Adojxe zajn 'delay; refuse; take precedence over; annul' < He döheh m sg 'delaying; refusing'; the first meaning is preserved in the Yiddish expression A dojxe zajn dem Akec 'delay the end of the Diaspora by one's sinful actions'. The Yiddish expression of 'delay' using German components is oplejgn ojf speter (vs. G ablegen 'put away, take off, file [letters], give up' + 'for later'). Y oplejgn is a caique of Uk vidkladaty. Yiddish does not create a "Hebrew" replacement for the pseudoGerman oplejgen ojf speter. Sometimes a pair is created with a Slavicism rather than, or together with, a Hebraism. See e.g. Y unterkojfn 'to bribe', which is patterned on synonymous Uk pidkupyty (lit. 'under' + 'buy') which lacks a German counterpart (G * unterkauf en), but the related noun 'bribe' can only be expressed by Lsojxed (no pi) 'bribe, bribery' or mxabar m < Ukrainian. Sometimes there is no Hebrew equivalent at all, see e.g. Y unterhern 'overhear' matches Uk pidsluxaty (G * unterhören) ~ Y miberxapn. The latter is apparently unique to Yiddish: see Uk xapaty 'seize, catch hold of, grasp; to take bribes; steal; eat avidly', xapatysja 'be taken, seized; perceive, discover suddenly'. There is no Hebrew root to express 'overhear' in Yiddish G lauschen or zuhören vs. Y cuhern zix 'to listen', cuherer[s] m 'listener'; see also chapter 4 and G Mndacht). Sometimes, there is even a three-way pair of German/Hebrew/Slavic synonyms: e.g. Y zorg(n) (< G SorgefnJ) ~ Ldajge(s) f ~ mklapot(n) (~ Br klopat, Uk klopit m but Br klapotny adj) 'bother, care' vs. G Sorge f , Kummer m. For the verb, there is only a double pair: Y zorgn, Adajg(en)en. See Uk turbota, tryvoha, mufca f 'trouble', klopotaty 'to trouble' (I do not know the relative age of the latter). It is difficult to interpret the significance of cases where Yiddish has synonymous Germanisms and Slavisms, since we could be dealing either with post-relexification borrowings or secondary relexification in the Kiev-Polessian lands. For example, the two nearly identical variants, Y mceber ~ cuber(s) 'tub, bucket', provide immediate parallels with Pol ceber (also > Uk ceber, Br cebar) and G

Status of synonyms

13 3

Zuber (zero pi) m, respectively. Despite the similarities, the Slavic and German terms are probably not historically related, but derive from a third (unknown) language. The Polish form with Id is due to sibilant confusion, as can be seen from OPol czebr, USo cwor m, which retain the original alveopalatal affricate (see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 130-131). If the difference between G Id and SI Id was sufficiently striking to license the relexification of USo cwor to G Zuber m, then Yiddish could have acquired the latter during the first relexification phase. In the Kiev-Polessian lands, the differences between G Zuber and Uk ceber, Br cebar m (assuming the latter had been received from Polish before the second relexification phase) would have been negligible; hence, the Eastern Slavic forms with Id in the first syllable might have been retained by speakers of KievPolessian who would have regarded G Zuber m as Slavic and thus undesirable. One possible result of the interplay of G Zuber and Uk ceber m might be that different Yiddish dialects use one form or the other, with both forms ultimately entering the standard language, and then spreading further beyond their original habitats. On the possibility that synonymous Hebraisms and Slavicisms may reflect the difference between the first and second relexification phases, see chapter 4.1, paragraph 3. The coexistence of a German and Slavic form in Yiddish need not always imply that the terms were acquired at different chronological periods. It is conceivable that the two terms could have entered at approximately the same time, since the relexification process could assume different forms from area to area, or within a single area from speaker to speaker. An example is the fate of G Μ Pfanne (ή) f 'pan', which is not expected in Yiddish since the Western Slavic languages had borrowed the German word some time after 900 A.D., see e.g. USo ponoj m, older ponwje f, Pol panew, panwia (> Uk panva f), Cz panev m, ράηνα f. Yiddish would thus be expected to retain OUSo ponwje as the basis for current Y mponve(s) f. Yet contemporary Yiddish also has fan(en) f 'pan' < German. Moreover, Yiddish speakers who chose not to relexify because of the close parallels between G Pfanne and USo ponwje might have retained USo skorodej '(sauce-)pan', see Y • skoverede(s) ~ mskovrode(s) f.

134

Criteria for selection

Another example is the pair Y garb(n) ~ msnop(es) m 'sheaf < G Garbe(n) f and USo snop m; the assignment of masculine gender to Y garb(n) is motivated by the masculine gender of the underlying USo snop, Uk snip (gen sg snopä), which means it was probably acquired in one of the relexification phases; therefore, Y msnop must be a substratal Slavicism, retained by some speakers. The above discussion leads me to the phenomenon of "lexical bifurcation", which is a variant of diagnostic test 7 (corpus poverty), discussed in chapter 1. Suppose that German and Slavic terms for shared artefacts or processes denoted culture-bound differences that could be corrrelated with the oppositions German/Slavic or Jewish/non-Jewish. Then Yiddish might need to relexify to High German at the same time retaining the original Slavic term. For example, if Jews and Germans slaughtered animals differently, then Yiddish might need terminology to distinguish between Jewish and German butchers, etc. (see discussion in ##Gurgel f). Sometimes, the opposition of ±Jewish is manifested by a Hebraism/Hebroidism (usually secondarily, and to denote concepts that are marked as +Jewish) instead of a Germanism that coexists with the original Slavic term (see the example above of Y orn m A . ' J e w i s h coffin' < He 'closet' ~ mtrune f 'non-Jewish coffin' < Slavic: see MHG Maimer). Yiddish acquires • p e j e ( s ) 'sidecurls of an orthodox male' and lok(n) 'curl, lock, tress' < G Locke(n) f (see #schaberi). In one case, lexical bifurcation is expressed by three sets of Germanisms, Hebraisms and Slavicisms, see e.g. Y • besojlem ~ A besalmen ~ Lbejsakvores m, η (< Hebrew and Aramaic) ~ gut(e)-ort ~ hejlik-ort 'Jewish cemetery' ~ mcvinter m (< Polish) ~ mmo(ho)lkes pit, etc. (< Eastern Slavic) 'non-Jewish cemetery' (#begraben). Bifurcation can also be accomplished using a single etymological component, as in Y mlitvak (litvakes) 'Lithuanian Jew' vs. nlitviner(s) m 'Lithuanian', both from Slavic (see also M. Weinreich 1973, 3: 32 and chapter 4.6). The Yiddish bifurcation is probably modeled on the Belarusian pairs licvin 'inhabitant of Padljasse in the Lublin district', litovec licvin, licvjak) 'inhabitant of northeast Palessie along the line Jasel'daPrypjac'-Haryn', also Volhynja and partly in the Kiev district, Old Polack land', licvjak 'Jew in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania', (Li)

Status of synonyms

135

lipka (lipkove) m 'descendant of the Crimean Tatars' (see Bednarczuk 1997: 56, [1996J1999: 129-134). I suspect that lexical bifurcation is generally more common in Yiddish (and possibly some other Jewish languages) than in non-Jewish languages (see Wexler 1987a: 131). The acquisition of Germanisms that participate in lexical bifurcation in Yiddish could, in principle, be dated either to a relexification phase or to the period thereafter (like Hebraisms). Future studies should try to specify the relative chronology of each pair. For example, in the case of Y Lorn m/ mtrune f, the latter has a better semantic match with Uk truna 'coffin' than with USo truna 'box, chest, case' (< G Truhe f); in Upper Sorbian the term for 'coffin' is kasc (older also 'box, chest') < MHG haste (> ModG Kasten m: see MHG Maimer). These facts suggest that Y mtrune f was most likely acquired in the Kiev-Polessian area. Yiddish synonyms of different component origins which do not distinguish between ±Jewish, such as e.g. Lbajes m ~ hojz η ~ uxate f (< Ukrainian) 'house' need to be studied as possible evidence of competition between relexification (to German or Hebrew) and retention (of Slavicisms). Also we need to determine to what extent Yiddish lexical bifurcation has Slavic parallels. For example, the Yiddish bifurcation with 'cemetery' has a match in Pol cmentarz 'cemetery' vs. kierchot m 'Jewish cemetery' (< German). The Yiddish opposition of starbn 'die' (humans) < German vs. Lpejgern 'die' (animals; pej humans < He peger m 'carcass': see #bleiben, #Mord) may be modeled on Carpathian Uk umer 'he died' (non-Jew) vs. izdox (animal, Jew). Y tojt 'dead' has become Pol tojtnqc 'die' (of a Jew) (see Sommerfeldt 1942: 340). While Yiddish cultivates synonym sets of diverse component origins, it conspicuously almost always blocks German synonym sets, selecting only one of the terms. There are three reasons for this, but identifying the specific reason in each case is difficult in practice, given our uncertainty about which German dialect(s) served as lexifiers) to Yiddish:

13 6

Criteria for selection

a. Relexification allows that each Slavic word be relexified to only one German term. If Slavic has one term corresponding to two in German, then usually only one of the Gemanisms can be accepted by Yiddish, see e.g. G #arm 'poor; miserable' > Y orem 'poor' only; G elend 'poor; wretched, miserable' is not used in Yiddish. It is interesting that Yiddish also has a Slavicism, see e.g. Y mbidne 'poor' < Uk bidnyj (replacing an original USo bednyl), which might have been added to match the inventory of Uk bidnyj and nezamoznyj 'poor (in possessions)'. If Slavic has two synonyms or closely related terms corresponding to only one term in German, then we get simultaneous relexification to German and Hebrew. b. Sometimes the absence of a German synonym in Yiddish may be attributed to the fact that the German lexifier dialect of Yiddish lacked one of the terms. c. The relative poverty of German synonyms in Yiddish may reflect the relative poverty of the Upper and Lower Sorbian lexicons at the time of the first relexification. A reduced Sorbian lexicon would have limited the opportunities of Yiddish to acquire a substantial German vocabulary via relexification. The German-Upper Sorbian dictionary compiled by Jentsch, et al. (1989-1991) only contains 40,000 items. Today the two Sorbian lexicons retain the smallest percentage of Common Slavic roots of all the Slavic languages (Kopeöny 1968: 136; on the poverty of Sorbian, see also Wexler 1991b: 107, fn 6; on the retention of unique Common Slavic terms in Sorbian, see Trubacev 1963). The relatively reduced Slavic corpus of the Upper and Lower Sorbian lexicons is a function of long-term language attrition and obsolescence in German-speaking milieux. Considering that Yiddish has been exposed to German for about a millennium both as a lexifier language and as a source of post-relexification enrichment, it is surprising how small the German lexicon of Yiddish is. The reduced German corpus of Yiddish testifies both to the validity of the relexification hypothesis as well as to an early date for Sorbian lexical depletion.

Constructing an etymological dictionary

13 7

On Hebrew synonyms in Yiddish, see discussion in chapter 1.

3.3. Constructing an etymological dictionary for a relexified language A topic that has been only superficially explored in the linguistic literature is how to write entries for an etymological dictionary of a relexified language. This is primarily because lexicographers of these languages do not accept or are unaware of the relexification hypothesis; conversely, creolists who are sensitive to the relexification hypothesis have so far not written dictionaries of any kind. Examples of existing dictionaries, some of them with etymological commentary, are Kna'ani (1960-1980), Even-Sosan (1966-1970) and Klein (1987—all consisting of both native and non-native Hebrew); for Yiddish, see Jofe and Mark (1961-1980), U. Weinreich (1968), Sapiro, Spivak and Sul'man (1984), Lötzsch (1990); for non-Jewish languages, see Cassidy and LePage (1980), Allsopp (1996) (Caribbean Creoles), Calvet (1993), Boretzky and Igla (1994) (Romani). The compilers of etymological dictionaries of Caribbean Creole languages see as their primary task the collection of unique Creole vocabulary, especially African relics and elements from the European lexifier dialects, e.g. English and French, which are regional or archaic in the latter (see Cassidy and LePage 1980 and Allsopp 1996). Recent dictionaries of contemporary Romani dialects, such as Calvet (1993) and Boretzky and Igla (1994), both of which include etymological commentaries, also focus their attention almost exclusively on the small unique Romani corpus-mainly of Indie, Iranian, Armenian and Middle Greek origin-which combine, to varying extents, with, at best, a modest Indie, Iranian and Greek morphological machinery. The bulk of the lexicon of each Romani dialect, which is of coterritorial and contiguous (i.e. allegedly nonnative) origin, is simply omitted from the Romani dictionaries. This approach of citing primarily only the unique components in Caribbean Creoles and Romani creates the erroneous impression that the major distinctive feature of Caribbean Creoles lies in the use of

138

Criteria for selection

lexicon that is unknown or not now current in the European lexifiers, while the shrinken coverage of Romani suggests that Romani is a distinct Indie language which underwent massive attrition due to prolonged bilingualism. The mass of Slavic, Rumanian, Hungarian, etc. vocabulary that is used in European Romani dialects is not "borrowings from coterritorial languages" but the native lexicon. The grammars of the Caribbean Creoles are of African origin, which determines how the European phonetic strings are to be calibrated; hence, all the European lexicon deserves to be in the dictionary. Romani dialects most probably use coterritorial (which may later become contiguous) non-Romani grammars on which a modest Asian and Middle Greek vocabulary has been superimposed (on the latter, see Wexler 1997b); here too the entire vocabulary needs to be cited. In the dictionaries of both types of language an etymological component is being supplied for an artifically purged lexicon. Little progress has been made in Yiddish etymology since Zunz's pioneering study of 1832 (revised as 1892: 452-458; Zunz was also the first to explore the origins of Jewish names, in his book from 1837, revised in 1876). An etymological dictionary of Yiddish has not yet been produced, though Harkavy (1928) and Jofe and Mark (1961-1980) contain sporadic etymological notes; nor do we yet have the benefit of detailed dialect or historical dictionaries. A serious drawback of Jofe and Mark (1961-1980) is its inclusion of material from two unrelated languages, Germanic and Slavic Yiddish. This misunderstanding led the editors to assume that many contemporary dajemerizmen "Germanisms" were once acceptable in Yiddish but became obsolete, see e.g. G Uhr 'watch, clock; o'clock', Ursache f 'reason'. The earliest attestation of such terms was in Judaized German or German Yiddish; it is only in Slavic Yiddish where there would be a reason for their blockage. A number of Yiddish linguists have prepared sample entries for a projected Yiddish etymological dictionary (e.g. M. Weinreich 1924; Prilucki and Leman 19261933b-see here articles by Prilucki and Landoj; Jofe 1927, 1959; Kagarov 1928; Lejbl 1929; Elzet 1936; Landoj 1938 [see also M. Weinreich 1935 and Gininger 1937 on Landoj's proposal for an etymological dictionary]; Katz 1991a). However, the entries prepared

Constructing an etymological dictionary

139

consist largely of non-German elements, and Germanisms that are not broadly found in German dialects or have unusual forms and/or meanings. This approach thus parallels the Creole and Romani lexicographical tradition. In a dissenting paper of two decades back, Mühlhäusler anticipated that an etymological dictionary for pidgin and Creole languages would differ significantly from a dictionary of non-relexified languages: "It is likely that pidgin and Creole languages, where mixing at the lexical level is particularly intricate, will provide the point of departure for more sophisticated models of etymological research" (1982: 99). Mühlhäusler was attracted to the phenomenon of conflation, when the pidgin and Creole cultivate vocabulary that enjoys chance similarity in form and meaning in both the substratum and superstratum. An example is Tok Pisin bei 'belly, stomach; seat of the emotions' < Tolai bala 'stomach, seat of the emotions' and Eng belly. Mühlhäusler assumed that bei was selected in the initial contact situation because it could be identified across the two languages (1982: 100-101; see also Cassidy 1986 and Kihm 1989). LePage had earlier suggested that coincidence of form with some similarity of meaning between items from two codes increases the likelihood that such items will be chosen for the emerging pidgin code (1974: 49). Mühlhäusler derived such items as Tok Pisin bei from both English and a Polynesian language. The phenomenon of component blending or conflation was discussed in early studies of bilingual interference (U. Weinreich 1953: 7, 42 and Haugen 1956: 43 called it "interlingual identification"). A variant of conflation is the coinage of quite a few neologisms in relexified Modern Hebrew consisting of Old Hebrew roots that have acquired meanings of non-Hebrew terms of similar form and sometimes similar meaning (see G. Zuckermann 1997). For Kihm (1989), conflation is the material basis on which relexification operates, while for Mühlhäusler and others, instances of conflation are seen as the result of early contact between super- and substratum languages. Examples of conflation in Yiddish and Modern Hebrew suggest very definitely a post-relexification date, i.e. relexifl-

140

Criteria for selection

cation is likely to be a prerequisite of conflation. Two other factors that play a role in relexified languages such as Tok Pisin and Yiddish are the predisposition of speakers (i) to indulge in folk etymologizing (Mühlhäusler 1982: 106) and (ii) to modernize the superstratal lexical component through time (Mühlhäusler 1982: 108). This is typical of transmission from adults to adults rather than from adults to children and is predicated on perpetual contact between the relexified language and its lexifier(s) (on the Modern German "look" of the German components in Yiddish, see chapter 3). Mühlhäusler's suggestions (see also 1985: 150, 1986: 108) that compounds consisting of synonyms (with ο 'or') reflect on-going lexical enrichment and continuity with the original lexicon or the speaker's attempt to "translate" or disambiguate native words do not seem to apply to the Yiddish experience. The common assumption of Creole, Romani and Yiddish lexicographers seems to be that there is little point in etymologizing the vocabulary shared by each language with its lexifier language. For example, what could one say about Y frage f or freg, (arch) frog m 'question' that has not already been stated about G Frage f in a German etymological or dialect dictionary? I agree that an etymological dictionary of Yiddish may have little or nothing to say about the etyma of the three Yiddish words for 'question', since most Yiddish Germanisms could be derived smoothly from German or Middle High German prototypes. But by explaining why Yiddish borrowed MHG vrege f (see also G dial fragen) and then MHG vräg(e) 'question'-as ModG Frage f (and the opposition of the latter to • sajle, Akase)-an etymological dictionary of Yiddish could demonstrate the twin role of German as first lexifier dialect(s) and then source of loans in the history of Yiddish (on these Germanisms, see Cvejg 1927 and the editor's accompanying comment and M. Weinreich 1928b: column 678, fn 1). Hence, the preoccupation with reconstructing a "proto-Yiddish" is misplaced, since the latter simply tends to be the original German input. The unique contribution of an etymological dictionary of a relexified language to theoretical lexicography is to show how a substratal language selects and calibrates superstratal lexicon. Hence, it is

Constructing an etymological dictionary

141

expedient to present the entries in the form of root sets rather than individual words. In addition to dealing with the distinctive features of creole languages enumerated above, an etymological dictionary of a relexified language would have to provide information not normally expected in the historical-etymological dictionary of a non-relexified language. For instance, alongside the etyma of the German(oid) and Hebrew/Hebroid elements in Yiddish should appear the Western and Eastern Slavic terms that determined the selection and calibration of German and Hebrew phonetic strings during the two relexification phases. For Yiddish and Slavic components for which there is no or only a partial German equivalent it will be necessary to supply the Germanisms which were specifically blocked for use in Yiddish. The citation of "non-existing" vocabulary should be a distinctive feature of an etymological dictionary of a relexified language. (Compiling a dictionary of non-existing vocabulary in a non-relexified language would, of course, be a useful way to assess lexical attrition through time.) In principle, post-relexification loans from Hebrew, Slavic and German should present no special problem for the historical lexicographer of Yiddish, though no dictionary of Yiddish distinguishes between relexifications and loans from these three sources. Dictionaries of the "Hebraisms" in Yiddish unfortunately fail to distinguish between real Old Hebrew and Yiddish Hebroidisms (see e.g. Sojfer 1920; Perferkovtf 1931; Stejnberg 1949; Levin 1958; Niborski 1997; Jacobson 1998; similarly S. A. Birnbaum 1922). Unfortunately, most Hebrew dictionaries subsume native and nonnative Hebrew elements under a single heading, which seriously reduces their value. Buxtorf s recognition of the need to separate native and non-native Hebrew lexicons (1645) unfortunately tends to be forgotten by contemporary Hebrew lexicographers. The on-going publication of Medieval Latin dictionaries according to the native language of the scribe is a model that Hebrew lexicographers ignore at their own peril. Unspoken Medieval Polish, Hungarian, English Latin, etc. are relexifications of Polish, Hungarian, English, etc. to Latin lexicon and thus are genetically distinct from native spoken and written Latin. What is needed are separate dictionaries of "native

142

Criteria for selection

Semitic Hebrew" (obsolete in the 3rd century A.D.) and "non-native (non-)Semitic Hebrew" (the unspoken Hebrew written by Arabicspeaking Jews would be an example of "non-native Semitic Hebrew"; non-native non-Semitic Hebrew became a native language in the early 20th century and is the basis of Modern Hebrew), but this goal is not likely to be achieved as long as Hebrew linguists in general and lexicographers in particular continue to propagate the myth of "Hebrew language revival" and operate with the four stages of "Biblical", Mishnaic", "Medieval" and "Modern Hebrew" in which the third phase altogether lacks geographical precision (in fact, much "Medieval Hebrew" consists of translations of original Judeo-Arabic literature). An etymological dictionary of Yiddish would include examples of relexified Medieval and Modern Slavic Hebrew and Yiddish Hebroidisms, and hopefully would be followed by the compilation of separate etymological dictionaries of the non-native Hebrew written by speakers of Judeo-Spanish, Judeo-Arabic, JudeoPersian, etc. Because contemporary monolingual Modern Hebrew dictionaries combine "Hebrew" words from all periods, giving at best V

only approximate chronologies (see Kna'ani 1960-1980; Even-Sosan 1966-1970), it is difficult to evaluate the ratio of native and nonnative Hebrew creations in a single root. The selected entries for a projected Yiddish etymological dictionary that will be discussed in this study offer powerful proof that relexification played a (double) role in the genesis and early evolution of Yiddish (see also discussion of diagnostic tests in chapter 1). The etymological dictionaries or etymological components provided in synchronic dictionaries of Caribbean Creoles and Romani are disappointing in that they fail to provide the proof that these languages have been relexified (indeed their authors are unaware of relexification). It is my hope to publish a Yiddish etymological dictionary based primarily on the corpus of U. Weinreich 1968 in the not too distant future (see Wexler [ms c]). Malkiel wrote over two decades ago that etymology could be modernized and once again made relevant to theoretical linguistics only if it was couched "in terms of constant enrichment of underlying linguistic methodology" (1975: 120). The relexification hypothesis

Constructing an etymological dictionary

143

promises one such union of etymology and linguistic theory (see also Malkiel's suggestion that Uriel Weinreich, dead prematurely in 1967, was a linguist whose original ideas about Yiddish, semantics and lexicography might also have brought about such a union: Malkiel 1975: 109).

Chapter 4 Evidence for the two-tiered relexification hypothesis in Yiddish: From Upper Sorbian to German and from Kiev-Polessian to Yiddish

In the discussions below, I will label all historical forms of a Germanic root "allomorphs", regardless of whether speakers can recognize the genetic relations among the variants, or not, and regardless of synchronic considerations. In the absence of living relexifiers, it is difficult to know if the latter were aware of historical links between the allomorphs or not (most of the examples cited in this chapter are discussed at greater length in chapters 4.3-4.4). A clue to the relexifier's sensitivity to German derivational processes could come from the distribution of Hebrew terms. For example, G abspenstig 'estranged', widerspenstig 'obstinate' and Gespenst 'ghost' are historically related to Gespinst η 'spun yarn, web' and spinnen 'to spin'. The fact that 'obstinate' and 'ghost' are frequently expressed in Yiddish by Hebraisms suggests that the relexifiers were aware of the historical links, and refrained from relexifying to all Germanisms of the root set since Upper Sorbian lacked a corresponding common root to denote the meanings expressed by the German terms. Probably all contemporary speakers of German would recognize the genetic relationship between schwemmen 'wash, soak, rinse' and schwimmen 'to swim' (see ttSchwemme), while the genetic links between #Ahn(e) 'ancestor' and Enkel m 'grandchild' are probably not so transparent to the naive speaker. It would be the rare speaker who could readily identify G #spreizen 'straddle, spread out', Spritze f 'syringe', spritzen 'to squirt, spurt', Spross m 'sprout, shoot, descendant', Sprosse f 'rung (of a ladder)', sprossen ~ spriessen 'to sprout, germinate' as all genetically related. I make no attempt to separate patently and demonstrably related allomorphs since the delineation of the two types would be arbitrary, but most genetically related roots whose kinship would already have had to be demonstrat-

146

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

ed in the Old High German period are not as a rule listed together (an exception is G Bad and ttbacken). I have taken U. Weinreich (1968) also as the arbitrator of the Hebrew component, though from time to time I have have also taken into consideration additional Yiddish Hebraisms recorded in X. Spivak and Blumgarten (1911), Perferkoviö (1931), Stuökov (1950), Levin (1958), Niborski (1997), Jacobson (1998) and Jofe and Mark (1961-1980). It is unclear what principles guided U. Weinreich's aceptance of Hebraisms in his 1968. Occasionally, Weinreich lists Hebraisms together with their new German replacements, see e.g. kjcejle (kejlim) f and gefes η (coll) 'dish'; while Rayfield objects to the continued use of the former (1970: 98), the Hebroidism is valuable evidence for the relexification hypothesis, independent of contemporary standard Yiddish norms. On Hebroidisms, see the discussion in Tavjov ([1903] 1923: 219), Elzet (1958), J. Mark (1958), Nobl (1958) and Kazdan (1960: 40-41). In positing GermanoSlavic cognates and interference, I consulted Scherer (1941), Vasmer (1953-1958), Volm (1962), Martynov (1963), Shevelov (1965), Stang (1971) and Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996). For Middle High and early Modern German data, see Grimm and Grimm (1854-1871), Lexer (1869-1878, 1980), Kluge (1899ff), Anderson et al. (1989ff), Drosdowski (1989), Pfeifer et al. (1989) and Koller et al. (1990). For Bavarian German, see Schmeller (1872-1877). For a useful discussion of the semantic fields expressed by two hundred roots in Russian, Polish, Czech and Serbo-Croatian, see Herman (1975). Since many of the entries in chapter 4.3-4.4 can illustrate a variety of phenomena, there is no point in classifying the examples by type; hence, I have opted for a German alphabetical presentation. For historical reasons, it might have been preferable to take Upper Sorbian as my point of departure. But I began with German in order (i) to avoid making arbitrary choices between the Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian substrata, (ii) to demonstrate the validity of the twotiered model of relexification and (iii) to "neutralize" the extensive Germanization of the Upper Sorbian lexicon that has been in effect since the 12th century (on the latter, see Schuster-§ewc 1977a: 398). The identification of German influences in Upper Sorbian and their

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

147

elimination from the discussion can be done, grosso modo, by comparison of the latter with Ukrainian. Altogether I examined a corpus of 555 individual German morphemes and allomorphic sets, chosen at random, comprising almost 3200 individual words. In chapters 4.2-4.4 I will discuss 187 examples in detail; all the data will be eventually presented in the form of entries for an etymological dictionary of Yiddish (see Wexler [ms e]). A large corpus of confirming examples is a prerequisite for proving prior relexification in a language (see also Lumsden 1999b: 252). The fifteen fully attested morpheme sets (consisting mainly of two allomorphs) accepted by Yiddish against my expectations are listed in chapter 4.2, along with a few unexpected individual words (more of the latter are given in the individual entries). This figure represents less than 3% of the total number of examples that I surveyed. I list 172 examples of blocked Germanisms in chapters 4.34.4. The entries presented here are the most comprehensive attempt to provide etymological notes for a selected Yiddish corpus and indeed the first attempt to write entries for an etymological dictionary of any relexified language. In the etymological entries given below a noun not given a gender/gloss takes the gender/gloss of the first following noun that is so identified. Plural forms are given in parentheses after each German and Yiddish noun; absence of a form means the plural does not normally exist. The notation (~"e[r]) following German nouns mean that the suffixes require Umlaut of the preceding syllable. To facilitate the comparison of the German, Yiddish and Slavic forms, I will use a common labeling by letter, (a), (b), (c), etc. The entries below do not include examples of morphophonemic alternations brought about by Umlaut, such as in the plural or diminutive forms, see e.g. G Loch 'hole' ~ pi Löcher, Ohr 'ear', dim Öhrchen η 'ear'. For the most part Modern German forms are cited since Yiddish Germanisms tend to display contemporary forms. Modern German forms not attested in Middle High German texts as well as their Yiddish surface cognates and other recent Yiddish words are cited with the symbol ^f. Before examining the data, I will summarize the findings.

148

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

4.1. Sixteen observations about the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish 1. There are two very revealing facts that support the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish, i.e. that the lexico-semantic structure of Yiddish is Slavic in origin and only the vocabulary is German: Yiddish tends (i) to block relexification to one of several possible allomorphs of a German root, if Upper Sorbian and/or Ukrainian/Belarusian lack similar morphophonemic alternations and (ii) to select individual German morphemes and synonyms in accordance with the lexical inventory of Upper Sorbian and/or Kiev-Polessian. If Yiddish were in fact a variant of German transported to monolingual Slavic-speaking countries that had undergone widespread attrition of its native German component as a result of many centuries of language interference, then the Yiddish acquisition of Slavic (and Hebrew) lexical enrichment should be haphazard and entirely unpredictable. This is not the case. The blocking of individual German allomorphs in Yiddish can theoretically be attributed to the absence of the variants in the putative German lexifier dialect(s) of Yiddish. But this is not likely to be the case with large sets of related Germanisms. Here the only explanation is the need for Yiddish to follow its substratal Slavic grammar. Yiddish blockage of German morphemes is found in a variety of paradigms. Sometimes, the German allomorphic variants that express a factitive or causative verb are blocked, e.g. G schwimmen 'swim' and fallen 'to fall, drop' are acceptable in Yiddish but not schwemmen 'to wash, soak, rinse' and fällen 'to fell, cut down' (see #Schwemme and #Fall). Sometimes an abstract noun (formed via Umlaut) is unacceptable, e.g. G ttscharf 'sharp' surfaces in Yiddish but not MHG scher(p)fe > G Schärfe f 'sharpness'. Sometimes Yiddish rejects an alternation within the present tense stem or alternation between verb and noun stem, thus instead of G geben 'to give' (see #Gabe) and #Schnee 'snow' ~ gibt '(s)he gives' or schneien 'to snow', Yiddish has a single vowel in each morpheme set.

Sixteen observations

149

In the overwhelming majority of cases where the German pairs lack a perfect match with Upper Sorbian (or Kiev-Polessian), Yiddish rejects a part of the German paradigm. For example, of the two German terms for 'castle', Burg and Schloss (see #Berg, ttbeschliessen), Yiddish accepts only the latter, probably because Upper Sorbian has a single term (related G Burger 'citizen' is available to Yiddish as birger-but the latter may be a postrelexification loan from German). Conversely, when Sorbian has a greater variety of (near-)synonyms than German, relexification can result in a richer inventory of synonyms in Yiddish than in any German dialect (see discussion of Y elter m 'age' and f 'old age' in Kalt). In a small number of cases Yiddish accepts all the German allomorphic variants in opposition to a different derivational profile in the Slavic substratal languages (see chapter 4.2). In such cases, I assume that, despite the disparallels with Slavic, the relexifiers must have been either unaware of the genetic relationships obtaining between the allomorphs or else Yiddish speakers acquired some of the German allomorphs piecemeal, most likely, after relexification. This would explain the acceptance by Yiddish of MHG ratzen 'to scratch'/ G reissen 'to tear'/ reizen 'irritate, provoke'/ Riss(e) m 'tear, rip'/ ritzen 'to scratch' as Y rac(n) m 'scratch, nick', racn 'to scratch, nick'/ rajsn! rejcnl ris(n) mJ ricn, even though Upper Sorbian requires different roots to express these notions, see e.g. USo torhac 'to tear', torhanje m 'tear'/ skodowac, wabic, hnac, hnewac 'irritate, provoke'/ skrabac, drapac 'to scratch'. Another example is the set G beissen 'to bite'/ beizen 'to stain'/ Biss(e) m 'bite', which surfaces intact in Yiddish as bajsn, bajcn, bis(n) m, even though Upper Sorbian uses different roots for 'bite' and 'stain', see e.g. kusac 'to bite', kusnjenje η 'bite' vs. bajcowac 'to stain' (< German; see also Uk kusaty 'to bite' vs. farbuvaty 'to stain, paint' < German). Formally similar to the last two examples is the Yiddish acceptance of G # he iss 'hot' and Hitze f 'heat'. Sometimes, Sorbian allomorphic variants are ignored by Yiddish in the relexification process. This suggests that the relexifiers may have been unaware of the genetic relationships. Consider the case of USo hinyc 'be lost, destroyed; be

150

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

sickly; pine away' and genetically related hubic 'destroy, ruin'. Yiddish makes no attempt to relexify this related pair to two variants of a single German root; rather, Yiddish uses separate German roots, such as umkumen, etc. vs. cestern, maxn cu gornit, etc., respectively. At the same time, it is significant that Yiddish does employ two forms of a Hebrew root to match USo hinyc: hubic, see e.g. Amaxrev zajn 'to waste' vs. Axorev maxn 'destroy' (< He h-r-v '[lay] waste, destroy'). Alternatively, the disparallelism that now prevails between Yiddish and Upper Sorbian might mean that some or all of the Germanisms were acquired as post-relexification loans. Another example where Yiddish appears to disregard the genetic links between two Upper Sorbian verbs is USo rubac 'hack, hew, cut' and rubic 'rob', for which Yiddish requires separate roots (on the use of Hebraisms for the latter, see #rauben). USo twaric 'build', tworic 'create; produce cheese', potwar m 'reproduction' are possibly related to USo twaroh m 'curds'. The first three forms (but not the meaning 'produce cheese') were relexified to Y (ojs)bojen (< G bauen 'to build'-see MHG #nähe[n]t and below)/ (bajsafn, etc. but Yiddish retains mcvorex m 'cottage cheese' (see Wexler 1991b: 70-71), because (i) there was no single equivalent root in German that could cover this set of meanings, (ii) the Slavic cheese term was also used in German and thus could have caused blockage (see late MHG twarc ~ ModG Quark m: see #beschaffen). Theoretically, Yiddish relexifiers may have believed there was no historic link between USo twaric, etc. and twaroh (such a possibility exists), and thus felt no need to relexify them all to related Germanisms (see chapters 3,4.7). The immediate consequence of blockage is the lexical impoverishment of Yiddish. To counteract the effects of blockage, relexifiers can have recourse to four supplementary means of enrichment: (i) They can invent new meanings and broaden the distribution of German morphemes that have been accepted (i.e. create "Germanoidisms"), e.g. Y unter 'under' and kojfn 'to buy' > unterkojfn 'to bribe' < G unter 'under' + kaufen 'buy', but there is no G * unterkaufen; usually these innovative Yiddish Germanisms follow Slavic derivational strategies, see Uk pid 'under' + kupyty 'buy' > Uk pidkupyty

Sixteen observations

151

'to bribe' (see ttEinkauf). (ii) Relexifiers also broadly acquire Hebraisms, (iii) make up Hebroid terms from existing Hebrew roots, e.g. Y A g e s r o x e ( s ) f 'stench' < He s-r-h (*srähäh), Y kjkejle f 'vessel' vs. He klT m (see #Fass); Axmime 'intense heat (weather)', Akrire f 'intense cold (weather)' < He ham 'warm' and qar 'cold' (perkälten, #heiss), recalibrate the meanings of existing Hebrew words, e.g. Y Lmasmoes η 'probability, probably' < He masma %t f 'meaning', and (iv) retain some Upper Sorbian or Kiev-Polessian terms. There is little evidence of Slavoidisms, either unique creations or possible relic Judeo-Slavicisms (see chapter 4.6). Hebroid creations are necessary when native Hebraisms are lacking, or when the written Hebrew corpus available to the relexifiers was deficient. Our understanding of why individual Hebroidisms were created by Yiddish speakers will be enhanced with improved study of Ashkenazic Hebrew texts written by Yiddish speakers, many of which predate the oldest extant Yiddish documents. Until the present study, Medieval Ashkenazic Hebrew has never been regarded as a variant of Yiddish. Yiddish offers telling evidence that speakers regarded Hebrew (and possibly Slavic) elements as natural replacements for blocked Germanisms. Such evidence establishes the cognitive reality of relexification for the relexifiers themselves. For example, Yiddish relexified USo twar m 'structure', twaric 'to build', etc. > G Bau(e) m (see above), but since Upper Sorbian uses bur m 'peasant, farmer', also < G Bauer (zero pi) m 'peasant, farmer' (the Germanism is also found in Hg por 'farmer'), Yiddish blocked the latter. Instead, Yiddish now has pojer(im) m 'farmer, peasant', a cognate acquired presumably from a different German lexifier. But the use of Α-im pi with the latter raises the suspicion that Yiddish speakers saw the term as a Hebraism; such a perception could have been supported by related G Gebäude (zero pi) η 'building', blocked in Yiddish because of the unattractiveness of the root alternation of G au ~ äu, and replaced by Y A binjen (binjonim) m. Note also that Y mbud(k)e(s) 'booth, stall; doghouse' < USo bud(k)a f 'booth', is possibly also derived from this same root (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 78). There is currently no Hebraism for 'peasant, farmer' in Yiddish. But German

152

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

slang (Rotwelsch) lexicons have a Hebroidism that might have predated Y pojer, see Rotw kaffer 'fanner; idiot' (1714), possibly < He kfar 'village' and/or < Rotw kaff 'village' (attested 1597) < Romani gäw 'village' + G -er m ag (see S. A. Wolf 1956, ##2405, 2408). He A kfar m 'village' appears in a Prague Yiddish text from 1619. A methodological problem which can only be solved once Yiddish historical dictionaries become available is that in the post-relexificational period, Yiddish speakers may also replace accepted (but now unwanted) Germanisms by Hebraisms or Hebroidisms. Thus, while G fvolkstümlich 'popular' is often encountered in Yiddish as folkstimlex, U. Weinreich (1968) and many puristically oriented speakers do not recommend the term; a neologism coined in the 1950s has come to replace the term, A(poset-)^olkis (see Schaechter 1986: 109 and #Volk). Knowledge of the newness both of the Yiddish compound and of the unrecommended German term would save us from erroneously reconstructing the former in one of the two relexification phases. 2. Often, it is the morphologically least complex, or unmarked, member of the German paradigm that Yiddish selects as relexifier material. G #Berg m ~ Gebirge η 'mountain' corresponds to USo hora f 'mountain', which participates in no morphophonemic alternations. Upper Sorbian thus licenses Yiddish to accept only one of the two available German allomorphs. G #Berg m is also semantically unmarked, vs. Gebirge η coll. Yiddish generalizes the allomorph with /e/ in the root since this vowel appears in the simplex variant Berg·. see Y barg (berg) m 'mountain', but no *gebirg. (The lowering of e > a before r, χ in Yiddish is possibly a feature of the German lexifier source dialect, while -e- in the Yiddish plural berg reflects a morphological process of fronting and raising to express the plural, similar to Y stot [stet] f 'town'; alternatively, the lowering of e > a may be connected with the integration of some Germanisms in Ukrainian, see e.g. Uk vart(yj) 'worth' < G wert.) The absence of the Yiddish change of er > ar in Y \geberg suggests that the latter is a recent borrowing from German, though at a time when the Slavic

Sixteen observations

153

blockage of a German form with the root vowel i was still operative. The absence of feminine gender for Y barg also suggests a postrelexification German impact. See also the Yiddish choice of stern 'star' for G Stern m and (Ge)stirn η 'star' discussed in chapter 3.1. Another example of the Yiddish preference for the semantically unmarked allomorph is the blocking of German verbal allomorphs which express a causative or factitive meaning (see e.g. G schwimmen/ schwemmen, fallen! fällen above and in #Schwemme and #Fall). Moreover, the allomorphic alternation expressed by Umlaut in German roots, already found in many Middle High German texts, often lacks a Slavic precedent and thus cannot be accepted by Yiddish due to relexification. Both the number of German variants and the actual choice of variants accepted by Yiddish are determined by the Slavic substratum. For example, since Upper Sorbian uses a root in a single form for 'to take' and 'taking', Yiddish cannot accept the morphophonemic alternation in G annehmen 'to remove' and Annahme f 'acceptance' (#Abnahme). Therefore, only one variant appears in Yiddish-the root {-)nem- (see e.g. Y onnemen 'seize, presume, adopt'). The primacy of the verbal (-)nem- over the nominal -namcan be explained by the fact that verbal nouns in Slavic are derived from the underlying verbal stem, e.g. USo priwzac 'take off, uncover' > priwzace η 'taking off, uncovering', though in this particular example, the absence of a simplex noun like G *Nahme might also have mitigated against relexification to this variant (though note MHG nämfej f, m 'taking by force'). See also discussion of #Abfahrt, #angreifen, and an exception in #Bekannte. A German root which is blocked as a replacement for a single Slavic root is not automatically blocked in other contexts where Slavic lexical and derivational parameters are not being violated. For example, G Art f 'nature, kind; style' and lesen 'read' (see MHG Mlesen) are blocked, as well as compound Lesart f 'reading, version'; the latter is blocked since Slavic has no equivalent compound. On the other hand, MHG spilman m 'musician' (< 'play' + 'man') is blocked in Yiddish because the Slavic languages do not originally use the root "play" in the meaning of 'musician' (USo here

154

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

m 'musician; violinist' is an early 18th-c caique of German: SchusterSewc 1978-1996: 276; see MMusik). But ModG spielen 'play' > Y spiln and G #Mann m 'man' > Y man. 3. As the data in chapters 4.3-4.4 will demonstrate, we are often in a position to propose a relative age for a Germanism that entered Yiddish via relexification, i.e. to distinguish between Germanisms arguably acquired in the first relexification phase from those acquired in the second relexification phase. We can sometimes also reconstruct cases where Germanisms accepted by Yiddish in the first relexification phase might have had to be dropped in the second relexification phase, in order to conform to the requirements of the KievPolessian substratum. For example, Sorbian provides no particular reason why G ttbergen 'to save, secure' should not have been acquired by Yiddish in the first relexification phase; yet, in the Kiev-Polessian context, Ukrainian does offer a formally and semantically similar berehty (with h < *g), thus providing grounds for blocking relexification. German verbs which failed to enter Yiddish during the first relexification phase because of some blockage constraint on cognates (real or not) may yet be eligible to enter Yiddish during or after the second relexification phase if there is a non-verbal form of the same root in Yiddish. For example, in the Eastern Slavic lands, Yiddish managed to acquire a number of German verbs in a Ukrainianized form, see urabeven (later also reshaped with -ir- < German > urabirn) 'rob, plunder' < Uk (h)rabuvaty 'rob' (< Pol rabowac), alongside native Uk hrabyty (see #Raub). The motivation for acquisition would seem to be the desire to complete the paradigm-in imitation of Ukrainian. Y m-eve- < Uk -uva-, etc., which is inserted into foreign verbal stems or used to generate new verbs from native adjectival and nominal stems; Y m-eve- has the same functions. None of the Yiddish examples with m-eve- is of Upper Sorbian origin; these examples are very important because they demonstrate the possibility of distinguishing relexification venues for Yiddish Germanisms (see also discussion in M. Weinreich 1973, 2: 189). It is difficult to date these forms in Yiddish, but one old example is Y mrateven 'to save'
Y Lmidber (midbor'es) f, m 'desert' (< He m)-where the masculine gender is borrowed from Hebrew and the feminine is inherited from Slavic. I wonder whether the preference for the Hebrew pi midbärwt (over equally possible midbänm) was not dictated by Uk pustynja, pustelja f with nasal/ lateral + ja clusters. Yiddish occasionally acquires two German variants even though there is no Slavic justification for relexifiying to both forms, e.g. #melken 'to milk' and Milch f 'milk' > Y melkn and mibe f. Upper Sorbian has (probably unrelated, but similar-sounding, and thus probably regarded as related) mloko η 'milk', which should have blocked G Milch since Germano-Slavic (pseudo)cognates usually block relexification of Germanisms to Yiddish; the use of a different root for the verb, dejic ~ dojic 'to milk', would have licensed relexification to G melken in Yiddish. This mixed paradigm is typical of Ukrainian too. The ability to accept all parts of the German derivational chain may be due to the association of semantic fields independent of the relexification process; in other words, the acceptance of melken might have "dragged along" Milch in its wake, even though on independent grounds the latter should have been blocked (see also G Milch f in paragraph 5 below). Similarly, Yiddish might have acquired G Mehl η 'flour' by relexifying USo muka f, which then "dragged along" mahlen 'to grind'-despite the existence of cognate USo mlec 'to grind'. Conversely, if a Upper Sorbian word has two or more meanings for which German has to provide a set of roots, each with a single meaning, then Yiddish will usually only relexify partially. For example, USo strach, with its double meanings of 'fear' and 'danger', has no single simplex match in German, thus Yiddish choses G Schreck(en) m (> Y srek[n] m, f) 'fear, alarm, terror', while blocking #Gefahr 'danger'; for the latter Yiddish uses instead Lsakone f 'danger', Lmesukn 'dangerous'. (U. Weinreich 1968 does not block G gefährlich 'dangerous; terrible', which is not surprising

Sixteen observations

161

since the latter is attested in Middle High German, but ModG Gefahr was problematic, possibly because of the semantic heterogeneity of MHG \ge\vare f.) Yiddish also has Hebrew words for 'fear', which suggests some initial reluctance to relexify to G Schreck m (see in #Furcht). Moreover, a Yiddish Hebraism in the meaning of 'fear' can acquire the second meaning 'danger', to match Upper Sorbian, see e.g. Y Amojre f 'fear' > zajn a mojre cu A'be dangerous' (the meaning 'danger' is not associated with He mörä' m). Similarly, Uk (po)druzytysja means both 'to become friends with' and 'marry'. Relexification of the latter is blocked, since Yiddish cannot relexify to two Germanisms, each with a single meaning. Thus, alongside the relexified Y bafrajndn zix, Yiddish also has synonymous • xavern zix 'be friends with' but 'marry' can only be Axasene hobn. 5. Many parallels between German and Yiddish Germanisms in the vocabulary, derivational and inflectional morphology may be of independent origin. Such chance parallels can, arguably, be identified with certainty whenever the German forms surface in dialects which could not have served as the lexifier dialect(s) of Yiddish. For example, Y nextn 'yesterday' and inderfri(en) ~ frimorgn(s) m 'morning' (~ fri, as in in der fri 'in the morning') have a parallel in G nachten 'yesterday (evening)' (the meaning of 'yesterday evening' is unattested in Yiddish) and in der Frühe (Grimm and Grimm 18541871 ~ Morgen [zero pi] m) 'morning', but the Yiddish constructions are best analyzed as caiques of Slavic which have common roots for 'morning; early' and for 'evening; yesterday', as in USo ranje ~ ranjo η 'morning', rano 'in the morning; early', or Uk ranok m 'morning' < rannij 'early'. This is because of the possible absence of G nachten in potential German lexifier dialects. The use of a common morpheme for 'morning' and 'early' also characterizes Baltic languages (Karaljunas 1986: see #Nacht, MAbend). See also discussion of #Feder and ##Dämmerung. Similarly, the feminine gender of Y milx 'milk' is probably independent of G Milch f (see above), since Yiddish assigns feminine gender to Germanisms that relexifiy Slavic neuter nouns, such as USo mloko η (see details in ttmelken and paragraph 4 above).

162

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

6. Yiddish morphological sets of German origin can assist (a) in reconstructing aspects of German, Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian (Ukrainian and Belarusian) linguistic prehistory, positing (b) the relative chronology of relexification to and borrowing from German, and (c) a rough chronology for the diffusion of German words into the two Sorbian languages. While the relative chronologies are necessarily vague and imprecise, they are better than nothing, given the absence of Sorbian texts prior to the 16th century. Considering that Upper and Lower Sorbian have the most impoverished Common Slavic lexicon of all the Slavic languages (Kopecny 1968: 136), the possibility that Yiddish could help to reconstruct Common Slavic vocabulary lost in Upper and Lower Sorbian before the earliest extant texts in those languages constitutes a major development. For Eastern Slavic linguistics too, Yiddish can cast light on the vocabulary of Kiev-Polessian before its disintegration and realignments in the 1400s and can provide a rough chronology for the rise of the pseudodual category that is found, in varying degrees, in all the Eastern Slavic languages. For example, USo -motwic 'speak, talk', is now restricted to compound morphemes with different, but related, meanings, e.g. USo wotmobvic 'answer', wotmobva f 'answer', so zamobvic 'forgive', zamobvity 'responsible', so (wu)zamobvic 'excuse (oneself); defend'. The Yiddish data suggest that these are not original Sorbian terms, but later loan translations of German patterns of discourse, all of which are based on Wort 'word' (see Mntwort). If USo wotmobva f 'answer'/ wotmobvic 'to answer' and zamobvity 'responsible' existed at the time of the first relexification phase, then there would have been no problem for Yiddish to relexify to G Antwort f, antworten and verantwortlich, respectively-with identical component structure. Yiddish uses primarily Hebraisms for 'answer', e.g. • cuve(s) f, and 'responsible', e.g. • axrajesdik, Lxajev 'responsible' or • memune (memunim) m 'responsible person'. This means that at the time of the first relexification phase, Upper Sorbian probably was not yet following German practice in using a single root for 'answer' and 'responsible'. Also other Slavic languages use the root 'tell' for these

Sixteen observations

163

meanings, see e.g. Uk vidpovidal'nyj 'responsible' and vidpovid' f 'answer', vidpovidaty 'to answer'. MHG elbiz, albiz 'swan' has a cognate in Pol iabqdz, Cz labud', Uk lebid', R lebed', lebjad' m (Vasmer 1955, 2, though Vaillant 1950, 1: 160 regards the Slavicisms as loans from German). The SlavoGerman roots originally denoted the color white (see cognate Lat albus 'white'). Upper Sorbian no longer has this word for 'swan' (see USo kolp m), but the root survives as a botanical term in USo loboda f 'garden orach' (with cognates in other Slavic languages) and in the river name USo Lobjo, LSo Lobje, JWS1 Ibw Habu ~ labol early 13th century (in the writings of ben Mose, who lived for a while in Meissen; see discussion in Wexler 1987a: 92) ~ G Elbe. The term for 'swan' in most contemporary German dialects is Schwan(-"e), but MHG elbiz survives in some dialects, see e.g. BavG elb, elw 'yellow', Elbiss m 'swan' (Schmeller 1872-1877). If the German lexifier dialect of Yiddish and pre-relexified Judeo-Sorbian both denoted 'swan' by the root for 'white', the similarity in form and meaning of the (surface) cognates should have blocked relexification to this Germanism. Indeed, Yiddish shows no sign of MHG elbiz, only svan(en) < G Schwan m (which is also known in contemporary Bavarian German). This suggests that (a) contemporary BavG elb, elw was available to Old Bavarian (or another German lexifier dialect of Yiddish) during the first relexification phase, (b) If Yiddish has only one term for swan, I assume that Upper Sorbian at the time also had only one word, (c) Finally, if Yiddish derived its German lexicon predominantly from Bavarian dialects, then the presence of Y svan might indicate that Bavarian German in the 13th-14th centuries used both terms for 'swan'. Very often, the results of the first relexification phase are reinforced, supplemented or restructured by the second relexification phase. Positing relative chronologies for the Yiddish forms depends in large part on identifying the interplay of Upper Sorbian and KievPolessian. For example, the paradigm of G lessen 'eat', fressen 'gorge' and Mittagessen η 'noon meal' is partly accepted by Yiddish as esn, fresn, but the third term in Yiddish is simplex mitog (lit. 'noon'). Upper Sorbian could have licensed both verbs through its

164

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'eat' and wobjesc 'overeat'; Ukrainian reinforces the German pair even more smoothly with its jisty 'to eat' and zajidaty 'gorge', since SI za- is linked functionally with G ver- (> Y far-), the source of the unusual fr-. The shortening of G Mittagessen η > Y mitog could not have been easily prompted by USo wobjed, lit. '(main) meal', but finds a parallel in Uk poludenok m 'lunch; dinner' < 'noon'. In addition, Yiddish has two Slavic meal terms, Podolian UkY mobid m 'special meal which the bride's side gives to the groom's side before the wedding in the presence of musicians' and Y mvecere f 'supper' < Uk obidm 'dinner; lunch', vecerja f 'supper'. Doubly prefixed verbs are not as a rule used in Yiddish, either because they developed in German after the relexification processes were over, or because they could not be licensed by Slavic at the time, see discussion of ttabsuchen, Mngesicht, #arm, #Bekannte. The broad differences in corpus and productivity in the Slavic languages suggest a late chronology for multiple prefixation in Slavic. Regarding the chronology of the spread of individual Germanisms to the Slavic languages, see discussion of #Andacht, #Waise; on the chronology of developments in Upper Sorbian, see #Blatt, #erkälten, #treiben and ##dämmern. On using Yiddish for reconstructing the relative age of German and Slavic innovations, see #.Aberglaube,

jesc

#.Abnahme,

#.Andacht,

#Antwort,

##bekleiden,

#bewegen,

ttLaster.

7. The Yiddish experience teaches us that relexification can take more than one form simultaneously, and may coexist with nonrelexification: at the same time that some speakers of Judeo-Sorbian were relexifying to German, others may have been acquiring normative German, while still others continued to speak Judeo-Sorbian. Yiddish could be heir to all these linguistic scenarios. We need to explore the possibility that Yiddish synonyms of different component origins reflect competing choices. See discussion of #alt, #Andacht, #besonnen,

Nest

( i n #Aufsatz),

#schlecht,

ttWahl,

#Welt,

#Werk

and

MBoden.

Of particular interest to us are non-Germanisms in Yiddish with variant forms and geographies. For example, Herzog et al. (2000, 3, maps ##68, 120) plot two forms of a common Hebrew root, WY

Sixteen observations

165

Atofes m ~ EY tfise f A'jail' (< He 'apprehension, catching', in place of the blocked G Gefängnis η; for another use of the same Hebraism, see #angreifen). Alternatively, Yiddish also uses mturme(s) < Uk tjurma f. Map #64 plots three semantically innovative Hebroidisms for 'rich man'-largely WY and PolY Lköcn (< He 'officer; judge') ~ WY, SWPolY Aojser (< He oser 'wealth' vs. Wr 'rich man' which would have given Y *oser) ~ W and some NPolY kjbetu(a)x (< He 'sure') and one formally innovative Hebroidism EY Agvir (< He g-vr m 'male'). The Hebroidisms were required since while G reich > Y rajx 'rich', German lacked a derived noun 'rich man' (see G ein reicher Mann) to match USo bohac(k), Uk bahatij, bahatyr, bahac m 'rich man' (see also chapter 5 on the implications of these variants). Maps ##55-7 plot forms of "He" (Hebroidism) Ah-t-n 'in-law', maps #58-60, 63 show forms of He r-s-' A'anti-Semite'; for periphrastic vs. non-periphrastic integration of common He 'circumcise', see Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #47). Future study will need to determine whether pairs of Hebraisms/Hebroidisms or pairs of Hebraisms/Hebroidisms-Slavicisms continue original differences between Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian Yiddish. Scholars have long been aware of the fact that Yiddish created doublets by borrowing a single German root twice. In the traditional view one variant was allegedly borrowed some centuries ago (at the genesis of Yiddish or when Yiddish was still spoken in the monolingual German lands), while a newer variant of the same German root was acquired during the last two centuries or so, see e.g. older Y kort(n) 'playing card' ~ newer karte(s) 'map, chart' < G Karte (η) f. In the framework of relexification, the earlier variant could have been acquired via relexification, while the later variant is likely to be a post-relexification loan from German. I assume that when the modernized karte(s) was acquired by Yiddish, German had not yet acquired the meaning of 'playing cards', thus Y kort(n) f could survive in this meaning. The "multiple patterns of integrating Germanisms" in Yiddish can be demonstrated by ttschade '(it's a) pity, shame' (< MHG schade), G Schaden (Schäden) m 'damage, injury, harm, disadvantage, loss'. The first variant is the source of USo, Uk skoda (in the same

166

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

meanings; it also appears in Ukrainian as an adverb 'in vain, uselessly, fruitlessly'). The German verb schaden 'to harm, injure, impair' has a parallel in USo skodzic, Uk skodyty 'to hurt, wrong, injure; do mischief and Uk skoduvaty 'to regret, be sorry for, pity; begrudge; injure, do harm'. Given its broad diffusion to Slavic languages, we would expect the Germanism to be blocked in Yiddish; yet, Yiddish actually has the root in two forms: sodn(s ~ sodojnes) 'damage, harm, injury, loss, mischief (the latter meaning shared only with Ukrainian), sod m 'pity, shame; unfortunately' and satn ~ sodn 'to harm, hurt'. Multiple forms of Germanisms, usually reflecting both direct acquisition and indirect acquisition via a Slavic carrier, are parallel to gender bifurcation (see paragraph 9 below and chapters 4.5.1-4.5.2), in that they also allow Yiddish to retain Slavic patterns of discourse and derivational strategies (see also discussion of Y bastrofn 'punish, discipline', etc. vs. straf[n] m 'fine' in #bestrafen and discussion of modernization in chapter 3). Most of the original Germanisms acquired by Yiddish in the two relexification phases underwent subsequent recalibration under the impact of Modern German, long after the two relexification processes were terminated. A curious example of relexification together with the retention of Hebrew-Slavic features is Y nar (naronim ~ LiY narojim) m 'fool' (see #Narr), possibly a Germanism which expresses the German meanings of 'fool, deceive'. Yet, I wouldn't expect to find G Narr in Yiddish since the corresponding Upper Sorbian root for '(to) fool; deceive' also means 'disappoint'. This paradox can be avoided if I accept an Iranian etymology for Y nar; see chapter 3.1. For 'disappoint', Yiddish has the innovative compound opnarn. Significantly, the Y Germanism/Iranianism nar is Hebraized and Slavicized in the plural by requiring the infix A/·-on- (of joint Hebrew and Slavic origin) and the obligatory pi • -im. Of course, I am unable to determine whether the putative relexification and SlavicizationHebraization were contemporaneous (see also chapter 3.1). 8. There are instances where Yiddish innovates in the absence of a German or Slavic model. Presumably such examples date from after the second relexification period. For example, Y hojf ambiguously

Sixteen observations

167

denotes 'court' and 'courtyard' ~ G Hof(-"e), USo dwor, Uk dvir m (see #Gehöft)\ the two meanings can be distinguished only in the plural, e.g. hojfri 'courtyards' vs. hejf 'courts'. I assume that Yiddish speakers may have been seeking to recalibrate an abundance of plural strategies available for individual roots (acquired at different historical stages or through a merger of dialectal variants, or when the dual function of Y [•]-« of hojfn was reinterpreted as the plural: on the dual, see chapter 4.5.4). In most cases, Yiddish innovations have parallels in either Slavic or German. For example, Y man m is ambiguously 'man' and 'husband', with the two meanings distinguished in the plural: mener 'men' vs. manen 'husbands' (see in G #Mann). Uk colovik m denotes 'man; person; husband', but partial differentiation (between 'person' and 'man' only) is possible only in the choice of variants of the genitive plural suffix which are allowed after a numeral, see e.g. p'jat' colovik 'five people (of either sex)' vs. p'jat' colovikiv m 'five men' (with no parallel in Yiddish). 9. Germanisms that are blocked in Yiddish need not always be expressed by Hebraisms (Hebroidisms), or by retained or borrowed Slavicisms. A further option is to use other Germanisms which were successfully acquired through relexification. For example, in place of the blocked G #abtrünnig 'disloyal, unfaithful; apostate', Yiddish uses Germanisms with innovative meaning, see e.g. felcer(s) m 'apostate', felcn 'betray' < G falsch 'wrong, false', Fälscher (zero pi) m 'forger', fälschen 'forge' (also > Y fals, felsn). The result is that the distribution of Germanisms in Yiddish often differs substantially from that of the German source etyma. The Yiddish need to retain Slavic lexical relationships lacking in German prompted a number of innovations in the German component in Yiddish, see e.g. gender bifurcation (discussed in #alt, #Ort, MHG #traht, MArtikel, Mbedienen and Krieg in chapter 4.5.1; see also paragraph 7 above), a non-German assignment of plural suffixes to Yiddish nouns (see #Feder and ttleuchteri), and formal bifurcation of an originally single German morpheme (see ## Y kurc), it is also receptive to Akicer (kicurim) m 'summary, abstract; in short, in a word'. The acceptance of the Hebraism seems to be due not to the Slavic substratum but to the formal similarity with the Germanism. Finally, it may be possible to use the inventory and meanings of Hebroidisms in Yiddish as a way of reconstructing the original westward expanse of Slavic Yiddish. For example, Y klezmer A'musician (player)' < He kle-zemer 'musical instruments' intended to replace the blocked G Musikant m 'musician (player)' (see ##Musik; on inanimate Hebraisms > animate nouns in Yiddish, see WY, SWPolY AojSer in paragraph 7 above and ##König). In late 16thcentury Swiss Yiddish the Hebraism retains its original meaning of 'instruments', thus showing that Slavic Yiddish did not spread southwest as far as the Swiss lands. The Yiddish Hebroidisms jkxmime 'extreme heat' and Akrire f 'extreme cold' surface in Rotw kamime 'heat' and kerire 'cold' (Schopfloch, Franconia: Hofmann [1998]), unless these are independent local innovations of German

Sixteen observations

171

Yiddish (see üerkälten, ttheiss). Such examples are more important for reconstructing the western boundary of Sorbian Yiddish than the presence of occasional food terms (Y mkojlec ~ WY mkowlec 'festive bread', loks[n] m 'macaroni') that surface in Western Yiddish, where linguistic diffusion could be a function of the diffusion of the object itself (see also chapter 4.7). It is not a simple task to identify Hebroidisms in Yiddish since Hebrew dictionaries give only spotty information about the earliest attestations of non-Semitic Hebraisms (see e.g. Kna'ani 1960-1980). For example, Y paslones η A'vice' (see ttLaster and Wexler 1993c: 95) or maroxe(s) f A.'lot, destiny, fate' (see #los) are found in Medieval Spanish Hebrew writings. Hence, they could be loans from Yiddish Hebrew or vice versa via the written medium, or independent creations in the two speech communities (see also Y A balfejbos in ##-er). Yiddish Hebraisms which are not generally recorded in Modern Hebrew dictionaries may never have been used in the Hebrew texts written by Yiddish speakers, and hence are likely to be relexified replacements for blocked Germanisms. 13. The fate of the Slavic phonological systems in Yiddish will need to be systematically explored in future studies. Unfortunately, the absence of early Slavic Yiddish texts complicates the task. Whereas Common Slavic lacked /f/, most of the Slavic descendant languages have acquired til in foreign vocabulary. Ukrainian and Belarusian to this day generally resist /f/, which they replace in the spoken (but not written) language with /p, xv/, etc. Russian tended to have [f] natively whenever /v/ appeared before a voiceless consonant or in final position, a fact which may have facilitated the acceptance of Iii in foreign vocabulary; in contrast, in Belarusian and Ukrainian, /v/ in pre-consonantal and final positions is [w]. Yiddish Germanisms show no disinclination to accept Iff in Germanisms. On the other hand, Yiddish retains other Slavic features that are unattested in German, such as s-, x- (and the absence of a palatal allophone ς of the latteracquired by Upper Sorbian < German) and final voiced consonants (German has only final voiced nasals, Irl and /l/). On the fate of s- in Yiddish dialects, see Herzog et al. (2000, 3, maps ##24, 27), Krogh

172

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

(2001: 27); on χ-, see Herzog et al. (2000, map #29S1) and discussion in chapter 3. A particularly interesting topic is the status of long vowels in Yiddish Germanisms. It seems to be the case that when vowel distinctions are maintained in Modern German, and there are minimal pairs with the corresponding short vowel, Yiddish blocks the form with the long vowel. In the following pairs, the first example, with a long vowel, is blocked in Yiddish: G Aal m 'eel'/ all 'dXV^fahl 'fair, pallid'/ #Fall m 'fall; case', #Saat f 'seed, sowing'/ satt 'satiated' > Y ale, fal (#Fall), zat (see the latter in chapter 4.2; see also #Acht), Two exceptions are the pair G Sohne m 'son' dat/ Sonne f 'sun', which fall together in some Yiddish dialects (including the standard language) as zun, and G fühlen 'to feel'/ Ofüllen 'to fill', where Yiddish has merged the forms into filn. However, Y filn 'to feel' cannot be old in the language, since G fühlen itself is originally a Middle and Low German word which became literary High German in the early 1500s; native High German verbs are empfinden (used in Bavarian German), spüren and merken (used in Swabian German). Yiddish has both spirn (zix) (intr, tr) and merkn 'be aware of, conscious of, perceive' (see #Fülle, #Marlce, #Rost, #Saat, #Spur). While Slavic morphophonemic alternations determine the ability of relexifiers to accept German material, there are cases where Slavic alternations appear to have been disregarded, to judge from the results of relexification, see e.g. the alternation of ο ~ y in Uk krov f 'blood' ~ kryvavyj 'bloody' puts no block on G Blut ~ blutig (> Y blut ~ blutik, but see also G kaltblütig 'cold-blooded' [18th c]; see also USo krej f ~ kraw[n]y, older krwawy). Such examples need closer scrunity. It is unlikely that such a basic word would not have been accepted via relexification. Hence, I am inclined to assume that either relexification preceded the rise of the morphophonemic alternation (dated around the 14th century in Ukrainian: see Shevelov 1979: 400, 46Iff), or took place in areas where the alternation had been leveled out (see Shevelov 1979: 468; Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1988, 2, map #69).

Sixteen observations

173

14. Most Hebrew verbal material reaches Yiddish in the form of the masculine singular participle, which becomes indeclinable in Yiddish and must be conjugated periphrastically by means of two German auxiliary verbs. Occasionally, Eastern Yiddish conjugates Hebrew finite verbal material in a standard, non-periphrastic conjugation; dual integration of a single Hebrew stem is rare, see e.g. batkenen A'inspect (slaughtered animals for impurities)' ~ Abojdek zajn 'examine, scrutinize, inspect' < He bädqü 'they inspected' and bödeq 'he inspects, inspecting', respectively. The periphrastic conjugation is intended almost exclusively for Hebraisms in Slavic Yiddish; it is exceedingly rare in Western (German) Yiddish and is totally unknown in German Rotwelsch, where the non-periphrastic conjugation prevails. The periphrastic conjugation for Hebraisms is available to other Jewish languages, such as, e.g. Karaite (also used for Arabisms), 17th-century Judeo-Eastern Slavic and Balkan JudeoSpanish (see Wexler 1980a, 1980c). Significantly, the periphrastic conjugation is also extremely productive in Iranian, Turkic languages and Dungan (the Chinese spoken by Muslims) for the integration of Arabic verbal material. The geography of the periphrastic conjugation prompts me to suggest that the Yiddish construction might have had its roots in a Judeo-Turkic language, perhaps Khazar (see also chapter 4.7). In that case, the periphrastic conjugation most likely would have reached Yiddish only in the second relexification phase. I also suspect that the actual distribution of the periphrastic conjugation in Yiddish reflects the use of parallel periphrastic and/or compound constructions in the Kiev-Polessian substratum, and hence can block German translation equivalents. The fact that German may also use prefixed verbs or verbal complements does not seem to affect the distribution of the Yiddish periphrastic conjugation. For example, Y Lbojdeh zajn 'examine, scrutinize, inspect' is matched by German terms which were blocked in Yiddish for one reason or another, see e.g. G be (auf) sichtigen, beobachten, beschauen, (erforschen, (nach)prüfen, untersuchen ßabsuchen), etc. The non-periphrastic Y batkenen expresses a A 'religious inspection' (vs. OHe 'inspect'), for which there is no immediate German counterpart. The Ukrainian translation equiva-

174

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

lents are always prefixed verbs or verbs which tend to have an adverbial complement, see e.g. Uk dopytuvaty, nahljadaty, ohljadaty, perevirjaty, (staranno) doslidzuvaty, vysluxuvaty. In Yiddish, the notion 'to slander, calumniate' requires a prefixed Germanism, a simplex with a complement or a periphrastically integrated Hebraism, see Y baredn < redn 'to talk' (< G bereden, also 'talk over, discuss, persuade', i.e. meanings unattested in Yiddish), redn Lrexiles ojf (lit. 'speak gossip about'), • mojce-semra zajn ojf (lit. 'take out a bad name on'), redn Arises (lit. 'speak evil'; the second term also means 'anti-Semite'), maxn a Lbilbl (lit. 'make confusion, libel'), Lmalsn zajn ojf (< lit. 'inform on'). The corresponding Ukrainian terms also tend to be periphrastic, see e.g. Uk zvodyty naklep, porocyty (reputaciju) 'to slander, calumniate' (lit. 'bring slander, insult a reputation', respectively) ~ non-periphrastic but prefixed donosyty, obvynuvaduvaty, zasudzuvaty 'denounce'. See also #Laster. 15. I conjecture that the first Jews to reach the Sorbian lands were immigrants from the Balkans, some of whom were likely to have been speakers of a South Slavic language (see Wexler 1992); hence, it is theoretically possible that some Yiddish patterns of discourse that can be ascribed to Kiev-Polessian or to Upper Sorbian may ultimately have their origins in South Slavic. The origin of most Yiddish expressions and patterns of discourse is difficult to ascertain in actual practice, since all or most of the Slavic languages often share most of the relevant features. Similarities among the Slavic languages are due to the retention of a Common Slavic inheritance, parallel innovations (see e.g. Uk slovnyk ~ Br slownik m 'dictionary') and intra-Slavic loans (as in Uk bad'oryj 'lively; dashing' < Br badzery, Br zanocy 'female, feminine' < Uk zinocyj). Studies of lexical isoglosses linking Sorbian and East Slavic languages with one another or with South Slavic languages sometimes offer some enlightenment (see Suprun 1983, 1989a, 1989b; Zaprudski 1986, 1989; Belorussko-bolgarskie jazykovye paralleli 1992; H. Andersen 1999: 57-59, citing Trubaöev 1963, 1966 and 1967). Zaprudski observes that Belarusian-Serbo-Croatian lexical parallels usually involve southeast Serbo-Croatian and southeast Belarusian dialects (Hömel',

Sixteen observations

175

Mahilew dialects: 1989: 5); for example, the Yiddish use of naxt f 'night' to form nextn 'yesterday' has a closer parallel with Carpathian Uk snocy and SC snohi, sinoh 'yesterday evening' (note that the Yiddish term means only 'yesterday'), Br (Hömel') senac, sjaenacy (Zaprudski 1989: 26) < Uk nie, SC nöc, Br noc f 'night', than with USo wjecor, Uk vecir m 'evening'/ USo wcera, Uk ucora 'yesterday' (discussed in #Nacht). Future studies should also try to characterize the nature of the links between Yiddish and northern Kiev-Polessian (southern Belarusian) and southern Kiev-Polessian (northern Ukrainian), e.g. Y ntate-mame 'parents' (lit. 'father' + 'mother') appears to continue synonymous Uk bat'ko-maty rather than Br bac'ki, Uk bat'ky pit 'parents' (< Br bäc'ka [bdc'ki], Uk bat'ko [bat'ky] m 'father'; Eastern Slavic stress movement, as in this Belarusian example, is not generally reflected in Yiddish, except in Hebraisms, see e.g. Atalmed [talmidim] m 'student'). Similarly, Y farstejn 'understand' produces an adverb from the 3rd singular impersonal reflexive farstejt zix 'of course, to be sure', matching Uk rozumity 'understand'/ rozumijet'sja 'of course', but differs from Br razumec' 'understand'/ razumecca 'be expert in'. Conversely, Y drojsn m 'weather' < drojsn 'outside' continues synonymous Br nadvor'e η < na dvare ~ nadvor 'outside' vs. Uk nadvori 'outdoors', with no derivative 'weather' (see G Tor in chapter 4.2 and #Gewitter). 16. As I will show in chapters 4.5-4.5.1, if German has a single translation equivalent of several Slavic terms with various gender assignments, then relexification requires the selection of one of the underlying Slavic genders; no single Yiddish noun can have the genders of all the Slavic equivalents. The choice of underlying Slavic gender may cast light on the inventory and meanings of the Slavic substratal lexicon at the time of relexification. For example, 'belly' in Ukrainian is now zyvit, slunok m or cerevo n. The feminine gender of LiY bojx (~ m in other dialects) 'belly, abdomen' suggests the original substratal term prior to relexification was Kiev-Polessian (Uk) cerevo η (but see details in chapter 4.5.1). For other examples, see discussion in chapter 4.5.2 of G Tuch η 'cloth; kerchief (> Y tux

176

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

n, f), which, I submit, relexified Uk xustka f (rather than synonymous sarf, platok m). G Fahne 'flag' (> Y fon f) relexified Uk znameno η (rather than synonymous prapor m; see chapter 4.5.4). G Gewölbe 'store' (> Y gevelbfn ~ -er] η) relexified Uk lavka (rather than synonymous kramnycja f, assuming that Y (•)-« pi matches the Ukrainian pseudo-dual number, used in Uk lavka but not in Uk kramnycja·, see chapters 4.5.3-4.5.4), #Zaum m 'bridle, rein' (> Y cojm ~ cam m, f) relexified Uk tyn +PD (rather than synonymous plit m or ohoroza f, both -PD).

4.2 German morphemes and morpheme sets fully accepted by Yiddish Yiddish has very few individual Germanisms whose blockage would have been expected on phonological grounds or because of the existence of similar-sounding cognates. See G Löwe(n) 'lion' > Y lejb(n), even though USo law, Uk lev 'lion' < MHG lebe, lewe m. Also G neu 'new' > Y naj even though Slavic languages have a similar-sounding cognate, see USo nowy. Either I assume that adjectives (and verbs?) might have been less amenable to blockage than nouns, or that the two Yiddish Germanisms are post-relexification loans (on formal differences between German and Slavic cognates which apparently sufficed to license relexification to the former, see MHG ##apfet). Further examples (primarily of putative post-relexification loans from German) are cited in the etymological commentaries in chapters 4.3-4.4. Instances of blockage discussed in the latter two chapters reflect almost always the requirements of the Slavic substrata. Slavic semantic fields very often differ widely from those of German, yet space usually permits only a partial presentation of the facts here. There are relatively few German morphemes/morpheme sets that can be fully accepted by Yiddish that lack a Slavic precedent (see below). Though often the gender assignment of Yiddish nouns and/or formal features can be ascribed to a Slavic substratum. It is difficult to say if these Germanisms were acquired through relexification

Fully accepted German morphemes

177

and/or afterwards. The crucial point is that even in cases where a post-relexification chronology can be ascertained (thanks to the availability of German historical dictionaries), Yiddish very rarely has accepted the full German paradigm of allomorphs. Middle High German forms that are now obsolete in German, as well as Low German cognates accepted by High German, are usually cited only when they can motivate Yiddish selectional criteria. Yiddish and Slavic examples are left untranslated when they match the meanings of the German terms. The absence of a plural suffix means the term in question is only used in the singular. 1. (a) G beissn/ (b) beizen/(c) Biss. See discussion in chapter 4. 2. (a) G Dach(- "er) η 'roof / (b) decken 'to cover' > (a) Y dax (dexer) m/ (b) debt. Only the Uk alternation of / ~y could have licensed the alternation of (a)-(b); see USo kryw m, Uk pokrivlja f 'roof/ (b) USo kryc, Uk pokryvaty 'to cover'. On the other hand, the use of the m gender in Y dax has a precedent only in USo. 3. (a) G frieren 'to freeze'/ (b) Frostf- "e) m 'frost, chill'/ (c) frösteln 'feel chilly; shiver' (16th c) > (a) Y frirnl (b) frost (frest) m 'freezing temperature, weather; frost'/ (c) frestl(ex) η 'chill', (a) USo (z)mjerznyc 'to freeze'/ (b) mroz, zmjerzk m 'frost' could license relexification. USo now has (c) huskac, apparently a loan from G after the 15th c (Schuster-Sewc 19781996: 367). Y, arguably, relexified to (a), (b) and (c) before the USo innovation in (c). Since Uk offers only a partial paradigm, the second relexification phase is a less attractive venue, see e.g. (a) Uk morozyty 'to freeze'/ (b) moroz m 'frost'/ (c) morozyty ~ vidcuvaty oznob, tremtity vid xolodu m, etc. 'to shiver'. Y gefrir η 'frozen dew, frost' has a parallel in MHG gevroerde f. Note that MHG vrosten 'freeze' and vrost m 'frost' lacked any alternation (but see also MHG wiesen ~ vrceren 'to freeze'). 4. G ^fGraupeln pi 'sleet', ^graupeln 'to sleet', \Graupen (pit < f) 'peeled barley, pot-barley' > Y (a) ^grajplregn m 'sleet'/ (b) ^grojpfn) f'grain', pit 'pellet'. Y introduces a morphophonemic alternation that does not exist in G due to the Umlaut caused by -/ dim in Y. The Germanism is not attested before the early 15th c and is probably a borrowing from SI (Kluge 1899), see e.g. USo krupa f 'coarsely milled grain; hailstones'. Slavicisms in G are acceptable to Y, but the lateness of attestation in G suggests a post-RP2

178

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

acquisition by Y. There is, however, a SI feature in the Yiddishism, which could be either substratal or introduced after the putative borrowing from G, namely Y grojp, unlike G ^Graupen, is also sg-following the SI count noun with a singulative suffix, Uk krupyna f. If Y grojp f is the product of RP1, then I would have further testimony that voicing differences of the type G g ~ USo k did not block relexification to G lexicon (see MHG Mapfel). Cognate Uk krupy 'peeled grain, groats, grits; fine hail' is used exclusively in the pi ~ krupyna f 'grain of groat, grit', a count noun. G fGraupeln 'sleet' would be expected to yield *grojpl in Υ. I am unable to identify a suitable MHG etymon that would account for Y /aj/. Nor can USo krupicki pit, Uk krupy pi 'groats; fine hail' explain the alternation. I presume Y speakers interpreted the -/ as dim, which could trigger Umlaut in the preceding syllable (as in hut m, f 'hat': hitl η dim). 5. (a) G ^kneipen ~ kneifen 'to pinch, squeeze'/ (b) \Kniff(e) m 'pinch, squeeze' > (a) Y knajpn 'to pinch'/ (b) knip(n) m 'pinch, nip', (a) USo scipac, Uk scypaty 'to pinch'/ (b) USo scipnjenje ~ scipanje η ~ scip, Uk scypok m ~ scypka f 'pinch' should not license full relexification. The elimination of the G morphophonemic alternation of ρ ~ f , in favor of Y p, suggests interference from SI, which lacks a consonantal alternation. 6. (a) G Krone(n) f 'crown'/ (b) krönen 'to crown' > (a) Y krojn(en) f/ (b) krejnen. The So lands are not the appropriate venue for relexification since USo lacks a morphophonemic alternation, see (a) USo krona f 'crown'/ (b) kronowac 'to crown'. Hence, I assume that relexification took place in the KP area, where (a) Uk vinec' m 'crown'/ (b) vincaty 'to crown' could license the morphophonemic alternation (by its c' ~ c). 7. (a) G Laib(e) m 'loaf / (b) (SWG) lebkuchen (zero pi) m 'gingerbread' > (a) Y lebl(ex) n, labn(s) m 'loaf / (b) lekex(er) m 'cake', (a) G Laib(e) was probably the basis for the term for 'bread' in the SI languages, see e.g. USo chleb m 'bread', but, in any case, the G and SI terms were too far apart formally and semantically to block relexification to G. Note the dual reflexes of Y (a), which might indicate different G lexifier inputs. The SI languages use different roots for (a) and (b), e.g. (a) USo pokruta ~pakrota f, Uk buxan, buxanec' m, xlibyna f 'loaf / (b) USo poprjanc, Uk imbyrnyj prjanyk m 'gingerbread'. Full relexification would have been possible if relexifiers were unaware of any link between the two roots (on lebekuochefsj f in the GY Berner kleiner Aruch of 1290, see Timm 1977).

Fully accepted German morphemes

179

8. (a) G Mühle(n) f 'mill'/ (b) MHG mülncere ~ müller > G Müller (zero pi) m 'miller' > (a) Y mil(n) f / (b) milner(s) m. Since (a) G Mühle(n) f was diffused very early to most of the SI languages, see e.g. USo mlyn, Uk mlyn m, I would expect blockage; relexification suggests that the G and SI forms were not regarded as "identical" by relexifiers. In the KP lands, where 'miller' can be expressed alternatively by unique Uk mirosnyk ~ (pan-Si) mlynar m, relexification would have been easier. Alternatively, Y mil f might be a post-RP2 loan from G. The lateness of acquisition is suggested by the fact that Y has the G f gender of 'mill' vs. SI m, which would have been expected had the Germanisms been acquired via relexification (on gender assignment, see chapter 4.5.1). 9. (a) Nadel(n) f 'needle'/ (b) Naht(-"e) f 'seam; suture'/ (c) nähen 'sew', %Näh(t)erin(nen) f 'seamstress' > (a) Y nodl(en) f/ (b) not (net) f 'seam'/ (c) nejen, ^nejtorin(s) ~ \nejtorke(s) f . In ModG usage, the agentive is now Näherin f, but in MHG the sole form was näter m, näterin f, without Umlaut. The SI languages have two roots, see e.g. (a) USo jehla, Uk holka f 'needle'/ (b) USo sow, Uk sov m 'seam'/ (c) USo sic, Uk syty 'sew', USo sijerka ~ swalca, Uk svacka f 'seamstress'. The SI data are not expected to license relexification to three G allomorphs; the discrepancy between the non-Umlauted MHG and the Umlauted ModG/Y forms suggests that Y \nejtorin ~ \nejtorke(s) f are either post-RP2 loans or the result of modernization of a non-Umlauted form. 10. (a) G Regen (zero pi) m 'rain'/ (b) regnen 'to rain' > (a) Y regn(s) mJ (b) regenen. Y retains a morphophonemic alternation in the G stem, even though there is no SI precedent, see (a) USo desc (now normally descik), Uk dose ml (b) USo so descowac ~ descik (so) dze (lit. 'rain' + 'goes'), Uk ide dose (lit. 'goes' + 'rain'). The creation of a verb from the nominal stem in USo is probably inspired by G. See also discussion in #Schnee. 11. (a) MHG ratzenl (b) G reissenl (c) reizen/ (d) Riss/ (e) ritzen. See discussion in chapter 4. 12. (a) G satt 'full, satiated', Sattheit f 'satiety'/ (b) MHG sete f 'satiety', G sättigen 'satisfy, appease', Sättigung f 'satiation, saturation' > (a) Y zat, zatkejt f 'fullness'/ (b) zet 'satiation', zetikung f 'satiation', zetikn 'satisfy'. It is unclear if Y originally accepted the G vocalic alternation or acquired it later via modernization. See (a) USo syty 'full', sytosc ~ nasycenosc f 'satiety'/ (b) sycic 'satisfy', nasycenje η 'satiety, satiation'.

180

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

13. (a) G Schweiss m 'sweat'/ (b) schwitzen 'to sweat' > (a) Y svejs m/ (b) svicn. (a) USo pot m/ (b) so pocic could license full relexification. 14. (a) G Tanz(-"e) m 'dance', tanzen 'to dance'/ (b) Tänzer (zero pi) m 'dancer'/ (c) tänzeln 'to trip, frisk' > (a) Y tanc (tenc) m, tancnl (b) tencer(s) m, tencl(ex) η 'dance, jig', optenclen 'dance with small steps'. It is unclear if Y acquired (a) and (b) during RP1 from a native USo term now lost (see [a] ModUSo reja f, rejfojwac, [b] rejwar m 'dancer' < MHG rei[g]e m 'round dance'). In the KP lands, the Germanism should have been blocked, given (a) Uk tanec' m 'dance' and (b) tancjuvaty to dance', tancjuryst m 'dancer', as well as Br skakac', meaning both 'to dance' and 'jump'. A possibly native SI verb for 'dance' is R pljasat' (unless < Go plinsjan), whose original meaning was 'stomp with one's feet; clap with one's hands'. G tanzen, which came into general use in the 12th c (Kluge 1899), might have become attractive to Y lexifiers if CS1 *plesati was still associated with SI pagan ritual activities (see Anickov 1914: 172; Kurkina 1996: 8, 10). There is no trace of MHG leichen 'to dance' in Y or stHG, though occasional reflexes are still attested in G dialectally (Grimm and Grimm 1854-1871); the Germanism is found in some SI languages, see e.g. Uk lykuvaty 'rejoice', lyk m 'church choir' (I doubt Christian connotations would have led to blockage.) 15. (a) Tor(e) η 'gate(way)'/ (b) Tür(en) f'door' > (a) Y tojer(n) m 'gate'/ (b) tir(n) η 'door'. The SI languages distinguish 'door' and 'gate(way)' lexically: see (a) USo wrota, Uk vorota pit, brama f, vxid m 'gate'/ (b) USo durje, Uk dveri pit 'door'. It is surprising that Y relexified to two genetically related G forms with striking formal and semantic parallels. Hence, I suspect one of the terms is a post-RP2 loan. Y brom(en) 'portal, city gate' is a later loan from Pol brama f (also > Uk). Both USo terms are only used in the pi, as is 'door' in most dials of Uk. This implies that the door and gate historically consisted of two parts; paired objects in Y appear to have often preferred -n as the pi marker, one of whose original functions may have been the dual number (see chapter 4.5.4; on the sg use of the root, see Stawski 1984, 5: 140-142). Hence, the parallel use of -(e)n pi in G Türen and Y tirn could be regarded as coincidental. USo and Uk have a cognate of G (b) in dwor, dvir 'courtyard', respectively. Uk dvir m also means 'outside (the house)' or 'in the open air', as in nadvori 'outside', vyjty na dvir 'go outside (for fresh air)'. Y has relexified the latter to G draussen 'outside, out of doors' > Y drojsn 'outdoors', and drojsn(s) m 'exterior, outdoors'; (dial) 'weather', even though (a) Uk dveri and (b) dvir

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

181

m are related. The meaning 'weather' was a Br-Baltic innovation and did not affect the relexiflcation, which was probably from the first phase (see #Gewitter). See also disussion of G Milch f 'milk' and ttmelken 'to milk'.

4.3. German morpheme sets blocked fully or in part in Yiddish by the Slavic substrata The parenthesized notation "(< G [a, etc.])" means that the Yiddish or Middle High German allomorph under discussion corresponds to a different member of the German allomorph set, e.g. in the data cited in section (e) to #Aberglaube, "(< MHG lobelich < [ d])" means that lobelich corresponds to German allomorph (d); in the Yiddish data cited in G #Abnahme, "(b) Y \opnem m 'deprivation' (< G [a])" means that the German surface cognate is listed under (a) of the preceding German corpus. I make no attempt to present the entire German corpus. 1. German: (a) \iberglaube(n) m 'superstition', Glaube (τι) ~ Glauben m (zero pi) 'faith, belief, glauben 'believe', glaubwürdig 'trustworthy', erlauben 'allow', ^Erlaubnis(se) f 'permission; leave', Unglaube 'disbelief f, Urlaub(e) m 'holiday, vacation, furlough'/ (b) ^gläubig 'faithful'/ (c) beliebig 'any (desired)', lieb 'fond o f , Liebe(n) f 'love', lieben 'to love', Liebchen η 'love, darling', ^liebeln 'to flirt', lieber 'rather, sooner, better', Liebhaber (zero pi) m 'admirer; lover', liebkosen 'to caress, fondle, cuddle', Liebschaft(en) f 'affair'/ (d) Lob(e) m 'praise, (be)loben 'to praise', Belobigung(en) f 'praise', geloben 'to vow, promise solemnly', lobenswert 'commendable', verloben 'betroth, engage; put up bail', sich verloben 'become engaged', ^Verlobung(en) f 'engagement, betrothal'/ (e) G%}elöbnis(se) 'vow, solemn promise', ^Verlöbnis (se) η 'engagement, betrothal', {löblich 'commendable' (

Yiddish: (a) glojbn(s) 'faith', urlojb(n) m 'leave, furlough'; derlojbn 'allow', derlojb(n) 'permission', lojb f 'praise', (far)lojbn 'to praise', lojbverdik 'commendable' (< [?] G [d])/ (b) baglejbt 'trustworthy', glejbn

182

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'believe', ajnglejbenis(n) ~ glejbexc(n) η 'superstition', di glejbike 'the faithful'/ (c) lib 'dear, kind, nice', lib hobn 'to love, be fond o f , Xlibn 'to love', ^libe(s) ~ libsaft f 'love'; liberst 'rather'; lib zajn 'to like'. Whereas (a) G Urlaub means 'vacation' as well as 'leave; furlough', Y urlojb m has only the second meaning; for 'vacation', see Y mvakacje(s) f < Uk vakaciji G Ferien pit). Note that Y libsaft 'love' differs in meaning from G Liebschaft f 'affair'. Y follows the USo habit of using different roots for the above concepts, e.g. (a) USo priwera, priweriwosc 'superstition', wera f 'faith, belief, weric 'believe' vs. dowolic 'allow'/ (b) weriwy 'faithful'/ (c) luby 'dear', lubosc f 'love', lubowac ~ lubo mec 'to love'/ (d) chwal(b)a f 'praise', chwalic 'to praise' vs. slubic 'to vow', so slubic 'become engaged', slub m 'engagement'/ (e) slub m, prisaha f 'vow' vs. chwal(o)brty 'commendable'. Yiddish has two forms of (a) G glauben, Glauben m: \glejbn 'believe' and ^glojbn(s) m 'faith'. Either the two allomorphs continue OG dial differences (see e.g. MHG gfejlouben ~ glöuben m), or reflect distinct chronologies of relexification to (or borrowing from) G. Some reluctance to relexify fully to G is manifested in the Y use of a He present active part, for 'believer', Amajmen (majminim) m ~ Uk virujucyj part. (vs. USo wericel m with ag). For 'belief, creed', Y also has recourse to Jkemune(s) f; for 'faith, confidence' see Y Lbitoxn < He bifähön m 'security' and G bewahren below. Curiously, while 'disbelief can be expressed by a negative prefix in G and SI (see G Unglaube, USo njewera, Uk nevira f), Y requires Akojfer zajn (lit. 'denying' + 'be'). This might mean the negative forms were coined in at least one of the languages after relexification. (a) G ^Aberglaube is late MHG (found mainly in MG dials; see also Afterglaube m 16th c); its absence in Y suggests that RP1 was completed by the 13th-14th cc. Alongside (a) baglejbt 'trustworthy', see also Y Abetuex (related to Lbitoxn, cited above). For G (c) Liebchen η 'darling', see Y tajer, goldn (also 'golden'), bril'antn (also 'diamond') ~ Aben-jaker m, ml'ubefn'u), ml'ubce, ml'ubel'u and mserce(n'u) f (with Uk suffixes); the latter < Uk serce η 'heart' ~ Y mharcen'u (< G Herz η 'heart'); see also Y A/mnesomen 'u (< He 'soul') ~ Uk dusa 'heart; soul', dusecka 'darling' f. G (c) liebkosen 'to caress' is lacking entirely in Y since SI languages require a separate root; thus Y uses different unblocked Germanisms such as gletn, certlen 'to caress' (also 'to smooth'), glet(n) m 'caress', alongside mpesten 'to caress' (< Ukpestyty;pestosci pit 'caress'), m(cu)tul'en (zix) 'cuddle' (< Uk prytulytysja-with -/-), ml'üben zix 'fondle each other' (on retention of palatalized -/-, see also below). Finally, G (c) beliebig 'any (desired)' is

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

183

also blocked in Y since SI languages require other roots, see Y mabi velxer < Uk aby + pronoun, as in abyxto 'whoever', abysco 'whatever'. Y and G differ in the allomorphic distribution and meanings of (d) G loben/ Y lojbn 'to praise' and derivatives thereof. First, Y farlojbn, unlike G verloben 'betroth', is the pf form of lojbn 'to praise'. Along with lojb(n) f 'praise', Y also has Asvax (svoxim) m. Since the m gender of the latter matches that of G Lob and not the f of the SI counterpart (though note G Lob m > Y lojb f), Y fsvax may be a post-RP2 loan. Second, Y lacks G geloben, sich verloben (see U. Weinreich 1968 \*farlobn zix), as well as reflexes of (e), e.g. G UGelöbnis 'vow', Verlöbnis 'engagement', If löblich 'commendable'. For G geloben 'to vow', Gelöbnis (and [f] Gelübde η) 'vow', Y uses Amenader zajn, ton a Anejder, Anodern 'to vow', Anejder (nedorim) m 'vow'. For G verloben 'betroth', Verlöbnis η, Verlobung f 'betrothal', see Y Afarknasn 'betroth', zajn Afarknast 'be betrothed' (< He qnäs m 'fine, punishment'; see also discussion in #bestrafen), vern a Axosn (lit. 'be[come] a bridegroom'), zajn! vern a Akale ('be a bride'), zajnt vern a Axosn-kale 'become engaged' (lit. 'be[come] an engaged couple'), Afarknasung(en) f 'betrothal, engagement'. The meaning of He qnäs m 'fine' is kept in the formally innovative Y Akans(en)en 'to fine', ultimately < Lat census m 'rating, registration of property'; might the metathesis of He qnäs m > -än- in Y Akans(en)en be due to SI canonic shape? In USo, 'to fine' (e.g. chlostac) and 'become engaged' are different; hence, two reflexes of He qnäs m? Corresponding to (d) G löblich 'commendable', Y has (a) lojbverdik. The Y rejection of the o: ö alternation in favor of the former allomorph in this root could be due either to the absence of an alternation in USo chwalic: chwal(o)bny ~ G loben: löblich and/or to the absence of an ö-variant in the G lexifier dial of Y (see MHG lobelich, also ModG lobenswert). Y normally has oj ~ G au and o. The Y facts may shed some light on the chronology of the Germanization of USo lexicon. The Y use of Hebraisms for G geloben and verloben suggests that at the time of the first relexification phase, the USo lexicon had not yet adopted the G practice of using a single root for 'vow' and 'betroth', see now cognate USo slubic and so slubic, respectively. If USo already had both terms at the time of the first relexification phase, we would expect Y to accept both G geloben and (sich) verloben. The Y relexification to two separate Hebraisms, Amenader zajnl Anejder (nedorim) and kfarknasn has a more immediate parallel in Uk kljastysja, davaty obitnycju 'to vow'/ obitnycja f, kljatva f 'vow' vs. buty zarucenym 'be engaged', zarucyty 'engage, betroth'.

184

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

The root in (c) G lieben 'to love', Liebe(n) f 'love' exists in Y, but in a reduced distribution. While Y accepts G lib hobn 'to love', and libsaft f 'love', and generates its own libn zix ~ ml'üben zix 'make love' (the latter is the SI cognate), \libe(s) f 'love' betrays its recency by retaining ModG -e. Blockage could be due to the existence of a SI cognate. It is unclear how Y expressed 'love' before accepting the ModG loan. The only other noun in Y is Aa'ave f (< He 'love'), which now denotes 'divine love'. It is significant that Y also has the SI cognate as a verb, m l ' ü b e n zix. The palatalized /I/ (see also discussion just above) is typical of some SI languages, see e.g. Uk ljubyty 'be fond of; love', ljubytysja 'love one another', Polab I'aibse, OCz I'ubiti se 'to like; to kiss'. During RP1, So still had palatalized /!'/; the latter was probably not dispalatalized until the 17th c (Schaarschmidt 1998: 124126). Semantic differences between G lieben 'love' and cognate USo lubic 'to promise', so lubic 'to please' (vs. lubowac 'to love' < CS1 *ljubb 'dear, beloved') may have facilitated relexification to the G cognate. It is unclear if the shift from 'love' > 'promise' in USo lubic was triggered by formal similarity with G verloben. No doubt the differences in semantic space between SI and G (e.g. the former distinguished between CS1 *ljub- for 'active love' and *mil- for 'passive love') also contributed to the partial blockage. Alongside (c) liberst 'rather', see also Y beser 'better'; for 'lover', see Y gelibter, libhober(s) ~ Lmoker (mojkirim) ~ bavunderer(s)', for 'admirer', see Y • xosed (xsidim) m. (c) G ^liebeln 'to flirt' is lacking in Y, either because it is a postrelexificational innovation (there is no such form in MHG), or because in SI languages 'love' and 'flirt' were expressed by different roots (see now Uk flirtuvaty). For the latter Y uses Ajcejn(en) 'charm, grace, appeal' (< He hen m 'charm') and, like the dim -/- found in G ^liebeln, creates /kxejndl(ex) η 'affectation, coquettish gesture', Axejndlen zix 'flirt with' (with innovative use of zix), maxn Lxejndlex 'ogle', Lxejndler(s) m 'flirt' (with *-nlpredictably expanding to -ndl-). The use of a dim also characterizes contemporary USo lubkowac. If the -l(-) of Y Axejndlen zix, etc. is patterned on the -I- of G ^Jliebeln, then the Hebraism is a post-relexification loan. 2. German: (a) Abfahrt(en) 'departure, descent', \infahrt(en) 'avenue; quai; drive (to a place)', \iusfahrt(en) 'exit; gateway', Fahrt(en) 'drive, journey, trip', Überfahrt(en) f 'passage; crossing'/ (b) abfahren 'carry away; depart', auffahren 'pile up; drive up; fly into a passion', erfahren 'to experience', Erfahrung(en) f 'experience', fahren 'to drive, ride, go by vehicle', Nachfahr(en) 'follower, successor', Vorfahr(en) m 'forefather'/

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

185

(c) Fähre(n) 'ferry', Fährte(n) f 'track, print, mark'/ (d) Ferge(n) m 'ferryman'/ (e) fertig 'ready; accomplished; finished (with)'/ (f) führen 'to lead, conduct, guide', Führung(en) f 'leading, guidance, management'/ (g) Fuhre(n) f 'cart-load', Fuhrmann {Fuhrleute) m 'driver', \Abfuhr(en) f 'removal; snub'/ (h) Furt(en) f 'ford'// Abnahme, (an)greifen, bewegen, Leichenwagen, Prahm, Totenwagen, überleben > Yiddish: (a)-(b) opfor(n) 'departure', aropfor(n) 'descent'; cuforn 'drive up to\for(n) m 'drive, short trip',/or« 'to drive, ride, go by vehicle', onforn 'arrive', opforn 'depart', iberfor(n) m 'ford'/ (e) fartik 'ready-(made), finished'/ (f) firn 'to lead, conduct, guide, walk, carry', onfirung-(en) 'management', flrsaft f 'guidance'/ (g) fur(n) f 'wagon, cart, van', furman (furmänes) m 'coachman'. I cite Y opfor, etc. as (a) or (b), since it is unclear if (MHG) -rt > -r. See also Y Anesie(s) and mjazde(s) f 'drive, short trip'. The So equivalents have -d in the root, see USo wotjezd m 'departure', hence if Y lacks the final cluster of consonant + -t, opfor m, etc., may have been derived directly from the verb stem which lacks -t. The absence in Y of (b) G erfahren 'to experience', Erfahrung(en) f 'experience', G Vorfahr (en) m 'forefather' is expected since SI uses other roots, see e.g. Uk dosvid m 'experience', dosvidcaty 'to experience' (< root 'witness'), Br vopyt 'experience' (< 'question') or dosled m < 'follow', etc. Y also has \iberlebn 'to experience, survive', \iberlebung(en) f 'experience', modeled on Br perazyc', perazyvanne n, respectively (vs. G überleben 'survive', * Überlebung, discussed in #bleiberi). U. Weinreich (1968) cites Y *derfarung f 'experience', which is clearly a recent Germanism-to judge from /a/. For G Vorfahr (en) m 'forefather', Y uses • oves, or compounds like Aoves-avojsim, Aoves-avojsejnu, Akadmojnim or elter-eltern (all pit), firgejer(s) m (the latter also 'forerunner, predecessor') < G. Not surprisingly, USo prjedownik m 'forerunner' is a different root. Often Yiddish blocks semantically heterogeneous Germanisms and splits the meanings between Germanisms, Hebraisms and Slavicisms, e.g. (b) G Nachfahr(en) 'follower; successor' > Y onhenger(s), Lxosed (xsidim) 'follower' vs. noxgejer(s), noxkumer(s), Ajojres (jorsim), kmemale-mokem(s) m 'successor'; (b) G auffahren 'pile up; drive up; fly into a passion' > Y cuforn 'drive up to', uonkojpn 'pile up', • kajsn zix, zajn in Α käs, Lbrojgesn zix 'to become angry'. Germanisms in SI were typically blocked; hence, if Y fur(n) has a surface cognate in USo for a f 'wagon', the latter might be a recent loan from ModG

186

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Fuhre f (Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 215), acquired after RP1. The existence of Uk fura ~ xura f 'wagon' (Dovhopol 1966: 26 and the Atlas ukrajins 'koji movy 1984, 1, map #297 discuss synonyms) had no impact on the Germanism in Y. The ages of the Y and Uk Germanism are unknown to me; Y fur(n) f could also have predated the Uk acquisition of the Germanism (via Pol fura?). Y fur f matches the meaning of the SI Germanism ('cart') rather than G ('cart-load'). It is conceivable that G Fuhre f was initially blocked, only to be accepted in RP2. This is tantamount to suggesting that Germanisms in ESI were not blocked with the same rigor as So Germanisms. Y lacks (c) and (d), using instead uprom(en) 'ferry' < OSo prom m (~ USo prama f, which is a back-borrowing from the G Slavicism Prahm m: for details, see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1150), though Y mprom could also be < G Prahm m. For (c) G Fährte(n) f 'track, print, mark', see Y Asimen (simortim) m or spur(n) f. m. While Y has (e) firn 'to lead, conduct', onfirung(ert) 'management', there is also the unique firsaft f (possibly ~ USo wjednistwo n), alongside Lhadroxe 'guidance' and kerevung f (< Uk keruvaty 'to guide' < G kehren 'to turn'). For (g) G Abfuhr(en) f 'removal', Y requires a different Germanism. For (h) G Furt(en) f 'ford' Y has iberfor(n) m < G Überfahrt(en) f 'passage; crossing'. The blockage is due to a different root in USo, used in Y as a verb, e.g. Y mbrod'en 'to wade, plod', mdurxbrod'en 'to ford' < USo brodzic, Uk brodyty 'wade, ford', USo brod, Uk brid (gen sg brodu) m 'ford' (see also MHG Maffel). The doublet USo jec, jezdzic 'go'/ wjesc, wodzic 'to lead' licenses the acceptance of G fahren! führen. Along with Y furman 'coachman', Y invents äJbalegole(s) m (lit. 'owner' + 'wagon'; the latter is undatable, though synonymous He Region, not used in Y, dates from the Middle Ages: see ##-er). If resistance to (g) G Fuhrmann is due to the USo use of a separate root, e.g. woznik, then Y furman might date to RP2 or be postrelexificational (the stress shift in the latter may be due to Uk kucer, kucery pi). Since G Fuhre(n) f 'cart-load' is also expressed by USo woz m, I am surprised Y lacks He 'agäläh f as 'wagon'; Y agole(s) f means rather A.'hearse' (vs. G Leichenwagen ~ Totenwagen m 'hearse', lit. 'corpse' + 'wagon'). A putative change in meaning from 'wagon' > 'hearse' might have necessitated the (post-relexification) loan of Y yiir f. For blockage of the verbal allomorph, see #Abnahme, #angreifen and ttbewegen. 3. German: (a) Abnahme(n) 'removal', %4nnahme(n) 'acceptance', Aufnahme (n) f 'reception; admission; recording'/ (b) abnehmen 'take off,

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

187

uncover; decrease', Ifangenehm 'pleasant', genehm 'agreeable', annehmen 'accept; suppose; pass', aufnehmen 'pick up; entertain; record', \benehmen 'behave' (< MHG benemen 'to grasp; remove; rob'), G nehmen 'to take'// angreifen, Beseitigung > Yiddish: (b) \ajngenem(en), \ongenem(en) 'pleasant', nemen 'to take', banemen 'to grasp, understand; rob', ojfhemen 'receive; entertain; react to', onnemen 'accept', opnemen 'call for, fetch; paralyze'; \onnem 'acceptance', \ojfnem(en) 'reception', ^opnem m 'deprivation' (< G [a]). The reason for the shift from (a) > (b) in Y is that the SI root has no morphophonemic alternation in nouns and verbs, see e.g. USo (a) wotewzace η 'removal', (b) wzac 'to take'/ wotewzac 'take off, uncover', Uk (a) braty, zabyraty, vzjatyl (b) vzjattja η 'taking; capture'. Note the semantic disparallels between G Abnahme f 'removal' and Y ^opnem m 'deprivation'; for 'removal', see Y ^bazajtigung(en) < G ^Beseitigung(en) f. For discussion of G benehmen, see discussion under #angreifen. Y Ifajngenem(en), ongenem(en) 'pleasant' are recent since G fangenehm is not attested until the 16th c (~ MHG annceme). On the meanings expressed by R br- and ja-, see Herman (1975). 4. German: (a) ^Jabsuchen 'to search', ^Besuch(e) m 'visit', besuchen 'to visit', %durchsuchen 'to search', \Durchsuchung(en) 'search', Suche(n) f 'search, quest', suchen 'look for, seek, search', versuchen 'to tiy, attempt; entice, tempt', Versucher (zero pi) m 'tempter', Versuchung(en) f 'temptation', untersuchen 'inquire into, inspect', Untersuchung(en) f'examination, inquiry'/ (b) Sache(n) f 'thing, affair', ^sachlich 'real, relevant, factual', Ursache(n) f 'cause, reason, motive', fverursachen 'to cause, produce'/ (c) ^sächlich 'neuter (gender)', ^tatsächlich 'actual, real, factual'// Angesicht, bewahren, Ding, gewahr werden, Hauptwort, wahr > Yiddish: (a) zuxn 'to search, look for, seek', zuxung(en) f 'search', ^°bazux(n) m 'visit; stay', bazuxn 'to search (a person)', *\durxzux(n) m 'search', farzuxn 'to taste', *\opzux(n) m 'search; recovery; lost-and-found office', \opzuxn 'find, recover', Xunterzuxn 'examine', *\°unterzuxung(en) f 'examination, inquiry'/ (b) zax(n) f 'thing, cause, business', \zaxlex °'neutral', 'matter-of-fact, to the point'. The partial blockage of G compounds stems from the fact that SI languages require a variety of roots. While Y has (a) zuxn and some derivatives, it lacks specifically G Besuch m and besuchen in the meaning '(to) visit'. For the latter, Y uses vizit(n) m 'visit' and gejn! kumen cu gast

188

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(lit. 'go/ come as a guest' ~ Uk pity ['go, come' both] ν hosti), zajn a gast (lit. 'be a guest' ~ Uk buty ν hostjctx), kumen ojf a vizit (lit. 'come on a visit'), gastirn 'to visit' (~ Uk hostyty, hostjuvaty vs. G gastieren 'to star in the theater'), gevojr (Li, NEUkY gevojre, SY gevor) vern 'learn, find out, visit (especially to find out how a person is)' < G wahr 'true, genuine', gewahr werden 'become aware of (the latter is discussed in #bewahren). For the specific meaning of 'visit a sick person', Y uses Lmevaker-xojle zajn. G besuchen 'visit' exists in Y as bazuxn, but only with the meaning 'search (a person)' (also attested in MHG; U. Weinreich 1968 cites T"to visit, call upon, to frequent'). Y farzuxn has acquired the sole meaning 'to taste' ~ Uk probuvaty 'to try, test, experiment; taste'; Y does not have the meanings of G versuchen 'to try; tempt'. The semantic blockage may be due to the heterogeneous meanings expressed by the Germanism, in contrast to the SI languages which use separate roots for each meaning, see e.g. Uk vyprobovuvaty, staratysja, namahatysja 'to try' vs. spokusaty, zvabljuvaty, (arch) vyprobovuvaty 'tempt'. USo now uses a common root for 'try' and 'tempt', with a different verbal prefix, probably under G influence, see (po)spytac 'to try' vs. spytowac 'tempt'. For 'tempt, temptation' Y uses other Germanisms (e.g. strojxlen, strojxlungfenj f) or Lnisojen (nisjojnes), Ajejcer-hore m 'temptation'. In place of G untersuchen 'examine' and Untersuchung(en) f 'examination', Y uses other Germanisms, see e.g. durxkuk m, batraxtung(en) f 'examination' or Lxkire-drise(s) f 'close examination', bakukn, durxkukn, batraxtn < G, • bojdek zajn 'examine', Axojker-vedojres zajn 'examine closely' (on compounds, see #Angesicht). The partial relexification in Y to words in (a) reflects the fact that USo terms for 'visit', 'seek, search' and 'examine' were originally distinct roots (they are no longer so, under G influence; see USopytac 'seek', wopytac 'to visit'); Uk continues to express the meanings by different roots, e.g. sukaty 'search, seek', rozsukaty 'search, investigate; recover, discover', obsukaty 'search all over, explore; deceive, dupe' vs. vidviduvaty, naviduvaty, spitkaty 'to visit', doslidzuvaty, ohljadaty 'examine'. (Uk sukaty, with cognates in WS1 languages, but not So, is probably not related to G suchen [Kaestner 1939: 79, though Richhardt 1957: 104 opts for a LG source]. For naive speakers, however, Uk sukaty might well have blocked G suchen·, hence, I propose that Y may have acquired the latter in RP1, lost it in RP2 and regained it as an outright loan from G after RP2.) Landoj's claim that Y once had bazixn 'to visit' is beside the point, since the source is a WY Bible "translation" (i.e. relexification) from Frankfurt 1687 (1938: 230-231).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets Y has compounds with (b) zax that tend to follow SI norms exclusively, see e.g. Y zaxvort (-verier) η 'noun' < SI USo wecownik m 'noun' < wee f 'thing', Pol rzeczownik m 'noun' < rzecz f 'thing') vs. G Hauptwort (-"er) η < 'head' + 'word'. G Ursache(n) 'reason, cause' is not recommended for Y, which has • sibe(s) f and Agojrem m, because the SI translation equivalents are not usually formed from common roots, see e.g. (a) USo pytac = G suchen, USo spytac, pospytac = G versuchen! (b) USo wee = G Sache f (though a common root underlies G Ursache and verursachen, see e.g. USo pricina = G Ursache f, USo [na]![s]cinic 'to cause'; see also Uk prycyna f 'reason'/ sprycynjaty 'to cause'). USo wee f and pytac could have been relexified at the same time, if relexifiers had been unaware of the genetic relationship between the two G allomorphs. Competing with Y zax is Axejfec (xfejeim) m. G has a near-synonym of Sache f in Ding(e) η 'thing; object; matter', that Y lacks. The absence of (b) G ^verursachen 'to cause' in Y is understandable, since the Germanism was coined in the early 16th c, Still, it is curious that Y requires Agojrem zajn in this meaning. Possibly an earlier, MHG, form was also blocked in Y (see Koller et al. 1990). A future task of Y linguistics would be to check the extent to which Hebraisms were substituted for undesirable Germanisms long after the relexification process was over; in the present example, Y speakers may have been reluctant to use G double prefixation. Double prefixation is encountered in SI, but not with this term (for Uk examples, see Wexler 1981-1983). (c) G 1}sächlich 'neuter (gender)' is lacking in Y, since it dates only from the 18th c. Y has coined \zaxlex 'neuter; matter-of-fact, to the point' (not recommended by U. Weinreich 1968 in the first meaning; see rather nejtral, der driter Amin, lit. 'the third gender') < (b) vs. G ^sachlich 'real, relevant; factual' (also coined in the 18th c). By using different roots (some of them Hebraisms) to distinguish 'actual, factual' and 'neuter', Y follows SI (see USo wecowy vs. srjedzny, respectively). 5. German: (a) abtrünnig 'disloyal, unfaithful; apostate'/ (b) trennen 'to separate, divide'/ Bekehrung > Yiddish: (b) trenen. The partial relexification is explained by the fact that USo and Uk require different roots, see e.g. (a) USo njeswerny 'disloyal'/ (b) dzelic 'to separate, divide'. For (a) Y uses other Germanisms (umgetraj, fals 'disloyal, unfaithful', felcer[s] m 'apostate'), and Hebraisms for 'apostate from Judaism', e.g. Amesumed (mesumodim) m, mesumedes(te)(s) f, Amumer

189

190

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

(mumrim) m. (a) Y optrinik 'unfaithful, apostate' is found both in WY texts (Amsterdam 1661) as well as in 19th-20th-c sources (Stuökov 1950; Jofe and Mark 1961-1980). The optional pleonastic expression of gender in Y mesumedes(te)(s) f may reflect originally two forms, *mesumedes ~ mesumedeste, matching the dual Uk vidstup(ny)cja f (see also discussion of Y maxetejneste in chapter 4.6). The root of Y Amesumedappears also in Y Asmad f 'conversion to Christianity, baptism (of a Jew)', • smadn 'to convert to Christianity, be baptized'; the f gender of Lsmad is most likely < USo wobrocenje or Uk navertannja η (> Y f) rather than < G Bekehrung(en) f, which is unknown in Yiddish. 6. German: (a1) Acht f 'attention', achten 'to esteem'; achten auf 'pay attention to, take care o f , Achtung f 'esteem, respect; attention!', verachten 'despise, disdain', Verachtung f 'disdain, contempt', verachtenswert 'contemptible'/ (b1) Verächter (zero pi) m 'scorner', verächtlich 'contemptible, despicable; contemptuously' (a2) Acht(en) f 'ban'/ (b2) ächten 'to outlaw, proscribe'/ befreien > Yiddish: (a1) axt f 'notice; consideration', axtung (gebn ojf) 'to mind, take care of ,Xfaraxtung f 'scorn, contempt', Xfaraxtn 'to scorn, despise'; Xfaraxtik 'contemptuous', Xfaraxtlex 'contemptible' (< G [b1]). The two sets of roots are historically unrelated but the total Y blockage of the second set suggests that relexifiers associated the two. U. Weinreich 1968 accepts (a1) axtung f only in the expression axtung gebn ojf'to mind, take care o f , but not respect, regard, esteem, deference'; Schaechter also recommends Y ctxtgebung, axtlejgung f 'attention', axt lejgn 'pay attention to' (1986: 105). See also Xfaraxtung f 'scorn, contempt', Xfaraxtlex 'contemptible', as well as Xfaraxtik 'contemptuous', Xfaraxtn 'to scorn, despise' < (b1) in U. Weinreich (1968). In place of the blocked Germanisms in (a1) and (b1), Y has other Germanisms, e.g. farzorgn, ophitn 'take care ofyfajnt hobn 'despise' (see the latter in ftbefreien) and a remarkably large corpus of compounds with Hebraisms, see e.g. kukn mit Abitl, zajn Animes 'despise', bitI m A'scora', Abitldik, mit Abitl 'scornful; contemptuous', Aderexerec m, Axsives η 'esteem', zajn Abixsives 'be in great esteem' (< OHe xasivüt 'importance', with the initial cluster prompted by SI phonotactics which allows numerous initial clusters, though SI actually lacks xs-), lejgn Akoved ojf 'to esteem', Anivzedik, Amenuvldik 'contemptible'. The blockage of G achten! verachten may be due to the fact that the antonym pair 'esteem/ scorn, despise' in USo is expressed by separate

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets 191 roots, see e.g. USo {sej) wazic, zanc mec, (sej) cescic/zacpec, hidzic, tamac, respectively. G achten (auf) is also unattractive because of the disparate meanings; for 'pay attention to', see separate USo kedzbu dac. In MHG, (a1) Acht and (a2) Acht were distinguished by vowel length, see (a1) MHG ahte vs. (a2) ähte. The use of Hebraisms for (b2) in Y suggests relexifiers may have linked the two morpheme sets and rejected the second set for lack of a SI root encompassing the two sets (see [a2] USo klatwa f 'ban'/ [b2] klatwu wuprajic [lit. 'express a ban'], wotpokazac 'to ban'), e.g. (a2) Y Axejrem, Liser (isurim) 'ban', alongside farver(n) m < G/ (b2) Lasern, Amaxrem zajn, arojflejgn a Lxejrem ojf, (arajn)lejgn in Axejrem (lit. 'put up a ban, put in a ban') and farvern < G. On the dismantlement of G vowel length in Y, see chapter 4.1. 7. German: (a) Ahn(e) m, f 'ancestor'/ (b) Enkel (zero pi) m 'grandson', \Enkelin f 'granddaughter' > Yiddish: (b) ejnikl(ex) m, η 'grandson', ejnikl(ex) η 'granddaughter'. Stuökov 1950 also cites nexed m A'rabbi's grandchild' (< BibHe nexed 'grandson', but He Anexdäh 'granddaughter' is Medieval, perhaps motivated by the Y gender option). Separate roots are required in (a) USo wotc (also 'church father'), Uk predok, prabat'ko, prarodytel' ml (b) USo wnuk, Uk vnuk (also attested in Y as unik ~ onik m: Stuökov 1950), USo wnucka, Uk vnucka f. Thus, for (a), Y has recourse to • ov(es) m < He 'fathers' ~ elter-eltern (pit) 'ancestors' (lit. 'parents' parents'). Note that Y partly uses gender in order to preserve the obligatory SI gender differentiation (see also #alt). 8. German: (a) alt 'old', Alter (zero pi) η 'age; old age', ein Alter ~ der Alte m 'an/ the old man', ^altern 'become old; make old', MHG altheit f, G fLebensalter (zero pi) 'age', IfGreisenalter m 'old age'/ (b) älter 'older', älteste 'oldest'; Älteste m 'elder', ältlich 'elderly', Eltern pit 'parents'// ertränken, Glas, MHG glas(er)in, G gläsern, MHG glesin, G Jahr, Zeit(alter) > Yiddish: (a) alt 'old', altlex 'obsolescent', älteste 'elder' (< G [b]; Jofe and Mark 1961-1980)/ (b) elter 'older, elder; elderly', elter(s) m 'age', elter f 'old age', ^eitern 'to age' (tr), Ifeitern zix 'grow old' (< G [a]), eitern pit 'parents', elt(e)ste 'elder'. SI languages distinguish 'age' and 'old age' lexically, see USo läta plt-n, Uk vik m, Uta plt-n 'age' vs. USo staroba f, starcowstwo n, Uk starosci pit,

192

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

starist' f, 'old age'. Y uses gender to distinguish the two meanings, specifically reserving the f gender for elter 'old age', following SI (USo starcowstwo η would yield a f noun in Y in RP1). Stuökov (1950) also cites altkejt f 'age' (~ MHG altheit), hobn Larixes-jomim, Ajnarex-jomim zajn 'be of old age'. The latter suggest blockage of G, thus Y altkejt f 'age' may be recent. G also has dual gender in Alter, but the resulting pair is semantically distinct from Y-η 'age, old age' vs. ein Alter ~ der Alte m 'an/ the old man' (on the latter, see below). I presume that the m gender of Y elter 'age' comes from Uk vik m. In G Zeit(en) f, Zeitalter η (lit. 'time' + 'age') 'age, period of time', Yiddish has, besides elter m, also jorn pit (lit. 'years': see #Jahr) and cajt(n) as well as • tkufe(s) f. The He written by Y speakers has ziqnäh f 'old age'. This biblical term is also the norm in ModHe, taking precedence over synonymous BibHe zqümm m pi, now relegated to a few fixed expressions. I wonder whether the preference for a f (and non-pit) term in Ashkenazic and ModHe is not influenced by the S1(Y) practice of denoting 'old age' by a f noun. Y zikne (< He ziqnäh vs. zäqän 'beard') has also acquired the meaning of A.'beard' (~ He zäqen m 'old man'). Rejzen notes that the m gender of Y elter 'age' was an "innovation" (1924: 308), but provides no details. I suppose he had in mind the m model of Uk vik or Pol wiek, but if both genders in Y were inherited from the SI substrata, they are equally relexificational acquisitions. The failure of Y to substantivize the Germanism, as in G alt 'old' > der Alte m '(the) old man', could be due to the SI practice of not productively substantivizing adjs, due to the historical absence of a determiner (the existence of a determiner in colloquial So now can be attributed to G influence), and suggests that in the initial stages of relexification Y may not yet have acquired lexical expression of definiteness from G (on the ESI expression of definiteness, see Wexler 1976). Instead, Y has recourse to Azokn (skejnim) m 'old man', • skejne(s) f o l d woman'. In Uk, 'old man' can be expressed either by the substantivized adj, e.g. staryj, or by suffixation, Uk starec' (also 'beggar'), staryk m (also 'very old man'), starycja f 'old woman' (also 'beggar'); see also USo stary 'old' > stare m 'old man', staruska f 'old woman'. Since no G ag suffixation was available with alt, Y had recourse to He. Another difference between the Y and G derivational patterns is that Y derives a verb from (b) while G derives a verb from (a): G \altern ~ Ύ \eltern 'to age'. The two languages appear to be continuing the two options of MHG elten ~ alten. From the SI perspective, one would have expected no morphophonemic alternation in the stem, see e.g. USo stary 'old' > (ze)staric 'make old', so (ze)staric 'become old', starsi pi 'parents', Uk

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

193

staryj 'old' > starisyj 'older', staritysja 'become old'. The existence of Y (a) and (b) suggests acquisitions in different chronological strata. G Alter η 'age; old age' can be disambiguated by compounding, see e.g. fLebensalter 'age' (with 'life') and \Greisenalter η 'old age' (with 'old man'), etc. Havlovä assumes that the latter pair was the trigger for the lexical split in some SI languages, see e.g. R vozrast m 'age'/ starost' f 'old age' (1997: 177-179); the G compounds are unknown in Y. Another example of gender bifurcation to match the SI substratum is (a) G Glas(- "er) η, which denotes both the material and the object made from it; this is unacceptable in Y, since SI maintains a dichotomy between the material and the object made from it, using a single root, see e.g. USo sklenca 'glass (pane), drinking glass' ~ skia f 'glass bowl', Uk sklo η 'glass (material)' and skljanka f '(drinking) glass' (the root is a CS1 loan of Go origin). In addition to lexical distinctions, Y also retains the SI dichotomy by marking G Glas with two genders: Y gloz η 'glass (material)' (with the η probably coming from G Glas) ~ gloz (glezer) f, η '(drinking) glass' (with the f < USo sklenca and Uk skljanka). The use of (b) G gläsern 'glass' (adj) as Y fglezern is recent, since MHG had non-Umlauted glas(er)in (also glesin). See also Vertränken. From the vantage point of the relexification hypothesis, it is surprising to find G Eltern pit 'parents' in Y, since SI does not form the term 'parents' < 'old'. An expression of the type Uk bat'ko-maty (lit. 'father-mother') licenses Y tate-mame of similar construction (probably both are SI components, unless child-language terms). I thus suspect that Y eitern pit is a more recent, possibly post-relexification, acquisition; note that Hrushevsky proposes that Uk rodyteli and rodycy m-plt 'parents' are recent terms (1997: 265; see also chapter 4.5, paragraph 15). Y is unique in using the root 'old' for a male and female personal name, see e.g. alter m, alte f; this seems to be a translation of the Judeo-Romance male name which also appears in Y as sne'er ~ sne'ur < Lat senior m 'elder' (see Wexler 1992: 76-79, 1996a: 147-149 for JRom details). 9. German: (a) Andacht(en) f 'devotion', Verdacht(e) m 'suspicion'/ (b) Dank m 'thanks', sich bedanken, danken 'thank', Gedanke(n) m 'thought'/ (c) TJGedächtnis η 'remembrance, memory' (~ MHG bedenken! gedenken, gedenknisse), G verdächtigen 'to suspect'/ (d) %indenken (zero pl) η 'remembrance, memoiy', denken 'think', %Denker (zero pl) m 'thinker; philosopher', gedenken 'remember, mention', Gedenken η 'memoiy'/ (e) fDünkel m 'self-conceit, arrogance', dünken 'seem, appear' (~ MHG dunken, guotdunken η 'arrogance')// G abhören, absuchen, alt, Alter,

194

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

auswendig lernen, behorchen, belauschen, bestrafen, Erinnerung, ermahnen, Gewand, Hochmut, (sich) erinnern, trachten > Yiddish: (a) daxtn zix 'appear, seem' (< G gedacht, the past part, of [d] G denken), gedaxt vern 'be mentioned (at all)', nit du gedaxt 'may this never happen here' (lit. 'not here mentioned')/ (b) \badank(ev)en 'thank', dank(en) m '(expression of) thanks', danken 'thank', gedank(en) m 'thought'/ (c) \gedexenis η 'remembrance, memory'/ (d) gedenken 'remember', gedenk- 'memorial', fargedenken 'memorize', \ondenk(en) m 'memento, souvenir; memory', \denker(s) m 'thinker', Xdenken 'to reason, cogitate'. Some forms of the G allomorphs (a) and (c), and all forms of (e) are absent in Y. For (c) '(to) suspect, suspicion', Y uses • xosed (xsudim) m 'suspect', Ajwjsed zajn, hobn a Lxsad ojfaz 'to suspect', Lxsad (xsodim), Lxsas (xsosim) m 'suspicion, apprehension' (the initial cluster Lxs- is not native to He; see also U. Weinreich [1968] Xfardaxt, Yfardextik). The Hebraisms are needed since SI has a different pattern of discourse, see USo mecpodhlad na 'to suspect', podhlad m 'suspicion' < p o d 'under' + hladac 'look at, see', Uk pidozrivaty 'to suspect', pidozrinnja n, pidozra f 'suspicion' < pid 'under' + (arch) zrity 'to see'. The absence of a Y compound formed from G elements, such as *unterzejn (lit. 'under' + 'see') suggests that the Hebraisms were borrowed early-before the development of compound verbs in Y based on ESI patterns of discourse. On the other hand, some SI compounds with 'under' in the meaning of illegal or inappropriate activity are available to Y, using G elements, see e.g. Y unterhem 'overhear' (< 'under' + 'hear') ~ Uk pidsluxaty (vs. G Belauschen, behorchen, abhören ~ USo priposluchac), unterkojfn ~ Uk pidkupyty (see chapter 4, Uabsuchen and ttGewand). (b) G -dank-/ (d) -denk- in the meanings 'thought' and 'remember' are accepted by Y, but with limited distribution-presumably since no SI root can express both meanings. For example, Y has (b) gedank(en) m 'thought', (d) gedenken 'remember', gedenk- 'memorial', ondenk(en) m 'memento, souvenir; memory' and \denker(s) 'thinker' (in coexistence with Lxakren [xakronim] m 'speculative thinker'). While some Y speakers object to * denken 'think' (see M. Weinreich 1941 and U. Weinreich 1968), other speakers accept the term, e.g. in the meaning of 'thinking (process)' (vs. traxtn, klern '[abstract] thinking': see Kligsberg 1944; there is no *traxter, *klerer 'thinker'; G trachten means now 'strive for'). For 'think', Y has still other Germanisms, see e.g. glojbn, haltn, mejnen (might the latter explain the use of daxtn zix 'appear, seem', gedaxt vern 'be mentioned [at all]' in Y

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

195

in opposition to G?). Even Y gedank(en) m coexists with Y • rajen (rajojnes) m, Amaxsove(s), Adeje(sj f. Another factor contributing to partial blockage is that the two common verbs for 'think' do not offer a close match to the G inventory, see e.g. CS1 *mysliti (sq) and *dumati (each with a variety of meanings: Trubacev 1978, 5: 54-56, 1994, 21: 43-51; Slawski 1984, 5:1-2) USo (like other WS1 languages, Br and Uk) uses (b) G danken, Dank(e) m as the standard term for thank(s), see e.g. USo so dzakowac (the reflexive is modeled on G sich bedanken), dzak m, respectively, (b) Y danken 'thank' suggests that the Germanism was not yet part of the USo lexicon during RP1, say by the 12th c. However, Y also has three Hebraisms for 'thank you', which arouses the suspicion that at least some relexifiers may have been reluctant to accept G danken (see also the remark on badankfevjen 'thank' below). Nowadays, two of the Hebraisms have a slightly specialized meaning, see e.g. L(ja)s(er)-kojex 'thanks (in admiration)' (lit. 'more power to you'), Amojxll (ironic; lit. 'forgiving') and Aborxasem (lit. 'blessed be God'). For further discussion of 'thank(s)', see Schaechter 1986: 78-80. Slavists disagree over the approximate date of the borrowing of G dankby SI languages. Stieber assumed the Germanism was borrowed before the loss of nasal vowels in the proto-Uk period, i.e., by the early 10th c at the latest; Shevelov opted for a much later chronology (see Stieber 1966, Shevelov 1971a: 318-319). The problem is that there are hardly any common Cz-Slovak-So-Pol-Uk-Br borrowings from G before the 10th c. The trend towards the rise of a cultural unity in this area is of a much later date. If the borrowing from G were indeed as old as Stieber surmised, then why is there no trace of the word in OR? The earliest attestation of Pol dziqkowac and Uk djakuvaty is the 14th c and 1492, respectively (see Shevelov 1971a: 318-319; Dzendzelivs'kyj 1969: 48-49). (c) G IfGedächtnis η 'memory, remembrance' is also possible in Y as ^gedexenis n, but not without competition from • zikorn(s) m, haskore(s) f A'memorial service for the dead', \ondenk(en) < G in the meaning 'memory', • zejxer(s) m and \dermonung(en) f 'remembrance, reminder' < G \Ermahnung(en) f (which is also 'admonition'; see fflermahnen-only the verb is attested in MHG). The coexistence of Y ^gedexenis and synonymous Hebraisms and the late coinage of G IfGedächtnis η together suggest that the Hebraisms were acquired first, to avoid the G vocalic alternation of /a ~ ä/, reflected in MHG bedcehtnisse f. (d) Y \denker is clearly new, since the G term itself was first attested only in the early 18th c and the stem denk- is relatively unproductive in Y; it is

196

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

unclear if Y Axakren is earlier or later than \denker m. Sadan also noted that Y \ondenk(en) m 'memento, souvenir; memory' is a common replacement for earlier A.zikorn(s) m 'memory' (1973: 45). The relative unproductivity of denken in Y is shown by the coinage of a unique Slavicized Hebraism, Alzixrojneven (~ bleiern dem Lzikorn lit. 'leaf through the memory') 'reminisce', with m-eve-; Y m-eve- is rarely used with Hebraisms. Y has a second Slavicized form of -dank- in \badank(ev)en 'thank' with the Sl-origin infix m-eve- ~ USo so dzakowac, Uk djakuvaty. All Y Germanisms with m-eve- were acquired in the KP lands (after having been blocked in RP1), either during or after RP2, since, according to the relexification hypothesis, Germanisms also borrowed by USo and KP (and its two successor languages) underwent blockage (see chapter 3 and above). Y also uses the He pi of lzikorn m, zixrojnes pit 'memories; Amemoirs' (the latter meaning is also in ModHe < Y); I suspect that the formation of two semantically distinct plurals for this Hebraism in Y (see • zikorns 'memoirs' above) was intended to match the opposition of Uk pam'jat' f, spohad, spomin m 'memory' vs. spohady pit 'memoir(s)', though G fErinnerung f 'memory' vs. fErinnerungen pit 'memoirs' may have played a supporting role too (the latter is post-MHG, but see MHG erinnern 'remind', sich erinnern 'remember'). It is also conceivable that He zikärön m 'memory' and zixrönöt pit 'memoirs' were acquired at separate stages. See also discussion of G %4lter 'age; old age' > Y \elter m 'age' vs. \elter f 'old age' discussed in #alt. Y fargedenken 'memorize' is unknown in G which has memorieren or auswendig lernen (the latter is also possible as Y ojslernen ojf ojsvejnikr, see ttGewand). The Y compound finds a model in Uk verbs with the prefix za-t see e.g. zaucuvaty napam'jat', zapam'jatovuvaty (on the extension of SI zafunctions to the G prefix ver- ~ Y far-, see Wexler 1964, 1972). The relative ages of Y fargedenken and/or Uk zapam'jatovuvaty are unknown to me; it is significant that Y also has Lajnxazem zix < He 'return' which suggests partial blockage at some point. For (d) denken and (e) dünken, USo can use the same root, sej myslic, so zdac, and myslic, respectively. For (e) G tDünkel 'arrogance', Y has only Hebraisms since SI requires other roots, see e.g. A.gajve f, AHgadles η ~ USo nadutosc, (na)zdatosc, hordosc f. G ΗDünkel m is a MHG innovation of the 16th c (Drosdowski 1989). If the Y Hebraisms are replacements for a recently blocked Germanism, then RP2 might have continued beyond the 1500s; more likely, Y blocked MHG guotdunken η 'arrogance'. On the other hand, Y may have taken the Hebraisms due to the blockage of G

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

197

Hochmut m 'arrogance' in one of the RPs (Y is unreceptive to G \Mut and most of its compounds, preferring Hebraisms and occasionally Slavicisms). The restricted use of (d) G -denk- 'think' in Y may be one of the reasons why Y could accept G gedenken in the meaning 'remember'. If G -denkwas only marginally used in Y in the meaning of 'think', then it could have been productively used to relexify the SI root for 'remember'. In SI languages, 'remember' and 'think' are expressed by different roots, see USo so dopomnic (with the reflexive form patterned on G sich erinnern—οϊ which there is no trace in Y), Ukpam'jataty 'remember' vs. USo myslic, Uk dumaty, myslyty 'think'. See also Herman (1975) under R min-, mja-, mn- and mysl-. 10. German: (a) Angesicht(e ~ -er) η (poetic) 'face, countenance', \insicht(en) 'view; opinion', ^Aufsicht f 'inspection, supervision', ^fbeabsichtigen 'intend', besichtigen 'to visit; examine, inspect', ^Besichtigung(en) f 'inspection', durchsichtig 'transparent', undurchsichtig 'opaque', Gesichter) η 'face; eyesight, vision; countenance', Hinsicht(en) 'regard, respect', Sicht 'sight, visibility', Vorsicht f 'care, caution, precaution', vorsichtig 'cautious, careful'/ (b) sehen 'to see', ansehen 'look at, regard', TJAnsehen η 'sight; credit, reputation, appearance', aufsehen 'look up (from to)', Ibesehen 'look at, inspect', versehen 'attend to, manage; make a mistake' (in the latter meaning also with sich), zusehen 'to watch, look on'// absuchen, Acht, Andacht, Bekannte, trübe > Yiddish: (a) \ojfzixt f '(legal) custody' (but not in the German meaning of ^'supervision'), gezixt(er) η 'countenance'/ (b) zen 'to see', onzen zix 'be visible, evident, apparent; have an effect on', Tfonzen m 'esteem, importance^\farzen 'to neglect, overlook'; cuzen 'to witness; look on, after', ojfze m 'supervision' (< G [a]), durxze(evd)ik 'transparent' (< G [a]). The lexicon of USo licenses only partial relexification in Y. For example, USo uses forms of hlad- 'look at' or widz- 'see', corresponding to G sehen, Sicht, etc., but different roots altogether for 'face', e.g. woblico, mjezwoco η (lit. 'between' + 'eyes'). See also USo {na)pohlad = G Ansicht, USo dohlad = G \iufsieht, USo rozhlad, wuhlad, prehlad, widzenje = G Sicht; USo widzec, (wu)hladac = G sehen and USo so prehladac = G versehen 'make a mistake' and altogether different roots in USo wuhotowac, zastarac - G versehen 'attend to, manage'. Hence, Y rejects G Angesicht and uses Gesicht only in the meaning of countenance (for Schaechter 1986: 85, Y gezixt η in any meaning is a "Germanism"); for 'face' Y uses Aponem η (with an innovative penemer pi < He pänim plt-f 'face'), Lcure(s) f (< He

198

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'form'), Aparcef (parcuflm) m 'face (contemptuous), mug', a corn-pound Aparcef-ponem (-penemer) m, n, and for 'face, grimace', Ahavaje(s) f, and a Slavicism pisk(es) '«grimace; snout, animal's mouth, (gun) muzzle' (< USo pysk 'muzzle, snout', Uk pysok m 'mouth' [pej], 'animal's mouth, muzzle'; Manaster Ramer and Wolf 1997: 222 regard Yponem [penemer] as a feature of reconstructed proto-Y, based on geogra-phical considerations). The use of η gender with Aponem f in He) rather than the expected f gender for the SI η suggests post-relexification G gender influence, unless the Hebraism is a later relexification of G Gesicht n assuming the latter was originally licensed for Y in the meaning 'face'. Another possible reason for the blockage of G Gesicht η in the meaning 'face' may be the different ambiguity of Uk tvar f 'creature, being; face', Br tvar m 'face; appearance, characteristic features' or lice η 'face; cheek; front side of material' (Trubaöev 1988, 15: 75-78). Like USo, Uk has two terms for 'face' that require separate naming in Y (see discussion of R likand tvor- in Herman 1975). For (a) G durchsichtig 'transparent' and fundurchsichtig 'opaque, turbid', Y has durxze(evd)ik (< [a]-possibly older than the G equivalent) and mentne ~ kalemutne (regarding water) < Pol mqtny and Uk kalamutnyj 'turbid' (synonymous G trübe 'turbid, muddy' is also missing in Y). G Hinsicht f 'regard, respect' is not recommended for Y, which has recourse to in dem Apr at, in ale Aprotim (lit. 'in this detail, in all regards': Kalmanovic 1938: 213). For G Vorsicht f 'caution, care', vorsichtig 'cautious, careful' (U. Weinreich 1968 Xforzixt, ybrzixtik), see e.g. Y • dajge(s), Ahazgoxe(s) f, Azhires η 'caution', • mazer zajn, Amasre zajn 'to caution', • klapotfn) m, and other Germanisms. For G besichtigen 'visit; examine, inspect', \Besichtigung(en) f 'inspection', Y requires a different Germanism, e.g. bazuxn 'search (a person)' (see Uabsuchen), as well as other Germanisms or Hebraisms (see above). For G |beabsichtigen 'intend', Y also uses hobn Abedeje, Amexavn zajn, hobn Abekavone cu, or Germanisms, such as ojsn zajn, klajbn zix. This is because USo expresses this concept by wobmyslic (< myslic 'think'), in opposition to G derivational strategies. A question that calls for study is whether the intolerance of Y for If beabsichtigen (an 18th-c innovation) is due also to the double prefix of the latter. On this topic, see also #absuchen, #Andacht. Y examples of double prefixation seem to be recent, see e.g. Y \onerkenung 'appreciation, recognition, acknowledgement' < G ^Anerkennung f, but note older Y derkenen 'recognize' (the latter is discussed in #Bekannte). A block on

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

199

double prefixation would be another reason for the blockage of doubleprefixed G Angesicht η 'face'. (b) Y has zen 'to see' and some compound forms, but farzen has only the meaning of 'to neglect, overlook'. Y lacks counterparts for some G compounds, e.g. G besehen 'look at, inspect', for which Y has alternative G roots or batkenen A'inspect (especially slaughtered animals for ritual impurities)' ~ A bojdek zajn 'examine, scrutinize, inspect', • xojkervedojres zajn 'examine' (lit. 'investigating' + 'seeking' + to be'), Axkire(s)-drise(s) 'close examination' (lit. 'inspection' + 'seeking'), kbdike(s) f 'inspection'. Y Axkire(s)-drise(s) has two SI features: (i) The cluster mxk- follows the SI penchant for initial clusters (though this particular cluster is unattested in other SI languages; the feature is unknown in BibHe); see also discussion of Axsives in #Acht. (ii) The lack of conjunction is reminiscent of Uk pairs of the type surmy-truby pit 'musical instruments' (both lit. 'trumpet'), otec'-maty, bat'ko-maty pit 'parents' (lit. 'father' + 'mother'). See also chapter 3.1 and 4.5.4, paragraph 7.1 wonder whether the absence of the conjunction, found in Y only with He nominal components and in adj compounds of any component origin (see also chapter 3.1) is an attempt to capture the Uk opposition of i and ta 'and', where i denotes union (and occasionally opposition) while ta (~ zero) denotes adjoining. Thus, Y un 'and' (< G und) would be unmarked while a zero conjunction would parallel Uk ta ~ zero. Br lacks a parallel to Uk i ~ ta; hence, I assume the feature is SKP (see also chapter 4.6). 11. German: (a) angreifen 'seize, attack', begreifen 'to feel, handle, touch; comprise; conceive', greifen 'seize, grasp, grip, snatch'/ (b) Angriff(e) 'attack', Begriff(e) 'idea, notion, conception', Griff(e) m 'grip, grasp; handle'// Abfahrt, Abnahme, beheben, (sich) benehmen > Yiddish: (a) ongrajffn) m 'assault', ongrajfh 'to assault'/ (b) (X>)bagrif(n) m 'concept, notion, idea'. The failure to accept all forms of (b) -griff (including the unpreflxed form) stems from the use of a single invariable root in USo for (a) and (b), see (a) USo primnyc 'seize, grasp'/ (b) primk m 'grasp, grip'. Hence, Y (\!)bagrif may be new. U. Weinreich (1968) lists Xbagrajfn 'comprehend'. In place of the blocked G -gm/-forms, Y uses other Germanisms, e.g. banemen 'to grasp, manage' (vs. G benehmen 'take away', sich benehmen 'behave'-see discussion in #Abnahme), bahejbn (vs. G beheben 'remove, clear away'), Atojfes zajn 'to grasp, apprehend, take in' (on the use of this root to denote 'jail', see chapter 4.1, paragraph 7), Amaseg zajn 'compre-

200

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

hend', and a Slavicism (probably Uk), monxapn (zix in); these terms also provide derived nouns, see e.g. Y banem(en), monxap(en) 'grasp', mxap m 'grip'. Under Mbfahrt and Mbnahme, I noted that Y generalizes the verbal allomorph; here, the picture is mixed. The blockage stems from the use of multiple verbs in SI. The Y acceptance of (f?)bagrif(< G Begriff m) may have been motivated by the desire to caique Pol pojqcie, Uk ponjattja η (see Richhardt 1957: 90). See also discussion of R xisc-, xit-, xvat- in Herman (1975). 12. German: (a) %anrüch(t)ig ~ fberüchtigt 'ill-famed, disreputable', Gerücht(e) η 'rumor, report'/ (b) %ruch(t)bar (werden) '(be) notorious, known', %ruchlos 'infamous, profligate'/ (c) anrufen 'call up', \Beruf(e) 'job, trade, profession' (~ MHG beruof m 'reputation', geruofede, geruofte, gerüefte 'rumor'), G berufen 'qualified, competent; authorized', Ruffe) m 'call, shout, cry', rufen 'to call, shout'// Lärm, Name > Yiddish: (c) ruf(n) m 'cry; call', rufn 'to call, page', rufh zix 'be called, answer to the name of (vs. G *sich rufen), onrufn 'to name' (vs. G anrufen 'call up'). At present, USo has a common root for parts of (a) and (c), see USo (a) (zle) wuwolany 'ill-famed', powedanje n, blady (pit) 'rumor'/ (c) wolanje η 'profession', namobva f 'call', wolac 'to call' vs. (b) na swetio princ 'be known'. The acceptance by Y of (c) rufh alone of the entire G set suggests that originally USo used separate roots for all three allomorphs, as Uk still does: see (a) Uk hanebnyj 'ill-famed', cutka f, poholos m 'rumor'/ (b) horezvisnyj 'notorious', hanebnyj 'infamous', rozbescenyj 'profligate'/ (c) zanjattja, remeslo η 'trade, job\pidxozyj, prydatnyj 'qualified', spromoznyj 'competent', oklyk ~ poklyk ~ zaklyk, kryk 'call, cry', vyhuk m 'shout', krycaty 'to shout', (o)klykaty, hukaty, (na)zyvaty, etc. 'to call'. Y could not have acquired (a) G \anrüch(t)ig, \ruch(t)bar or Gerücht by relexification since these are HG loans < LG from the 15th-16th c (Kluge 1899). However, prior to the acquisition of the L Germanisms, HG dials had cognates, see e.g. MHG geruofede, geruofte, gerüefte 'rumor'. Hence, the absence of Y surface congeners can only be motivated by the requirements of the SI substratum in Y, which disallowed the use of a common root for 'rumor' and 'call'. In response, Y has Aumxosev 'disreputable, notorious' (see discussion of the latter under ttbenennen; see also Y Axosev 'distinguished, respected; important'), Asmuefs) f 'rumor' (~ klang[n] m < G) 'rumor', farnant 'disreputable, notorious' < G and Lpricesdik (~ Germanisms) 'profligate', Lmeloxe(s) f (~ Germanisms) 'trade', Aroe

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

201

(zajn far) 'qualify (for), be competent', A mater zajn 'authorize', A resus(n) m 'authorization, permission', A(kojle-)kojles pit 'loud cries' and Slavicisms-mpoct(n) f'rumor' (discussed in chapter 3), mnevoledik 'infamous' (~ Uk nevil'nyj, nevol'nyj 'servile; precluded'). The peculiarity of Y kojles (pit) A'noise' < He qölöt pi m 'voices' is that it does not mean 'voices' in Y; instead, the pi of kol in Y is -er with Umlaut, e.g. keler η (only the suffix is spelled phonetically). The meaning of Y Akojles η may have been prompted by the similarity with USo hlos (hlosy) 'voice', or, more likely, with Uk holos 'voice; sound' (historically with the suffix -5), (unrelated) halas m 'noise' and/or SI *gol— *gal- 'make noise', as in R golka f 'tumult', USo hoik m 'noise'. The link between 'voice' and 'noise' is cemented by two facts: (i) SI has a single root for both, see e.g. Uk holos m 'voice', holosyty 'speak loudly; lament', holosno 'loudly', USo hlos m 'voice', ζ hlosom 'loudly'; SC glas m 'voice; sound; noise; vote' (see Trubaöev 1979, 6: 219-220; Tugendhold 1848: 4, 86, 98 derived R golos 'voice' < He qöl m). (ii) TalmHe qöle-qölöt pit can mean 'a lot of noise' (lit. 'voices of the voices') and Y Akojles η may be an abbreviated form of the latter. This is a rare example where a He noun with a single pi has two semantically distinct pi forms in Y, probably triggered by the desire to retain the opposition of Uk holos and halas m (a second example is Y xejrem m which forms the plurals xejrems and x[a]romim in the meaning of '[Jewish] ban, excommunication' vs. xromes in the frozen phrase kloles im xromes pit 'vehement curses'). The semantics of the SI root denoting 'voice; noise' might have blocked relexification to G Lärm m, which denotes only 'noise'. From the palatalized lateral, I assume Y ml'arm is a cross of the G meaning with the form of Uk aljarm m 'alarm, disturbance, panic', i.e. from RP2. On semantic bifurcation, see chapter 4.5.1. See also discussion of G rufen 'to call' in #benennen and R imenimja, and zv- in Herman (1975). 13. German: (a) Antwort (en) f 'answer', antworten 'to answer', Wort(e ~ Wörterj η 'word', ^fverantwortlich 'responsible', ^Verantwortlichkeit ~ JVerantwortung f 'responsibility'/ (b) 1fWörterbuch(-"er) η 'dictionary', wörtlich 'literalΊ! ant-, ent-, entgegen, erwidern > Yiddish: (a) entfer(s) m, entfern, vort (verter) n/ (b) verterbux (verterbixer) m. (a) Y entfer and entfern deviate from the contemporary German paradigm in that these compounds are formally distinct from the basic Y vort, etc., but do follow more closely MHG antwürte ~ antwurt n, f 'answer' vs. wort η

202

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

'word'. It is conceivable that Y entfer and entfern could move apart formally from vort ~ vert- (if they were not inherited as such from G) since SI has different roots for 'answer' and 'word, dictionary, responsible', see e.g. Uk vidpovid' f 'answer', vidpovidaty 'to answer', vidpovidal'nyj (< povidaty 'tell, recite'), rozumnyj ~ hidnyj dovir'ja 'responsible' (lit. 'worthy of trust'), vidpovidal'nist' f, obov'jazok m, zobov'jazannja η 'responsibility' vs. slovo η 'word', slovnyk m 'dictionary'. The prefix ant- is rare in G and was originally attached to nouns and adjectives, while the variant ent'opposite, against' was attached to verbs. Y has only ant- except in entfern 'to answer'. The merger of the two allomorphs in Y may be due to SI, where prefix allomorphs are selected according to the initial segment of the following root, and not by stress considerations and rarely parts of speech. Partial blockage of G Antwort, antworten at some point is also suggested by the Y use of • cuve(s) f'answer'. The Y rejection of G Hwörtlich 'literal' is not because of Umlaut-which has no precedent in SI; the G term is new, replacing MHG wortec, wortlich. The blockage is because 'literal' can be expressed in SI by other roots, see e.g. Uk bukvenyj, bukval'nyj (< 'letter of the alphabet'), but also doslivnyj (< 'word'-as in G, which > USo doslowny 'literal'), tocnyj (also 'exact'). Hence, Y uses Hebraisms and Slavicisms, as in • os-beosik (lit. 'letter by letter') ~ Apsat-Aposet (lit. 'interpretation' + 'simple') ~ mprost-Aposet (< SI + He 'simple') 'literal' (on compounds consisting of synonyms of diverse component origins, see chapter 3.1). U. Weinreich (1968) blocks Y Yfarantvortlex 'responsible' and Xfarantvortlexkejt(n) ~ ^f*farantvortung f 'responsibility; liability' in favor of Aaxrajes(n) n, possibly because of reluctance to accept double prefixation in G words; the compounds are of post-MHG origin. (The current USo loan translation of G verantwortlich, Verantwortlichkeit f in the form of zamolwity, zamolwitosc f < 'answer' is probably recent.) A partial synonym, G erwidern 'to answer' (also 'to return, requite') is not used in Y (though there is Y dervider 'distasteful, repugnant' and vider 'again'-see ##entgegen), probably since USo has only the single term wotmolwic 'answer'. 14. German: (a) Arm(e) m 'arm'/ (b) Ärmel (zero pi) 'sleeve' (< MHG ermel[inc], erblinc m)// G angreifen, befreien, (,be)handeln, (Behandlung, behend(e), Bein, Berg, bewegen, Buchhändler, MHG buntschuoch, G Einkauf, Fuss, Gewand, Hand, Handel, MHG hand(e)ler, G handeln, Handfläche, (Hand)griff, Handhabe, Händlerin), handlich, Handschuh, MHG hant, hendeler, G verhandeln, (Verhandlung, Weg >

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

203

Yiddish: (a) orem(s) m 'arm'/ (b) arbl (zero pi) m. G Arm m is cognate with USo ramjo, Uk ram'ja 'shoulder; arm', rameno η 'shoulder; arm of a cross', but this fact did not block relexification due to formal and semantic differences. While the complete acquisition of the Germanisms 'hand'/ 'arm' (but not 'foot'/ 'leg') can be laid at the doorstep of post-RP2 G influence, there is also the possibility that Y relexifiers were attracted to the double nomenclature in order to avoid taboo terms (on euphemisms for parts of the body in a variety of Indo-European languages, see Bonfante 1939). The absence of the allomorphic variant with ä Id in Y (though Stuökov 1950 cites ^f*armlerml 'sleeve') follows the SI lack of alternation, see e.g. (a) USo, Uk ruka f 'hand, arm'/ (b) USo rukaw m ~ rukawa ~ colloquial ruka f, Uk rukav m 'sleeve', (b) Y arbl reflects the lowering of e before r that is typical of Y Germanisms (see e.g. Y barg - #Berg m 'mountain'). Many G dials distinguish between (i) Arm(e) m 'arm' and (ii) Hand(- "e) f 'hand' and between (iii) Fuss(-"e) m 'foot' and (iv) Bein(e) η 'leg'. These distinctions are only partly found in Y: for 'arm' see (i) Y orem(s) m, (ii) hant (hent) f; the latter also means 'hand', but (iii) Y fus (fis) m, f is exclusively 'foot, leg', (iv) G Bein(e) η 'leg; bone' > Y bejn(er) m 'bone' (for the geography of G Arm, Hand, Bein and Fuss, see W. Ebert, et al. 1936: 232; Frings 1956, map #57; König 1996, 1, map #22, p.45). OHG, but apparently not MHG hant 'hand; arm' also collapsed the two meanings. The facts of Y suggest that during the first relexification phase USo ruka 'hand, arm' and noha 'foot, leg' (vs. kose f 'bone') were initially relexified to G Arm and Fuss, thus maintaining the SI practice of not distinguishing between 'hand/arm' and 'leg/foot' (still the case in So today), (iv) G Bein η has the meaning bone (~ Y) often in areas where SI dialects were formerly spoken (see facts in Stone 1989: 144; Mitzka and Schmitt 1958, 8), while G dials in areas where Polab was once spoken also tend to have a single term, e.g. (iii) Fuss m 'foot; leg'. Phonology provides a clue to the newness of G Hand [hant] f in Υ. EY (but not PolY) preserves final voiced consonants-unlike stG and most of the G dials, but like older forms of SI, such as KP (SBr and NUk) and contemporary USo. Hence, I expect *hand (*hend) in Y, yet the word is universally \hant (7?e«/)-which suggests that it was received from G after RP2, from a dial with the newer final consonant devoicing. There are a few words in ES1Y of G origin with unexpectedly devoiced final consonants, see e.g. Y avek 'away' vs. veg(n) 'way' ~ G weg 'away', Weg [-k] m 'way', which suggests separate acts of acquisition. See also under ftbewegen and discussion of Y frajnt m 'relative' and vant f 'wall' in ^befreien, #Gewand;

204

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

for theories on Y final voiced consonants, see U. Weinreich 1963; King 1980; Wexler 1991b: 74-77. Y hant f is especially unusual since in G dial (e.g. Bav) with final consonant devoicing, -d in the cluster -nd does preserve final voicing (see König 1997, 3, #19; on this and other morphemes with final devoicing, see Saddock 1973). The redistribution of G Arm m and Hand f in Y is also suggested by the fact that idiomatic expressions involving these two words differ in G and Y, see e.g. Y nemen af di hent vs. G auf den Arm nehmen = R brat' na ruki 'take hold of (Lötzsch 1992: 101). Not all G derivatives of Hand f are found in Y, nor all the meanings of the accepted Germanisms. Consider e.g. (a) G Handel (Händel) m 'trade, commerce', handeln 'to deal; trade', Handfläche(n) f 'palm of the hand', handlich 'handy', Handlung(en) f 'action, deed; business, trade; shop', fbehandeln 'to treat, manage, deal with', ^Behandlung(en) f'treatment, use, handling', verhandeln 'negotiate', Verhandlung(en) f 'negotiation'/ (b) behend(e) 'handy, agile, nimble', \Händler (zero pi) m, Händlerinnen) f 'dealer, trader', Buchhändler (zero pi) m 'bookseller' > Y (a) hantik 'handy', handl m 'trade' (in 17th-c Y, 'pursuit, employment': M. Weinreich 1926: 165), handlen 'to trade'; T'act, proceed', fhandlung(en) f 'deed, action', bahandeln 'to treat, handle, manage', bahandlung(en) f ~ bahandl(en) m 'treatment', farhandlen 'negotiate', farhandlung(en) f 'negotiation'/ (b) |hendler(s) 'merchant, dealer', \buxhendler(s) ~ Lmojxer-sforim (mojxre-sforim) 'bookseller' (lit. 'seller of books', a partial loan translation of G %Buchhändler and Uk torhovec' knyhamy m). The relative newness of Y \hendler is shown by the fact that MHG hand(e)ler optionally lacked the Umlaut of /a/ > Γύΐ (see also MHG hendeler m). For G behend(e) 'agile', see Y flink and rirevdik (< G) and bistre (< Uk bystryj). Y restricts the meanings of G handeln 'to deal, trade' > Y handlen 'to trade' and rejects G Handlung f 'action, deed; business, trade; shop'; in the meaning of '(to) act; deed', see other Germanisms {tuung[en] f, akt[n] m 'deed',y?/?7 zix 'to act') and • majse (majsim) m 'deed, act', • nojeg zajn zix 'to act', Amekex-umemker (lit. 'buying and selling'), Asaxer-maxer m 'dark dealing' (the latter is a G Hebraism probably from Rotw, reexported to Y, since äjaxer reflects the G change of initial ungrammatical s- > s-: see Wexler 1987a: 118, 181). The duality of Hebraisms and Germanisms in Y may be in response to the lexical variety of USo, see (a) USo wikowanje ~ wobchodnistwo η 'trade', wikowac 'to trade', wobchod 'store', skutk m 'act'/ (b) wikowar m 'trader' (see discussion of Y Asojxer m 'merchant' in #Einkauf).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

205

Y often uses G Hand f in compounds and derivatives in accordance with SI norms, e.g. for G Handfläche (η) 'palm of the hand', Y retains the Slavicism dlon 'e(s) (~ USo dlon, Uk dolonja f), given the absence of the root 'hand' to express 'palm' in the SI languages. See also G (Hand)griff(e) m 'handle; grip, grasp' ~ Y hentl(ex) η 'handle' only, where Y follows dim Uk, Br rucka, Uk rukojatka < ruka f 'hand' (USo now lacks a cognate; on G Griff, see #angreifen). On G Handschuh(e) m 'glove', see discussion in MHG ttbuntschuoch. See also discussion of R ruk- in Herman (1975). The disuse in ModHe of BibHe zröa' in the meaning of 'human arm' (it survives mainly as 'arm of an animal; arm of security') or of BibHe 'ammäh 'forearm; measure' except in the latter meaning may be due to the Y requirement for one term-see ModHe jad f 'hand, arm'. In a single case, Y has acquired a form of G Hand via SI, see Y antabe(s) 'shaft (of an axe, etc.)' < Uk antaba < Pol < G Handhabe(n) f 'handle'. 15. German: (a) arm 'poor', Armut f, MHG armheit, armecheit f 'poverty', G verarmen 'become impoverished' (< MHG [ver]armen\ erbarmen 'move to pity' (< MHG erabarmen), G Erbarmen η ~ Erbarmung f 'compassion, mercy, pity'/ (b) G ärmlich 'poor, miserable', Ärmlichkeit f 'poverty', ^erbärmlich 'miserable, wretched, pitiable, pitiful', ^Erbärmlichkeit f 'wretchedness'// absuchen > Yiddish: (a) orem 'poor', oremkejt f 'poverty', oreman (oreme-lajt) m 'poor man', orem-menc (~ oremenc) (-η) η 'poor woman', faroremen 'impoverish'/ (c) ^derbaremen zix ojf 'take pity on', \derbaremkejt f 'mercy', \derbaremdik 'merciful' (< G [a]). (a) Y faroremen 'impoverish' is a transitive verb in contrast to the intransitive G verarmen 'become impoverished', matching Uk vysnazenyj 'impoverished', vysnazuvaty 'impoverish'. (b) is lacking in Y since USo uses a single term with no morphophonemic alternation for (a-b), see e.g. (a) chudy, chuduski 'poor', so smilic nad, 'move to pity', smilnosc f 'compassion'/ (b) chuduski, chudy, wbohi, jara hubjeny 'poor, miserable'. In Y, the abstract noun 'poverty' is formed from (a), see Y oremkejt, following MHG armheit, armecheit f. rather than G Ärmlichkeit (~ Armut). For the concept of 'poor, poverty', Y also has Abedales 'poor' ~ k dales 'poverty' ~ • dalfh (dalfonim), Lkapcn (kapconim) m 'pauper' (first attested in Y in the early 17th c: see J. Mark 1958: 136, as well as in the G writings of the Jewish convert to Christianity, A. Margaritha 1530: see J. Mieses 1916), and Slavicisms, e.g. mnebex ~ mbidne 'poor, unfortunate'. For 'impoverished, very poor person', see

206

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Aevjen (evjojnim) and AJojred (fordim) m (< He 'person who descends'); for 'deep poverty', see also Aevjojnes f, n. The variety of Hebraisms matches the mixed terminology of Uk bidnist', ubohist', zlydennist' f 'poverty', ubozestvo ~ ubozstvo η 'indigence' (see also chapter 3). (c) Y \derbaremen zix ojf 'take pity on', etc., are clearly postrelexificational loans, given /a/ in the root and the double prefixation (see also #absuchen). 16. German: (a) aufhängen 'hang up', hängen 'hang'/ (b) %Hang(-"e) m 'slope; inclination'/ (c) henken 'hang, string up', Henker (zero pi) m 'executioner, hangman' (~ early ModG \henger, \hänger)U Galgen, Kleiderhaken > Yiddish: (a) hengen, (ba)henger(s) m 'hanger (for clothes)'/ (c) henken, Ihenker(s) m. SI expresses (b) with a different root than (a)-(c), see (a) USopowes-nyc, wisac, Uk vysity, visaty 'hang (up)' and (c) USo wobwesnyc, Uk povisyty 'string up', USo, Uk kat m 'executioner' (first attested in 14th-c Cz: see Goi^b 1967: 774-775) vs. (b) USo sklonina f (but also zwis, nawis, under G influence?), Uk naxyl, sxyl, spadm 'inclination, slope'. Hence Y blocks (b) G %Hang, preferring instead Lsipue (sipuim) m, Lmesupedik 'sloped, sloping, inclined'. Moreover, G ^Hang is attested only since the 15th c-too late to have been accepted in RP1; thus Y must have blocked an earlier MHG ruoch m, ruoche, triute f 'inclination'. Y expands the distribution of (a) to form (ba)henger(s) m 'hanger (for clothes)' vs. G Kleiderhaken (lit. 'clothes hook'), which may be based on USo powesak m or Uk visalka f < 'hang', and which coexists with a Slavicism, mzavise(s) (< Uk zavisa; M. Mark 1950 cites mzav'esefsj, uzav 'asefsj f for LiY). The Y use of (c) Ltaljen (taljonim) and the possibly unrelexified SI mkatfn) m leads me to suspect Y \henker may be a later loan from G. This is indeed confirmed by the G data, e.g. Henker is an UG dialectalism (also attested in MHG) that gained circulation in HG in the 16th c (see early ModG ^henger, ^fhanger). See also Y Atlie(s) f 'death by hanging; gallows' vs. G Galgen (zero pi) m, with a different root. The latter, unknown in Y, might have been licensed by a separate root in SI for 'gallows', see e.g. USo sibjenca, Uk sybenycja f. Then again, the unattractiveness of G Galgen m for Y might have been due to the fact that the term denoted specifically the 'cross of Christ' (see Kluge 1899). See also discussion of R klan-, klon- and vis- in Herman (1975).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

207

17. German: (a) Aufsatz(-"e) 'composition, essay', Aussatz 'leprosy', \Grundsatz(-"e) 'principle', Satz(-"e) m 'set; sentence; type-set, composition', MHG säzen 'to set'/ (b) G setzen 'to set, place; compose (type)', Setzen (zero pi) m 'composition', sich setzen 'sit down', besetzen 'occupy', IfBesetzer (zero pi) m 'settler', ^Besetzung(en) f 'occupation', Gesäss(e) η 'seat'; (pi) 'buttocks', aussätzig 'leprous', ^gegensätzlich 'contrary, opposite', Ifvorsätzlich 'intentional, deliberate, willful'/ (c) sitzen 'sit', \Besitz(e) 'possession, property' (~ MHG besaz [< a] ~ besez m [< b]), G besitzen 'possess', Sitzung(en) f 'session, meeeting'/ (d) Sessel (zero pi) m 'easychair'/ (e) siedeln 'settle, colonize', Einsiedler (zero pi) 'hermit', \Siedler (zero pi) m 'settler', ^Siedlung(en) f 'settlement', Umsiedler (zero pi) m 'resettler, evacuee'/ (f) Sattel (Sättel) m 'saddle', satteln 'to saddle'// Andacht, Artikel, Beitrag, MHG apfel, G Hühnerstall, Hühnerstange, Lage, liegen, (sich) legen, MHG sidel(e), traht > Yiddish: (a) zac(n) m, η 'sentence; composition (printing)'/ (b) zecn 'to set', zecn zix 'sit down', gezes(n) η 'seat; buttocks', ^bazecer(s) m 'settler, colonist', bazecn 'to seat; occupy, settle; take possession of / (c) zicn 'sit, be seated', ^zicung(en) f 'session, meeting' (a 19th-c innovation, according to Schaechter 1986: 246)/ (f) zotl(en) m, η 'saddle', onzotlen 'to saddle'. The distribution of the Germanisms in Y matches a single root in (a) USo sadzba f, sadzic/ (1») so sydnec, so sydnyct (c) sedzecl (f) sedlo n, sedzac. The absence of MHG säzen 'to set' in Y, alongside Y zecn (< MHG setzen), is surprising, given the morphophonemic alternation in USo. G can only form the inchoative of sitzen 'sit' from the causative setzen 'to seat', thus sich setzen (and not *sich sitzen) 'be seated, sit down'. Y can acquire this opposition since the SI languages use a common root for 'sit' and 'be seated' vs. a different root for 'to seat', see USo sedzec 'sit'/ stajic 'to seat'/ so sydnyc, so sydac 'be seated', Uk sydity 'sit'/ klasty 'to seat'/ sidaty 'be seated'. See also the parallel case of G liegen 'lie (down)'/ legen 'to lay'/ sich legen 'lie down' > Y lign! lejgn! lejgn zix ~ USo lezec! klasc! so lehnyc, so lehac, Uk lezaty! klastyl Ijahaty (see #Lage). Note that Uk differs from G (Y and USo) in not requiring a reflexive pronoun. The use of the reflexive pronoun in the third form in Y and USo is possibly due to G influence. Also, Y lejgn does not share the amibiguity of Uk klasty. While Y has acquired (a) G Satz 'set; sentence', etc., it lacks many compound forms, e.g. G Aufsatz(- "e) 'composition, article', for which Y uses Amajmer (majmorim) (see also G \Beitrag[-"e] under #MHG traht, and ##Artikel) and G \Grundsatz(- "e) 'principle', for which Y has Jkiker (ikrim) m; the use of two innovative Hebraisms in Y is surprising since USo

208

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

and Uk both use a common root for the two concepts, see e.g. USo sadzba and zasada f, respectively. Y may have acquired (b) gezes 'buttocks' (in the single meaning) during RP1. This is because USo splits the meanings of ModG Gesäss-see USo zadk m 'buttocks' (< 'rear') and kreslo η 'seat', while Uk uses the root 'sit' in the dual meanings of G Gesäss, see e.g. Uk sidnyci pit 'buttocks', sydinnja η 'seat'; for 'buttocks', see Y Ltoxes m. The MHG meaning of ModG Gesäss(e) n-'residence'-is also found in an OWY text from 1544 (see Schaechter 1986: 246), but this meaning was blocked in Y; either the word itself or this particular meaning was blocked entirely in one of the relexification phases. Note that Y appears to have accepted G Satz in the meaning of 'composition' rather than synonymous Setzen probably because USo has a common allomorph, sadz-, corresponding to (a) G Satz and (b) setzen (though Y has zec[n] m for 'blow, hit, stroke'). Y bazecn 'settle' < G besetzen, \bazecer(s) m 'settler' < G ^Besetzer. Y, however, does not use G ^Besetzung; for the latter, see Y okupacje(s) f < SI < Rom. Compounds with -sätz- are also not acceptable to Y, which prefers Hebraisms (or other Germanisms), see e.g. G ^vorsätzlich 'deliberate, intentional' > Y Abekivndik (< He 'in direction'), Amejusevdik, G Aussatz m 'leprosy', aussätzig 'leprous' > Y Acoras f 'leprosy', G gegensätzlich 'opposite, contrary, adverse' > Y Alehejpex, Ahejpex (hipuxim) m 'contrary, opposite'. (c) U. Weinreich (1968) cites %°bazicn 'possess', %°bazic m 'possession, ownership'; Y uses instead farmogn (see #Andacht), (d) G Sessel is absent in Y; see instead fotel '(n) m < SI < Fr (a relatively new word in SI, see e.g. Uk fotel' m). There is no trace of (e) ^Siedler, because of similarity with the USo cognate, sydler, see e.g. USo ziwy bye, sydlic ~ so zasydlic 'settle'; sydler m 'settler'; sydlisco ~(za)sydlenje η 'settlement'. The KP lands can be ruled out as the venue for blockage of G siedeln, etc., since there Y might, in principle, have acquired the Germanism, due to the greater distance from cognate Uk (o)selyty 'settle', zaselennja ~ poselennja, osidannja η 'settlement', poselenec' m 'settler'. For (e) G ^Siedler, \4nsiedler 'settler, colonist', Umsiedler 'resettler, evacuee' and Einsiedler 'hermit', Y uses either other Germanisms, e.g. (b) \bazecer or kolonist 'settler, colonist' or Anozer (nezirim) m 'hermit'. The compound forms of sydler m in USo are probably more recent formations that date from after the first relexification phase, to judge from the lack of striking overlap with other SI languages. For example, USo (za)sydler ~ zasydlenc (with a purely SI ag suffix) ~ prisydler ~ pfisydlenc = cognate Uk poselenec' m (there is no *selenec'). No SI language uses the root 'settle' for 'hermit', see e.g. G

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

209

Einsiedler 'hermit' vs. USo samotnik, samotar, Ukpustynnyk, pustel'nyk, vidljudnyk, samitnyk m. It is unclear if (f) G Sattel (Sättel) m 'saddle', satteln 'to saddle' are historically related to the above roots (see Schräder 1929, 2: 282), despite the similarity in form and meaning (König 1997, 3, map #84 assumes the Germanism is of SI origin; Vasmer 1953-1958 regards them as cognates). Y has accepted the latter as zotl(en) m, n, onzotlen 'to saddle', despite the formal closeness with cognate USo sedlo, Uk sidlo η 'saddle', USo sedzac, Uk sidlaty 'to saddle' (on the inability of voicing differences to block relexification, see #Saat). A note about the gender variants of Y zotl(en): The η gender option in Y may be due to the interpretation of the final -/ as dim, which is automatically η in Y, as in G. The m gender could have been kept if the -/ was not interpreted as dim. A typical feature of relexification from SI to G is the copying in Y of SI η gender by the f (see chapter 4.5.1). Yet Y zotl(en) does not appear with f gender; hence, I might assume that RP1 did not preserve SI gender assignments with the relexified G lexicon. Yet this is counterintuitive, since f gender was broadly ascribed to KP η nouns. I tentatively conclude that Y ^zotl(en) was acquired after RP2 as a straightforward loan when SI substratal gender would no longer have been operative. This is tantamount to saying that G Sattel m was originally blocked because of similar-sounding USo sedlo, Uk sidlo n. Alternatively, the present-day gender options of Y zotl may be replacements for an earlier f gender. An unrelated word of similar form and meaning is MHG sidel(e) η (f) 'seat, upholstered bench'. The term exists in Y as msidele(s) f 'roost'. M. Weinreich speculated that the word could be either from SI, e.g. Uk sidalo η 'roost', or from MHG sidel(e) η (f) 'bench, chair' (1973, 4: 341); on purely semantic grounds, the Uk term is the more likely etymon. USo lacks a cognate of Uk sidalo. MHG sidel(e) η (f) would not have been taken due to formal similarity with the Slavicism, nor does Y show any sign of the G meaning. The retention of Y msidele f < USo in the KP lands would have posed no problem, given cognate Uk sidalo n, 'roost'. Y shows no trace of G Hühnerstallf- "e) m or Hühnerstange(n) f 'roost, perch'. Alternatively, Y msidele f might have been acquired from MHG sidel(e) η (f) in the G meaning if USo lacked * sidalo in RP1; in that case, the meaning could have changed from 'seat, upholstered bench' > 'roost' under Uk influence. See also ##Nest and discussion of R sad-, saz(d)~, se(d)~, sid- in Herman (1975).

210

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

18. German: (a) Ausländer (zero pi) m 'foreigner', ^Gelände (zero pi) 'tract of land, area, terrain', f Geländer (zero pi) η 'railing', f ländlich 'rural, rustic, bucolic'/ (b) Land(-"er) η 'land', \landen 'to land' (~ MHG lenden < [a])// beraten, Ge- > Yiddish: (a) ojslender (zero pi) m 'foreigner', ^gelender(s) η 'railing'/ (b) land (lender) η 'land', \landn 'to land'. (a) USo wukrajnik m 'foreigner' and krajina f 'area, terrain' are unlikely inputs for Y ojslender (zero pi) m 'foreigner' and land (lender) η 'land', because -kraj- cannot license a morphophonemic alternation. The Y use of (a) and (b) matches more closely (a) Uk inozemec' (~ cuzynec') m 'foreigner'/ (b) zemlja (~ susa) f 'land'. Y lacks (a) G fländlich, Gelände and Geländer (zero pi) η because they were post-MHG creations. Hence, Y uses dorfis andpojeris (< G) ~ Uk sil's'kyj 'rural, rustic' (see also Y dorf [derfer] ~ Uk selo η 'village'). For 'railing', Y also has mporenc(n) m < Pol, which, conceivably, replaced an earlier So (?) or ESI cognate (see Uk poruccja pit 'railing'). On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten. 19. German: (a) backen 'to bake'/ (b) Bäcker (zero pi) m 'baker', \Bäckerei(en) f 'bakeiy; baking'/ (c) Bad(- "er) η 'bath; spa', baden 'bathe', Badezimmer (zero pi) η 'bathroom', {der) Badende(n) m 'bather'/ (d) bähen 'steam, simmer; toast bread lightly'// Hölle, verhehlen > Yiddish: (a) Y bakn 'to bake'/ (b) beker(s) m 'baker', bekeraj(en) f 'bakery' ~ η 'baking'/ (c) bod (beder) f 'bath(house)' ~ η 'spa', bodn (zix) 'bathe'/ (e) beder(s) m 'bather' (< G [c] with Umlaut). The ability of Y to acquire (a), (b) and (c) in the absence of a single set of related roots in SI suggests relexifiers were unaware of the genetic links among the Germanisms. See (a) USo pjec 'to bake'/ (b) pjekar m 'baker', pjekarnja f 'bakery', pjekarjenje η 'baking'/ (c) kupjel f, kupac, kupjelnja f. (d) G bähen may have failed to enter Y because of its multiplicity of meanings, requiring several unrelated roots in SI. The Y equivalents are other Germanisms, as well as • mlien zix < Uk mlity 'to faint, swoon; lose strength', related to mljava f 'heat, suffocating air, vapor, steam'. Unless older forms of Uk used this verb in the Y meaning, Y may be using the Ukrainianism in an innovative manner. The unexpected Umlauted (b) Y beker(s) m 'baker' (there is no alternation in the SI root) may have replaced an earlier non-Umlauted form in Y (though none is attested in MHG). See also discussion in chapter 4.1.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

211

There is some reason to think that for SI speakers, the native root for 'bake; burn (of the sun)' became attracted to the unrelated root 'hell' (< Lat), due to phonetic similarity and the notion of the "fires of hell", see Uk pekty 'bake', peklo η 'hell' (Bulygina and Smelev 1999: 107). An association of these two unrelated roots might have prompted Y speakers to reject G Hölle f 'hell' in favor of kgehenem (though the Germanism could also be faulted on the grounds that it was related to verhehlen 'conceal', thus forming a semantic aggregate unmatched by SI). The difference in the distribution of (a) bod in Y and G finds a simple explanation in Uk vanna, kupal'nja f 'bath', kupaty(sja) 'bathe' but vcmna kimnata f 'bathroom'. The commonality of 'bath' and 'bathe' in Uk reflects itself in Y, while 'bathroom' requires a different root in both languages (vascimerfn], vanecimerfnj m 'bathroom'). These facts thus suggest that the relexification to G Bad, etc. may have taken place in RP2, or else the results of RP1 were partly altered in the KP lands. The presence of Y Amerxec(n) η for 'bathhouse' could support acquisition in RP1, except that the η gender of the He m noun points to a post-RP2 borrowing; though perhaps only the η gender is post-relexificational (see chapter 4.5.1). In the specific meaning of 'ritual bath (house)', Y requires Amikve (mikvoes) f (< He miqveh m, also 'pool of water'; the change of gender of the Hebraism from m > f has both internal Y as well as substratal SI motivation). The possible genetic relationship between CS1 *kupaty (sq) and *konopja f 'hemp' (Trubacev 1983, 10: 188-193) can motivate the Y acquisition of Amerxecfn) η and A mikve (mikvoes) f. SI originally distinguished between CS1 *myty (sq) 'bathe' and *kupaty (sq) 'bathe ritually', where the latter involved the use of intoxicating herbs (Trubacev 1985, 12: 65-66). According to Machek (1971: 285), NWBr dial kupac' 'bathe' also denoted 'ritual bathing'; see also Uk kupalo η 'St.John the Baptist's day on 24 June', Br kupalle η 'pre-Christian ESI holiday celebrated on the night between 23 and 24 June, old style' and PBr dial kupala f '(camp)fire; spirit of fire' (Histarycny slownik belaruskaj movy 1989, 5: 161; see also Gimbutas 1967: 754-755). The large number of insect names derived from this root (imbued with the spirits of the dead) also attests to the ritual connotations of the term (see Filin 1980, 16: 96-98 and the use of the SI root for 'grandmother' to denote 'insect', discussed in Väzny 1955). If SI relexifiers needed to preserve the opposition of 'bathe' and 'bathe ritually', G baden would have been only partially useful, hence, the attractiveness of Hebraisms-especially if it was deemed necessary to Judaize the SI practice of using hemp in the ritual bath. Y Amikve(s) f indeed is attested in TalmHe, but I suspect that the term may not have been in use

212

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

uninterruptedly in early non-Palestinian Jewish communities, since only Y has the term (on the different He terminology of JSp, see Wexler 1996a: 172, 207). While Y may have replaced the SI term for 'ritual bath' with kmikve, it retains mkanop(l) 'e(s) f (usually pit) (~ hanef m < G) < Uk konoplja f (usually pit). On the appearance of the latter Slavicism in 13th-c JWS1 texts, see chapter 4.5. A Y innovation is (e) beder(s) m 'bather', utilizing Umlaut in the absence of a G precedent. The innovation was stimulated by the need for an ag noun with an ag suffix, following USo kupar, Uk kupal'scyk m. 20. German: (a) Bahre(n) f 'bier; stretcher'/ (b) -bar 'carrying; able to be' (e.g. fruchtbar 'fertile, prolific', hörbar 'audible' < MHG -bare)! (c) G Gebaren (zero pi) η 'conduct, behavior'/ (d) Gebärde(n) f 'gesture, gesticulation', ^sich gebärden 'behave like, as if (~ MHG gebären < [c]), G gebären 'give birth'/ (e) geboren 'born' (past part, of gebären)! (f) Geburt(en) f 'birth', Geburtstag(e) m 'birthday'/ (g) Gebühr(en) f 'duty, due, fee', gebühren 'be due, belong to'/ (h) gebürtig 'by birth'/ (i) Bürde(n) f'load, burden'// Aberglaube, Abfahrt, Berg, bleiben, Brett, entstehen, Jahr, Leibesfrucht, neugeborenes Kind, Neumond, MHG unvuore > Yiddish: (b) -per! (e) gebojrn 'give birth'; η 'birth', gebojrn vern 'be born' (U. Weinreich 1968: °geberen 'give birth'); η 'birth', gebojrn-tog (-teg) m 'birthday'/ (f) geburt(n) f, η 'birth'; (arch) 'generation', geburtstog (-teg) m 'birthday'. Parts of the G root are accepted by Y, perhaps motivated by the alternation of USo /d ~ dz/ and diverse prefixation, see e.g. USo porodzic 'give birth' ~ so (na)rodzic 'be born'/porod, narod m 'birth', (b) G -bar is found occasionally in Y (e.g.frwcperdik 'fertile, prolific', basajmperlex 'evident, manifest, obvious'), but is not recommended in the ModG form -bar (see e.g. *fruxtbar 'fertile, prolific'), (f) Y geburt(n) f, η 'birth'; (arch) 'generation' (see S. A. Birnbaum 1922: 35) parallels USo splah m (see discussion in Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1095-1096); G Geburt(en) f does not mean 'generation'. The meaning 'birth' of Y geburt f, η may be new, due to G influence. See also Y jam zix ~jern zix 'have a birthday' in #Jahr. The He root for 'birth, be born' also surfaces partly in Y, as • nojled (noldim) m 'person born in; newborn child', Lnojled vern 'originate', • mojled 'new moon', Avlad(n) m 'fetus', Amojledzajn 'beget'. Ykylad m suggests a non-Ashkenazic pronunciation of He. The etymon, He väläd iylädöt) should have > Y *voled (see also discussion of He jäd below). The deletion of the (presumably stressed) initial vowel is hardly expected; thus,

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

213

the canonic shape C'C^C 3 may imitate that of synonymous USo plod, Uk plid m 'fruit; foetus' (> Y mplidfn] m 'breed, brood, litter'; see also the remark about Y Lkansenen under #Aberglaube and Y Agvar 'strong man, manly person'< He g-v-r 'male' in chapter 4.5.4). While Y Amojled m 'new moon' (< He 'birth[day]') is tied to Jewish ritual, and hence could have been acquired at any time, many other uses of He 'birth, be born' can be motivated by SI. See Uk porodzuvaty, davaty pocatok 'originate', novonarodzenyj, vidrodzenyj 'newborn' ~ G neugeborenes Kind n, but the Y Hebraism may have been required, since Uk also has a noun, novorodok m 'newborn child' without a G counterpart. See also novyj misjac', molodyk m 'new moon' (the use of a single morpheme in Uk for 'new moon' may explain the use of phonetically similar Y A mojled). In some expressions, G uses altogether other terms, e.g. entstehen 'originate', Neumond m 'new moon', ^Leibesfrucht f 'fetus' (see ttbleiben). Instead of (c) G ΚGebaren η 'conduct, behavior', Y uses ojffir(n) m, (ojf)firung(en) (~ MHG unvuore f 'bad behavior'), Lhanhoge(s) f, khilex(n) m, and mpostemkes pit (< Pol postqpek m 'action, deed'). For (d) G Gebärde 'gesture, gesticulation', Y uses Lhavaje(s) and Atnue(s) f (< He 'movement') and • zest(n) m (< Fr). See discussion of Y firn 'to lead' in #Abfahrt. (d) G Usich gebärden 'behave like, as if is not expected in Y, since it dates only from the late 15th c (~ [a] MHG gebären-this allomorph is blocked in Y: see below). Y lacks reflexes of G /ü/: for (g) G Gebiihr(en) f 'due, duty, fee' and gebühren 'be due, belong to', Y uses other Germanisms or Axojv(es) ~ Kiev (xijuvim) m (see also in M-er). For (i) G Bürde(n) f 'load, burden', Y uses other Germanisms, e.g. last(n) i,jox(n) m, f or • mase (masoes), Lhaxbode(s) f, Lol(n) m. Relexification to (a) G Bahre is blocked in Y (it appears in the WY Berner kleiner Aruch of 1290: Timm 1977), which uses a He-G compound, Ata'arebretferj f 'board on which corpses are cleaned before burial' < He ßhäräh 'ritual cleansing' + Y bret(er) f, η (< G Brett[er] η 'board'; see also Y • metaer zajn 'cleanse a dead body'). There are three possible explanations for the blockage of G Bahre f: (i) USo uses different roots for 'bier' and 'born, birth' (see e.g. mary plt-f vs. rod[z]-). (ii) JSo speakers identified G Bahre f and USo mary plt-f as the same word, on the basis of formal similarity, and thus blocked relexification. Still, speakers might have chosen Ata'arebret(er) f because of some phonetic similarity to G Bahre (MHG bare f). USo mary pit is related to mora f

214

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'goddess of death or sickness'. Assuming Y managed to retain USo mara f, and assuming that the links of USo mary pit and mara were recognized, the two terms might have been dropped subsequently when pagan and Christian practices of the Jews were Judaized (see Wexler 1993c: 122-124). (iii) Since MHG bäre meant both 'bier' and 'sedan chair' (> ModG 'stretcher; bier'), the Germanism might have been unacceptable. Curiously, G Bahre may be the source of USo mary. According to some scholars (e.g. Richhardt 1957: 77 and other authors cited in Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: under mary), the Germanism was borrowed by SI languages, see USo, Cz, Pol, Uk mary. Richhardt (1957) assumed initial SI m- < a blend of G Bahre and Slavic 'dead', e.g. USo mortwy, while Brückner (1957) suggested a blend with SI morb 'plague, pestilence' (> USo mor m). Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 890) doubts a G origin, since the term is found in W and ESI and because of the unmotivated change of b> m. Y ta'arebret(er) is f gender, while simplex bret(er) 'board' is either f or n. G Brett is η exclusively; hence, the η assignment of Y bret looks like a recent attempt to imitate ModG norms. I assume G Brett was from the outset f in Y due to the SI substratum-see USo deska, Uk dosha f 'board' (on the shift of SI η to f gender in Y, see chapter 4.5.1). The compound has only f gender probably because Y ta'arebret(er) matches the f gender of USo mary, or a η noun like OPol drzewsko 'bier' < drzewo 'wood' (see also LSo drjewsko η 'coffin': Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 172). The fact that the gender assignments of many nouns depends on whether they are used as simplex morphemes or the second component of a compound noun is an important index of relexification from SI (see chapter 4.5.2). Y Lta'arebret(er) represents an unexpected phonetic form in Yiddish: OHe fähäräh f should be either tohoro in Ashkenazic "whole" He (i.e. monolingual He texts read by Y speakers) or "merged" (i.e. colloquial) Y to 'ore. The qamac and patah diacritics in OHe > Y as /ο ~ u/ in open and /a/ in closed syllables. Exceptions are a few Y and SI Hebraisms, see Br kahal 'Jewish community (organization)' (vs. Y köl, kül), GY jod (also expected jad, as in S1Y) m A'pointer for reading the Torah in the synagogue' (< He jäd f 'hand'). The unexpected Atare(brett) is given by Weinberg (1994) for GY. The deviant reading of the He diacritics could theoretically be a relic of the reading norms of Khazar Jews inherited by Ashkenazic Jews; the Khazars most probably became the main component in the initial SI Jewries. Similarly, unexpected forms of Hebraisms in WY could be vestiges of JFr or Jit reading norms (see Wexler 1988b: 96-116;

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

215

Jacobs et al. 1994: 396-397 and chapter 4.7). "WY" (a Judaized form of G) also lacks the Germanism, but uses instead a derivative of Gk Oälamos 'inner room, woman's apartment, chamber', see DuY uftolmen 'place on a bier', but OSwiss Y tolme 'bridal chair, canopy' (for details of Y and IberoRom, see Wexler 1987a: 30, 37). Drosdowski (1989) notes the genetic links between G gebären and #Berg, but semantic distance would have dissociated the two forms for relexifiers. See also discussion of R rod- in Herman (1975). 21. German: (a) ^befreien 'set free, liberate', ^Befreiung f 'liberation' (~ MHG without the prefix be-), frei 'free' (< MHG vri, also a η noun 'liberty'), G freien 'to court, woo', freilich 'indeed'/ (b) Freund(e) 'friend' (~ MHG vriunt m 'friend; suitor, lover; relative'), G Freundin(nen) f 'friend', sich befreunden mit 'become friends with'/ (c) Frieden (zero pi) 'peace', Friedhof(-"e) m 'cemetery'// Arm, besonnen, eigen, Gewand, Hand, Kirchhof, König(in), MHG küneginne, küniginne, G Verwandte > Yiddish: (a) \bafrajen 'liberate', \bafrajung f 'liberation', fraj 'free; loose; vacant; exempt; off; clear o f , f'liberty'/ (b )frajnd (zero pi) m 'friend; Mr., Mrs., Miss' vs. yrajnt m, f 'relative' (early 18th c frajntin f 'relative': Schaechter 1986: 183), \bafrajndn zix mit 'become friends with'/ (c) fridn 'peace' ~ frid m 'peace upon' (in a cemetery epitaph). (a) G freilich 'indeed' corresponds to Y xlebn, far vor < G ~ • beemes ~ »take < Uk. Y fraj f as a noun has a parallel with MHG vri n; the f gender in Y fraj < Uk svoboda, volja f. The f form of (b) Y frajnd 'friend' requires a suffix of possibly SI origin, see e.g. mfrajndine f '(girl)friend'. The suffix m-ine also appears in Y kinigin ~ ukinigine f 'queen' < Y kinig < G König mJ Königin·, -ine may be < Uk -inja as in herojinja 'heroine', but note also the f suffix in MHG küniginne ~ küneginne 'queen'; the Y stress favors a SI source. The use of various sets of roots in USo explains the partial relexification in Y, e.g. (a) G frei, etc. > USo wuswobodzic, wuswobodzenje n, swobodny vs. G freien > na zentwu hie 'woo'/ (b) precel m, pfecelka f 'friend'/ (c) mer, pokoj m 'peace'/ pohrjebniSco n, kerchow (< G Kirchhof[-"e] m) 'cemetery'. Even where Y has relexified to G, Hebraisms are also available, see e.g. (a) Lsatxenen zix cu 'to court' ~ spiln a libe mit. In addition to accepting (b) G Freund 'friend' and (c) fridn 'peace', Y also has • xaver (xavejrim) m, Axaverte(s) f 'friend' (with a JAram f suffix) and • solem m 'peace', which, together with the absence of G Freundinfnen) f, suggests reluctance to relexify. The existence of phonetic doublets such as Y frajnd 'friend' vs.

216

Evidence for two-tiered relexificatiort

yrajnt m 'relative' shows the staggered nature of relexification/borrowing (see also discussion of G Hand > Y hant f in #Arm). Curiously, the meaning 'relative', which is now obsolete in G (see MHG vriunt m 'friend; suitor, lover; relative'), is associated with a newer form (in -1), while the older form with -d means 'friend' (Schaechter 1986: 182 regards Y frajnt as the older form, presumably on the assumption that Y originally lost final consonant voicing and restored it later in the SI lands; Schaechter 1986: 181-185 adds guter frajnd m and [PolY] xavertorin f 'friend'.) This suggests that Y initially relexified USo precel 'friend' > (cognate) G Freund (> Y frajnd)', USo uses priwuzny or swcjbny m for 'relative'. The additional meaning of 'relative' in the G term probably existed at the time of relexiflcation (for confirming G dial data, see Beer 1923: 55-56). Nevertheless, for 'friend'. Y also uses Lxaver (xavejrim) m. The initial unacceptability of G Freund m 'friend; relative' may have been due to the fact that in some SI languages, 'family' and 'friend' can be expressed by related roots, see e.g. Rsem'ja, Uksim'ja f 'family' ~ Rsjaber 'neighbor, friend', OR sjabr-b 'neighbor; colleague' vs. Uk sjaber m 'co-partner, participant (in an enterprise)'. G Freund is a cognate of USo precel m 'friend' but significant formal differences would have licensed relexiflcation. The Y facts suggest that the SI cognate also had the two meanings at the time of relexiflcation; this cannot be demonstrated in USo, but note OCz prietele pit 'parents', SC prijatel'm, prija f 'parent-in-law' (see also Schräder 1917-1923, 1: 284). The choice of a zero pi for Y frajnd m 'friend' might find an explanation in the fact that USo precel m originally ended in a palatalized lateral, which often surfaces in Y with a final -e (see also chapter 4.5.3); the pi of the USo form would be either -e or -jo, possibly causing a merger of sg and pi forms during RP1. Theoretically, relexifiers could have coined terms for 'relative' in three ways, of which two were actually chosen: by (i) relexifying to another G root (e.g. Verwandte-this is not used in Yiddish: see ##Gewand), (ii) creating a unique meaning for a Germanism (see Y ejgener m 'relative' < ejgn < G eigen ~ USo swojbny < swcjski 'one's own'), and by (iii) acquiring • korev [krojvim] 'relative' or Amexutn [mexutonim] m 'relative by marriage'; on the latter, see also chapter 4.6). See also #besonnen and UGewand. The incompatibility of SI and G roots for 'friend' also contributed to the partial blockage of G Freund, e.g. CS1 *drugb < the root 'follow' also denoted 'marriage broker' in Pol and 'husband' in Uk; see also Uk druzba m 'best man at a wedding', druzyna f 'wife; husband; spouse' (Trubaöev 1978, 5: 131-132). Unlike G, SI languages can negate 'friend', see Uk druh, pryjatel' 'friend'/ nedruh, nepryjatel' m 'enemy';

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

217

there is no such form in Y. Also Uk druh m 'friend' is related to 'other, second' (see Uk druhyj). Note that G ^sich befreunden mit 'become friends with' > Y \bafrajndn zix mit, but there is also a synonymous Hebraism. This is probably because Uk (pojdruzytysja has two meanings: 'become friends with; marry'. Thus the Germanism was supplemented (if not originally replaced) by Axavern zix 'become friends with' and • xasene hobn mit 'marry' (see discussion of the latter under überaten). This suggestion depends on an early attestation of Uk (po)druzytysja in both of its present meanings, but I lack dates for the latter. On (c) G Friedhof(-"e) m 'cemetery', see also the next entry below. 22. German: (a) begraben 'bury', graben 'to dig', Graben m 'ditch, trench', Grab(-"er) η 'grave', MHG grabcere m 'gravedigger'/ (b) G ^Begräbnis(se) η 'burial', Totengräber (zero pi) 'gravedigger', Gräber (zero pi) m 'digger'/ (c) Grube(n) f 'cavity, pit, mine'/ (d) Gruft(-"e) f 'sepulchre, tomb, vault'/ (e) grübeln 'ponder, muse, brood over'// Fliege, Friedhof, Hütte, Kirchhof > Yiddish: (a) bagrobn 'bury', grobn 'to dig', grobn(s) m 'ditch', (c) grub (griber) m, f'pit' ~ grub(n) f'mine'. Y lacks the G root for 'grave', using instead Akejver (kvorim) m, η 'grave; tomb', A kvure(s) f'burial', Akvores-man (kvores-lajt) ~ Akvoresnik (Stuökov 1950), Akabren (kabronim) m 'gravedigger' (in JSp- and JArHe, 'gravedigger' is Lkabar; see discussion in Wexler 1996a: 211), brengn cu Akvore 'bury (Jewish)', while inventing karke f A.'(Jewish) burial ground' (< He qarqa' f 'land'), (b) G Totengräber (zero pi) m 'gravedigger' (attested in MHG) is not recommended for Y, perhaps because of the ambiguity of G Gräber η 'graves' ~ m 'gravedigger(s)'; Germanisms with multiple meanings that lack a SI parallel are often blocked. SI languages express 'gravedigger' by an ag noun, see e.g. Uk hrobar, mohyl'nyk m, but the failure of synonymous MHG grabcere m, without Umlaut, to license relexification suggests the latter was unknown to Y speakers. StuCkov (1950) also cites (ba)greber and \tojtn-greber. Since USo uses a number of different roots to match the G terms for 'to dig, bury; grave', many of which have unrelated meanings, it is not surprising to find that Y does not accept all the G allomorphs. See USo (a) pohrjebac 'bury', hrjebac 'to dig; scratch in the earth', prirow, prerow m, hrebja 'ditch, trench', mohila f, rowniUco η 'mound', row 'grave'/ (b) pohrjeb m, chowanje η 'burial', totka, rowar, rowryjer m 'gravedigger'/

218

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(c) jama f, row m 'cavity, pit'/ (d) rowniSco n, row m 'sepulchre, tomb, vault'/ (e) sej hlowu lamac 'ponder' (lit. 'break one's head'). See also Uk hrebaty 'bury; be disgusted by; neglect; scorn', hrebty 'to row; bury' (Trubaöev 1980, 7: 95-97, 108-110). It is surprising that any forms of (a) surface in Y at all, in view of the formal similarities of the cognate SI forms (though they are not similar semantically). The existence of Hebraisms in the meaning of 'bury' and the existence of unrelated Y mrov(n) (< USo row 'ditch') or Ukrainianized mrivfn) suggest that G Graben m 'ditch, trench' also was initially blocked in Y. The association of G Graben and USo row m could have taken place while CS1 *g was either still a stop in USo or after it had become a fricative between the 12th and late 14th c (see Schaarschmidt 1998: 95-97 and discussion in #Fliege)\ hf-C tends not to be pronounced at all in contemporary USo. Regional SI terms for 'mound' also denote a non-Jewish cemetery in Y, see e.g. Y nmahttke, mmahilnik, mmogilke, umogolke, mm0(ho)lkes, mmolefke, mmolunke (Green 1969; see Uk mohyl'nyk vs. Br mahyl'Söyk m 'gravedigger'). The latter, possibly < USo mohila f 'mound' or Uk mohyla f 'grave; mound', may have succeeded in remaining in Y after the acceptance of the Germanism in RP1, if significant differences between Jewish and non-Jewish burial practices called for different terms (on differences between SI pagan and Christian burial practices, see Schräder 1929, 2: 281; on SI pagan burial mounds, see Zoll-Adamikowa 1997: 39, 41; see also Pomeranian G mogfrjillen 'pagan graves': Wexler 1991b: 119, fn 216). The non-relexification of the latter in Y may also be due to the semantic heterogeneity of Uk mohyla f 'mound; grave', mohylky pit 'cemetery; the memorial feast for the dead during Easter week' (see Orel 1984 and Trubaöev 1992, 19: 116-122). Y also uses He 'ohel 'tent' as ojel(im) m A'structure over the grave of an important (Jewish) person'. This term matches Podolian Uk xata f 'mound in a cemetery' (vs. pan-Uk xata 'clay-walled cottage, dug-out, mud-hut'), which is widely believed to be ultimately from an Iran language, see e.g. Avestan kata- 'room, vault, temporary repository of a corpse' (see Vasmer 1958, 3, Trubaöev 1967: 42). The Y Hebraism may have been intended to Judaize a non-Jewish custom and term or to replace the blocked unrelated G Hütte(n) f 'hut, shack, hovel' which might have been construed as a cognate of Uk xata. Y Akejver m, η could have become popular in Y due to its similarity to a partly Judaized Khazar tribe, the Kabars, who participated with the Magyars in the settlement of Hungaiy. OPolLat documents reveal the terms

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

219

Kawyary (near Sandomierz 1387) and Kawyory (near Krakow, late 14th c) as a name for a Jewish cemetery, and placenames such as Pol Kawiory (in the Olkusz district and a village three kilometers outside of Kraköw), Kawiary (Gniezno district; for further Pol and Br toponyms, see Nitsch 1954: 206 and Wexler 1987a: 212, fn 86). The most westerly attestation of the term appears to be the second component of G Judenkiewer (Magdeburg, early 16th c), interpreted as Judenkiew with the G pi suffix -er (see Wexler 1987a: 213 and fn 99; for the placename Kevar, see Schwarz 1960: 57). Magdeburg has one of the oldest Jewish communities in Ε Germany, dating from the second half of the 10th c (Tykocinski 1934: 163164). There is a rich discussion on the origin of PolLat Kawiory. Altbauer claimed that this and related terms reflected a Y pronunciation of the He term for 'grave' ([1961] 1977: 48). In 1987a (211-214) I tentatively accepted Altbauer's argument, following a number of earlier writers, such as Bruckus (1929); Balaban (1930-1931: 11) and M. Mieses (1934). In a dissenting minority view, Siper had proposed that the etymon was a Khazar tribal name (1926). In a recent work giving a broad list of these toponyms, Lewicki (1988) has argued that the word indeed represents the name of a Judaized Khazar Tc tribe which had migrated westwards with the Hungarians (see the discovery of Khazar rings with He letters from the 10th-llth centuries in the Baranya district of SW Hungary described by Kiss 1970 and the Avar-Jewish inscriptions from near-by Celarevo in Yugoslav Vojvodina described by Bunard2i0 1978-1979, 1980, 1985). I am inclined now to agree with Siper and Lewicki. When knowledge of the JTc ethnonym was lost, the term could have easily been reinterpreted as He qever m, which (in the various derived forms cited above) also became popular in Y. From the Jews, the Hebraism qever m passed into G and SI slang registers. In the latter the term has heterogeneous meanings, such as 'shanty, hovel, gap in the floor, den of thieves, apartment, hiding place, female sexual organ' (Wexler 1987a: 212). The earliest slang attestation is from Putivl', Ukraine in the 17th century. The toponyms suggest that a JTc population settled in W and Ce Europe after the collapse of the Khazar Empire and the westward migrations of the Magyars (see also chapter 4.7). If the ethnonym Kabar that surfaces in PolLat documents with Jewish associations was reinterpreted as He qever, m, this would probably have occurred after the first, and possibly even after the second relexification phase when I presume the Hebraism was acquired. (For a discussion of the Hebraism in contiguous European languages, see Wexler 1987: 211-214.) U. Weinreich (1968) rejects Y \*kvores(n) A'cemetery' < He qväröt pi
USo kerchow m: #befreien\ but see Y gut(e)-ort n, lit. 'good place' < G ~ late MHG goczacker m). Especially telling is the fact that • kejver (kvorim) 'grave, tomb' is either m or η gender < He qever m and ^*kvores(n) A'cemetery' (with pleonastic pluralization) is m < He qvüräh (qvüröt) f 'burial'. If the term had entered Y during RP1 or 2, then I would expect to find f gender reflecting the η gender of the SI translation equivalents, USo pohrjebniSco or Uk kladovysce η 'cemetery' (see chapter 4.5.1). Synonymous USo kirchow < G Kirchhof 'churchyard' and Uk cvyntar (< Pol < Lat) are unlikely to influence the gender of the Y Hebraisms since they refer (in SI and Y both) to Christian cemeteries (note also that Pol kierchöw m, etc., which originally denoted a Protestant cemetery, came to denote a Jewish cemetery for the first time in 1553: see Wexler 1987a: 138-139). Of course, while the m and η gender assignment may post-date RP2, the loan itself may be older. (d) G Gruft f has no reflection in Y; see instead Y A kejver {kvorim) m 'tomb' ~ gevelb(n) η 'vault'. For (e) G grübeln, see Y griblen zix ~ traxtn zix, klern. See also discussion of R klad-, xoron-, xran- 'bury' in Herman (1975). 23. German: (a) Beige(n) f (arch) 'haystack'/ (b) ^Beugefn) f 'haystack', beugen 'to bend (down), distort, warp', sich beugen 'bend down', Beugung(en) f 'bending; inflection (grammar)', sich verbeugen 'to bow'/ (c) biegen 'bend; deflect; turn into', \Biegung(en) f 'bend, curve'/ (d) Bogen (zero pi) m 'bend; bow; arc; arch; sheet of paper'/ (e) sich bücken 'to stoop, bend down, over'/ (f) ^Buckel (zero pi) m 'hump, hunch', MHG bücken bücken) 'to stoop, bend down, over'/ (g) G Beule(n) f 'lump, dent; bruise, tumor' > Yiddish: (b) (ojs)bejgn, bejgn zix 'to bend', onbejgn zix 'to stoop', ongebojgnkejt f 'stoop', (far)bejgn zix 'to bow'/ (d) bojgn(s) m 'bend; ^fbow, arc; arch; sheet of paper'/ (e) bukrt zix 'bow to', bukn zix cu 'to worship'/(g) bajl(n) m, f'bump, lump'. For (a) 'haystack', Y uses Slavicisms, see e.g. mstojg(n) m, mskirde(s) f < Uk stih m, skyrda ~ skyrta f. (b) G beugen 'to bend, distort' is historically

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

221

the factitive of (c) biegen, i.e. 'to make biegen'. I suppose the blockage of (c) G biegen is due to the use of a USo zhibnyc for both (b) and (c). (d) Y ^bojgn(s) m covers all the meanings of G Bogen-which suggests that the root (at least in some of its meanings) may be a later loan from G. (e) G sich bücken may have been blocked since USo uses a different root, so chilic. While Y lacks (f) G %Buckel (< MLG: Drosdowski 1989), it does have bukn zix 'bow down', bukn zix cu 'to worship'. The latter is either derived from the (now) obsolete MHG bucken (a variant of bücken) 'to bend; throw down', or else was "moved over" from (e) G sich bücken (~ USo so schilic). If the latter, then we have a good indication that relexiflers were aware of the existence of a G paradigm. See discussion of R g(ib), gub- in Herman (1975). 24. German: (a) fBekannte(n) m, f '(person of) acquaintance', fbekanntgeben 'make known, announce', \bekanntmachen 'advertise, publish', ^Bekanntschaft (en) f 'acquaintance' / (b) Ifanerkennen 'admit; recognize', ^Anerkennung(en) f 'acknowledgement', bekennen 'confess, admit', sich bekennen zu 'profess (a religion)', ^Bekenntnis (se) η '(religious) confession, denomination', erkennen 'recognize, perceive', Erkenntnis(se) f 'knowledge, perception', kennen 'know, be acquainted with', \Kenner (zero pi) m 'connoisseur, expert', Kenntnis(se) 'knowledge' (~ MHG kenntnisse ~ [< a] kantnisse f)/ (c) G können 'be able; know, understand; be allowed'/ (d) kühn 'brave, bold'/ (e) Kunde(n) f'knowledge, news' (~ MHG künde f, η) ~ m ^'customer', G ^kundgeben 'make known, announce', \kundig 'knowing, well versed in', Urkunde(n) f'document' (~ MHG urkünde ~ urkunde n, f)/ (f) G künden 'announce', kündigen 'terminate; give notice', Kündigung(en) f'notice, recall'/ (g) Kunst(-"e) f f a r t , skill' (~ MHG 'knowledge, competence')/ (h) G fKünstler (zero pi) m 'artist'// Abnahme, absuchen, er-, MHG fisiön, G Gemälde, imstande sein, MHG kunst(en)er, künst(en)er, wis(e) > Yiddish: (a) fbakant 'familiar, acquainted', \bakanter m '(person of) acquaintance', \bakantmaxn 'announce', \(ba)kantsaft(n) f'acquaintance'/ (b) bakenen ~ bakonen (< G [a]) 'introduce to, acquaint with', bakenter m '(person of) acquaintance', derkenen 'recognize, make out', kenen ~ konen (< G [a]) 'be able to; know (skill, language)', ^kener(s) m 'expert, connoisseur', kentsaft f 'acquaintance', kentenis(n) η 'person's knowledge, mastery', \onerkenen 'recognize, admit', \onerkenung f 'appreciation, credit, recognition, acknowledgement'/ (e) \kund§aft(n) f 'customers'/ (g) Y Ifkunst(n) f'art' (h) \kins tier (s) m 'artist'.

222

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

EY has front unrounded vowels for the front rounded vowels of stG (either inherited from the G lexifier dial or eliminated in Y since they lacked support in the SI substratal phonologies), hence (b) G kennen and (c) können collapsed into > Y kenen (in Nobl's view, this happened in 13th-c GY: 1958: 172-173; if so, this could be reflective of USo). While U. Weinreich (1968) regards kenen as superior to synonymous konen for literary Y and Stuökov (1950) equates (ba)konen zix ~ (ba)kenen zix 'know one another', some speakers insist they are semantically not interchangeable, e.g. kenen 'know' vs. konen 'be able to' ("Sejles un öuves" 1942: 64). While Y has no Hebraisms (or Slavicisms) in the meaning of 'know, be acquainted with', it does have Hebraisms that coexist alongside of Y kenen 'be able', see e.g. zajn A bekojex, zajn Lbixojles, hum Ajoxlen < He jäxöl 'he was able' ~ zajn in stand (< G imstande sein) and 'be allowed', see Y • muter (alongside other synonymous Germanisms). The use of Hebraisms suggests some resistance to the possibility of collapsing G kennen and können, whose meanings are distinguished lexically in the SI languages, see USo znac 'know', so znac and Uk buty znajomym z, znaty 'be acquainted with' vs. USo moc 'be able' (see chapter 4). In one instance, Y creates new doublets that have no precedent in G itself, see e.g. Y bakenen ~ bakonen 'introduce to, acquaint with', bakenter ~ bakanter m '(person of) acquaintance' (the latter < kenen) vs. G \bekanntmachen. G bekennen 'confess', sich bekennen zu 'profess (a religion)' are missing in Y. For 'profess' and 'confess', Y uses glejbn in (see also discussion in #Aberglaube), Amojde zajn zix ~ Amisvade zajn zix ~ Amojde umisvade zajn zix 'confess', • mojde(s) m 'confessor', A vide (viduim) f 'confession (before death)', undoubtedly motivated by the use in USo and Uk of roots other than znac, znaty; some examples are USo pridac (wuznac and wuznace η are loan translations from G), Uk spovidaty(sja), spovid' f ~ virospovidannja n. Y has \bakant maxn 'announce' < G Jbekanntmachen 'advertise; make known' (attested late 17th c). Given that G ^Bekannte itself was only first attested in the 15th c, I assume that Υ |bakanter was acquired in the KP lands via relexification or as a post-relexification loan from G. The reason must be that the SI languages lack a construction parallel to G ^bekanntmachen to express 'acquaint', see USo zeznajomic, Uk znajomyty 'acquaint' < USo znac, Uk znaty 'know'. Y fbakant maxn translates G TIbekanntgeben 'announce' and lacks a SI precedent, which suggests a postrelexification loan. See also onzogn < G and Amedie zajn. Also suggestive of an early blockage is the lack of G ^Bekanntmachung(en) f 'announcement'; Y uses instead onzog(n) m, meldung(en) f or Amedoe(s), Apsure(s),

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

223

Ahojdoe(s), f. Besides blockage, this suggests also a reluctance on the part of Y to accept nominal allomorphs (see discussion of -nahm- under #Abnahme). I wonder whether (a) Y kantsaft ~ kentSaft f 'acquaintance' tend to lack the prefix ba- ~ G fBekanntschaft because the SI equivalents lack a prefix, see USo znajomstwo n, znajomosc f, Uk znajomstvo n, znajomist' f < USo, Ukzna- 'know'. Y also relexifies to G erkennen 'perceive, recognize' and Erkenntnis(se) f 'knowledge, perception', see e.g. Y derkenen 'recognize, make out', even though SI expresses these concepts by a root other than 'know', see Uk vidduty, zbahnuty, zrozumity 'perceive'. ModUSo usage of znac 'know' as the basis for spöznac, dopoznac 'perceive, recognize' reflects Germanization. The doubly prefixed G anerkennen and Anerkennung(en) f are also found in Y, see ^onerkenen and ^onerkenung f, but these are probably recent loans from G, since we do not encounter the expected *onderkenen, *onderkenung (Y der- ~ BavG der-, stG er-), and G ^anerkennen is attested only in the 16th c (see also ttabsucheri). G \Kenner (zero pi) 'connoisseur, expert' > Y ^kener(s) m, but not without competition from • mejvn (mevinim), Ajadn (jadonim) 'expert, connoisseur' and Amumxe (mumxim) m ~ Amumxe(n)te(s) f - SI (international) mekspertfn) m 'expert'. The motivation for acquiring Hebraisms is unclear since USo and Uk also use the root 'know' for these concepts, see e.g. USo znajer, Uk znavec' m. The Hebraisms may have been intended to disambiguate G ^Kenner m, which could mean either 'connoisseur' or 'expert'. The acquisition of these Hebraisms may have been relatively late, since G \Kenner in the modern meaning dates only from the 16th c, though the word is attested in the 14th c in the meaning of'producer' (Drosdowski 1989). Hence, Y may have had kener in the modern meaning before G itself. The corresponding Y Hebraism need not also be relatively recent, since the Hebraism could have been acquired earlier to replace a different blocked Germanism, such as MHGfisiön, kunst(en)er, künst(en)er, wis(e) m 'expert in nature'. (d) G kühn 'brave, bold' finds no place in Y, either because it was lacking in the G lexifier dialect (it is not known in Bav and Swabian dials: Kluge 1899) or because it was matched by a different root in USo, e.g. zmuzity. The Y equivalent is berje(s) m, f A_'efficient, skillful person', JLberjen zix kegn 'to brave, manage under difficult circumstance' < He beriäh f'human being; creature'. Reflexes of (e) are largely lacking in Y, e.g. for G Kunde(n) f 'knowledge, news', Ifkundgeben 'make known, announce' (18th c), \kundig

224

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'knowing, well versed in', Urkundefn) f 'document', Y has najes pit < G ~ •jedie(s), Apsure(s) and kßmue(s) f < He 'rumors', visn η < G. For 'customer', see Y Lkojne (kojnim) m, coll JkJcojnimsaft pi. U. Weinreich (1968) does not recommend G \Kunde 'customer' (attested 16th c) for Y, but does admit \kundsaft(n) f 'customers'; the latter was first attested in the 18th c in this meaning; older meanings-'acquaintance, brotherhood, community'-were used in the 16th c. Lerer insists that Y kkojne and kundsaft differ semantically, with the latter denoting either a 'regular customer' or 'person who buys an object that is produced' (thus, e. g. not meat) (1943). (b) Y kenteni§(n) η 'person's knowledge, mastery' coxists with Ajedie(s) f ; for 'known', Y has bavust and \bakannt < G and Ajedue, Amefursem m; for 'well versed in', Y has bahavnt < G and • boke (bekiim) m. G Urkunde(n) f 'document' is expressed in Y by the SI internationalisms uakt(n), mdokument(n) m. (f) G kündigen, Kündigung are expressable by other Germanisms in Y, or by Y Amodie zajn 'announce', Amedoe(s) f 'announcement' (U. Weinreich 1968: *kindikn 'give notice of a dismissal'). Finally, (g) Y \kunst(n) f, (h) \kinstler(s) m are probably recent G loans; the present meaning of G ^Kunst only dates from the 16th c (the original meanings were 'knowledge, competence'); ^Künstler is an 18th-c innovation (~ MHG künster, etc. cited above). In Uk, the two latter terms are denoted by different roots, Uk mystectvo η 'art', my(s)tec', xudoznyk m 'artist' (vs. USo wumelstwo η 'art', wumälc m 'artist'; see also # Gemälde). See discussion of R ved-, ve$ö-, vest-, vez(d), vid-, zna- 'know' in Herman (1975). 25. German: (a) MHG benamen 'to name, call', G Namefn) ~ Namen sg m 'name'/ (b) nennen 'to name, call', benennen 'name after, call' (~ MHG benennen ~ benemmen), G %Benennung(en) f 'naming'/ (c) nämlich 'namely'// anrüch(t)ig, MHG beruof, G ertränken, heissen, rufen, ver- > Yiddish: (a) banomenen 'to name, designate', nomen (nemen ~ nemener) m 'name'/ (b) nemlex 'same, identical', farnant (part. < [b] G nennen) 'notorious, disreputable'. Relexification to (a) is surprising in view of similar cognate USo mjeno η (though less similar Polab jaimo might have licensed relexification). Otherwise, I assume that Y nomen was accepted during RP2 as a replacement for Uk im 'jä (gen im 'ja ~ imeny) n, which was less similar to G Namefn) m. A further fact that supports a late acquisition of G Namen m

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

225

by Y is its gender. If 'name' is universally η in SI, I would expect to find Y nomen as f, which is not the case (see chapter 4.5.1). The m gender of Y nomen suggests post-RP2 G impact. The Y pi nemen is unique; see MHG name(n) (M. Weinreich 1973, 4: 193); future studies should seek the relative age of Umlaut without suffixation in Y nouns < G (see chapter 4.5.3). Y might also have acquired G Name(n) m during RP1, assuming that the partial formal similarity between the cognates failed to trigger blockage. While the Germanism is now the normal word for name in Y, As em m is also used in Y as 'reputation, prestige; God's name', with the pi (•)-«. The expected pi would be • /m-es < He ßem)öt m, but A!n-(e)s is reserved for the pi of the Y neologism Asejme f 'page of a discarded book with the name of the deity' (sometimes spelled phonetically as if it were not < He). It may be that Y As em (with pi • /m-es < He -öt) originally denoted 'name' rather than specifically 'page of a discarded book; name of the deity', when G Name(n) m was first blocked-in the So lands(?). The relexification hypothesis would lead me to expect a Y f noun for 'name' ~ SI n; this requirement is met only by Y ASejme(s) f. Perhaps the innovative Y Asejme(s) f originally denoted 'name' in general. If the creation of Asejme f in Y was motivated by the SI substrata, then the traditional analysis of a "back-formation" from Asem m, on the model of f Hebraisms (see Jacobs 1991: 324), is beside the point. See also Y Akojse 'cup' in Vertränken. The Hebraism also appears in Y farsemt 'renowned', alongside kojne Sem zajn zix (< He qöneh 'buying') 'acquire a name as'. Curiously, Sarajevo JSp also has an innovative use of He Sem m in the pi form Simotis 'Divinity' (used in cabbalistic incantations invoking various names of God to avert evil: Crews 1957: 244). Either this is an independent development in JSp or else the Y and JSp data continue semantic bifurcation in (colloquial?) OHe or another common Jewish substratal language (JGk?); there is no trace of these innovations in either written Ashkenazic (Y) or Sephardic (Sp) He. (b) G nennen is not used in Y, except in genannt part., see Y farnant 'notorious, disreputable' (unattested in G itself; Y uses the verbal prefix far- < G ver- in the G meaning of 'dis'-). Instead, Y has the Germanism onrufn 'mention, call, name, quote', in addition to a denominal verb banomenen, which is parallel in formation to both USo mjenowac 'to call; express' and MHG benamen; there is also periphrastic zajn a nomen nox 'be named after', a nomen tun 'name' (lit. 'a name' + 'make'). The derivation of a verb from the noun 'name' in other SI languages yields different meanings, see Uk imenuvaty 'nominate; designate, call', R

226

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

imenovat' 'give a name; call by name', Sin imenovdti 'to call; mean' (see Trubaöev 1981, 8: 225-226). Even if Y banomenen 'to name, designate' < MHG benamen (~ benennen ~ benemmen), the crucial point for the relexification hypothesis is the absence in Y of G nennen 'name', benennen 'name after', given the lack of a SI precedent. Partially synonymous G heissen 'call, name; mean' > Y hejsn 'tell; bid; order; be called; mean', G rufen 'call; name' > Y rufn 'call', but see also Y rufh zix 'be called; answer to the name of ~ Uk zvaty 'to call'/ zvatysja 'be called'. On the blockage of MHG beruof m 'reputation', see #anrüch(t)ig. (c) G nämlich 'namely' is also absent in Y in this meaning, which prefers • (de)hajne (< JAram). However, Y nemlex is possible as the adj 'same, identical', which is also an archaic meaning of G nämlich. The fact that USo samsny, ton samy, Uk toj samyj 'same, identical' utilize a root other than 'name' suggests that Y lexifiers may have regarded G (a-b) and (c) as unrelated or acquired the latter as a post-relexification loan. 26. German: (a) ^beraten 'advise', \Beratung(en) f 'conference', geraten 'successful; succeed; accidentally chance upon', Hausrat(-"e) m 'household furniture', Heirat(en) f 'wedding, marriage', heiraten 'get married', \sich verheiraten 'get married', Rat(e) m 'advice; council', raten 'advise, counsel; guess, solve', Rathaus (-"er) η 'city hall', Unrat(e) m 'rubbish, filth, refuse', Verrat(e) m 'reason, treachery', verraten 'betray, reveal' MHG verraten, Verräter ~ verrceter m 'traitor'), G Vorrat(-"e) m 'store, provisions, stock'/ (b) G Gerät(e) η 'apparatus, tool', ^Verräter (zero pi) m 'traitor'/ (c) Rätsel (zero pi) η 'riddle, puzzle, enigma' (~ early ModG [UG] \Rätersch)H Aberglaube, bemannen, bemannt, beweibt, Braut, Bräutigam, Braut (lauf), MHG brütlouf(t), G er-, ermahnen, Ge-, MHG gemahele, G Gemahl(in), herausgeben, MHG hüeich(en), hirat, hiwe(n), hi(w)en, louf, G retten, sich verloben, (sich) vermählen, Vermählte, Vermählung, Zaum > Yiddish: (a) rotn 'advise, counsel'; (dial) 'guess', rothojz η 'city hall', Xbarotn zix 'consult, confer', ^barotung(en) f 'conference', gerot(n) m 'crop', gerotn 'successful, succeed, turn out well'/ (b) gereteniS(n) η '(good) harvest, crop', \retenis(n) η 'riddle, puzzle; mystery'. The distribution of G Rat and its compounds is very spotty in Y, possibly because the G root was borrowed early by a number of SI languages, see USo, Uk rada f. (a) G raten surfaces as Y rotn 'advise, counsel'; (dial) 'guess' (on the latter meaning, see Bikl 1941), but G Rat(e) m 'advice' seems not to have been initially used in Y (Harkavy 1928 cites ψαί[η] f but the /a/ belies the recency of the form in Y; Stuökov 1950 cautions

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

227

against ψταίη, but allows barotn ~ baratn!). The earliest attestation of rot, as a translation of BibHe 'acat 'advice o f , appears in GY Bible "translations" from the 15th c (see Leibowitz 1931: 405 and the Basle Doniel text of 1557 studied by Dreessen 1977; for a 16th-c WY document that equates r'tfn with jk'chn 'advise', see Katz 1991a: 29-30). Ordinarily, 'advice' in Y is expressed by Lejce(s) f. The verb G raten 'advise, counsel; guess, solve' is also found in SI languages, often alongside a periphrastic construction with the noun. It is unclear if the SI languages borrowed the G verb or generated their own verb independently, see e.g. USo radic 'advise' ~ radu skiadowac 'confer with', Uk radyty, daty radu 'give advice'. There is no trace of a He verb in Y (vs. WY L^chn 'advise' cited above; see instead gebn an Lejce, lit. 'give an advice'), but the part. Ljojec(im) m 'adviser' is used, and this might have been the basis of a periphrastic A^*jojec zajn (U. Weinreich 1968). Υ ψ barotn zix 'consult, confer', ^barotung(en) f 'conference' ~ USo poradzowac, radu dac, radzic, etc., Uk radytysja 'consult' and USo wuradzowanje n, wurada, Uk narada f 'conference'. Y has gerotn 'successful; succeed, turn out well', even though the SI languages (aside from Germanized USo so [po]radzic 'suceed') do not use derivatives of rada, see e.g. Uk. uspisnyj, vdalyj 'successful', maty uspix, dosjahaty uspixiv 'succeed' (lit. 'have, achieve successes]'). But the Y Germanisms coexist with He compounds such as Y A mejasev zajn, haltn zix an A ejce, fregn an Lejce baj, Lsojel-ejce zajn zix mit 'consult' and Amacliex zajn, Apojeln zix and with baglikn 'suceed'. G Rathaus(-"er) η 'city hall' is used in Y as \rothojz n-despite the ubiquity of the Germanism in Pol ratusz m, Uk ratuSa f. The newness of the Y compound is suggested by three facts: (i) the η gender (< hojz 'house') rather than m (< Pol) or f (< Uk). (ii) The presence of -t- in these SI Germanisms, in contrast with -d- in USo rada 'advice', where -d- might be derived from oblique cases, see e.g. OSilG räde dat sg (Kaestner 1939: 71). (iii) W(G)Y speakers used He 'advice' in an innovative manner, see GHe Lha'ecäh f'the city hall' (Worms 1377: see Haberman 1976: 229). Y lacks all G compounds where -rat means 'advice', since the SI equivalents require other roots; Y equivalents always include at least one Hebraism and/or Slavicism. (a) G Verrat(e) m 'treason, treachery', verraten 'betray, reveal secrets' and (b) Verräter (zero pi) m 'traitor' are out for U. Weinreich (1968: see Yfarratn 'betray', ffarreterfsj m, but StuCkov 1950 cites farrat ~ farrot 'treason'). The WS1 languages, and through their impact, Br, Uk and WR, have all formed caiques of the G compounds, see USo prerada f, preradzic, preradnik m, Uk zrada f, zradzitvaty, zradnyk

228

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

m. The SI caiques provide a chronological framework for the relexification process. The absence of the Germanisms in Y can best be explained by the fact that USo and Uk had not yet formed caiques with 'advice, counsel' as the basis for 'treason, traitor', etc. For these concepts, Y uses other Germanisms or Y Abgide f'treason', Lmasern ~ Abojgedzajn 'betray', • bojged (bogdim) m 'traitor' ~ arojsgebn (vs. G herausgeben 'deliver up; publish; edit; give change for') ~ felcn. On phonological grounds, G *verräten would have posed no problem, since MHG verraten was still used without the change of /a/ > /ä/, but see MHG Verräter ~ verrceter m 'traitor'. (b) Y lacks G Gerät 'apparatus, tool', using instead Lmaxser (maxsorim) m or gecajg η (see #Zaum); the Germanism is also available to USo as grat m vs. Uk znarjaddja η 'tool', prylad m 'apparatus'. The existence of an original Y gerot(n) m, geretenisfn) η '(good) harvest, crop' suggests that Y may once have had G Gerät, (c) G Rätsel (zero pi) η 'riddle, puzzle, mystery' is a 15th-c loan from MLG (Pfeifer et al. 1989). Hence, Y \retenis(n) η 'riddle, puzzle, mystery' may be from early ModG (UG) ^Rätersch. See also Y • sod (sojdes) m 'mystery, secret'. The different root in USo (see hodancko n, [arch] hodanka f) should have blocked relexification; thus, the possibility that one or the other (or both) of the Germanisms was a post-RP2 borrowing has to be entertained. For (a) G Hausrat(- "e) 'household furniture', Unrat(e) 'dirt, filth, refuse' and Vorrat(-"e) m 'store, provisions, stock', Y has Lklebayes, Lpsojles n, Lcejde-lederex f, respectively, with the latter coexisting with mzapas(n) (< Br, Uk zapas) and wtarc m. Y mxarc m differs in gender and number from coterritorial EUk xarc f (vs. WUk, Br, R m, but OR xarcb f, all of which can have a pi; see gender details in Andrusyshen and Krett 1957). The ultimate etymon, Ar xardz m 'expenditure', which matches Y gender and sg number restriction, may have reached Y and the SI languages independently (via different Tc intermediaries); subsequently the Y term could have become formally aligned with the SI surface congener. (a) A G compound with -rat, Heirat (where the first component < 'home'), is lacking in Y (see U. Weinreich 1968 * [ f a r j h e j r a t ) , for which Y uses • xasene(s), Lxupe(s) f (lit. 'canopy') 'wedding, marriage', Lziveg (zivugim) m 'marriage, match'. Note that G Heirat is f MHG f, m), though Rat is m (~ MHG rät m), presumably because speakers no longer recognize the origin of -rat in Heirat (see also chapter 4.5.2). G Heirat f, heiraten may have been blocked in Y during RP1 since they are unmarked for sex, which is required in SI languages, and/or because they denoted a G Christian ceremony; the same constraints presumably would

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

229

have blocked MHG hiwe(n) m, f, pi η 'spouse', hiwen, Men 'get married' < 'house' and hileich m 'marriage', hileichen 'marry'. G vermählen 'give in marriage', sich vermählen 'get married', Vermählte pit 'bridal couple', ^Vermählung(en) f'marriage, wedding', Gemahl(e) m 'husband', Gemahlinnen) f 'wife' are also unattested in Y. A non-linguistic factor for the blockage of the latter may have been differences between the G and SI wedding ceremonies. G Gemahl m, Gemahlin f are derived from a CGmc root meaning 'public gathering' (related to ONorse mal 'speech'). Most SI languages distinguish between 'marry' performed by a male and a female, see e.g. Uk vyjty zamiz 'marry (of a woman)' (lit. 'go out to a man') vs. zenytysja 'marry (of a man)' (lit. 'become womaned'); the distinction is also made in nouns, e.g. Uk mmizzja 'marriage (of a woman)' vs. zenyt'ba 'marriage (of a man)', though there are also neutral terms, e.g. Uk braty sljub 'get married' (lit. 'take' + 'marriage'), Uk (arch), R svad'ba f 'wedding', WUk svatba (coll) 'wedding guests'. This distinction is currently not always respected in So, see USo so wozenic (originally of a man only), so (zjmandzelic (< mandzelski m 'husband', thus originally said of a woman) 'marry' (now both sexes-but note also USo so wudac 'marry [of a woman]'- lit. 'be given out'), wozenic 'marry o f f , zentwa f 'wedding', which are not marked for sex. It is likely that So became influenced by the G practice of generally not distinguishing by sex, see G \sich verheiraten 'get married', MHG gemahele, etc. m, f 'bride, groom', though the genders can be distinguished, as in ModG Gemahl m 'husband', Gemahlin f 'wife'; also beweibt 'married', bemannt 'married (of a woman)'-but see bemannen 'to man', the chronology of which is unknown. With the G terms unacceptable, Y had no choice but to acquire periphrastic Axasene hobn/ maxn 'marry' (lit. 'wedding' + 'have/make'; see also La xasene hobn 'have a wedding'), which-significantly-avoid the need to mark gender distinctions (see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #22, who also cite a single non-periphrastic Lxasnen from Koszalin). W(G)Y texts of the 14th-15th cc use sexually neutral antspo(j)zn < Rom for 'become engaged'; the term came to mean 'get married' in the 16th c (see discussion in Wexler 1992: 41-44). I wonder whether the Hg distinction between ferjhez menni 'marry (of a woman)' and felesigül venni 'marry (of a man)' reflects SI influence. The Hebraism may not have been the original term in relexified JSo, since it clearly follows G rather than SI lexical parameters. At the same time, Y does distinguish the sexes in the part, 'married', e.g. bamant 'married (of a woman); manned (spaceship)' ~ \bavajbt (also attested in Dutch [Gmc] Y 1696), Lxasene gehater 'married (of a man)' ~ G

230

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

bemannt, \beweibt (in all dials?: see also Wann). There is no sex distinction in Y Lfarknast 'engaged' < He qnäs 'fine' (on the latter, see Mberglaube)\ the related formally innovative Lkansen has a different meaning, 'to fine'. The use of Y far- copies the za- of Uk zarucatysja 'become engaged' < rucatyfsjaj 'give bail, security'. Another set of Germaisms that is not available to Y is G Braut(- "e) f 'fiancee; bride' and Bräutigam(e) m 'fiance; bridegroom'. For these terms Y has only JLkale(s) f and jkxosn (xasanim, unexpected for xosanim, found in Bessarabian, Moldavian and Podolian Y) m, respectively. The blockage is probably because the SI languages require two separate roots, some of which are euphemisms: see e.g. USo njewjesta f (lit. 'not known') and nawozenja m, (arch) nawozen (lit. 'intended for a woman'), Uk narecena (lit. 'intended'), moloda f (lit. 'young'), narecenyj, molodyj m. Also possible is Uk (arch) nevista f 'woman; bride-to-be' vs. nevistka f 'daughter-in-law' (see Trubacev 1999, 25: 70-76; R nevestka f also means 'brother's wife': P. Friedrich 1979: 176, 192). See also Uk zenyx, R zenix m 'fiance; eligible bachelor' < 'woman'. For taboo reasons, the notion of bride came to be expressed by periphrastic, euphemistic terms ('not known', 'intended', 'young'); similarly, R knjaz' 'prince' and cuzoj ~ cuzenin m (< 'foreign') can also function as 'bridegroom'. Y follows the SI, but not G, requirement of multiple roots, by accepting BibHe terms which become recalibrated in Y: BibHe källäh f 'daughter-in-law; fiancee from the day of the engagement to thirty days after the engagement agreement' has assumed the meaning of A'bride' in Y kale f, while BibHe hätän m 'head of the household; man from the hour of his marriage through the following seven days of feasting' assumed in TalmHe the meaning of 'child undergoing circumcision', and, finally in Medieval European He the meaning of A.'fiance' or A'bridegroom' (Y xosn m). In ModHe, the term has, in addition to the Medieval meanings, been expanded in compounds to mean 'possessor o f , as in L·xatan pras 'nominee for a prize', Axatan-hajom 'hero of the day' (see discussion of the far more productive Y • bal- 'possessor of in ##-er). The expansion of Y A kale from 'daughter-in-law' to A'bride' matches Uk nevista 'bride'/ nevistka f 'daughter-in-law'. MHG brütlouf(t) m, f, η 'wedding' > arch G Brautlauf m and surfaces in OW (Gmc) Y texts (see Wexler 1991b: 115, fn 164). This term was not attractive to Y since it probably originally denoted the act of bringing the bride home (MHG louf m 'circulation'), a concept which lacks a parallel in the SI languages (see Schräder 1917-1923, 1: 474, 478).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

231

For the status of G Ge- in Y, see also G Bau! Gebäude (beschaffen), #Berg/ Gebirge, #beten/ Gebet, ttbewegen! Gewicht, Blase! Gebläse ßblähen), UBlatt! Geblätter, Bruder! Gebrüder (#Saat), #Fass! Gefäss, Weder! Gefieder, #Fliege! Geflügel, (Ge)bein (Mgleich), #(Ge)hirn, (Ge)rippe (Mgleich), MHG #(ge)traht, Hof! #Gehöft, Horn! Gehörn (UGehim), Lachen! Gelächter (Machen), Land! Gelände, βAusländerj, malen! #Gemälde, Mauer! Gemäuer ßGewand), Mus! Gemüse ßwarm), Nacken! tiGenick, rauchen! ^Geruch, Schöpfer! Geschöpf βbeschaffen), Trank! Getränk (Vertränken), #(ge)trauen, Wahrheit! Gewähr ßbewahren), walten! #Gewalt, Wetter! UGewitter, Würze! #Gewürz. A rare Hebraism in Y with G Ge- is Agesroxe(s) f 'stench'; forms without ge- are cited in Stuckov (1950) ( • sarxenen 'to stink') and Niborski (1997) (Asroxe 'stench', Asarxn 'stinker', Asarxefnejn 'to stink' < OHe s-r-h, as in sarhän m 'stinker', särah "he, it stank'; see also UGeruch). 27. German: (a) Berg(e) m 'mountain'/ (b) Gebirge (coll) η 'mountains'/ (c) Burg(en) f 'castle'/ (d) Bürger (zero pi) 'citizen', Bürgermeister (zero pi) m 'mayor'// Bahre, beraten, bergen, beschliessen, Ge-, gebären, hoch, Höhe, Hügel, Schloss, Zaum > Yiddish: (a) barg (berg) m, |geberg (coll) η 'mountains'/ (d) birger(s) m 'citizen'. Y lacks the G morphophonemic alternation of /e ~ iJ since there is no such precedent in SI; the latter uses the pi of 'mountain' to express the coll, though MHG also provides a precedent in berc, geberge ~ gebirge. In USo hora f ~ horstwo η (coll), the latter is probably an imitation of G. I suspect that Υ ^geberg is a recent post-RP2 development in the language, since /e/ before /r, x/ > /a/ in old Y Germanisms. A study of coll nouns is called for, since the category exists in SI languages, see e.g. Uk hilka (hilky) f'branch, twig' ~ hillja coll (see also discussion in #Blatt). G Berg is cognate with USo brjoh 'shore, bank', dial breh < CS1 *bergb 'shore' < IE *bheregh- (retained as Y bregfn ~ es] m 'edge, brim, border; riverbank, shore', which makes Y unique among the SI languages in permitting the coexistence of Germanic and SI cognates) but formal and semantic differences between the cognates were too great to block relexification from USo hora f > G Berg m (Trubacev 1974, 1: 191-193). The distribution of Y barg exceeds that of G Berg, since the latter is opposed to Hügel (zero pi) m 'hill(ock)', which is lacking in Y. For 'hill(ock)', see Y mkojp (< SI ~ USo hope m, Uk kupa f) and bergl η (~ USo horka dim < hora f 'mountain'; see also the two dims, Uk pahorok m

232

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

and G Berglein η [1482]). The use of a common root for 'mountain' and 'hill(ock)' in SI accounts for the Y blockage of G Hügel m-related to #hoch 'high', Höhe f'height'. No SI language expresses (c) and (d), or 'citizen' and 'mayor' by common roots, see Uk zamok 'castle', hromadjanyn ~ horodjanyn 'citizen' but starosta 'village head', mer m 'mayor', (c) G Burg f could not be accepted since synonymous G Schloss was the relexification in Y of USo hrod m (see ftbeschliessen, #Zaum and discussion of R gorod-, gorozin Herman 1975). For (c), Y also has festung(en) f. For 'mayor', Y has jkresejrn(s) m (lit. 'head of a city'); the latter, in turn, appears to be calqued on (d) G Bürgermeister, since there is no SI precedent (Stuckov 1950 also cites Y burgmister ~ burgmajster ~ birgermajster m). For GHe terms for 'mayor' in 13th-c texts, see Wexler (1991b: 81, 124, fn 300). On the status of G Ge-, see ttberaten; see also G gebären in #Bahre. G bergen 'to save, secure', in the next entry, may be related (Drosdowski 1989). 28. German: (a) bergen 'save, secure'/ (b) borgen 'borrow, lend'/ (c) Bürge(n) m 'bail, surety, guarantee', ^bürgen 'pledge bail', sich verbürgen 'to guarantee'// entlehnen, entleihen, retten > Yiddish: (b) borgen. For (a) 'save', Y uses bavorenen < G, rateven < Uk (< G Mretten) and A mac I zajn. It is unclear whether G bergen and borgen are genetically related (see Kluge 1899) but this is immaterial for us, since USo uses two roots in any case, (s)chowac 'to save' and pozcic 'borrow, lend', and this suffices to block one Germanism in Y (see also G entleihen 'borrow, lend' and #entlehnen 'borrow') Furthermore, G bergen might also be unavailable to Y because in USo there is a single root-chowac, prechowac, schowac, wuchowac, zachowac-to express the notions of 'save, secure; hide, conceal' (this could also account for the block on synonymous ##retten). While USo lacks a root resembling G bergen in form and meaning (though may once have had it, to judge from related CS1 *borgb, see LSo brog m '[hayjstack': Trubacev 1975, 2: 202), there is a cognate Uk term in the form of berehty 'take care, protect, guard, watch'. Hence, it is possible that G bergen was received by Y in RP1, only to be eliminated in RP2. For (c) 'bail, surety, guarantee' and 'to guarantee', Y uses • orves(-gelt) η and nkojcje ~ (dial) mkavcje < Pol kaucja f and • orev zajn, respective-

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

233

ly. In MHG, (b) borgen and (c) bürgen were a single borgen. See also remarks in #Berg. 29. German: (a) (sich) beschaffen 'find, get', beschaffen 'create', schaffen 'create, make, produce; supply', ^Schaffen η 'creation', -schafi '-ship' (e.g. Gesellschaften] f 'society')/ (b) |beschäftigen 'employ, engage' MHG bescheften), G ^sich beschäftigen 'occupy oneself, deal with', ^Beschäftigung(en) f 'occupation, job' MHG gescheffede f, n), G Geschäft(e) η ψ store' (19th c); 'business; transaction', geschäftig 'busy, bustling, active'/ (c) Geschöpfte) η 'creature', schöpfen 'draw, scoop up', Schöpfer (zero pi) m 'creator; scoop'// Bekannte, beraten, Ge-, Schaufel > Yiddish: (a) basafh 'create', basafer(s) m 'creator' (< G [c]), safn 'create, procure; raise (money); deal with', safn zix mit 'occupy oneself, deal with' (< G [b]), safung(en) f 'creation', -saft '-ship' (e.g. gezelsaft[n] f 'society')/ (b) %baseftikn 'employ', geseft(n) η 'business, deal', basefer m 'Creator', baseferis(n) η 'creature', sepn 'scoop (up)', sep(n) m 'scoop' (< G [c]). There are a number of differences between G and the Y Germanism which point to a SI substratal impact: (i) Y cannot maintain a difference between (b) and (c) since G /ö/ > Y /e/ (on this topic, see also #Bekannte). (ii) Since USo and Uk can use a common root (without morphophonemic alternations) for forms of (a) and (b), Y would be unable to maintain the G allomorphic distinctions consistently. For example, (b) G \sich beschäftigen 'occupy oneself with' > (a) Y safn zix mit. The restriction in Y of this Germanism to the non-reflexive form-baseftikn 'to employ'-might reflect the fact that USo (but not Uk) uses two different roots: G ^beschäftigen ~ USo dac, dostac, zajimowac but G sich beschäftigen ~ USo so zaberac; Uk has zajmaty and zajmatysja, respectively. The SI data may, however, be coincidental, since G ^sich beschäftigen and ^beschäftigen are only attested for the first time in the 17th and 18th c, respectively. Most likely, Y relexifiers also blocked parts of an older G paradigm that were available before the ModG period, see MHG bescheften ~ ModG |beschäftigen and MHG gescheffede f, η ~ ModG f Beschäftigung f.

234

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(iii) (c) Schöpfer 'creator' > (a) Y basafer(s) m 'creator', parallel to USo tworic 'create'/ tworicel ~ tworc m 'creator' (USo ο > ό by the midnth c: Schaarschmidt 1998: 90). (iv) The use of the prefix ba- in Y basafh 'create' vs. the simplex G schaffen 'create' beschaffen) could find an explanation in Uk tvoryty, utvorjuvaty, stvorjuvaty 'create', the latter two with prefixes. (v) The SI languages distinguish lexically between 'creator' and 'scoop', see e.g. USo cerpac 'to scoop', cerpawa f ~ cerpak 'scoop' vs. tworicel ~ tworc 'creator'; thus, Y had to follow suit, see e.g. Y sep(n) 'scoop' ~ unrelated sofl(en) m 'scoop; shovel' (< G Schaufel[n] f) vs. basafer(s) m 'Creator'. Machek thinks that USo cerpac and G schöpfen are cognates (1971: 98, an idea rejected by Trubacev 1977, 4: 71-73). Y also has basefer (< G [c]), which denotes specifically 'God'. (vi) A blatant sign of the reluctance of Y relexifiers to accept the entire G paradigm is the existence of A briefs) f, Lbruim pit, Anefes (nefases) η 'creature', Abojre(-ojlem) m 'God'. For 'occupy oneself with, deal with, be engaged in', Y uses Aojsek zajn (zix); also ejsek (asokim) m, η _A'business' coexists with geseft η (the recent meaning store' of G does not reach Y; for 'store', see Y klejt[n] < Uk klitka 'cage', but dial 'little room; small village shop', and Y krom[en] f). The reason for these Hebraisms is the use of different roots in USo nadawk, wobchod m, wikowanje η 'business', dawac dzelo 'employ' (lit. 'give work') and dzelo η 'occupation' vs. so zaberac 'occupy oneself with'. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see ttberaten. 30. German: (a) beschliessen 'decide, close', \entschliessen 'decide', \erschliessen 'open, make accessible', schliessen ' close'/ (b) Beschluss (-"ej 'decision, decree', Schluss(-"e), MHG sloz, sluz m 'end, close'/ (c) G Schloss^-"er), MHG sloz η 'lock; castle', G Schlosser (zero pi) m 'locksmith'/ (d) ^entschlüsseln 'decipher', Schlüssel (zero pi) m 'key', fverschlüsseln 'put into ciphers'// Bekannte, Burg, entziffern > Yiddish: (a) baslisn 'decide' (f*'to close'; see also %*baslus[n] m 'decision, resolution' in U. Weinreich 1968), (%)slisn 'close; conclude'/ (c) Y slos sleser) η 'lock; castle', sloser(s) m 'locksmith'/ (d) slisl(en ~ zero pi) m 'key'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

235

Y lacks (b) G Schluss(- "e) 'end, close' and Beschluss(- "e) m 'decision, resolution' altogether, and Y baslisn lacks the meaning 'to close'. This is because USo has separate roots, see e.g. kluc 'key', konc 'end' and rozsud m 'decision'. For 'close, end', Y uses either Lsof(n) or another Germanism ojsloz(n) m; for 'decision', see Lhaxlote(s) f, Agmar(n) m (OHe gmär m is uniquely 'conclusion', as in Y Lgmar xsime tojve, lit. 'the conclusion of a good sealing'-a traditional greeting exchanged between Yom Kippur and the seventh day of the Sukkoth holiday-lifted from Classical He as a frozen expression) or festkejt f < G and mrezolucje(s) f 'resolution' < Uk. Another possible reason for the blockage is that MHG did not always distinguish between sloz η 'castle, lock' (see SI forms below) and sloz ~ sluz m 'end, close'. Y uses (a) slis- for both 'decide' and 'key' and (c) slos- for 'lock' and 'castle', even though these words are expressed by different roots in the SI languages. I hypothesize that originally Y flf)slisn may have had only one of the two meanings, with the second meaning acquired under G influence after RP1 and RP2 had been completed (see also #Berg). Y lacks Hebraisms or Slavicisms for 'lock' and 'key' but there is competition in the meaning 'decide' (attested already in MHG) from Hebraisms such as •paskenen 'to judge, rule, decide' and Amaxrie zajn 'be decisive, settle, decide'. Curiously, records of WY (or GRotw) and Y thieves' slang do have He replacements for G Schloss 'lock', schliessen 'to close', but this may be due to the requirements of a cryptic code and not a result of relexification: see WY Apesaxner 'locksmith' (< He 'he opened' + G ag: Bibliophilus 1742: 49 ~ Y sloserfsj) and Y thieves' slang Asogrn 'to lock' (< He 'he closes; closing', patterned on G schliessen 'to close' ~ Schloss m 'lock': Stuckov 1950: xxv). It is worth investigating whether the presence of G Schlosser 'locksmith' in Pol slosarz and Uk sljusar m influenced the decision of Y to accept the Germanism (just as Uk rjatuvaty 'save, rescue' > Y rateven). The merger of 'decide' and 'key' could have developed in Y early-as a result of the merger of G /i/ and /ti/ > /i/ (see discussion of front rounded vowels in #Bekannte), thus, dependent on SI considerations. Some SI languages have adopted the G habit of merging (fully or partly) 'castle' and 'lock', though this is not the case in USo, see USo zamk 'lock' vs. hrod m 'castle' (on the latter, see G Burg f in #Berg); but note LSo zamk m 'castle'. The merger of 'castle' and 'lock' seems to have spread from G and from the latter to the ESI languages, see Pol zamek 'lock' ~ zamek, grod 'castle', Uk zamok 'lock' vs. zamok 'castle' ([arch] horodm 'town', originally also 'castle'). The latter facts support the claim that the collapse

236

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

of 'lock' and 'castle' into a single morpheme in Y dates from RP2; however, Uk requires a stress difference, which might have affected relexification, see e.g. Uk zamok 'castle' (< Pol) vs. native zamok m 'lock'. Also the use of ^-er with Umlaut to mark the pi of G Schloss appears to originate in MG dials, roughly in the 16th c, which also supports the hypothesis of RP2. For (d) G ^verschlüsseln '(put into) cipher(s)' and ^entschlüsseln 'decipher', Y uses the Gallicism sifrirn and desifrirn, where the simplexcomplex relationship (rather than two verbal prefixes) matches Uk syfruvaty/ rozsyfruvaty (see also G entziffern for the latter). See R kljuc-, kljuk- and ver- in Herman (1975). 31. German: (a) besonnen 'discrete, sensible', gesonnen 'be of a mind to, disposed to', ^versonnen 'lost in thought'/ (b) Gesinde 'servants, domestics', \Gesindel η 'rabble, mob'/ (c) Sinn(e) m 'sense, mind, meaning', sinnen 'meditate, muse, ponder; plot'/ (d) senden 'send'/ (e) ^Versand m 'dispatch, shipment'// befreien, eigene, Gewand, MHG, schicken, G Verwandte, (wegschicken > Yiddish: (b) Y gezind(er) 'family, household', \gezindl(ex) η 'bunch of people (ironic)', (c) zinen m (\*zin according to U. Weinreich 1968) 'mind, sense, point'. The partial relexification is due to the fact that USo lacks a common root for all the G allomorphs, see e.g. USo celedz 'servants', swojba f'family', rozwazny, strozny 'discrete, sensible', zmysl m 'sense, mind, meaning', slac 'send', rozposlanje η 'dispatch'. For (a) G ^gesonnen, Y uses hobn Axejsek cu (lit. 'have a desire for'), zajn a Lbaln cu (lit. 'be interested in') or zajn jkbedeje-axes (lit. 'be of one mind'). The reluctance to accept G ^gesonnen is probably due to the fact that part, forms like besonnen, ^gesonnen and ^versonnen diverge semantically from Sinn and sinnen, and the use of diverse roots in USo would make relexification to (a) unfeasible, see e.g. G Sinn m, sinnen USo zmysl m, premyslowac; G ^gesonnen = USo zmysleny 'disposed' and zwolniwy 'be of a mind to'; G besonnen = USo rozwazny, rozwazliwy; G ^versonnen = USo zasonjeny, zamysleny, do myslow zanurjeny. Y has a plethora of terms for 'family', see e.g. k.mispoxe(s), famil'e(s) f 'family' < G (vs. EUk familja 'family name'), Lben-bajes (bnej-bajes) m 'family member', di ejgene pit 'the folks' (on 'relatives', see also ttbefreien and #Gewand). The lexical richness of Y, in comparison with both G and USo, suggests cyclical relexification-in probably more than

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

237

one venue. G eigene is only an adj meaning 'one's own', while Y di ejgene (pit) matches USo swojba f and Uk svojak m 'relative', svijnja f (coll) (lit. 'one's own')-with the difference that the Y term, unlike Si, appears only in the plural (Y, following G practice, uses the G definite article to substantivize an adj, hence I suspect that Y di ejgene is a relatively recent form, after the acquisition of some determiner functions from G). Germanisms with related meanings are blocked in Y, e.g. G ^Verwandte (n), for which Y uses • korev (krojvim) m 'relative' (see details under #Gewand). Furthermore, since the kinship system of the Slavs and SI Jews most likely differed from that of the Germans, some G terms for relative would have been unneccesary in Y and vice versa. For example, Y has the term mexutn (mexutonim) m 'son-in-law's, daughterin-law's father; relative by marriage', Lmexuteneste(s) f 'son-in-law's, daughter-in-law's mother; relative in marriage', coined from He roots but apparently unknown in old native or non-YHe (see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #55). These terms are also used by the in-laws on both sides to address one another (on kinship terms in European and Asian languages, see Wexler 1993c: 174; 1997b: 117-118, Uefreien and chapter 4.6). LMexuteneste(s) has a double marker for f gender, A.-es- < He and A-te < JAram, and possibly was once split into two variants to express the Uk dial opposition between svat m, svaxa f 'in-law' and starosta m 'matchmaker' (-sta may be the basis for Y -este). Y lacks a verb corresponding to (c) G sinnen. Y makes no use of (d) G senden, (e) ^Versand, preferring sikn, sikung f < G schicken 'send'. The Y acceptance of only one G term for 'send' is dictated by the lexical configuration of USo, which has only a single verb, slac 'send'. The actual choice of the single G root may depend on the inventory of the G lexifier dial of Y or on SI linguistic practice itself, e.g. G schicken was also borrowed by Polab and as a noun by Pol, see Polab sikol-veχ 'send o f f , patterned on G wegschicken (Polaiiski 1962: 163) and Pol szyk m '(word) order, formation' (Moszynski 1954: 75). Even though MHG schicken has a great number of meanings-'make something happen, do, cause, carry out, prepare, send'-the term was accepted by Y with the solitary meaning 'send'. On R sol-, s(y)l- 'send', see Herman (1975). 32. German: (a) bestechen U'to bribe' (originally 'probe by poking'), einstechen 'to prick, puncture', erstechen 'stab (to death)', stechen 'to sting, stitch, prick' (~ MHG stechen 'to bribe')/ (b) G einstecken 'to put in, pocket', Stecken (zero pi) m 'stick, staff, stecken 'put, set, fix, stick;

238

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

plant', \Besteck(e) η 'knife, fork and spoon'/ (c) sticken 'embroider', ersticken 'suffocate, smother, choke'/ (d) Stachel(n) m 'sting', stacheln 'to sting'/ (e) Stange(n) f 'stake, stick, pole'/ (f) Stich(e) m 'prick, sting, bite, stab; stitch', sticheln 'to stitch; prick; provoke' (~ MHG hinderstechen < [a])// G Andacht, Stab, Stock, MHG wergen, würgen > Yiddish: (a) stexn 'to sting, stab; prod', ajnstexn 'to sting; puncture', derstexn 'stab to death'/ (b) stekn 'to stick', steknfs ~ stekenes) m 'stick, cane'/ (c) (der)stikn (zix) 'to choke, strangle, suffocate', derstifcn 'to choke, strangle, suffocate; stamp out, suppress, repress'/ (d) stox (stex) m 'sting; prick, stab' (< G [f])/ (e) stang(en) m, f 'beam, bar'. Y acquires five of the six G allomorphs, but not all their meanings. For example, (d) Y stox (stex) m 'sting, stab, prick' seems to be a unique use of the G root, based on gestoxn, the past part, of stexn. This could be an internal Y development (after relexification) or an imitation of the So /a ~ ο/ alternation in 'prick, stab', etc. (see below). Y acquires (b) G stecken only in the meaning of 'to stick' (*'put', *'fix'). This is because all the diverse meanings are not expressable by a single verb in the SI substratum, (c) G ersticken 'suffocate, smother, choke' > Y (der)stikn (zix), along with a partial synonym, G würgen 'strangle, throttle, choke' (intr and tr < MHG wergen ~ würgen tr) > Y (der)vargn (tr) ~ vargn zix (intr); in addition Y has farxlin 'en zix 'choke in drinking' < Uk zaxlynjatysja. The acceptance of two Germanisms for choke is possible since USo has several roots, see USo (so) dajic, so dusyc, zacknyc vs. Uk dusyty(sja). For (c) 'embroider', Y uses other G verbs, but the part, 'embroidered' can be expressed by Y gestikt. This is unusual, since USo has a variety of verbs for the G paradigm, see e.g. (a) G stechen, erstechen, einstechen = USo kalac, (za)kl0ct (b) G einstecken, stecken = USo tyknyc, tykac, G Stecken = USo kij m/ (c) G sticken = USo wusiwac, G ersticken = USo dusyc/ (f) Stich = USo kabijenje ~ kalanje, kloce n. Uk presents a similar picture. The absence in Y of other G terms for 'cane, stick' (e.g. G Stab, Stock) suggests that (b) Y stekn must have been acquired early, in one of the relexification phases. Y also has Slavicisms to denote 'stick, pole', see e.g. Y mdrengl(ex) η 'stick', mstojp(n), mslup(es), mdrong(en ~ -es) m, mpal'e(s) f 'pole' ~ USo stolp, LSo slup, Uk slup, stovp m, palja f, Pol drqg m (the latter surfaces also in Hg as dorong 'pole', first attested in 1463: Kniezsa 1955). Y lacks reflexes of (a) bestechen H'to bribe' (a meaning still rare in the 16th c), (d) G Stachel(n) m 'sting', %stacheln 'to sting', (e) Stange(n) f

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

239

'stake, stick, pole' and (f) G Stich(e) m 'prick, stab', sticheln 'to stitch, prick, provoke'. For these concepts, see (a) Y unterkojfn (see #Andacht), (d) 'sting' < (a) stexn, (e) 'stick' < (b) stekn m (see also the Slavicisms cited above), (f) 'prick, stab' < (d) stox m 'sting; prick, stab'. Y succeeded in relexifying to G Stange f even though the SI languages have a cognate (see ELSo scagel 'beam of a plough', Uk stjah m 'flag', stjaha f 'stripe'), probably because of the semantic differences; if relexifiers had identified the Germanism with the LSo dialectalism, then blockage would have come into effect in the KP lands. See discussion of R toc-, t(y)c-, t(y)k- in Herman (1975). 33. German: (a) bestrafen, strafen 'punish, fine', ^strafbar 'punishable, criminal, culpable', Strafe(n) f 'punishment; penalty, fine'/ (b) sträflich 'punishable, criminal, culpable', ^Sträfling (zero pi) m 'convict'// Aberglaube, Alter, Andacht, Draht > Yiddish: (a) \bastrojh 'punish, discipline', Ubastroflex 'punishable' (< G [b]), strof(n) f 'penalty, punishment; sentence', strofn 'punish; reprove, chastise' vs. \straf(n) m 'fine', \strafirn 'to fine'. (a) G strafen (< MHG -ä-) surfaces in two forms in Y, with /o/ and /a/. Pol Germanisms also have the same two reflexes for MHG ä, but the chronology of the Y and Pol reflexes differs. In earlier loans MHG ä > Pol /a/ (e.g. Pol dratwa 'showmaker's thread' < G Draht f 'thread'; this is true for USo and Cz as well, and suggests an U and MG dial source), while in later loans MHG ä > Pol /o/ (e.g. Pol drot m 'wire' [< o], strofowac 'punish, fine' < G strafen); finally, modern loans from stG surface in Pol with /a/ (see Kaestner 1939: 25-26; the Pol reflex st for MHG st also must be dated before the 14th-15th cc, after which time MHG st > st> Pol st: Kaestner 1939: 83). In Y, on the other hand, the original reflex of MHG ä was with /o/; variants with /a/ are later borrowings either from G or SI Germanisms. The existence of Y m^straflrn points to an underlying * straf even, which is smoothly derived < Uk strafuvaty 'to fine' < straf m 'fine'. The decision of Y speakers to accept only one of the meanings of G s/ra/eH-'punish', while initially blocking 'fine', only to accept the latter subsequently in a Slavicized form of the Germanism, parallels gender splits such as G Alter m, η > Y elter m, f. On m-eve- in Y verbs of G origin, see #Andacht. During the first relexification phase (b) was blocked in Y, since USo and Uk have common, non-Umlauted roots for (a) and (b), see (a) USo chlostac, Uk karaty 'punish'/ (b) USo chlostajomny, Uk karnyj 'culpable'.

240

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Thus, (b) G sträflich > (a) Y bastrojlex 'punishable'. Additional evidence for the blockage is the Y recourse to Hebraisms and Slavicisms, see e.g. Aknas (knosim) 'fine', Lkansenen 'to fine' (see also discussion in #Aberglaube), Aojnes '(moral) punishment', jktfisenik(es) 'convict' ~ mkatorznik(es) 'convict at hard labor', uarestant(n) < Uk katorznyk, arestant m. Since G ^Sträfling m is not attested in MHG, it must have been created after RP1; hence, the Y Hebraisms and Slavicisms may have replaced an earlier Germanism. See also discussion in Wexler (1991b: 55). 34. German: (a) beten 'pray', Gebet(e) η 'prayer'/ (b) betteln 'beg' (historically the iterative of bitten)/ (c) \Bitte(n) f 'request' (~ MHG bet, etc. < [a]), G bitten 'ask, request, bid'// beraten, einladen, Ge- > Yiddish: (a) betn 'ask, request, bid, beg; invite', betn ojf 'pray for', betn got 'pray to God', farbetn 'invite', gebet(n) η 'prayer', iberbetn 'beg pardon', iberbetn zix 'become reconciled'/ (b) betlen 'beg'. USo distinguishes so modlic 'pray' from prosyc 'to request; beg'. Y partially maintains the distinctions by complementation, e.g. with got m 'God' > 'pray' and ojf 'to' > 'pray for, request'. Alternatively, Y betn could have acquired the meaning of 'pray' due to Uk influence, since Uk can use prosyty for 'pray' (~ molytysja), in addition to 'beg; ask, request' (Moszyhski 1997: 14 reconstructs the original meaning of CS1 *modliti fsqj as 'request'). Y expresses the concept 'pray' by a variety of terms (which permits bifurcation into acts committed by Jews vs. non-Jews), see e.g. Y Lmispalel zajn, Atfile ton (lit. 'prayer' + 'do') 'pray (in general)', dav(e)nen 'pray (Jews)' (of disputed origin; for suggested etyma, see Wexler 1987a: 61-64, 131, 184, 1993c: 90, 111, Gershenson 1996; Zeiden 1996 and chapter 4), mmol'en zix 'pray (Christians)' < Uk molytysja. In PolY, mmol'en zix has been replaced by mmodlen zix < Pol modlic siq (Geller 1994: 194). I wonder whether the Slavicism became restricted to non-Jewish prayer because of its association with the sacrifice of cattle (usually for a specific holiday: see Trubacev 1992, 19: 87-92). Y gebetfn) η 'prayer' is in competition with Ltfile(s) f; curiously, Y does not utilize the latter to denote the act of praying performed by Jews (as opposed to the verb). At present, USo has a single root for 'pray(er)', so modlic 'pray', modlitwa f 'prayer' (but see also pacer m 'Catholic prayer' < Lat pater [noster] '[our] Father', which later came to denote the rosary), whereas Uk has two roots, see e.g. molytysja, prosyty 'pray', molytva f, proxannja η (< prosyty) and pros'ba f 'prayer'. Y presumably had betn and perhaps also dav(e)nen prior to its arrival in the KP lands; it is

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

241

therefore conceivable that Ltfile f was acquired in the latter area, under the pressure of the three-way distinction in Uk. Note that WY (JG) tfile f denoted A'prayer-book' (since when?; see also discussion in chapter 4.5.4). Relexification to related (a) G beten 'pray' and (c) Bitte(n) f 'request', bitten 'ask, request' would have been licensed by OCS modlitva 'request; prayer'; the Y facts suggest that Uk molytva f 'prayer' no longer denoted a request at the time of RP2. (c) For G Bitte, U. Weinreich (1968) cites YY bite(s) f 'request' (though the term is acceptable for Stuökov 1950); instead, see Y Abakose(s) f. Y betn covers the semantic territory of both (b) G betteln and (c) bitten, probably because USo prosyc covers these two meanings (though proser, prosak mean uniquely 'beggar'; see also UkprosyteV, proxac m 'beggar; petitioner'). Hence, the Germanisms were probably acquired by Y during RP1. A Slavic term for 'beg(gar)' (ultimately < G: Schuster-Sewc 19781996: 1784), e.g. Uk zebrak m 'beggar', zebrakuvaty 'go begging', zebraty 'beg' (with cognates in WS1 languages, including USo), also surfaces in Y as mzebreven 'scrounge' (see also Hg zsobrak, sobrdk: Leschka 1825: 207, 270). Presumably under G influence, Sin moliti 'beg; pray' is disambiguated by borrowing two Germanisms, zebrati 'beg' and petati 'pray' (Tesniere 1933: 62-64). This solution is not acceptable in relexification. G bitten can on occasion mean 'invite', though the normal term is einladen. The latter is absent in Y, which uses farbetn in this meaning. The reason for the Y use of a verbal prefix lies in SI linguistic practice, where 'request, ask' and 'invite' are denoted by a common root, with an optional verbal prefix for the latter, see USo prosyc 'to request; invite', preprosyc 'invite', Uk prosyty 'ask; invite', zaprosuvaty 'invite'; the use of pere- (expressing excess-and cognate with USo pre-) with Uk prosyty > pereprosyty 'beg pardon' and pereprosytysja 'make mutual apologies' accounts for Y iberbetn 'beg pardon', iberbetn zix 'become reconciled '-ungrammatical in G. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see überaten. 35. German: (a) Betrug 'trickery, fraud; deception', Trug m 'deception' (~ MHG triegefnjheit f)/ (b) G betrügen 'cheat, defraud, deceive', ^Betrüger (zero pi) m 'cheat, fraud, impostor', trügen 'deceive, be deceptive, deceitful'// Fliege. Yiddish: Yiddish lacks both (a) and (b) for two reasons:

242

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

(i) (a) G Trug is a coinage of the 16th c (Drosdowski 1989). (ii) Unrelated USo tru(h)nyc, truhac has similar form and meaning, which might lead to blockage (on synonymous wobsudzic, see below). (On the loss of g in G terms, see #Fliege.) Y has other Germanisms and Hebraisms, see e.g. (op)nam, basvindlen 'to cheat', opnarer(s) m 'swindler', genar(eraj) η ~ opnar m 'deception' < #Nctrr(en) 'fool' ~ • ramaj (ramoim) m 'cheat(er)', kramoes η 'fraud'. See also Y • axizesejnajim f 'deceiving' (lit. 'seizing' + 'eyes'; see also discussion in Wexler 1991b: 54). It is noteworthy that USo wobsudzic 'to cheat, deceive' < *-sudzic is related to the root of OChSl kuditi 'wreck, ruin', R prokudit' 'make a practical joke', kudes m 'rogue, trickster' (see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1480-1481). As I suggested in chapter 3.1, Y mkundes (kundejsim) m may be directly derived from the latter root (note again the use of a He pi marker to Hebraize the term). 36. German: (a) ^bewahren 'to keep, guard, save' (~ MHG bewar[ne]n), gewahren, *\etwas gewahr werden 'become aware o f , wahr 'true, real, genuine', wahren 'keep, observe, maintain', Wahrheiten) f 'truth', wahrsagen 'prophesy, tell fortunes', Wahrsager (zero pi) m 'prophet, fortune teller', ^Wahrsagerei f 'fortune telling'/ (b) bewähren 'prove, verify', Gewähr f 'warrant, security, guarantee', gewähren 'to grant, accord, give', Gewehr(e) η 'gun'/ (c) ^Wartefn) f'look-out, watch-tower', warten 'tend, attend to; wait' (MHG also 'to nurse'), Wartung 'maintenance, servicing' (< MHG wartunge f 'paying attention; expectation')/ (d) G gewärtig 'ready', gewärtig sein 'expect', Wärter (zero pi) 'attendant; male-nurse' (~ MHG warte[r] m), G Wärterin(nen) 'nurse' (~ MHG warterinne f)/ (e) G warnen 'warn, caution'// Aberglaube, beraten, Ge-, getrauen, Gläubige > Yiddish: (a) vor f 'reality', vorzoger(s) m 'fortune teller', vorzogeraj η 'fortune telling', gevoj(e)r vern 'find out; discover; visit (to find out how a person is)'/ (b) bavern 'realize, materialize', gever η 'weapon'/ (c) vartn 'wait (for), await', vartorin(s) f '(sick)nurse', vartoraj η 'nursing', Ifvarteven 'to nurse, treat the sick', (in PolY, also 'to guard'), ^vartevnik(es) m, (UkY late 19th c) %vartovnik(es) m 'guard', vartung f 'caring for the sick'/ (e) bavorenen 'secure, safeguard', vorenen 'warn', bavornt 'secure(d); proof against', bavorenisfn) η 'precaution, safeguard'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

243

The G allomorph set (a)-(e) has only partial representation in Y, since USo has different roots to cover these semantic fields, see e.g. (a) USo wera f 'faith, belief, wobchowac 'to keep, guard'/ (b) so wopokazac 'prove, verify', trac 'last, continue', w(e), mjeztym zo, hdyz 'during, while'/ (c) cakac 'to wait'/ (d) hladac, pestowac 'tend to'/ (e) warnowac (< G), wotradzic 'warn, caution'. (a) G wahr 'true, real, genuine', MHG war f (> G Wahrheit[en] f) 'truth' is partially represented in Y, see, e.g. vor f 'reality' (also vorAxolem 'daydream', with Axolem m 'dream'; Schaechter 1986: 110 adds [gejvoret 'truth'), coexisting with Amamoses η < He f; for 'truth' Y uses A ernes (en) m < He 'emet f. In addition, G Wahrsager (zero pi) m 'prophet, fortune teller', ^Wahrsagerei f 'fortune telling' > Y vorzoger(s) m, \vorzogeraj η (probably acquired after RP1 since the latter is only attested in G since the 15th c) but G wahrsagen 'prophesy, tell fortunes' is not sanctioned by U. Weinreich (1968) (though Stuckov 1950 cites vorzogn). The reason for the partial blockage might have been similarsounding cognate USo wera f 'faith, belief, religion'. Perhaps had the relexification taken place in the KP lands, G wahr ~ Wahrheit might have been acceptable, since Uk vira f was further apart formally. Compound forms of USo wera (a cognate of G wahr), such as swera 'loyalty' or njewera f 'disbelief cannot be matched with forms of G wahr in Y, but are relexified to other roots, see e.g. Y getraj 'loyal', getrajsaftfn) f 'loyalty' (see discussion in ttgetrauen), including Hebraisms (sometimes with innovative meanings), such as Y Anemones η 'confidence, trust', Amajmen (majminim) 'believer' (~ glejbiker m < G Gläubige m, f) ~ USo weriwy, Y emune 'confidence' (< He 'emünäh f 'faith' vs. 'imün 'confidence'), bitoxn A'faith, confidence, reliance' (see also #Aberglaube), cutroj m < G ~ USo dowera f. Hence, it seems clear that relexifiers did not equate USo wera with cognate G wahr. Of the second allomorph (b), Y has ^gever η 'arms', which is probably a recent acquisition, since it lacks the f gender of USo trelba, Uk zbroja. The meanings of G bewähren are expressed by other Germanisms in Y, while Y bavern means 'realize, materialize', (c) Y vartn means only 'wait (for), await'; the meanings of 'tend, attend to' are expressed by other Germanisms. This is expected since USo requires several verbs to express the heterogeneous meanings of G warten. To express '(to) nurse', Y uses vartorin(s) f '(sick)nurse', vartoraj η 'nursing', (PolY) \varteven 'to nurse, treat the sick' with a non-Umlauted vowel, following MHG (see above), \vartevnik(es) UkY ^vartovnikfesj < Pol wartownik m: see Rivkind 1957: 14) 'guard' vs. G Wärter (zero pi) m, Wärterinnen) f. G

244

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

warten in the meaning 'to nurse' is not usually found in Y (though it is attested in an Odessa text from 1866: Rivkind 1957: 12-13); instead, see Y varteven < Uk vartuvaty 'keep watch, look to' < G warten. In the meaning of 'to nurse', Y also has upil'(n)even < Uk pyl'nuvaty. Y Tfvarteven is probably a post-relexification innovation under Uk (as opposed to KP) influence (Uk vartuvaty dates from the 16th c: Etymolohicnyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 1982, 1). Y also has (e) vorenen 'warn', bavorenen 'to secure, take precautions', bavornt 'secure(d); proof against', bavorenisfn) η 'precaution, safeguard'. But note also Y Lmasre zajn 'warn' (see also Mermahnen). I doubt that WUk varuvaty 'keep guard, watch; caution, warn' via Pol warowac could have an impact on RP2, due to the late chronology of acquisition (see Richhardt 1957: 110). On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see ttberaten. See also R stere(g)~, st(o)raz-, storoz-, xoron-, xran- in Herman (1975). 37. German: (a) bewegen 'to move', Bewegung(en) f 'move(ment)', wägen 'weigh', Weg(e) m 'way', weg 'away, gone; begone!', wegen 'on account of, because of, owing to'/ (b) Gewicht(e) η 'weight', ^(ge)wichtig 'important'/ (c) Waage(n) f '(pair of) scales; weighing device'/ (d) Wagen (zero pi) 'wagon', Wagenführer (zero pi) m 'wagon driver', wagen 'to dare, venture'/ (e) aufwiegeln 'stir up, incite', Wiege(n) f 'cradle', wiegen 'to rock'; f weigh 7 (f) \Woge(n) f 'wave, billow', Tfwogen 'to surge, heave'/ (g) ^Wucht f 'weight; force, impetus'// Abfahrt, alt, Arm, beraten, führen, Fuhrmann, Ge-, weil, MHG wellen > Yiddish: (a) bavegn 'to move, exercise', baveg(n) m 'move', bavegung(en) f 'motion, (political) movement', veg(n) m 'way, road, path', vegn 'regarding, about; weigh', (f)avek 'away; gone; begone!'/ (b) ^vixtik 'important', ^gevixt(n ~ -er) m 'weighing device'/ (c) vog(n) f 'weight, weighing device; gravity'; vogn(s ~ vegn ~ vegener) m 'wagon' (< G [d])/ (e) vig(n) f 'cradle', vign (zix) 'to rock'. (a) Y vegn 'regarding, about' coexists with Y Lmaxmes 'on account o f , Amikojex, Lojdes 'about' (the latter with verbs of thinking and speaking). The Hebraisms are to be expected, since the SI equivalents are not formed from the root for 'way', see USo dla (before or after the noun phrase), Uk z-za, cerez, vnaslidok. SI languages use two separate roots for 'way' and 'away, begone!', e.g. USo puc m (arch f), Uk sljax m, put', doroha f 'way'/ USo prec, Uk het' 'away', corresponding to a common root in (a) G Weg(e) m 'way', weg 'away, begone!'. Y preserves SI

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

245

practice by borrowing the same G root in two different forms: veg and (f)ave&, respectively, perhaps even at two different periods of time, e.g. first from a G lexifier dial which maintained (during RP1) final voiced consonants, and subsequently from a G dial (also via relexification or thereafter) which had lost final voiced consonants (see also #Arm). Alternatively, the G lexifier source of Y itself may have preserved final voiced consonants in nouns but not in non-nouns (some scholars have suggested that Y veg has restored final voicing by analogy with vegn pi, but that no paradigmatic pressure could restore -g in the adverb avek: see U. Weinreich 1963; King 1980). Other Y terms for 'away' are ni(s)to, vajter, op. See also discussion of Y gender bifurcation to preserve SI lexical configuration in #alt. While G Weg means both a literal and figurative way, e.g. 'manner, method', Y veg usually has only the literal meaning; for the figurative meaning, see Υ Α derex (droxim) m < He m, f, and • ojfn (ojfanim) m, following Uk sljax 'road', zasib, sposib, metod m 'way' (figurative). The multiple genders of Y L· derex may reflect gender differences such as USo puc of f > m, Uk put' m and Br puc' f, or OHe. On the broader distribution of Y veg- than G Weg, due to the blockage of G Reise(n) f 'trip', reisen 'to travel', see Schaechter (1986: 121-122). Y bavegn and bavegung(en) f 'movement' preserve only one of the two original meanings of G bewegen- move', but not 'to cause; arrange; bring about; lead (to)', since SI lacks a single root denoting all these meanings. In the meaning of 'facial movement, gesture', Y uses Ltnue(s) f, maxn Ltnues 'gesticulate' (vs. ModHe tnu'a 'physical, political movement'). (b) G %ge)wichtig 'important', is also accepted by Y as \vixtik\ see also USo wazny and Uk vaznyj. Curiously, (c) G Waage(n) 'weight' > Y vog(n) even though the Germanism is widespread in WS1, see USo waha, Pol waga (> Uk vaha f) (the Germanism appears with no less than twenty-six derivatives in Pol: Moszyriski 1954; see also Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1980, 2: 12). Relexification suggests either that Y relexified before the Germanism diffused to the SI languages, or that Y acquired the Germanism after RP1 and 2 as a straightforward borrowing. It is also possible that relexification was licensed by the differences in the vowels, see Υ /ο/ ~ SI /a/. Whereas G distinguishes obligatorily between 'weight' and 'weighing device', USo waha f has both meanings. In this regard Y follows G practice, see Y (c) vog(n) f ~ (b) gevixtfn ~ -er) m 'weight, weighing device'-possibly under the influence of Uk vaha f 'weight' vs. vahy pi 'scales'. U. Weinreich (1968) does not allow (b) Y ^gevixt

246

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

"'amount of weight' (on rejection of G Gewicht η, see also Kalmanoviö 1938:213). (d) G Wagen (zero pi) m surfaces in Y with a variety of regional pi suffixes, see Y vogn(s ~ vegn ~ vegener) m (on the use of the -er pi in Y in accordance with the distribution of the pseudo-dual in Uk and Br, see chapter 4.5.4). The SI languages denote 'wagon' by a completely different root, see USo woz, Uk viz m (< 'carry'). There is some opposition in Y to accepting G Wagen m since Y also uses fur(n) f 'wagon, cart, van' ( < f i r n 'carry, guide, walk, drive' < G führen: see ttAbfahrt), but there is also a Hebroidism for 'wagondriver' in Y A_bal-egole(s) m (lit. 'owner' + 'wagon'; see ##-er). This corresponds to G Wagenführer (zero pi), Fuhrmann (Fuhrleute), USo woznik, Uk viznyk m (the Y Hebroidism is also used in Pol and ESI languages; see details in Wexler 1987a: 117, 226). Y accepts (e) G wiegen 'to rock; weigh' only in the meaning 'to rock' (the meaning f weigh' is recent in G); the optional reflexive in Y vign (zix) can be motivated by USo machac, so kolebac 'swing, sway back and forth'. Because of the lexical variety in SI, Y also preserves USo machac, Uk maxaty as maxn mit 'to swing'. The reason that (e) G wiegen 'weigh', a synonym of (a) wägen, does not have a counterpart in Y, must be that USo has a single root with no vocalic alternation, e.g. waha 'scales; weight' f, wazic 'weigh' (see also above), (e) G aufwiegeln 'stip up, incite' ~ USo nastykac, nascuwac; hence, for the latter, Y uses other Germanisms, a SI Germanism or • meojrerzajn 'stir up (spiritually)'. Y expectedly shows no trace of (f) G \Woge, ^wogen, since the latter were attested only in the 18th c. For 'to surge, heave', see Y hejbn (zix) and flejcn < G - mxval'en. (MHG wellen, similar in meaning to ModG wogen, is also blocked in Y.) (g) G ^Wucht f 'weight, force, impetus' is also unknown in Y since the term is a L or EMG dialectalism, first found in HG in the 17th c. Y has instead • kojex (kojxes) m, Slavicized G mgvald f, nimpet(n) m (< Rom) and kraft(n) f. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see überaten. See also R dvi(g)-, dviz-, dviz'move' and vag-, vaz- 'weigh' in Herman (1975). 38. German: (a) blähen 'puff out, swell, inflate'/ (b) Blase(n) f 'bubble; bladder; blister', blasen 'to blow'/ (c) Bläser m 'bugler', Gebläse (zero pi) η 'blower (apparatus), ventilator'/ (d) Blatter(n) f 'small pox'// beraten, Ge-> Yiddish: (b) blozn 'to blow', onblozn (zix) 'to puff, inflate', ojfilozn 'inflate' (meaning < G [a])/ (c) blezl(ex) η 'bubble' (< G [b]).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

247

A common root for (a) and (b) in USo and Uk assures blockage of (a) in Y, see e.g. (a) Uk duty! (b) naduvaty, while the merger of the meanings of (a) and (b) into a single root in turn suggests that relexifiers recognized the links between the two roots. For (b) Blase(n) f 'bubble; bladder; blister', Y uses dim blezl(ex) n, but only in the meaning 'bubble'; for 'bladder' and 'blister', Y has recourse to mpenxer(s), mpuxir (< Pol pqcherz and cognate Uk puxir ~ puxyr\ Y mpuxir retains Uk stress) ~ bloter(s) m < G. The separation of 'bladder' and 'blister' from 'bubble' follows in part Uk practice, see e.g.puxir 'bladder' ~ 'blister' (unambiguously 'bladder' with secovyj 'urinary'), mixur m 'bladder' uniquely; Br, on the other hand, has puxir 'blister, bubble' and puzir m 'bubble; blister; bladder'. For (c) G Bläser m 'bugler', Y uses another Germanism, (feld)trumejter(s) m; for (d) G Blatter(n) f 'small pox', see Ypokn pit. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see ttberaten. 39. German: (a) Blatt(-"er) η 'leaf, petal; sheet of paper'/ (b) blättern 'leaf through', f Geblätter η 'foliage'/ (c) Blume(n) f 'flower'/ (d) geblümt 'flowery'/ (e) blühen 'to bloom, blossom, flourish'/ (f) Blüte(n) f 'flower, bloom, blossom'// MHG benamen, G beraten, Ge- > Yiddish: (a) blat (bleter) m, η 'leaf; sheet of paper; flap (of a table)'/ (b) bletern, (\)gebleter n/ (c) blum(en) f 'flower', blumik, bablumt 'flowery'/ (e) blien 'to bloom', geblimelt 'flowery' (< G [d]). (b) Y (f)gebleter η 'foliage' was successfully relexifled since the SI languages also have a coll term for 'foliage', see USo lysco, Uk lystja η vs. USo (arch) list, Uk lyst m 'leaf (on coll, see also remark in #beraten). While G fGeblätter is a recent formation, Y )gebleter η may be an older, independent neologism based on SI norms. For (f) G Blüte, Y uses Slavicisms, see ukvejt(n) 'flower'/ mcvit m 'bloom, blossom' and its derivative mcviten 'to blossom' < USo kwetka f 'flower', Uk kvit ~ kvyt m, kvitka f 'flower', cvit m 'flower, blossom, bloom', cvisty 'to bloom' (on the geographical significance of the cv- ~ kv- variants, see chapter 4.6 and Gurco 1988). Relexification to G Blatt, blättern, Blume and blühen from different roots like USo list m 'leaf, listowac, kcec 'to bloom' and kcenje η 'flower, bloom, blossom' means relexifiers were probably unaware of the genetic relationships between (i) the G allomorphs and (ii) their USo counterparts, kcec, kcenje η and kwetka f (earlier kwet m) 'flower'. The three U Sorbianisms are related, see CS1 *kvbteti (with subsequent reanalysis >

248

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

USo kcec on the model of the present tense finite forms, e.g. kceju 1st sg) and CS1 *kvet-b m. The failure of Y to relexify both USo kcec and kwet to a common G root suggests that the analogical leveling in the USo paradigm had already taken place. Alongside Germanisms, see also Y melicedik A'flowery style'. While the SI languages can denote 'leaf and 'page' by a single term, see e.g. USo list m, lopjenjo n, Uk lyst 'leaf, letter, sheet of paper', they also have derivatives which mean only 'tree leaf or 'page', see e.g. USo lisc m 'leaf vs. liscina f 'document, list', Uk lystja '(coll) 'foliage', (dim) lystjacko η 'tree leaf, lystok m 'leaf. Uk can also disambiguate lyst in the oblique cases, see e.g. nema lystu 'there is no foliage' vs. nema lysta 'there is no letter', both gen sg after negation (there are a few other examples of disambiguation by means of double case endings, see also Uk dzvin 'church bell; sound of a bell' > dzvonu gen sg 'sound of a bell' vs. dzvona m gen sg 'church bell': see chapter 4.5.3). Disambiguating is naturally impossible in Y due to the nearly complete absence of case endings in the noun. Instead, Y uses Aresime(s) 'list' and Lsejme(s) f 'stray page torn from a holy book' (see MHG itbenamen) vs. blat m, η 'leaf. The m of Y blat matches SI while the η matches G. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see überaten. 40. German: (a) bleiben 'remain' (< MHG b[e]liben-lit. 'let remain', a cognate of Eng leave), G Leib(er) m 'body', %Leibesfrucht(-"e) f 'offspring; fetus'/ (b) Leben (zero pi) η 'life', leben 'be alive; live (in a certain place)', überleben 'survive'// Abfahrt, Bahre, Körper, wohnen > Yiddish: (a) blajbn 'remain; survive' (also + lebn 'to live')', iberblajb(en) m 'survival', iberblajbn 'remain; be left over; persist', lajb(er) η 'body'/ (b) lebn 'be alive', iberlebn 'to experience; survive', iberlebung(en) f 'experience'. For (a) G ^Leibesfrucht^ "e) f 'embryo', Y has Lylad (see UBahre). For (b) 'survive, survival', see also Y iberkumen, arojsgejn mitn lebn fun (lit. 'get out with life from') ~ Α nie I vern, hobn aktkume 'survive', A nicl verung f, • kiem, Lsored (sridim) m, tkume f A'survival' (vs. He 'revival; resurrection'; see #Abfahrt). It is interesting that Y can also use (a) blajbn (±lebn 'to live') to denote 'survive' and iberblajb(en) m as 'survival' (vs. iberblajbn 'remain, be left over; persist'). This is probably because Uk can express both 'remain' and 'survive' by a common root, see e.g. Uk lysatysja, zalysatysja, respectively (but other meanings of the Uk root, such as lysaty 'leave; renounce', lysatysja 'be deprived o f , lysfe] 'only,

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

249

but', do not surface in Y). The coexistence of the meanings 'remain' and 'survive' is also true for USo and G, but only with the root 'life, alive', see e.g. USo wostac, G bleiben 'remain'/ USo ziwy wostac, G am Leben bleiben 'remain alive'. The obligatory distinction of USo ziwy bye 'be alive' and bydlic 'live (in a certain place)' allows Y to relexify to both (b) G leben and wohnen. I assume that relexification to G leben and wohnen took place in the So lands since Uk has a single term, zyty, that can cover both meanings of G leben and would have blocked the double relexification. Curiously, Y lebn has narrowed semantically to 'be alive' only-perhaps due to the existence now of Uk meskaty 'live (in a certain place)' < Pol; G wohnen (> Y vojnen), in principle, could have been accepted in either relexification phase. The use of a single term, ziti, in the JBr relexification of the Bible (Codex #262, c.1500: Altbauer 1992: 420) to express both 'live' and 'dwell in' appears to be unattested in ES1Y. Y iberlebung(en) f 'experience' and iberlebn 'to experience, undergo' have no G parallel (see G überleben 'survive', * Überlebung) and are based on Uk perezyty 'live through; outlive, survive; reside; suffer'. The Y ability to relexify to G bleiben and Leib, despite their heterogeneous meanings and forms and despite the need to use different roots in USo (see wostac, celo n) leads me to assume that Y relexifiers were ignorant of the historical links between the two Germanisms, or that some of the Germanisms are post-relexification loans. Some reluctance to relexify to G Leib m may be seen in the fact that Y also accepts one Hebraism for 'body', Aguf(im) m, along with kerper(s) < G Körper (zero pi) m 'body'. 41. German: (a) Blende(n) f 'blind, screen', blenden 'to blind; dazzle; deceive', verblenden 'to blind, dazzle; delude', MHG verblenden ~ verblinden 'to blind, dazzle', G ^Verblendung f 'delusion, infatuation'/ (b) blind 'blind; dull; false', blind machen 'to blind'// Dampf, Glanz, Heuchelei, heucheln, Heuchler, Narr, Schimmer, Schirm > Yiddish: (a) blendn 'to blind; dazzle', blend m 'dazzle', yarblendn 'to blind, dazzle; delude', %arblendungfen] f) 'delusion, infatuation'/ (b) blind'blind; stray; indiscriminate', blindmaxn 'to blind'. USo has a single root for both (a) and (b), slepy 'blind' and slepic 'to blind; deceive' (the second meaning is probably a later loan translation from G-since most SI languages require a different root to express the latter); see also Uk slipyj 'blind', slipyty 'to blind'. Curiously, Y accepts

250

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

the morphophonemic alternation from G, despite the SI facts; it is unclear whether Y blind maxn (lit. 'blind' + 'make') was coined independently of G blind machen, in order to avoid the need for blend-. Still, Y retains a trace of SI lexical configurations, in that the G meanings 'deceive, dull and false' are all absent from Y blendn', for these, Y requires other roots-from G, He and SI. For 'blind, screen', Y uses mzal'uzje(s), msirme(s) (see Uk zaljuzi < Fr, syrma f < G Schirm[e] m). For 'dull', Y, USo and Uk use a common SI root, see Y uiemp (< Pol tqpy), USo tupy, Uk tupyj 'dull' (see also #Dampf). (a) G blenden 'dazzle, deceive' is cognate with USo (dial) blud m 'error, fault, madness' (see more below). I cannot say whether the formal and semantic distance between the two cognates was insufficient to block the relexification to G blenden, or whether Y borrowed blendn after relexification. It is surprising that Y accepted (a), since MHG had both verblinden and verblenden 'to blind, dazzle'. Y has also formed a verbal noun, blend m 'dazzle' (perhaps modeled on Uk zasliplennja n) which lacks an exact morphological parallel in G Blende(n) 'blind, screen' (see G Schimmer, Glanz m 'dazzle')-but see G IfVerblendung 'delusion, infatuation' ~ Y yarblendung(en) f. Y retains a reflex of USo blud m, in the form mpribludne 'stray' (< Uk prybludnyj), as well as a Polonized form, m(far)blond(z)en ~ mfarblond(z)et vern 'lose one's way, get lost, go astray' < Pol blqdzic 'lead astray'. In the traditional model of Y genesis, the latter would be seen as a straightforward Polonism. In the framework of the relexification hypothesis, it follows that not all Jewish speakers of So may have initially accepted G blenden, blind, thus preserving the So cognate in Y. Subsequently, in the Pol lands, the So root might have been replaced by the corresponding Pol cognate which has since become pan-Y (there are not many such examples). Note that the Y Slavicism only retains the literal meaning 'go astray', but not 'err' (though the latter meaning is given for blondzen by Stuökov 1950-see Uk below), see e.g. Y ufarblond(z)et vern ~ R zabludit'sja, Uk zabludyty(sja) pf 'go astray' vs. R zabluzdat'sja, Uk bludyty impf'err'. The pair G blenden/ blind (> Y blendn! blind) has an exact set of cognates in the SI languages, see CS1 *blqsti and the iterative-causative *bloditi (Stawski 1974, 1: 258, 270). The retention of SI blud- in Y may explain why G fHeuchelei f 'hypocrisy', ^fheucheln 'feign, play the hypocrite', fHeuchler (zero pi) m 'hypocrite' are absent in Y. The USo equivalents are ludac, ludanje ~ ludarstwo η and ludak m. Vaillant (1953) suggested that USo ludac and cognates in other SI languages, such as Uk ludyty 'entice; deceive, cheat, fool', were related to CS1 *bloditi 'err, go

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

251

astray' through a shift in morpheme boundary, e.g. CSI *o-bloditi > *oblöditi > *loditi (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 866 objects; see also #Narr). Vaillant's hypothesis could explain smoothly why G fheucheln, etc. is lacking in Y. In any event, if speakers of USo or KP had perceived a link between USo bludzic 'err' and ludac 'feign, play the hypocrite', they would have been unable to find a parallel set of related roots in G; hence, they could have had recourse to a Hebraism. The sole Y term for 'hypocrite', etc. is, indeed, a Hebraism, see e.g. Y kcvu(j)ak(es) m ~ • cvu(j)acke(s) f 'hypocrite', Lcvu(j)acen 'be hypocritical', Levies η ~ Acvuactve ~ international hipokrictve f'hypocrisy'. The "SI connection" is also seen in the use of SI ag and abstract suffixes. 42. German: (a) brach 'unworked, empty', Brache f 'fallow ground'/ (b) brechen 'to break; vomit' (~ MHG brechen), G ^einbrechen 'to break, smash; burglarize', ^Einbrecher (zero pi) m 'burglar', erbrechen 'to vomit; break open', Gebrechen (zero pi) η 'bodily defect, infirmity', gebrechen (arch) 'be lacking, wanting', Zusammenbrechen 'break down'/ (c) Erbrochene η 'vomit'/ (d) brocken 'break into pieces', Brocken (zero pi) m 'fragment'/ (e) ^bröckeln 'crumble' (18th c)/ (f) Bruch(-"e) 'break, fracture', (Leisten)bruch(-"e) m 'hernia'/ (g) ^fbrüchig 'fragile, brittle'// schade, Speichel, speien, Spucke, spucken > Yiddish: (b) brexn 'to break'; ^f'vomit', brexexc η 'vomit', brex(ev)dik 'fragile' (< G [f] or [g]), ajnbrexn (zix) 'break (down), collapse', arajnbrex(n) m 'burglary', arajnbrexn zix 'break into, burglarize', ojsbrexn ~ opbrexn 'to vomit'; brox 'break, fracture', brox[feld] η 'fallow ground' (Stuökov 1950) (< G [a]), ajnbroxfn) m 'breakdown' < gebroxn, the part, of brexn/ (e) Y %breklen 'crumble', brekl(ex) η 'scrap, crumbt'. (a) and (b) require different roots in the SI languages, which explains the partial relexification. Yiddish has (b) brexn 'to break; vomit', brexexc η 'vomit' and brox(n) m 'break, fracture', corresponding to one immutable root in USo lamac and to rozlam m, lamanje η. I would not expect that (b) Y brexn would acquire the two G meanings of 'break' and 'vomit' (both expressed by the unprefixed MHG brechen), since the SI languages require two separate roots, see USo so wrocic (also 'to return'), bluwac ~ blec 'to vomit; spit', Uk bljuvaty 'to vomit', bljuvota 'vomit; spit (i.e. anything that is ejected from the mouth)', bljuvotyna f, bljuvaky pit 'vomit; expectoration'. The reluctance to relexify to G (er)brechen in the meaning of 'vomit' is shown by the Y use of A_keje f 'vomit' (first attested in the writings of the Fr Hebraist Rasi 1040-1105); the f noun was

252

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

probably inspired by a SI f or η noun, see e.g. USo *pluwanka, Uk bljuvota f, since OHe has qV m. Hence, the meaning ψvomit' of Y brexn must be new. On the related Hebraism (ojs)mejkenen (WY [= JG?] A'cough [mainly of animals]', Pol, ES1Y 'vomit', Apej 'of drunkards and animals', and other rare meanings in Pol, Br and Uk Y), see Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #71). G has still another verb for 'spit' and 'vomit' which exists in Y only in the first meaning: see (a) G Speichel m 'spit(tle), saliva', speien 'to spit; vomit'/ (b) ^Spucke f 'saliva, spit', ^spucken 'to spit' > Y (a) spaexc(n ~ -er) η 'saliva', spajen 'to spit'. Y lacks (b) (though Stuckov 1950 cites Y spukn as "dial"). This is a rare instance where Y (with its single term for '[to] spit') differs from USo and Uk, both of which have two roots for '(to) spit', see USopluwanki, sliny pit 'spit\pluwac, slinic 'to spit'. Though G \spucken is not attested until the 15th c, there were a number of terms in MHG. Perhaps the Y impoverishment reflects the fact that the G lexifier dial had only one root (a confirming example might be contemporary BavG). However, Y distinguishes lexically between 'saliva in, out of the mouth', which is somewhat similar to SI, see e.g. Y spaexc η 'saliva' vs. wsline f 'spit, spittle' ~ Uk slyna f, pljuvok m 'spit(tle)' vs. slyna, also 'saliva' (vs. the meaning of Y msline f). The Y inability to express 'spit' and 'vomit' by a single root suggests that the SI and G examples were post-relexificational acquisitions. For (a) 'fallow ground', see Y broxtfeld] η (Stuckov 1950, but U. Weinreich 1968 has wnivecfeld[er] η < Uk nivec' m 'naught'), which might be a post-relexification loan, or a relexified element if speakers did not associate (a) G brach and (b) brechen. (See also Y toleke[s] < Uk toloka f 'common pastureland, fallow land'.) USo requires different roots altogether for 'fallow', see USopusty, njewobdzelany, prozdny 'unworked, empty', pustal njewobdzeiana!prozdna rola f'fallow land'. Because of SI, Y cannot use (f) G Bruch m, but retains mkile 'hernia' < Uk kyla f. (b) G Gebrechen and gebrechen are lacking in Y, because SI languages require different roots, see USo brach m, skoda (< G; see #schade), wada f, and pobrachowac, falowac (< G), respectively; hence, Y has Apgime(s) f, Amum(im), Apgam (pgomim) m 'defect' and (ojs)feln 'be lacking' or Adojxek m 'lack, deficiency, shortage'. Y distinguishes between ajnbrox(n) m 'breakdown', ajnbrexn (zix) 'break (down), collapse' and arajnbrex(n) m 'burglary', arajnbrexn zix 'break into, burglarize'. The Y distinction between 'break down' and 'burglarize' by means of root change + prefixation has a partial parallel in USo so zalamac 'burglarize' vs. so prelamac 'to break down', where differentiation is made by

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

253

prefixation only. G is less insistent on the use of a verbal prefix, see e.g. on the one hand G ^feinbrechen 'to break, smash; burglarize', while fEinbrecher (zero pi) m is only 'burglar', but on the other hand, semantic differentiation is achieved via a verbal prefix, in the guise of Zusammenbrechen 'break down'. "Allomorph movement" has taken place in (b) Y brex(ev)dik < (f) G Bruch(-"e) m 'break, fracture' or (g) G brüchig 'fragile, brittle', since USo lacks an alternation in the root, see e.g. lamliwy (but note that the Y Germanism does not denote 'brittle'; for the latter, see spilterdik and mkrisldik < Uk krysyl 'nyj). While (d) is lacking in Y, there is (e) Y \breklen 'crumble' and \brekl(ex) η 'scrap, crumb, bit', which are post-relexification loans since G fbröckeln dates from the 16th c. For 'fragment', see Y mfragment(n) m, used also in G (as n) and SI languages (as m). 43. German: (a) MHG buntschuoch 'shoe with straps for tying around the leg' (< 'band' + 'shoe'), G Schuh(e) 'shoe', Schuhmacher (zero pi) 'shoemaker', Schuster (zero pi) m 'cobbler, shoe repairman'/ (b) MHG han(t)sche ~ hen(t)sche, hantschuoch, G Handschuh(e) m 'glove' (lit. 'hand' + 'shoe')// Hand> Yiddish: (a) sux (six) 'shoe', suster(s) m 'shoemaker, shoe repairman'/ (b) hencke(s) f'glove'. MHG hen(t)sche m would be attractive to Y, since the link with 'shoe' is opaque, and there is no common morpheme in the SI terms for 'shoe' and 'glove' (see also #Arm). The f gender assignment in Y (vs. m in G) could be smoothly ascribed to the SI substratum (see USo rukajca and Uk rukavycja f 'glove'), or to the additional suffix m-ke < SI -ka f dim. In SI, the term for 'glove' < 'sleeve', and both are derived ultimately from 'hand, arm', see e.g. Uk rukavycja f 'glove' < rukav m (rukavy ~ rukava) 'sleeve' < ruka f 'hand', which is also visible in (b) MHG han[t]sche ~ henftjsche), hantschuoch. Y may have blocked MHG buntschuoch m, since some SI languages have the term, see Ukpancoxa f 'stocking'. Both the solitary USo sewc and Uk svec' 'shoemaker, cobbler' correspond to the pair G Schuhmacher 'shoemaker' and Schuster m 'cobbler, shoe repairman', thus blocking one of the Germanisms for Y. Both Germanisms are attested in MHG, but not in all contemporary dialects, e.g. BavG only has Schuster m (Schmeller 1872-1877). The ability of Y to relexify to the two G forms suggests separate acts of relexification and/or post-relexiflcational borrowing.

254

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

44. German: (a) Dampf(-"e) m 'steam; vapor; smoke', dampfen 'to steam; smoke, fume', %abdampfen 'evaporate', verdampfen 'vaporize'/ (b) dämpfen 'to damp(en), quench; muffle; stew; steam; mute (a sound)'/ (c) \dumpf 'close (air), musty; dull (tone), hollow', Dumpfheit f 'closeness, hollowness', Udumpfig 'damp, dank, moldy'/ (d) Duft(-"e) m 'smell, scent, aroma'// Blende, Dunst, Geruch, schmecken, stumpf > Yiddish: (a) damf m 'steam' vs. ojsdampn (Xojsdamfn) (.zix) 'evaporate'/ (b) dempn 'to stew'/ (c) (%)dumpik 'stale, humid', fardumpn 'stagnant'. Y has accepted all three G allomorphs but with a much more limited range of meanings: (a) 'steam'/ (b) 'stew'/ (c) 'stale; humid; stagnant'. This is natural since no SI languages could provide an exact set of equivalent meanings, (c) appears to have been acquired separately from (a) and (b), given that the SI languages do not have a common root for all three allomorphs, and, significantly, differs from the meaning of (c) in G. The absence of G \dumpf\n the meaning of'dull (tone)' in Y could be due to blockage by similar-sounding, but unrelated, Pol tqpy (> Y temp) ~ Uk tupyj 'dull (tone)' (the probable cognate of the latter is G stumpf 'blunt, dull; stupid': see also ttBlende). The forms and meanings not accepted from G are expressed by a large number of additional roots of G, SI and He origin: (a) Y mpare(s) f 'steam', vep(n) m ~ vepexc(n) η 'vapor', uparen 'to steam', mojsparen ~ ojsvepn zix 'evaporate', uceparen 'vaporize' ~ rojx(n) m 'smoke, fume', rejxern 'to smoke, fume', etc./ (b) ajnfajxtn ~ bafajxtn 'dampen' (also 'moisten') ~ ucudusen 'dampen (sound, spirits)', stiln 'quench', farstikn ~ mfardusen ~ fartojbn 'muffle', cimes(n) m 'stew (fruit, vegetables)' (see also #warm), mdisen ~ utusen 'to stew', stum 'mute'/ (c) stikik ~ stikedik 'close (air)', mtemp 'dull', moptempn 'to dull' (< Pol), mhojl, mpust, Lxoleldik 'hollow', Lxolel(s) m, mpust(n) f 'hollow(ness)', fajxt, mvil'gote 'damp', siml m 'mold\farsimlt (vern) '(grow) moldy'. Y distinguishes lexically between 'dampen' (= 'moisten') and 'dampen (sound, spirits)', a distinction which is optional in G. In this regard, Y follows USo paric, Uk zmocuvaty, zvolozuvaty 'to dampen (moisten)' vs. USo stuzec, Uk zahlusaty 'dampen (sounds)'. Note also that Y treats the final consonant of G Dampfl dämpfen in two ways,/vs./>: ^damf steam' vs. ojsdampn Xojsdamfn) (zix) 'evaporate', dempn 'to stew'; this fact reflects two separate chronologies-/p/ being earlier than /f/, unless the Y form with / was acquired from EMG f , which developed < MHG pf after the 14th c (see Kaestner 1939: 94-95 for geographical details).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

255

It is unclear if (d) G Duft is related to Dampf, etc. or to Dunst(- "e) m 'vapor; smoke, fumes'. In any case, for (d), Y uses Lrejex(es) and aver m (the latter specifically for A'bad odor' < He 'air') and smuxt(n) m '(bad) odor' < G (see #Geruch). 45. German: (a1) dicht 'thick, firm, dense, compact', TJDichte f 'density', ^dichten 'make tight, seal' (a2) dick 'thick, swollen, corpulent, stout', Dicke(n) f 'thickness, corpulence', dicken 'thicken', ΚDickicht η 'thicket', Dicktefn) f 'layer of wood, plywood'/ (b2) gedeihen 'prosper, thrive'// Fliege > Yiddish: (a1) dixt m 'plywood', gedixt 'thick, dense, close, heavy', ^gedixtkejt f 'consistency; density', ^gedixtenis(n) f'thicket' (< G [a2]) (a2) dik 'thick, fat, stout'/ (b2) gedajen 'prosper, thrive'. (a2) and (b2) are not genetically related to (a1), despite similarity in sound and meaning, but the two paradigms appear to be partly joined in Y due to SI considerations (to judge from the distribution of the allomorphic variants). The two allomorphs exist in Y, but not in the same distribution as in G. For (a2) G Dicke 'thickness' Y uses greb(n) f < grob 'thick, fat, coarse, rough, crude, rude, gruff, obscene' ~ G grob 'coarse, rough; rude; thick'. The late chronology of G ^Dichte (16th c), ^dichten (15th c) and \Dickicht (17th c) suggests that the corresponding Y terms may also be recent (for 'tighten', Y uses other Germanisms). Whereas G uses (a2) to form 'plywood' and 'thicket', Y selects (a1). The changed distribution could be due to the underlying USo substratum, e.g. USo husty covers both (a1) and (a2), see e.g. (a) G dicht 'thick' = USo husty, G Dichte 'density' = USo hustota, hustosc f/ (b) G dick 'thick', etc. = USo husty, G dicken 'thicken' = USo zhuscic, hustnyc, G Dickicht 'thicket' = USo huscina, husc f. Blended paradigms are valuable evidence for the relexification hypothesis. For more discussion on this phenomenon, see #Fliege. I suspect that the acquisition of (bz) was an independent acquisition. 46. German: (a) Einkauf(-"e) 'purchase', Kauf m 'buying, purchase; bargain', kaufen 'buy' (< MHG kouf m, koufen ~ keufen), G Kaufmann (Kaufleute) m 'merchant', \Kaufmannsgut(-"er) η 'ware(s)', verkaufen 'sell' (< MHG verkoufen ~ verkeufen)/ (b) G Käufer (zero pi) m ~

256

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Käuferinnen) f 'buyer', Verkäufer (zero pi) m ~ Verkäuferinnen) 'seller'// Arm, Artikel, handeln, schachern, MHG seilen >

f

Yiddish: (a) ajnkojf(n) m 'purchase', kojfn 'buy', ajnkojfer(s) m '(professional) buyer' (Stuckov 1950 also cites kojfer), farkojfn 'sell', farkojfer(s) m ~ f a r k o j f e r k e ( s ) f 'seller'. I expect that originally Y did not accept either G kaufen 'to buy' or verkaufen 'to sell'. There are four reasons: (i) The Germanism (ultimately < Lat) was itself borrowed by CS1, and USo kupic 'to buy' is formally close (thus, the use of the Hebraism for parts of the G paradigm; a minority opinion holds that the CS1 root is a native root borrowed by G; see Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1989, 5: 163). In addition, the Germanism was borrowed a second time by Polab in the post-CSl period, see eg. Polab t'aipe 'he buys', t'aipsc 'buyer'm (Pohmski 1993, 5). (ii) The SI languages lack a morphophonemic alternation, see e.g. (a) USo kupic 'to buy'/ (b) kupc ~ kupowar m 'buyer', but then MHG (a) koufen ~ keufen could mean both 'buy' and 'sell' (while MHG [b] verkoufen ~ verkeufen meant variously 'sell; surrender, sacrifice; fritter away'). (iii) Semantic disparallels between G and SI may also have contributed to initial blockage. USo derives kupc m 'buyer' < kupic 'to buy'; the former has given rise to a new verb kupcic 'haggle; speculate'. The inability to relexify the pair USo kupic! kupcic (assuming it already existed in RP1) to a single root in G may be the reason why Y created the colloquial non-periphrastic • saxren 'do business' < He saxar m 'trade' (not cited by U. Weinreich 1968)-perhaps originally in the now unattested meaning 'haggle' (> G schachern, first attested in 1726: S. A. Wolf 1956, #4775). Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 730-731) assumes that the meaning of USo kupcic changed from 'to trade' > 'haggle' after USo borrowed G handeln (which is attested in 16th-c texts), but I see no compelling reason for this claim. Semantic disparallels between G and SI also obtained in the KP area, see e.g. Uk kupyty bidu sobi 'bring trouble on oneself. G Kaufmann (Kaufleute) 'merchant' would also have been undesirable since CS1 *kupbCb m was ambiguous-'merchant; buyer' (see Trubacev 1987, 13: 115-116).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

257

(iv) Because of the putative original blockage, Y had recourse to a wealth of Hebraisms: for (a) 'bargain' and 'purchase', see also Y Ameciefs), Lknie(s) f, respectively; for (a) 'merchant', see Y Asojxer (soxrim) m, along with the related Asxojre(s) f'ware(s), goods' (discussed in MArtikel); for (b), Y uses Akojne (kojnim) m, Ajcojnete(s) f 'buyer' (related to AkniefsJ, + JAram -tä' f ag). From the same He root Y has also acquired • kinjen (kinjonim) m 'acquisition; (spiritual) property', coexisting with farmegn(s) η 'possession, estate'. Another sign of possible initial blockage is that Y dialectally has another pair of terms, handlen 'to buy'/ farhandlen 'to sell' < G (discussed in #Arm). While the above reasons suggest a late acquisition of the Germanisms, either in RP1 or thereafter, there is still one fact which could theoretically have licensed full relexification in the Germano-So lands: MHG, in addition to koufen ~ keufen 'to buy'/ verkoufen ~ verkeufen 'to sell', had the pair koufen ~ keufen 'buy'/ seilen 'sell', which could have licensed early relexification, given USo kupicf pfedac, Uk kupyty! prodavaty. I am not sure this is a weighty argument, due to the semantic heterogeneity of both MHG koufen ~ keufen and seilen (also 'hand over, deliver; sell retail'; see point iii above). 47. German: (a) entlehnen 'borrow, loan', \Entlehnung(en) f'borrowing, loan', UG lehnen (< MHG lefhejnen) 'lend', G Lehen (zero pi) 'fee' (< MHG le[he]n η 'loaned goods')/ (b) G leihen 'borrow, hire, lend, loan', entleihen 'borrow', ^Entleiher ~ Verleiher (zero pi) m 'lender'// Acht, bergen, Borg, -er > Yiddish: (b) (ant)lajen, ojslajen 'lend', (ant)lajen, ojslajen baj 'borrow', antlaj(en) m, \antlajung(en) f'loan' Y rejects (a) since USo has a single root for (a) USo prewzac, pozcic; prewzace, pozcenje n/ (b) sej pozcic. Y lacks (a) G Lehen 'fee' (< MHG le[he]n η 'loaned goods'), perhaps because it was borrowed by the SI languages, see USo leno η 'loaned goods, loan; loaned land', Uk lan m 'large piece of tilled land, grainfields', len m ~ leno η ' f i e f . For 'fee', Y has opcol(n) m. The partial relexification accounts for the recourse to Lhalvoe(s) 'loan', • gmiles-xesed (-xsodim) f'loan without interest' (on initial clusters with χ-, see also #Acht). G fEntleiher m 'lender' is not cited by U. Weinreich (1968) (but is in Stuckov 1950), so Hebraisms related to • halvoe are used, see e.g. Y • malve (malvim) ~ Jkbal-halvoe (bale-) m (see also ##-er). The result is that Y has a full paradigm of the He root

258

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

corresponding to a single root in USo (sej) pozcic, pozconk m ~ pozconka, Ukpozyka f 'loan', etc. The use of the prepositional complement Y baj 'at, by, with' with 'lend' to express 'borrow' has a syntactic parallel in Uk pozycaty u kohos' 'borrow (from somebody)' vs. pozycaty komus' 'lend (somebody)'; USo has a similar syntax. G Borg 'credit, borrowing' {übergen) compensates for the partial relexification. 48. German: (a) erkälten 'grow cold; cool down', ^sich erkälten 'catch cold', (grimmige) Kälte f '(bitter) cold' (noun)/ (b) (grimmig) kalt '(bitter) cold', MHG erkalten 'become cold'/ (c) G kühl 'cool', Kühle f 'coolness', kühlen 'to cool, chill; refresh', sich verkühlen 'catch cold'// he iss, luftig > Yiddish: (a) kelt f 'cold; cold weather', keltn pit 'cold weather'/ (b) kalt 'cold'/ (c) kil 'cool', kilkejt f 'coolness; aloofness, detachment', kiln 'to cool' ,farkiln ' to j e 1Γ, far kiln zix 'catch cold'. The treatment of G 'cold/ cool' in Y resembles that of 'hot/ heat', in that Y has invented Lkrire 'bitter cold' < He q-r(-r) 'cold' as an antonym of Lxmime f 'extreme heat'; to the best of my knowledge, there is no *qrlräh in any stage of He. The basis for Y Lkrire cannot be found in G (where the equivalent expressions would be grimmig kalt, grimmige Kälte 'bitter cold'), but there is a precedent for Lkrire in USo treskanca f (< 'crackle'). In other SI languages, the cognates of USo treskanca f function as adjs, see e.g. Uk triskucyj moroz, Pol trzaskqcy mroz m 'extreme frost'. Y Lkrire f must, therefore, date from RP1. The creation of the antonym set Lxmime/ Lkrire in Y reflects the requirements of the USo substratal lexicon; ordinarily, Y is not receptive to He-origin antonym sets (see also #heiss). The SI languages can denote 'cold' and 'cool' by common roots. Matching G kalt ~ kühl, see (b)-(c) USo zymny, chlodny 'cold, cool', zyma, chlodnota, chlodnosc f 'cold, coolness'. In addition, USo also has dim chlodkojty 'cool'; see also Uk xolod m, (pro)xolodnyj 'cold'/ xolodnuxatyj (dim), proxolodnyj 'cool'. The practice of denoting 'cool' by a dim of 'cold' is not attested in Y (which suggests that the dim arose in SI after RP2). Y has (ultimately) accepted both G allomorphs, but not without competition from a Hebroidism. Moreover, the existence of a single term in Y for 'cold' (noun) vs. two in So probably means that at the time of RP1, USo zyma, whose original meaning was 'winter' (see also Uk zyma f), had not yet acquired the secondary meaning of 'cold'. Y also innovates

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

259

in regard to the use of G luftig 'airy, breezy; thin, light (garment)', which as Y luftik can also mean 'cool' (in addition to 'airy, nimble, lively'). In addition to the two roots for 'cold' and 'cool' cited above, SI languages have a third root, CS1 *studiti '(be) cool'/ *studt m 'cold'. From the latter are formed USo studzen f 'well (water)', studzic 'to cool down' and WUk studnja 'well (of water)', Uk studin' f 'cold, frost', prostudytysja ~ zastudytysja 'catch cold', etc. Unlike Uk, USo has patterned the concept 'catch cold' on G norms, and uses zyma 'cold' since G kalt is the basis of the corresponding G \sich erkälten (see USo so nazymnic and discussion of USo zym[n]ica f 'fever' in ttheiss and Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1771-1772). Y, on the other hand, follows only Uk stud- to form Y far kiln zix 'catch cold' (though for 'cool', Uk has χolodnuvatyj, etc.: see above). The result is different distribution of G and Y derivatives. MHG erkalten 'become cold' does not surface in contemporary Y. See also chapter 4.1. 49. German: (a) ertränken 'drown', Getränk(e) η 'beverage', tränken '(give) water (to animals), impregnate, steep, drench'/ (b) Trank(-"e) m 'drink, beverage'/ (c) antrinken 'drink a little', Usich betrinken 'get drunk', ertrinken 'be drowned', trinken 'to drink'/ (d) Ifbetrunken 'intoxicated, drunk', ^Betrunkene m 'drunkard' (< MHG trunken), G Trunk m 'drink'// alt, (be)giessen, beraten, Berg, (be)wässern, Bewässerung, Ge-, Gewässer, Wasser, wäss(e)rig, wassern, MHG wazzeric, wezzeric > Yiddish: (a) (der)trenken 'drown' (tr), (derjtrenken zix 'be drowned'/ (b) getrank(en) η 'beverage' (and < G [a])/ (c) dertrinken 'be drowned', ontrinken '(give) water (to)', trinken 'to drink'/ (d) dertrunken vern 'be drowned', trunk(en) m 'drink'. The G practice of expressing 'drink' and 'drown' by a common root finds reflection in Y-even though SI requires different roots for the two meanings. This fact suggests that not all elements of the G paradigm were acquired by Y at the same time. For example, Y lacks elements of G (a), which it has replaced by (b), see e.g. Y getrank(en) η 'beverage' (Y lacks G Trank m). As to 'drown', Y does, however, use jointly (a) (derjtrenken 'drown' (tr)/ (derjtrenken zix 'be drowned' (intr) and (c) dertrinken ~ dertrunken vern 'be drowned'. In the latter, Y follows SI practice by using the reflexive pronoun to distinguish tr and intr verbs, see e.g. USo (so) zatepic, at the same time acquiring the G expression of voice by means of internal vowel change. Y also has (c) trinken 'to drink', ontrinken '(give) water (to)' (but no

260

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

congener of G fsich betrinken)! (d) trunk(en) m 'drink', but no G fbetrunken (< MHG trunken) 'drunk' (though the latter is cited by Stuckov 1950), for which Y uses Lsiker (,sikurim) m 'drunkard', Lsiker vern, Komikern zix 'get drunk'. The Hebraism suggests reluctance to relexify to the G roots-perhaps because of the non-Si practice of expressing 'drown' and 'drink' by forms of a single root. USo also has a common root (in variant forms) for all four G allomorphs, but requires a separate root for 'drown', see e.g. napoj, napitk m, pice η 'drink, beverage', pic 'to drink' and napojic '(give) water (to)' vs. (za)tepic 'drown'. The Y block on (c) G sich betrinken 'get drunk' and (d) \betrunken 'intoxicated, drunk' (< MHG trunken) follows USo (and the other SI languages) in using a different form of the root 'drink' to express 'drunk', e.g. USo pjany, Uk p'janyj 'drunk' vs. USo pic, Uk pyty 'to drink'. Y ontrinken '(give) water (to)' retains the SI derivational pattern of expressing the factitive by means of the prefix na- when it uses cognate on- < G, e.g. USo napojic, Uk napojity 'give to drink, water (horse)' rather than adopt the G vocalic alternation. While SI na- is cognate with G an-, the meanings of the compound verbs are different, see G antrinken 'drink a little' (see Wexler 1969, 1972). The absence of Umlaut in SI explains why Y getrank η lacks the raising of the first root vowel, as in G. Y makes an effort to acquire a variety of He nominal derivatives to match those in So, by accepting • maske (maskoes) 'beverage' and by coining an innovative Ajkojse(s) '(alcoholic) drink' < He kös(öt) f 'cup' (also > Y • kos [kojsesj m 'goblet, cup'), possibly in imitation of Uk skljanka f 'glass; drink' (He kösföt] is not explicitly marked as f; either the loan itself or only the m gender is probably a post-relexification acquisition, since Uk casa f 'cup' would have supported retention of the He f gender). The relexification hypothesis provides the motivation for the assertion of Herzog et al. (2000, 3: 340) that Y Lkejle 'vessel' and Apejre 'fruit', and structurally similar Lkojse are "back-formations" from the regular pis kejlim, pejres f (on the former, see discussion in #Fass). On gender change in Hebraisms, see chapter 4.5.1 and #alt. The partial retention of a SI root for 'drink' and the partial relexification to G trinken, etc. may explain why Y has also carried out only a partial relexification to G Wasser 'water'. The G allomorphs are (a) Wasser (zero pi) η 'water', wassern 'alight on the water'/ (b) wässern 'to water, steep in water', wäss(e)rig 'watery', Gewässer (zero pi) η 'waters' (attested since c.1400: Drosdowski 1989), |bewässern 'to water, irrigate', ψϊεWässerungen) f 'watering, irrigation'. Of this paradigm, Y has only (a) vaser(n)

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

261

η 'water', vaserdik 'watery' (< [b]) (on early 19th-c UkY vaserik, see Unger 1968: 16-17). (b) G JGewässer η is unavailable to Y (like many other coll nouns with Ge-) since USo uses woda f for both (a) and (b). It is possible that Y vaserdik lacks Umlaut, following MHG wazzeric wezzeric). Both G and SI distinguish lexically between the watering of plants (< 'pour') and animals (< 'drink'), see e.g. G begiessen 'to sprinkle, water' (< giessen 'pour'), wässern 'water plants' vs. tränken 'water animals', USoprilec 'water plants' < lec 'pour (liquid)' vs. napojic 'water animals' < pic 'to drink'; see also Uk polyty 'to sprinkle; irrigate' vs. napojiti 'water animals'. The SI practice of not deriving 'to water' from 'water' blocks G wässern in Y. Instead, Y relexifies USo prilec 'water plants' > G begiessen (see Y bagisn 'to water, wet, douse' < gisn 'pour'), while retaining the SI root for 'drink' in the form pojen 'water animals'. The lowering of e > a before r, χ in Y (inherited from the G lexifier dial?; see e.g. #Berg 'mountain' ~ Y barg m) does not apply to Y vaser, since post-tonic vowels are reduced to schwa (/e/). On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see ttberaten. On R vod-, see Herman (1975). 50. German: (a) essen 'eat', Essen (zero pi) η 'food'/ (b) fressen 'eat, devour greedily' (< MHG verezzen), G Fressen η 'feed, food, grub', Jgefrässig 'greedy, voracious'/ (c) Frass m 'feed; bad food, muck, swill'// Abendessen, Aberglaube, anbeissen, bestrafen, (er)nähren, Fülle, Futter, füttern, kosten, köstlich, Mahl(zeit), Mal, MHG mal, G Mast, meisten, Mittag(essen), MHG mitter tac, G speisen, warm, wölfisch, MHG wolfisch >

Yiddish: (a) esn 'eat', esn(s), esnvarg η 'food'/ (b) fresn 'devour greedily\freseris 'voracious'. The existence of a similar-sounding cognate in SI should have initially blocked (a): see USo jesc 'eat; food\ jedz f 'food'. Relexification was more likely in the KP lands, where Uk has additional terms that resemble G less, see Uk jisty,jiza f 'food', as well as kusaty 'taste, try by tasting', jcarc m (still f in the 19th c) 'food'. The use of Hebraisms in Y suggests that Y esn was not accepted by Y in RP1. Possibly, Y originally used kaxlen (now hum), mezojnes pit (also A.'keep; alimony': see UPflege), Lmajxl (majxolim) m, acquiring esn in the KP area, where similarity with Uk jisty 'eat' and jiza ~ jida f 'food' would have been less striking. The motivation for accepting a second term such as esn in the KP area might have been the desire to match the variety of terms in Uk. The similarity of Uk kusaty 'to taste' (vs. R kusat' 'eat')

262

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

with G kosten 'to taste'/ köstlich 'delicate, delicious; exquisite' may have disqualified the latter in Y. Y uses esn 'eat; food' less widely than G, e.g. G Mittagessen (zero pi) η 'dinner, lunch, midday meal' (lit. 'noon' + 'meal') > Y mitog(n) m 'midday meal, dinner' (vs. G JMittagfe] m 'noon, midday' < MHG mitter tac-for which see Y halber tog m [lit. 'half day'-a translation of USo poldnjo n] or mitogcajt f), G Abendessen (zero pi) η 'supper, dinner' (lit. 'evening' + 'meal') parallels Y onbajsn(s) η (< G anbeissen 'bite at': see chapter 4.2), var(e)mes(n) η < G (discussed in Uwarm) or • vecere(s) < Uk vecerja f (vs. vecir m 'evening'). The basis for Y mitog(n) 'midday meal, dinner' seems to be Uk poludenok (and numerous dial variants) or Br poludzen' m which denote either lunch or dinner (see also Uk poludnfuvjaty, Br paludnavac' 'have lunch, dinner'). The dial evidence from Ukraine shows that the meaning 'noon meal' predominates in the WP, W Volhynian and sporadically in the Bojkian and Hucul' dialects, while the meaning o f ' a meal between noon and supper' appears elsewhere (see Turcyn 1977). I do not know the distribution of the two meanings in Y dials. (b) G fressen is derived from ver- (denoting completed action) + essen. USo uses both different roots and a single root for G (fr)essen, see USo jesc 'eat' vs. zrac but also wobjesc 'gorge' (on R ed- 'eat', gor- 'throat' and z[e]r-, zor- 'gorge', see Herman 1975). Uk jisty, roz'jidaty 'eat' and related zajidaty 'eat greedily', ob'jidatysja 'gorge oneself reinforce the USo substratum. The existence of Uk zajidaty is a perfect match with Y fresn, since SI za- transfers its semantic and grammatical functions to G ver- > Y far- (see Wexler 1964, 1972). Currently there is no Y *faresn or G *veressen. Y freser(s) m 'glutton' competes with WY JLbal-axile (lit. 'possessor of food': K. W. Friedrich 1784: 149, cited by Katz 1991a: 33; see also ##-er). (b) G gefrässig is expressed by Y mzedne and |velfis 'wolfish, ravenous' (< G ^wölfisch 'wolfish' 1600s vs. MHG wolfisch). There is also no trace of (c) G Frass m 'feed, bad food' in Y, since USo zranje η denotes both G Fressen and Frass. Y lacks a noun *fresn, corrresponding to G Fressen η. A plethora of Hebraisms in Y to express 'food; eat greedily' suggests that (b) G fressen was not used without hesitation, see e.g. Laxlen (sometimes hum), GY Aaxiln 'to eat' < Laxile 'food' (which in EY means [hum] 'food'; the latter in He means only 'eating'), Y Lzojlel vesojve (lit. 'eating and drinking in excess') 'glutton' (see also #Fiille). See also Rotw acheln 'eat (greedily, heartily)' (Althaus 1963: 116; see references in S. A. Wolf 1956, #30, with the first attestation in 1510, and

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

263

discussion in Wexler 1991b: 81-82, 124, fn 304). Note also the unusual WY rafssen 'glutton' cited by Selig (1768: 285) with consonant metathesis. Y also originally denoted glutton by Lbaln (balonim) m 'interested person; volunteer', zajn a Lbaln ojfl cu 'be interested in, have an urge for', Lbalones(n) η 'eagerness, interest'. M. Weinreich derives the terms < He bala' 'he swallowed', with Y bain originally meaning 'swallower; glutton' (1973, 1: 315). USo uses different words to distinguish between 'food; feed; eat' for humans and animals and has a general unmarked term, see e.g. USo jesc 'eat\jesc dac 'feed' (lit. 'food' + 'give'), picowac, sypac, futrowac 'feed animals', ziwic 'nourish', respectively. Y retains these distinctions in its relexified G vocabulary, while retaining one SI term intact, see e.g. Y esn 'eat', spajzn, nern 'feed, nourish' (in general), fitem 'to feed' (< G essen, speisen, nähren, füttern) and mkorme (ne) η 'feed, nourish (animals)' < USo kormic, Uk kormyty. The Sorbian substratum requires that Y spajzn have a narrower range of meanings than G speisen 'feed; eat' (Y spajzn *'eat'). G Mast f 'mast, fattening, feeding, stuffing' and mästen 'fatten, feed, cram, stuff are not found in Y. Curiously, in the noun 'food', there are fewer G options in Y, see e.g. Y spajz(n) f 'food', but there is no reflex of G Futter η 'food; feed; case, casing, lining' in Y (see also Y futer[s] m 'fur, fur coat' < Pol futro n, futer m 'fur'). Comparative Indo-European evidence shows that G Futter η combines two originally separate roots that fell together. In relexification, we would expect Y not to have G Futter, füttern in both meanings. Indeed, USo distinguishes between pica f ~ futer m 'food, feed' vs. corbas m 'case' (both < G)/ picowac, dawac picu 'to feed' and pods ice η 'case, lining'/podsic 'to line, cover'. There is no certainty that the Germanisms were all acquired by Y at the same time; for example, while G nähren > ernähren, there is no parallel Y *dernern. Another curious feature is that Y has retained the noun related to mkorme(ne)n 'feed, nourish', see mkorme f 'feed, fodder'. The f gender of the latter deserves comment. This noun appears in SI with three genders (see Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 627-628; Trubaöev 1987, 13: 222-227). In Uk dials, the term usually appears as kor(e)m m, but see also kormo η (Matvijenko 1958: 26). USo has korm m, korma f and (dial) kormo n. Either USo or Uk could have licensed Y mkorme f, but the rarity of Uk dial kormo η favors a So etymon. If so, this would suggest that the change of Slavic η nouns into Y f nouns may have begun in RP1, in the So lands. O, dial Pol have karmia f (vs. stPol karm m), but given the broad geography of Y mkorme f, the different vowel in the first syllable, and the absence of

264

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

any trace of palatalization of the labial, I am disinclined to posit a Pol etymon (see also discussion of gender assignment in chapter 4.5.1). Hg has also borrowed a SI word for 'fodder', ablak (< Uk obrik m). G Mahl(e —"er) η ~ Mahlzeit(en) f 'meal', which are historically related to Mal(e) 'time, turn' < MHG mal (originally conceived as 'time for eating': Kluge 1899) is fully represented in Y by mol η 'time, instance' and molcajt(n) m 'meal'. The semantic differences, which would blur the historical links between the two roots, indeed sufficed to allow relexification from USo raz ~ kroc m 'time' and jedz f ~ jesc n, f 'food'. The only explanation for the m gender of Y molcajt might be that SI terms for 'time' can be m, see e.g. Uk cas, raz (see chapter 4.5.2). Y also has Hebraisms and Slavicisms to denote specific festive meals, see e.g. Asudes-micve(s) f 'festive meal (at a wedding, circumcision)' (lit. 'meal of commandment') or componentially mixed JLknas-mol(n) m 'meal to celebrate an engagement' < He qnäs 'condition (of engagement)' (see also #.Aberglaube, #bestrafen). For a Slavic meal term, see Podolian UkY mob'ed ~ nob'id m 'special meal which the bride's side gives to the groom's side before the wedding in the presence of musicians' (1920's: Jofe and Mark 1961-1980) ~ Uk obidm 'meal'. 51. German: (a) Fall(-"e) m 'fall, decline, case, event\ fallen 'to fall', gefallen 'to please', Unfall(-"e) 'accident', Zufall(-"e) m 'chance, accident, mishap', zufallen 'to close, fall to one's lot, devolve upon'/ (b) fällen 'to fell', Gefälle (zero pi) η 'incline'// aufhängen > Yiddish: (a) fal(n) m 'case, fall, contingency', umfaln, fain 'to fall, tumble', cufal(n) m 'accident (chance)', cufaln 'to fall (night); devolve upon'/ (b) gefeln 'to please' < G [a]). (a) G gefallen (similarly in MHG) 'to please' surfaces as (b) Y gefeln, probably under the influence of Y gefeit 3rd sg 'it pleases'. For (b) G fällen, Y uses other G roots, such as ajnvarfn, arophakn. The reason is that So has different roots for 'to fall'/ 'to fell', e.g. (a) padnyc/ (b) puscec, rubac, powalic. The inventory of compounds with G -fall(en) ~ Y -fal(n) is slightly different, e.g. G lacks a verb *umfallen 'to fall', while Y lacks a noun *umfal 'mishap, accident', a congener of G Gefälle η 'incline' (on the latter, see ^aufhängen), and ^°umgliksfal(n) m. For the latter, Y resorts to sibe(s) A'niishap' (< He sTbäh f 'reason') and mkatastrofe(s), uavarje(s) f. See discussion of R p a ( d ) - in Herman (1975).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

265

52. German: (a) Farbe(n) f 'color, dye, paint'/ (b) färben 'to color, dye, paint', fabfärben 'lose color' > Yiddish: (a)farb(n) f'paint'\farbn 'to paint', opfarbn 'to color, dye' (< G [b]). The loss of the vocalic alternation finds a smooth explanation in (a) USo barba, Uk farba f/ (b) USo barbie, Uk farbuvaty 'to paint', zabarvljuvaty 'to dye', from the same G root. Alternatively, (b) 'to paint' and 'to color, dye' might have been derived from the Y noun and thus lack the Umlaut, as is the case with the So and Uk pairs (for this and other examples, see Kaestner 1939: 7). 53. German: (a) Fass(-"er) η 'vat, cask, barrel', fassen 'seize, grasp, contain; understand'/ (b) Fessel(n) f 'chain, fetter'/ (c) Fetzen (zero pi) m 'rag, shred'/ (d) Gefäss(e) 'vessel', ^Blutgefäss (e) η 'blood vessel'// Abnahme, beraten, Boot, Ge-, Schiff > Yiddish: (a) fas (feser) f, n/ (d) gefes (coll) 'dishes', \blutgefes (zero pi) η 'blood vessel'. USo has a common root in (a) sud m 'vat' and (d) sudobjo η 'dishes' but distinguishes (d) zila f 'blood vessel'. Y fas competes with Y Lkejle (kejlim) f 'vessel' (< He kit m). For (b) 'chain', Y has kejtfn) and mpente(s) < Pol pqta f. For 'rag', see Y usmate(s) < Uk smata f; for 'shred', Y uses Germanisms. Missing in Y is (a) G fassen, which U. Weinreich 1968 replaces by onnemen 'seize, clasp; assume; employ' (see #Abnahme), since the equivalent USoprimnyc is unrelated to sud m 'vessel'. The paradigm of Y fas f, n, gefes η appears to owe its present formation to both RP1 and 2. The acquisition of (a) Y fas and its derived forms could date from RP1.1 can rule out RP2 since Uk sud- and its derivatives cover a slightly broader semantic terrain, see Uk posuda 'utensils, dishes', posudyna f 'vessel; pottery', and sud.no η 'utensils' (coll); 'boat'. If Uk sud- rather than USo sud- were the original SI substratal root to be relexified to G, then Y would be expected to have a common G root for Uk sudno η 'boat', posudyna 'vessel', sudyna (coll) 'vessels' and posuda f 'dishes'. Still, Uk could have contributed to the restructuring of the results of RP1. Y fas is both f and η gender; the η can be ascribed to G, but the f can be due only to Uk (but not USo; on gender shift between simplex and complex nouns, see chapter 4.5.2). Y \blutgefes (zero pi) η 'blood vessel' is not likely to be a caique of Uk krovonosna sudyna f because of the different gender, but is rather a recent post-relexification loan from G.

266

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Since Uk sudno η also means 'boat', it is useful to examine the pair 'boat; ship' in Y. Further evidence for their acquisition during RP2 is that Y expresses the notions of 'boat' and 'ship' by a single root, see e.g. sifl(ex) η 'boat' (with dim -I) and sif(n) f 'ship' < G Schiff(e) η (attested in MHG). The f gender of Y sif could be due to USo sifa, sefa (see SchusterSewc 1978-1996: 1435-1436) or to Uk sudno η. Y lacks G \Boot(e) η 'boat', a 17th-c innovation, presumably blocking MHG equivalents. The SI languages differ in the rigor with which they distinguish the two words, see e.g. USo coim m 'boat' vs. lödz f 'ship' but Uk does not obligatorily distinguish the two, see Uk coven m, sljupka f, sudno η 'boat' vs. korabel', coven m, sudno η 'ship'. Also Uk lodka > Y mlotke(s) f 'boat'. SI dim -ka is the basis for the dim -/ in Y sifl (~ USo lodz: lodzicka, Uk lodka f dim). The devoicing of -d- before -k- in Y mlotke is characteristic of NBr dials, in opposition to SBr and all Uk dials which preserve voiced consonants before a voiceless consonant; this fact suggests that Y mlotke f is either a Polack-Rjazan' or post-relexificational NBr element in the language. Uk might have also complemented the So paradigm in Y when forms with the prefix po-, e.g. posuda 'dishes', posudyna 'vessel' (not found in USo) were relexified to Lkejle (kejlim) f 'vessel, receptacle' (< He kli [kelim] m; see also #ertränken). The creation of a f derivative of He kli m can be attributed to Uk posud(yn)a f. Finally, a Uk substratal element manifests itself in the fact that Y gefes η 'dishes' is a coll noun without a pi (unlike G) ~ Uk posud m, sudno (coll) n. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see G #beraten. 54. German: (a) Feder(n) f 'feather; pen'/ (b) Fittich(e) m 'wing'/ (c) Gefieder η 'feathers, plumage'// beraten, Fliege, Flügel, Ge- > Yiddish: (a)feder(n) 'feather' ~ feder(s) f 'pen'. The SI languages have a single term meaning both 'feather' and 'pen', see USo pjero, Uk pero n. Hence, the ability of Y to disambiguate 'feather' and 'pen' in the pi suggests (i) two distinct chronological stages of acquisition, (ii) bifurcation of two pi variants that were not originally distinctive semantically, or (iii) an attempt to capture the SI practice of using 'feather' both as a coll and count noun, see USo pjerjo η ~ pjerina f (coll) ~ dial pjerje, Uk operennja, pir'ja η 'feathers'. The two pis for Y Jeder can be motivated in the KP lands. Uk pero (pera) η 'pen, feather' has a so-called "pseudo-dual" form after 2, 3, 4, pera (see chapter 4.5.4); in such cases, Y usually responds by assigning (•)-« as the dual marker, which subsequently assumed a pi function. This would mean that the

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

267

similarity with G -n pi was coincidental. While Uk cannot differentiate between 'pen' and 'feather', Y is in a position to do so, once it generated two plural forms, (•)-« (in imitation of the KP pseudo-dual, turned pi) and A/m-s according to the rule that most nouns ending in -er take A/a-s (see chapter 4.5.3). Y feder could owe its f gender to relexification from a SI η noun; here again, the parallel with G f gender is coincidental. Since USo has a single term for wing, (b) kridlo η, Y can only accept a single G term, e.g. fligl(en) < G Flügel (zero pi) m. The preference for G Flügel over Fittich m in Y may have to do with the derivational spread of the former and the requirements of relexification (see discussion in ttFliege). On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten. 55. German: (a1) Fliege(n) f 'fly', fliegen 'to fly'/ (b1) Flug(-"e) m 'flight; flock of birds'/ (c1) Flügel (zero pi) m 'wing', Geflügel η 'poultry', geflügelt 'winged'/ (d1) Flucht(en) Τ flight' (18th c), 'escape', Zuflucht(en) f 'refuge, asylum'/ (e1) flüchten 'save by flight', \Flüchtling(e) m 'fugitive, refugee' (a2) fliehen 'flee, escape; avoid, shun', MHG vlieher m 'fugitive'/ (b2) G Floh(- "e) m 'flea'// begraben, beraten, Betrug, Feder, Ge-, MHG inziht, G Lage, Obdach, Schnee, Zaum, Zeichnen, zeigen > Yiddish: (a1) Y flig(n) f 'fly'/ (c1) Y fligl(en ~ zero pi) m 'wing', bafliglt 'winged' (a 2 )flien 'to üy\fli(en) m 'flight'/ (b 2 )floj (flej) m 'flea'. The sets (a1)-(b1)-(c1)-(d1)-(e1) and (a2)-(b2) are not historically related (see Kluge 1989; Barney 1985: 68; Pfeifer, et al. 1989: 449), though they appear to have merged partially (due to similarity in form and meaning) in G and OEng (see also the ambiguity of ModEng flight). Root merger may have taken place in Y due to SI requirements, or because Y inherited the merged paradigm from its G lexifier dial. For (b1) G Flug m 'flock', Y uses words of SI origin (e.g. mstadefs], mcerede[s], mcate[s] f). While (c1) G Flügel (zero pi) m and geflügelt 'winged' > Y fligl(en) m and bafliglt, Y rejects G Geflügel η 'poultry'. For the latter Y has A of (ojfes) η 'fowl', ojfes pit 'poultry'; this is because the SI languages use different roots for 'wing' and 'fowl, poultry', see USo kridlo η 'wing' vs. pjerizna ~pjerina f 'poultry', Uk krylo η 'wing' vs. svijs'kaptycja f (lit. 'domestic bird'). On Y fligl(en) m, see also #Feder f.

268

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

G derivatives of (a1) fliehen 'flee' and (d1) Flucht 'flight' are expressed in Y by other G roots or by • ojker zajn (fun), maxn A pleite (lit. 'make escape' < H e p l e f ä h 'remnant'; also in Y A'bankruptcy'), maxn Avajivrex (lit. 'make' + 'he escaped'), Anicl vern (lit. 'be saved'), alongside Y antlojfn 'to flee', antlojfn η < G and Aplejte f'escape'. For 'avoid, shun', Y uses Germanisms. For (d1) G Zuflucht(en) f 'refuge, asylum', see Y opdax(n) m (< G Obdach η) or Amiklet (miklotim), Amokem-menuxe, Amokem-miklet m. (e1) G ^Flüchtling(e) m 'fugitive, refugee' is not normally used in Y (see J*flixtling in U. Weinreich 1968), which has instead Y • polet (plejtim) m, Aplejte(s) f (< He plifäh, which in Y falls together with Aplejte[s] 'escape' < He plefäh f; see also ttGeruch); Leschka (1825) cites Hg uzbek, üzbeg for 'fugitive' < SI, see Uk zbihlec' m. Relexifiers may have blocked the predecessor of ModG Flüchtling m, e.g. MHG vlieher m 'fugitive' (for other MHG synonyms, see Eppert 1963). The partial similarity between G f-l-g ~f-l-x-t and Hep-l-f (initial fis ungrammatical in OHe words and ρ > f in post-vocalic position), may have prompted Y lexifiers to choose the latter root, rather than synonymous He b-r-h, and to block the Germanism, (d1) G Flucht f 'flight; escape' and (e1) flüchten 'save by flight' are also blocked in Y. If I assume the Germanisms were acquired during RP1, then I should not expect any merger at all, since USo has two separate roots, see e.g. letac 'fly' and cekac 'flee'. Since the only part of the semantic field expressed by the G pair (a2) fliehen! (d1) Flucht in Y is the verb (a2) flien and derived noun fli(en) m 'flight', it may be incorrect to speak of a partial merger of (a1) G fliegen and (a2) fliehen into a single merged paradigm in Y. Two interpretations for the putative merger of roots come to mind, depending on whether the Y acquisition of flien, flig f, etc. is placed in RP1 or 2: (i) Conceivably (a2) Y flien < (a1) G fliegen 'to fly', with G g > Y h reflecting the lenition of CS1 *g > g > h in USo, Br, Uk (also > χ in preconsonantal and final positions, regionally) and SR, the first stage dated between the late 12th-early 13th c for pre-Uk (Shevelov 1979: 349359), perhaps as early as the 9th c for pre-Br (Wexler 1977: 98), and between the 12th-late 14th c for USo (Schaarschmidt 1998: 95-97). This is the only example I know of where /g/ in a G root might have been given up in the Y surface congener. If that is so, then Y blocked (a2) G fliehen! (d1) Flucht altogether and acquired its flien in RP1 < G fliegen. The other forms of the paradigm would be later borrowings from G, including Y fligfn) 'fly', which retains the /g/ of G Fliege (η) f.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

269

(ii) If the Y acquisition of flien, flig f, etc., is to be dated to RP2, then the partial merger could be ascribed to the KP practice of expressing 'flee' and 'fly' by a common root, see e.g. Uk proletity 'fly (through); flee', tikaty 'run away, flee; fly away', Br paljacec' 'break into a run; fly'. The weakness of this explanation is that there is a distinction between the nouns 'flying, flight' and 'flight, escape' in ESI, see e.g. Uk (po)lit m 'flight (by air)' and vteca f 'flight (by fleeing)'. For further discussion of the correspondence USo h ~ G g, see discussion of ttbegraben, UBetrug, #Lage, ttSchnee, #Zaum and Zeichnen! zeigen (MHG üinziht). On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see ttberaten. (b2) Y floj (flej) m 'flea' is not expected since SI lacks a common root for 'flea' and 'fly', see e.g. USo pcha, Uk bloxa f. Y floj could still have been acquired during relexification, assuming relexifiers did not regard floj and flien to be related, or after relexification. 56. German: (a) fliessen 'to flow, run'/ (b) Floss(-"e) η 'float, raft', Flosse(n) f 'fin'/ (c) MHG vliez η 'river, current', vliezen 'to flow (out)'/ (d) G flössen 'to float'/ (e) Fluss(-"e) 'river', Einfluss(-"e) m 'influence', ^beeinflussen ~ Einfluss einüben auf'to influence'/ (f) flüssig 'fluid, molten; fluent'/ (g) Flut(en) f 'high tide; flood'// Schwamm, Teich, MHG fich > Yiddish: (a) flis m 'flow', flisik 'fluid, liquid' (< [f])/ (c) flejc m 'flow, torrent, burst\ flejcn 'to gush, flow, flush, rush, surge', farflejcung(en) f 'flood', farflejcn 'to flood; infest', Ajam-flejc(n) m 'tide' (< G [g])/ (e) flusfeder(n) f ' f i n ' (< [b]). For (a), Y also uses strömen, gisn 'to flow, run'; *flisn is blocked by U. Weinreich 1968. (b) G Floss, Flosse, (c) flössen, (d) Fluss and (f) Flut are unattested in Y. For (b), see Y mplit(n) (< Uk plit m) and utratvefs) (< Pol tratwa f) 'float, raft'. The He travelogue written by Ptaxija ben Ja'kob of Regensburg in the late 12th c contains the Germanism wwlws /flös/ 'rafts' (see Carmoly 1831: 22). While Regensburg at that time might still have been Sl-speaking, there is no way to determine whether the author spoke SI or SI relexified to Y, or whether G Floss(- "e) η was inserted by a later copyist (the text was first printed in Prague in 1595). For (b) G Flosse 'fin', Y switches to (e) flusfeder(n) f. For 'float', see (d) Y (lozn) svimen (discussed in G MSchwamm). The blockage of (d) G flössen cannot be motivated by USo, since the latter has separate roots, see e.g. USo bezec, cec 'flow, run' and plawic 'to float', which would have licensed relexification. G flössen is probably blocked in Y because of the

270

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

prior selection of (lozn) svimen, and only one root could be accommodated. For (e) G Fluss 'river', Yiddish prefers tajx(n) < G Teich(e) m 'pond, pool'. The semantic shift in Y may be due to Ukpotik m which can denote both 'river' and 'stream'; there is no evidence in MHG that G Teich (< MHG tick) m ever denoted 'river' (see Drosdowski 1989; also the fact that Y tajx does not have f gender rules out an input like Uk ricka f 'river'). The blockage of Fluss also applies to compounds, see e.g. \°ajnflus < G Einfluss(-"e) m 'influence', a caique of Fr influence (first attested in UkY in the late 19th c, according to J. Mark 1964: 5), and fbaajnflusn 'to influence' (though Jofe and Mark 1961-1980 cite \ajnflusik 'influential' as a neologism). Instead, Y has Lhaspoe(s) f 'influence' (< He s-p-' 'pour; be on an angle'; the Hebroidism has been "borrowed back" by ModHe haspa'a 'influence'), Aslite(s) (< He 'control') and Adejefs) f (< He 'opinion'), and kjnaspie zajn ojf 'to influence', Amaspiedik ~ haspoedik 'influential' (the pair Y khaspoe f and Lhaspoedik is a perfect caique of Uk vplyv m 'influence' and νplyvovyj 'influential'). Y also lacks (g) G Flut(en) f 'high tide; flood', using instead reflexes of (c), see e.g. Y flejc m 'flow, torrent, burst\ farflejcung(eri) f 'flood', Y JLjam-flejcfa) m 'tide' (< jamfim ~ -en] m 'sea'),flejcn 'to gush, flow, flush, rush, surge'. The realignment of G allomorphs in Y reflects the SI requirement of separate roots for these concepts, see e.g. USo bezec (or cec) 'to flow, run' and priliw m, zolmy pit 'flood', Uk tekty, lytysja 'to flow' and povin' f, prylyv m 'flood'-but see potik sliz 'flood of tears' (with a nominal form related to tekty). 57. German: (a) Fülle f ' f u l l n e s s ' , ^ « 'to fill (tooth)'/ (b) voll 'full'/ (c) viel 'many, much', wieviel 'how much, how many?', zu viel 'too many', vielleicht 'perhaps'/ (d) ^Völlerei f 'gluttony'// essen > Yiddish: (a) filn 'fill a tooth', onfiln 'to stock, fill', ojsfiln 'fill (in, out)'/ (b) ful'MVJarfuln 'to fill\fidkejt f 'fullness'/ (c) f f i l , azojfil 'so many, as many', vufl ~ vi fil (LiY fil, Ce[Pol]Y ifl) 'how many', cu fil 'too many'. Both G and USo use Ablaut to distinguish between (a) 'to fill' and (b) 'full', see USo pjelnic/potny. Uk, on the other hand, lacks root alternation, see Uk spovnjaty ~ napovnjatyf povnyj. Y appears to have aligned itself with both G/ USo and Uk, see Y fill 'full' and farfuln or ojsfiln 'fill (in, out)'. The use of -kejt in (b) Y fulkejt matches the abstract suffix of USo mnohosc or Uk povnota f (see chapter 1 and the discussion of R poln- in Herman 1975).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

271

The partial blockage of (c) G viel is explained by the fact that the USo equivalent has different roots, see USo wjele, mnoho. For G viel 'many, much', Y uses a A sax. Blockage of G viel may also result from formal and semantic similarity with unrelated USo wjele. G vielleicht 'perhaps' is blocked since the SI languages do not use the root for 'many, much' in this expression, see USo snadz, snano ~ Υ Α tomer, Aeßer, Aulaj. For (d) G Völlerei f 'gluttony', see Y Azojlel-vesojve(s) m 'glutton' (discussed in ttessen). The equivalent USo root is distinct from the rest of this paradigm, see e.g. wozrawstwo ~ wobzranstwo n. 58. German: (a) Furcht f 'fear, dread\ furchtbar 'dreadful', furchtsam 'timid'/ (b) fürchten 'to fear, dread'// Gefahr, Schreck > Yiddish: (a) forxt f 'awe, dread'. U. Weinreich (1968) lacks the corresponding verb (but see Stuckov 1950 forxtn zix 'to fear'), using instead periphrastic hobn Aejme/ Amojre f/ Apaxed m (lit. 'have fear'), Amujemdik 'dreadful' ~ srek(n) m, f 'fear, terror, alarm', srekn zix far 'to dread', srekevdik ~ Amojrevdik 'timid, fearful'. The acceptance of the G noun without the related verb and adjectives may mirror the optional use in SI of different roots for the noun and verb, see USo strach m, bojosc f 'fear' (old texts have other f nouns, e.g. boyoscz [1721] ~ boyaznoscz [1782] ~ LSo bojazn [18th c])/ USo so bojec (in high style so strachowac: Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 49), Uk (o)strax m, pobojuvannja η 'fear'/ bojatysja ~ pobojuvatysja 'to fear'. Both the So f nouns and Uk pobojuvannja η 'fear' could provide a model for the f gender option of Y srek m, f vs. G Schreck m. See also discussion under #Gefahr. 59. German: (a) Gabe(n) 'gift, donation', MHG mitegäbe f 'dowry', G UBegabung(en) f 'aptitude, talent'/ (b) geben 'to give', vergeben 'give away, dispose of; bestow; forgive', vergebens 'in vain, to no purpose', vergeblich 'vain, fruitless, futile', fFreigebiger (zero pi), milder Geber (zero pi) m 'generous person'/ (c) Gift(e) η 'poison' (vs. MHG gift 'poison' f > m [early 15th c] > η [mid-16th c] vs. 'giving, gift' f [obsolete in the 18th c]), G (ver)giften 'to poison' (vs. MHG giften 'to poison; give a gift'), G giftig 'poisonous', f Vergiftung(en) 'poisoning', \Mitgift(en) f 'dowry' (15th c)/ (d) \ausgiebig 'abundant' (18th c), ^ergiebig 'submitting to' (17th c), 'productive, plentiful' (18th c)// MHG inziht, milte(clich), schützec, veiz(e)t, vrühtec(lich), vrum, zinsec >

272

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Yiddish: (a) gob(n) f 'gift; bounty', bagobn 'confer upon, grant to'/ (b) gebn 'to give', fargebn 'assign a task, lesson', f'condone, forgive', fargeb(n) m 'assignment'/ (c) Tgift(n) m 'poison'/ Tgiftik 'poisonous', ffargiftungfen] f 'poisoning'/ (d) \gibik 'elastic; yielding; productive'. For (a) 'aptitude, talent', Y has other Germanisms; for (a) 'generous person', see Y Avatren (vatronim) m. It is noteworthy that (b) G vergeben with its many meanings-'give away, dispose of; bestow; forgive'-is used in Y solely in the meaning of 'assign (a task, lesson)' (fforgive, condone'). For 'forgive', see Y • mojxl zajn, senken (see also MHG #inziht); for 'condone', see Y jkgojres zajn; for 'in vain, futile', see Y umzist ~ umnist, mpust 'vain, futile' < Ukpusto 'in vain, vainly'. I can conceive of three explanations for the Y blockage of (c) G Gift n, etc.: (i) Y could have been exposed to a G lexifier dialect where gift had both meanings 'gift' and 'poison' (see e.g. BavG gift f 'gift' vs. gift η 'poison'). (ii) In earlier SI darb m also denoted metaphorically 'malice, anger' (Slawski 1991, 6: 125); the absence of a single G translation equivalent could also have led to blockage of G Gift n. (iii) G Gift η had to be blocked since the SI languages use different roots for (a)-(b) and (c), see (a) USo dar m 'gift; talent', wobdarjenosc f ~ wobdarjenje η 'aptitude, talent'/ (b) dac 'to give'/ (c) jed m ~ zajedojcenje η 'poison', jedojty 'poisonous', zajedojcic 'to poison'; weno η 'dowry'. In response to this situation, Y coined Hebroidisms for (c) 'poison' and 'dowry', see Asam(en) m 'poison', Asamik 'poisonous', Afarsamen ~ • opsamen 'to poison', Afarsamung(en) f 'poisoning' and (Li, NPol, Br) •/•nadän ~ (Pol, Uk) mJAnadn ~ ml Anodn(s) ~ (Du, Bohemian) mlAneddn(en) m 'dowry' (see references and the suggestion of an isogloss linking Kar with other Tc languages in Wexler 1987a: 182). Rather than posit the bizarre semantic development of He nädän m 'sheath (of a sword)' > 'dowiy', it is more convincing to argue that the etymon is a SI root for 'give'-see Uk prydane η 'dowry; wedding outfit', made to look He (see discussion in chapter 3.1). G \Mitgift f might also have been blocked in Y since it appears to be a late MHG term. However, an earlier MHG mitegäbe f might have been acceptable to Y, given the acceptance of G Gabe and corresponding SI compounds. The blockage of MHG mitegäbe f suggests that there was a special connotation to the JS1 term which prevented relexification to the Germanism, unless blockage was

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

273

required because of a separate root in SI (see USo weno n). The Kar spoken in Halyc has nsdan (Baskakov et al. 1974), which may be a borrowing from Y, since it appears to be lacking in Crimean Kar. The m gender of unrecommended Y Tgifi(n) 'poison' reflects the gender of USo jed or Uk jad, since MHG had originally f gender. U. Weinreich's objection to G Gift(e) η 'poison' is surprising, in view of its possible acceptance by Y as far back as RP2. Finally, the blockage of (c) G Gift(e) 'gift' was compensated by the acquisition of (a) G Gabe(n) f, as well as another Germanism, e.g. gesank(en) n, mprezent(n) < Uk prezent m (< Rom and also found in MHG in all three genders) and Amatone(s) f. (d) Y %gibik must be a recent acquisition, given the newness of the G surface cognates. The existence of Y Asefedik, Abesefe 'abundant, plentiful' raises the possibility that earlier synonyms were blocked in Y, such as MHG milte(clich), vrum 'abundant' or schützec, veiz(e)t, vrühtec(lich), zinsec 'productive, plentiful'. 60. German: (a) \Gefahr(en) lying in wait; insiduousness; 'endanger', \Gefährdung(en) fungefähr 'approximate(ly)' Furcht >

f 'danger', MHG vär m, väre f 'danger; deceit, falsehood; fear'/ (b) G gefährden f 'endangering', gefährlich 'dangerous', MHG an gevcer[d]e 'without trickery')// G

Yiddish: (a) *\°gefar(n) f'danger'/ (b) geferlex 'dangerous; terrible' Y is more receptive to (b) G gefährlich 'dangerous' than to (a) G \Gefahr f 'danger', since the latter is a ModG innovation; both gefährden and gefährlich have a MHG pedigree, though the latter meant 'insidious, captious; compromising'-meanings not found now in Y geferlex. J. Mark notes that gefar and geferlex have been spreading of late at the expense of Asakone ~ Asekone(s) f (1963: 72). Y could have blocked an earlier MHG vär m, väre f 'danger', since the latter had a large variety of additional meanings: 'lying in wait; insiduousness; deceit, falsehood'-and 'fear' (Koller et al. 1990 list a number of other MHG terms for 'danger', which might also have been candidates for blockage). Y has responded in two ways to the blockage of MHG värfej: (i) For 'danger', Y prefers (a) A sakone ~ Lsekone(s) il (b) stein in Asakone 'endanger', a periphrastic expression which parallels USo do stracha prinjesc and Uk piddavaty nebezpeci. (b) Y geferlex coexists with

274

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Lmesukn, Lsakonedik. I suspect the passive template of Lmesukn was motivated by Uk pekatysja 'avoid (danger), avert' with the reflexive pronoun (see also Y Lmesupek 'in doubt' ~ Uk sumnivatysja in ##verzweifelri). (ii) Y added the meaning of 'danger' to the morpheme for 'fear', under the impact of SI, e.g. • mojre(s) f'fear' (< He mörä' m) has also acquired the meaning of A.'danger', see Y zajn a Lmojre cu 'be dangerous'. In OHe mörä'm never means 'danger'. (The change of gender from He m > Y f is required, since nouns in -e are f.) These semantic facts suggest that Y speakers were reluctant to relexify USo strach m 'danger; fear' to Germanisms which meant either 'fear' or 'danger' but not both (see also USo strasny 'frightening; dangerous', and the pair hroza f 'fear'/ wohrozyc 'endanger' ~ do stracha prinjesc, lit. 'bring into danger'). Thus, Y mojre 'fear'; A'danger' could date to RP1; however, Y Lejme f and Lpaxed m 'fear' have not acquired the additional meaning of 'danger', and thus are probably post-relexification acquisitions (see also Lsakone ~ Lsekone below). Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 1362-1363) reconstructs 'danger' as one of the meanings of CS1 *straxi> (though without motivation; see also in #Furcht), which would mean that the coexistence of 'danger' and 'fear' in SI was probably not motivated by contact with MHG vär(e) (see meanings above). In Ε European languages there are two types of language merger of 'fear' and 'danger': (a) Words meaning 'fear' or 'guard' may occasionally develop a secondary meaning 'danger(ous)', see e.g. vulgar R bojaznyj 'filled with fear; dangerous', Li bajüs 'terrible; dangerous' (Sadnik and Aitzetmüller 1970, 5, #247; Trubaöev 1975, 2: 163-164); in R opasnyj 'dangerous'/ opasat'sja 'to fear', the original meaning of the root was 'to guard, tend', see R pasti 'to guard; give pasture to' (Vasmer 1958, 2) and cognate Uk opasaty 'gird, belt', opasatysja 'gird oneself; fear for', (b) In Br and Uk words for 'danger' acquire the secondary meaning of 'fear', see Uk nebezpeka f 'danger', nebezpecnyj 'dangerous' > 'fearful', as in the phrase vin nebezpecnyj svoho zyttja 'he fears for his life'; Klyska cites Br nebjaspecny 'dangerous' and strasny 'frightful; awful' as synonyms (though his entry strasny does not include nebjaspecny: 1976: 278, 407). However, Y Lsakone ~ Lsekone 'danger'-unlike Lmojre f-shows no sign of developing the secondary meaning of 'fear', though Y Lsakones ~ Lsekones pi (predicative adj) means A'awful', in addition to 'dangerous'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

275

Instead of (b) G ^ungefähr 'approximate(ly)', Y has Abeerex, motivated by the use of a different root in USo, e.g. priblizny, nekajki 'approximate'. The fact that G fungefähr dates only from the 15th c. is irrelevant, since the underlying MHG an gevcer[d]e 'without trickery' would have been the original candidate for blockage (see forms in Drosdowski 1989, Koller et al. 1990). 61. German: (a) (Ge)hirn(e) η 'brain'/ (b) Horn(-"er) η 'horn'/ (c) Gehöm(e) η 'horns, antlers', ^gehörnt 'horned' (~ [b] MHG gehorn)/ (d) G Hirsch(e) m 'stag'// beraten, Ge- > Yiddish: (a) gehirn pit 'brains'/ (b) horn (herner) m, n/ (c) Ubahernert 'horned'/ (d) hirs(n) m. Neither USo nor Uk fully supports the Y acquisition of both (a) and (b), since the two SI languages have different roots, see e.g. (a) USo mozy pit, Uk mozok/ (b) USo roh, Uk rih m. I suspect that G Gehirn η was acquired first, in RP1, since only USo mozy (plt-vs. Uk mozok m sg) can account for the uniquely pi form of Y gehirn (vs. G Gehirn η sg/ Gehirne pi). G Horn η may have been acquired later, since the latter means both an 'animal's horn' and a 'musical instrument'; this is an ambiguity supported by USo but not by Uk, which separates the two meanings of 'horn'. Y follows both Uk and G: see Uk rih 'animal's horn' vs. rizok (dim of rih) or hudok 'musical instrument' (see also myslyvs'kyj rih m 'hunter's horn') and Y horn m, η 'animal's horn, musical instrument' but see also • sojfer (sojfres) m 'ram's horn blown in the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur'. The m gender of Y horn matches that of either USo roh or Uk rih (on a blend of the G and Br roots in Y, see discussion in chapter 3.1). Some resistance to G (Ge)hirn(e) η 'brain' can be seen in the Y use of Amojex (mojxes) 'brain' and Asejxl m 'common sense'. The reluctance to take G (Ge)hirn(e) η may also be due to the fact that in some dials, e.g. BavG, the term denoted both 'brain' and 'forehead' (see Schmeller 1872-1877,1/2: 1163). The acquisition of (d) G Hirsch without a SI parallel (see USo serna, soma, Uk serna, sarna-also in Y msarnefs] f 'deer, doe') suggests it was not associated with (a) or (b). On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten. 62. German: (a) \Gehöft(e) η 'farm', \höfisch 'courtly', höflich 'polite, courteous, gallant; obliging' (~ MHG hovelich < [b])/ (b) G Hof(- "e) m 'court(yard)'// beraten, Ge-, hoch >

276

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Yiddish: (a) ^geheft(n) η 'compound, (farm)yard', ^hejfis 'courtly', Xheflex 'polite' (acceptable for Stuckov 1950)/ (b) hojf(n ~ hejj) m 'yard; court'. Y must have acquired (a) G \Gehöft(e) η 'farm' after relexification, given that the latter is probably a post-MHG coinage. It is thus irrelevant that USo has a common root for both allomorphs (< G influence?), e.g. (a) USo zdworliwy 'polite'/ dwor m vs. Uk (a) dvir m, (b) hospodarstvo n, xutir m 'compound' and vviclyvyj, cemnyj 'polite' would not have licensed relexification. Y also has Abenimesdik 'polite'. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten. This set may be related to Uhoch 'high'. 63. German: (a) Gelehrte(n) m 'scholar', Lehre(n) f'discipline, doctrine', lehren 'teach', Lehrer (zero pi) m, Lehrerinfnen) f'teacher'/ (b) lernen 'to learn, study'/ (c) List (en) f 'cunning, craft, trick'/ (d) leisten 'do, perform, accomplish'// lachen > Yiddish: (a) ler 'apprenticeship', ^lere(s) f 'doctrine, (a particular) teaching', lerer(s) m ~ lererke(s) f 'teacher', lereraj η 'profession of teaching' (on Y -aj, see chapter 4.5.1)/ (b) lernen 'teach, study', (ojs) lernen zix 'learn', lernen mit 'teach', lerner(s) m 'Talmudic student', gelernter m 'scholar' (< G [a]). Y makes only limited use of (a); Y ^lere is a recent loan < G Lehre and coexists with Asite(s) f, while lerer(s) 'teacher' coexists with kmelamed (melamdim) 'teacher of children in a traditional Jewish religious school' and Amelumed [melumodim] m 'Jewish learned man' (on the replacement of Y lernen by lern, see Schaechter 1978-1980). This state of affairs can be motivated by USo, which has a single root for 'learn' and 'teach', see e.g. wuknic ~ (na)wucic and wucic, respectively (see also discussion of R uc-, uk-, [vjyc-, fvjyk- in Herman 1975). For 'teach', Y uses lernen mit. However, the closeness in form and meaning of the two allomorphs could have led to their mergers, e.g. MEng learn 'learn' acquired the meaning of 'teach' while lere 'teach' also expressed the meaning of 'learn' (Barney 1985: 41); hence, the Y allomorphic merger could have occurred without recourse to SI substrata. (b) Y gelernter m 'scholar' also competes with Llamdn (lamdonim), Aben-tojre (bnej-toyre), Atalmed-xoxem (talmide-xaxomim) '(Jewish) scholar', mufleg (muflogim) m 'distinguished scholar'. The block on (c) G List is due to the similarity of the SI and G forms; indeed, USo lese (with

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

277

surface cognates in Uk lest' f ~ lestosci pit 'cajolery', lestyty 'cajole') < Go lists (see Machen). For 'craft, cunning', see Y mxitrekejt (< Uk xytrist' f) ~ Y Lxazeraj(en) η '(dirty) trick' (< He häzlr m 'pig')· In place of (d) G leisten, Y uses other Germanisms. 64. German: (a) Gemälde (zero pi) η 'painting, portrait'/ (b) ausmalen 'depict, paint', malen 'to paint', Maler (zero pi) m 'painter, artist'// absuchen, alt, Andacht, beraten, Ge-, Gewand, Raub > Yiddish: (a) gemelfn) η 'painting, portrait, illustration'/ (b) molen 'to paint', moler(s) 'artist' vs. mal'er(s) m 'housepainter' vs. ojsmol('eve)n 'to paint; describe'. Full relexification took place, even though G (b) is broadly attested in WS1 languages and Uk, see e.g. USo molowac, Pol malowac, Uk maljuvaty. Brückner cites the first Pol attestation c.1500 (1957), hence it is possible that Y relexified to the Germanisms before the latter diffused to SI. Uk maljuvaty can mean both 'to paint' and 'describe', and Y has acquired both meanings in the compound • ojsmol('eve)n (< ojs- 'out' ~ componentially similar Uk vymaljuvaty 'to paint; make ornate' ~ G ausmalen). On Y m-eve-, see discussion in ^absuchen, #Andacht, #Gewand and ttRaub. Alongside (a) Y gemelfn) η in the meaning of 'illustration', Y also has Amosl (mesolim) m (< He 'parable; proverb; example'-meanings also used in Y), Aopmosln 'describe, illustrate'. Since Uk distinguishes between xudoznyk 'painter (artist)' and maljar m 'painter (artist, tradesman)', Y accepts G Maler in a double form: G Maler > Y moler 'artist' (= USo moler), while Ukrainianized G maljar > Y mmal'er m 'housepainter'. The Germanism is first attested c.1500, reaching Uk by 1600. This example of lexical bifurcation is similar to the gender bifurcation noted in #alt (see also chapter 4.5.1) and suggests that RP2 was still operative in the 17th c. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten. 65. German: (a) Genick(e) η 'nape of the neck'/ (b) Nacken (zero pi) m 'neck, nape of the neck'// beraten, Ge-, Gurgel, Hals > Yiddish: (a) genik(n) η 'nape of the neck'/ (b) nabi(s) m 'neck'. USo has two distinct terms, tyl m, tylo η 'neck; nape of the neck' and sija f 'neck'. The use of two terms in USo could explain the acceptance of the two G forms of the root in Υ. Y also has an additional term for 'nape of the neck', mpatil('n)ice(s) < Uk potylycja f (the pa- in the first syllable

278

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

suggests Br akanne, but this root is not found now in Br; see also pa- in Y mpamelex 'slow'); possibly -n- < nakn m, genik n. Another merger of 'neck'-terms in Y is haldz-un-(n)akn(s) 'neck' (Y haldz [heldzer] 'neck; throat' < G Hals[-"e] m 'neck; throat'). The compound suggests that Y speakers felt a need to distinguish unambiguously between 'neck' and 'nape', and/or perhaps the merger was intended to reduce the number of terms for 'neck' in Y, in order to match the single Uk syja f 'neck' (vs. tyl m 'back, backside, posterior part, background'). If so, then we have here another example of how the results of RP1 could be reshaped in the KP area. On other terms for 'neck' in Y, see MGurgel. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see ftberaten. 66. German: (a) Geruch(- "e) 'smell; bad odor', Geruchssinn m 'sense of smell'/ (b) rauchen 'to smoke, fume'/ (c) %räuchern 'to smoke, cure'/ (d) riechen 'to smell'// beraten, Dampf, Fliege, Flucht, Ge-, Geschmack, schmecken, MHG smecken > Yiddish: (a) gerux(n) η 'fragrance'/ (c) rejxern 'to smoke, fume' (U.Weinreich 1968 cites ^*rojxern). It is difficult to determine the relative date of acquisition of Y rejxern. On the one hand, it might be an acquisition from RP2 or a postrelexification loan since G fräuchern dates only from the 15th c. On the other hand, Y collapses (b) G rauchen 'to smoke (cigarettes)' and (c) ^räuchern 'to smoke (meat)' > Y rejxern, in tandem with USo kadzic 'smoke (meat)', kadzic so 'smoke (cigarette)' and kuric, which also expresses the two meanings. The opposition of Uk kuryty 'smoke (cigarettes)' and koptity 'smoke (meats)' forms the basis for my suspicion that Y may have acquired G räuchern in RP1. This means that either the coinage of Y rejxern was earlier and independent of that of G fräuchern, or that Y rejxern was initially acquired with the general meaning 'to smoke'-with semantic specification coming only after the 15th c. While ModG opposes schmecken 'to taste', Geschmack(-"er) m 'taste' to riechen 'to smell', MHG smecken denoted both 'smell' and 'taste', though in some modern dials, schmecken retains the meaning 'to smell' (according to Schmeller 1872-1877, 'taste' is rare in BavG). Y reflects the G ambiguity with its gesmak(n) m 'taste; gusto; tasty, delicious' vs. smekn 'to smell', smek(n) m 'sniff, whiff, smuxt(n) m 'scent, odor'. Y continues the state of affairs in MHG and BavG, thanks to parallels in USo cuc 'perceive, taste, smell' (~ R dial cuxat'). Y retention of the optional USo distinction of 'taste' and 'smell' could account for the blockage of G

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

279

riechen 'to smell': see USo cuc 'perceive; taste, smell' vs. wonjec 'to smell (pleasant)', cahnyc 'to smell (unpleasant)', won f 'smell', cuch m 'sense of smell', slodzec (intr), woptac (tr) 'to taste', slod m ~ slodz f 'taste' (also smak m < G), smjerdzec 'to stink', smjerdm 'stench'. Uk cuty 'hear; feel' is an inappropriate model for Y (see Trubacev 1977, 4: 134136). Moreover, USo slodzec 'to taste' is derived from a root meaning 'sweet', a semantic function lacking in G schmecken. The obligatoiy USo distinction between 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant smell' motivates the acquisition of Y Lrejex (rejxes) 'smell' and the innovative meaning of aver A'bad odor' (< He 'avir 'air', though the pejorative meaning could also be an internal development unrelated to SI, see e.g. Eng smell vs. smelly, G Geruch m, which means both 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant smell') and innovative form of Agesroxe(s) f'stench' (see also überaten); lrejex m might have been chosen because of its formal similarity with G riechen (see also discussion of Y Lplejte and G Flucht in #Fliege f). In UkY, st(Li)Y Agesroxefs) would be pronounced as Lgesruxe(s) f, with He sirhön m 'stench' altered to resemble G Geruch m? In that case, the Hebroidism could have been coined in Uk territory. The USo distinction between tr and intr uses of 'taste', woptac (tr)/ slodzec (intr), which is not made in G schmecken, also continues in Y Ltojem zajn 'to taste' (tr) ~ hobn a Ltam fun (intr) (lit. 'have a taste o f ) < He tö'em 'he tastes', ta'am m 'taste'. On the status of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten; see also #Dampf. 67. German: (a) getrauen 'to dare, venture', trauen 'to marry, join in marriage; trust, confide in, rely on', vertrauen 'confide, entrust, rely on', %Zutrauen η 'confidence, faith'/ (b) getreulich 'faithfully', treu 'faithful, true, loyal', Treue f 'faith(fulness), loyalty, fidelity'/ (c) Trost m 'comfort, consolation, solace'/ (d) trösten 'to comfort, console', Tröstung f 'consolation, comfort'// beraten, bewahren, Ge- > Yiddish: (a) getrojen 'to trust, confide in', fartrojen (zix) 'confide to', \cutroj m 'trust, confidence, reliance'/ (b) getraj 'faithful, devoted, loyal to' (but see U. Weinreich 1968 *traj)/ (c) trost(n) m 'consolation, comfort'/ (d) trejst(n) f'consolation, comfort', trejstn 'console, comfort'. U. Weinreich (1968) recommends (d) trejst(n) f over (c) trost(n) m 'consolation, comfort'; in Y, the verb only appears with ej. The f gender of Y trejst matches the η of USo and the f of Uk, which attests to its antiquity, (c) G Trost m and (d) Tröstung f are expressed by the same term in the SI languages, usually without vocalic alternation, thus causing partial block-

280

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

age in Y. See (a) USo sej (z)weric, (do)weric, werowac, dowera f/ (b) sweru, swerny, swera ~ swernosc f/ (c) trost ~ trost, pokoj m ~ pokojenje η (Uk utixa ~ utisannja f)/ (d) USo trostowac ~ trostowac, pokojic, trostowanje ~ trostowanje, pokojenje n, trost ~ trost, pokoj m. MHG had both trcesten and trösten, along with the noun trost m. So why no Y *trostnl The use of G Trost in USo is not likely to be a factor in the choice of verb since it was probably borrowed too late. The best explanation is that the Umlauted vowel of the verb trejstn, as the marked member of the opposition trost: trejstn, matched the marked nature of the native SI compound verb (in opposition to the simplex verb), see Uk utixa 'consolation' and utisaty 'console' < u- nominal prefix + tyxyj 'quiet, still, tranquil'. The absence of (b) in Y of a simplex without ge- may be an attempt to imitate the USo tendency to use wera ('faith; religion; confidence') with a prefix. See discussion of G Ge- in #beraten, and ftbewahren. 68. German: (a) Gewalt f 'power', gewaltig 'powerful', MHG gewaltigen 'overcome, overpower', G ^fvergewaltigen 'to rape; violate', walten 'rule, govern', %Vergewaltigung(en) 'rape', f Verwaltung(en) f'administration'/ (b) ^fbewältigen 'to master, overcome; manage', MHG geweitigen, G ^überwältigen 'overcome, overpowerΊI Abfahrt, beraten, Ge- > Yiddish: (a) g(e)vald f 'violence, force' ~ (-« — e s ) m 'cry, scream, shriek; emergency', bigvald ~ mit/ iber gvald 'by force', mgvaldeven 'to scream, shriek', fargvaldikn 'to rape', fargevaldikung(en) f 'rape'/ (b) gevelti/cn 'dominate', geveltikung f 'domination'. The G root has a cognate in SI languages, see e.g. OCz vlasti, Pol wladza f 'authority', wladac 'manage, wield', Uk vladaty 'to rule', etc. Note also the Germanized Lat name or title of a Carinthian Slav, Waltunc, found in the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum (Carinthia, 9th c: see Holzer 1998: 59, 66 and discussion in ##beherrschen). At some point USo replaced this root with knjezic 'to rule' (< Gmc 'king'). The commonality of roots in G and SI explains why Y lacks many of the Germanisms in (a). I assume USo still had a cognate of Uk vladaty at the time of RP1 (note that Thietmar, the bishop of Merseburg, indicated in his chronicle in 10 Π Ι 018 that he understood ESI Voldimert [> OUk Volodymerb > ModUk Volodymyr], the name of the late 10th-c ruler of Kievan Rus', as 'power of peace': see Vasmer 1953, 1 and Strummski 1996: 181-182). Y acquired the Germanism via Pol and Uk after RP2, see e.g. Y mg(e)vald f 'violence, force', etc. (with -d reflecting KP practice?) ~ Pol gwalcic ~ gwaltowac ~

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

281

Uk gyalt m 'force; rape, violence', krycaty na gvalt 'cry for help', gvalt! 'help!', gvaltuvaty 'violate, rape; cry for help'. For G ^Verwaltung 'administration', Y uses onfirung (see UAbfahrt), or • hanole f. Y bigvald 'by force' uses the He preposition 'with' (~ mit Akojex, ojf As 'kojex). It is curious that Y did not block (b). I suspect that Y geveltikn 'dominate' and geveltikung f 'domination' are either post-relexification loans or successful relexifications at the time when USo had lost its cognate of Uk vladaty, etc.; in any event, the SI languages use different roots: USo premoc, Uk perevazaty, peresyljitvaty. Y also uses Amojsl (moslim) m 'ruler', Amojslzajn 'to rule'. See also discussion of R sil- in Herman (1975) and G Ge- in ftberaten. 69. German: (a) Gewand(-"er) η 'clothing', ^gewandt 'agile, active; clever', ^Verwandte(n) m, f 'relative, related', Wand(-"e) f 'wall', •wandern 'wander, migrate', Wanderer (zero pi) m 'wanderer, hiker'/ (b) auswendig 'by heart, from memory', inwendig 'internal', ^notwendig 'necessary', Wende ~ Wendung(en) f 'turn(ing); change', wenden 'to turn (over); tilt', %wendig 'easy, manageable; nimble', Gewände (zero pi) η 'doorpost, jamb'/ (c) %Gewinde (zero pi) η 'garland, wreath; thread (of a screw)', Windel(n) f 'diaper', winden 'to wind; bind, twist'/ (d) Wandel m 'change', wandeln 'to change, vary, turn into'// Andacht, Arm, befreien, beraten, besonnen, Freund, Ge-, Gemäuer, Mauer, MHG mür(e), nötec, G nötig, Stein, MHG walgefrjn ~ weigern > Yiddish: (a) gevant(n) η 'cloth', \vant (vent) f 'wall', vandem 'wander', vanderer(s) m 'wanderer'/ (b) \ojf/fun ojs(n)vejnik 'by heart', invejnikst 'internal', vendfn) m 'turn', vendn 'to turn', (gejvendn zix 'turn to', gevendt in 'depending on; up to'/ (c) \gvint(n) m 'thread (of a screw)', vindl(ex) η 'diaper'. For (a) G ^gewandt 'agile, active, clever', see Y flink, rirevdik and mbistre < Uk bystryj 'agile'. For ^Verwandte(n) m, f 'relative', Y has Akorev (krojvim) m ~ A_(?)krojve(s) f (it is unclear if the latter is a Yiddish Hebroidism or an Old Hebrew term) or frajnt (zero pi) m (which lacks a f form) < G Freund(e) m 'friend' (see ftbefreien). G ^Verwandte m, f dates from the beginning of the 15th c, but the Y acquisition of A korev m could be much older, coming as a replacement for a blocked MHG predecessor. The advantage of the Hebraism is that Y can distinguish genders, which is required in SI, see USo priwuzny, swojbny m, priwuzna, swojbna f, Uk rodyc m, rodycka f 'relative'. The final voiceless stop of Y f r a j n t suggests a relatively recent acquisition, in

282

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

contrast to Y frajnd (zero pi) m 'friend; Mr., Mrs., Miss' (see also discussion of Y hant in #Arm and Y vant f below). USo swojbny m 'relative' and Uk svijnja f coll 'relatives' are derived from the root 'one's own', a construction also found in Y, see e.g. Y ejgene(r) f (m), di ejgene pit 'relatives' < ejgn 'own, same'. On terms for 'relative', see also discussion under #besonnen. The variety of the USo terms needed to express (a-b-c) explains why Y can only make a partial selection of the G roots. G ^gewandt = USo wobrotny, wustojny; G auswendig (on this term, see #Andacht) = USo ζ hiowy, ζ pomjatka; G winden = USo wie, wjercec (~ a host of Germanisms in Y other than G winden, perhaps because G winden and USo wie, which are not cognate, were thought to be related). But Y distinguishes lexically between 'garland' and 'thread (of a screw)' just like USo wica pit 'garland' vs. srubica f 'thread (of a screw)' (< G). Thus, Y m^gvint m 'thread (of a screw)' must be a post-relexification loan (< SI < G); if it were old, it would have -d (see also above). (a) G Wanderer (zero pi) m 'wanderer, hiker' and wandern 'wander' appear in Y as vanderer(s) m and vandern ~ mvandreven. The Germanism was also acquired by LSo wandrowas, Uk mandruvaty ~ vandruvaty and Pol wqdrowac 'wander', probably after Y had acquired G wandern during RP1 (Y mvandreven is from a SI intermediary). Along with vanderer and vandern, Y uses • navenadnik(es) m, Anavenadnice(s) f (< He 'move' + 'and' + 'move' + m-nik ml m-nice f ag), and volger(s) m < G 'wanderer'; knavenad zajn and volgen (zix) 'wander' < G (see MHG walgefrjn ~ weigern 'to roll, skip through; swarm; move'). The Y use of a Hebraism may be an attempt to retain the Uk practice of optionally using different roots for the verb and the noun, see Uk brodyty, mandritvaty 'wander', mandrivnyk m 'wanderer'. The current USo practice is to use a single root for 'wander' (pucowac) and 'wanderer' (pucowar m). For (b) G ^notwendig 'necessary', Y uses nejtik (< G nötig ~ MHG noted). The single USo nuzny contrasts with the variety of terms in Uk, see neobxidnyj, potribnyj, nemynucyj. (c) G ^Gewinde (attested in the 15th c) is expressed by another Germanism, Y kranc (krenc) m or mgirl 'ande(s) 'garland, wreath' (the I' suggests Uk hirljanda rather than G Girlande[n] f). For 'to wind, twist', Y has other Germanisms (e.g. drejen) or mfarkorcen (< Uk korcyty). G auswendig in MHG meant both 'by heart' and 'external, outside'. I assume that Y \ojflfun ojs(n)vejnik 'by heart' is a recent acquisition, since USo and Uk require altogether different roots, see e.g. USo ζ hlowy, ζ pomjatka, Uk napam'jat' (< roots 'head, remember'). Y has no He or SI term for 'by heart'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

283

G distinguishes between an unmarked (a) Wand(-"e) 'wall' and Mauer(n) f 'outer (stone) wall'. Originally, the SI languages had a single term for 'wall', see USo scena f, which Y relexified to mojer(n) m, f 'outer wall'. Y \vant f cannot be an early term, since then we would expect *vand. Hence, Y \vant is in all likelihood a post-relexification loan from G (see discussion of Y frajnt above and Y hant in ifArm); also, the G pi strategy of Umlaut is not particularly productive in Y. All W and ESI languages (except R) have accepted G Mauer to denote an outer wall, see e.g. USo murja (though scena can also be used in this meaning, and dim muricka f can denote an interior wall). In opposition to USo, other SI languages use the Germanism as a m noun, e.g. Uk, Br, Pol mur. Schuster§ewc (1978-1996: 968-969) suggests that SI languages with the m gender received the word < MHG mür, while So borrowed MHG mure f, though conceivably the f form and gender of USo could be by analogy to native scena. Y mojer(n) m, f follows both G and So f gender and the m gender of Uk mur. Y mojer m, f might have been taken directly from G, while its gender was triggered by ESI. The attractiveness of G Mauer f in SI, including Y, suggests that the artifact may have represented a new type of building style. USo scena f '(rock) wall' (< CS1) is cognate with G Stein(e) m, which is also available to Y as stejn(er) m 'stone'-apparently too distant in form and meaning from USo scena f to be blocked. For (b) G Gewände (zero pi) 'doorpost, jamb', Y has bajstidl(ex) 'doorpost' or mslup(es) n. While (a) Y vant is not likely to be an early term acquired via relexification, so too Y mojer m, f may be from RP2 or a late post-relexification loan. SI borrowed the Germanism before the diphthongization of MHG Μ > aw that took place between the 12th and 15th cc, depending on the dial (SilG preserved the monophthong until the 14th c, EMG dials until the 15th c); thus, I am inclined to regard Y \mojer as a "modernized" form based on ModG Mauer f (after the 15th c). Originally MHG mur f should have been blocked because of its presence in SI. Future studies should compare idiomatic expressions in Y with SI expressions using the two terms for 'wall', see e.g. Polprzyprzec kogo do murul sciany ~ Br pryperci kaho-nebudz' da scjany ~ Uk prytysnuty koho do mury vs. G jemanden an die Wand drücken 'drive someone into a corner'; Pol milczac jak mur ~ Br mawcac' jak scjana 'be as silent as the wall'. G Gemäuer η 'masonry; ruins' (~ USo murje pit) is unattested in Y, perhaps because of the vocalic alternation with G Mauer, see instead Y Axurve(s) ~ • mapojles(n) f in the second meaning. On the fate of G Gern Y, see #beraten.

284

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

For (d), G Wandel m 'change', wandeln 'to change', Y uses another Germanism, e.g. bajt(n) m 'change', bajtn 'to change' (two other Germanisms are labeled as of doubtful admissability in Y, e.g. ψίοβη and ψ endern) and • sine (sinuim) m 'change'. 70. German: (a) Gewitter (zero pi) η 'storm', MHG witern 'be a specific weather' > G wittern 'to scent; suspect; get wind of / (b) ^fUnwetter (zero pi) 'storm', Wetter (zero pi) η 'weather'// beraten, MHG apfel, G Ge-, heiss, Tor> Yiddish: (b) veter(n) m. (b) veterfn) m 'weather' appears in Y, in spite of a similar-sounding cognate in USo wjedro η 'weather' (on voicing differences in SI and G [surface] cognates, see discussion under MHG ##apfel; CS1 *vetrb m 'wind' is related not to SI and G terms for 'weather', but to CS1 *vejati 'to blow'; Martynov 1969: 110 regards CS1 *vedro as a Gmc loan). Neither (a) nor (b), designating 'bad weather', is used in Y since there was originally no such meaning associated with USo wjedro n. Under G influence, USo derived njewjedro 'bad weather' < native wjedro η '(neutral) weather'. Y shows no sign of interference from Uk ne(po)hoda, nepohid', nepohod' 'bad weather' < pohoda 'weather' (Br pahoda f is only 'good weather'). As to Uk, USo wjedro has a cognate now only in the Poltava dial vedro 'good weather', but in earlier times the term may have been more widespread in ESI dials (see also R dial vedro n: VaSöenko 1962: 10-11 and Filin 1969, 4: 93-94; on ESI pogoda f 'weather' in the meaning of 'bad weather', see also Tolstoj 1962: 144). Nor is G Wetter η in the meaning 'bad weather' (as e.g. in BavG, see König 1997, 3: 194) attested in Y. Other Y weather terms are di kelt, keltn pit 'cold weather', and the antonyms hie, hicn pit 'hot weather' and drojsn(s) m 'weather' < 'outside', which has a parallel only in Br nadvor 'e η ('good, bad weather') and in Li (vs. Uk nadvori 'outdoors', Br na dvare 'not home; outside', na dvary 'in the yard' vs. nadvor '[go] outside': see Τ. M. Sudnik 1995). If the latter is a Baltic pattern of discourse, then it may be a relatively recent regionalism in BrY; alternatively, if it can be shown to have once been used generally in the NKP dial zone, we would have evidence that G Wetter η was originally not universally accepted. See also discussion in G Tor in chapter 4.2 and ttheiss. For 'bad weather', see Y msl'ote ~ msl'ute ~ msl'akote 'slush' < Uk sl(')ota f 'rainy weather', which strengthens the assumption that Y veter m

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

285

originally relexified a So term meaning '(good) weather' (on the geographical distribution of the Uk term, see chapter 4.6). Nowadays, Y assigns veter(n) m gender since most nouns in -er are m, regardless of the gender of the G cognates. The choice of (•)-« as the pi marker in Y is unusual (most nouns in -er take the pi in A / m - s ) and suggests the possibility of an early relexification. For (a) G wittern 'to scent; suspect; get wind o f , Y uses Axojsed zajn, hobn a Lxsad 'suspect' (with an un-He cluster) and derhern, dervisn zix 'get wind of < G, since SI uses an altogether different root, see USo cuc. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see überaten.

71. German: (a) %Gewiirz(e) η 'spice', Würze(n) f'seasoning, flavor(ing), spice', würzen 'to season, spice'/ (b) Wurzelfn) f 'root', ^verwurzeln, wurzeln ~ Wurzel schlagen 'take root', mit der Wurzel ausrotten ~ ^entwurzeln 'uproot' (~ MHG üz wurzeln)/ (c) G Warze(n) 'wart; nipple', ^Brustwarze (η) f 'nipple'// Pfeffer > Yiddish: (a) \gevirc(n) η, (far)vircn 'to spice'/ (b) vorcl(en) m 'root; wart' (in the second meaning < G [c]), vorclen 'be rooted in', slogn vorclen, yarvorclen 'to root', ojsvorclen 'uproot' (< MHG üz wurzeln). The full relexification of Y to (a) and (b) suggests USo had already come to use common roots for the two G allomorphs, since Uk cannot license full relexification, see (a) USo korjenina f 'spice', korjenic 'to spice' (but this appears to be G influence, to judge from Uk specija, pryprava f, prjanosci pit 'spice', prypravljaty 'to spice')/ (b) USo korjen m 'root'. The m gender of Y vorcl reflects the influence of USo korjen, Uk korin' m. Alongside (b) ojsvorclen 'uproot', Y also has Y Asojres (soresim) m (figurative) 'root' and Aojker-minasojres zajn 'uproot thoroughly, eradicate' (lit. 'uproot' + 'from the root' + 'be' vs. ojker zajn A'flee'). Besides MHG üz wurzeln, not now attested in ModG, Uk could also account for the complex verb ojsvorclen 'uproot', using ojs- 'out', see Uk vykorjinjuvaty with vy- 'out'. However, during RP1, KP might have used the precursor of Uk prjanosci pit 'spice'-related to perec' m 'pepper' and a CS1 loan from Lat (see Vasmer 1955, 2: 341; Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1132-1133)-in the specific meaning of 'peppered' (see USo poprjanc 'gingerbread' < popjer m 'pepper'). This raises the possibility that Uk, like USo, also used korin' m as the general term for 'spice'. The putative shift of meaning in Uk prjanosci pit from'spice' > 'pepper' could then have taken place before

286

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

RP2 in Y. Otherwise, I would have expected the pair Uk perec' m 'pepper': prjanyj 'spicy', prjanosci pit 'spice' to be relexified to a single root in G-with an innovative Y meaning required for one of the Germanisms (e.g. G Pfeffer 'pepper' > Y fefer m 'pepper' + *'spice'). The only other interpretation is that Y relexified to either (a) or (b) but not to both, only later acquiring the unrelexified allomorph as a post-relexification borrowing from G. (c) G Warze 'wart; nipple' ^Brustwarze f 'nipple', lit. 'breast + 'wart') may not be related to (a) and (b). Relexifiers apparently believed it was, to judge from the fact that they moved (c) G Warze f > (b) Y vorcl m 'wart'. Not all lexifiers may have favored this solution, since Y also retained mbrodevke(s) 'wart' < USo brjodawka, Uk borodavka f. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see #beraten. 72. German: (a) hart 'hard, firm, solid; austere, severe'/ (b) Härte 'hardness; severity' (~ MHG hertefcheitj f), G härten 'harden; temper (iron)'// Andacht > Yiddish: (a) hart 'hard, solid, tough; callous, heartless', hartkejt f 'hardness', harteven 'harden; temper (iron)'. The absence of a morphophonemic alternation in the SI substratum precludes relexification to both (a) and (b), see e.g. (a) USo twjerdy/ (b) twjerdosc. The use of -kejt in Y hartkejt 'hardness' could come from (b) MHG hertecheit (~ herte = G Härte) or USo -ose f. The use of USo (s)krucic 'harden' may account for the blockage of the verb in RP1 (assuming that USo twjerdzic is a recent translation of G härten). In KP territory G härten > Uk hartuvaty > Y mharteven (see discussion of m-evein Y verbs in #Andacht). 73. German: (a) Hass(e) m 'hate, hatred', hassen 'to hate', verhasst 'hateful, hated'/ (b) hässlich 'ugly; nasty', ^Hässlichkeit f 'ugliness'/ (c) Hätz f 'hunt, chase; haste'/ (d) \Hetze(n) f 'hateful agitation, campaign; baiting' (earlier 'hunting with dogs'), hetzen 'hunt with hounds; agitate violently; rush', fHetzer (zero pi) m 'instigator, demagogue', ^Hetzerei f 'demagogy', ^fhetzerisch 'demagogic, inflammatory'// Arm, schade, schlecht, MHG ungebcer(d)e, ungetät > Yiddish: (a) Xhas m 'hate', Xhasn 'to hate', far hast 'despised, hateful'/ (b) Xheslex 'ugly'/ (c) \hece(s) f 'incitement, agitation', hecn 'incite; heckle', \hecer(s) m 'baiter', |heceris 'incendiary (speech)'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

287

In SI, (a) and (b) can be expressed by separate roots, see (a) USo hida f 'hate', hidzic 'to hate', hidzeny ~ wohidny 'hated'/ (b) hrozny, wohidny, zadlawy 'ugly', hroznosc ~ hroznota, wohidnosc, zadtawosc 'ugliness', (a) Uk nenavist' f 'hate', nenavydity, nenavysnyj, ohydnyj 'hated'/ (b) brydkyj, hydkyj, potvornyj 'ugly', potvornist' f 'ugliness'. For the other missing Germanisms, Y has (a) fajntsaft(n) ~ • sine(s) f 'hate, hatred', fajnt hobn 'to hate' (lit. 'enemy' + 'have')/ (b) Amies ~ moes 'hateful' (< He mi 'üs m 'abomination'), mspetne, mbridke < Uk 'ugly' (see also Lmieskejt f 'ugliness': on the latter, see #schlecht). The -t of Y fajnt < Gmc *-d points to a recent acquisition; see discussion of Y hant in #Arm and ttschade. The blocked (a) G Hass m and (b) %Hässlich(keit) f (or the latter's predecessors, MHG ungebcer(d)e, ungetät f, etc.- also blocked in Y) were not relexified to the same He root, but to A.sine 'hate, hatred' and kjnies(kejt) f 'ugliness', respectively. The "suppletive" use of two unrelated He roots was not forced on Y by He usage, since the root He m- '-s also exists in Y in the meaning 'hateful', see Y kjniesn zix far 'abhor, loathe, be disgusted by'. This fact shows that Y relexifiers did not need to accept entire He paradigms. The partial use of (a) Y farhast 'hateful' raises the question of whether the language once used the Germanism more fully, or whether the latter is a late, isolated loan from G. If the former hypothesis proves correct, then the example illustrates two-tiered relexification: first, from USo hid- > Y has- 'hate', and, subsequently, from Uk brydkyj, hydkyj, etc. > Y hes- 'ugly'. Alternatively, it is possible that one of the allomorphs was acquired by Y after RP1 or RP2. (c) Y \hece f, as the final schwa shows, is a recent loan from G, where the older meaning, 'hunting with dogs; chasing', dates from the 16th c, while the meanings 'hateful agitation' and 'baiting' date only from the 19th c. For 'demagogue' and 'demagogy', see also Y m^demagogfn) m and demagogje f; for 'agitation', see also m\agitacje(s) and \ceruderung f ('state of mind'). USo requires different roots for (c-d) altogether, see e.g. USo honic, eerie 'to chase'; scuwac 'instigate'; chwatac, spechac 'be in haste'; scuwar ~ scuwak m 'instigator', honjenca f ~ honjenje η 'chase' vs. scuwanca f 'campaign, demagogy'. 74. German: (a) heiss 'hot'/ (b) heizen 'heat (up)'/ (c) Hitze f 'heat', sich erhitzen 'get excited'// MHG erkalten, G Fieber, Gewitter, kalt, sich erkälten >

288

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Yiddish: (a) hejs 'hot'/ (b) (bajhejcn 'to heat'/ (c) hie f 'heat; fever' ~ hicn pit 'hot weather', hicn 'to heat' (the latter < G [b]), hicn zix 'get excited continually, be excited'. Y hicn pit 'hot weather' coexists with Lpcmime f 'extreme heat' (see also discussion in #Gewitter). The two terms could imitate the variety of USo horcota f, cople wjedro n, heca 'warm weather' (< G), coplota 'warmth' or Uk mljava 'heat; sultry air', teplin' f 'warm period, place', WUk horjac m 'suffocating, burning heat'. Y also differs from G in the word for fever. G Fieber η surfaces in Y as fiber m (most Y nouns ending in -er are m), but the latter also has hie f in this meaning. The use of the root for 'heat' to denote 'fever' in Y parallels Uk harjacka f 'fever' < harjacyj 'hot'. USo preserves the original SI practice in its cognate horcota (now rarely, in favor of zym[n]ica, temperatura, heca f) but, curiously, has also recalibrated zyma f 'winter' > 'cold' > 'fever' (on the model of G tt^sich erkälten 'catch cold' ~ non-Umlauted in MHG erkalten 'become cold'). Y accepts (b) with some reluctance. The simplex verb corresponding to (b) G heizen 'to heat' can be either hejen 'to heat, make a fire in' or hicn (impf) 'to heat' (< [c]); but Y hicn zix 'get excited continually, be excited' ~ G sich erhitzen, and is therefore probably a post-relexification acquisition. The partial acceptance of the G morphophonemic alternation in (b) ~ (c) could be explained by USo where there is a change in root, see e.g. G he iss = USo horcy 'hot', G Hitze = horcota f 'heat' vs. G heizen = USo tepic (in folklore horic) 'to heat'. 75. German: (a) hoch 'high' (< MHG hoch; höchlich 'highly, greatly')/ (b) G %höchlich 'highly, greatly', ^höchstens 'at best, at most'/ (c) MHG hö 'high', G Hoheit f 'high dignity, highness'/ (d) erhöhen 'promote, elevate', Höhe(n) f 'height', höher 'higher'/ (e) Hügel (zero pi) m 'hill(ock)'/ (f) Höcker (zero pi) m 'hump, bump; small hill'// Berg, Gehöft > Yiddish: (a) hojx 'high', hojxenis(n) f 'height' (< G [d])/ (b) hejxfn) f 'height'; hexer 'higher', hexern 'to raise, promote', hejxn 'promote' (< G (d)); \hexstns 'at best, at most'. Coexisting with (b) Y Jhexstns 'at best, at most' are stark ~ zejer 'highly, greatly', ojfn bestn Aojfh, in bestn fal 'at best'. Y lacks (c) and (d), due to the common root in (a) USo wysoko 'high', (b) w najwysim ~ najwysim padze 'at best, at most', (c) wysokosc f 'highness', (d) wyse 'higher', powysic 'promote' (vs. hora f, wjersk m 'height'); Uk presents an identical distribution of vysokyj 'high', (b) Y hejx maintains the Umlaut

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

289

relationship of G hoch/ Höhe but generalizes the fricative -x- to the comparative and superlative degrees. MHG sometimes generalized variant (c) where ModG has (a), e.g. MHG hoch ~ ho 'high' ~ ModG hoch, which could have been the model for the leveling out in Y of allomorph (c) ho-. For (e), Y has dim bergl(ex) η (~ USo horka dim < hora f 'mountain'; see also Uk pahorok dim) and mkojp(n) USo kopc m, Uk kupa f); see also Werg. For (f) Höcker (zero pi) m 'hump, bump; small hill', Y uses mhorb(n) < USo, Uk horb m. The retention of a Slavicism suggests relexifiers regarded (f) as related to (a)-(d) (see also #Gehöft). Y lacked a basis for relexifying to (e) Hügel, since USo kopc covers both (e) and (f). 76. German: (a) hold 'charming, lovely, sweet', Unhold(e) m 'demon, fiend, monster'/ (b) Frau Holle f 'a pre-Christian German witch who receives an offering of braided hair from girls who have just reached puberty in return for her protection'/ (c) Huld(en) f 'grace, favor, kindness'/ (d) Kobold(e) m 'hobgoblin, imp' (< Koben 'pigsty' + hold m 'stall spirit')// Berchisbrot, Berchta, Perchisbrot, Perchta, schade, Striezel > Yiddish: (b) WY holekräs 'ceremony for naming a child', Y xale(s) f A'festive bread'. (b) survives in two forms in Y: (i) As the first component of WY holekräs, the naming ceremony performed either for newborn girls or for both sexes, depending on the locale (the second component can be derived either < G 'to shout' or 'circle'; for details, see Wexler 1993c: 119-120 and 1996a: 222). (ii) Y Axalefs) f 'a twisted white bread eaten on the Sabbath'. The Y term is spelled as if it were BibHe halläh f 'piece of unbaked dough given to the priests in the temple in Jerusalem as a tithe'. G (Frau) Holle f was Hebraized in an attempt to eliminate the pagan preChristian symbolism of the plaited bread term. The "Jewish" bread is characteristically produced in a plaited or twisted form; this is also the traditional form of festive bread in G and SI nonJewish societies. Apparently the original USo kolac, also a twisted bread, could not be relexified to a G term for a plaited bread, say dial G Striezel(e) m 'plaited cake' (MHG?), perhaps because of different religious connotations/rituals in the two languages/societies. Y has retained the Slavicism in the form kojlec(n) m (with the same meaning as Y Axale f; see also WY kowlec m). Some Y speakers, apparently aware of the significance of G (Frau) Holle f, preferred to relexify to a

290

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Hebroidism. It is unclear whether G ever had a term for plaited bread derived from the witch's name. Another Germanic goddess, Berchta ~ Perchta f, goddess of vegetation and fertility, does have a bread term named after her, see Berchisbrot ~ Perchisbrot n. The latter is the basis for WY barxes ~ berxes 'plaited festive bread'. I reject the suggestion that the latter < He birkat 'blessing of in the phrase birkat adonaj hi ta 'asir 'the blessing of the Lord enriches', just because the last word in the phrase also produced a WY bread term around Frankfurt am Main, däcer (see Lowenstein 1969, map #19, pp. 19-22; Maler 1979; Herzog et al. 2000, 3, 30, maps ##145-147). Given the clear Gmc origin of EY Lxale(s) f, it makes sense to regard WY barxes ~ berxes as Gmc as well, with the folk etymology of 'blessing of inspired by WY däcer. Y Axale is the term favored in the SI lands, alongside Y mkitke(s) f, in the Li-Br areas, perhaps related to a SI term for 'braided strands of hair over the ear' (see Uk kyt 'ky pl-which is never a term for baked goods; for SI etymological details, see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 520-521; Y mkitke f never appears as the sole term in any Y dial for 'Sabbath bread', see details in Herzog et al. 3, 2000, map #148). The goddess's name as well as braided bread were also known in Cz and Sin, so that the acquisition of Y barxes ~ berxes could have been either directly < G or via a SI intermediary (see further details in Wexler 1993c: 115-118). It would be useful to know if the border between the two Y festive bread terms originally followed the border between G and S1Y. WUk balabux m 'Jewish braided bread' is unknown in Y (see Wexler 1993c: 113). For (a) G hold, see Y • xejnevdik, Abaxejnt, JLmole-xejn; for G Unhold, see Y • sed (sejdim) m, alongside Germanisms. For (c), see Y Lxesed (xsodim), A;

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

291

Yiddish: (b) cejxn(s) m 'sign, mark', cejxenen 'to draw', ^farcejxenen 'to note, jot down, record'. The inability of Y to relexify fully is a function of the variety of roots in (a) USo winowac ~ wobwinic 'accuse', winowanje ~ wobwinjenje 'accusation'; spuscenje η 'renunciation', spuscic 'renounce'/ (b) zapisac 'note down', znamjo η 'sign', rysowac, woznamjenic 'to draw, make a sign'/ (c) wodace ~ wodawanje η 'excuse', wodac 'to excuse'/ (d)pokazac 'to show'. Y has no reflexes of (a) MHG inziht f 'charge, accusation', G Verzicht m 'renunciation, abandonment', etc., using instead Germanisms such as basuldikung(en) f 'accusation', basuldikn 'accuse', opzogn zix fun 'renounce', or Akitreg m 'accusation', Amevater zajn (ojf) 'renounce'. (b) is represented only partly in Y, see Y cejxn(s) m 'sign, mark', cejxenen 'to draw, ^farcejxenen 'note, jot down, record'-but not the other G meanings 'draw badly, distort'. G ^verzeichnen is first attested in the 15th c, thus Y yarcejxenen is either a post-relexification loan or an independent caique of a SI compound verb with za-, see USo zapisac or Uk zapysaty. (c) G verzeihen, Verzeihung are not in broad use in Y, perhaps because verzeihen up until the 18th c denoted both 'renounce' and 'pardon' (in the first meaning replaced by verzichten: see Sadan 1973: 45). Instead, see Y Amojxl zajn, senken (< G, but in imitation of Uk daruvaty or Pol darowac, meaning both 'give a gift' and 'pardon'; see also #Furcht), Amexile f. (Y senken also means 'give [as a gift]' ~ G schenken, but lacks the other meaning of the Germanism, 'pour a drink'; no SI verb has both these meanings.) Y usually lacks (d) G zeigen (see U. Weinreich 1968 \*cajgn), using instead vajzn < G weisen. The use of a single root, USo pokazac 'to show', obliged Y to choose between G weisen and zeigen; it accepted only the former-perhaps because zeigen was perceived as closely related to zeihen, verzeihen, etc. which had various other meanings (see also discussion of the g ~ h interchange in ttbegraben, #Betrug, #Fliege, #Lage and #Zaumj. If that is the case, then we have here evidence that relexifiers were aware of the genetic links between the sets of allomorphs in G. Of course, (c) zeihen, verzeihen would have been blocked just by the absence of a parallel SI pair. 78. German: (a) Jahr(e) η 'year', MHG järec 'annual, one year old', jären 'become old, of age; make old', G Jahreszeit(en) 'season of the year'; dial Jahrzeit(en) f 'anniversary of a relative's death' (lit. 'year time'; see also Jahrestag[e] m in the latter meaning, lit. 'year's day')/ (b) MHG jceric 'annual; one year old' > G jährig, jährlich 'annual, yearly',

292

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

^volljährig 'of age', MHG jeeren 'become old, of age; make old', G sich jähren 'be the anniversary of!IAdel, Ahne, Bahre, Fülle, Zeit> Yiddish: (a) jor(n) η 'year', jorcajt(n) m, f 'anniversary of a relative's death'; jorn zix 'have a birthday' (< G [b]); jorik 'annual, yearly', (\)fuljorik 'of age' (< G [b])/ (b) jerlex 'annual, yearly'; jern zix 'have a birthday'. (a) Y jorik could either be a continuation of MHG järec, or a copy of the absence of morphophonemic alternation in USo leto η 'year', letny 'annual'; see also Y (%tfuljorik 'of age', possibly calqued on USo pobioletny or Uk povnolitnij (see UFiille) or a recent loan < G ^volljährig. (b) Y jerlex could be a secondary borrowing from G (see also G Adel [Mhne]). For 'season of the year', see Y jor-ktkufe[s] f (< He 'period') ~ cajt fun jor (lit. 'time of the year'). The f gender of Y jorcajt need not be from cajt(n) 'time, era' < G Zeit(en) f but rather from substratal USo rocnica or Uk ricnycja f (on the gender of Y compounds, see chapter 4.5.2). On the Jewish espousal of an originally Catholic mourning custom, see discussion of Y jorcajt in chapter 3 and Wexler (1993c: 120-122); on SI mourning customs, see Sedakova (1979) and Tolstaja (1989: 226-227). (a) Y (Volhynian: see Schaechter 1986: 83) jorn zix and (b) jern zix 'have a birthday' are unique to Y, vs. G Geburtstag feiern (lit. 'birthday' + 'celebrate': see #Bahre), es jährt sich heute 'today is the anniversary of (~ MHG jären ~ jceren 'become old, of age; make old'). The Y forms are perhaps original responses to the USo use of a root other than 'year' to express 'birthday', see e.g. narodniny pit 'birthday', swjecic 'celebrate'. Either Uk rik m or USo leto, Uk lito 'year' could be the input for Y jor η 'year' (though the Y gender is exclusively G). However, each SI root has additional unique meanings not found in Y jor. Uk rik m (< CS1 'period of time'; see also USo rocne easy pit 'high holidays, e.g. Christmas'). USo leto η is the basis for USo leco 'summer' (< CS1), naleco 'spring'; see also Uk lito η 'summer; year'. Given the heterogeneous meanings, I would not have expected to see G Jahr relexified from a SI term for 'year'. The original meaning of the root in OEng (and elsewhere?) was 'spring' (Kluge 1989). A term with the meanings of'spring' and 'year' would have been blocked in the KP lands, given the existence of cognate Uk jar m 'spring [seed]', jatycja f 'spring wheat'. At present, USo lacks a semantically transparent cognate of Uk jar m and G Jahr η; see USo jer(i)ca f 'summer corn', but note arch LSo jaro η 'spring'. The meaning 'spring' is not attested with MHG jär η, though it could still have been alive in the 10th-11th cc. Tentatively, I date Y jor η in RP1 < USo leto n,

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

293

denoting either 'a year and/or a part of a year (summer, spring)'. Alternatively, a now obsolete USo cognate of Uk rik m or the latter itself could also have been the input. 79. German: (a) Kamm(-"ej m 'comb; crest (of mountain, animal); ridge'/ (b) kämmen 'to comb'// MHG strcel, G Strahl, Strähle, strählen > Yiddish: (a) kam(en) m 'comb; mountain ridge', (far)kamen 'to comb'/ (b) keml(ex) η 'comb', kemen 'to comb' (U. Weinreich 1968 prefers kamen < G [a]). There is no morphophonemic alternation between noun and verb in SI, which accounts for the reluctance of Y to accept (b), see e.g. USo cesak m 'comb', cesac 'to comb'. Y has the ambiguous G term Kamm 'comb, crest, ridge', at the same time that it cultivates other Germanisms which permit it to retain the SI principle of differentiating 'comb' and 'crest' (in various meanings): e.g. Y bargrukn(s) m 'ridge of a mountain', keml(ex) η 'comb' vs. USo hrjeben 'crest of a mountain', rjemjen m 'crest of a rooster'-in addition to Y keml(ex) η ~ USo cesak m 'comb'. Y keml(ex) η dim could be based on Uk hrebinka or cesalka f dim. The chronology of relexification is problematic. On the one hand, the present situation in Uk, where 'comb' and 'to comb' are expressed by different roots (e.g. Uk hrebin' m 'comb' but cesaty 'to comb'), suggests an early relexification in the So lands. On the other hand, Y partly violates the USo practice of distinguishing lexically between 'comb' and 'mountain ridge'; this contradiction can be removed by assuming that Y kam m was acquired in RP1 in the sole meaning of'comb', and later, in the KP lands, acquired the second meaning of G Kamm- mountain ridge'-under the influence of Uk hrebin' (hory) m 'mountain ridge; comb'. Another G term for '(to) comb', Strählefn) f (~ MHG strcel m) 'comb', strählen 'to comb' is lacking altogether in Y, though related Strahl(en) 'beam, ray, jet' > Y stral(n) m 'beam (of rays)', strain 'to beam, radiate, be jubilant'. The relexification to the latter was possible despite the existence of cognate USo trel, LSo stsel m 'arrow' and USo wottrelic 'to shoot'; the cognates may have been too distant in form and meaning to block the relexification. Alternatively, Y stral m ~ strain are postrelexification loans, especially since Y stral m competes with mpasme(s) f (also 'strip') and nsnop(es) m ('light') (< USo pasmo 'yarn; mountain chain', Uk pasmo η 'skein' and USo snop 'yarn', Uk snip m 'sheaf). The innovative meanings that Y gave its two Slavisms reflect a need to replace a blocked Germanism.

294

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

80. German: (a) Kampf(-"e) m 'fight, struggle'/ (b) kämpfen 'to fight, struggle', Kämpfer (zero pi) m 'fighter'// Dampf, Kopf> Yiddish: (a) \kamf(n) m 'fight, struggle'/ (b) \kemfn 'to fight, struggle', kemfer(s) m 'fighter'. The Germanism is attested in OHG, but the Y reflexes with /{/ suggest a recent borrowing from G (vs. older /p/ as in Y kop ~ G Kopf m 'head'; see also discussion in #Dampf). Hence, the question is why Y needed to block both Germanisms in both relexification stages. MHG kämpfen also denoted 'to duel; wrestle'-meanings absent in Y. But USo contrasts wojowac 'to fight; wrestle' (also so wjerhac 'wrestle') with so bic 'to duel'; similarly, Uk borotysja 'to fight; wrestle' (also bytysja 'to fight') vs. bytysja na dueli 'to duel'. Hence, Y duelirn 'to duel' (vs. G sich duellieren) and ranglen zix, stajern zix 'wrestle'. The absence of a SI counterpart to G a ~ ä may also have contributed to the early blockage, see (a) USo boj m, wojowanje n/ (b) wojowac, wojowar ~ bojownik m. 81. German: (a) kauen 'chew'/ (b) ^wiederkäuen 'ruminate, chew the cud'// entgegen, MHG itekouwen, it(e)rücken, G wi(e)der > Yiddish: (a) (ce)kajen. Y lacks (b) since USo has different roots for (a) USo kusac (but zwac 'chew noisily')/ (b) (pfe)zwac ~ zwak zuc. Y thus acquires • mal(e)gejrn 'chew the cud'. Uk has a common root in (a) zuvaty! (b) zuvaty zujku, perezuvaty, which would have licensed full relexification. MHG it(e)rücken (lit. 'again' + 'belch') or itekouwen 'ruminate, chew the cud' parallel the contemporary G situation. The Y facts suggest USo (pre)zwac might not have been formed at the time of RP1. See also discussion of G wider/ wieder in Mentgegen. For a map of (b) and other terms for 'ruminate', all of which are unattested in Yiddish at present, see Ising (1968,2: 56-57). 82. German: (a) kurz 'short'/ (b) (ver)kürzen 'shorten, abridge', Kürze f 'shortness' > Yiddish: (a) kurc/ (b) (far)kircn. Y also accepts Lkicer (kicurim) m 'summary, abstract; in short, in a word', Lbekicer 'in short, briefly' (alongside in kurcn < G), A.mekacer zajn 'shorten'. The acceptance of the G morphophonemic alternation has a

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

295

basis in (a) USo krotky, Uk korotkyjl (b) USo krotsic, Uk skorocuvaty. The acceptance of the Hebraism might be due to the formal similarity with the Germanism, though He beqicür is also used in other Jewish languages, e.g. JSp (see Bunis 1993). 83. German: (a) lachen 'to laugh', Lachen (zero pi) η ~ Lache(n) f'laugh, laughter'/ (b) Gelächter η 'laugh; laughter', lächeln 'to smile' (~ MHG 'to smile; feign friendliness'), G ^fLächeln η 'smile', lächerlich 'laughable, ridiculous'// beraten, blenden, Ge-, Heuchel(ei), Heucheln, Heuchler, Lehre, schmeicheln, MHG smeiche(l)n, G Schmeichelwort, MHG smeichhart, smeich-wort > Yiddish: (a) laxn 'to laugh', laxn η 'laugh'/ (b) gelexter(s) 'laugh', gelextern 'laughter', lexerlex 'laughable, ridiculous'. For (b) lexerlex 'ridiculous', see also • stusik. Both 'laugh' and 'smile' are expressed by a single root in a number of SI languages, see e.g. (a) USo so smjec 'to laugh'/ (b) so smejk(ot)ac 'to smile' (Pful 1866 cites so smejkotac as an intensive form), (a) Uk smijatysja/ (b) usmixatysja. It is unclear whether Y relexified to the two G allomorphs in RP1 since the age of USo so smejk(ot)ac is unclear (the form is not discussed by Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996). Hence, it may be that Y relexifiers in the KP lands rejected the original G lächeln, since the vocalic alternation in G is matched by a vowel-consonant alternation in (a) Uk smijatysja/ (b) usmixatysja. Alternatively, there might have been a shift in Y •§mejxlen from 'flatter' (see similar-sounding G schmeicheln 'flatter'; on the latter as a blend with a Slavicism, see chapter 3.1) > 'smile' (though I know of no evidence that the two meanings were ever expressed by the same root in G or SI). The current m-n gender choice of Y msmejxl(en) 'smile' might hold a clue to the relative chronology of the alleged semantic shift, if we could posit the original gender. M. Weinreich suggested that Y usmejxlen lost its original meaning 'flatter' due to association with phonetically similar Pol smiech (equally plausible with USo smech or Uk smix 'laughter') and He sämeah m 'happy' (1973, 4: 326, 1980: 326, though the latter root is only used in Y in the form simxefsj f 'gaiety, celebration' or as a A.[usually male] name, but could still have been known to Y speakers from monolingual He texts). Weinreich did not draw any conclusions about the gender flux in Y, and seems to be laboring under the assumption that msmejxl was the original form, and hence originally n. His assumption that Y msmejxl η became associated with a SI word for 'laugh(ter)' leads me to

296

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

propose that it might also have acquired the m gender assignment of the SI translation equivalent. There is some evidence that Y once had the base form m*smejx m 'smile', which could < USo smech m 'laugh(ter)': (i) Confusion with phonetically and also perhaps semantically similar G schmeicheln 'flatter' could have imparted -/ to the Y root, thus creating the new usmejxl; -I could have been interpreted as the productive Y dim suffix, which automatically triggered η gender (on blends, see chapter 3.1). Subsequently, Y could have lost m*smejx m, while transferring the m gender option to the newer • smejxl. This hypothesis is based on the following facts. USo 'smile' is always m: smejkot, posmewk, posmew, like smech claugh(ter)' (vs. Uk usmiska, posmiska f 'smile'). USo might thus have been the venue in which G lächeln was replaced by schmeicheln in Y. In the KP lands Y m*smejx m, if it still existed, could have assumed dim -/ and the meaning 'smile' on the model of Uk usmiska, posmiska f, both with dim -ka (vs. smix m 'laugh'), (ii) Y also has smox(n) ~ smux(n) m 'grin', smoxn ~ smoxen 'to grin', which, in Ε Galician Y, appear as smoxen, with the final syllable attesting to a SI source. Hence, Bin-Nun preferred to derive Y msmejxlen and msmoxen from Pol smiech rather than from G schmeicheln 'flatter' (1967: 61; J. Mark 1967 disagrees and opts for a G etymon), (iii) Curiously, a formal G parallel of Y m*smejx appears in MHG smeichen ~ smeicheln 'flatter' and smeich-hart m 'one who flatters willingly', smeich-wort η ~ ModG Schmeichelwort η 'word of flattery'. Some Y relexifiers might have blocked relexification of USo so liscic 'flatter' (see also #Lehre) to G schmeicheln, if they regarded the latter as a borrowing from USo smech + G dim -/. Alternatively, once G schmeicheln 'flatter' had been recalibrated as 'smile', it was no longer free to denote 'flatter', thus requiring recourse to a Hebraism-which is the case in Y: Lxanfenen (zix) ~ (arch) Ax(a)nife ton (lit. 'make flattery': see Schaechter 1990: 77) 'flatter', Axojnef (xonfim) ~ Lxnifenik(es), Lxanfti m 'flatter-er' and Lx(a)nife f 'flattery'. The form jkxnifenik is probably patterned on Uk pidlesnik m 'flatterer', since the common ag suffix points to Ukraine as the territory where Y 'flatter' > 'smile' (vs. USo liscer ~ liscak m 'flatterer' with different ags). There is no way to determine whether the existence of jkxanfenen provided the stimulus for changing msmejxlen from 'flatter' > 'smile' or whether the recalibration of G schmeicheln in Y left a semantic hole to be filled-by a Hebraism or Slavicism. Besides Lx(a)nife (and derived forms: see Schaechter 1986: 227, fn 2 and Niborski 1997: 98), Y also has created unterleker

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

297

'sycophant' (lit. 'under + licker'), unterlekn zix 'to fawn, flatter', which have no basis in G (though the components are G; see componentially identical Ukpidlyz(a) m,pidlyzuvatysja < lyzaty 'to lick'. On G heucheln, Heuchel(ei), Heuchler, see discussion in #blenden\ on G Ge-, see #beraten. 84. German: (a) Lage(n) f 'situation; site; condition; stratum', Lager (zero pi) η 'camp'/ (b) legen 'lay, put down, place, plant', sich legen 'lie down, go to bed', MHG leger η 'camp'/ (c) G liegen 'to lie, be placed, be situated'/ (d) löschen 'extinguish, put out', erlöschen 'expire, cease; grow dim (eyes), go out (fire); die away'// Fliege, Zaum > Yiddish: (a) lagerfn) m/ (b) lejgn 'put, lay, place, group', lejgn zix/ (c) lignl (d) lesn. Y differs from G in the inventory and distribution of the shared roots. In place of (a) G Lage(n) f (U. Weinreich 1968 cites \°lage[s] f 'situation', while Stuckov 1950 cites log m 'stratum'), Y uses other Germanisms, e.g. bading(en) m, or • macev m 'condition'; for 'site', Y has another Germanism, plac (plecer) m and a Germanoidism, lokirung(en) f (on -irforms, see Wexler 1982b). Y accepted the two Germanisms in (b) and (c) thanks to the existence of the genetically related cognates USo lezec ~ lehac 'lie' and the causative poiozic 'to place, lay' (originally *iozic) or Uk lezaty ~ poljahaty ~ polozyty (on the correspondence of USo h ~ G g, see also discussion in #Fliege and #Zaum). (d) Y lesn 'extinguish, put out' was accepted probably independently because the relexifiers (probably like native speakers of G themselves) could not identify the genetic link between (a), (b), (c) on the one hand and (d) on the other (~ USo hasec: for details, see Kluge 1899). See R klad-, lag-, leg-, lez-, ljag-, log-, loz- in Herman (1975). 85. German: (a) Laster (zero pi) m 'vice'/ (b) lästern 'to slander, defame; blaspheme', Lästerung(en) f 'slander; blasphemy'// G Verderb, MHG verderp > Yiddish: (b) lestern 'blaspheme', lesterung(en) f'blasphemy'. The acceptance of (b) but not (a) is unanticipated; for 'vice', see instead Y fardarb(n) < G Verderb ('ruin; waste' ~ MHG verderp m 'corruption; depravity'), moraliser Axisorn (xesrojnim) m (lit. 'moral defect'), Apaslones n. The reason for the Hebraisms is the plethora of roots used in both USo and Uk: USo (a) njepocink ~ zfypocink m 'vice'/ (b) dree sej hubu,

298

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

klaskac, placac 'to slander' vs. Boha hanic 'blaspheme' (lit. 'God' + 'blame'), hanitba f 'blasphemy'; Uk (a) porok, nedolik m, zlo n, vada f 'vice'/ (b) zvodyty naklep, porocyty 'to slander' vs. obmovljaty, zneslavljuvaty 'to defame' vs. obmovljaty, han('b)yty 'blaspheme', bljuznirstvo, lyxomovstvo η 'blasphemy' vs. naklep m, lyxosliv'ja η 'slander'. Uk (a) porok ml (b) porocyty or USo hanitba f/ hanic (but probably not cognate Uk han'ba f which means 'shame, disgrace; infamy') might have provided a model for full relexification in Y; the partial relexification suggests a late chronology for the USo and Uk pairs. For (b), Y also uses Amexalel-sem zajn 'blaspheme', Lxilel-hasem m 'blasphemy'. 86. German: (a) leuchten 'to shine, light', Leuchter (zero pi) m 'candlestick, chandelier'/ (b) Licht(er) η 'light; candle'/ (c) Lohe f 'blaze, flame'// alt, Kerze > Yiddish: (a) lajxten, lajxter(s) m 'candlestick'/ (b) lixt f, η 'light' ~ lixt (zero pi) n, f 'candle'. Si languages can express 'light' and 'candle' by different forms of a common root, see USo swetlo η 'light' vs. swecka 'candle' (though the use of sweca f for both meanings looks like an imitation of G Licht η, which has both meanings), Uk svitlo η 'light' vs. svicka f 'candle'. Even though SI lacks a vocalic alternation in the root (see USo swecic, Uk osvitljuvaty, [pryjsvityty 'to shine, light', USo swecnik, Uk svicnyk m 'candlestick'), Y accepts (a) and (b). G Leuchter > Uk lixtar m, which may explain the concomitant use of Y • menojre(s) f 'candelabrum with seven candlesticks'. The SI practice of distinguishing 'light' and 'candle' by a pair of related allomorphs is (at least at present) not mirrored in the Y use of a pi suffix, though there may be a tendency to distinguish the two terms by optional gender preferences. For example, U. Weinreich's dictionary (1968) seems to be suggesting that the relative productivity of each gender option is determined by the meaning. The result is that if Y speakers rely on a preferred f gender for Y lixt they are able to maintain a bond with either the USo or KP substratum; on the other hand, their preference for the η gender option might suggest that they are seeking to retain a link with the G morpheme—which is probably of recent date. StG distinguishes the meanings of 'candle'and 'light' lexically (this may not be true for all

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

299

dialects, e.g. Kerze(n) f 'candle' (lacking altogether in Y, as I would anticipate, since two separate roots would violate SI practice). For another example of the utilization of gender as a tool for disambiguating the meanings of a single G morpheme, see discussion of #alt\ for pi suffixes in such a role, see chapter 4.5.3. For (c) G Lohe f, Y uses • srejfe(s) f and brand(n) m. SI equivalents would not have licensed relexification, see USopiomjo, Ukpolum'ja n, had relexifiers identified the full membership of the G set. See also discussion of Rivec-, svesc-, svet- in Herman (1975). 87. German: (a1) los 'away, gone', -los '-less', lose 'loose, unfixed, unsteady; wanton, naughty'/ (b1) lösen 'loosen, undo; separate; solve'/ (c1) ^verlieren 'lose'/ (d1) Verlust(e) m 'loss; waste' (a2) lassen 'to let, allow, permit; leave' (< MHG läzen 'set free, release; untie'), ablassen 'let off, leave o f f , zulassen 'leave shut; admit, allow'/ (b2) lässig 'careless, negligent; slack', verlässlich 'reliable' /(c2) (arch) letzen 'refresh, revive', verletzen 'to hurt, wound; infringe'// Fliege, fliegen, fliehen, Los, schade, weich gekocht > Yiddish: (a1) lojz 'loose; soft-boiled', lojz maxen 'loosen' vs. ψ-loz 'less' / (b1) lejzn 'take in receipts'; 1f°'solve'/ (c1) Y ^farlirn 'lose'/ (d1) Tfarlust Moss' (a2) lozn 'to leave, let', oplozn, celozn 'let loose', opgelozn 'careless, negligent' (< [b2]), farlozlex 'reliable, trustworthy, authoritative'(< [b2])/ (b2) %*farleslex/(c2) %*farlecn 'violate; break; infringe upon; hurt'. The two sets of allomorphs are unrelated. The coalescence of (a1) 'loose' and 'soft-boiled' into a single morpheme is found in Uk nekrutyj (vs. USo mjechko zwarjeny ~ G weich gekocht). Y lojz does not also mean 'wanton, naughty', as in G; for the latter see Y Ahefkerdik, as well as Germanisms, due to a variety of terms in USo. Y has accepted some of the meanings expressed by G lösen and its compounds, due to the partial semantic coalescence with (a2) MHG läzen 'set free, release; untie' > G lassen 'let, allow, permit, leave'. See e.g. Y oplozn, celozn 'let loose' with the meanings of G los, etc. + the form of G lassen (surface congeners G ablassen 'let off, leave off and zulassen 'leave shut; admit, allow' differ from Y semantically). If Y oplozn, celozn were indeed from G lösen, we would expect to find Y *oplejzn, *celejzn in their stead. Like the merger of G fliegen and fliehen within Y (#Fliege), this convergence of (genetically

300

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

unrelated) (b1) G lösen and (a2) lassen within Y could date from either relexification phase, since both SI substrata can express both concepts by two variants of a single root, see USo puscec (impf), puscic (pf)/ dopitscic 'allow'; Uk puskaty (impf) ~ pustyty (pf) 'let go, set free'/ dopuskaty (impf) ~ dopustyty (pf),prypuskaty (impf) ~prypustyty (pf) 'to permit'. For (a1) G -los '-less' and (b1) lösen 'solve', U. Weinreich 1968 cites ψ-loz 'less' and lejzn solve' (but the latter is acceptable in the meaning of 'take in [receipts]'). For '-less', Y follows SI patterns of discourse, by using encircling un-...-ik, e.g. eil m 'aim' ~ uncilik 'aimless' ~ USo bjez-...-nyf -owy, e.g. zamer, cyl m 'goal', bjezzamerny, bjezcilowy 'aimless'. For 'solve', Y uses other Germanisms. The use of different roots in SI for the allomorphs in the second paradigm precludes full relexification in Υ. Y has generalized (a2) at the expense of the blocked (b2); for (c2) G verletzen 'to hurt, wound; infringe', Y uses other Germanisms and • cemazekt 'hurt', Lnizek vern 'get hurt', Lpojrec-geder zajn 'infringe', and mranen 'to wound' (< USo ranic, Uk ranyty). Y has (c1) farlirn (coexisting with other Germanisms; but U. Weinreich (1968) cites [d1] \°farlust). The SI equivalents lack alternation, see e.g. USo zhubic and zhubjenje n, respectively; hence, Y uses Hebraisms to denote both 'loss' and 'damage', e.g. • hezek (hezejkes) m, Aavejde(s) f and a Germanism, sodn(s) m, a surface cognate of Uk skoda f (< #schade). G Los(e) η 'lot, fate, destiny', though not related to G los, etc., may have been considered related, to judge from the fact that Y expresses these notions by Hebraisms and a Slavism: Agojrl (gojroles) m, η and Lmaroxe(s) and mdol 'e(s) (< Uk dolja f). 88. German: (a) Mann(-"er) 'man; husband' ~ Mannen pit 'soldiers', G Mannsbild(er) m 'man' (< MHG mannebilde n), G man 'one, you, they, people'/ (b) jemand 'somebody, someone; anybody, anyone', niemand 'nobody, no one'/ (c) männlich 'male, masculine; manly, virile', Mensch(en) m 'human being, man' ~ η 'woman'// beraten, reich > Yiddish: (a) man (mener) (sg) 'husband' fl|°'man') ~ (pi) 'husbands, men' ~ manen (pi) 'husbands', mancbil(n ~ manslajt) m 'man, male'; monc(n) 'dwarf / (c) menlex 'male, masculine', menc(n) m 'man; person' ~ η 'woman', meneris 'manly', men ~ me ~ m 'one, you, they, people' (< G [a]). Both (a) and (c) are available to Y but with partly differing meanings, (b) Y man (mener) m denotes 'husband' in the sg, and 'husbands; men' in

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

301

the pi. To disambiguate 'man' and 'husband' Y has a second pi manen 'husbands' and uses mancbil(n ~ manslajt) m 'man, male' (< G Mannsbild[er] 'man' < MHG mannebilde η 'man'; see also Uberaten). (c) Y menlex 'male, masculine', but for 'manly', see meneris or Agvaris, and for 'virile', related Agavresdik. (Y also has the latter root in the innovative forms Agvirfim] m 'rich man' ~ AgvirfinJtefsJ f 'rich woman'; Y Agvir m [virtually unknown now in WY, which prefers a different Hebraism, Αköcn: see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #64] is attested on a He tombstone inscription from Wroclaw 1331-1332: Wodzmski 1996: 182. The creation of Agvir m is required since G reich 'rich' > Y rajx, but G lacks a derived noun to match USo bohac[k], Uk bahac, bahatij m 'rich man'. The use of different Hebraisms in different Y dials to replace blocked Germanisms can be explained by (i) the fluidity of relexification, (ii) different chronologies, and (iii) differences between So and KP dials of Y.) The use of Y menc for both 'man' and 'woman' resembles USo clowjek 'human being', while the partial separation of 'man' and 'husband' in Y is reminiscent of USo muz 'man' (in suppletion with clowjek 'human being' after numerals) vs. mandzelski 'husband' (but differs from Uk muz and colovik m, both of which mean 'man' or 'husband'). Y can acquire both G Mann m and man since the SI languages provide a precedent, see USo clowjek m. This semantic development is less characteristic of ESI languages; still, Mazon does not regard SI usage (most common in WS1) as a caique of G man-attested since the MHG period (1932: 150-156). Y monc(n) 'dwarf appears to be a blend of G Mann 'man' and the SI ag -ec (> USo -c m). In WS1 folklore, dwarves who live under the home are called by the dim of 'person', see e.g. LSo lutki, Pol ludki plt-m (Levkievskaja 1998: 14-15). The double reflex of G Mann, man ~ Y man, monc (men, me, m are unstressed reductions of Y man) suggests different chronologies and/or sources of acquisition. (b) Both Germanisms are lacking in Y, which has instead emec(er) 'somebody', kejner...nit 'nobody'. In the latter, Y follows USo nechto/ nichto(n), Uk xtos' ~ xto-nebud 7 nixto, respectively, in requiring different roots. 89. German: (a) \Marke(n) f 'sign'/ (b) merken 'to note, notice, perceive'// Berg, MHG inziht > Yiddish: (a) (Li) markn (zix) 'to note, notice, perceive'/ (b) \merkn 'perceive, be aware o f .

302

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

For (a) 'sign', Y has cejxrt(s) (see MHG #inziht) and Lsimen (simonim) m. By so doing, Y follows USo practice, where 'sign' and 'to notice, perceive' are designated by different roots: USo znamka f, znamjo η and pytnyc, cuc, respectively. Conversely, Uk uses the same root for 'to sign' and 'to notice, perceive' (differentiated by prefix), e.g. vidmicaty and pomicaty, respectively. Stuökov (1950) also cites markn, which reflects the early Y change of er > ar (see #Berg ~ Y barg 'mountain'; J. Mark 1943b: 20 cites markn [zix] specifically for LiY). Thus, | Y merkn is, arguably, a post-relexification loan from G. The lateness could explain why the surface congener, Uk mirkuvaty 'think of, imagine, consider, ponder', was no longer able to block the modern Germanism entirely. G \Marke(n) f is an 18th-c loan from Fr, itself of G origin (see Drosdowski 1989 under merken). For 'be aware o f , Y has other Germanisms, e.g. visn fun! vegn, etc. and opgebn a Axezbm fun (lit. 'give back an account o f ) . 90. German: (a) melken 'to milk, give milk'/ (b) Milch f 'milk'/ (c) Molke 'whey', \Molkerei(en) f'dairy'/Ί Arbeit > Yiddish: (a) melkn 'to milk'/ (b) milx, milx(ik)eraj(en) f 'dairy' (< [c]). G Milch f 'milk' was not blocked in Y by similar (but probably not cognate) USo mloko η (see Mayer 1956 and Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 936), perhaps because the syllable structures (G -VIC— SI -/VC-) were sufficiently different (see also discussion under ##Arbeit); moreover, the formal similarity between G Milch and melken may have been much smaller in the G lexifier dialect (see e.g. Bav data, cited by König 1997, 3: 174). Significant semantic differences could also have facilitated relexification, see e.g. Polab mläkä 'sucking, suction', Cz dial mläka f 'puddle' (~ stCz mleko 'milk'), Uk moloko 'soft roe', bdzoljane molocko 'eggs of a queen bee', molozyvo η 'first milk after confinement', Bg dial mlakä f 'swamp' (see also the botanical terms from this root cited by SchusterSewc 1978-1996: 936). Grimm and Grimm suggest that originally G Milch f meant not 'milk' but 'process of milking' (1854-1871). G Milch f might also have gained access to Y by association with G melken 'to milk, give milk', which ordinarily would have been blocked since SI uses a different root altogether, see e.g. USo dejic ~ dojic, Uk dojity 'to milk' ~ davaty moloko 'give milk', PUk dial cerkaty 'milk cows such that the milk flows in a very thin, slow stream' (Moskovich 1978: 19). Another possible explanation for the full relexification to G melken/Milch is that the SI substratum at the time had a single root for the noun/verb pair, see e.g. R

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

303

molozivo, Uk molozyvo η 'colestrum, first milk after confinement'/OR mblsti 'churn butter', Bg mälzja 'to milk', Sin molsti 'to milk; give milk'. For the blocked (c) G Molke 'whey', Y uses srovetke < Uk syrovatka with dropping of the first (unstressed) vowel (see also USo syrwatka), and for G IMolkerei 'dairy', Y has its own (b) \milx(ik)eraj(en) ~ USo mlokarnja f. 91. German: (a) Mitte f 'middle' (< MHG 'means')/ (b) Mittel (zero pi) η 'means' (< MHG 'middle; means'), mittel 'middle' (adj) > Yiddish: (a) mitn(s) m, mit f 'middle'/ (b) mitl(en) η 'means', mitl 'middle' (adj). Y, G and USo all express 'means' and 'middle' by a common root, e.g. (a) USo srjedzisco n, srjedza f 'middle'/ (b) sredk m 'means'. However, unlike ModG, MHG mittel η denoted both 'middle' and 'means', while MHG mitte f meant only 'means'. The Y forms probably date from RP1, since Uk has different roots for 'means' and 'middle': zasib, sposib m 'means' vs. seredyna f 'middle'. The greater formal similarity between (a) and (b) in G than in USo may have prompted some Y speakers to borrow a Hebraism to maintain SI lexical integrity, see Y taxbule(s) A'means' (< He tahbüläh f'clever device, artifice, cunning, plot'). On the functions of R sered- 'center', see Herman (1975). 92. German: (a) Monat(e) m 'month'/ (b) Mond(e) 'moon', Neumond m 'new moon'// Menstruation, Monatsfluss, Periode, Regel, Stunde. Yiddish: For (a) and (b), Y prefers Lxojdes (xadosim) m 'month'/ Llevone f 'moon', Lmojled(es) m 'new moon'. Y • mojled m is derived from He jl-d 'be born', and, curiously, is strikingly similar in form to Uk molodyk < 'young man; new moon, first quarter, crescent' (see also USo mlody mesack m, lit. 'new moon'; was the formal similarity the reason for the acquisition?). By rejecting two G roots, neither of which (now-but see below) means both 'moon' and 'month', Y shows faithfulness to SI practice, where a single root denotes both concepts, see e.g. USo mesac, Uk misjac' m 'month, moon'. On the other hand, the Y use of two separate roots might appear to be a post-relexification development under G influence. Relexification to G Monat would have also been unattractive given the semantic heterogeneity of CS1 *mes$cb, see e.g. OPol miesiqc m, also 'menstruation; bald spot' (Trubacev 1993, 18: 191-194); in expressing

304

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

these concepts Y does not follow G norms, see Y umenstruacje, cajt f (lit. 'time' vs. G Menstruation, Monatsfluss, Periode, Regel). The blockage of G Mond m 'moon' in Y could also be due to the semantics of CS1 Huna f, variously 'moon(light), heavenly body' (for details, see Gorjaceva 1997). But since there is no trace of CS1 *luna f in USo (see Schuster-Sewc 19781996: 902), G Mond m may, in fact, have been acquired in RP1 and eliminated in the KP lands after the 15th c. As with Y Amojled m (see above), here too I wonder if the formal similarity of CS1 *luna and He levänäh was the reason for the Y preference for • levone over synonymous He jareah f. It would be hasty to try to explain the Y lexical facts by contemporary G and SI practice. Historically, the G and SI situations were sometimes reversed. MHG followed contemporary Slavic practice by having two forms of a single root, see e.g. MHG m(ä)nöt 'month', mäne, mönt 'moon, month'; early ModG Mond m also had the meaning 'month'. Conversely, Polab texts of the 16th c also have two separate G roots, see Polab mön 'moon' vs. mond m (~ ziternideila f lit. 'four weeks') 'month' (Olesch 1962; Polanski 1971-1994). Hence, the situation in Y may have changed between RP1 and RP2. The earliest attestation of (S1)Y Axojdes dates from the early 15th c (see Levy 1924: 211). U. Weinreich (1968) discourages the use of Y *monat[n] m, but the latter is found in Y texts from Krakow 1590 and Ukraine 1660 (J. Mark 1963: 74; S. A. Wolf 1993; see also Prilucki 1938b). Hence, Y may originally have had a single term for 'moon' and 'month', only later acquiring a second morpheme. Another reason for the disfavor of G Monat m in contemporary Y may be the reluctance of the language to accept G time words (e.g. G Stunde 'hour' was blocked in favor of Y A.so f). Rayfield suggests that Y Axojdes originally denoted a month in the Hebrew calendar and monat a month in the Christian calendar (1970: 89-90, fn 2). Besides the G (international) names for the months, Y also has access to traditional He month names. While the use of the latter can be linked to the requirements of the Jewish religion, it is interesting that USo and Uk also have innovative native SI terms (see details in Miklosich 1867 and Hofyriska-Baranowa 1969). The nomenclature for the months should be studied in conjunction with the names for holidays. In the latter domain, He appears to gain dominance over non-He terms through time, e.g. Hanover 1660 denoted 'Yom Kippur' by the expression der langer tog (lit. 'the long day': Wexler 1987a: 19 and 1993c: 87-88), normally called now •jonkiper ~ jinkiper m [-rjk-] (Medieval?-vs. OHe kippür). For SI terms denoting Jews and Jewish holidays, see Wexler (1987a: 114-150).

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

305

93. German: (a) Mord(e) m 'murder', (er)morden 'to murder'/ (b) G Mörder (zero pi) 'murderer' (< MHG mordcere[r] m)// ausgehen, MHG brengen ~ bringen, G er-, gestorben, gleich, sterben, Tod, tot, töten, umbringen, umgebracht, verstorben > Yiddish: (a) mord(n) m 'murder', mordeven 'to kill, murder' (18th c: see Wexler 1982b: 372 and fh 46), avefcmordeven 'to torment', farmordeven 'to murder, assassinate'/ (b) \merder(s) m 'murderer'. Y acquires the Germanism (though with distributional constraints), despite the single G root of USo mordarstwo η 'murder', mordowac 'to murder', mordar ~ native cognate (arch) moricel ~ morjer m 'murderer', mrec 'die', mor(t)wy 'dead', moric 'kill, put to death; murder', smjerc ~ smretwa f 'death' (the latter is a So innovation from the inf stem of 'die'). The difference between G and SI, whereby G requires two roots for 'die' {sterben), 'dead, death, kill' {tot, Tod, töten) while USo covers the same semantic space with native and non-native forms of a cognate root, motivates the blockage of Germanisms in Y. Examples of constraints are ψ (der) morden 'to murder', Ydermordung(en) f 'murder'. Alongside starbn 'die', Y has the Germanism ojsgejn with an innovative meaning (see G sterben, ausgehen 'go out; [come to an] end, fade; be spent'), as well as Anifter vern, Anistalek vern (lit. 'go away') and Apejgern 'die' ('of animals'; 'of humans' pej < Y Apejger [pgorim] m 'carcass'). (On Y Apejgern as an example of lexical bifurcation, see chapter 3.2, as well as #bleiben.) Y has relexified to G Tod(e) m 'death', but not without competition from • ptire, Apgire (of animals), Amise-mesune f 'violent death' (lit. 'strange death'). For 'dead', Y has tojt, gestorbn 'dead', farstorbn 'deceased' < G tot, gestorben, verstorben, but also Ames (mejsim) and Abarmenen m 'dead body' (on Y terms for 'corpse', see also the discussion in ttgleich). For 'kill' and 'to murder', Y has tejtn 'to kill, put to death' < G töten, as well as A (der)hargenen and Aderhargenen, respectively. The distribution of Y der- parallels G er-, see e.g. morden 'murder, kill'/ ermorden 'murder'. The neutralization of 'kill' and 'murder' by means of an optional der- parallels prefixed Uk ubyvaty 'kill; murder', ubyvstvo η 'killing, murder' (vs. simple USo moric 'kill; murder'). Curiously, Y Ahojreg (harugim) 'killed person' reflects the form of He höreg 'killing, he kills' but the meaning of He härüg(im) m 'killed person'; the merger could be due to the fact that the SI languages lack a morphophonemic alternation, see USo (za)mordowac 'to murder', zamordowany 'murdered' (vs. G umbringen 'to kill' ~ umgebracht 'killed': see Wexler 1991b: 38; the latter surfaces as Y umbrengen < MHG

306

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

brengen ~ bringen). Similarly, Y uses He neherag 'was killed' as an active verb Aneregn 'to kill, murder' and as a noun Anerekfn) m 'injury' (Manaster Ramer and Wolf 1997: 223 and fn 41 call this fact "particularly significant" but offer no explanation). The change in voice could be explained by Uk bytysja, borotysja 'to fight' which are formally (medio)pasive (vs. byty 'to beat', boroty 'wrestle'); this would suggest that the current Y meaning of 'to kill, murder' is secondary. The final devoicing in Y Lnerek(n) m suggests the noun is post-relexificational (< PolY?). Surprisingly, Y accepts G Mörder 'murderer' even though the SI languages lack a reflex of the Umlauted allomorph, and even though Y also has recourse to Lrecejex (rocxim) 'murderer' (but not to all parts of the He paradigm, such as BibHe recah m A'murder', attested in Ashkenazic He). This fact raises the possibility that Y \merder is a postrelexification loan. G Mörder also > USo mordar (without Umlaut), alongside native (arch) moricel ~ morjer m 'murderer'. The distribution of Germanisms (Mord, etc.) in Y and USo shows partial similarities, which might have been greater in the past, before the acquisition of postrelexification loans in Y. Y initially accepted G Mord(e) m 'death' but not morden 'to murder', until it was acquired later in the KP lands as a post-relexification loan in the form m\(far)mordeven 'to murder', mavekmordeven 'to torment' < Uk morduvaty (with both meanings). This fact strongly suggests that the Germanism was initially blocked in the So lands. If Kaestner is right that Pol mordarz and USo mordar m lack Umlaut because they were borrowed from MHG before Umlaut was introduced (1939: 19; see MHG mordcere[r] m), then the Germanism (with or without Umlaut) should have been initially blocked for Y. 94. German: (a)Nacht(-"e) 'night', Nachtigall(en) f'nightingale', fübernachten 'spend the night' (~ MHG vernahten)/ (b) G dial nächt(en) 'yesterday (evening); last night', %nächtigen 'spend the night', fnächtlich 'nightly', MHG nehten 'yesterday evening, last night', nehtic 'yesterday's; nocturnal', G fübernächtigt 'tired out, fatigued'// Abend, gestern, jenn Tag, tag-täglich, Wahl > Yiddish: (a) naxt (next), %°naxtigal(n) f, fnaxtik 'nightly' (< G [b]), %ibernaxtik 'overnight'/ (b) ^naxt-nextlex 'nightly', nextn 'yesterday', nextik 'yesterday's, overnight' (adj), %iber)nextikn 'spend the night'. (a) G Nachtigall f is blocked by Y (^°naxtigalfnj) which uses instead msolovej(en), since SI languages have a separate root for 'nightingale' and

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

307

'night', see e.g. USo soiobik, (arch) sylobil, Uk solovej m. Also, Y has a tendency to preserve original So names for flora and fauna (see also chapter 4.6). Moreover, Y msolovej[en] m 'nightingale' shows that Sorbianisms that differed markedly from their KP cognates could be replaced by the latter in the KP lands. Otherwise, see (a) USo noc f 'night'/ (b) nocowac 'spend the night', nocny 'nightly'; (a) Uk nie f, vecir m (also 'evening')/ (b) nicnyj ~ sconicyj/ nocitvaty. Y expresses the concept of 'yesterday' by the root 'night, evening' (unlike most G dials, which have separate morphemes), thereby following SI practice, see e.g. Y naxt f 'night, evening'/ nextn 'yesterday' vs. stG Nacht f, gestern, respectively. Y nextn 'yesterday' is similar to USo wcera 'yesterday' ~ wjecor m 'evening', Uk ucora 'yesterday' ~ vecir m 'evening', and especially Uk nie f 'night'/ Bojkian dial snocy 'yesterday evening' (Ukrajins'ka leksyka 1991). Y does not, however, imitate the stress movement in the Uk noun and adverb. The Bojkian (Carpathian) dial of Uk, by its use of 'night', is closer to Y than the stUk use of 'evening'. The Carpathian facts have a parallel in SC. Zaprudski observes that Br-SC lexical links usually involve SESC and SEBr dialects (Hömel', Mahilew dialects: 1989: 5); if the SEBr dials (on former KP territory) do not provide the model for Y, then I would hypothesize that the expression could be of Balkan SI origin-a suggestion that is compatible with the evidence of early Jewish migration from the Mediterranean to Ν Europe (see Wexler 1992). But the shift of 'night, evening' > 'yesterday' is not limited to SI or Baltic languages; Armenian also uses the root for 'evening' to express 'yesterday' (Mladenov 1937). Those G dialects (including MHG) which do have a parallel to Y nextn, see e.g. nächt(en), etc. use the latter in the meaning of 'yesterday evening' or 'last night', rather than 'yesterday', and are not always located in former Sl-speaking areas of Germany (for geographical details, see Wrede [1923] 1963: 361; Stötzel 1963: 101, map 10; König 1981: 192-193; Bergmann 1987: 138; Puhvel 1987). LusG naajchten 'yesterday evening' (Ändert 1997) might be ascribed to a SI substratum, though for 'yesterday', the dial uses another expression, jenn Tag (lit. 'that day'). The Ε Franconian G dial that was spoken in the Mukaöevo area (Subcarpathian Uk) also has nacht 'yesterday' (Weidlein 1953: 102, map), but it is unclear if this was an innovation stimulated by local Uk dials or a property of the dial in its Franconian homeland. The SI phonological facts lead us to expect that Y would only relexify to (a), see e.g. Y %naxtik 'nightly' (< [b]); Y *\ibernaxtik lacks a G counterpart. G fnächtigen 'spend the night' dates only from the 19th c,

308

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

hence Y %iber)nextikn is most likely recent; synonymous G f übernachten dates from the 16th c, but is not found in Y. Uk zanocuvaty 'spend the night' (but not USo prenocowac) could have licensed the acquisition of MHG vernahten (since Y far- frequently matches SI vebs with za-); the failure to do so suggests the Uk compound was coined after RP2 (on verbal prefixes, see chapter 4.1, section 3 and #Wahl). Υψηαχί-ηβχίΙβχ 'nightly' appears to have been formed by analogy with tog-tegleχ 'daily' (Stuckov 1950) ~ G tag-täglich 'daily' (#Tag). Y occasionally uses G Nacht f in the meaning of 'evening' rather than 'night', see e.g. Y • s(a)bejse naxt(s) m 'Saturday evening', ojf der naxt, in ovnt 'in the evening' vs. baj (der) naxt 'at, by night', in imitation of Uk nie f 'night' ~ vecir m 'night' (cited above). According to Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #141), the use of ovnt, a. bmt 'evening' in the meaning of 'night' is also typical of WY and EY as far Ε as Wroclaw and Poznaii; whether this is historically related to the other EY data is unclear. Herzog et al. (2000, 3, maps #140-142, 142S) cite 'evening' in the expression 'Sabbath night' in WY, with one instance in NW Poland, and three instances of alternating 'night-evening' in WY. See also ##Abend. 95. German: (a) MHG nähe(n)t, ncehent, G nah(e) 'near', nahekommen 'come near', Nachbar(n) m 'neighbor'/ (b) annähernd 'approximate(ly)', Nähe f 'nearness; neighborhood, vicinity', näher 'nearer', sich nähern 'to approach', näher bringen 'bring closer'/ (c) nach 'after, behind; to(wards)'/ (d) nächst(e) 'next; nearest'// bauen, Bauer, (ent)gegen, Gebäude, noch, weiter, zwei, Zwilling > Yiddish: (a) noent 'near', noenter 'nearer', noent(kejt) f 'nearness, proximity' (< G [b]), noenet 'next; nearest' (< G [d])/ (b) derne(e)ntem 'bring closer', derne(e)ntern zix 'to approach', neenter 'nearer'/ (c) nox 'after, next'. The identity of the noun and adj in (a) Y noent is unattested in (MH)G, but finds a partial precedent in a Uk noun 'proximity' with a zero suffix, see Uk blyz'kyj 'near'/ blyz m 'proximity' (~ blyzyn[j]a, blyzin', blyz'kist' f); USo bliski 'near'/ bliskosc f 'proximity' provides no immediate model. Hence, I assume that Y noentkejt f 'nearness' could have been formed in RP1, with noent perhaps in RP2 (but see also below). The alternation of (a) G naht (b) näher is retained by (a) Y noentl noenter ~ (b) neenter perhaps because of (a) USo bliski, Uk blyz'kyj 'near'/ (b) USo blisi 'nearer', Uk blyzce. Lacking in Y are surface congeners of G annähernd 'approximate(ly)' and Nähe f 'nearness;

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

309

neighborhood, vicinity', for which Y uses kbeerex(dik) and Asvive(s) f/ Asxejnes n, respectively. The reason for the Hebraisms is that the SI languages use the root 'near' as the basis for 'approximate' rather than a prefixed verbal stem as in G, see USo pribliznje, Uk pryblyznyj, blyz 'kyj do, nablyzenyj. (a) G Nachbar (η) m 'neighbor' consists of nah 'near' + Bauer (zero pi) m 'peasant, farmer'. The absence of this Germanism in Y suggests Y speakers were aware of its etymology and thus had to block it in favor of Lsoxn (sxejnim) (related to Asxejnes above) since SI lacked a parallel; see USo susod, Uk susid m < su- 'with' + USo sedzec, Uk sydity 'sit'. G Bauer is available to Y as pojer(im) m (with an unexpected He pi), along with related bauen 'to build' > Y bojen. The formal differences suggest G Bauer and bauen were acquired at different times and/or from different G lexifier dials. Moreover, related G Gebäude (zero pi) η 'building' is blocked in Y in favor of • b injen (binjonim) m. KP had a parallel dichotomy in Uk sporudzuvaty 'to build' ~ pidrjadcyk m 'builder' ~ sporuda f 'building'-before acquiring the single root buduvaty, budivnyk, etc. from Pol. The use of the pi • -im would have further separated pojer from bojen. (c) Y lacks the meaning of 'to(ward)' found in the Germanism (using instead kejn ~ G gegen·, see Mentgegen); this is because SI requires different roots, see e.g. USo po 'after', do 'to(wards)'. Y nox continues both G nach and unrelated noch 'still, more'; there is no SI precedent for this merger. (d) Instead of G nächst(e) 'next; nearest', Y uses noenct adj and vajter adv 'next; further' (vs. G ^weiter 'farther'). The Y use of (a) for G (b) and (d) and the bifurcation of adj vs. adv finds a precedent in SI languages, see e.g. (d) Uk najblyscyj 'nearest; next' adj vs. potim, pislja, znovu 'next' adv. In a number of SI languages, the root bliz- denotes 'twin'; this is true for Br bliznja n, Uk blyznec' m/ blyznycja f, blyznja η 'twin', but not (now) for USo (Polab, Cz and Pol all have the term). Hence, I theorize that Y may have acquired noent during RP1 (see above), since '(pair of) twin(s)' is Y cviling(en) m. The Y data suggest that by RP1 USo may have already had a different term for 'twin' (see ModUSo dwojnik < 'two', in imitation of G ZwillingfeJ m < zwei 'two'). 96. German: (a) Narr(en) m 'fool; jester', narren 'to fool, make a fool of (< MHG narren 'become a fool'), G Narrheit f 'foolishness, folly'/ (b) närrisch 'foolish, crazy'// besonnen, Blende, weil >

310

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Yiddish: (a) nar (naronim ~ LiY narojim pi) 'fool', maxn ~ stein cum nar 'make a fool of (lit. 'make, place as a fool'), nam 'deceive, fool', opnarn 'deceive, cheat; disappoint', (op)narnzix in 'be disappointed in', opnar(n) m 'deceit, deception, hoax, fake', naris 'foolish, silly, stupid', nariskejt f 'folly, foolishness' ~ f, η (-«) 'trifle; something foolish' (< G [b]). Y nariskejt f 'folly, foolishness' is derived from naris 'foolish, silly, stupid', following Uk dur m 'madness; foolishness' > durnyj 'foolish' > durnota f 'stupidity, folly' vs. G Narrheit f, derived directly from the noun. The additional meaning of Y nariskejt(n) f, η 'trifle' is based on Uk durnycja f of identical meaning. The morphophonemic alternation of (a) G narren 'to fool'/ (b) närrisch 'foolish' is lacking in Y, which has naris for the latter (see also #besonnen), on the model of (a) USo blazn! (b) blazny. The Germanism is also used in USo, see nora m, noric, but this must postdate the relexification by Y. Uk obluda f 'deceipt, deception' is the basis for Y opnar(n) m (possibly a post-relexificational acquisition given the gender discrepancy). There are two facts which suggest a connection with USo: (i) (op)narn (zix in) also means 'disappoint', in addition to 'deceive, cheat'; (ii) the plural of Y nar η is Slavicized-Hebraicized •/Artaronim and not *nar(n), as in G (see chapter 3.1). ModG narren has a Y parallel in the meanings 'to fool, make a fool of; dupe', but it is unclear how old these meanings are in G. MHG narren meant exclusively 'become a fool' (Lexer 18691878); hence, Y may be copying recent G meanings. Y nar could be a relexification of USo ludak m 'swindler', which derives from a CS1 root that denotes in a number of SI languages '(to) fool', see Br (Vicebsk dial) ludzic' 'talk nonsense' (see references in Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 866867), Uk ludyty 'deceive, fool; to bait, entice', R ludm 'fool'. In addition to 'fool', Y nar m also generates the verb 'disappoint', see Y (op)narn (zix /«^-unattested in G. USo also uses the same stem ludak m 'swindler' as the basis for ludac 'simulate' and zludac 'disappoint' vs. Uk ludyty 'entice, allure; deceive'. The verb 'disappoint' in Uk is not presently formed from the root for 'fool', see rozcaruvaty < cary pit 'sorcery; charms' and caruvaty 'to charm'. The addition of m/A-on- is reminiscent of He -än m ag/ SI -n- verbal noun suffix which is common in Y Hebraisms, see e.g. Y m/Abatxn (batxonim) 'entertainer (at a wedding)' m (see ##weil). Y may also have been inspired by SI suffixes with -n- in this root, see LSo glupjenc, Uk duren'm 'fool' (see also chapter 3.1). The choice of A-im as the plural of Y nar m shows an attempt to Hebraize the Germanism. One thinks of He

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

311

na'ar m 'youth' as the etymon, but the latter is unattested in Y and the meaning is inappropriate. Hence, I assume that Y nar m/k_(naronim) was possibly a Hebraized Germanism that was intended to express the SI meaning 'deceive, disappoint' that was lacking in G Narr m. On a possible Iran etymology for Y nar, see chapter 3.1. Y opnarn must date from RP1 since the coexistence of the two notions of 'disappointment' and 'fool' was expressed only by USo. See also #Blende. 97. German: (a) Nase(n) f'nose', Nasenloch(-"er) η 'nostrils' (lit. 'nose' + 'hole') / (b) Tfnäseln 'speak with a nasal twang'/ (c) ^Nüstern pi 'nostrils (horse)'// Loch > Yiddish: (a) noz (nez, neßjzer, nozri) 'nose', nozlox (nozlexer) f 'nostril'. Curiously, Y accepts G Nase(n) 'nose' as noz (nez, ne[j]zer, nozn-the latter pi limited to SPol and some dials of WY) f, in spite of the existence of cognate USo nos (perhaps the status of final voicing kept the two terms apart?) 'nose; snout; trunk; smell'; see also Uk nis m 'nose; birdbeak; snout' (Trubaöev 1999, 25: 212-216). Curiously, one pi of Y noz involves -er + Umlaut, which is unattested in G. I am tempted to explain the morphophonemic alternation in the sg/pl forms as imitation of Uk nis (nosy) m (on pi morphemes, see chapter 4.5.3). Since USo nozdra f is a recent loan from other SI languages (see Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 1023; the colloquial term is USo nosowa dzerka f, lit. 'nasal cavity'), I assume that Y nozlox f developed in RP2-assuming that the compound component structure of Uk nizdro, etc. 'nostril' was still felt by relexifiers. The f gender of Y nozlox must be due to the SI substratum which is either η or f, see USo nozdra f, Uk nizdro η ~ nizdrja f. Thus, Y nozlox f might be a blend of SI with G Loch 'hole' (see chapter 3.1). The f of Y noz could be by analogy with nozlox or is the result of later G influence. For (b) G Hnäseln 'speak with a nasal twang' (a post-MHG innovation), Y has fonfate 'twangy'- USopfez nos recec (lit. 'speak through the nose') and Uk huhnjavyj. (c) G fAlüstern is an 18th-c borrowing from LG and thus is not expected in Y. 98. German: (a) Ort(e) m 'place'/ (b) ^örtlich 'local, topical, endemic', Tferörtern 'discuss, debate, argue'/ alt, MHG gereden > Yiddish: (a) ort η 'space, room' ~ ort (erter) m 'place, spot, location', ortik 'local' (< G [b]).

312

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Other meanings of Ort in MHG are missing in G and Y, e.g. 'beginning; end; point (of a weapon, tool); corner, edge; weight'. The absence of these meanings in Y could be explained either as later developments unique to G or by the absence of these meanings in SI. The newness of G ^erörtern (late 16th c) precludes its relexification to Υ; Y uses instead a variety of Germanisms, including arumredn 'discuss, debate' (lit. 'around' + 'speak') ~ MHG gereden. The use of a common root in (a) USo mestno η 'place'/ (b) mestny 'local' eliminates the process of Umlaut in (b). The double gender assignment of Y ort has a precedent in MHG but the latter lacks semantic bifurcation. The Y semantic (but not gender options) could have a model in Uk misce 'place; room; space' and misto η 'city, town; place' (see also #alt and chapter 4.5.1). 99. German: (a) Pflege f'care, charge', pflegen 'tend, look after, nurse', pflegen 'used to', ^Verpflegung f 'food, board, provision'/ (b) Pflicht(en) f 'duty, obligation', verpflichten 'oblige', ^fVerpflichtungen) f 'obligation'/ (c) 1fGepflogenheiten) f 'custom, habit, usage'// MHG Almer, G -er, essen, Kasten, schuldig, Schuldigkeit > Yiddish: (a)fleg (aux) 'used to'. For (a) 'tend, look after, nurse', Y uses Germanisms or two Slavicisms, e.g. n'ancen, pil'(n)even < Uk njancyty, pyl'nuvaty. For G Pflege(n) f 'care, charge', see Y Lhazgoxe f. The inability of Y to accept all the diverse meanings of G pflegen stems from the fact that USo lacks a single root that covers both the modal and non-modal meanings of the Germanism. The unavailability of (b) G Pflicht f, etc. in Yiddish (see ψ/arflixtn, \*farflixtung f in U. Weinreich 1968) could be due to the fact that a single term, USo winowatosc 'obligation', was relexified to Y suldikejt < G Schuldigkeit f. Nevertheless, the latter was not universally accepted, probably because the underlying adj suldik, like G schuldig, denoted 'guilty' or 'due', rather than 'obligated'; for the latter, Y uses a He pair, marked for voice, e.g. Amexajev zajn 'obligate'/ Lmexujev zajn 'be obligated'. The absence of the reflexive pronoun in the latter contrasts with Uk zobov'jazaty(sja) '(be) oblige(d)'. Y also uses Hebraisms for 'obligation', see e.g. Lhisxajves(n) n, • xiev (xijuvim), Axojv(es) m (on the latter, see ##-er). The blockage of (a) G f Verpflegung f 'food, board, provision' and compounds such as ^Verpflegungsgeld(er) η 'per diem' (lit. 'care money'), is expected since these G nouns date from the 17th c; instead, Y has Lmezojnes pit < He mezönöt 'foods' (I am unable to determine the

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

313

chronology of this term; see also Hessen) ~ alimentn (< Uk alimenty pi 'foods', pit 'alimony'). The source model is probably Uk xarcuvannja η 'alimony' < xarci pit 'food, provisions', xarcuvaty 'to board, feed'. See also Y kest f 'room and board, especially that offered by a family to its new son-in-law to enable him to continue his studies without financial worries' (< G Kasten, discussed in MHG MAlmer). For (c), see • mineg (minhogim) m, Amide(s) f, Lhergl m (also 'usage') ~ Aregiles(n) η < He f, (ajn)fir(n) m ~firung(en) f ~firexc(n) η 'custom', gevejntsafi(n) f 'habit', banic(n) m 'usage'. The USo terms for (a), (b) and (c) differ. 100. German: (a) Raub m 'robbery', rauben 'rob'/ (b) Räuber (zero pi) 'robber' (~ MHG roubcere ~ rö- ~ röu- m)/ (c) G raufen 'pull, pluck out; fight', sich raufen 'to scuffle'/ (d) rupfen 'to pick, pull, pluck; bleed' (tr, intensive of raufen)!I benehmen, MHG benemen, G besonnen, Dieb(stahl), MHG plündern, G plündern, schicken, stehlen > Yiddish: (a) rojber(s) m 'robber' (< G [b])/ (d) rupen 'make restless, wrankle, worry'. While Y accepted (b) G Räuber m, I presume it blocked related (a) rauben 'rob' in RP1 because of formally and semantically similar (cognate?) USo rubic (on the links between the Germanism and Slavism, see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1248-1249). If Y failed to accept the verb, the answer may lie in the semantics of the USo verb. Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 1248-1249) notes that USo rubic 'rob' originally meant 'hew, cut' (~ LSo rubnowas 'rob' < G). In KP, Y acquired • rabeven ~ mrabirn 'rob' < Uk (hjrabuvaty ~ hrabyty (see also chapter 4). (b) G Räuber 'robber' is not without competition, see also Y Agazlen (gazlonim) 'robber' and • ganef (ganovim) m 'thief, while G Raub, rauben are expressed in Y by Lg(e)nejve(s) f 'theft, robbery', • (ba)ganvenen 'steal, rob', and banemen 'grasp, understand; rob' (< G benehmen 'take away [breath]; behave' < MHG benemen, also 'take away, rob'). A near-synonym of G rauben that is also blocked in Y is plündern 'to plunder'. The blockage could be due to USoplindrowac (now 'to heap [snow, rain]'; contemporary U and LSo dials prefer native [wujrubic, wurubis, respectively). G ^plündern (< MHG plündern) apparently continued to be unacceptable to Y in the KP lands, in the presence of Uk pljundruvaty 'to plunder, rummage (in the pockets)' (of uncertain date). The absence of *pl(')undreven in Y suggests that the filling in of G

314

Evidence for two-tiered relexiflcation

paradigms via Uk Germanisms may not have characterized all historical periods. This topic requires further study. G Diebstahl(- "e) 'theft' (< Diebfe] m 'thief) and stehlen 'to steal' are also unattested in Y, which suggests that at the time of RP2 Uk had only one root, see Uk krasty USo kradnyc) 'to steal' ~ Uk obkrasty 'rob' (see also discussion of G schicken in #besonnen). The Y blockage of (c) could be due to the use of the single USo torhac for G (c) and (d); for the latter, Y uses other Germanisms. 101. German: (a) rennen 'to run'/ (b) rinnen 'run (water), leak', entrinnen (arch) 'to escape, run away', gerinnen 'curdle, coagulate', HGerinnsel η 'coagulation'/ (c) blutrünstig 'bloody' (lit. 'blood' + 'running')// (ent)laufen, Rhin, Rinnstein > Yiddish: (b) rinen 'run (water)', antrinen 'disappear, escape, abscond', antrinung f 'escape, refuge', gerinen ~ gerunen vern 'curdle'. Instead of (a) G rennen 'to run', Y selects synonymous G laufen > Y lojfh (see also G entlaufen > Y antlojfn 'run away, flee'). The rejection of (a) is explained by the existence in USo of a single root: USo bezec 'to run' = G laufen, rennen 'to run' and rinnen 'to drip, leak, flow'. The unavailability of G rennen in Y is not likely to be due to the absence of the term in the G lexifier dial, since rennen is used in BavG, a possible lexifier dial of Y. A KP venue for relexiflcation is not likely, given Uk rynuty 'flow copiously'. It is conceivable that after RP1, Y rinen originally covered the meanings of G rinnen and rennen. Uk, unlike So now, distinguishes between bihaty 'run' and tekty 'leak'. Hence, in RP2, KP speakers might have narrowed the meaning of rinen to 'leak, drip'. USo has a cognate of G rinnen in the form ronic 'let drop; lose; shed (tears)' ~ Uk ronyty 'to shed (tears)', which apparently was too dissimilar formally and semantically to prevent relexiflcation to G rinnen. However, Y also has mkapen 'to trickle' < USo kapac, Uk kapaty. While (a) G gerinnen means either 'curdle (milk)' or 'coagulate (blood)', only the first meaning is used in Y. This is because the two notions are distinguished in Uk skypatysja 'curdle (milk)' vs. zsidatysja, zhuscaty(sja) 'coagulate (blood)'. The use of the reflexive particle in Uk accounts for the passive part, with vern in Y. USo presently appears to follow G norms, e.g. USo so sydnyc can apply both to milk and blood. An unambiguous USo sloca f 'coagulation' (~ G fGerinnsel η), which denotes only 'coagulation of blood', is a loan from G; see Y farglivert vern 'coagulate', (b) Y antrinen 'to escape' coexists with maxn Avajivrex (lit.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

315

'make an escape'), plejte(s) f A'female refugee; escape' (see further examples in #FIiege). (c) G blutrünstig 'bloody' is missing in Y, which substitutes blutik despite the existence of parallel compound Uk krovoprolytnyj. The relexification of USo to G stands in sharp contrast to the contours of Germano-Sl bilingual interference. For example, Rhin is a tributary of the Havel River in Brandenburg (attested 1238), which Schlimpert derives from a Gmc root *Rin; the Slavs apparently adopted the term in the form *Rin~, by disregarding the vocalic length and thus interpreting it as an instantiation of native rin- 'to flow' (1985: 330; MHG rinnen had a short vowel). Y also has mrinstok(n) m 'gutter' and rin(d)\e f 'groove; culvert, eaves'. The former is a Germanoid innovation, perhaps < Pol rynsztok m; there is no * Rinnstock in G (rather, Rinnstein m; see Moszyήski 1954: 71). The German root is the basis of Uk rynva, Pol rynwa (~ a newer borrowing rynna f) with the same meaning. 102. German: (a) Rost m 'rust; gridiron', rosten 'to rust'/ (b) rot 'red'/ (c) (sich) röten 'redden'// braten, Farbe, MHG röst, G rösten > Yiddish: (b) Y rojt, rojt vern 'to blush' (lit. 'become red')/ (c) (farjrejtlen zix 'become red, redden, blush'. I would not expect to find both (a) 'rust' and (b)-(c) 'red' in Y since SI requires separate roots, see e.g. (a) USo zerzawc m ~ zerzawizna f, zerzawic, Uk irza f, irzavity, robytysja irzavym/ (b) USo cerwjeny, Uk cervonyj/ (c) USo cerwjenic, Uk cervonity. For (a), Y retains the Slavicism in the form mzaver m 'rust', mzavern ~ ufarzavert vern 'to rust'. The acceptance by Y of both (b) and (c) is surprising, since SI languages lack a morphophonemic alternation; the presence of the lateral in Y (farjrejtlen lacks a G precedent, but might be ascribed to Uk zabarvljuvaty (impf) 'to color, paint' (see #Farbe and chapter 3.1). MHG rost 'roast' and rost 'rust' have coalesced into homophonous ModstG Rost(e) m 'rust' + 'gridiron', though rösten 'to roast' vs. rosten 'to rust' remain distinct (some contemporary dials of G, e.g. Bav, still preserve the vocalic distinctions; on the absence in Y of Germanisms with historical long vowels, see chapter 4). Even before the coalescence of the two roots in G (when?), the absence of long vowels in So might have led relexifiers to fuse the two roots in their G speech. The coalescence of the two roots into a single G Rost m 'rust; roast' would have been awkward to So speakers who distinguished 'rust' from 'roast' in their own language,

316

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

see e.g. USo popjec, prazic or palic 'to roast', depending in part on the object roasted. Hence, Y relexifiers might have decided to preserve their USo term for 'rust', while prefering G braten 'roast' (> Y brotn) over synonymous ModG rösten 'to roast' (the former is neutral with regard to object roasted). Even in the face of the SI lexical variety for 'roast', Y has failed to accept more than G braten. 103. German: (a) Saat(en) f 'seed, crop, sowing'/ (b) säen 'to sow'/ (c) Same(n), Samen (zero pi) m 'sperm, semen, seed'// MHG apfel, G Apfel(baum), Aufsatz, Bruder, Dorn, Esel, glatt, Graupeln, (Meer)rettich, Mutter, nackt, Rippe, Salz, salzen, satt, Sattel, Schwester, Seide, Silber, Sohn, Tal, Teil, Tisch, Tochter, Tür> Yiddish: (b) farzej(en) m 'sowing', (far)zejen 'to sow'/ (c) zo(j)mn(s) m 'seed; offspring'. (a) G Saat is blocked in Y since USo has the same term in (a) syw m, symjo n/ (b) syc! (c) symjo n. It is striking that (c) G Samen is not blocked in Y by the existence of similar cognate USo symjo, Uk sim'ja n. However, Y does not accept all the meanings of G Samen, such as 'sperm' and 'semen', for which Y uses Lzere ~ Azriefs) f. BavG, a possible lexifier dial of Y, has additional meanings for Samen m which are also lacking in Y, such as 'names of corn, wheat'. Apparently, the difference in the voicing of the initial consonant (G ζ- ~ SI s-) was insufficient to block relexification. Here are other examples where SI and G cognates differ either in the voicing or manner of articulation of the consonant but Y can acquire the latter: G Salz(e) η 'salt', salzen 'to salt' > Y zalc(n) f, m, zalcn 'to salt' ~ cognate USo sei, sol f, selic\ G satt 'satisfied, full' > Y zat ~ USo syty, Uk syt; G Silber 'silver' > Y zilber ~ USo slebro η (with influence of G -/- vs. CS1 *serbro, *sbrebro; see also Uk serebro, sriblo). Unlike Y zalc, zilber has not acquired f gender < SI n; the η is an internal Y feature with some coll nouns; see also G Seide (η) 'silk' > Y zajd f (or newly acquired η) ~ USo zida f.. G Esel (zero pi) 'ass, donkey' > Y ejzl (ejzlen) ~ USo wosol m (the prothetic w- developed in So in the 13th c: Schaarschmidt 1998: 51). See also discussion of G Sattel m 'saddle' in Mufsatz. Examples of voicing differences in G-So cognates involving stops which did not block relexification are G Rippe(n) 'rib' > Y rip(n) f ~ USo rjeblo n; G Tisch(e) > Y tis(n) m ~ USo deska f 'board, plank', though in both

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

317

examples there are other formal, and semantic, differences as well. The relexification to G Tisch might be dated to RP1, since Y shows no sign of the Uk development of expressing 'table' and 'chair' by a common root, see e.g. Uk stil 'table; board' ~ stilec' m 'stool, small footstool; eat'. This means that USo blido 'table' probably was the input for relexification; cognate ESI bljudo η 'dish' has an innovative meaning (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 42), and furthermore, is unknown in OBr and in Uk except in the Carpathian area (Trubaöev 1975, 2: 134). The relexification of USo jabluko η > MHG apfel, etc. > Y epl (zero pi) m was possible; also the formal differences of USo jablon, Uk jablunja f 'apple tree' vs. compound G Apfelbaumf- "e) did not block relexification > Y eplbojm (-bejmer) (possibly the latter was "dragged along" by epl m; see also G Milch/melken in chapter 4.6, paragraph 4). See also G Tal(- "er) η (~ MG η, m) 'valley' > Y tol(n ~ teler•), in spite of the existence of cognate USo dol m (Y also has mdolenefs] 'small valley, dale' ~ USo dolina, Uk dolyna f; on the retention of SI topographic terminology in Y, see chapter 4.6). G Tiir(en) 'door' > Y tir(n) f, in spite of cognate USo durje pit. G Rettich 'radish' > Y retex(er) m ~ Uk red'ka (unless the term was relexified from USo rjetkej f). The latter is a loan from G; on the other hand, G Meerrettich m 'horseradish' is rejected by Y, which preserves a Slavicism, Y uxrejn ~ USo ehren m; this may be due to the blockage of G Meer η 'sea' by cognate USo morjo η (thus necessitating recourse to Ljam[en ~ -im] m). See also Y toxter (texter) 'daughter' < G Tochter (Töchter) ~ USo dzowka f 'daughter, girl' and G Sattel m in #Aufsatz. The reverse situation, where G has a voiced stop and SI a voiceless stop, is G Dorn(en) 'thorn' > Y dorn (derner) in spite of cognate USo cem and Uk teren, Br cern (Perferkovic 1931 cites Y Akoc m). See also G glatt 'smooth, even, polished' > Y glat 'smooth, even, fluent, slick', despite the existence of USo htadki 'smooth, level' (see also discussion of Y tejlfn) m, f under UTeil). G nackt 'naked' > Y naket, despite cognate USo nahi, Uk nahyj. See also Y zon (zin) 'son' < G Sohn(-"e) ~ USo syn, Y bruder (brider) 'brother' < G Bruder (Brüder) ~ USo brat m and G Graupeln in chapter 4.2. The successful relexification of some kinship terms may have "dragged along" other terms whose cognate links are more obvious to the naive bilingual, such as Y svester (zero pi) 'sister' < G Schwester(n) ~ USo sotra (see Uk sestra f) or Y muter(s) 'mother' < G Mutter (Mutter) ~ USo mac f.

318

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

104. German: (a1) schaben 'to scrape'/ (b1) schäbig 'shabby'/ (c1) Schuppe(n) f 'scale, dandruff, schuppen 'to scale (a fish)' (a2) Schober (zero pi) m 'stack, heap'/ (b2) Schöpft- "e) m 'tuft, forelock'// los, scharf, schiessen, schnauben, spreizen, Zotte(l) > Yiddish: (a1) sobn! (c1) sup(n) f 'fish scale; flake; dandruff (a2) sojber(s) m 'shock (of hair)' (< [b2]). The two G sets are unrelated; however, the use (retention?) of an additional Slavicism in Y for (a1) and (a2) (< G [b2]) and a Hebraism for (a2) suggests lexifiers may have regarded some of the G terms as members of a common paradigm. For (a1), Y has m(op)skroben < Uk skrobaty ~ skrebty, etc., Br skrabac' (see also #scharf). For (b1), see other Germanisms, e.g. opgetrogn ~ opgelozn (discussed in #los). In an unusual move, Y has relexified to (a2) sojber(s) 'shock of hair', but with the meaning of (b2) Schöpf m. This is important evidence that Y relexifiers were aware of G allomorph sets (see also G schiessen [ftspreizen] and #schnauben). The variety of terms in (b2) USo (wiosy pit, lit. 'hairs', promjo η 'tuft, pigtail', wiwla f 'tuft of hair') and in G licenses Y to develop a number of terms for 'tuft of hair, forelock'. In addition to (a2) (< G [b2]), Y has also cojt(en) < G Zotte(n) ~ ^Zottel (zero pi) f, 'tuft of hair' ~ mcuprine(s), mpatle(s), mkudle(s) f , mzmut(n) m < Uk cupryna f, patly, kudly pit, zmut m ~ Lpeje(s) f 'side curl of Orthodox male'. This suggests that in RP1 Y acquired both cojt and Lpeje f (on the latter, see also chapter 4.5.4). G Schöpf is cognate with Uk cub m, cupryna f, unknown in USo, which supports the hypothesis that this Germanism was also acquired in RP1 (here a search of OY texts is required). (c1) While Y has accepted sup(n) f, there is no sign (at least at present) of the related G schuppen (see also #scharf). 105. German: (a) schade 'what a pity!', schaden 'to harm, hurt, injure', Schaden (Schäden) m 'damage, injury, harm; mischief; loss; disadvantage'/ (b) schädigen 'impair, cheat, spoil', \Schädigung(en) f 'damage, prejudice, detriment', schädlich 'harmful, injurious', \Schädling(e) m 'noxious person, mischief maker'// Arm, Gewand, Hass, los, Schlaf > Yiddish: (a) sod m 'pity, shame', a sod 'too bad', sodn(s ~ sodojnes) m 'damage, harm, injury, loss; mischief, fsatn ~ sodn 'to harm, hurt',

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

319

sodnvinkl(en) m 'mischief maker' (< G [b])/ (b) sedikn 'to hurt, be harmful', sedlex 'harmful, injurious, detrimental, prejudicial'. The Y data illustrate the multiple patterns of integrating Germanisms. G (a) is the source of USo, Uk skoda in the same meanings (also Uk 'in vain, uselessly, fruitlessly'). G schaden 'to harm, injure, impair' has a parallel in USo skodzic, Uk skodyty 'to hurt, wrong, injure; do mischief and Uk skoditi ~ skoduvaty 'to regret, be sorry for, pity; begrudge; injure, do harm' (see also #los). The broad diffusion of the Germanism to SI languages would lead us to expect blockage in Y, yet the latter has the first allomorphic variant in no less than two forms: sodn and satn. The Y reflexes display three interesting features: (i) The existence of two variants suggests the possibility of two chronological stages of relexification (vs. a single act of borrowing in the other SI languages; see also discussion of #Schlaf). (ii) The pi of Y sodn m is either A/m-s (expected) or the unusual Hebraized Asodojnes. The pi template -CojC- + A/m-es or A-im pi is typical of Hebraisms in Y, see e.g. the semantically similar Y Axisorn (xesrojnim-vs. OHe hesrönöt pl-on the choice of pi suffixes in Hebraisms in Jewish languages, see Wexler 1990a) m 'fault, defect, disadvantage'. This raises the question of whether G Schade(n) m was indeed available to Y in RP1. If not, then Y could either have retained the So form, had recourse to Axisorn, and/or "Hebraized" Y sodn. (Independently, acceptance of the Germanism could also have taken place, at any time, assuming that the formal distance between the G and SI forms was sufficiently great to blur their association.) (iii) The source of Y \satn is unclear, though the /a/ points to a more recent or direct loan from G, specifically from a G dial other than the earliest lexifier dial (on the status of final consonant voicing in Y, see U. Weinreich 1963; King 1980, 1988: 9Iff; Wexler 1991b: 74-77 and discussion of Y hant 'hand' [in #Arm\,frajnt 'relative' and vant 'wall' [in #Gewand\ and Y fajnt 'enemy' [in ttHass]). See also Rotw schatti 'misfortune, bad luck' (1862), which S. A. Wolf derives < Y Ased 'devil' (1956: #4824), but which could be, arguably, also from G Schaden and perhaps crossed with He säfän m 'devil' or He säfan 'to hate', modeled on Uk bis m 'devil' and bisytysja 'to rage, rave, bluster', bisnuvatysja 'be infuriated'. If Y \satn is from He, then we have evidence of some reluctance to relexify to G. Indeed, Y also uses Hebraisms with similar

320

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

meaning, see e.g. Y • hefsed (hefsejdim) 'loss', Ahezek (hezejkes) m 'damage; loss' (see also Mos), Aroe(s) f 'detriment', Amazek (mazikim) m < He 'mischief maker', A(ce)mazekn 'maim, batter', Aslextedroxim pit 'mischief (lit. 'bad ways') < slexte 'bad' (see #schlecht + He 'road') and ster m. (b) G ^Schädling 'mischief maker' {-ling can trigger the fronting of a preceding non-front vowel) corresponds to (a) Y sodnvinkl m < G (b). The neutralization of the two allomorphic stems has its roots in the SI substrata which lack a morphophonemic alternation in the native translation equivalents or in the borrowed stem, see USo skod- (~ skod- in closed syllables, such as skodny adj-dating from about the 16th c: see Schaarschmidt 1998: 104), Uk skod-. 106. German: (a) Scham f 'shame; female pudenda', schamhaft 'bashful; shamefaced'/ (b) beschämen '(put) to shame', %sich schämen 'be ashamed', verschämt 'bashful'/ (c) Schande f 'disgrace, shame', schandbar 'atrocious; detestable'/ (d) schänden 'deface, defile; rape', schändlich 'atrocious; detestable', %Schändung(en) f 'deformation; ravishment, rape; violation' > Yiddish: (b) %semen zix 'be bashful', ^fsemen zix mit 'be ashamed o f , semevdik 'bashful', farsemen 'embarrass, disgrace, put to shame', farsemen zix 'become embarrassed, ashamed'/ (c) sand (^*sande) f 'shame, disrepute', cu sand maxn 'to shame'/ (d) sendn 'to dishonor; rape', ^fsendung(en) f 'rape', sendlex 'dishonorable, shameful, ignominious'. Y has acquired three of the four G allomorphs but distributes them differently. Whereas G expresses 'bashful' by the compound (b) verschämt, Y has the simplex (b) semevdik. This could stem from the fact that both USo and Uk use unprefixed roots for this concept, see e.g. USo hanbiciwy, Uk soromlyvyj, bojazkyj. On the other hand, Y farsemen 'embarrass, put to shame' has a parallel in Uk (zajsoromyty. Y uses a variety of Hebraisms in place of blocked (a) G Scham 'shame', e.g. Axarpe, Abuse f, Abizojen (bizjojnes), Abies m. For (b) semevdik 'bashful', Yiddish also uses Abajsn (bajsonim) m, Abajsnte(s) f 'bashful person' and Anexbe-el-hakelim m (lit. 'hiding among the vessels'). One reason may be that the alternation between G a and ä lacks a counterpart in the SI languages. Contemporary USo has a common root, hanba, for all four G allomorphs, but this is not likely to have been the case during RP1. Even if it were, and Y acquired all four allomorphs, Y would have very

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

321

likely lost Germanisms in the KP lands, since Uk had two roots for these semantic fields, sorom m and han 'ba f (the former is attested in L but not in USo). In Ukraine, Y created componentially merged compounds, see Y Abezbusenik(s) m, Abezbusenice(s) f 'shameless person' ~ Uk bezsoromnyj m, bezsoromna f. In addition to (c) G Schande, Y has also acquired Anevole(s) f 'infamy'. The semantic restrictions on (d) G ^Schändung(en) > Y \sendung(en) f 'rape' could be due to the use of several translation equivalents in the SI languages. 107. German: (a) scharf"sharp, acute; keen'/ (b) Schärfe(n) f'sharpness, keenness', schärfen 'sharpen'/ (c) Schere(n) f 'scissors', scheren 'to cut, clip, shear'/ (d) schürfen 'to scrape, scratch'/ (e) Schorf m 'scab, scurf, dandruff, ^schorfig 'scabby, scurfy'/ (f) Scharte(n) f 'notch, nick'// reissen, schaben > Yiddish: (a) «///'sharp', sarfkejt f 'sharpness'; sarfh 'sharpen' (< G [b])/ (c) serl(ex) η 'scissors', sern 'to cut, clip, shear'. The non-acceptance of G ä in 'sharpness, sharpen' (and the transfer of G [b] > [a]) could be due to a rule of lowering er > arl-r, χ (in the G lexifier dial and/or Y) as well as to the absence of a morphophonemic alternation in USo (a) wotry/ (b) wotric. The abstract suffix of (a) sarfkejt f parallels SI practice, see e.g. USo wotrosc, wotrota, wotrizna f, Uk hostryj 'sharp'/ hostrist', hostrota f 'sharpness'. In addition, Y denotes 'sharpness, keenness' by Lxarifes, Atvies-ajen η (the first word in the compound is spelled in Y as it is in TalmHe, tvl'üt-, or like Medieval FrHe where it was spelled tvVat- [11th c]). For (c), SI languages use different roots for 'scissors' and 'shear', see USo nozicy (pit), (wot)trihac, Uk nozyci (pit), stryhty. Y serl(ex) η 'scissors' is therefore a blend of the G practice of denoting noun and verb by the same root + the SI practice of denoting the noun by a dim (see chapter 3.1). In place of the blocked (d), Y retains m ( o p ) s k r o b e n (see USo skrabac), alongside other Germanisms; for (e) G Schorf ^schorfig, see Y mstrup(es) 'scab' < Uk strup m 'scab, scurf and supn pit 'fish scale; flake; dandruff < G (cited under #schaben). For (f) 'notch, nick', see Y karb(n), ajnsnit(n) < G, mscerb(es) m, Apgime(s) f < TalmHe 'lack; lunar eclipse'. See also Y rac(n) m 'nick', discussed in G reissen in chapter 4.2. 108. German: (a) Schaufelfn) f'scoop, shovel', schaufeln 'to shovel'/ (b) schieben 'to push, shove, slide'/ (c) Schub(-"e) m 'shove, push', fSchub-

322

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

lade(n) f 'drawer'/ (d) ^schubsen ~ %schupsen 'to push, shove'// beschaffen, kaufen > Yiddish: (a) sojvl η '(dust)pan, shovel'/ (c) \suflod(n ~ sufleder) m, η 'drawer'; sufl(en) m 'shovel', suflen 'to shovel' (< G [a]). Y sufl ~ suflen have an unexpected vowel (I would expect /oj/ in Y-as in Y sojvl η ~ G kaufen > Y kojfn 'buy'); alternatively, the unexpected /u/ in Y sufl(en) m could be due to the influence of /u/ in the allomorph G Schub (now not found in Y). Movement within a G paradigm from (a) > (c) is tantamount to saying that relexifiers were aware of the genetic links between the allomorphs. MHG schuvel(e) ~ schufel(e) f would yield the expected Y sojvl n; hence, Y sufl m, suflen might be an archaic relic of MHG pronunciation norms that (for semantic reasons?) escaped modernization; perhaps Y sojvl η and sufl(en) m came originally from different G dials. Another difference is that in the former, -I was interpreted as the dim suffix (see the meaning '[dust] pan') and thus required η gender. The m gender of Y sufl(en) could copy USo lopac, Uk sovok, lemis m. For (b)-(d), and Schub m in (c), Y uses other Germanisms. The block on (b) G schieben can be motivated by the existence of separate roots in USo, see e.g. (a) USo lopac m, lopac, lopata f/ (b) suwac, ciscec. The SI term for 'shovel' is also retained by Y, e.g. mlopete(s) (~ Uk lopata f). Y lacks a verb 'to shovel' from the earlier (presumably relexified) sojvl n, but this may be in imitation of periphrastic USo zlopacom! ζ lopacu dzälac 'to shovel' (lit. 'work with the shovel'). The -f- in Y suflod m, η 'drawer' is most likely from Pol szuflada f. See also discussion of 'scoop' under #beschaffen. 109. German: (a) scheel 'cross-eyed'/ (b) schielen 'to squint'// gucken, Wahl > Yiddish: (b) siklen 'to squint', sikldik 'cross-eyed'. The two G allomorphs correspond to two different roots-(a) USo zboka! (b) selhac. In the So context, Y would be expected not to relexify to (a), because of the presence of the Germanism in USo selhac. However, in the KP area, G schielen would have posed no problem for Y, in contrast to native Uk kosyty, mruzyty(sja), dyvytysja skosa 'to squint'. Still, (b) Y siklen might have entered the language in RP1, if it was regarded as a blend of G schielen (once used in Y?) and kukn 'look at' (< G gucken); the latter coexists with partly or totally SI expressions like kukn mkose (< USo kosa 'oblique', Uk kosyj 'slanting, oblique, askew'), mfarzmuren (di ojgn)

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

323

< Uk (zajzmuryty (with Uk za- ~ Y far-) 'squint, half close the eyes' (on blends, see chapter 3.1; on the calibration of verbal prefixes in Y, see chapter 4.1, section 3 and #Wahl). The Y terms for (a) 'cross-eyed' are mkosoke < Uk kosokyj (a cognate of USo kosa 'slant') and sikldik. The use of a single sikl- for both 'crosseyed' and 'squint' follows (a) Uk kosokyj 'cross-eyed'/ (b) kosyty 'to squint'. 110. German: (a) Schlaf m 'sleep', schlafen 'to sleep', schlaff'·slack, lax, limp', feinschlafen 'fall asleep', verschlafen 'sleepy; sleep away, miss by sleeping', sich verschlafen 'oversleep'/ (b) schläfern 'feel sleepy', ^einschläfern 'lull to sleep, narcotize', schläfrig 'sleepy'// BavG dr?msh, MHG entsweben, G schade > Yiddish: (a) slof m, slofh, \slaf ~ slof1, ill, slightly sick; feeble, limp' (and 'extremely sick' in much of Pol and ES1Y\farslaft 'ill, stricken', farslojh 'sleepy; oversleep, miss by sleeping'/ (b) sleferik, yarslef(er)n, \ajnslef(er)n 'make sleepy, put to sleep'. The single root in G encompassing the meanings of 'sleep' and 'limp' {schlafen, schlaff) is cognate with USo slaby, Uk slabyj 'weak' (for 'sleep', the SI languages use unrelated USo spac, Uk spaty). The SI substratum distinguishes lexically between 'sleep' and 'limp, weak', which could account for the initial Y relexification to G Schlaf, schlaffen 'sleep', and blockage of G schlaff 'limp'. The latter was acquired by Y independently-to judge from the difference in the vowels of Y slof" sleep' and \slaf (~ slof) 'limp'. It is unusual for Y to borrow the same Germanism twice (see Uschade). The ability of Y to relexify simultaneously to (a) and (b) might be ascribed to Uk morphophonemic alternations, see e.g. Uk spaty 'to sleep', zasypaty, zasypljaty (impf), zasnuty (pf) 'fall asleep; put to sleep', zaspaty (pf) 'sleep through' (USo now lacks such alternations, but might have still had them at the time of RP1). Alternatively, relexification to (b) could have been facilitated by the use of altogether different roots in Uk, see e.g. buty sonnym, drimaty (on the latter, see discussion of BavG drqmsh in chapter 4.6). Y tyarslefferjn is patterned on Uk zasypaty and has no G counterpart (G fschläfern is not attested in MHG, which has slafern < släfen 'to sleep' and entsweben 'lull to sleep'). Curiously, Y lacks a reflexive counterpart for G sich verschlafen 'oversleep', though Uk provides a model in prospaty(sja), zaspaty(sja) (pf), etc.

324

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

111. German: (a) schlecht 'bad, evil; vile'/ (b) schlicht 'simple, homely, plain; frugal (food)', schlichten 'compose (argument), settle, make up'/ (c) (sich) schleichen 'slink, sneak, creep; pass slowly'// gleich, Laster > Yiddish: (a) slext/ (c) slajxn zix 'slink, sneak'. For (b) G schlicht (< MG: Drosdowski 1989), Y has a variety of SI and He forms, e.g. Aposet 'simple', mies Ahomely' (see ttLaster), Acimcemdik 'frugal', mprost < SI, sporevdik 'frugal' < G sparen 'to save'. The inability of Y to acquire G schlicht- is due to its semantic heterogeneity, corresponding to a variety of unrelated roots in USo, e.g. hubjeny, spatny, hrozny 'bad', jednory, prosty, hladki 'simple', wujednac and hladzic 'compose (argument)'. Y could have accepted G schlicht- with one of its meanings, but this was presumably not done since SI provides no parallel morphophonemic alternation in the root set. For G schlichten, Y uses ojsglajxn < G (see ##gleich). I assume that acceptance of G (a) and (c) represents two unrelated acts of relexification, since the SI equivalents use distinct roots, see USo so kradnyc, so wlec. 112. German: (a) schnauben 'to puff; wheeze; snort (horse)', sich schnauben 'blow one's nose'/ (b) fschnaufen 'breathe heavily; pant, wheeze'/ (c) ^JSchnauze(n) f 'muzzle (gun); snout (of a pig)'/ (d) schneuzen 'snuff a candle', (sich) schneuzen 'blow one's nose'/ (e) f s c h n ü f f e l n 'to sniff / (f) schnupfen 'take snuff, Schnupfen (zero pi) m 'cold in the head'/ (g) \Schnuppe(n) f 'snuff (candle)' > Yiddish: (c) snojc(n) m 'snuff (of a candle)' (< G [d])/ (d) snajcn 'to blow (nose); snuff (candle)', (ojs)snajcn zix di noz 'blow one's nose'. (c) G \Schnauze(n) f 'muzzle; snout', (e) ^schnüffeln and (g) ^Schnuppe (n) f 'snuff of a candle' are ModG innovations and thus not expected in Υ. Y speakers were able to transfer to (c) snojc m the meaning of 'snuff (of a candle)' from another member of the same G morpheme set (postrelexificationally?), (d) schneuzen 'to snuff (candle)' (of which [d] Y snajcn is the expected reflex). This is valuable evidence that Y speakers imposed their SI substratum on genetically unrelated G morphemes. The G meanings of (c) Schnauze f 'muzzle (gun); snout (pig)' were blocked in Y since the latter followed Uk norms, see e.g. Y mpisk (also •'grimace') < Ukpysok m 'snout' and there was no SI root with the two G meanings. The blocked Germanisms are expressed in Y by Slavicisms or, more rarely, by other Germanisms: (a) Y mxoxlen, mprajxn, msopen 'to wheeze', mprajxn 'to puff / (b) msmoren, mpirxen, mporsken ~ snorxcn 'to

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

325

snort' < G/ (c) mojl (majler) η 'muzzle' vs. mpisk(es) m 'snout; «grimace'/ (e) msmoren, mnjwcen, den mit der noz 'to sniff / (f) smekn tabak 'take snuff. The Y blockages can be motivated by Uk lexical structure: (a) Uk pixkaty 'to puff, xrypity, dyxaty ζprysvystom 'to wheeze', pyrxaty, xropty, porskaty ~ pyrskaty 'to snort' (horse), pyxkaty (machine), smarkaty 'blow one's nose'/ (b)porskaty 'to pant'/ (c) dulo 'muzzle (of a gun)' vs. rylo n, morda f 'snout'/ (d) smarkaty 'blow one's nose', hasyty 'to snuff (candle)'/ (e) njwcaty, vdyxaty, sopity, pyrxaty 'to sniff / (f) njuxaty tjutjun 'take snuff vs. prostuda, zastuda f 'cold'/ (g) nahar na svicci 'snuff, znimaty nahar 'to snuff. 113. German: (a) Schnee 'snow' (< MHG sne ~ snie) m/ (b) schneien 'to snow' (< MHG sniwen)// Fliege, Flocke, melken, Regen, regnen > Yiddish: (a) snej(en) m 'snow' (pi 'large quantity of snow'), snejen 'to snow' (< G [b]). There are some cases where G words with initial /§/, corresponding to USo cognates with initial /s/, are not blocked in Y. One example is G Schnee 'snow' > Y snej(en), even though USo has cognate sneh m. The formal gap between the two cognates was greater at the time of RP1, since CS1 *g would still have been a stop, or at least a velar fricative (see discussion under #Fliege). The activity 'to snow' is usually expressed in all the SI languages by an impersonal construction involving the noun, e.g. Uk ide/ pade snih (lit. 'snow goes/falls'), though USo has both the verb so snehowac (~ G schneien), with reflexive so, possibly from the more usual impersonal sneh so die 'it snows' (lit. 'it goes snow' ~ G es schneit). The same construction is used in SI for 'to rain' vs. a simplex G regnen ~ Regen (zero pi) n. Since the periphrastic construction is pan-Si (see details in Suprun 1974 and chapter 4.2), it is surprising that Y tends to follow the G pattern, though Y also has an impersonal es gejt a snej (lit. 'it goes a snow'). I assume that Y sneen 'to snow', regenen 'to rain' are postrelexification derivatives from the noun (see also discussion of Y milx, melkn under ttmelken). Y snejen could lack the morphophonemic alternation in G Schnee m ~ schneien for two reasons: an alternation is lacking (i) in the SI languages (see above) and (ii) in the G lexifier dial (though currently this is more typical of NG dials which are irrelevant to us: see Grimm and Grimm 1854-1871; see also MHG sne ~ snie m 'snow' ~ sniwen 'to snow': Koller et al. 1990). Y also imitates SI practice by denoting 'snow flake' by the

326

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

dim of 'snow', snejele η (dims are always η) ~ USo snezenka, Uk snizynka f, rather than by a separate root, like G Flocke(n) f. 114. German: (a) Schnur(-"e) f 'string, lace, twine'/ (b) schnüren 'to lace, tie up Ίt Andacht > Yiddish: (a) snur(n) m, f'rope, line'. Y blocks (b), since the SI languages lack an alternation in (a) USo zawjazk m 'binding, bond', börnica f 'string'/ (b) (z)wjazac 'to lace'; (a) Uk zav'jazka f 'string'/ (b) snuruvaty 'tie with a string', zav'jazaty 'to tie, bind'. USo has also accepted the Germanism as (a) USo snora f/ (b) snorowac (late 17th c). In the KP lands, Y accepted the blocked G schnüren in the form msnureven 'to lace (shoes)' < Uk snuruvaty 'to lace, tie with a string' < snurok m 'string'-the likely source of the m gender of Y snur (on u-eve- in Y verbs, see also #Andacht). The motivation for acquiring msnureven must be the fact that Uk had both Germanisms (without a morphophonemic alternation). 115. German: (a) Schwemme(n) f 'watering-place', schwemmen 'to wash, soak, rinse'/(b) schwimmen 'to swim; float'// Fliessen, Floss, flössen, Fluss, los, Teich, MHG νlieζ > Yiddish: (b) svimen 'to swim; float', lozn svimen 'to float'. For (a) 'wash, soak, rinse', Y uses other Germanisms, see e.g. vasn, svenken, vejkn. For 'watering-place; pond', Y has only msazlke(s) f, mstav(n) m, mkorete(s) ('drinking trough') < Uk sazavka, sazalka f, stav m, koryto n. The failure of Y to relexify to both G schwimmen and its factitive schwemmen is puzzling. First, the historical links should have been obvious to relexifiers. Secondly, for this verbal pair USo continues a CS1 causative, see e.g. plawic 'to cause to swim, float', derived from pluwac 'to swim', so that there should have been no impediment to full relexification. The partial block on relexification suggests that the causative paradigm might have become unproductive in one or both of the SI substrata, so that speakers lost the link between the two sets of verbs, e.g. Uk can coalesce the two roots in plavaty, vyplyvaty 'to float'/ plavaty, plyvty, pereplyvaty 'to swim'. Yiddish also has periphrastic constructions for 'float', see e.g. [lozn] svimen (lit. 'let swim': see Hfliessen) and haltn zix ojfn vaser 'float' (lit. 'hold oneself on water'), which suggest compensation for blockage. The Uk cognate of (a) USo plawic 'cause to swim, wash, rinse; float' differs in meaning: (a) Uk plavyty 'float, convey

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

327

by water' (but [b] USo pluwac = Ukplavaty 'swim'). For (a) 'soak', see Uk zmocuvaty, promocuvaty, and for 'rinse', see Ukpoloskaty, promyvaty. The present-day situation in Y matches Uk well, where 'swim' and 'rinse', etc. are expressed by different roots. Thus, RP2 might have erased an earlier (b) Y *svemen/ (c) svimen. 116. German: (a) spreizen 'straddle, spread out'/ (b) Spritze(n) f 'syringe; squirt', spritzen 'to squirt, sprinkle, spurt'/ (c) JSpross(e ~ -en) m 'sprout, shoot; descendant; son', Sprosse(n) f 'rung (of a ladder)', sprossen ~ spriessen 'to sprout, germinate'/ (d) ^ßprössling(e) m 'son'// Gestell, schiessen, Schoss, Schössling, Schuss, Schütze, MHG Staffel, G -stelle > Yiddish: (b) Y spric(n) m 'syringe; squirt', spricn 'to splash, sprinkle, spout'/ (c) sproc(n) m 'sprout, shoot; scion', sprocn 'to sprout'. For (a) G spreizen and (c) Sprosse f, specifically 'rung of a ladder', Y uses other Germanisms, such as Y stapl(en) m, f 'rung of a ladder; step; degree, level' (see MHG ttstaffel). The block on G Sprosse f is expected, given the USo use of a different stem, lemjaz m (synonymous stel[k]a f is a loan from G -stell-, as in Gestell η 'easel'; see also synonymous schiessen 'shoot [plants]' below). In addition to (b) spricn, Y also has mprosen 'sprinkle', probably < Uk porosyty 'cover with dust or a dry substance' with adjustment to G syllable structure or deletion of unstressed po-. There are three reasons why (c) Y \sproc(n) m 'sprout, shoot; scion' must date either from RP2 or thereafter: (i) Relexification to (c) '(to) sprout' in the So lands would be surprising in view of the formal and semantic similarity with USo pruco n, prut m 'sprout'. On the other hand, the Uk terms for 'sprout, shoot' and 'descendant' differ from the Germanisms, see e.g. (pa)rostok, pahin m, hilocka f and potomok, nascadok m, respectively. (ii) Post-relexification influence cannot be ruled out, since Y ^sproc, by adopting the meaning 'descendant, scion' associated with G m, deviates from SI languages which distinguish lexically between 'sprout' and 'descendant'. (iii) The fact that G m is not attested before the 16th c also supports a post-relexificational origin for Y ^sproc(n) m.

328

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Given the unlikelihood that relexifiers would regard the first three allomorphs as genetically related (because of the semantic differences), I assume that relexifications to (b) and (c) were independent acts. Another G root that expresses the double meanings of 'shoot', i.e. 'gun' and 'spring up; plant', is partially available to Y, but only in the first meaning, (a) G schiessen 'to shoot (gun); spring up (plant)' has generated two streams of derivatives: (i) 'shoot (gun)': (b) Schuss(-"er) m 'shot'/ (c) Schütze(n) m 'marksman'; (ii) 'shoot (plant), spring up': (d) Schoss(en) m 'shoot, sprig'/ (e) Schössling(e) m 'sapling'. Of the G set, Y accepts (a) sisη 'to shoot', siser(s) m 'marksman' (< G [c])/ (d) sos(n) m 'shot'(< G [b]). The derivation of Y 'marksman' from (a) rather than from (c), as in G, finds its explanation in the single root of (a) USo trelic, Uk striljatyl (b) USo (wujtrel, Uk postril m/ (c) USo trelc ~ freier, Uk strilec' m. Y selects the first chain of derivatives only (G [b]-[c]), since there is no SI verb that means both 'shoot (gun)' and 'shoot (plant)'-though it selects the morpheme for 'shoot, sprig' ([d]) to express 'shot' ([b]). The need for the second chain of derivatives is obviated by the acceptance of G sprossen. On sprocung f 'sprout' in Y Bible relexifications, see Nobl (1943: 83). 117. German: (a) Spur(en) f 'trace, trail, scent, footprint'/ (b) ^spürbar 'sensible, distinct, marked', spüren 'perceive, notice, detect' (13th c), Tf'to feel, sense' (18th c)/ (c) Sporn (Sporen) m 'spur' > Yiddish: (a) spur(n) f, m 'trace, track, footprint'/ (b) \spirn (zix) 'to feel', ^spirung(en) f 'sensation'/ (c) spor(n) m. Unrelated roots like USo (a) slid ml (b) cujomny ~ spoznajomny, (zajcuc ~ cuchac, spurowac/ (c) wotroha f would cause widespread blockage in Y. Thus, acceptance of (a), (b) and (c) must have taken place in separate processes, as we see from the use of Y ^spirn (zix) with a meaning not attested in G until the 18th c. Y \spirung(en) f'sensation' has no G counterpart; the suffix matches Uk vidcuttja, pocuttja η < vidcuty, pocuty 'to feel'. The m gender of Y spur 'trace' matches that of USo sled m 'trace' (see also discussion of R sled- in Herman 1975). 118. German: (a) MHG Staffel, stapfei m > G Staffel(n) f 'rung, step; squadron'/ (b) stampfen 'to stamp (with one's feet), pound, crush' (also MHG 'to shell'), HStampfer (zero pi) m 'pestle; stamp(er)'/ (c) Stapfe(n) f 'footprint', stapfen 'trudge, plod along'/ (d) Stempel (zero pi) m 'stamp, piston', Jstempeln 'to stamp, mark, label'/ (e) Stufe(n) f 'step; Tfgrade,

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

329

border'/ (f) Stab(-"e) m 'staff, stick, rod'// Abfahrt, sich schleppen mit, Stössel, Trab, traben, Trott, trotten > Yiddish: (a) stapl(en) f, m 'step, rung, degree, level' (in part < G [e]?)/ (b) \stampn 'stamp with a die'/ (d) Y stempl(en) m 'stamp (tool, imprint)', \stemplen 'to stamp, brand'. While (b) G stampfen 'to stamp (with one's feet), pound, crush' is missing in Y, there is a Slavicized variant, majnstampeven 'to imprint; flatten' < Uk stampuvaty 'to stamp, imprint; impress'. The existence of Y majnstampeven suggests initial blockage (perhaps because of the similarity of cognate G stampfen and USo stupac, Uk stupaty)·, hence Y f stampn must be a post-relexification borrowing. For 'stamp with one's feet', see Y utupen mit < Uk tupaty, also 'trample', Y cetretn 'trample, crush (under foot), stamp out, with one's feet'. For 'pestle', Yiddish uses another Germanism, stejsl(en) η < G Stössel (zero pi) m; this is because G \Stampfer and Stössel m 'pestle' are expressed in USo by the single tolkctwa f. Missing in Y altogether is (c) Stapfe f 'footprint' and stapfen 'trudge, plod along', for which Y uses other Germanisms, e.g. slepn zix (~ G sich schleppen mit 'be burdened with') or Slavicisms, e.g. mtopcen (zix) (< Uk topcu 1st sg vs. inf toptaty), mbrod'en (< USo brodzic, Uk brodyty: on this verb, see also ttAbfahrt). (d) Y stemplfen) m 'stamp (tool, imprint)' < G Stempel, attested in the 13th c, but the related G verb dates only from the 18th c; hence, Y \stemplen 'to stamp, brand' is a recent acquistion. In place of the missing (e) G Stufe, Y uses (a) stapl f, m, Amadrejge(s) f or other Germanisms, e.g. trot (trit), trit (zero pi) m 'step' (this is the old meaning of G Stufe-, 'grade' and 'order' date from the 17th c). The possible transfer of a meaning such as 'degree' from (e) > (a) suggests awareness of genetic links. G Stufe is blocked since USo has similar sounding stopa f 'foot (length), step; sole (of foot), stopjen m 'step' (cognate of [b] G stampfen). Y trot is unique (see also tretn 'to step, tread, trample') and unrelated to G If Trott m 'trot' (which, in turn, is not available in Y). For 'trot', Y uses mtlis(n) < (?) USo kols, Uk klus m. The absence of a SI dial form with tl- in the root for 'trot' (now extinct?) raises the suspicion that Y mtlis(n) m is a merger of G Trab m 'trot', traben, trotten 'to trot' and USo kols, etc. (see discussion of mergers in chapter 3.1), although I cannot rule out idiosyncratic Y phonological change. (f) Y mstabe(s) 'bar, rod, pole' has the form of the Uk Germanism, staba f.

330

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

119. German: (a) stammeln 'to stammer'/ (b) stemmen 'to support, lift; stem, dam up; chisel'/ (c) stumm 'dumb, mute', verstummen 'become silent; die away (sound)'/ (d) Ungestüm η 'violence, impetuosity', ungestüm 'violent, impetuous'// Mord > Yiddish: (a) stamlen 'to stammer'/ (c) stum 'dumb, mute', stumen 'be silent', farstumt vern 'become silent'. USo requires separate roots for (a) wjazolic/ (b) zbehnyc, zaprec/ fc) nemy 'mute'; womjelknyc, wonemic, wocichnyc 'be(come) silent'/ (d) dziwjosc, njemdrosc f 'violence, impetuosity'; dziwi, njemdry 'violent, impetuous'. Uk presents a similar picture. (b) G stemmen 'to lift, chisel' is lacking in Y, which uses hejbn 'to lift' and (ojs)hakn. (c) Y stumen 'be silent' continues a MHG verb, lacking in ModG, in the dual meanings of 'be, make mute'. USo distinguishes between the simplex nemic 'make dumb, mute', and the prefixed wonemic 'become dumb, mute'. Uk, on the other hand, provides a counterpart for Y in nimyj 'dumb, mute' > nimity 'be silent'/ zanimity (impf) 'become deaf, dumb(struck)'/ zanimyty (pf) 'make deaf, deafen'. For (d) G Ungestüm, ungestüm, Y uses other Germanisms, as well as recixe(s) f A'outrage, violence', Arecixesdik 'violent' (< He recihäh f 'murder[ing]': see #Mord). The invention of an innovative meaning for a Hebraism suggests, on the other hand, that relexifiers recognized the links between Ungestüm and stumm, and needed to find a replacement for the blocked Germanism. It is also conceivable that Y relexifiers regarded the four G allomorphs as separate sets of unrelated forms. 120. German: (a) Star m 'cataract', starr 'stiff, rigid; stubborn, inflexible', Starre ~ If,Starrheit f 'stiffness, rigidity; obstinacy', starren 'stare at'/ (b) stark 'strong, vigorous; stout; thick'/ (c) Stärke(n) f 'thickness; corpulence; starch; force, strength, power', stärken 'strengthen, invigorate; to starch', Stärkung(en) f 'strengthening, invigoration; refreshment', Stärkemehl η 'starch'// Berg, Gewalt, Kraft, kräftig, EMG kraftmehl, G Macht, mächtig, steif > Yiddish: (a) stor(n) m, f 'cataract'/ (b) stark 'strong; stiff; powerful', starkejt(en) f'intensity, strength', starbt 'strengthen, invigorate'. Most of (a) is blocked because USo uses more than a single root: (a) mjadro n, bei f; prosty ~ sprostty ~ sprostnjeny; prostosc ~ sprostnjenosc {/ (b) sylny/ (c) sylnosc, mocnosc f, (po)sylnic; (po)sylnjenje n. (a) G starr 'stiff, rigid; stubborn, inflexible' corresponds to USo prosty ~ sprostfy ~

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

331

sprostnjeny. Hence, for the latter, Y requires other Germanisms, e.g. stajf 'stiff < G steif. For (a) starren, Y uses other Germanisms, (c) G Stärke in the meaning of 'starch' has no reflection in Y, where mkroxm(a)l < Uk kroxmal' m < EMG \kraftmehl η (see below), (a) G Star m 'cataract' is found in Y, alongside mbel'me(s) < USo bei f, Uk bil'mo n, either of which could have determined the optional f gender of Y stor m, f. Alongside (b) stark 'strong', G also has Macht(-"e), Kraft(-"e), Gewalt(en) f 'power, might, strength' > Y kraftfn), maxt(n) f ~ • kojex (kojxes) m, Atkifes, Axies n, • gvurefs) f (on Y mgvald f violence, force', mgvaldfn ~ es] m 'cry, scream, emergency', see ttGewalt). The USo counterparts are moc, mocnosc, sylnosc f. Following USo in deriving sylnosc f 'strength' < sylny 'strong' by means of an abstract suffix, Y has created starkejt f < stark 'strong' (< G stark + -heit abstract suffix, though there is no *Starkheit in G). It is unclear whether Y was following USo in deriving sylnosc f 'strength' < sylny 'strong' by means of an abstract suffix, or was acting independently (at a later date). I suspect that Y starkejt was formed during the first relexification stage, since Uk offers no equivalent with an abstract suffixsee Uk syla rather than *sylist' (vs. USo syla f 'large amount'). If Y had been exposed to G Stärke in the KP lands, Uk syla f might have provided a model for Y *sterk/ stark. In this example, I wonder whether the wealth of Hebraisms in Y is not due to the pressure of the G inventory of terms. Just as Y blocks the G morphophonemic alternation in stark! Stärke, so too does it block that of G Kraft/ kräftig·, this is because of the absence of morphophonemic alternation in the SI substrata: see Y kraft/kraftik. Y has failed to acquire G (c) with ä /e/-due to a (now inactive) lowering of /er/ > /ar/, as in Y barg 'mountain' ~ G #Berg. Y also follows other SI languages in using EMG kraftmehl η 'starch' (Grimm and Grimm 18541871), see e.g. Y mkroxm(a)l ~ Pol krochmal, Uk kroxmal'm, kroxmalyty 'to starch' ~ stG Stärkemehl η. Since 'strengthen' and 'to starch' are expressed by different roots in SI, Y cannot use starkn in the meaning 'to starch'; instead, it follows Uk kroxmalyty by forming Y monkroxmlen. In contrast to kraft and stark, Y maxt does form a pair with \mextik ~ maxtik 'powerful, mighty' (< G mächtig), though there is no SI precedent for such an alternation; hence, I assume that Y \mextik is a post-relexification acquisition. Thus, Y deviates from the USo practice of using only two roots for 'strength, power', even surpassing the inventory of G itself, by acquiring three synonyms from He; the Y Hebraisms also have adj derivatives, but not always in the meaning of 'powerful', see e.g. Y

332

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Akojexdik 'powerful', Atkifesdik 'highhanded, imperious', 'valiant, stalwart'.

Agvuredik

121. German: (a) Tag(e) m 'day', tagen 'to dawn; sit in conference, hold a meeting', \Tagung(en) f 'meeting, conference', Dienstag(e) m 'Tuesday', Montag(e) m 'Monday'/ (b) (tagtäglich 'daily'/ (c) heute 'today' (< MHG hiute ~ BavG heint: see Kluge 1899)/ (d) G fverteidigen < MHG verteidingen < (ver)tagedingen 'defend'// {Abend-)/ (Morgen-) dämmerung, dämmern, der Morgen (graut), MHG dine, G Ding, in der Frühe, MHG hinet, G Mittwoch, Morgen(grauen), Nacht, Sonnenaufgang, Sonnen-untergang > Yiddish: (a) Y tog (teg) m 'day', *{togn 'to fartog(n) m 'dawn'/ (b) teglex 'daily', tog-teglex 'day-to-day, eveiyday'/ (c) hajnt 'today'/ (d) %fartejdikn 'defend', ψαrtejdikter(s) m 'defender', yartejdikung(en) f 'defense'/ (e) dinstik(n) 'Tuesday', montik(n) m 'Monday' (< G [a]). The use of Umlaut to pluralize Y tog, though lacking a MHG precedent (see M. Weinreich 1973, 4: 193), parallels SHG tag/ täg: (Zirmunskij 1956: 539). For 'conference', Y uses other Germanisms and kasife(s) f; the non-use of the root 'day' for 'meeting' is also characteristic of SI. A precedent for the alternation of (a) G /a/ and (b) ä Id is not found in SI, see e.g. (a) Uk den' m 'day', svitaty 'to dawn'/ (b) scodennyj 'daily'/ povsjakdennyj ~ odnodennyj 'day-to-day, everyday' (see also #Nacht). The Y acquisition of G tagen in the meaning of'to dawn' is unexpected. Aside from USo dien (~ gen sg dnja) 'day' and so dnic 'to dawn', where the latter verb is probably due to G influence, the SI languages use a different root for '(to) dawn', see Uk svitaty 'to dawn' and svitanok m 'dawn' (see also discussion of BavG dämmern in chapter 4.6); consequently, I regard Y Iftogn as a recent loan. Componentially, USo dzens(a), (arch) Uk dries' 'today' < 'day' match (c) G heute < MHG hiute < 'this' + 'day'. The relexification to G heute, BavG heint 'today' (> Y hajnt 'today') shows that Y relexifiers could recognize the membership of the latter in the G paradigm of'day'. While (a) G Tag is used in compound nouns denoting days of the week (see e.g. Montag 'Monday', Dienstag 'Tuesday'), Y has a morphophonemic alternation between (a) tog (teg) 'day' and (b) montik, dinstik m (also spelled etymologically -tog); the formal distortion may be because 'day' does not appear in the SI terms for days of the week, see e.g. Uk ponedilok, vivtorok m, respectively. The Y pattern is also typical of e.g. Sil and Tyrolian dials of G, inter alia, though here too the model may have

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

333

come from a SI substratum. See also Y vejtik ~ vejtog(n) m 'pain, ache, hurt' discussed in chapter 3. Relexification of the SI names for the days of the week was presumably possible since the SI and G systems of naming involved a common 7-day paradigm, with points of similarity at 'Saturday' (a common loan from He) and 'Wednesday' (e.g. Uk sereda f < G Mittwoch m, lit. 'middle' [+ 'week']). For SI and G details, see Waniakowa 1998. (d) G Ifverteidigen assumed its present form only in the 16th c, replacing MHG (ver)tagedingen > verteidingen < MHG tag m 'day' (also a legal term) and MHG dine (> G Dingfe] n) 'thing' (lacking in Y). Hence, Y yartejdikn is a post-relexification loan. The Y nouns are both G and He, see e.g. Y yartejdikterfsj m 'defender', ^fartejdikung(en) f 'defense', alongside A mejlec-jojser ~ A mejlec (melicim) and A sanejger(s) m 'defender (lawyer)'. The initial blocking of MHG (ver)tagedingen in Y is expected, since this concept does not involve the root 'day' in SI, see e.g. USo zakitanje n. In addition to (a) G tagen 'to dawn', Y also rejects G ^dämmern (Xdemern 'be twilight'; according to Sadan 1973: 33, \demer[ungj is recent), since SI tends not to have a single term for 'dusk, dawn', see e.g. USo switac, so seric 'to dawn', switanje 'dawn' (< 'light') vs. smerkanje n, smerki pit 'dusk' (< 'dark'), Uk prysmerk m, smerkannja η (< 'dark'), sutinok m, sutinky pi, svitanok m 'dusk' (< svit 'light') vs. sarity 'to be/ turn grey, rosey; to dawn'; Uk sarinnja η is a rare term that denotes exceptionally both 'dawn' and 'dusk'. While G Dämmerung f is found in OHG, the verb %dämmern appears to date only from the 18th c. G uses the prefixes 'evening' and 'morning' to disambiguate: fAbenddämmerung 'dusk' vs. ^fMorgendämmerung f 'dawn' (neither of which is acceptable in Y).

Y preserves the SI pattern of discourse, by inventing an innovative SI verb and by acquiring a Hebraism, e.g. Y msarejen ojftog (< Uk 'to dawn' + G 'on the day'), fartog(n), msarej(en) (< Uk), Akajor(n) m (but spelled phonetically as if it were a non-He component) 'dawn';^rr/iaxi (< 'night'), Abejn-asmoses(n) n, m 'twilight, dusk' (lit. 'between the suns'). Y msarej has cognates in both USo sery and Uk saryj 'grey', but the use of the root to denote 'dawn, grow dusky' is now unique only to Uk. Y msarejen 'to dawn' appears to be a unique derivative of msarej(en) m < Uk sarity; Uk has no noun formed from the latter (but see Pol szarowka f 'grey of the morning; dusk, twilight', Br seraja/ saraja hadzina f 'dusk', lit. 'the grey hour'). The failure of Y to create a verb 'to turn dusk', even though such a verb exists in SI (see USo [so] cmickac ~ smerki padaja ~ so smerka, Uk

334

Evidence for two-tiered relexiflcation

smerkaty) may provide a clue to the relative chronology of the SI verbs. See also G der Morgen graut 'it dawns' (lit. 'the morning grays'), UMorgengrauen η 'dawn', unknown in Y. G HSonnenuntergang(-"e) 'sunset' and \Sonnenaufgang(-"e) 'sunrise' > Y zonfargang(en) ~ ^zonuntergang(en) and ^zonojfgang(en) m, respectively, in coexistence with • skie(s) f and Lkälos 'at sunrise' (lit. 'upon dawning'). It is unclear to me why Y lacks OHe zrihäh f 'sunrise'. There is also a SI explanation for the expression of 'morning'/ 'tomorrow' in Y. G optionally denotes the two concepts by a common morpheme, e.g. G (am) Morgen (zero pi) m '(in the) morning'/ morgen 'tomorrow', though the former could also be denoted by the prepositional phrase in der Frühe (lit. 'in the early [hour]'). In Y, 'morning' and 'tomorrow' can be formally distinct, following SI, see e.g. Y frimorgn(s) ~ inderfri(en) m 'morning' (vs. a nominalized prepositional phrase, in der fri ~ far mitog 'in the morning')/ morgn 'tomorrow' ~ USo ranje ~ ran(j)o η 'morning', ζ rana 'in the morning'/ jutre 'tomorrow' (the use of jutro η 'morning' may be due to G influence), Uk ranok m 'morning'/ zavtra 'tomorrow'. USo ranje, etc. and Y fri are both derived from the respective roots for 'early'. 122. German: (a) MHG traht 'pregnancy; bearing' > G Tracht(en) f 'costume, dress; load of honey; beating', MHG getraht f 'grain'/ (b) G trächtig 'pregnant'/ (c) tragen 'carry, bear; wear', austragen 'carry a pregnancy to term', Betrag(-"e) m 'amount, sum', \Beitrag(~"e) 'contribution; article', ertragen 'bear', \Ertrag(-"e) 'profit; yield', Vertrag(-"e) m 'agreement, bargain, treaty', vertragen 'bear, suffer, endure; wear out', Hzutragen 'bring (news), report', \sich zutragen 'happen, take place'/ (d) If Getreide η 'corn, grain' (~ MHG getregede, getreide η 'clothing, load')// G alt, Alter, anziehen, Artikel, Aufsatz, beraten, bleiben, Ge-, Kleid, Mutterleib, schwanger, schwängern, Zaum > Yiddish: (a) traxt(n) f 'womb' ~ f m 'costume'/ (c) trogn 'bear, carry, wear', trogedik 'pregnant' (< G [b]), trogn mit 'be pregnant with', ^cutrogn 'bring, contribute', fartrogn 'carry away; bear, endure', getrog(n) η 'yield, return'. (a) Y traxtfn) f denotes 'womb', which seems to be unique, vs. MHG traht 'pregnancy; bearing' (see ModG Mutterleib m 'womb' > Y muterlajb, lit. 'mother' + 'belly, body'; on lajb, see #bleiben). The use of a single root for 'womb' and '(be) pregnant' is typical of SI languages, see Uk cerevo η 'womb' and cerevata f 'pregnant', but is no longer the case in

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

335

USo (under G influence?), where 'womb' is (macerny) ziwot m (lit. 'mother's belly') but 'pregnant (human)' is a translation of (b) G trächtig, e.g. nosny, nosacy (for pregnant animals, with the term varying with the animal). (c) G tragen itself no longer denotes 'be pregnant', but in MHG the verb did and this is reflected in Y trogn mit (lit. 'carry' + 'with'; see also ModG ausfragen 'carry a pregnancy to term' and trächtig 'pregnant' ~ Y trogedik). Y trogn covers most of the meanings of G tragen, e.g. 'bear, carry, wear', as well as that of (b) G ^Ertrag m 'yield' (see also below). Another term for 'pregnant' is Y • muberes f. Y %*svanger 'pregnant' < G schwanger is not acceptable in stY (U. Weinreich 1968), nor is the simplex G schwängern 'impregnate'; for the latter Y uses trogedik maxn (lit. 'pregnant' + 'make'). But see also Y farsvengern 'become pregnant' (unattested in G). The SI tendency to distinguish 'be pregnant' from 'make pregnant' lexically may account for the partial acceptance of the G root by Y. See USo samodruha, Uk vahitna f 'pregnant'/ USo zlehac, Uk (za)vahitnity 'become pregnant', zaplidnjuvaty, napovnjuvaty 'impregnate' (Uk za- is responsible for far- in Y farsvengern). The different vocalic reflexes of MHG /a/ in Y traxt and trogn suggest different chronologies of acquisition. Significantly, Y does not ordinarily use (a) G Tracht(en) f in the meaning of 'costume, dress'. If it does surface in Y (it is not recommended for stY by U. Weinreich 1968), it differs from traxt(n) f 'womb' by having m gender (see discussion of G Alterl Y elter in #alt). For 'costume, dress', Yiddish uses instead kost'um(en) (< Uk kostjum m), klejd(er) (< G Kleid[er] n) or Amalbes (malbusim) m. The SI languages can use a common verb for 'carry' and 'wear', see USo nosyc, Uk nosyty, and a common root for 'clothing' and 'to wear, dress', see USo drasta f, Uk odjah, kostjum m (the source of the m gender of Y traxt[n] 'costume') 'clothing', USo drascic, Uk odjahaty 'to dress' (tr), odjahatysja 'to wear' (see also G anziehen in #Zaum). Derived forms of (c) tragen in G, see e.g. \Beitrag(- "e) 'contribution, article', ^Ertrag(-"e) m 'profit; yield; produce, harvest (e.g. of an orchard)', ertragen 'bear; tolerate', Vertrag(-"ej m 'agreement, bargain, treaty', vertragen 'bear, put up with; digest' also find only partial acceptance in Y, see e.g. Y fartrogn (with the G meanings) but the noun 'treaty' is opmaxfn) m or khaskome(s) f, Aheskem(s) or Ameduberfs) m (< He part medübär 'spoken about'); for G Beitrag, see Y majmer (majmorim) m A'article, essay' (discussed in #Aufsatz and ##Artikel). The age of the G compounds provides a clue to the age of Y fartrogn and the

336

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

blockage of G compounds. G \Ertrag(- "e) 'profit; yield' dates from the 16th c, while Vertrag(-"e) is MHG; on the other hand, G Betrag(-"e) m 'amount, sum' is MHG but not used in Y (see instead Lsxiimfen] m ~ msumefsj f < SI or batref[n] m < G). Since USo (and other SI languages) do not denote grain from the root 'to bear, carry', I would not expect to find (d) G ^fGetreide (zero pi) η 'corn, grain' in Y; furthermore, the latter does not denote 'grain' in HG until the 16th c (Kluge 1899). MHG getregede, getreide η originally denoted anything that was carried, e.g. 'clothing, load', (a) MHG getraht f, which could have the meaning 'grain', inter alia, appears as (c) Y getrog(n) n, but only in the general meaning of 'yield' or 'return'. Curiously, Hg has a SI term for 'grain', buza (see Uk zbizzja n; cognate USo zbozo η means 'luck'), suggesting that Y too may originally have retained a SI term for grain. Y uses Ltvue(s) f for 'grain'. On the fate of G Ge- in Y, see Uberaten. 123. German: (a) treiben 'to drive, push; force; propel', übertreiben 'exaggerate', ^JÜbertreibung(en) f 'exaggeration'/ (b) Trieb(e) m 'young shoot, sprout; impulse'/ (c) Trift(en) f'drift; pasturage'// spreizen > Yiddish: (a) trajbn 'to drive, chase; impel', \ibertrajbn 'exaggerate'. The existence of a common root in USo for two or three G allomorphs (e.g. [a] eerie, [b] cer ~ cer f or [a] pohnuc, [b] pohnuce n, nahon m, [c] hona f, wuhon m) is atypical of the Slavic languages and may reflect later G influence (e.g. Uk normally requires different roots for the meanings expressed by each allomorph). The Y failure to relexify to all three German allomorphs enables us to evaluate the chronology of the G impact on the calibration of the native roots in USo. Y \ibertrajbn may be recent, since the corresponding noun and a periphrastic verb are expressed by HeJAram loans, see Y • guzme(s) f 'exaggeration'. The same root, g-z-m, is the basis for Y megazem zajn A'exaggerate' (vs. Medieval SpHe A'to prune', 12th c and ModHe), which might have been chosen to match the prefixed verbs in G and SI (e.g. Uk perebil'suvaty; ModHe now has a different derived template, magzim for 'exaggerate'). Both meanings of G Trift are attested in MHG, for which Y uses mpase(s) ~ ntoleke(s) < Uk pasa 'pasturage', toloka f 'common pastureland, fallow land'. For (b) 'sprout', see discussion under #spreizen. For (c) 'drift', Y uses other Germanisms.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

337

124. German: (a) Volk(-"er) η 'people, folk', Volkstum(-"er) η 'nationality', volkstümlich 'popular'/ (b) ^völkisch 'national, popular, racial, ethnic', \Bevölkerung(en) f'population' > Yiddish: (a)folk(-"er) n, • (poset-)Yolkis 'popular, plain' (< G [b] + He 'simple')/ (b) \bafelkerung(en) f. Y imitates Uk (a) narod m, narodnyj vs. (b) naselennja η more closely than USo (a) lud m, ludnyl (b) ludnosc f. Y also has ajnvojnersaft f 'population', corresponding to USo wobydlerstwo n. (a) G Volk η was borrowed by SI languages, but semantic and formal differences were great enough to license relexification, see USo polk, Uk polk 'regiment' (also > Y mpolkfn] m). U. Weinreich (1968) cites *folkstimlex 'popular, of/for plain people', using either mpopul'er (< Uk populjarnyj) or • (poset-jyblkis. Schaechter notes that Y yolkis is a relatively recent neologism (1974, 1986: 109); significantly, the example shows that SI derivational processes are still productive long after RP2. The use of k.poset shows that even post-relexificationally, He can replace undesirable Germanisms. 125. German: (a) Wahl(en) 'vote; choice', fAuswahl f 'choice'/ (b) wählen 'choose, elect', Wähler (zero pi) m 'voter'/ (c) will- present tense sg stem 'will' (< [d] wollen), Wille 'will', ^Freiwillige ~ ^Freiwilliger (Freiwillige) m 'volunteer', mutwillig 'willful, wanton'/ (d) wollen 'intend, mean, be willing, wish, want'/ (e) wohl 'well', wohler 'better'// austeilen, erlauben, erlösen, los, (sich unterwerfen, Teil > Yiddish: (b) \vejler(s) m 'voter', vejler 'nicer' (< G [e])/ (c) vil- present tense sg stem 'will' (vs. inf vein), viln(s) m 'will' ^frajviliker m 'volunteer'/ (d) volt 'would, should'/ (e) vojl 'good, nice, well', vojler 'nicer'. The partial relexification to this paradigm is surprising, given the similarity of cognate USo wola f 'will' (vs. chcyc 'to wish, want') and Uk volyty 'to desire, wish; prefer'. The vowel of (c) Y vein inf deserves comment. There were no less than four vowels in the MHG source: wellen, wollen, wollen and wullen. It is curious that Y speakers selected vein (~ viln), a continuation of the first variant, since the CS1 cognate also had a mid unrounded vowel, see CS1 *veleti 'wish', see Cz velet, R velet', Uk velity 'to command'. Y frajviliker(s) 'volunteer' coexists with kbaln m (also 'interested person') < He b-l-' 'swallow'.

338 Evidence for two-tiered relexification (a) G Wahl(en), %iuswahl f/ (b) wählen (Y fvejln 'elect') were blocked because of similar-sounding USo wolba f 'vote; choice', wolic 'choose, elect'. Y instead uses other Germanisms, e.g. (ojs)klajbn 'choose', opstimen 'to vote', or Abrejre(s) f 'choice', (b) Y \vejier 'voter' must have entered the language at a later stage, either RP2 or thereafter (see Uk vyrobec' m). (c) G Wille 'will' > Y viln(s), though the latter is not without competition from • rocn m. Y also uses vein 'want, wish' as the future auxiliary, e.g. ix vil gejn Ί will go, I want to go' vs. the G use of werden 'become' in this capacity (since the late 14th c). The Y auxiliary has a precedent in MHG and in some contemporary SSI languages in expressing the future of impf verbs, see SC mi hemo videti 'we will see', with a shortened form of hteti 'want' vs. 'be' as the future auxiliaiy in So and ESI, see e.g. USo budze widzec 'he will see', Uk budu cytaty Ί will read', coexisting with the auxiliary 'take', e.g. cytatymu Ί will read'. However, the earliest texts of ESI, Pol and Cz also have the auxiliary 'will' (see details in Mel'nyöuk 1966: 103). USo compound verbs with wolic do not have parallel cognates in Y. Examples are USo dowolic ~priwolic 'allow' = Y culozn, derlozn, derlojbn (all < G; G has erlauben but not *zulösen, while erlösen means 'deliver, save': see #/os); so podwolic 'submit to, yield to' = Y untervarfn zix (= G sich unterwerfen: #werfen) and nixsl vern (A 'yield to temptation' < He 'fail; stumble': see the use of a common root in Uk ne vdatysja 'to fail' and [zjdavaty, piddavatysja 'yield'); wuzwolic 'choose, select' = Y ojsklajbn, ojstejln (with only a formal counterpart in G ^fausteilen, which means 'distribute': see ##7e/7). Two conclusions suggest themselves from this evidence: (i) The now productive formation of compound verbs in Y with G verbal prefixes that have assumed SI verbal prefix functions (see also Wexler 1964, 1972) was not yet a productive part of the Y grammar in RP1. (ii) The compound verbs had not yet been formed in USo. Uk has only two compounds of similar composition to the USo verbs given above, but with different meanings: dovolyty 'satisfy', vyzvolyty 'set free'. Y also lacks G compounds with Wille, see e.g. mutwillig 'willful, wanton', for which Y uses Afaraksnt, Akivndik 'willful' and Ahefkerdik, and Germanismsfarsajt, farsart 'wanton'. 126. German: (a) währen 'to last, continue', während 'during, while'/ (b) Wesen (zero pi) η 'being, nature'// weil > Yiddish: (a) gever η 'duration, durability', geverik 'durable', gevern 'endure, last'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

339

Full relexification is blocked due to the lack of a single SI root for the two Germanisms, see e.g. (a) USo trac 'continue', w(e) 'while'/ (b) USo bytosc f 'essence, being, nature'. For (a) G währen 'to last, continue', see also Amamsex zajn ~ other Germanisms; for G ^während, Y uses Abejs, Abesas, A in mesex fun, A bemesex fun (see also ##weil). For (b) Wesen η 'nature, essence', Y has Ateve(s) f, Amehus(n) 'nature', Atox m (< He 'center'), Amamoses n, Atamces, Aecem, Aiker m 'essence'. 127. German: (a) Waise f, Waisenkind(er) η 'orphan'/ (b) MHG wit(e)we, witiwe, witib > G Witwe(n) f 'widow', MHG wit(e)wer > G Witwer (zero pi) m 'widower'. Yiddish: Kluge 1989 believes that (a) and (b) are not related; Drosdowski 1989 thinks they may be. I treat them together since both Germanisms are absent in Y, which suggests lexifiers may have regarded the two allomorphs as related. SI lacks a parallel, though USo syrota m, f, Uk syrota m, f 'orphan' are ultimately related to Li seirys 'widower' m (Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 1402; see also Vasmer 1955, 2: 629). Another reason for the blockage of (b) was that it resembled cognate USo wudowa f, wudowc m too closely. Hence, Y acquired (a) Y Ajosem (jesojmim) m ~ Ajesojme(s) f 'orphan', and (b) Y almen(s) m A'widow(er)', Aalmone(s) f 'widow' (BibHe 'almän meant 'alone, forsaken'). The fact that both (a) G Waise and USo syrota were formally f, and still could not license relexification, means that Ajosem mJ Ajesojme f may have been accepted in RP2 where Uk syrota-unWke USo (now)-had both f and m gender (expressed only by agreement). 128. German: (a) warm 'warm, hot', MHG warmuos η 'warm vegetables'/ (b) G Wärme f 'warmth', wärmen '(make) warm' // beraten, Biermus, Ge-, Gemüse, heiss, MHG -müese, -muos(e), G Mus(e), MHG sieden, OMG wyssmusz, G zu-, Zubrot, MHG zuomüese, zuomuose, G {zu)ziehen > Yiddish: (a) varem 'warm' ~ f 'warmth', varemkejt f 'warmth, affection; fever', varemen 'to heat', var(e)mes(n) 'warm meal, afternoon meal, dinner', noxvaremes η 'afternoon meal'. The loss of the G alternation of /a ~ ä/ could be due to no less than three factors: (i) The change of e > a before r, χ in Y (and/or G lexifier dial), (ii) The lack of an alternation in USo copty 'warm', copiota ~ coplosc f

340

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'warmth', (iii) The SI use of a different root in the verb, see e.g. USo (wo)hrec; see also Uk teplyj, teplo η but nahrivaty. The zero suffix and η gender of Uk teplo η could account for the lack of suffix in Y varem f 'warmth'; the -kejt of synonymous Y varemkejt 'warmth' (unattested in G; see chapter 1) matches USo copiota ~ coptosc or Uk teplota f. The syllable -m(e)s of Y var(e)mes(n) 'warm meal, afternoon meal, dinner' also appears in Y times[n] m 'vegetable, fruit stew' and comes from MHG muos η 'food mash' (> G Mus η 'mush, pap'). The first syllable of Y cimes(n) m looks as though it might be derived from MHG zuo(müese, -muose) η 'garnish' (this is the view of Tombak 1955), but this is unlikely since G zu- > Y cu(-) or ce-, but never *ci- (see G ziehen 'to draw, pull, drag', zuziehen 'draw together, tighten' > Y cien 'to pull, draw', cucien 'attract' vs. cecien 'draw out, stretch' and Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #140). I suspect Y times m comes from a compound consisting of zidn 'to boil' (< MHG sieden 'to boil, cook, simmer') + MHG muos; under the influence of zu- in G Zubrot η 'snack, garnish, vegetables', Y zidn could have been altered to ci-. On the other hand, Swabian dialects of G also have a similar term, e.g. zimmes, zemus, etc. (see Tömbak 1955). Either a SI connection is unnecessary or Y and G have arrived at a similar term through different paths (in addition to possible G influence on the Y form). Specific details about the recipes involved would be welcome; while Y uses the term to denote a 'vegetable, fruit stew', the G forms seem to be limited to 'vegetable dishes'. Significantly, while Y var(e)mes(n) has η gender (see also Y noxvaremes η 'afternoon meal' and other variants in Stuckov 1950), times(n) has m gender. Support for this hypothesis comes from the use of MHG muos η in a number of SI compounds with native var- 'to boil', see e.g. OCz varmuze > Cz varmuza f , Pol jarmuz ~ warmuz m 'vegetable dish' (via dissimilation of w-m > j-m by the 16th c: see Bielfeldt 1933: 292-293; Kaestner 1939: 52; Urbaüczyk et al. 1960-1962, 3; Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 28; Machek 1971). USo also has compounds with MHG -müese, -muose, see e.g. USo wusmuz ~ (dial) wosmuz m (< OMG wyssmusz η 'white mash' ~ native mjatka f) 'mash' and bermuz(k) m 'beggars' soup' (< G Biermus n, lit. 'beer' + 'mash'). Hence, the flux between Y varemes and varmes η was not originally just a matter of optional contraction. I assume that • varmes was the original term, a cognate of OCz varmuze f (see above), which optionally expanded by analogy with the similar-sounding G-origin varemes η sg adj 'warm', assuming η gender. A further factor prompting the reinterpretation of Y mvarmes 'warm meal' as monomorphemic varemes η 'warm' might have been the putative Balkan Rom etymon of

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

341

colnt(n —er-but with no concomitant Umlaut) 'a baked dish of meat, potatoes, and legumes served on the Sabbath, kept warm from the day before in view of the prohibition against cooking on the Sabbath', assuming that the meaning of the etymon-'hot, warm'-was still appreciated at the time of acquisition; see Istro-Rum caldina 'receptacle for hot foods' (for the proposal that Y colnt n, m is of Balkan Rom origin, see Wexler 1992: 48-49). See also discussion of ttheiss. Related to G Mus is Gemüse (zero pi) η 'vegetables, greens', which is lacking in Υ. Y prefers grins(n) η < grin 'green' < (a) USo zelenina, (arch) zelina and/or Uk zelen' and zelenyna f. On the status of G Ge- in Y, see ftberaten. 129. German: (a) Welt(en) f 'world', weltlich 'secular; worldly; temporal'/ (b) Werwolf(-"e) m 'werewolf (< MHG wer m 'man')// G alt, Erde, irdisch > Yiddish: (a) velt(n) f, veltlex 'secular, profane, mundane'. (a) Y velt f competes with Aojlem, which denotes both A/the public' (pi A/m-s) and 'world' eternity' (pi • Im-s ~ ojlomes), and Aojlem-hdbe m 'the world to come' The semantic and formal bifurcation is prompted by the ambiguity of both Uk svit 'world, universe, earth' and myr m 'peace, tranquility; world; large assembly of people; concord, union'; see also the ambiguity of Br narod 'people, nation; crowd' (disambiguated in naroda gen sg 'people, nation' vs. narodu gen sg m 'crowd'). Y k.ojlem(s) m may have first been acquired in the meaning of A'large assembly, public', in response to Uk myr m, which had this meaning, inter alia; USo lacks this duality, see e.g. USo swet 'world' vs. mär m 'peace' (the latter morpheme has the meaning of 'world' only in the Ε and SSI languages: see SchusterSewc 1978-1996: 898-899). For another instance of semantic bifurcation expressed by the pi and gender, see #alt. Furthermore, (a) Y veltlex 'secular, profane, mundane' has a slightly more limited semantic scope than G weltlich 'secular; worldly; temporal', which necessitates recourse to Y erdis 'earth(l)y; worldly, mundane' < erd 'earth' < G Erde(n) f (vs. G irdisch 'earthly, terrestrial, worldly, temporal': see #Erde) and Lojlem-hazedik (lit. 'world' + 'this' + G adj suffix) and ojlems A.'sophisticated'; for 'temporal', see Y cajtedik. Instead of (b) G Werwolf(~"e) m 'werewolf, Yiddish has mvolkelak(es) m 'werewolf, which appears to be < SI. The blockage of G Werwolf < MHG wer m 'man' could have two explanations: (i) The meanings of the putative Slavism probably did not completely overlap with those of G

342

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Werwolf m. (ii) USo wjelkoraz is a relatively new formation based on wjelk 'wolf and -raz 'kill' but Uk volkolak m has cognates in most SI and non-Si Balkan languages. The latter is customarily derived < native 'wolf + 'skin, hair' (see e.g. Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1613; Mosz^ski 1992: 22-23), but Nichols has proposed Iran 'wolf + 'person' as the etyma (1987). If I follow Nichols, then G and SI component order differ; otherwise G and SI component structure differ, in either case impeding relexification (see also chapter 4.4). Early 13th-c GHe has bwrwqwlj /vorokoli/ and bwrqwl'q's /vorkolakas/ (see Wexler 1993c: 105-106). Herbert Zeiden (in a personal communication) suggests a plausible Tc etymology for the three Yiddish/Hebrew variants: see e.g. böri 'wolf + qui 'person' (see also Nadeljaev et al. 1969)-with Y later Slavicized. 130. German: (a) werfen 'to throw', verwerfen 'miscarry; to reject', vorwerfen 'to reproach, blame'/ (b) Wurf(-"e) m 'throw, fling', \Auswurf m 'dregs, refuse, rubbish', Vorwurf(-"e) m 'reproach', Vorwurf machen 'reproach, blame'/ (c) Würfel (zero pi) m 'die (dice)', würfeln 'throw dice'/ (d) worfeln 'winnow, fan' (~ MHG worfen), G verworfen 'depraved, profligate; foul, vile'// G blähen, blasen, untergeschobenes Kind, wehen > Yiddish: (a) varfn 'to throw', ojfvarfh, ojsvarfn 'to rebuke, reproach'/ (b) vorf(n) 'throw\firvorf(n) ~ ojfvorf(n) 'reproach', ^ojsvorf(n) m 'outcast, scoundrel', untergevorfene kind η 'foundling'/ (c) %verfl (zero pi) m 'die (dice)', ^unterverfling(en) m 'foundling' (< G [a]). The use of a common root in (a) USo cisnyc/ (b) cisnjenje n, disk m accounts for the Yiddish acceptance of (a) G werfen and (b) Wurf m (in a form closer to that of MHG). (d) G fworfeln is lacking in Y, which uses another Germanism, vejen. The blockage is due to the fact that USo wee covers the meanings of G ^worfeln, wehen and blasen (see also discussion in Ublähen). The Y acceptance of G wehen looks like a post-relexification loan since USo wee and Uk vijaty are similar-sounding cognates. Y does not accept all G compounds; thus for G verwerfen 'miscarry', Y has mapln ^'miscarry', maplung(en) f ^'miscarriage'. Conversely, Y untergevorfene kind(er) η ~ \unterverfling(en) m 'foundling' {-ver- instead of -var- is a sign of recency) ~ Uk pidkyd'ok m (< 'throw') vs. G untergeschobenes Kind η (lit. 'pushed under' + 'child'; on 'to reproach', see below). For (c) 'die', USo has kostka f 'die' (dim of 'bone'), kostkowac ~ kostki cisnyc 'throw dice'. Y \verfl m looks like a post-relexification loan; Perferkovic (1931) cites • kubje f 'die'.

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

343

While (b) If*forvorf(n) is not recommended by U. Weinreich (1968), firvorf(n) and ojfvorf(n) m are acceptable for 'reproach'; however, some initial hesitation in acceptance is suggested by the coexistence of Ltajnetyf-umajneis]) f 'argument, reproach' (lit. 'claim' + 'response'), hobn Ltajnes/ kjarumes 'to reproach'. Periphrastic G Vorwurf machen 'blame, reproach' (lit. with 'make') matches Y hobn Ltajnes (lit. 'have' + 'reproaches') ~ L_(ois)musern (< 'morals'). The use of Hebraisms is motivated by the SI use of stems other than 'throw' for 'reproach', see e.g. USo porok m 'reproach', porokowac 'to reproach', Uk dorikannja η 'reproach', dorikaty 'to reproach' (< 'say'). Note that synonymous Y ojsvarfii and ojjvarfri are not matched by cognate nouns or by cognate G \iuswurf m 'dregs, refuse, rubbish'. See also discussion in Schaechter (1986: 111-113). See also R ki(d)- 'throw' and verg-, verz- 'reproach' in Herman (1975). 131. German: (a) Werk(e) η 'work, act, opus' (< MHG werken 'to work, effect'), G Handwerker (zero pi) m 'artisan', Vorwerk(e) η 'farm'/ (b) wirken 'to effect; work; knit; knead', verwirken 'to forfeit, lose; incur', wirklich 'actual, real, true; really', Wirkung(en) f 'effect', wirklich machen ~ Iverwirklichen 'realize'// bewahren > Yiddish: (a) verk 'opus, work (of art)', hantverker(s) m/ (b) virk(n) m 'effect, impact', virkn 'to effect, affect; influence', virkung(en) f'effect'. The Y blockage of (b) would be expected because USo (a) (wu)skutk m/ (b) skutkowac lack morphophonemic alternation (also true of Uk). Y has both allomorphs (one acquired as a post-relexiflcation loan?), though opposition to relexifying to both allomorphs is reflected in the parallel use of (b) maspie zajn '(exert) Amfluence', haspoe(s), slite(s), deje(s) f A'influence', pule(s) f A'effect, result; progress, performance', (b) Y virk(n) m with no suffix-vs. G Wirkung f-reflects the derivational behavior of USo (wu)skutk m. G wirklich is not recommended for Y (see U. Weinreich 1968); instead, Y uses • (be)emes, Aemesdik, utake and ojf der vor (see discussion in ttbewahren). (Schaechter, a contemporary Y language planner, has recommended OWY verklex and verkn since they are attested in 13th-c texts [1986: 101-102]; by so doing, Schaechter is equating Gmc and SI Y.) Not surprisingly, Y accepts only one set of meanings of G wirken- to effect', but not the current meanings 'to work, knit, knead' (vs. MHG werken 'to work, effect'). This is because SI expresses the latter meanings by different roots, see USo dzelac 'to work',

344

Evidence for two-tiered relexiflcation

strykowac 'to knit' and walec 'knead' and Uk pracjitvaty, v'jazaty, zamisKvaty ~ misyty, respectively. For (b) G TIverwirklichen 'realize' (see Y ψ/arvirklexn), Y has Amekajem zajn 'realize' with the corresponding passive part, form, Amekujem vern (with a G passive auxiliary verb; numerous formally passive Hebroid parts, expressing a medial action were coined in Y to match SI verbs with the reflexive-passive particle [and continue in use in ModHe], e.g. Y mesukn 'dangerous' ~ Uk pekatysja 'avert danger', mesupek 'in doubt' ~ Uk sumnivatysja 'to doubt': see UFurcht, ##verzweifeln). This blockage is surprising, in view of the fact that G fverwicklichen 'realize' was coined only in the late 18th c; hence, Y must have blocked an earlier root, which prompted recourse to the Hebraism. For 'forfeit, lose', Y has Lmevater zajn ojf ~ farspiln and onvern; for 'incur', Y uses other Germanisms. (a) G compounds with -werk were also initially blocked in Y, see G Vorwerk(e) η 'farm'. The term is used in SI languages as well, see USo (arch) forbark, Ukfol'varok~fil'varokm. From the latter, Y has acquired folvark(es) m 'farm, ranch'-together with the Uk m gender. 132. German: (a) Wust m 'tangled heap, mess' (~ MHG wuost m, wuoste f)/ (b) G wüst 'deserted, desolate, uncultivated', Wüste(n) 'desert' (~ MHG wüeste f), G ^wüsten 'to waste', verwüsten 'lay waste', ^Verwüstungen) f 'devastation' > Yiddish: (b) vist 'deserted, bleak, desolate', vistenis(n) f 'waste, arid area'. For (a) 'mess', see Y balagan m, packeraj η (< Uk balahan m 'booth; farce; disorder', packaty 'to soil, dirty'), Lxazeraj n, f (< He häzlr m 'pig'), Acore(s) (also 'trouble' < He cäräh f). U. Weinreich (1968) rejects (b) ψ/arvistn 'devastate', ψ/arvistung f 'devastation', for which Y has • maxrev zajn, Axorev maxn 'devastate, ravage', Lxurbm (xurbones) m 'devastation, ruin, holocaust'. This is a rare example where Y only relexifies, sparingly, to the allomorph with the marked vowel /ü/, rather than to the allomorph with unmarked /u/; this may be due to the greater number of derivatives made from the former in G; in any case, since USo has a variety of roots, see (a) USo smjatanca, wulka hromada f ~ smjat m 'mess'/ (b) pusty 'deserted, desolate', puscina f 'desert', zapnscic 'devastate', zapuscenje η 'devastation', and the G morphophonemic alternation finds no precedent in USo, relexifiers have the freedom to choose either G allomorph. The partial blockage also allowed Y to retain a

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

345

SI term, see Y mpust 'empty, hollow, blank; idle, vain', which has now come closer to the meanings of cognate Uk pustyj (on the latter root, see chapter 4.1). Given that SI languages derive 'desert' from the same root (see also Uk pustynja ~ pustelja f), it is surprising that Y lacks the Slavicism in this meaning, preferring instead Lmidber (midborjes) f, mwith the m gender < He and the f gender < the SI substratum (though MHG also had wüeste f). The -j- in the Y pi of lmidber is not derived from SI but from He midbäriöt pi (~ midbärlm; the chronology of the two He pi variants is unknown). 133. German: (a1) Zaum(-"e) m 'bridle, rein' (< MHG zoum ~ zöm ~ zäm)l (b1) G zäumen 'rein in'/ (c1) Zeug η 'tools, stuff, material', Zeugefn) m 'witness', zeugen 'beget, procreate; bear witness, testify', bezeugen 'bear witness, testify', erzeugen 'to breed, beget, generate', ^Erzeugnis(se) η 'product; growth', Erzeugung f 'production, manufacture; begetting', füberzeugen 'persuade, convince'/ (d1) ziehen 'to draw, pull; raise, rear', anziehen 'put on (clothes)', \Beziehung(en) f 'connection, reference to', erziehen 'educate', verziehen 'distort, spoil; move', Ziehung(en) f 'drawing'/ (e1) ^unerzogen 'ill-bred, uneducated' (part, of [d1] erziehen)/ (f1) Uzögern 'dilly-dally, hesitate, delay' (dial 'go around aimlessly'), \Zögling(e) m 'pupil'/ (g1) Zucht(en) 'breed, breeding', Unzucht f 'lewdness, prostitution'/ (h1) Anzug(-"e) If'suit, dress'; 'approach', %Bezug(-"e) 'case, covering; reference', Verzug 'delay, state of default', Zug(-"e) m 'pull, tug; train', ^bevorzugt 'preferred; privileged'/ (i1) Gezücht η 'brood, breed', züchten 'to breed, cultivate', züchtig 'modest, chaste', züchtigen 'punish; whip, flog', fBienenzüchter (zero pi) m 'beekeeper'/(J1) Zügel (zero pi) m 'rein, bridle', zügeln 'rein in' (a2) Zaun(- "e) 'fence, hedge' (< MHG zun ~ zoun m), G \Zaimkönig(e) m 'wren'/ (b2) zäunen, ^Jeinzäunen 'to fence', \Einzäunung(en) f 'fence'// Angesicht, auftiängen, Bahre, berg, beschliessen, Fliege, Lage, Schüler, MHG traht, zidelcere, G Zeidler, MHG zuosehcere, G zusehen > Yiddish: (a1) cojm(en) f, m 'bridle'/ (c1) cajg η 'cloth, stuff, fabric', cajml(ex) η 'bridle' (< G [a1])/ (d1) Y cien 'pull, draw'; f'breed, raise', ci(en) m 'draw', dercien 'stretch (up to); bring up, educate, raise', oncien 'to stretch, strain, tighten; wind (clock); make fun of (vs. G anziehen), Y \binen-cier 'beekeeper' (< G [i1])/ (e1) dercojgn 'brought up', %um)dercojgn '(badly) bred' (part. < G [d1] dercien), %ibercajgn 'persuade,

346

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

convince' / (g1) Y cuxt(en) f 'tidy woman'/ (h1) cug(n) m 'train; draft (of wind), move (in a game)'/ (i1) cixtik 'clean, tidy, neat'. (a2) cojm(en) ~ cam(en) m, f'fence'. The f gender of (a1) Y cojm 'bridle' matches that of USo wuzda, Uk vuzd(eck)a; the m gender matches that of G. (It is presently unclear to me if the Y homophones differed at least in gender preferences.) Y lacks (c1) G zeugen (f *cajgn), for which it uses gebojren, gevojnen < G or Hebraisms (see below). Consequently, cognate pairs of the type (c1) G erzengen 'to breed, produce; beget'/ (d1) erziehen 'educate, bring up, train' are not found in Y: see instead Y gebojrn, cien, uhodeven, mplod'en zix 'to breed' (see also below), Lmojled zajn, gevinen, gebojrn 'beget' (see also #Bahre and below), dercien 'stretch up to; bring up, educate, raise'. Still, there are traces of (c1) in post-relexificational compounds, see e.g. Y f,ibercajgn 'persuade, convince' < G ^überzeugen, Y \dercojgn 'brought up' < G Ierzeugt. For (c1) G ^Erzeugnis η and Erzeugung f, Y requires other roots, mainly Germanisms, even though Y has accepted the part, of dercien 'bring up, educate'. USo has a common root corresponding to (d1) G ziehen (e.g. cahac, cahnyc) and (h1) Zug (e.g. cah m), but (c1) G Zeug η and ( f ) zögern (U. Weinreich 1968: ffcegern) and ^fZögling m correspond to separate roots in USo, see e.g. plat, grat m, sukno n; so komdzic and (wu)kublanc, chowanc m, respectively. USo cahac covers only some of the meanings of (d1) G ziehen, i.e. 'to draw, pull'; for 'raise, rear', USo uses other roots. I therefore speculate that Y originally accepted G ziehen in the first two meanings (following the USo lexical configuration), and only later acquired the full range of G meanings, TJ'breed, raise'-after the relexification process was terminated. For (f1) G Zögling, Y prefers, like USo, a separate root, see Y A tälmed (talmidim) (U. Weinreich 1968 cites Y *suler[s] < G Schüler [zero pi] m 'pupil'). In fact, for the notions of 'beget, procreate', Y has other Germanisms, as well as Lmojled zajn. Revealing of the Slavicity of Y is the existence of (d1) Y ci(en) m 'draw, pull; stretch; jerk', derived from cien 'to draw', pull'. This form is lacking in G (see instead Ziehen [zero pi] η or Zug[-"e] m), and matches USo cah m ~ cahac or Uk tjah m ~ tjahty, which also lack an alternation and which have a zero suffix in the noun. For (c1) G Zeuge m 'witness', (be)zeugen '(to) witness', Y has uniquely • ejdes zogn (lit. 'testimony' + 'say'), zajn an A ejdes fun (lit. 'be a witness of), A ejdes (m in Y vs. He f), Lejd-rie, coexisting with bajzeer (< 'by' + 'see'), bajstejer m (lit. 'by' + 'stand') 'witness', \cuzen 'to

Fully or partly blocked German morpheme sets

347

witness' (< G Ansehen 'watch; look on', but see MHG zuosehcere m 'witness' and #Angesicht). The point of interest is the use of the G root 'see' to form 'witness'. G Zeuge m 'witness' is rare in late MHG and is absent in Y. In SI languages, the term for 'witness' is formed from either 'know' (CS1 *ved[eti]) or 'see' (CS1 *videti; see Shevelov 1979: 427). Most of the SI languages prefer the first root, see e.g. OR stvedokb, Uk svidok, svidcyk 'witness' (< svidomec' m 'one who knows, is knowledgeable', svidomyj 'conscious'), Br svedka m 'witness' < vedac' 'know', Pol swiadek m 'witness' (< swiadomy 'knowing'/ wiedziec 'know' vs. widziec 'see'). The only contemporary SI terms for 'witness' < 'see' are R svideteV, Bg svidetel m 'witness' < R videt', Bg vidja 'see'. Interestingly, earlier forms of Uk and Br also formed 'witness' < 'see', e.g. pre-Uk stvedetelb (1164), Uk vydec' 'witness, spectator', Br vidavocca, vidavocnik m 'witness' < vidac' 'be visible'. OBr svetka appears, alongside svedetel' m, in early 16th-c Br ChSl (Slovnik movy Skaryny 1984, 2). There is no trace in Y of OR posluxb m, lit. 'ear-witness'. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the geography of 'see' and 'know' as the basis for 'witness' in KP. Just as Y rejects (c1) G zeugen/ (f1) UZögling m 'pupil' (first used in the late 18th c) and ^zögern 'hesitate' (originally in SWG of the early 16th c), it also rejects (almost entirely) (g1) G Zucht(en) f 'breeding, rearing (of animals), growing (of plants), breed' and (i1) G Gezücht(e) η 'brood, breed', züchten 'to breed, raise, cultivate'. The only trace of these allomorphs is (g1) Y cuxt(en) f 'tidy woman' and (i1) cixtik 'clean, tidy, neat'. Other Y terms for 'to breed' include uplod'en (zix) and mhodeven (~ USo plod, Uk pi id m, plodyty, hoduvaty 'to feed, nourish'); for 'breed', there is Y uplid(n) m (in a distinctly Uk form), Ageze(sj and mrase(s) f (< Lat). G Unzucht 'lewdness, prostitution' matchs Y ojsgelasnkejt f < G or kkier m < He 'ugliness' (on the latter term, see Nobl 1958: 174). The Y term for (i1) 'beekeeper' is relatively recent, to judge from MHG zidelcere (> G Zeidler m), which was blocked in Y. For (i1) 'chaste, modest', Y uses Lanivesdik (lit. 'modesty' + -dik adj suffix vs. He 'anäväh f 'modesty') ~ Acniesdik or a Germanism basejdn; for 'punish; whip', see Y (ba)strofn, mkateven (< Uk kat m 'executioner'; see #aufhängen),L·musern. I wonder if the Y preference for (d1) G ziehen over (c1) Zeug η, (h1) Zug m, etc. is not due to the formal similarity of (d1) G ziehen and USo cahac and/or the (early) reluctance to accept words with /g/. See also (h1) G %Bezug(-"e) m 'case, covering' (in these meanings only since the early 18th c); 'reference' (as in in Bezug auf'in reference to'-attested in Swiss

348

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

G in 1483-see Pfeifer et al. 1989), (d1) \Beziehung(en) f 'connection, reference (to)', of which U. Weinreich (1968) cites Y f *bacug m, alongside Asajxesfn) η (< He sajxüt f 'belonging') and (d1) ^baciung(en) f 'relation, attitude; terms', or (h1) G Verzug 'delay, state of default', (d1) verziehen 'distort, spoil, move', of which Y has only (d1) farcien 'tighten, delay, protract; inhale'. See also the discussion of the status of G *g in #Fliege and #Lage. The nonexistence of (h1) G Anzugf- "e) m f'suit, dress'; 'approach' or of (d1) anziehen in the meaning of 'put on (clothes)' in Y (vs. [d1] Y oncien 'to stretch, strain; tighten; wind [clock]; make fun o f ; for 'put on clothes', see Y ontori) could be due to the fact that SI languages use a different root for 'put on (clothes); suit, dress', see USo woblec, drastic 'put on clothes', woblek m, drasta f 'clothes' and Uk nadivaty, odjah m, respectively. Another possible explanation is that G Anzug in the meaning of if'suit, dress' dates only from the late 16th c (vs. MHG anzuc m 'position of witnesses; reproach; arrival; access'). The meaning of Y oncien can be attributed to USo nacahac < cahac and Uk natjahaty < tjahaty 'to draw, drag, pull, stretch'. For (h1) G ^bevorzugt 'preferred; privileged', Y has AJaxsn (jaxsonim) m ~ AJaxsntefs) f (see also MHG #traht). (a1) ModG Zaum(- "e) 'bridle, rein' and historically unrelated (a2) Zaun (~"e) 'fence; hedge' now differ only in the quality of the nasal, but they were more distinct in (a1) MHG zoum ~ zöm ~ zäm and (a2) zün ~ zoun m. Y has a partial merger of G Zaum 'bridle' and G Zaun m 'fence': cojm(en) f, m 'bridle' and cam(en) ~ cojm(en) f, m 'fence'. The Germanism was not blocked in Y despite its existence in many SI languages, see e.g. Uk tyn m 'fence'. Since USo does not (now) have a cognate, this would place the acquisition in RP1. For G (a2) \Zaunkönig(e) m 'wren' (15th c), (b2) zäunen, feinzäunen 'fence in', \Einzäunung(en) f 'fence, enclosure', Y responds with rob(n) m and ajncamen/ ajncamung(en) f. The partial relexification mirrors the use of separate roots in SI: see e.g. USo (maty) kralik ' w r e n ' , m 'fence' and wobhrodzic 'fence in', wobhrodzenje η ~ wobhroda f 'fence'; Uk volove ocko n, ohoroza f, tyn, parkan, plit m, obhorodzuvaty, otocuvaty. Y follows USo practice, in that Y has separate roots for 'fence' and 'fence in': mplojtfn), mparkn(s) < SI, cojm(en) ~ cam(en) m,farcamung f 'fence', ajncamen 'fence in', etc. < G. The disambiguation of (a2) Y cojm(en) m, f 'fence' (< G Zaun[-"e] m) and unrelated (a1) Y cojm(en) f, m 'bridle' (< G Zaum[-"e] m 'bridle, rein') might have been brought about by semantic overlap between the two roots ('fence' + 'bridle' = 'tame, curb') and the pressure of the substratal

Individual German morphemes

349

lexicon, see USo wuzda, Uk vuzdecka f andpovid m 'bridle' vs. USoplot, Ukplit, tyn m, ohoroza f 'fence'; see also ttbeschliessen and #Berg.

4.4 The status of individual German semantically related sets in Yiddish

morphemes

and

Note: additional terms mentioned in the entries are listed in the heading after the symbol //. 1. German: (a) Abend m 'evening'/ (b) Morgen m 'morning', morgen 'tomorrow'// melken, Mittag(essen), (Mitter)nacht, Norden, Osten, Süden, Westen > Yiddish: (a) ovnt(n) m/ (b) morgn 'tomorrow'; m (-s) 'morning'. (a) and (b) are also used in UG dials to denote 'west' and 'east'; in the same dials Mitternacht f denotes both 'midnight' and 'north', while Mittag m can denote both 'noon' and 'south'. G Norden, Osten, Süden and Westen are unknown in Y, which uses k.cofn 'north', • dorem 'south', • mizrex 'east' and Lmajrev m 'west'. USo (now) imitates both st and non-stG patterns, whereby the directional terms come in pairs, the second of which denotes both 'direction' as well as 'time of day', see e.g. USo sewjer ~ pobioc 'north' (the latter also 'midnight'), juh m ~ poldnjo η 'south' (the latter also 'noon'), zapad ~ wjecor 'west' (the latter also 'evening'), wuchod m ~ ranje η 'east' (the latter also 'morning'). Uk matches USo only with regard to the semantics ofpivnic 'north; midnight' and pivden' m 'south; noon'. Today, Y halbe naxt f and halber tog m match SI morpheme structure perfectly, but only have the meaning of 'midnight' (lit. 'half night') and 'midday' (lit. 'half day'), respectively. I would expect the SI directional terms, which also denoted 'times of the day', to be fully relexified to the UG dial system. This not being the case, I assume the current Y nomenclature was relexified to a stG pattern of discourse, and that originally Y halbe naxt f and halber tog m meant both 'midnight; north' and 'noon; south', respectively. This could have required the use of two Hebraisms for 'west' and 'east'. These two terms may have subsequently "dragged along" He 'north' and 'south' as well, thus eliminating the meanings of north and south from Y halbe naxt f and

350

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

halber tog m, respectively (see also #melken). For discussion of Tc parallels (including Karaite), see Wexler (1987a: 71). The blockage of G Norden, Osten, Süden and Westen is not due only to the semantic disparallels with the corresponding SI directional terms. Another obstacle to relexification is that some of the SI directional terms have allomorphs with non-directional meanings, which were known to relexifiers, e.g. Uk zaxid 'west', sxid 'east' < xid 'walk, course'; OR ugb (~ ModR jug m < SSI) 'south' is related to OR, R dial uzina f 'noon meal' ~ R uzin m 'supper'. The closest G equivalents would be Mittag m 'south; noon' and Mittagessen η 'noon meal'. While Uk, Br and USo at present do not use a common root for 'south' and 'noon/evening meal' (see USo juh m/ wjecer f, Uk pivden' m/ vecerja f, etc.), they may have paralleled R at the time of the two relexification phases. As for the reasons why the four He directional terms should appear in Y, Tavjov has suggested that they were taken as a remembrance of the geography of Palestine (1903: 135); M. Mieses suggested they were taken as abstract nouns (1907: 282; 1924: 217), while RubStejn saw in them reflections of international trade-a major factor, in his view, for the rise of Y (1922: 27: see also Katz 1991a: 35). Such unconvincing speculations are unnecessary in the framework of the relexification hypothesis. On the possibility that directional terms developed taboo associations, and thus had to be replaced, see Wexler (1991b: 53-54). See also discussion in ttNacht. Some He directional terms are found in other Jewish languages, see e.g. Tat Msfjsrov 'west' and Mizroh 'east', Kar (Trakai, Halyö) marab 'west', mizrax 'east', cafon 'north; midnight', darom 'south; noon', independent of relexificational needs. 2. German: (a) MHG almer m 'closet, cupboard; box'/ (b) G Kasten (Kästen) m 'box, case, chest'/ (c) Kiste(n) f 'box, case, chest'/ (d) Koffer (zero pi) m 'trunk, box; suitcase'/ (e) Schachtelfn) f 'box'/ (f) MHG schaf m 'cupboard'/ (g) sch(r)anc, G Schrank(-"e) m 'wardrobe; cupboard; closet'/ (h) Schrein(e) m 'shrine (reliquary); chest, cabinet'/ (i) Truhe f 'chest, trunk'//pflegen, Scheide > Yiddish: (a) almer(s) 'closet'/ (b) kastn(s) m (dim kestl[ex] n) 'crate; chest, case, box'/ (g) sank (senk), Xsrank (srenk) f, m 'closet'. The formal differences between (b) and the So Germanism kasc m 'coffin, casket', formerly 'case, chest', may have been ample to permit relexification in Y, facilitated perhaps by the semantic differences (see the innovative USo meaning of 'casket'; ordinarily, So Germanisms were not

Individual German morphemes

351

accepted in relexification). Curiously, Y lacks the USo semantic development of 'casket', preferring Lorn (arojnes) m 'Jewish casket' (< OHe 'closet; casket'). This fact finds a smooth explanation in Uk which has three terms for 'casket', skryn'ka, skatulka and truna f; Y speakers may have been attracted to orn m as a way of imitating the lexical richness of Uk; it is, however, surprising that Y orn m does not have f gender. On related Y kest m, see also #pflegen. For (c) 'chest', see also Y kufert(n) m 'chest'. For (f) G 'cupboard', see Y usafe(s) < Uk safa f < MHG schaf m; for 'wardrobe', see Y klejder-msafe(s) f (Vasmer 1958, 3 suggests the gender change from G m to Uk f was caused by confusion with synonymous Pol almarja f < [a]). Since SI Germanisms are not usually candidates for relexification, the Y Slavicism is best considered a post-relexificational loan. The blockage of (h) G Schrein m in Y could be due to the existence of a similar native SI term, see USo krinja, Uk skrynja f 'chest, coffer' (the USo monophthong in place of MHG schrin m, η suggests a borrowing by the 12th c: Kaestner 1939: 29). Even if Y had managed to retain USo krinja f, the greater similarity between G Schrein m and cognate Uk skrynja f 'chest, coffer' might have prompted Y speakers in the KP lands to drop the Sorbianism. Finally, it is conceivable that a meaning associated with Christianity ('reliquary') might have rendered G Schrein (ultimately < Lat) unnecessary in Y. Unique to Y is sejdl (es) η 'case' (< G Scheide f 'sheath, scabbard'). The semantic innovation in Y sejdl η (the MHG term lacks the general meaning of 'box, case') could have been prompted by the pressures of relexification. The original G meaning of Y sejdl η (dim in form but not necessarily in meaning) is preserved in Y ^mutersejd f 'vagina', which is likely to be a post-relexification loan from G. See also Y mpuske(s) '(tin) can; (alms) box' < Ukpuska f, Y usketele(x) η 'box' < Uk skatulka f (the lateral, which is part of the Uk root, has been interpreted as part of Y -ele dim < G, thus calling for a η gender assignment). 3. German: Almosen η (zero pi) 'alms'. Yiddish: USo almozna ~ almozina ~ jalmozina (< G) explain why Y blocks G Almosen η (zero pi). Y has recourse to • nedove(s) and • cedoke f, which match two distinct roots in SI: USo dobrota, Uk mylostynja and dobrodijnist' f (the latter also means 'boon, blessing, kindness'). The

352

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Hebraisms may have been acquired separately, like the two So Germanisms, e.g. once < OHG alamuosan and later < MHG almuose(n) (Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 4,424-425). 4. German: ^andeuten 'point out, indicate; intimate, hint', fausdeuten 'interpret', bedeuten 'to mean, signify; intimate', deuten 'explain, expound; point to; portend', ^Andeutung(en) 'indication, suggestion; hint', \Ausdeutung(en) 'interpretation', Bedeutung(en) 'meaning, significance; importance, consequence', Deutung(en) f 'explanation; interpretation', deutlich 'clear, distinct; intelligible', fDeutlichkeit f 'clearness, distinctness, plainness' // MHG ttinziht, G weisen, zeigen > Yiddish: ^batajt(n) m °badajtung[en] f) 'meaning, significance', batajtn 'to mean, signify; denote' (\°badajtn), dajtlex 'plain, clear, distinct' vs. tajtl(en) f, m 'pointer', tajtlen 'to point'. The different forms of Y (bajtajt- and dajt- point to different lexifier dialects and/or chronologies of acquisition (Schaechter 1986: 276 labels \batajt[n] m a neologism, replacing an earlier batajtungfenj f). USo has a large variety of equivalent roots (following the order of the G forms): USo podotknyc, naspomnic; wulozic, wukladowac, interpretowac; (wo)znamjenjec, zrozumic, pokazowac na co; wulozic, pokazac; podotknjenje; wulozenje, wukladowanje n, interpretacija f; wuznam m, waznosc f; wulozenje ~ wulozowanje n, wutozk m; jasny, wurazny; jasnosc, wuraznosc f. This variety can explain the very partial relexification to G forms of the root deut- and the Y recourse to Hebraisms and other Germanisms, see e.g. Ameramez zajn 'hint at, allude to', Aremez (remozim), onvunk(en) 'hint\farruf(n) m 'allusion^\farrufn zix 'allude to' < G. For 'interpretation', see also Y ojstajcfn) m ~ ojstajcung(en) f < G ~ Apejres (pejrusim) m; for 'interpret', see Y (far)l(ojs)tajcn < G ~ lernen Lpsat fun, Ldarsenen, Apojter zajn 'interpret', k.pojter-xolem zajn ' interpret dreams'. On the status of G weisen, zeigen 'point to, show' in Y, see MHG ftinziht. 5. German: Anker (zero pi) m 'anchor' > Yiddish: anker(s) m. The venue of relexification seems to be the So lands, where USo kotwica f would have presented no problem to relexification; however, in the KP area, G Anker would probably have been blocked, due to a surface

Individual German morphemes

353

cognate, Uk jakir m < Scandinavian (Vasmer 1958, 3). Uk also has kitv(ycj)a f 'anchor', but Y shows no inclination to develop two terms (Stuckov 1950 also cites Y Tjakor < R jakor' m). 6. German: Arbeit(en) f 'work', arbeiten 'to work'// beschaffen, Erbe, Bav, AusG maut, Rotw mes, muess, G Mühle, Müller, MHG mülncere, mute, G Wachs, Werk, Zins, OHG zol, G Zoll> Yiddish: arbet(n) f'work', arbetn 'to work'. The acceptance of G arbeiten 'to work' in Y is unexpected in view of the existence of cognate USo robota f 'difficult work, imposition; enforced labor', robocic 'do enforced labor, be a slave to' (only parts of this root survive in USo: see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1228). There are four explanations for the use of Y arbet(n): (i) CS1 *orbiti 'to work' might have already been replaced in USo by current dzelac in that meaning (originally 'do, make') by RP1. (ii) Alternatively, if CS1 *orbiti was still in So at the time, then apparently metathesis could not block relexification to G Arbeit, arbeiten (on metathesis, see discussion in ttmelken). (iii) Semantic differences between USo and G licensed relexification. (iv) Uk robota has the unmarked meaning of 'work', which should have blocked G Arbeit f; this makes the KP lands a less likely venue for relexification. In some Y dials, He meläxäh 'work' > meloxe(s) f A'(handi)craft, trade, handwork; work' (for the last meaning, see Perferkoviö 1931) and pej YLmeloxenen ~ Ameloxeven 'to work' (also used in Rotw: see S. A. Wolf 1956, #3522, first attested in 1750). For other Germanisms with related meanings, see discussion in #beschaffen and #Werk. Other examples confirm that metathesis was too weak to block relexification, see e.g. G Mühle(n) 'mill' > Y mil(n) f, MHG mülncere 'miller' > Y milner(s) (~ ModG Müller [zero pi] m, which is unattested in Y; see also discussion of this root in chapter 4.5.2). The existence of a SI cognate with ml- (e.g. USo mlyn, Uk mlyn m 'mill') does not block relexification. G Wachs(e) η 'wax' > Y vaks m, despite cognate USo wosk, Uk visk m. Nevertheless, Y follows the SI gender assignment.

354

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

SI languages have applied metathesis to OHG zol 'toll' (> G Zoll[-"e] m), see e.g. USo, Pol clo, Cz clo n. Yet the G term appears in Y as col m, f-with m gender imitating German and f reflecting the underlying SI η gender. A later USo borrowing lacks the metathesis, e.g. col m. The Pol Germanism is first found in 1437. OHG zol m originally denoted specifically 'toll on bridges and harbors', in contrast to MHG müte, BavG maut f 'toll', AusG 'tip'. Since BavG, a potential lexifier of Y, has maut f, I assume that the absence of the latter in Y indicates the Germanism had entered the SI languages, see USo myto 'recompense, prize, reimbursement; wages', Uk myto η 'toll'. Wiesinger, in a detailed study of BavG maut f, suggests that the Bavarianism was brought by "Jewish traders" into WMG dials of Hesse (1986: 108) and implies it may be related to Rtw muess 'payment for milling' (1986: 111). Kluge 1899 derived the term from OHG (this is also the view of Vasmer 1955, 2), but more recent editions (e.g. Kluge 1969) describe the difficulty of finding a satisfactory etymon for BavG maut f, and, like Wiesinger several years later (1986: 125), also raise the possibility that BavG may have received the term indirectly from SI languages after 800. Within the framework of the relexification hypothesis, a Slavicism in G could still be a candidate for relexification, but not the reverse; hence, the blockage of the term in Y lends weight to a Germanic source for the Slavicism (assuming that relexifiers had knowledge of the etymology). On Y A moes pi (< He mä'öt) and its G slang correlates, e.g. Rtw mes, etc., see Herzog et al. (#208010) and Wexler (1988b: 100-102). The Y need for two terms matching the SI corpus (e.g. USo clo, myto n) and the blockage of BavG maut f could explain why Y recalibrated G Zins(en) 'rent; tribute' > cindz(n) m 'toll, tribute'. See also Y brikgelt, veggelt η 'toll' (lit. 'bridge money, road money'). See also discussion under Μ Erbe. 7. German: Artikel (zero pi) m 'object'; IJ'ware'; If'article (in print)'// alt, Arm, Einkauf, Handel, Ort, MHG traht > Yiddish: artikl(en) m. In order to match the SI practice of distinguishing the concepts of 'object, ware, printed article' by separate roots (USo artikl m, twora f, nastawk, Uk predmet, tovar m, stattja f, respectively), Y needed to relexify partially to L·xejfec (xfejcim) m 'article; ware', Asxojre(s) f 'ware' (see also #Einkauf, Handel [#Arm]) and majmer (majmorim) m A'article in print'. J. Mark recommends gender distinctions in Y artikl-m

Individual German morphemes

355

for 'written article', m or η for 'article of merchandise', etc. (1978: 130; on gender distinctions of G nouns, see discussion in Malt, #Ort, MHG fttraht). The original meaning of G Artikel m was 'article of law' (late 13th c); the meanings 'ware' arose in the 16th c and 'article in print' only in the 18th c. 8. German: Tfbedienen 'attend, wait on; tend', ^Bedienstete(η) m 'male servant', dienen 'serve', Diener (zero pi) m 'servant; bow, reverence', Dienerin(nen) f 'servant', verdienen 'earn; deserve', Dienst(e) m 'service; duty, situation, post' (< MHG dien[e]st m, η 'servant; service'), G %Dienstmagd(-"e) f 'maid servant', Verdienst(e) m 'earnings, salary' ~ η 'merit'// Gehilfe, Gehilfin, helfen > Yiddish: %badinen 'serve, wait on; service; tend', %badiner(s) m 'male servant', dinen 'serve; worship God, idol', *\°diner(s) m 'servant', fardinen 'earn, deserve, merit, be entitled to', dinst(n) ~ \ünstmojd(n) f 'maid servant' ~ dinst η 'service', fardinst(n) η 'earnings'. There are three interesting features to the Y paradigm: (i) Y Xdiner(s) m is not recommended (U. Weinreich 1968), (ii) G Dienerin f is blocked, and (iii) Y dinst is split into 'maid servant' f and 'service' n. Full relexification should have been possible since SI languages have a single root corresponding to G dien-, see e.g. USo siuzetc. Y dinst η could be a continuation of MHG dien(e)st m, n; the η gender of Y fardinst vs. G Verdienst m could be due to analogy with dinst n. On the surface, Y dinst f might be construed as a contraction of dinstmojd 'maid servant', but there is a more "SI" explanation as well: Uk sluzen 'ka f is the dim of both sluha 'servant' m, f and sluzba f 'service'. The inability of Y to find a Germanism that means both 'servant' and 'service' could have led to the gender bifurcation of dinst. MHG dien(e)st m, η 'servant; service' could also have provided a suitable input, if it had been available to Y, but no model for the Y gender bifurcation. The use of a formally f noun, Uk sluha, denoting both 'male' and 'female servant', has no precedent in G, hence Uk sluha was relexified > Y dinst f 'maid servant' only. (In theory, Y dinst might, alternatively, have once assumed the meaning of 'male servant'; is this no longer the case, due to ModG influence?) Y then filled the lacuna of 'male servant' by Amesores (mesorsim) m, which lacks a female counterpart in Y (but not in He). Y also has \badiner(s) 'male servant' which has neither a female counterpart nor exact surface congener in G; see instead G ^Bedienstete m. A semantically related term also lacking a f counterpart is Y gehilf(n) 'assistant' < G Gehilfe(n) m ~

356

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Gehilfin(nen) f < helfen 'to help'. See also Y gojlem A'servant; dummy' in Wexler (1991b: 45) and chapter 3.1. 9. German: (a) fbeherrschen 'rule over, dominate' MHG beherren ~ beherren), G %Beherrschung f 'mastery, control', Herr(en) m 'sir, master, lord, gentleman; Mr.', %Herrin(nen) 'mistress', Herrschaft f 'mastery, authority'; meine Herrschaften (with 'my') 'ladies and gentlemen', herrschen 'to rule', Herrscher (zero pi) m 'ruler, sovereign', Herzogf- "e) m 'duke', Herzoginnen) f 'duchess'/ (b) Frau(en) f 'woman; wife; Mrs.', frauenhaft ~fraulich 'womanly'// befreien, -er, Gewalt, König > Yiddish: (a) Xbahersn 'to rule, control, dominate', Xbahersung f 'restraint; mastery (of a skill)', her(n) 'gentleman', majn her 'sir; Mr. (title)', har(n) m 'lord, master', \harnte(s) f'mistress, owner', herser(s) m 'ruler, sovereign', hercog(n) m 'duke', hercogn(s) ~ hercogin'e(s) f 'duchess'; %°hersaft f 'reign, rule', Xhersn 'to rule'/ (b) froj(en) f 'woman; wife; M r s . \ f r o j i s 'women's, feminine'. Full relexification to (a) should have posed no problem, since the USo equivalents use a common root (with minor morphophonemic alternations): USo knjez m 'gentleman', knjezna f 'mistress', knjejstwo η 'reign, rule', knjezic 'to rule', knjezicel ~ knjezer m 'ruler, sovereign', wobknjezic 'rule over, dominate', wobknjezenje η 'mastery, control'. Nevertheless, Y shows only partial relexification: see hersaft f 'reign, rule', \°hersn 'to rule', \°bahersn 'to rule, control, dominate', Xbahersung f 'restraint; mastery (of a skill)' in U. Weinreich (1968). I could assume that USo had different (pre-Germanized) norms at the time of relexification, or that USo knjez, etc. was a poor semantic match for G Herr, etc. (see also ##König). G Herr has been borrowed twice, to judge from the double reflexes in Y (the variants with har- are older, with *er > ar, G TJHerrin dates from the 16th c). The partial productivity of these roots in Y may be due to the different derivatives in G and SI. For example, for 'ladies and gentlemen', USo requires a different root, e.g. cesceni pritomni (lit. 'distinguished [people] present'). Uk, quite unlike USo, uses different roots for the G variants and may reflect the original state of affairs in USo, see e.g. Uk pan m 'sir, master', pani f 'mistress, lady', panstvo η 'lordship; ladies and gentlemen', panuvaty 'to rule; prevail; lead a lordly life' but pravytel' m 'ruler', pravyty ~ upravljaty 'to rule' and volodity, rozporjadzatysja 'control', opanovuvaty, ovolodivaty, vyvcaty 'to master (a subject)'.

Individual German morphemes

357

The undesirable Y Germanism has a He synonym, see Amemsole(s) f 'reign, rule'; Y herser(s) 'ruler, sovereign' coexists with • mojsl (moslim) m 'ruler'; Y also has an innovative herseven 'rule cruelly, arbitrarily' which enjoys no SI precedent (on the pej use of m-eve-, see Wexler 1982b). G beherrschen 'rule over, dominate' is absent in Y since it dates only from the 15th c (see MHG beherren ~ beherren). Y thus uses (iber)herseven, geveltikn or Lbalebateven (also 'keep house, manage') from Abal(e)bos (balebatim) m 'proprietor, landlord, boss' (see -##er). Y also has recourse to odn (adojnim) A'Mr., sir', Aadojni 'sir' (term of address, mainly for non-Jews') < He 'adön m 'lord; God'. See also Y • reb, a traditional title affixed to a man's name, '(Jewish) Mister' ~ Lrebe(s ~ rabeim) 'Hasidic rabbi'; title used for addressing a rabbi, srore(s ~ srorim) m A'lord', Lsrore(s)te(s) 'lady' < He sräräh f 'rule; ruler'. Y hercogn(s) coexists with a variant that uses a SI f suffix, e.g. mhercogin 'e(s) f (on the latter, see also #befreien and ##König). See also discussion in #Gewalt. 10. German: ^bekleiden 'clothe, dress; deck (altar); cover, line, coat; invest (a person)', ^Bekleidung(en) f 'clothing, clothes; covering, coating; investiture', Kleid(er) η 'garment, dress', kleiden 'clothe, dress', Kleidung f 'clothes, clothing, dress, apparel', verkleiden 'to coat, case; mask, disguise', |Verkleidung(en) f 'lining, casing, coating; disguise'// Gewcmd, MHG traht, G verstellen, Verstellung > Yiddish: \baklejdn, klejdn 'clothe', klejd(er) η 'dress, gown'; pi 'clothes', klejdung f 'apparel, clothing, garb', Yfarklejdn 'to disguise', Xfarklejdung(en) f'disguise'. G influence accounts for the USo practice of expressing 'dress' and 'disguise' by a common root (USo sat m 'dress, garment', [zjdrascic 'to dress', drasta f 'clothing, clothes', zadrascic 'to disguise', zadrascenje η 'disguise'-with USo za- assuming the function of G ver-). Uk has different roots for 'dress, garment' and 'clothes', see e.g. Uk suknja f, plattja η vs. odjah m, respectively and partly for 'disguise', see robyty nevpiznannym, pryxovuvaty, but alsopereodjahatysja (lit. 'across' + 'dress') 'to disguise', maskuvannja n, obludna zovnisnist' f 'disguise'. Y maintains a distinction between 'clothes' and 'disguise' and acquires A_halbose(s) for 'clothing' (alongside klejdung f); thus, I can assume the present-day USo and Uk practice of using a common root for the two meanings had not yet developed by the time of relexification. Though it seems possible to motivate early acquisition of Lmalbes and • levus m via relexification,

358 Evidence for two-tiered relexification the optional η gender (< He m; He lacks n) points to post-relexification interference from G Kleid η. The Uk distinction between odjah m 'garb, clothing; dress (item of woman's clothing)' and odezyna f 'item of clothing' appears to be the catalyst for borrowing Lmalbes (malbusim) m, η 'garment, piece of clothing', pi 'clothes', • levusfn) m, η 'garb' (< a common He root) and • beged (begodim) m, η 'garment, article of clothing'. See also synonymous #Gewand and MHG tttraht. Y lacks G ^verkleiden 'to disguise' and \Verkleidung(en) f 'disguise', using instead another Germanism, farsteln, farstelung(en) f < G verstellen 'displace; disguise', IfVerstellung f 'removal; disguise; shifting'. The absence of a Hebraism for the latter suggests acquisition during RP1; Uk could have provided a precedent for relexification to G ^verkleiden, f Verkleidung in its pereodjahatysja 'to disguise' < odjah m 'garb'. After the first relexification, USo must have formed zadrascic on the model of G verkleiden. It is noteworthy that Y \baklejdn means only 'clothe' (~Lmalbes zajn) but does not denote the other (MHG) meanings, 'deck (altar), cover, line, coat; invest (a person)'. U. Weinreich (1968) fails to cite *baklejdung, a neologism in G. The disuse of a prefix in Uk, see odjahaty, apparently offers no blockage. See also discussion of He jkqlippäh and Lhalixäh f 'clothing' in Wexler (1993c: 96-97) and the connection with Y Ltaslex, discussed in the next entry. 11. German: (a) Beutel (zero pi) m 'bag, purse, pouch'/ (b) Sack(-"e) m 'sack, bag; pocket'/ (c) Tasche (η) f'pouch, pocketbook, (hand)bag, wallet; pocket' > Yiddish: (a) bajtl(en) m ~ (-ex) η 'purse, wallet, pouch'/ (b) zak (zek) m 'bag, sack'/ (c) tas(n) f, m 'bag, pocketbook'. The variety of SI terms (see e.g. Uk misok m, sumka f 'bag', hamanfec 'J m 'purse', torba 'bag; wallet', torbynka f 'pouch', misecok, kyset m, sumka f 'pouch') licenses relexification to a variety of Germanisms. The m gender of (c) tas(n) may be based on Uk bumaznyk m 'pocket book'. WPol, Hg, Transcarpathian UkY and scattered points to the east (see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #103S) can also use tas(n) in the meaning of pocket. Note also Y Ataslex m 'a rite performed on the Jewish New Year, in which men gather at a stream and shake out their pockets over the water as a symbol of washing away their sins' (on the non-Jewish origins of this custom, see Wexler 1993c: 169-171; for Tasche f 'pocket' in WY 1290,

Individual German morphemes

359

see Timm 1977). The term Ataslex is now interpreted as He tasllx 'you will cast', the first word of the prayer recited at the water during the perfomance of the G pagan rite, but I suspect that this is a later interpretation from an age of intensive Judaization of non-Jewish customs and/or the obsolescence of G Tasche f 'pocket' in Y. (See also the connection of He •qllppäh and Lhalixäh f 'clothing' with Y ktaslex in Wexler 1993c: 96-97; Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #103 draws the opposite conclusion, i.e. that a He term 'you will cast' was reinterpreted as 'pockets', thus creating the variant teslex, homonymous with WPol, W Transcarpathian Y tas[teslex] 'pocket'.) Another possible example of Y tas(n) in the meaning 'pocket' may be Y L!mhomentas(n) (~ rare BrY A/mhomntesn [pl]-see Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #32) m 'triangular Purim pastry filled with poppy seeds and honey or plum preserves'. On the interpretation of Ahomen as BibHe hämän, the biblical figure who plotted to exterminate the Jews of Iran, see Wexler (1987a: 204-205, 1993c: 143144). Harkavy (1928) also cites A/mhomente f as a name for the pastry; Uk haman m 'pocketbook' may also be the etymon, unless it is itself from the name of the biblical figure-though in a non-Yiddish pronunciation. To avoid the ambiguity of G Tasche(n), which lacked a parallel in USo (the latter had separate words for 'pocket[book], and 'bag, sack', see e.g. USo toboia; tosa f 'bag', zak m < G Tasche f, Sack m, USo kapsa 'pocket' < G < Lat, mosnja 'pocketbook'), Y may have had recourse to mkesene(s) 'pocket', possibly < Uk kysenja ~ kesenja, Br kisen' ~ kesen \ Pol kieszen f. However, Y may not have acquired mkesene f from SI, since Uk kysenja f and variants are not attested before the 17th c (Dzendzelivs'kyj 1969: 73). Vasmer notes that related kyska 'guts, intestines' has cognates in other SI languages, as far W as Polab, but he declines to suggest an etymon (1953, 1; see also Y mkiskefsj f 'guts, intestine; stuffed derma'). Zeiden has suggested a Tc etymology for Y mkesene f (also attested in identical form in Trakai Karaite, kesene, thus resembling Y rather than Pol), but does not specify how and when the putative Turkicism could have gotten into so many SI languages (he cites only the ESI languages, Pol and dial Slovak: 1998: 84-85). If Y mkesene f proves to be older than the earliest SI attestations, then Zeiden's assumption of a direct borrowing from Tc (Khazar?) is plausible (see opposition to a Tc etymon in Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1989, 5: 46-47). Y mkesene f offers a parallel to Y sabas m 'small coin' < Iran, which also surfaces in SI languages, but often in a truncated form and with different meanings (see details in Wexler 1987a: 64-69, 1993c: 108-110 and chapter 4.7).

360

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

12. German: (a) bezaubern 'bewitch, charm, enchant', \Bezauberung f 'enchantment', Zauber (zero pi) 'magic, charm', Zauberer (zero pi) m ~ Zauberin(nen) f 'magician, sorcerer', zaubern 'do by magic, charm'/ (b) \Hexer ~ fHexenmeister (zero pi) m ~ Hexe(n) f 'witch', \hexen 'practice witchcraft'// Betrug. Yiddish: (a) is not recommended for Y (U. Weinreich 1968: If*cojber 'magic') and (b) is unattested altogether. See instead Y • kisef (kisufim) m 'spell, enchantment; magic', ton! maxn Akisef ~ Lkisefh 'to do/ make witchcraft', • kisef-maxer(s) ~ Lmexasef (mexasfim) m 'magician, sorcerer', Amaxsejfe(s) f 'witch, sorceress' (vs. OHe mexasefäh, mexasefet\ the change of He mexa- > Y max- may have been caused by SI translation equivalents which are often trisyllabic and have a CVC(C)V-structure, see e.g. Uk caklunka, vorozka, vid'ma, znaxarka, carivnycja, USo kuzlarka, cinkarka, kuzlarnca, chodojta f). Y also retains a Slavicism with a related meaning, see e.g. mkundes ~ mkundas (kundejsim) m, mkundejske ~ mkundacke f 'prankster, brat'. Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 742) proposes that USo kuzt(ow)ac, kuzlic 'do by magic', kuzio ~ kozto η 'magic', kuzlar(nik) m 'magician' are historically related to USo kowac 'to forge; shoe horses' (see also Uk kuznja ~ koval'nja f 'forge', kuvaty 'to forge', koval'm 'blacksmith'). Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 741-742) also regards as cognates OR kudest 'sorcery, fortune telling', R kudesnik m 'soothsayer, magician, sorcerer, prankster, joker, idler, person who does something well', kudesa ~ kudesy pit 'festive merrymaking; yule tide', kudesit' 'practice witchcraft, guess, tell fortunes; jest, loaf and R cudo η 'wonder' (see also Vasmer 1953, 1; Bernstejn 1974: 153; Filin 1980: 16); there are cognates in Br, Slovak and SSI (Trubaöev 1987, 13: 81-83; Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1989, 5: 145, 159-160). M. Weinreich derived the Y terms from Pol kundys kundel m) 'mongrel, cur' (1973, 1: 314), which is unconvincing on semantic grounds. Y may have retained the Slavicism as a culturemarked item not smoothly relexifiable to G. The association of 'magic' and 'forge' might explain why Y also retains the Slavicisms mkuzn 'e(s) f 'forge', m(ojs)koven 'to forge' and mkovel'(es) m 'blacksmith' (alongside [ojsjsmidn 'to forge', smidfn] m 'blacksmith' < G; see also chapter 4.6). According to Kluge (1899), G Zauber originally meant 'secret, magic (runic) writing'; if so, then the Germanism was inappropriate as a relexification for a So root that did not refer uniquely to writing.

Individual German morphemes

361

Uncertainty about the etymon of Y mkundes m, etc. has led to its categorization as a "Hebraism", thus requiring etymological spelling, see /kwnds/ rather than phonetic /kwndys/ and • -im pi (see also ttBetrug). The Y term has the SI colloquial nasal infix that I noted in chapter 3.1. If this root is related to Smolensk, Novgorod R kundosit'sja 'be occupied with somebody or something for a long time', kundjuby pit 'dainty, sweet food; flippant conversation, jokes', (Don, Tula) kunezit 'sja, kunizit'sja, kumezit'sja 'be obstinate, persist; be hard to please; be capricious, naughty' (Smolensk, Voronez), then the insertion of -n- in this root is attested far beyond Y (see Filin 1980, 16). 13. German: Boden (Böden) 'ground; soil; bottom; floor' (< MHG bodem ~ boden), Dachboden m 'loft'// alt, Berg, Brücke, Diele, Erde, (Greisen)alter > Yiddish: bodn(s) 'ground; soil' vs. bodem(s) 'bottom' vs. bojdem(s ~ bejdemer) m 'loft'. MHG bodem, boden m > G Boden in four distinct meanings. Since USo uses separate morphemes (USo poda, zemja f 'earth, ground'/ dno η 'bottom'/ spundowanje n,podloha 'floor'/ lubja f 'loft'), I would expect to find separate denotations in Υ. Y presents a mixed picture: three reflexes of two MHG variants, Slavicisms and a loan translation of a SI pattern of discourse. Such a variety suggests Y lexifiers may have disagreed about the appropriateness of relexifying to the Germanisms, or else the data reflect changing norms (and acquisitions) through time. Y bodn(s) 'ground, soil' and bodem(s) m 'bottom' match all the meanings of the G variants except 'floor', while Y bojdem(s ~ bejdemer) m 'loft' has an innovative Y meaning. For the latter, Y also uses a Germanism, in imitation of KP patterns of discourse, e.g. Y barg (berg) m, f 'mountain' (< #Berg[e] m 'mountain') acquires the additional meaning of Moft', in imitation of Uk horysce η (< hora f 'mountain; top'), Br hara f 'mountain; loft' (see Skljar 1933: 66). For 'loft', G has Dachboden m (lit. 'roof + 'floor'). The Y treatment of MHG bodem ~ boden m resembles the gender bifurcation of G Alter η 'age; old age' > Y elter m 'age' vs. elter f 'old age'. In Halt, I suggested that the use of different roots in SI to denote 'age' and 'old age' (see USo leta plt-n 'age' vs. staroba f ~ starcowstwo η 'old age') called for two different G roots. In the absence of two such roots (see G Alter 'age; old age' or the unambiguous ^fGreisenalter m 'old age'), Y lexifiers accepted G Alter in two genders, each with a distinct meaning.

362

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

In addition to MHG boden ~ bodem m, Y has an additional Germanism and SI terms and patterns of discourse for 'floor, bottom'. The terms are Y mpadloge(s) ~ mpodleke(s) ~ mpodloge(s) f 'floor' < ESI and Pol cognates of USopodloha f 'floor', and Y mdno(en) m 'bottom' < Uk dno η 'bottom, ground' (Y mdno lacks the expected f gender < SI η since the final vowel is stressed and cannot > e). BrY brik(n) 'floor' < G Brückefn) f 'bridge', copying Br most m 'bridge; floor' (all dials of Y preserve the G meaning of 'bridge' < G Brücke[n] f: Skljar 1933: 66; see also the parallel Uk mist m 'bridge' ~ mostyna f 'floor board', mosty suruvaty 'scrub wooden floors'). Y may also have a blend of Uk and G in Y mdil m, f < Uk dil m 'bottom, valley' + G Diele(n) f 'floor'. A blend would account for the m and f gender options in Y. The problem with assuming a sole G etymon for Y mdil m, f is that G Diele f is found primarily in the NW and SWG dials, and not universally in those regions; it is also attested in Thuringia (Kretschmer 1969: 174-175). Since these are probably not the G lexifier dial(s) of Υ, I have to presume that Y mdil was a substratal Ukrainianism, perhaps later blended with G Diele f (see also the discussion of Y lejdik, ler and NG dialectalisms below). RP2 enabled Y to approach the SI configuration of different roots rather than use different forms of a single root. Conceivably the use of many terms for 'floor' in Y may have little to do with relexification, but is rather an attempt to denote different types of flooring (note that Hg also has a number of reflexes of SI 'floor', e.g. Hg pad, padlas, palΙό: Leschka 1825; Kniesza 1955 puts the first attestation in the 15th c). See also discussion of ##Erde 'earth, ground'. 14. German: ein(s) 'one', Eins 'the number one; ace', Einheit 'unity', Einigkeit f 'unity', einzeln 'single, separate, individual', im einzelnen 'in detail', UEinzelheit(en) f 'detail', einzig 'only, single', vereinigen 'unite, join, combine'// Abfahrt, (aus)führen, ausführlich, Ausführlichkeit, MHG merklich, mit ganzen Worten, G Abfahrt > Yiddish: ejn(s) 'one', ejns m, f 'the number one'; m 'item, unit, entry', ejncik 'single, individual, unique', ejnikejt f 'unity', farejnikn 'unify'. Y lacks the G meaning of 'detail' since USo optionally uses two different roots, see e.g. USo jednotliwy 'single, separate', jednotliwosc, drobnosc f 'detail'. Thus, Y has recourse to Apr at (protim) m 'detail; regard, aspect', Abifrojtret ~ Lprotimdik 'detailed, circumstantial'. G TfEinzelheit f is a coinage of the 17th c, but Y could have blocked a different Germanism, say ^fausführlich 'detailed, full', ^Ausführlichkeit f

Individual German morphemes

363

'fullness, minuteness' < ausführen 'make, perform, accomplish, realize' (Y ojsfirn means only 'execute, accomplish; win out', while ojsfirlex means 'feasible, workable' but not ^'detailed') or MHG merklich, mit ganzen worten, etc. On führen, see also discussion in #Abfahrt. 15. German: (a) entgegen 'against, opposed to, contrary to', gegen 'against, towards'/ (b) wider 'against', erwidern 'answer', ^widerlich repugnant, loathsome'/ (c) wieder 'again'// Antwort > Yiddish: (a) antkegn 'opposite, in return, against', kegn 'against', kejn 'to, bound for'/ (b) ^dervider(dik) 'distasteful, repugnant'/ (c) vider 'again; on the other hand'. Given the existence of related USo napreco and preciwo, Y could relexify to both (a) G entgegen and gegen. The blockage of (b) G wider 'against' is due to the fact that USo preciwo corresponds to both G gegen and wider. In MHG, G wider and wieder were both spelled identically as wider. Y \dervider(dik) must be new since the Germanism is only attested for the first time in the 16th c (Drosdowski 1989). (c) G wieder 'again', though related to wider, is available as Y vider 'again; on the other hand', because USo expresses the latter by a different root, zaso. On the use of (b) Y vider- as a prefix, see discussion of G erwidern in #Antwort. 16. German: -er (zero pi) ag (< MHG -cer ~ -er m), G -erin(nen) f ag (e.g. #Lehre f 'teaching'/ Lehrer [zero pi] m, Lehrerin[nen] f 'teacher', Näherin f 'seamstress')// Almosen, Angeklagte, Angesicht, Antwort, Aufseher, bedienen, begraben, beraten, bewahren, Büsser, dicht, Dicker, Eigentümerin), Empfänger, entlehnen, Erfinder, Eroberer, Förderer, (Geld)verleiher, Gewinner, Gönner, Grammatiker, Gurgel, Handwerker, Jubilar, Krüppel, Kutscher, Lebewesen, MHG lesen, G Leser, pflegen, Pfleger, Prediger, Rat(geber), schade, Schädling, Schlacht, Schuldige, Schuldner, Schwärmer, Sieger, Stolze(r), Sünder, sündig, Tier, Verantwortliche, Verbrecher, Verschwender, MHG warter, G Wärter, Werk, Wirt(in), Wohltäter, Wucherer, Wundertäter > Yiddish: -er m ag, -ern —or(i)n f ag (e.g. lere f 'teaching, doctrine'/ lerer[s] m, lererke[s] 'teacher', nejtorin (~ nejtorke with m-ke f ag) 'seamstress', gastgebernfs] f'hostess'). It is difficult to determine the origin of ag -er in Y, since G -er < MHG -cer —er < Lat -arius (expressing, inter alia, a m ag function) is also found in CS1 *-arb (> USo -ar, -er, etc., Uk ~[j]ar), due to Go inter-

364

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

ference. The suffix is more productive in W than ESI languages, especially in Polab, the two So languages, followed by Cz, Sin and SC; the suffix is more productive in Uk than in R, especially in the NWUk dials (Bieder 1980: 23; Η. Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 265; for Br details, see Vjarxow 1970). SI languages often accept Germanisms with G -er, though chronological and geographic considerations affect the shape of the G suffix in the SI target languages. For example, the G suffix surfaces in Pol Germanisms variously as -arz, -(i)erz, -yrz, -rz, -ar, -(i)er, -yr, -or, -r, -a, -ra, -ro, and even as zero (see details in Kaestner 1939: 116-117). Hence, Y (m)-er could theoretically be of both G and immediate SI origin. The relative unproductivity of G -erin(nen) f ag and its pluralization with • / • -s in Y suggests that the distribution of the suffix follows SI more closely than G; Y m-ke(s) < SI added to (m)-er m ag is the most productive f ag suffix, see Y lererke 'teacher', nejtorke f 'seamstress'. Both G and Y have -in to mark f gender, independent of (m)-er m ag, see G König(e), Y kin ig m 'king', G Königinnen), Y kinigin f 'queen'. I suspect that Y productively acquired G -er in an ag function after relexification, since there is no sign in Y of the lowering of /e/ before /r, x/ > /a/ (a rule that does not affect non-G components in Y, and hence was probably received from the G lexifier dial of Y); the existence of -ar in some SI languages (e.g. Uk, Br) has not influenced the form of the ag suffix in Y (see also discussion of Y mpastex/ mpastuske in chapter 4.3). Still, it is always possible that Y modernized an earlier *(m)-ar > (m)-er. The evidence given below suggests that Y speakers utilized the suffix limitedly (in comparison to G), in accordance with the tendency to block morphemes shared by SI and G-this in spite of the particular productivity of the CS1 suffix in WS1 and Uk. The relative chronology of Y ( m ) - e r , in its varied functions, deserves a separate study. Y (m)-er should be studied in comparison with other means of marking ag: (i) Where SI languages use G -er ag (e.g. Pol -arz), Y speakers often prefer a different SI ag suffix, e.g. m-nik, see e.g. Pol nudziarz 'bore, pest' vs. Y mnudnik(es) m; there are no SI languages which create an ag noun from the root 'bore, be a pest' with m-nik (see details in Wexler 1987a: 174-175). Nevertheless, there is also evidence that Y (m)-er enjoys a certain productivity in a non-ag function, following SI -nik > Uk -nyk nonag, e.g. Y bencer(s) m 'prayer book' ~ Uk molytovnyk, trebnyk, Pol modlitewnik 'prayer book', USo wosadnik m (also 'parishioner'). The syllable -nek (which is not a morpheme) in at least one He noun was reinterpreted as the SI ag suffix, which suggests that a SI ag suffix other

Individual German morphemes

365

than (m)-er was productive. From Y mefunek (mefunokim) A'fastidious person, epicure' (< He m 'spoiled person'), a corrresponding f gender was created by means of the SI -nica f ag, see Y A/ mmefunice(s) f (~ Uk -nykJ -nycja, as in the pair robitnyk m/ robitnycja f 'worker'). The leftwardmoving morpheme boundary that created the new morphemes Y mefuA/fastidious' + -nek m ag (He mefönäq is morphemically f-n-q 'spoiled' and me-ü-ä-, the passive template) > kjmmefunice (instead of the anticipated He mefüneqet f; there is no noun 'fastidious person' in Uk). On Y -nik m, -nice f, see Schaechter (1986: 225-228). Rarely, Y uses two ag markers, e.g. both bal-...-nik, as in Y kjbal-takse(-nik) ~ taksenik(es) m 'person who had the right to collect the tax on kosher meat in Czarist Russia' (< R taksa f 'tariff), or both a He part, and -nik, as in jLmojxersforim(-nik)(es) m 'bookseller' (see also J. Mark 1958: 128-133). (ii) Just as Y (m)-er may have a dual Slavo-G origin, Y has developed a productive m ag A fu-en which appears to have its roots jointly in He -än of similar function and USo -nje, the verbal noun suffix (see USo rezanje η 'cutting' and discussion in Wexler 1991b: 80-82, 1992: 60). He verbal elements which are not conjugated periphrastically in Y first require the affix A/»-en to produce an underlying ag noun (which may or may not actually exist in Y), before the homophonous G inf -en can be attached, see e.g. He kätav 'he wrote' > Y *kasfen 'writer' (< BibHe katvän 'writer' > pre-ModHe A'scribe', ModHe A 'typist'; see also Mishnaic He kötvän m 'scribe') > Akasfenen 'write' (hum) vs. He gänav 'he stole' > Y Lganef> *ganvan m 'thief > Aganvenen 'steal'. The use of AIm-en(-) is particularly productive in the Y spoken in SI areas, and can even spread to some non-He stems (regarded as Hebraisms?), see e.g. ES1Y lejenen (since the 16th c) vs. WY lejen 'to read' < Rom (see MHG Mlesen, item #20 below and Wexler 1992: 59-61). Ashkenazic whole He has more ag nouns in He -än than the written whole He of non-Y-speaking communities, see e.g. Y JJcabren (kabronim) vs. JSp Lkabar m 'gravedigger' (see #begraben). (JSp Akabar is based on the He/Ar ag template OaC2C2äC3, but there is no parallel *qabbär in Ar q-b-r\ see Ar hajfär 'gravedigger', which would have been possible in He, which has a cognate root.) YHe Lbjt hsfn /besesaxtn/ 'butchershop' (bar-Mose 1470, lit. 'house of the Jewish ritual animal slaughterer') < He sähat 'he slaughtered (animal)' + -än, lacks a counterpart in contemporary Y, which has Asojxet < He söhef 'Jewish ritual animal slaughterer' (lit. 'slaughtering, he slaughters'; see also MGurgeT) instead of Asextn m.

366

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(iii) Y, in marked contrast to other Judaized languages, has created a considerable number of compound ag nouns with Abal- (bale- pi) 'owner; husband' + a He or JAram noun (with occasional use of m-nik)·, many of these Y Hebroid innovations > normative ModHe. In He, pi number is only marked on the first component of the construction; Y can follow suit or mark number on both He components. A third type of pluralization involves A/m-es, if m-nik is tautologously added. In the following patterns, X = a He root used in Y: singular

plural

(a) Y • bal-X

> A bale-X (= He pi strategy)

(b) Y A bal-X

> Ata/e-X-plural (with tautologous He expression of the pi)

(c) Y A/mbal-X-nik > A /ubal-X-nik-es (with m-nik + Y A/m-es pi) I do not know whether the choice of pi strategy with Y A y constructions can be correlated with chronology or different SI substrata. Often the G translation equivalents use -er m ag (and -erin f ag); Uk may or may not counter with an ag noun in -(j)ar or -nyk m. On Abal- and other He compound constructions in Y, see Jacobs (1991: 316, 320). Might the choice of He Abal- for new ags be influenced by similarsounding Uk baluvatysja 'be occupied with'? Obviously, G or SI would favor pluralization by type (c). Y also differs from He in the expression of the corresponding f ag, by rejecting He ba 'alat- (ba 'aläh 'mistress, proprietress' is attested only once in the Bible), e.g. He ba'alat-bäjit (ba'alöt-bäjit f pi) 'proprietress'; Y forms the f ag by attaching the f (non-ag) suffix A-te(s) < JAram -tä' f to the m sg, as in Abal-(e)boste (bal-[e]bostes f pi; see example 10 in the list below). The JAram suffix mirrors the SI practice of distinguishing between m and f ags, often by using separate suffixes, e.g. Uk -nyk m ag/ -nycja f ag, and may owe its selection to the fact that many SI f suffixes end in consonant + a. Y A-te also enjoys limited productivity with non-ag Y Hebraisms, see e.g. Y Axaver (xavejrim) m 'friend, comrade'/ Axaverte(s) f '(girl)friend' (vs. He häver m/ haveräh f). In SI languages, -a is a productive marker of nominative sg f nouns, but not of ags (see USoprecel m/ -ka f, UkpryjateV ml -ka f 'friend').

Individual German morphemes

367

Sometimes, Y retains the He definite article Α ha-, in the form A-e-t which is placed between the two nouns in definite noun phrases, e.g. He ba'al ha-bäjit (lit. ' o w n e r ' + ' t h e ' + ' h o u s e ' ) > Y A b a l - ( e ) b o s

{bal-[e]bat-

im) m 'proprietor'. The optional use of the He definite marker (which has no grammatical functions in Y) in some ag compounds is probably due to the fact that Uk, like pre-Germanized USo, lacks lexical expression of definiteness (on the topic of definiteness, see also chapter 1). The Uk equivalents have a variety of ag suffixes, and a larger inventory of f ags than Y. On occasion, Y has two forms of a single He root, with and without A bal-, see e.g. Y Abal-hazgoxe (lit. 'owner' + 'supervision') ~ Amazgieχ m 'supervisor'. It is possible that variants were acquired in different historical periods, and/or during and after relexification. I assume that Y A/>a/-forms fall into RP2 since most of them match ag nouns in Uk but not always in USo; the extreme Germanization of So may account for the imbalance. In the majority of compounds, the meaning of ag is expressed exclusively by A bal-, in a few cases, see e.g. Y A_{bal)-darsn 'preacher', Abal-jojec 'adviser', Abal-kojre 'reader of the Torah in the synagogue', the second component also expresses an ag noun, e.g. a He noun with A-än m ag or present participle. A study of the inventory, distribution and relative chronology of ag suffixes in Y and Ashkenazic He is called for. For example, it appears that Ashkenazic He ga 'avian < Y Agajfsn 'haughty person' is older than synonymous Ashkenazic He ba'alga 'aväh < Y Abal-gajve(nik). A cross-linguistic study is especially called for, since ba '«/-compounds also surface in other Jewish languages. The few innovative ba '«/-compounds in Karaite He do not appear to be motivated by SI ags, see e.g. KarHe Aba'al-qeren 'boss' (1840, lit. 'owner of the funds': Miller 1993: 147) or Aba'al sarvit m 'conductor' (lit. 'owner of the baton'). A few Y ΑόαΖ-compounds are also found in other Jewish languages or their He recensions, see e.g. Aba'al-habait 'proprietor' surfaces in a late 12th-c He text, possibly composed in Baghdad (British Library MS Or. 73, fol. 79v, reproduced in Beit-Arie 1993: 40); either this is an innovation based on Ar §ähib al-mahall (lit. 'owner' + 'the place') and is independent of the Y surface congener, or both JAr and Y are continuing OHe ba 'al-habait. Y Hebroid compounds formed from Y Abal-(bale-) m, f are listed below with their Uk and G ag equivalents. I will not cite the pi in compounds which form the pi in the normative He manner (see [a] A baleX above). To save space, I ignore most USo counterparts. It is significant that most of the G translation equivalents of Y A /»«/-constructions are lacking in Y, which strongly suggests that the He/ Hebroid constructions

368

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

were largely coined to replace Germanisms blocked in relexification. In one example, bal- is introduced through folk etymology, see e.g. Y Abalemer(s) (and variants in Stuökov 1950, #124; Wexler 1991b: 113, fn 110; Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #114) 'synagogue pulpit from which the Torah is read' < Ar 'alminbar, acquired directly from Ar-speaking Jews (or their texts-see discussion of He ba'al-habait 'proprietor' above), or indirectly via a Khazar intermediary. All examples are m unless otherwise stated: 1. Y äJbal-agole(s) '(wagon) driver, coachman' (lit. 'owner' + 'wagon') ~ Uk kucer (see USo pohonc) < G ^fKutscher (> Y kucerfs]). 2. Y Abal-avejre (bale-avejres) 'sinner' (lit. 'owner' + 'sin') ~ Uk hrisnyk ~ G Sünder (see G sündig > Y zindik 'sinful' > zindiker[s] 'sinner', formed from the adj ~ Uk hrix m 'sin' > hrisnyj 'sinful' > hrisnyk 'sinner'). 3. Y kbal-avle(s) 'wrongdoer' (lit. 'owner' + 'injustice') ~ Uk kryvdnyk~ G Schädling (see also #schade). 4. Y kjbal-axrajes 'responsible person' (lit. 'owner' + 'responsibility') ~ Uk vidpovidal'nyk ~ G ^ Verantwortliche (see also ttAntwort). 5. Y Abal-axsanje 'innkeeper' (lit. 'owner' + 'inn') ~ Ukxazjajin (with a singulative suffix ~ G Wirt. See also Y ukrecmer(s) < SI (also > dial G). 6. Y bal-cuve ~ bal-cuvenik(es) A'penitent' (lit· 'owner' + 'answer; penance') ~ Uk hrisnyk m, sco rozkajujet'sja (lit. 'sinner who repents') ~ G ^Büsser. 7. Y A(bal)-darsn ([balj-darsonim ~ bal-darsns) ~ bal-darser (baledarsers: this is a rare form from NUkY 1816, see M. L. Wolf 1976: 45) A'tedious orator; (Jewish) preacher' (lit. 'owner' + 'preacher') ~ Uk propovidnyk ~ G Prediger 'preacher'. Y also uses another Hebraism, Lmaged (magidim) m < He 'teller; telling'. 8. Y Abal-dikdek '(Hebrew) grammarian' (lit. 'owner' + 'grammar') ~ Uk hramatyk ~ G UGrammatiker (> Y gramatiker[s]).

Individual German morphemes

369

9. Y jLbal-dover 'person in question; culprit' (lit. 'owner' + 'thing') ~ Uk zlocynec', vynuvatec' ~ G Verbrecher, Schuldige 'culprit' (> Y suldiker; see ftpflegen), \der Angeklagte. 10. Y bal-(e)bos (bal-fejbatim) 'proprietor, owner; Aliost; Aboss; Ajandlord' (lit. 'owner' + 'house') ~ Uk vlasnyk ~ volodar, pidpryjemec', hospodar, pomiscyk, xazjajin ~ G ^Eigentümer, Wirt, See also Y °bazicer(s), farmoger(s) 'owner', gastgeber(s) ~ gastgebern(s) [-ern] f 'host(ess)' < G and Amaxnes-ojrex (-orxim) ~ Amaxnes-ojrexte(s) f 'host(ess)'. JAram • -tä' is added to the second component, 'guest', following SI morphology vs. He -at f on ba 'al- (see above and next entry). The optional L-e- in Y bal-(e)bos(te), like He -e that marks the plural, is reflected in spelling. 11. Y bal-(e)boste(s) 'proprietress, owner'; A'host; boss; landlady' ~ Uk xazjajka, hospodynja, pidpryjemnycja ~ G ^Eigentümerin, Wirtin f. See also remarks under bal(e)bos above. 12. Y Lbal-gajve (bale-gajves) ~ bal-gajvenik(es) (lit. 'owner' + 'pride') 'haughty person' ~ Uk hordij (< hordyj 'proud, haughty') ~ G der Stolze (ein Stolzer). 13. Y Jkbal-guf (balegufim) 'corpulent man; kulak' (lit. 'owner' + 'body') ~ Uk tovstjuk ~ G Dicker (Micht). 14. Y Lbal-halvoe (bale-halvoes) '(money) lender' (lit. 'owner' + 'loan') ~ Uk lyxvar ~ G Verleiher ßentlehnen); see also Y Amalve (malvim). 15. Y Lbal-hamcoe (bale-hamcoes) 'ingenious person' (lit. 'owner' + 'invention') ~ Uk vynaxidnyk ~ G ^Erfinder 'inventor'. Kna'ani 1960-80 cites only ModHe bal-hamcaot (the second component is pi) 'inventor' with no attestation, which is probably a derivative of the Y Hebroidism. 16. Y JLbal-hazgoxe 'supervisor' (lit. 'owner' + 'supervision') ~ Uk dohljadac ~ G Aufseher, Pfleger, ^Wärter (~ MHG warter: #bewahren)\ see also Y Amazgiex (mazgixim), Lmemune (memunim) 'person in charge' ~ ojfzeer(s), ojshalter(s). 17. Y Abal-hecoe (bale-hecoes) 'spendthrift, spender' (lit. 'owner' + 'expenditure') ~ Uk marnotratnyk ~ marnotrav(ec') ~ G ^f Verschwender.

370

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

See also Y ojsbrenger(s) 'spendthrift' < G components but unattested in G. 18. Y jLbal-jojec (bale-jojecim) 'adviser' (lit. 'owner' + 'adviser') ~ Uk radnyk ~ G Rat(geber) (ftberaten); see also Y A ejce-geber(s) (lit. 'advice' < He + 'giver' < G, with G component order). 19. Y Abal-jojvl 'person whose anniversary is being celebrated' (lit. 'owner' + 'jubilee') ~ Br jubiljar (> Y jubil'arfnj) ~ G \Jubilar. 20. Y Abal-kojre(s) ~ Lbal-krie 'reader of the Torah in the synagogue' (lit. 'owner' + 'reader'/ 'reading') ~ Uk cytac 'reader' ~ G Leser (see Y lejerten 'read', lejener[s] 'reader' < Rom: see Wexler 1992: 59-61 and MHG mieseri). 21. Y Lbal-maskn (bale-maskones) 'pawnbroker' (lit. 'owner' + 'mortgage') ~ Uk lyxvar ~ G Wucherer. 22. Y Lbal-meloxe(s) 'craftsman, artisan' (lit. 'owner' + 'work') ~ Uk remisnyk ~ G Handwerker (> Y hantverkerfsj; see also #Werk). 23. Y Abal-mojfes (bale-mofsim), bal-sem 'miracle worker' (lit. 'owner' + 'miracle'/ 'name') ~ Uk cudotvor(ec') ~ G ^Wundertäter. 24. Y Lbal-nicoxn (bale-nicxojnes) 'victor, conqueror' (lit. 'owner' + 'victory') ~ Uk peremozec', zavojovnyk ~ G UBesieger, ^Eroberer; see also Y mfarxaper(s) < SI ~ ajnnemer(s), geviner(s) < G (vs. G Gewinner 'winner'). 25. Y Lbal-simxe (bale-simxes) 'person being honored at, or sponsoring, a celebration' (lit. 'owner' + 'joy; celebration') ~ Ukporucytel' 'sponsor', oderzuvac 'receiver' ~ G Gönner, Förderer, etc. 'sponsor', Empfänger 'receiver'. 26. Y Abal-tojve (bale-tojves), bal-cdoke 'benefactor' (lit. 'owner' + 'good deed'/ 'charity') ~ Uk dobrodij, zertvodavec' ~ G Wohltäter (~ Y vojltuer[s]\ see MAlmoseri). 27. Y _Lbal-xqj(im) 'animal, living being' (lit. 'owner' + 'living, alive') ~ Uk zyvotyna f ~ G ^Lebewesen, Tier η without an ag suffix; see also Y

Individual German morphemes

371

Axajefs) f. The extension of He haj 'alive' > A'animal' was clearly stimulated by G and/or SI. See Talmudic He ba'al-haim (ba 'ale-haim) m 'living creature' (with He haim pit 'life'). 28. Y Lbal-xalojmes 'dreamer' (lit. 'owner' + 'dreams') ~ Uk mrijnyk ~ G ^Schwärmer; see also Y Μψαηίαζ 'or(n) (< Br fantazer m). 29. Y Lbal-xejune 'supporter, wage earner' (lit. 'owner' + 'livelihood') ~ Uk hoduval'nyk ~ hodivnyk; see also Y yardiner: see Mbedienen and synonymous Y ojshalter(s), lojnnemer(s). 30. Y bal-xojv(-es) A'debtor' (lit. 'owner' + 'debt') ~ Uk borznyk ~ G Schuldner, Geldverleiher; see also Y Llojve (lojvim) (in TalmHe 'person who lends) and #entlehnen. A number of Y forms with 'owner' lack both a corresponding Uk or G ag noun, see e.g. Y Lbal-bris 'father of the boy being circumcised' (vs. BibHe 'partner, ally'), Ljbal-deje (bale-dejes), Abal-haspoe m 'influential person' (see also Y • takef [takifim] ~ maxer[s] [hum]), Jkbal-zikom 'person with a good memory', Lbal-xsodim 'suspicious person' (lit. 'owner of suspicions'), Lbal-kisren (bale-kisrojnes) 'talented person', Abal-maxsoves 'thoughtful person', Lbal-taxles m 'practical man'. Y Abal-mum (bale-mumim) 'cripple' (lit. 'owner of defects', vs. G Krüppel [zero pi] m) coexists with Y mkalike(s) m, f. These forms may be postrelexification innovations, independent of Uk models. For further examples, see Stuökov (1950). 17. German: Erbe(n) m 'heir' vs. η 'inheritance', Erbinfnen) f 'heiress', erben 'inherit', erblich 'hereditary', Erbschaft(en) f 'inheritance'// Ahne, arbeiten, arm, MHG lesen. Yiddish: The Y terms are Ajojres (jorsim) m ~ kjojreste(s) f 'heir', •jarse(ne)n 'inherit', •jernse(s) f, Lizovn (izvojnes) m 'bequest, legacy, heritage'. Y A jojreste(s) f 'heiress' is a unique Y innovation < He jöres m + JAram A -tä' f (used in Y as an ag, in place of OHe jöreset f)-perhaps in imitation of SI suffixes of the form -Ca: see e.g. USo namrewc m ~ namrewca f, herba m ~ herbowka f and (arch) dzedzicel m ~ dzedzicelka f, Uk spadkojemec' m ~ spadkojemycja f, naslidnyk m ~ naslidnycja f 'heir'. For 'ancestral, hereditary', see Y Ajerusedik and Aovesdik < He 'ovo/

372

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

'fathers, ancestors'-possibly patterned on Uk spadkojemec' m < 'fall; flow; leave trace' (on Y oves, see UAhne). In Y Ljars(en)en 'inherit', the He-So affix is optional (see also MHG Mlesen). I can think of five possible reasons for the blockage of the Germanism in Y: (i) There is a tendency in many languages to borrow terms connected with legal terminology, see e.g. Eng heir, inheritance < Fr, Tu varis 'heir', tevars etmek ~ miras almak 'inherit' (with native auxiliaries), miras 'inheritance' < Ar (see Schenker 1985: 93-95). I assume a G term would not have been considered "foreign". (ii) The Germanism might have proven unacceptable to Y if it had already entered the So lexicon, see USo herbstwo η 'inheritance' (and Sin [jjerb ~ verb 'heir' < MHG). (iii) USo namrewc m ~ namrewca f 'heir', namrec 'inherit', namrewstwo η 'inheritance' < mrec 'die', which lacks a model in G; Y also has no such construction. (iv) Granik has suggested that G Erbe η inheritance' and arbeiten 'to work' (see MArbeit) are genetically related to CS1 *rabt 'slave' and *robiti 'to work' (1982; see also Trubaöev 1959: 40, but Kluge 1989 disputes the link between the two roots; Drosdowski 1989 also cites G arm 'poor' as related). The Scandinavian cognate of the first root originally denoted 'funeral feast'. Regardless of whether the two terms are genetically related or not, the phonetic similarity of CS1 *rab"b 'slave'm and *robiti 'to work' (see Uk rob [arch] 'laborer' ~ OR robb m 'slave, servant' and Uk robyty 'to work') might have prompted relexifiers to block the Germanisms, given the semantic differences between the G and SI pairs. This argument would apply less to RP1, since USo (though not LSo) lacks old reflexes of CS1 *robiti. (v) The base form MHG erbe η, m might have been unattractive to Y since it denoted both 'inheritance' and 'heir'; in SI, the two terms are either morphologically and/or lexically distinct, see e.g. USo namrewstwo η vs. potomnicy pit/ namrewc m, Uk spadkovist' ~ spadscyna f vs. spadkojemec nastupnyk, naslidnyk m, respectively. This would explain the use of two He roots in Y for 'inheritance', Y Aizovn m (< He '-z-v 'leave') and Ajeruse f; the former may be post-relexificational, if the "un-Sl" m gender

Individual German morphemes

373

is of any significance (note the former is not the basis for 'heir[ess] in either He or Y). 18. German: (a) Erde(n) f 'earth, soil'/ (b) irden 'earthen', irdisch 'earthly, worldly'// Lehm, lehmig, MHG leim(in) > Yiddish: (a) erd f 'earth, ground, dirt', erdis 'earthy; earthly, worldly, mundane', erdn 'earthen' (< G [b]). For (b), Y uses allomorph (a), see e.g. erdn 'earthen' and erdis 'worldly'. The Y elimination of the morphophonemic alternation is due to USo practice, see (a) zemja, poda f 'land'/ (b) hlinjany 'earthen' (< hlina f 'clay'), zemski 'earthly', swetny 'worldly'. See also (a) Uk zemlja f/ (b) zemljanyj ~ zemnyj, hlinjanyj. Following SI practice, Y also uses the root 'clay' as a synonym for erdn 'earthen', e.g. lejmen < lejm f'clay'. The adj from G Lehm m (MHG leim[e] m) is now lehmig 'loamy, clay-like', but see MHG leimin adj; the Y choice of f gender assignment for Y lejm reflects uniquely SI practice BrY mhlejm with h- < synonymous Br hlina f). See also discussion of R zem- in Herman (1975). 19. German: (a) ermahnen 'admonish; remind', \Ermahnung(en) f 'admonishment', mahnen 'remind of; warn; press for payment', Mahnung(en) f 'reminder; warning'/ (b) Minne(n) f 'courtly love'// Andacht, bewahren, Erinnerung, inner(e), (sich) erinnern > Yiddish: (a) dermon(en) m ~ \dermonung(en) f 'reminder' (the latter also 'remembrance'), dermonen ~ \dermanen 'to mention, remind', dermonen zix 'reminisce, recollect', monen 'demand one's due'. A partial block on (a) is suggested by Hebraisms meaning 'wam(ing)', see e.g. Y Amojser-medoe zajn, Lmasre zajn, Amazer zajn (~ vorenen < G; see ftbewahren); kjhasroe(s), Lazhore(s) f 'warning'. G mahnen, Mahnung f may thus not have been acquired until much later-note that Y dermonen differs partly in meaning from its formal congener G ermahnen, and that Y has two reflexes of G ermahnen: dermonen ~ dermanen; the latter is a more recent loan from G. In the meaning of 'remember, say the prayer for the dead' Y uses Amasker-nesomes zajn (lit. 'remembersouls'). Y does not use the identical He root for 'remember' with regard to the dead, even though it has the root in other meanings (e.g. k.zejxer[s] m 'trace, remnant, remembrance', zixrojnes pit 'memories, _Amemoirs', kjzixrojneven 'reminisce'). This can be explained by the fact that Uk now uses the CES1 root for 'remember' only in connection with the dead, see

374

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

e.g. Uk pomyn m 'memorial (service)', pomynky pit 'commemoration of the dead' < pomynaty 'speak in remembrance, make mention of; have a mass (requiem) said for the dead', whereas cognate Br pomnicRpomnit' still mean 'remember'. Hence, I regard Y Lmasker-nesomes zajn as an RP2 Hebroidism from the southern (Uk) region of the KP territory. Y lacks another G term for 'remind; remember', G erinnern 'remind', sich erinnern 'remember', \Erinnerung(en) f 'memory, remembrance, reminiscence; reminder, souvenir' < inner(e) 'inner, inside'. Probably only one G root for 'remember, remind', etc. was possible in Y since USo has a single root in dopomnic 'recall',prispomnic 'perceive'. A larger inventory in Uk could justify the recourse to Y Lzikorn(s) m gedexenis n, ondenk m) 'memory' and zixrojnes pit 'memories', A'memoirs' (with the original He pi) to match the different root in USo pomjatk m 'memory, remembrance', etc.; see also Y Azixrojneven 'reminisce' ~ bletern dem kzikorn 'reminisce' (lit. 'leaf through the memory'), • zejxer(s) m 'trace, remnant, remembrance'. See also discussion in UAndacht. 20. German: (a) Feile(n) f 'file', feilen 'to file'/ (b) Säge(n) f 'saw', sägen 'to saw' > Yiddish: (a) fajl(n) f 'file',/a//« 'to file'/ (b) zeg(n) f 'saw', zegn 'to saw'. The Y acceptance of both (a) and (b) is not expected, since SI expresses the two notions partly by a single root, see e.g. (a) USo pita ~ fila f 'file', filowac 'to file'/ (b) pita f 'saw' but rezac 'to saw' (also 'to cut'). The similarity between the two tools accounts for their denotation by a single morpheme; on the other hand, the SI languages have two ways to disambiguate: (i) USo uses a different root for one of the verbs: (a) USo filowac 'to file'/ (b) rezac 'to saw' (see also the R example in [ii] below). Scholars differ over whether USo pila f 'saw' is a CS1 loan from Gmc or a cognate of the latter (see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1063). The common corpus would suffice to mitigate against relexification. (ii) Uk and R differentiate the nouns through morphology, see (a) Uk napylok ~ pyl 'nyk, R napilok ~ napil'nik m 'file', Uk piljaty, R pilit' 'to file'/ (b) Ukpyla, pylka dim, Rpila f 'saw', Ukpyljaty vs. R slifovat' 'to saw' (also 'to grind; polish') < G. Seen against the background of SI attempts to disambiguate 'file' and 'saw', the Y acceptance of two separate Germanisms can be ascribed to the SI substratum-though,

Individual German morphemes

375

alternatively, the acquisition of a second Germanism might have taken place after RP2. 21. German: (a) ^Geizhals(- "e) m 'cheapskate'/ (b) karg 'stingy'// -er > Yiddish: (a) karg. For 'stingy person' Y uses Αkamen (kamconim) or Lxazer (xazejrim) (lit. 'pig') m, which parallels the SI (but not G) use of a noun + ag, see e.g. (a) USo skupc, Uk skupar ~ skupij m 'stingy person'/ (b) USo skupy, snadny, chudy, Uk skupyj. Coincidentally (?) the -er of Lxazer resembles the ag suffix of Germano-Sl origin (see ##-er). Either USo or Uk could have licensed full relexification. 22. German: (a) gleich 'straight, direct; level; alike'/ (b) Leiche(rt) f, Leichnam(e) m 'corpse', Leichentuch(-"er) η 'shroud'// Arm, beraten, Ge-, (Ge)bein, (Ge)rippe, Mord> Yiddish: (a) glajx 'straight, direct; level, even; equal, alike', glajxn 'compare, liken; be equal to'. Y lacks (b) altogether, since USo has different roots, (a) samsny; jenaki, etc./ (b) ceio η; Y may have acquired all the G meanings gradually. Moreover, USo uses a single root ceio or celeso η for 'body; corpse', while G distinguishes between a living and a dead body. G Leiche f, Leichnam m would have been less of a problem in RP2, since Uk follows both USo and G, in that the meanings 'body' and 'carcass/corpse' can be optionally expressed by a common root, see Uk tilo η 'body, carcass', alongside unambiguous terms like trup 'corpse, carcass', kistjak m 'carcass' < kist' f 'bone' (see parallel Y gebejn 'carcass, bones, skeleton' < bejn[er] 'bone' vs. G [Ge]bein[e] η only 'bones' [see also in #Arm]; for 'carcass, skeleton', G has rather %Gerippe [zero pi] η < Rippe[n] f 'rib', which is unknown in Y; on G Ge-, see #beraten). For 'corpse' and 'carcass', Yiddish has JLbarmenen(s) m 'corpse', • nevejle(s), Lpgire(s) f (also 'death of an animal'), Apejger (pgorim) m 'carcass' (on the latter root, see chapter 3.2 and UMord) and Slavicisms, usterve(s) ~ mscerve(s), mpadle(s) f 'carrion, carcass' < Uk stervo, padlo, Pol scierwo n. The ban on G Leiche also entails compounds such as \Leichentuch(- "er) η 'shroud', for which Y uses Ltaxrixim pit (see chapter 4.5.2).

376

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

23. German: (a) Gurgel(n) f 'throat; gullet'/ (b) Hals(-"e) m 'neck, throat'/ (c) Kehle(n) f 'throat', Ifkehlen 'slit the throat (of an animal)'/ (d) Rachen (zero pi) m 'throat; jaws (of an animal)'// beten, -er, Genick, Keil, Koller, MHG lesen, G Schlacht, schlachten, Schlächter, MHG slahtcer > Yiddish: (a) gorgl(en) m 'throat, laiynx, gullet; Adam's apple'/ (b) haldz (heldzer) m 'neck, throat'/ (c) kel(n) f'throat'. USo has three terms for 'throat, neck, gullet': sija f 'neck', kyrk m 'throat', gyrgawa f '(goose's) throat', thus permitting relexification to three G terms. The Y Germanisms follow G gender, except for Y gorgl, which may have retained the m gender of Uk kyrk 'throat'. Uk has more terms for 'neck' and 'throat', see e.g. syja f 'neck' and horlo n, hortan horljanka and hlotka f 'throat', but Uk seems to have little effect on the Y corpus, which suggests that the latter was fixed after RP1. G has also a derived verb from Kehle f, %kehlen 'slit the throat (of an animal)', which, curiously, resembles the meaning of Y mkojl(en)en 'slaughter (an animal according to ritual prescriptions)' ~ mkajln 'slaughter (in a non-kosher manner)' (Dusman 1928); see also Y mkajler(s) 'nonkosher butcher' (with no G counterpart). While Gerzon 1902: 111 and S. A. Wolf 1993 prefer a MHG etymon, I regard USo kolu Ί prick, stab; kill' as the etymon (< kloc inf), with partial intra-Sl relexification to Br kaloc' (kalju 1 st sg), which would account for Y mkajler m. USo kolu! Br kalju is a convincing etymon for three reasons: (i) The latter could be the basis for the synonymous Y dial Amenakern, kmenaker zajn < He n-q-r 'to puncture, prick'. Cognate Uk koloty is a less likely etymon with its meaning 'to prick, sting', unless it once shared the meaning of R kolot' 'slaughter cattle'. (ii) G ^kehlen is a post-MHG formation, and thus would be too recent to affect Y. Note the use of AJm-en- in a Y non-He stem (see discussion in ##-er and MHG Mlesen)-though a few G verbs also have a native -en(see OBav lesenen ~ ModG lesen 'read', cited in MHG Mlesen). (iii) G Keil(e) 'key, wedge' is blocked in Y; instead, Y retains USo klin (> Y mklin[en] m)-related to kloc. There may be two explanations for the blockage of G Keil·, (a) the G and SI terms were too similar phonetically, and/or (b) relexifiers recognized the morphophonemic alternation between USo klin m 'wedge'/ kloc 'to prick, stab; kill', which is also found in mlin m 'flat cake'/ mlec 'to grind'. Thus, Y appears to have retained both the

Individual German morphemes

377

USo noun and the cognate verb. In the KP lands, the retention of the two would have been reinforced by the similar Uk klyn m/ koloty 'to sting, prick', mlyn m/ moloty 'to grind, mill grain', molotyty 'thresh, beat (grain)'. In addition to ukojl(en)en, etc., Y also has • sextn 'slaughter (usually spelled phonetically as if it were not < He säxaf 'he slaughtered'), and Lsojxet (soxtim) m 'ritual animal slaughterer' from the same root (spelled in the He manner). If the /e/ in Y Lsextn is modeled on ModG Schlächter (zero pi) m 'butcher', then the Hebraism is probably relatively recent, since MHG slahtcer m lacked Umlaut (see blends in chapter 3.1). Y Lsextn seems to replace the blocked synonymous G schlachten (though other parts of the paradigm are not blocked, see e.g. G Schlachten) 'battle, fight' > Y slaxtfnj f). The use of two terms for 'slaughter' could have been dictated by the CS1 practice of distinguishing between 'slaughter (cattle for food)' and 'slaughter ritually'-see e.g. CS1 *kolti, as in R kolot' 'slaughter cattle' (a non-ritual meaning would explain why Y mkajln [see above] can mean 'non-kosher slaughter') vs. CS1 *modliti 'sacrifice cattle; pray' (see Trubaöev 1983, 10: 154-156). It is not surprising that both of these Slavicisms are used in Y (on the latter, see ttbeten). On Y krogn(s) m 'neck of a fowl', see #Genick and Μ Koller. 24. German: Jauche(n) f 'liquid manure' > Yiddish: jojx(n) f •'broth'. G Jauche f itself is of SI origin. USo jucha now means 'liquid manure, watery pus; brandy, whiskey (pej)' but the original culinary meaning is retained in older texts and in LSo jucha f 'broth, sauce, soup'. For 'broth, gravy, juice', USo now has dim juska f. Cognates in other SI languages reveal both culinary and non-culinary meanings, see e.g. Pol jucha 'animal blood; bad fellow; broth, soup', Cz jicha 'broth, soup, juice; liquid manure', R uxa 'broth, fish soup', Uk juxa 'blood' (pej); 'fish soup', juska f '(fish) soup, juice, sap (of plants)'. The two meanings 'broth' and 'liquid manure' are attested in G dials which borrow the Slavicism from So and/or Cz (see Bellmann 1971: 200). There are two possible explanations for the meaning of Y mjojx(n) f: (i) Y mjojxfn) may be from a G lexifier dial in which Jauch(e) f had only the meaning 'broth'. The G Slavicism assumed an exclusively pej meaning after relexification. Schuster-Sewc (1978-1996: 465-466) regards the

378

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

meaning of 'liquid manure' in USo jucha and Cz jicha f as a native internal development, and Bellmann (1971: 200) regards the negative meanings as an original G development not before the 16th-17th cc. (ii) Y mjojx(n) f may originally have denoted 'liquid manure' (with or without 'broth'), which was suppressed in the KP area, under the influence of ESI languages. If this hypothesis is correct, then the change of Uk juxa 'broth' > 'blood' (pej) and the development of new juska f '(fish) soup' could be dated to after the late 15th c when RP2 presumably ended. 25. German: (a) MHG klobelouch, knobelouch > G Knoblauch 'garlic'/ (b) Lauch m 'leek'// Knobel, Knöbel, knofe, MHG zibel, zibulle, G zwei Bolle, MHG z(w)ibolle, G Zwiebel > Yiddish: (a) knobl m 'garlic'. Y has mpore-cibele f (coll) 'leek' < Uk cybulja-porej m (Y uses the G order of modifier + head). USo lacks CS1 *lukb 'garlic' (> R luk 'onion', luk-porej 'leek'), using instead (prawy) kobolk, (rare) kobluk 'garlic', kobolk Meek'; see also Uk casnyk m 'garlic'. CS1 *lukb is a Gmc loan (Vasmer 1955, 2); on the basis of Pol I in luk m, Kaestner 1939: 54 dates the borrowing between the 11th-13th cc. Y knobl suggests that So, at the time of RP1, may have had CS1 *luhb, since Y fails to acquire cognate G Lauch 'leek', and also lacks the second syllable of G Knoblauch m (Y *knobloch). Conversely, G cognates of Y knobl lack the meaning 'garlic', see G Knobel, Knöbel m 'knot, bun (hair), joint, knob, tubercle, nodule' (but see Austrian G knofe 'garlic'). Besides mpore-cibele 'leek', which has a clear Uk source, Y also has mcibele(s) 'onion', which could be derived < USo cybula ~ cybola (~ newer cybla), Uk, Br cybulja (< Pol cebula f), or < MHG zibel, zibulle, z(w)ibolle, m, f. (Kaestner suggests that Pol cybula is older and from stG while cebula f is a borrowing from EMG dials [1939: 16]; Sulman stated, without motivation, that Y • cibele f was a direct borrowing from MHG zibolle m, f [1939: 73], now ModG Zwiebel f; while Hrushevsky derives Uk cybulja f < Y unconvincingly [1997: 190].) Folk etymologizing has resulted in a reshaping of the G root into zwei Bolle 'two tubers' with f gender. The exclusive f gender of Y mcibele(s) is, however, due to SI. 26. German: (a) Koller (zero pi) η 'collar (of a garment)'/ (b) Kragen (zero pi) 'collar' (< MHG krage m 'neck [human, animal]; collar [of a garment'])// G Gurgel >

Individual German morphemes

379

Yiddish: (a) kolner(s) m/ (b) \kragn(s) ~ krogn(s) 'collar' ~ krogn(s) m neck of a fowl'. Unlike G, Y presumably did not originally distinguish between 'collar (bone)' and 'collar (of a garment)'. See USo kornar 'collar (body, garment)'- fukr [fuk] m 'garment' (both < G), Uk komir, komirec' ~ kovmir ~ kovnir with both meanings vs. nasyjnyk m 'collar (garment)' (lit. 'on-the-neck'). The Y form of (a) follows that of SilG kolner (~ MHG kollfijer, kolner η: Kaestner 1939: 65), Pol kobiierz m, and the Uk forms above (where ν < /). Only one term would be expected in Y. The /a/ of (b) Y \kragn suggests a recent acquisition < G, or modernization of MHG krage m in form and meaning. Y ^kragn could not have the two meanings of MHG krage m since Uk differentiated (a) and (b). See also discussions of Gurgel. 27. German: König(e) 'king' (< MHG kün[i]c, künec m), G Königinnen) f 'queen' (also MHG 'king's daughter, princess')// G Herr, herrschen, SG königshase, MHG küniclin, künglin, OG küniglin > Yiddish: kinig(n) (~ Germanized kenig[n]) m, kinigin(s) f, kinign 'to reign'. The Germanism is an early loan in the SI languages (though the reverse direction in the borrowing process has also been suggested: see Trubaöev 1987, 13: 199-203). Relexification was, nevertheless, possible since the SI use of the G root was too distant from the source language both in form and meaning, see e.g. LSo knez 'king (in cards)', USo knjez 'sir, big landowner'; (arch) 'Lord', Polab knqz 'junker, nobleman', Pol ksiqdz 'priest; rabbi' (14th c), Cz knez 'prince' (up to the 13th c); 'priest' (after the 13th c: Machek 1971), R knjaz' 'prince; bridegroom; newly married man', Uk knjaz m 'bridegroom; prince' (on this and knjahynja f 'bride; princess' in Carpathian dials, see Vakaljuk 1982), Bg knez m 'community spokesman'. The original meaning was 'prince'. Y also makes use of • mejlex (mloxim) m or • malke(s) f 'queen' vs. malkes m, η A'king' ~ η 'kingdom' (< He melex [meläxlm] m 'king', malkäh [malköt] 'queen', malxüt f 'kingdom'), suggesting that for some Y speakers, the common identity of the G and SI forms was still transparent, thus necessitating recourse to He-and even the creation of Amalkes m, n(!) 'king'. The Y pi of kinigin f does not follow German norms. On the use of Alm-(e)s as a common pi for m and f ag pairs, see discussion in ##-er and chapter 4.5.3. The multiple meanings of the Germanism 'king' in the SI languages may explain why Y uses malkes m in the innovative meaning of A'king' (vs. Y

380

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Lmalkes η 'kingdom' borrowed < OHe malxüt f 'kingdom', with no lenition of postvocalic He k > χ since SI offers no precedent; see Wexler 1990b: 94-96). In Y Hebraisms (A/m)-es is ambiguous, since it continues both He -üt f abstract suffix (> Y with [•]-« pi) and -öt pi (usually of f nouns). The reason for interpreting an abstract/pl suffix (A/«)-es in Y Amalkes as the sg animate is the development of the CS1 f coll noun > m sg, see OLSo kneza m sg 'magistrate; authorities' ~ USo knjeza coll pi 'gentlemen; authority' < CS1 *kbnezbja f coll (see Schuster-Sewc 19781996: 572). There are other abstract Hebraisms which function as animate nouns in Y but I am unable to find SI or G precedents for them, see e.g. sporadic SWPol and WY Lofier 'rich man' < He 'wealth', Y Arises f 'villain, anti-Semite' vs. η A'meanness, malice' (details in Herzog et al. 2000, 3, maps #64 and #58, respectively), Y srore(s ~ -im) m A'ruler' < He f 'rule', Aazes-ponem (azes-penemer) m, η 'insolent person' < He f 'insolence, impudence' (> Y azes n), JLhadres-ponem (hadres-penemer) m 'person of stately appearance' < He 'stately appearance'. Personification of abstract qualities is not limited to Y Hebraisms, e.g. Y sejnkejt 'beauty; beautiful woman' might be taken from G Schönheit(en) 'beauty; beautiful woman' (~ two meanings in Eng beauty) or independently formed within Y, but unattested in USo or Uk (see USo rjanosc 'beauty', rjanolinka f 'beautiful woman'; some of these examples were discussed in Gold 1984). See also Y klezmer m 'musician' discussed in ##Musik. Y has also derived a verb from kin ig m that finds no expression in G itself: kinign 'to reign'. The corresponding term in German would be herrschen < ##Herr(en) m 'master, lord; Mister'. Up to now, scholars have concluded that Y kinign was inspired by He melex m 'king'/ malax 'he reigned' (see M. Weinreich 1973, 4: 111). This might be true for Y relexifications of the He Bible where He syntax and derivational patterns have to be scrupulously observed (see Horvath and Wexler 1994), but since He rarely dictates the semantic and derivational parameters of the non-He component within Y (in this I disagree with Krogh 2001), I suppose that the underlying model behind Y kinign was denominative USo knjezic ~ kralowac 'to reign' (see Trubacev 1987, 13: 201)-unless the verb was a borrowing from the unspoken Y Bible relexifications. Older HG küniglin η 'rabbit' (< Lat cuniculus), which was ultimately adjusted to König 'king' through folk etymology, as in SG königshase m (see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 663 and MHG kün[i]c, künec m 'king' vs. künicltn, künglin 'rabbit'), is also found in Y kinigl(ex) n. The Yiddish form is dim, in imitation of SI, which has a loan translation of G König 'king' with the SI dim suffix, see (arch) USo kralik, Uk krolyk 'rabbit' < V

Individual German morphemes

381

USo kral (via Cz), Uk korol'm 'king' < G Karl male name. U. Weinreich (1968) regards Y mfkrolik(es) m 'rabbit' (< Uk) as unacceptable for literary Y. 28. German: MHG lesen 'to collect, choose, pick; read (mass); lecture as a teacher; tell' > OBav lesenen, EG dial lasen, G lesen 'to read', ^Lesart(en) f 'reading, version', auflesen 'gather, pick up'// Art, -en-, -er, Erbe, Gurgel, MHG red(en)en > Yiddish: The term is not normally found in Y, which uses instead lejenen < Rom. Scholars have long argued that the failure of Y to acquire G lesen 'to read' was due to the association of the latter with Christian liturgy and Lat letters (see M. Weinreich 1973, 2: 62). OUSo lazowane η 'recitation of a Bible text on Sunday morning before the sermon' and BavG lesen 'to recite prayers' offer support for this view. Hence, Y allegedly preserved substratal lejenen (< [J]Rom; see Wexler 1992: 59-61). The problem with this argument is that Y has plenty of terms which once had or still have Christian connotations, so that Christianity can hardly be the cause for the absence of a term in Y (on G and SI Christian terms in Y, see Wexler 1993c, chapter 5). Also a Rom root like lejenen for 'to read' would not show any closer connection with texts in He or written in the He alphabet than G lesen. Y speakers, in fact, imitate the religious connotations of G lesen and USo lazowac, in that in some Y dials lejenen denotes only the 'reading of Hebrew books' (in which case G lesen could be borrowed for the general term). The infix -en- in Y lejenen looks like an imitation of OBav lesenen (Schmeller 1872-1877: 1512; see also M. Mieses 1924: 169), unless Alm-en- < He -än m ag + SI verbal noun infix (see ##-er). Does the use of A/m-en- mean speakers tried to "Hebraize" the verb? This indeed would make sense if lejenen were intended as a replacement for a blocked Germanism. For further discussion of the intensive and iterative functions of G -en-, as in MHG redenen = reden 'speak', see Weinhold 1965: 254. These meanings are not found in Y verbs with -en- and there are no G doublets in Y as in G. On Y A/m-en-, see also MGurgel and ##Erbe. The Germanism in the meaning 'collect' is attested in "OY Bible relexifications", composed in Judaized G ~ Y (ojßklajbn, zamlen. Curiously, JSp also blocks the common Sp term for 'read', see JSp meldar 'to read' < Gk vs. Sp leer < Lat (Wexler 1996a: 153, 203-204, 211). The relexification hypothesis provides two less arbitrary, and hence more convincing, explanations for the blockage of MHG lesen:

382

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(i) The absence of a single verb in USo with the multiple meanings of MHG lesen meant that either the Germanism would be blocked in Y or, at best, that it could be accepted with only one meaning. Moreover, in the SI languages the root for 'to read' is related to the root for 'honor', see Uk cytaty and cest' f, respectively; if USo still had the former in RP1, this could have presented a problem for relexification, see USo citac (lost and restored in the 19th c) and cesc f (on R ce[t]-,

cift]-,

et-, see Herman

1975). CS1 *citati 'to read' is the durative-iterative form of CS1 *cisti 'consider; read', both of which are retained as Br cytac' and scytac', respectively (Trubaöev 1977, 4: 123). G lacks a single verb expressing these two meanings. (ii) USo lazowac (arch) < EG dial lasen (in the writings of Frentzel, late 17th c: Schuster-Sewc 1996: 105), was only replaced in the last century by citac 'read' < CS1. If G dial lasen was already in USo in RP1, then I could expect blockage. The CS1 root was also lost in Sin and restored, see e.g. Sin citdti < SC citati or R citat' (Greenberg 2001: 56). A common loss in different parts of the SI territory suggests a taboo term or different forms (purposes) of writing in early SI and G societies. V

Compounds with les- are also rejected by Y, e.g. G \Lesart(en) f 'reading, version' (Art f is also blocked in Y) is expressed by Y kjiusex (nusxoes) m or Agirse (girsoes) f < JAram.

29. German: Leute (pit) 'people'// Saat >

Yiddish: lajt (zero pi) m 'adult; (respectable) person'; pit 'people', cu lajtn 'girl of marriageable age', lajtis 'proper, respectable, decent'. There are several possible reasons why relexification of cognate USo ludzo η ~ ludzi pi 'people' took place, but it is unclear if the relative chronology was RP1 or RP2: (i) Relexification would have been possible in the first phase since the G and SI cognates differed in regard to the voicing feature (see #Saat), and to some extent semantically, see also e.g. R ljudi 'people; servants, subordinates', Uk ljudy pit 'people; common folk' (on the obsolete meaning of'foreigner', see also Trubaöev 1988, 15: 190-206; Zaprudski 1989: 13; Vasil'ev 1992: 6, fn 3).

Individual German morphemes 383 (ii) Y lajtis 'proper, respectable, decent' might have relexified USo wosobny 'noble, precious' (< wosoba f 'person'), though Uk osoblyvyj 'singular, special, proper' (< osoba f 'person') could also have been a model; G lacks a counterpart. (iii) The Y use of the Germanism in the sg number could be motivated by either USo ludzo η 'people' ~ wosoba f 'person' or Uk ljud m 'people, race, nation' ~ osoba f 'person'. There is one consideration that might favor RP2: USo ludzisko η 'rabble' is not expressed by Y lajt pit. Relexifiers had recourse to A hamojn, kjerevrav m. Uk requires other roots to express 'rabble': natovp, nabrid, potoloc m, holota, cern' f; these facts favor RP2, unless the So term is post-relexificational. 30. German: meinen 'to mean, believe, intend', Meinung(en) f 'opinion, intention, belief > Yiddish: mejnen 'to mean, signify, stand for; believe, think', mejn(en) m, mejnung(en) f'opinion, view, contention; grade (school)' I do not expect Y to accept G meinen, given cognate USo menic 'to mean, think', menjenje η 'opinion; (ex)change'. But the blockage from RP1 could have been undone by the weaker formal and semantic similarities with the KP cognate, Uk pominyty(sja) 'to promise, give one's word'. Y also has Amexavn zajn 'to mean'. Other Y terms for 'opinion' are kuk(n) m and • svore(s) (alongside other Hebraisms); for 'intention', see also /kkavone(s) f and Akivn m; for 'belief, Y uses other Germanisms. 31. German: Musik 'music' (< MHG müseke, müsic f), G ^Musikant(en) 'musician (player)', ^fMusiker (zero pi) m 'musician (artist)'// MHG sancmeister, spil(man) > Yiddish: muzik f, (%)muzikant(n) 'musician (player)', (^)muziker(s) m 'musician (artist)'. There are two reasons why Y also has Lklezmer (klezmorim) 'musician (player)' for G Musikant m: (i) In the SI languages alternative terms for 'musician' can be formed from the roots meaning 'emit a dull tone, drone; fiddle' (see USo hudzbnik m 'musician [artist]', hudzic 'make music', Uk husty 'to sound, clamor' ~

384

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

husli pit 'zither, psalter', R gudetBr husci 'emit a dull tone') or 'play; musical art' (see USo here m 'musician, violinist; chorals' 1721: SchusterSewc 1978-1996: 276, 356-357). There is no G counterpart. (ii) In Br and Uk, the difference between 'music' and 'musician' can be expressed by stress shift alone, see e.g. Br, Uk muzyka f 'music' vs. muzyka m, f 'musician'; this is not possible in USo muzika f 'music', since the stress has been fixed on the root syllable in native and G words since the 14th c at the latest (Schaarschmidt 1998: 87-88); hence, the need for USo muzikant m 'musician (player)'. Y muzik has final stress, like ModG Musik f (the latter since the 17th c, before which it had initial stress). Innovative Y Lklezmer (klezmorim) 'musician (player)' < He kle zemer m 'musical instruments' (lit. 'instruments of song'-and attested in OWY texts, see e.g. the Basle 1557 text studied by Dreessen 1977). This is the only instance in Y where an inanimate compound with kle has assumed an animate meaning (see Y Lklebajes n, pit 'household furniture', Lklezajen η 'weapon, arms' and examples in Perferkovic 1931: 119; an innovative WY Hebraism is Lbale-zemer m pi 'musicians': Worms 17th c: J. Mark 1958: 129; see discussion of Y Lbal- in ##-er and MKönig). S. A. Birnbaum is probably right to suggest that the animate meaning was facilitated by interpreting the final syllable m-er as the productive ag (1922: 39; see also Rotw kaf[f]er 'peasant; fool' < He kfär m 'village' with reinterpretation of -är as the G ag-unless the source is Romani gäw 'village'). The SI and G practice of deriving an ag noun from the name of an instrument could also have played a role, see e.g. Uk truba f 'trumpet' ~ trubac m 'trumpeter'. Y Lklezmer (klezmorim) m is now spelled phonetically, despite its He origin. Y Lklezmer m could, theoretically, have been coined in RP1 to replace the originally blocked G Musik f, Musikant m, since MHG müseke, müsic f 'music' never formed an ag noun; also blocked in Y were MHG spilman 'musician (player)' and sancmeister 'musician (artist)' (lit. 'song master'), for which USo lacked parallel constructions (but MHG spil η 'music' was not blocked in Y). Alternatively, Y Lklezmer m could date from RP2 as a substitute for the lack of stress mobility in G Musik. This means that Y might have coined muzikant m earlier than G (see also chapter 4.1, paragraph 12). Curiously, the second root of Y Lklezmer is attested rarely in OR as zamra f 'musical instrument' and zamarbnyj 'related to a wind instrument', which Hendler ascribes, along with OR kagam> m 'Rus' ruler'

Individual German morphemes

385

(discussed in chapter 4.7), to Khazar influence < Ar zamr 'wind instrument' (1993). On the possibility of Jewish influence on OR music, see Yasser (1947). 32. German: Nest(er) η 'nest' > Yiddish: nest(n) f 'nest'. G Nest η < IE *ni- 'down' + *sed- 'sit' (see Mufsatz). Yet, certainly no na'ive speaker of G now or a millennium ago could have recognized the etymology. Y could have relexified from formally similar (but not for sure cognate) USo hnezdo n, which would have motivated the f gender. Theoretically, Y might also have relexified to G Nest from a different SI root altogether, e.g. < CS1 *köb(*)lo η. The latter surfaces as USo kublo 'property', LSo kublo 'education; contents; food; property' but as Uk kublo η 'nest; lair, den'. If the meaning 'nest' is particularly characteristic of ESI, then G Nest η could have been acquired in RP2 (see Trubaöev 1985, 12: 43-46). 33. German: Pfanne(n) f 'pan'// Tiegel > Yiddish: fan(en) f. G Pfanne(n) > WS1 languages some time after 900 A.D. (Kiparsky 1934: 154), see USo ponoj f, (arch) ponwje n, also Pol pcmew, (arch) panwia (> Uk panva f), Cz panev m, ράηνα f. Y retains ponve(s) f < USo. The presence of Y fan(eri) f 'pan' must then be a post-relexification loan from G. Y speakers apparently also retained USo skorodej f 'sauce-pan' (Y lacks synonymous G Tiegel m), now almost exclusively in the KP form, as mskov(e)rode(s), mskavrode(s)-\he latter a blend of Br skavarada and Uk skovoroda or Pol skowroda f (for these and other variants, see Herzog et al. (1995, 2: #110051-110052). Y mskov(e)rode f is attested in the He writings of Jicxak ben Mose in the forms 'sqrwbd' or 'sqrvd' (1200s, author of Or zarua: Kupfer and Lewicki 1956: 231, who, inexplicably opted for a R or Uk etymon). 34. German: ^Plinse (n) f ~ ^PIins (en) m 'pancake' > Yiddish: mblince(s) f. The SI food term was borrowed by a number of G dialects (Bellmann 1971: 123, 150-151). The Yiddish f gender suggests (i) interference with G or (ii) an internal back formation when the morpheme boundary shifted

386

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

from mblinc\es > mblince\s pi (see also MSchwamm). Given the original cult functions of the pastry (see Wirth 1933: 98 for Sorbian and Petrova 1987: 101 for Gor'kij R), it is more likely that Y initially retained its substrata! USo blinc ~ plinc m; the novel f form and gender could be due to later G influence. I conclude this because the Slavicism is found in PolY but is not normally used in Pol (see Wexler 1987a: 167). Zdancewicz notes that Pol dials in contact with Br have bl'inek < Br blin(ec) m (1964: 242), but the latter could not be the source of PolY mblince(s) f. Y is unique among the SI languages in using the term as a f noun. 35. German: retten 'to save', Retter (zero pi) m 'savior'// (aus)lösen, los, Raub Yiddish: G retten is unavailable to Y, which divides the semantic space among A. mac I zajn, urateven ~ • ratirn < Uk rjatuvaty (< Pol ratowac, ultimately < G retten), ojslejzn (< G ^auslösen 'redeem'; see also Y lejzn 'take in [receipts]' vs. G lösen '[re]solve': see #los) and Agojel(im), uratever(s) < Uk ~ ojslejzer m (< G 'savior': on the status of nouns derived from Y mrateven ~ mratirn, see J. Mark 1961). Y practice differs from the single root of USo wuchowac 'to save', wuchowar m 'savior'. The distributional constraints on Y mratev— mratir- suggest a recent, post-relexificational, acquisition. I can think of three reasons for the original blockage of G retten in Y: (i) The use of G retten in USo retowac could have blocked the Germanism in Y. However, if USo retowac is a recent loan from G, then Y conceivably could have relexified USo wumoc, wuchowac, etc. > G retten. Then Y *retn would have become unacceptable in KP territory because of Uk rjatuvaty. The earliest attestation of Y mrateven is in the writings of the Lublin-born Joel Sirkes (1631-6; M. Mieses 1924: 221; Jofe 1928: 242-243). The age of Y Lmacl zajn would depend on the venue of blockage of G retten. (ii) Y relexified to synonymous lejzn and thus could dispense with G retten. (iii) Morphological disparallels could have caused the blockage, e.g. the USo term for 'to save' required a verbal prefix (see USo wumoc, wucho-

Individual German morphemes

387

wac), that was lacking in the G translation equivalents. This argument only applies to RP1 (see Uk rjatuvaty, berehty). See also #Raub for other examples of Y Germanisms with •-eve-. 36. German: Schwamm(-"e) 'mushroom; sponge; fungus' (< MHG swamm m 'mushroom; flooding')// alt, Pilz > Yiddish: svom(en) m, f 'mushroom; sponge; fungus' ~ svojm(en) ~ ^svam(en) m 'mushroom'. G Schwamm m enters Y with three meanings: 'mushroom, sponge, fungus'. Since USo has two terms for 'mushroom' (not counting the Germanism swom)-bodla pit (probably < Cz bedla: see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 24) and hrib m, and distinguishes 'mushroom', 'fungus' and 'sponge' (see USo hubica 'sponge', hribica f 'fungus [on a tree]')-I would expect Y to have two terms as well. USo must have received sworn after the relexiflcation of USo to G, since there is no blockage of G Schwamm m in Υ. Y, while accepting one term for mushroom from G, also preserves one SI term, mgribe(s) f < USo hrib, Uk hryb m. Y relexified its ambiguous substratal USo hubica, Uk huba f 'mushroom, sponge' to precisely that G variant which was also ambiguous-G Schwamm m 'mushroom; sponge'. If the f form of Y mgribe comes from USo hubica f, then we have here an unusual merger of two SI roots within Y (on mergers, see chapter 3.1). The SI cognates of Y mgribe do not normally end in a vowel (but see R dial [Pskov, Tver'] griba 'lip; cry-baby', but this is irrelevant for Y: see Filin 1972, 7). Alternatively, Y mgribe may be derived from a SI pi form and then assigned f gender on phonological grounds (see discussion of Y mblince in MPlinse). The two Y variants svom ~ svojm m suggest two G lexifier dialects and/or two chronologies of acquisition; Y svojm suggests an underlying /o/-which is found in USo svom and its EMG etymon. The bifurcation of G Schwamm m was required to accommodate USo hrib m and hubica f (see also discussion of #alt). But in addition to the two Y-looking reflexes of G Schwamm, Y also has ^svam(en) m, f, a seemingly more recent Germanism, which is not recommended for use in literary Y by U. Weinreich (1968). The MHG meaning 'innundation' is not attested in either Y or G. There is no trace in Y of G Pilz(e) 'mushroom' < Lat boletus m. While a surface cognate is also found in WS1 languages, see e.g. Cz bedla, Pol

388

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

bedla f, it is unlikely that this would have been noted by relexifiers. Hence, I have to assume G Pilz was not available in the G lexifier dial(s). 37. German: Teil(e) m, η 'part', teilen 'to divide', ^austeilen 'distribute', Austeilung f 'distribution', Drittel 'third', |Gegenteil η 'contrary' (early 18th c), MHG miteteil 'partner', G ^Teilhaber (zero pi) 'partner' (16th c), Urteil(e) m 'opinion, judgement', verteilen 'distribute', ^Verteilung f 'distribution', Vorutreil(e) η 'prejudice', MHG widerteil m, η 'opposite', G zerteilen 'divide, cut up'// aus(einander)-, entgegen, ent(zwei)-, los-, MHG mit-, mitehaber, G ver-, MHG wider-, widerpart, widerparte, widerteil, G zer- > Yiddish: (^)tejl(n) f, m, tejln, ojstejln, dritl(ex) n, urtl(en) m 'sentence (in court)', fartejln, fartejlung(en) i,forurtejl(en) m, cetejln, cetejlung(en) f. G Teil m, η (< MHG m, n) should have been blocked by cognate USo dzel 'part, portion, share' (Martynov 1969: 111 and Kluge 1989 propose that SI < G). An older meaning, 'mountain' (see OPol dzial m 'mountain ridge, elevation'), may not have been in use at the time of RP1 (see de Vincenz 1968; Trubaöev 1978, 5: 8-9; Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 203; Schaarschmidt 1998: 82). Polab d'olii 'work; deed' would have licensed relexification, given the semantic differences, but these meanings are apparently unknown in So. Blockage in the G-So lands could explain why Y adopted Lxejlek (xalokim) m 'part', Anexlek vern 'be divided'. (Katz cites the Hebraism in a Y text from Sofia dated 1532 [1991b: 30], but it is difficult to evaluate the significance of this example for Y.) The coexistence of Y tejl and • xejlek m might also be because the SI languages have two roots for 'part; separate', see USo cast f'part', diel m 'piece'/ Uk dil m, castyna f 'part'. Y (^)tejl(n) f, m could have been acquired in RP2, since the ESI cognates are to some extent semantically different, see e.g. Uk dil 'range of mountains' (~ OPol dzial, cited above), R del m 'distribution (of booty)' (see Lysenka 1998). The m gender option of Y (Tf)tejl matches that of ModG and MHG m-which argues for an early acquisition-unless the gender comes from the SI cognates. The f gender assignment might come from similar-sounding Uk dilo η 'matter, thing' or from Uk castyna, ucast' f 'part'. The gender of Y (f)te/7 (f, m) often differs from that of -tejl as the second component of compounds (the latter frequently follow Uk gender assignments), which proves that the compounds were coined in the KP area (see chapter 4.5.2).

Individual German morphemes

389

There are still constraints on relexification to G compounds with Teil as the second component. For example, Y lacks a compound with -tejl matching Uk rozdil m 'chapter (in a book)'. Uk verbs with the prefix rozusually match a variety of G prefixes: ^aus (einander)-, ^ent(zwei), ψου-, ver-, zer-. G has zerteilen 'to divide, cut up'; ^austeilen, verteilen 'distribute' and \Austeilung, ^Verteilung f 'distribution' were probably too new to serve as the relexified forms. The inability to find an appropriate G equivalent for Uk rozdil m may have prompted the use of international kapitel(en) n, and Apejrek (prokim) m. For G ^Gegenteil η 'contrary', Y uses • hejpex (hipuxim) m or Lad(e)rabe vead(e)rabe. G \Teilhaber (zero pi) 'partner' is absent in Y, which has recourse to L^sutef (sutfim) m 'partner', A^sutfesfn) ~ A^sutfisaftfn) f'partnership'; the corresponding USo term is podzelnik m from the same root as 'part' (under G influence?), but see Uk ucasnyk m 'partner', ucast' f ~ tovarystvo η 'partnership'. I would have expected Uk ucasnyk m 'partner' to license relexification > G ^JTeilhaber m, but the latter is first attested only in the 16th c. Hence, the corresponding Y Hebraisms are either recent or old replacements of MHG compounds with wider· and mit-, also blocked because of the absence of SI compounds of similar structure, see e.g. MHG widerteil m, n, widerpart m, widerparte f, etc. 'opposite; enemy' and miteteil, mitehaber m, etc. 'partner' (see also Mentgegen). Coexisting with Y urtl(en) 'sentence, judgement' is • mispet (mispotim) m 'trial; judgement'; the corresponding USo wusud m, sudzenje η would not have originally licensed Y urtl. There is no trace in Y tejl of the η gender-still preserved in the G expressions er hat sein Teil 'he has his share' and ein gut Teil 'a good share'. The η gender of Y dritl 'third' (lit. 'three' + 'part') need not be due to G Drittel η but to the η gender required with -I, now interpreted as the dim suffix (see also Uk tretyna, tretja castyna f). If So borrowed G Viertel η 'quarter' (like Polab vardal m: Suprun 1969: 128), then Y fertl(ex) η might have been originally blocked in Y and acquired only after RP1 and RP2; in that case, the η gender of Y dritl and fertl could be < G. 38. German: verzweifeln 'to despair', Verzweiflung f 'despair', zwei 'two', Zweifel (zero pi) m 'doubt', zweifeln 'to doubt' > Yiddish: zajn farcvejflt 'to despair' (lit. 'be despaired'), farcvejflung f 'despair', cvej 'two'.

390

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

The G root has only limited use in Y, see Xcvejfl(n) m 'doubt', Xcvejflen 'to doubt' (see also Kalmanoviö 1938: 214). On the Y choice of the dual-pl suffix -n in cvejfl m, see chapter 4.5.4. Instead, Y uses Ajies 'despair', zajnl arajnfaln in Ajies 'to despair' (lit. 'be in/ fall into despair', but mejaes zajn zix A'be disappointed; give up hope'), farjiest 'despairing, desperate',• sofek (sfejkes) m 'doubt'; Amesupek zajn, zajn in sofek 'to doubt', Amutl besofek 'doubtful' (lit. 'be [placed] in doubt'), Asofken 'to doubt'; USo now uses a single root for both 'despair' and 'doubt', calqued on G, see e.g. USo dwel(owac) (m) '(to) doubt', zadwelowac 'to despair', zadwelowanje η (< USo dwe- 'two-': Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 188), as well as cwyf(e)l m 'doubt', cwyflowac 'to doubt' < G (for native USo terms in late 16th-late 17th-c texts, see Rojzenson 1969: 170). Uk, however, has distinct roots, which were possibly once available to USo too, see e.g. Uk rozpac, vidcaj m 'despair', vpadaty ν rozpac 'to despair' (a model for Y zajn in Ajies) vs. sumniv m 'doubt', sumnivatysja 'doubt'. Y lacks a reflexive pronoun with Amesupek zajn 'to doubt', but the Hebraism is passive in form (were this a genuine passive, Y would use a different native auxiliary, vern, as in the pair • macl zajn 'to save'/ Anicl vern 'be saved', using He active and passive verb forms of the same root). The Y acceptance of G Verzweiflung f but rejection of Zweifel m is surprising and suggests different chronologies of acquisition. 39. German: weil 'because, since, while', Weile 'while' (< MHG wüfe] f), weilen 'to stay', ^verweilen 'to stay, linger', ^zuweilen 'sometimes, now and then'// Dame, währen(d) > Yiddish: vajl 'because, since as long as', vajl(n) 'while, spell', vajle(s) ~ vajlicke f 'while', vajln 'to stay', vajln zix 'enjoy oneself, have a good time', yarvajln 'entertain, amuse', ^farvajler(s) m 'entertainer', ale vajle 'now and then'. Full relexification is not expected, in view of the similarity between cognate USo chwila 'while, time' and MHG wil(e) f before diphthongization of ι > aj, and the absence of SI roots which cover the semantic territory of the Germanisms, See USo dokelz, pretoz; chwila f; (po)byc; prebyc, druhdy, ζ chwilemi. Hence, I suspect separate acts of relexification. Traces of a SI substratum in Y appear in (m)vajle(s) ~ (m)vajlicke f 'while' (unless the latter are recent loans < G; see also G während in #währen). If {m)vajle(s) ~ (m)vajlicke f are from G, then the final schwa points to a recent borrowing (~ Y dame < G Dame f 'lady'), but more

Slavic gender and number

391

likely we have here a merger of SI xvila and G Weile which could have taken place anywhere on SI territory, since SI xvila surfaces as OPol, ModPol dial chila ~ fila, MPol chwila, Cz chvile, Uk xvylja f 'moment,

while' (Schuster-§ewc 1978-1996: 412-413). For other parts of the G paradigm Y has Hebraisms, e.g. Lbatxn (batxonim) m 'entertainer at a wedding (Jewish)'. Y Germanisms have also been recalibrated to Uk patterns of discourse, see e.g. vajln 'to stay', vajln zix 'amuse oneself, farvajlrt 'entertain, amuse' ~ Uk bavyty 'to wait', bavytysja 'entertain oneself; stay', zabavyty 'entertain'.

4.5 Slavic gender and markers of plural and dual in Yiddish Detailed studies of Yiddish gender assignment, specifically the phenomenon of gender flux and deviation from German norms allegedly most typical of Northeastern Yiddish spoken in the Belarusian and Baltic areas have never attempted to connect the assignments of gender and plural suffixes (see e.g. M. L. Wolf 1969 and Jacobs 1990b). Together the inventory and distribution of plural suffixes and the assignment of gender to nouns provide strong evidence for the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish. The two-tiered relexification hypothesis from Upper Sorbian > German by the 12th century and from Kiev-Polessian > Yiddish (and German) beginning in the 15th century at the latest, can explain why Yiddish selected certain German and Hebrew plural suffixes, while rejecting others, as well as the distribution of the selected suffixes and genders in Yiddish. On this topic we must remember that the assignment of plural markers and gender(s) in the German dialects has yet to be described in detail, especially for the end of the Middle High German and early Modern German periods, and especially in dialects which developed on a Slavic substratum, and that the status of the new dual ending in Kiev-Polessian before its reconstitution as Belarusian and Ukrainian in the 15th century, known broadly as the "pseudo-dual" or "quantitative plural", is shrouded in mystery, since the category depends on mobile stress, and there are no accentuated texts prior to the 16th century.

392

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Three types of gender evidence support the relexification hypothesis for Yiddish: (i) The gender of a great many Yiddish nouns of German and Hebrew origin conforms to the gender of the Slavic substratal equivalents that were replaced by German and Hebrew phonetic strings in the relexification processes. Exceptions, such as the assignment of neuter gender to Hebraisms (there is no neuter gender in Hebrew), is presumably a post-relexification phenomenon, due either to the imitation of the gender of the German equivalents borrowed by Yiddish, or to internal Yiddish considerations (on the assignment of gender to Hebrew nouns in Yiddish, see S. A. Birnbaum 1922: 34-35 and Jacobs 1991). We know little about the dates of acquisition of most Hebraisms or the dates of creation of Hebroidisms in Yiddish; nor is much known about the chronology of Medieval Ashkenazic Hebrew innovations. The relexification hypothesis alone permits us to postulate plausible periods of acquisition and creation for some of the Hebrew corpus (see chapter 4.5.1). (ii) Yiddish simplex nouns that appear as the second component of a complex noun frequently undergo a change in gender assignment that is consonant with the gender of the Slavic translation equivalents (see chapter 4.5.2). (iii) While gender can be predicted for a large number of German nouns by semantic, morphological and phonological factors (see Corbett 1991: 49-50, 66, 84), Yiddish gender, in contrast, is less amenable to prediction by such factors (in this regard, Yiddish resembles the other Slavic languages); on the other hand, Yiddish gender often aligns itself with that of the Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian translation equivalents. In the domain of number, there are three types of evidence that support the relexification hypothesis for Yiddish:

Assignment of gender

393

(i) The most productive German and Hebrew plural suffixes in Yiddish formally resemble Slavic nominal stem infixes; those German plural suffixes and strategies which lack Slavic formal parallels tend to be unproductive in Yiddish (see chapter 4.5.3). (ii) The distribution of German plural suffixes in Yiddish can in large part be explained by Slavic grammatical and perhaps even geographical considerations (see chapter 4.5.3). (iii) One German plural marker in Yiddish appears to have denoted the dual number in early relexified Yiddish; at present, the suffix is a highly productive plural marker (see chapter 4.5.4). The dual category may have first developed in Sorbian Yiddish, but was broadly expanded thanks to the Kiev-Polessian substratum, in accordance with the "pseudo-dual" of that language. At present Yiddish has no dual category.

4.5.1. The assignment of gender in Yiddish nouns

One topic that has captured the attention of scholars repeatedly over the last half century is that of the neuter gender in Northeastern (Lithuanian-Belarusian or "Litvak") Yiddish. In this dialect, the neuter gender found in other dialects has been almost entirely replaced by the masculine and feminine genders. Scholars disagree about the explanation for this phenomenon. Sapiro (1939) regarded the two-gender system of Northeastern Yiddish as the oldest system within Yiddish, inherited via the Slavic speech of the first Jews to settle in the Eastern Slavic lands from the community's original (unspecified) "Oriental" language. Sapiro relied on evidence collected by Harkavi (1865, 1867) that prior to the Ashkenazic immigration into Eastern Europe there was an indigenous Slavicspeaking Jewish population (for details, see Wexler 1987a). According to Sapiro, when these "Oriental" Jews eventually became monolingual speakers of Slavic, they experienced difficulty

394

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

acquiring a language with a three-gender system, thus triggering the collapse of the neuter gender in their newly acquired Slavic speech, and eventually also in Yiddish, when they became speakers of the latter. Sapiro does not make clear how Northeastern Yiddish could have a gender system that was older than that of the Yiddish dialects imported there from the German lands. Sapiro's views have never been popular. In a critique, J. Mark argued (1941: 225-226) that the loss of the neuter gender in Northeastern Yiddish was a much later phenomenon and thus could not be ascribed to the linguistic behavior of Slavic-speaking Jews; moreover, Northeastern Yiddish shows traces of the original neuter gender in fun dos naj 'anew', al dos gutes 'all good', s'kind f 'child', menc η 'old woman' (see also J. Mark 1944: 87). The "disappearing neuter gender" and realignments between the masculine and feminine in Northeastern Yiddish have been the subject of detailed studies in the last three decades. Besides the shrinking neuter, the assignment of gender to Yiddish nouns of all components often differs from the assignment of gender to the source etyma. Lötzsch's view that literary Yiddish usually follows the distribution of the German gender system has no basis whatsoever (1974: 448). The gender of Germanisms in Yiddish very often differs from that of German itself; in fact, even when Yiddish and German assign the same gender in a shared German noun, they may be doing so for independent reasons. I believe the main reason for the many disparallels in gender assignment of German nouns and their counterparts in Yiddish is that the substratal Slavic (especially Kiev-Polessian) elements to be relexified assigned gender to German and Hebrew nouns in Yiddish. Slavic masculine nouns remained masculine, while Slavic feminine and neuter nouns almost always became feminine (rarely masculine) during relexification. After the second relexification phase terminated, German became a straightforward source of lexical enrichment rather than a "lexifier" of Yiddish, and internal Yiddish considerations (mainly of a phonological nature) came to determine gender assignment. With a number of German nouns in Yiddish German gender often supplanted or came to coexist with the original Slavic gender assignment. The differential German impact on post-relexifi-

Assignment of gender

395

cation Yiddish caused gender assignment to vary from area to area; the most un-German-like assignments of gender surface in the dialects of Yiddish spoken in the Eastern Slavic lands, in a territory encompassing not just the Belarusian-Lithuanian dialects of Yiddish, as is usually maintained, but also large sections of the Ukrainian as well as Eastern Polish Yiddish territory (see more below). The earliest example of possible gender change appears in Ashkenazic Hebrew on a tombstone inscription from Wroclaw dated 1345, e.g. Αdämöt 'blood' with the Hebrew plural suffix typical of feminine nouns; in normative Hebrew, däm is a masculine noun with the plural in -Tm (Wodzmski 1996: 192; I assume the noun was treated as feminine, but there is no other evidence from the context). The corresponding Slavic and German terms are feminine and neuter, respectively (see Y blut η < German ~ USo krej, Uk krov f), and are not normally used in the plural. V

Sapiro (1939) was not the first to suggest that the gender system of Yiddish in Eastern Europe was based on Slavic norms. Earlier Rejzen had attributed the Northeastern Yiddish gender "shift" to Russian. In his view, the more Russified the area, the more cases of gender shift (1924: 317). Thus, he proposed that the feminine gender option of Y ojg(n) 'eye' (also η ~ G Auge[n] n) may have been due to (arch) R oko n, though he did not explain why a Russian neuter should become a Yiddish feminine (see discussion below). Other examples of his of Yiddish feminine nouns (< German, where they are not feminine) include LiY fender f 'window' ~ R ο bio, G Fenster η, \λΎ feld f 'field' ~ R pole, G Feld η, LiY hare f 'heart' ~ R serdee, G Herz η (see also Viler 1926 and Fal'koviö 1984). Rejzen envisioned a relatively late "reshaping" of the Germanic Yiddish gender system due to the interference of coterritorial Eastern Slavic languages. It is unclear why Rejzen believed that the interference came from Russian (in contact with Yiddish only since the late 18th century in some areas) and not from Belarusian, Ukrainian or Polish with which Yiddish was in much broader and longer contact. The crucial difference between Rejzen and me is that I ascribe the Slavic gender assignment of Yiddish nouns to

396

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

substratal (rather than superstratal) Upper Sorbian and KievPolessian. M. Weinreich also attempted to ascribe gender "changes" in "Northeastern" Yiddish to individual Slavic languages, e.g. Y fojgl(en ~ fejgl) m 'bird' > LiY f allegedly because of synonymous Br ptaska f, but remained masculine in Polish territory next to Pol ptak m (1980: 591). Recently, M. L. Wolf and Jacobs have questioned the validity of the "Slavic connection", emphasizing instead internal Yiddish developments, to a limited extent patterned on coterritorial (but not necessarily Eastern) Slavic developments. In my view, there can be no talk of "reshaping" of East European Yiddish by Slavic. The reshaping was by German, after the termination of the second relexification phase. Before exploring the evidence for the relexification hypothesis, it will be useful to survey the views of M. L. Wolf and Jacobs, who have written extensively on the subject of gender in Yiddish in general, and in the Northeastern Yiddish dialect in particular. M. L. Wolf (1968/1969) doubted that a coterritorial Slavic or Baltic language with a weakened or eliminated neuter gender (e.g. Belarusian dialects or Lithuanian) could have served as a catalyst for the radical restructuring of the case and gender system in Northeastern Yiddish. M. L. Wolf argued that in order to establish a Belarusian catalyst one would need to show that most Yiddish nouns changed in conformity with the Belarusian model and that the minority which did not follow Belarusian norms could be accounted for in some other way. At the same time, it would be necessary to show that few of the Yiddish nouns that historically agreed with Belarusian gender underwent gender change. M. L. Wolf concludes that the innovations in Northeastern Yiddish derived from a complex series of innovations beginning with the partial falling together of the neuter paradigm of nominal modifiers with that of the feminine, with subsequent interdialectal contact. The result was that Northeastern Yiddish developed two new categories of feminine mass nouns and intermediate subgenders. These changes, in turn, caused systematic shifts in gender from the neuter to the feminine (see below).

Assignment of gender

397

M. L. Wolf complains (1969: 205) that there were too many counterexamples to the claim that Northeastern Yiddish gender was assigned according to Slavic considerations, and insists on high statistical accord between Yiddish and the coterritorial Slavic languages. But considering that there have been so many competing and contradictory influences in the last millennium (due to the differential impact of German on Yiddish dialects after the second relexification phase and internal Yiddish developments), the cumulative affect of which was to blur the original Slavic-motivated gender assignment in Yiddish, it is miraculous that the evidence for Slavic substratal influence is as clear as it is. There are several problems with M. L. Wolfs analysis: his corpus of fluctuating gender is too restricted, he makes no attempt to correlate gender assignment with plural expression, and fails to consider cases where Yiddish and Slavic gender coincide and there is no flux in the Yiddish gender asignment. It seems to me that the two-tiered relexification hypothesis can provide the smoothest and most comprehensive explanation of the Yiddish phenomena. Recently, Jacobs has come back to the topic of neuter gender collapse in Northeastern Yiddish, proposing refinements to M. L. Wolfs argumentation. For Jacobs as well, the gender system of Northeastern Yiddish has undergone the most radical and innovative change of any Eastern Yiddish dialect area (1990b: 70). This claim is based on the view that Yiddish is a derivative of German; thus, if e.g. G Loch 'hole' is historically neuter* Y lox must also have been so originally (Eggers 1998: 309, fn 337 repeats this claim). Yet, Eastern European Y lox has masculine and feminine (but never neuter) gender. In my view, the feminine gender preserves the identical gender assignment of either synonymous USo dzära and/ or Uk dira f, while the masculine could mirror that of USo kut, puklot or Uk otvir (the variety of synonyms in Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian would have licensed synonyms in Yiddish, but presently the latter has only lox-with gender shift). Thus, Y lox need not have been originally neuter, and still has not assumed, in the wake of Germanization, the German neuter gender.

398

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

There are a considerable number of German nouns in Yiddish that lack an overt sign of gender. This is due to the fact that Yiddish acquired Germanisms from a German dialect with apocope of the final schwa, which was an old sign of feminine or masculine gender. In Jacobs' view (1990b: 79), schwa apocope contributed to the restructuring of the gender system in Northeastern Yiddish. But this argument is not necessary in the framework of the relexification hypothesis, since the gender of Germanisms with historical feminine gender such as Y lip 'lip' or cung 'tongue, language' ~ stG Lippe, Zunge f was determined not by the form of the German phonetic string but by the gender of the corresponding substratal Slavic term (see e.g. Uk huba, mova f, respectively). Jacobs rightly calls for a detailed contrastive study of gender in apocopating and nonapocopating dialects of German. The impact of apocope on the distribution and inventory of plurals and on the maintenance of the singular-plural opposition in German dialects was not a problem for Yiddish, since the latter distributed its plural suffixes according to Slavic considerations. Jacobs argues, following M. L. Wolf (1968/1969), that the Northeastern Yiddish system must be solely the result of internal structural reorganization, since gender-calquing, as well as any attempt to derive influences from contact with coterritorial languages, are unconvincing (1990b: 90). He agrees with U. Weinreich (1961) that it would be strange for a synchronic grammatical description of a language to include-by necessity-reference to another language as part of its formal internal grammatical description. I agree. But reference to Slavic is not out of place in a diachronic study and if Yiddish is itself a Slavic language. Weinreich had proposed two types of possible external influence on the Northeastern Yiddish system: (i) calquing of Polish gender, and (ii) syncretism in Polish and/or Belarusian masculine and feminine noun paradigms in the locative case (the prepositional case par excellence), which served as the model for the syncretism in the Northeastern Yiddish post-prepositional contraction (see NEY aßt tis ~ stY af der tis 'on the table'). Jacobs proposes that the Northeastern Yiddish gender system developed from the accidental

Assignment of gender

399

convergence of diverse unrelated linguistic events of both external and internal origin (1990b: 93). For him, the loss of the neuter in Yiddish may indeed have been accelerated by Slavic, but the actual loss and the concomitant reorganization of the entire gender system in Northeastern Yiddish are likely to have occurred for internal reasons (see 1990b: 89). M. L. Wolfs data, as well as the data for Northern Polish Yiddish collected by Herzog (1965), show that gender shift in individual nouns covers a variety of expanses, very often spilling well beyond the confines of the Northeastern Yiddish dialect territory. For example, Herzog's map #2 shows that Y vaser 'water' and bet 'bed' have feminine gender (vs. G neuter) in an area extending from just east of Warsaw through Central Ukraine to an area south of Kiev. Y vaser and bet are therefore hardly a feature of "Northeastern" Yiddish alone. Sapiro's suggestion (1939) that an original 2-gender system in time expanded to the 3-gender system found in other dialects seems to me to be closer to the facts than the suggestion that an original 3gender system had developed into an innovative 2-gender system in "Northeastern" Yiddish. However, Sapiro's suggestion still remains unsubstantiated. Both Sapiro and Wolf have imprecisely characterized the geographical parameters. I suspect that the 2-gender system was original to the Yiddish in the Sorbian and KievPolessian lands and developed as a result of relexifiying Slavic to High German by the 15th century. Speakers of Kiev-Polessian undoubtedly migrated northwards and westwards after the mid 13th century, as a result of the Mongolian/Tatar destruction of Kiev and large parts of the Kiev-Polessie hinterland. Kiev-Polessian Yiddish was subsequently eroded in part under the impact of Polish Yiddish, more recently arrived from the German lands, which had a weaker Slavic profile, and presumably a closer approximation to German gender assignment. Unrelexified Slavic neuter nouns ending in -o and -e (both stressed and unstressed) merged in Yiddish into unstressed -e, construed now as feminine, in the process of relexification. The absence of Br akanne/R akan'e (the widespread Belarusian and Russian phenoV

400

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

menon where unstressed mid vowels merge with higher or lower vowels) in both Yiddish and Kiev-Polessian (the antecedent of modern northern Ukrainian and southern Belarussian dialects-also without akanne and extreme weakening of the neuter gender) suggests that the gender shift took place during relexification, in the Judeo-Slavic nouns. In East Slavic dialects with akanne, nouns ending in unstressed -o and -e could > -a and were then often recalibrated as feminine nouns, but this development was unattested in most of Kiev-Polessian. The prerequisite for the gender shift in Kiev-Polessian would have been the assignment of German root stress in Yiddish words, thus resulting in non-final stress and neutralization of final unstressed vowels to schwa. At the same time, pre-existing Slavic and Hebrew nouns with -e were overwhelmingly feminine. I imagine a process of gradual relexification, characterized by some degree of indeterminacy, when the original Slavic term and the newly relexified German term could have coexisted. In the Upper Sorbian lands, initial stress (a Sorbian feature possibly of German origin) was retained by Yiddish after the first relexification phase, see e.g. old (J)USo hnezdo with initial stress or (J)KP hnizdo η > Y *hnezde 'nest', at first coexisting with new Y nest(n) f (< G Nest[er] n: see #Aufsatz) before being definitively replaced by the latter. It is important to distinguish between the loss of Slavic neuter gender caused (a) by relexification into German (> Yiddish) and (b) the ungrammaticality of unstressed mid vowels in other Slavic languages (e.g. Br akanne). There is no reason to claim that the weakening of the neuter was an inherent feature of the substratal Eastern Slavic language of the Jews (like Sapiro) or to suspect the superstratal impact of Belarusian akanne (as some subsequent scholars were prone to do). The weakening of the neuter gender is found in a number of Slavic languages in contact with Yiddish, whenever mid vowels in final position, the sign of neuter gender par excellence, were threatened. Examples are northeast Belarusian and north Russian dialects that experienced the loss of unstressed mid vowels. The phenomenon is also found in other parts of the Slavic territory, see e.g. Sin *mesto η 'town' > *mistu > U Carniolan dial

Assignment of gender

401

mest m, resulting from the loss of unstressed final vowels; thus, a three-way gender system was reduced to two genders, masculine and feminine (see Greenberg 2001). On the shift of the neuter to the feminine gender in the Rjazan' dialect of Russian, see Obnorskij (1927: 3, 6-7, 46-49, 51-54, 58, 65-66); Kotkov (1963: 142-144); on the Pskov dialect of Russian, see Cagiseva (1968); on the elimination of the neuter gender in Baltic languages, see Vaillant (1958, 2/1: 13-16). The tendency to eliminate the neuter gender in Belarusian is strongest in the northeastern dialects derived from the former Polack-Rjazan' dialect (see the Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, maps ##17-20, 71, 97, 314); on the weakening of the neuter gender in Polish dialects spoken on a Belarusian substratum, see Zdancewicz (1966); Maslennikova (1973); Kalnyn' and Maslennikova (1995). Conversely, there are occasional shifts of masculine nouns to the neuter gender when a final back jer > o, as in some North Russian or Ukrainian dialects (see Zales'kyj 1986; Kasatkin 1996). There are four reasons why a phonological change like Br akanne which led to the extreme weakening of the neuter in Northeastern Belarusian does not need to be linked with the Yiddish dialectal shift of historically neuter nouns to feminine: (i) Unstressed mid vowels in non-final positions are not usually endangered in any Yiddish dialect, as they are in Belarusian and Russian dialects with akanne. Only in final position do unstressed Y vowels collapse into a schwa, see e.g. He mattänäh 'gift' > Y • matone f. Slavic polysyllabic neuter nouns which ended in both stressed and unstressed -o appear in Yiddish with (unstressed) -e, because of the tendency to shift the stress to the initial syllable following Upper Sorbian/German phonotactics; final -e is then reanalyzed, on analogy with Hebrew feminine nouns in Yiddish that end in -e < He -äh, as feminine gender. A related topic is that in Yiddish, unstressed mid vowels, usually in words of three syllables, may undergo deletion, see e.g. Y mblote(s) f 'mud, filth, dirt; swamp' < Uk boloto η 'marsh, swamp; mud, dirt', Y mjägde(s) < Uk jähoda f.

402

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(ii) The processes of weakening the neuter gender in Belarusian and Yiddish display different geographies. Yiddish in the KievPolessian area originally replaced the neuter gender of Slavic nouns with the feminine gender yet this is an area entirely without akanne (e.g. Ukrainian has no akanne natively, though there are a few intraSlavic loans which display the feature, see e.g. Uk harazd 'agreed, well' < R gorazdo [garäzda] 'much', Uk bad'oryj 'lively, brisk' < Br badzery < CS1 *bo~). Presumably due to population movement to the west and north after the Mongolian/Tatar invasion in the early 13th century, Kiev-Polessian dialects were brought to Poland and north Belarus' where they appear to have become assimilated to the local Slavic speech (e.g. Polack-Rjazan', Galician speech) or eventually relexified to Yiddish in the case of Jewish speakers. Future research will need to determine whether Kiev-Polessianspeaking Jews assimilated to the Polack-Rjazan' dialect of Eastern Slavic (which had akanne) prior to relexifying to Yiddish when they migrated to that area (contemporary north Belarus'). Though even if there had been relexification of Polack-Rjazan' to Yiddish, akanne need not have influenced the gender assignment of German nouns differently than among Kiev-Polessian speakers. The Kiev-Polessian dialect participated in the genesis of northern Ukrainian and southern Belarusian dialects by the 15th century; these are precisely dialects that know no phonologically motivated weakening of the neuter gender due to akanne. I suspect that the facts of Belarusian prompted scholars to try to localize the phenomenon of Yiddish gender flux in the Belarusian area-the only Eastern Slavic area to experience widespread replacement of the neuter by the feminine, and an area where many Jews historically resided. If Belarusian had a specific affect on the status of the neuter gender in Yiddish, it would have come after the second relexification phase and uniquely in Belarusian speech territory. But as I will show in chapter 4.6, Yiddish Slavicisms, except for the newest loans, do not usually display characteristic Belarusian (or Ukrainian) phonological features.

Assignment of gender

403

Future research should also try to determine the age and origin of the shift from SI -a > Y -e f. Judeo-Slavic glosses in Medieval Slavic Hebrew texts could shed some light on this topic. For example, Slavic feminine nouns ending in -a and neuter nouns ending in -o can be spelled by either alef or (usually?) jod. The first would have reflected /a/, the second /e(j)/, e.g. JS1 qbjl' = Uk kobyla 'mare' (Josef ben-Sim'on Kara 12th c, vs. OUSo kobola) vs. JS1 jgvdj = USo, Uk jahoda 'berry', JS1 qnwpj = USo konopej 'hemp' (vs. Uk konopli pit; see #Bad); JS1 qwpjtj = USo, Uk kopyto η 'hoof (Jicxak ben-Mo§e, Or zarua, 13th c; see Kupfer and Lewicki 1956; Geller 1994: 87). All of these Slavicisms appear in Yiddish as kobile, jagde, kanop(l)je, kopete f. (iii) Even in Eastern Slavic dialects where the elimination of unstressed mid vowels has caused a shift from neuter to usually feminine gender, the neuter gender can still be reinforced (at least orthographically) by neuter suffixes or impersonal verbs, see R -nie, stvo; ej dusno/ skucnol stydno 'she is suffocating/ bored/ ashamed' (Obnorskij 1927: 85). Yiddish, on the other hand, has new neuter nouns from German (as loans after relexification), the Hebrew abstract suffix -üt f > Υ Α-es η and some Hebrew masculine nouns can acquire neuter gender in Yiddish. (iv) Declensional mergers could also contribute to the weakening and eventual elimination of the neuter gender in a Slavic language (see Vaillant 1958, 2/1: 72). For example, in some Slavic languages, masculine endings have spread to neuter (and even feminine) paradigms, see e.g. the spread of Uk -iv, Br -ow m gen pi to the other two genders, as in Uk poliv 'fields', moriv η 'seas' and feminine polysyllabic nouns like vidomist' 'news' > vidomostej (official, Russified) ~ vidomostiv (colloquial) gen pi. See also the spread of the masculine genitive plural to feminine nouns in USo zonow 'women', nohow f 'legs, feet'. Belarusian is the only Slavic language that has spread the masculine/feminine nominative plural ending to all genders, see e.g. vakno (vokny) 'window' and mora (mory) η 'sea'.

404

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

In my view, the very terminology used to describe the Yiddish phenomena is misleading: it is necessary to speak not of regional Yiddish "gender collapse" but of regional "post-relexification gender expansion", when Slavic gender assignments in relexified Kiev-Polessian (Yiddish) were supplemented, and in some cases even replaced, by standard German gender assignments, including the renewed neuter gender. For an example of a Germanism with both a Slavic and a German gender assignment, see Y bet(n) f, η ~ Uk lizko η,postil' f, G Bett η 'bed'. Here I assume the neuter gender is exclusively from German. If a German noun shows gender flux, Yiddish has only the Slavic gender assignment, see e.g. Y nec(n) 'net' ~ USo syc, Uk sit' f ~ G Netz(e) f, η (Kaiser 1930 discusses flux in this noun). In the two relexification phases, almost all Slavic neuter nouns were shifted to feminine gender in Yiddish because the stress almost always fell on a non-final syllable, causing unstressed final vowels to become schwa (-e), and thus shifting the nouns into the feminine gender class because -e was a common ending of feminine nouns. Examples are Y mvapne f 'slaked lime, mortar' < Uk vapno η, Y mozere(s) f 'lake' < Uk ozero η (see also U. Weinreich 1958: 392). Uk dno η 'bottom' > Y mdno m since the final vowel is stressed, but still the original neuter gender is not maintained. It is significant that while German and Hebrew components often display genders that differ seemingly unsystematically from those of the source etyma, the Slavic components in Yiddish rarely deviate from Slavic norms-excluding the shift of SI η > Y f (this point was also made by Weissberg 1988: 125). This suggests that Slavic gender determines the gender assignment of the other components in Yiddish. However, it is rarely possible to decide whether a particular Slavic gender assignment in a Yiddish Germanism or Hebraism dates from the first or second relexification phase, since the Slavic languages generally agree on the gender of their Common Slavic components.

Assignment of gender

405

There are a number of extraneous factors that can influence the Slavic gender assignment of individual Yiddish, German and Slavic nouns: (i) There are Germanisms in Yiddish which agree with neither Slavic nor German, see e.g. Y cimer(n) m vs. G Zimmer (zero pi) η and USo stwa, Uk kimnata, kamera f 'room'. Perhaps the masculine gender is due to the Yiddish tendency (since when?) to classify most nouns in -er as masculine (perhaps under the impact of [m\-er m ag). According to the relexification hypothesis, if Y cimer was a postrelexification loan, it presumably could retain the neuter gender of G Zimmer; if it was a phonetic string acquired through relexification, then the original gender should have been feminine, like that of all the Slavic translation equivalents. It is also conceivable that after relexification, Y cimer changed from feminine to neuter, in agreement with German gender, then switched to masculine for the reasons stated above. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to follow shifting genders in Yiddish nouns through time and space, since the Yiddish speakers tended to write in a Western (German) Yiddish dialect until the early 19th century (see Kerler 1999). (ii) ModstG Bach(-"e) m 'stream, brook' is feminine in the German spoken in both formerly Slavic and non-Slavic areas, e.g. in Brandenburg, as well as in Silesia, Thuringia, Bavaria and Swabia (Kieser 1972: 430; see also Jänichen 1966; van der Elst 1983: 1207 gives a map of Bach in German dialects; on gender flux in German in general, see Kaiser 1930 and van der Elst 1983). In areas once home to a Slavic-speaking population, it is attractive to ascribe the feminine gender of G Bach to synonymous USo re(c)ka, Polab reka f. In German, the names of rivers in Central Europe are feminine (see Spitz 1965: 38), perhaps due to the Slavic substratum. On the other hand, Y box(n) 'river; stream' is masculine like ModstG Bach. In fact, both the German feminine and Yiddish masculine genders of this noun could be of German origin, since MHG bach allowed both genders. Masculine gender may have prevailed in German (and thus spread to Yiddish) after the obsolescence of coterritorial Slavic

406

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

because this was the gender of other nouns denoting bodies of water of modest size (see e.g. Fluss 'river' and See m 'lake'-but note also See f 'sea, ocean': see Florer 1900: 465 as well as discussion in S. Michalk 1969: 133, Wesche 1969: 268-269 and Stone 1989: 139, ##Schwamm and below). (iii) As M. L. Wolf and others have pointed out, there are numerous Germanisms in Yiddish with the gender of the German etymon rather than of a Slavic translation equivalent. I hypothesize that such Germanisms were largely acquired after the second relexification phase had terminated, unless pressure from other members of a semantic set or internal Yiddish considerations can be demonstrated. For example, I would expect Y lefl (zero pi) 'spoon' to be feminine ~ USo tzica, Uk lozka f, but it follows the masculine gender of G Löffel (zero pi). Feminine gender is all the more expected, given MHG laffel ~ löffei ~ leffel f. The masculine gender of Y lefl suggests either post-relexificational Germanization of the original Slavic feminine gender, or the pressure to level gender differences within the semantic field of silverware. Note that Y gopl(en) m 'fork' also differs from G Gabel (zero pi), Uk vydelka ~ vyla f. If the masculine gender of Y gopl was motivated by Polab gobel rather than Pol widelec m 'fork', then the Germanism (like Y lefl?) was probably acquired in the first relexification phase (on Y gopl, see also Manaster Ramer and Wolf 1997: 224 and below). On postrelexification developments, see the application of neuter gender to Hebraisms in Yiddish below. The impact of a semantic set on the gender assignment of an individual noun could also account for the feminine gender option of Y mserp ~ ms'erp(n ~ es) m, f 'sickle' ~ pan-Slavic masculine; the feminine gender option for the Yiddish Slavicism has no basis in any Slavic language. The feminine may be due to analogy with other (Slavic) tool names which are feminine, see e.g. Y udolote(s) f 'chisel' (~ mdlotfnj m), mkose(s) 'scythe', mlopete(s) 'shovel', nsoxe(s) 'plough', mgrabl'e(s) f 'rake'. Imitation of the feminine gender of the German translation equivalent Sichel(n) 'sickle' is unlikely, since Yiddish lacks this Germanism altogether. There is no

Assignment of gender

407

compelling reason to reconstruct a now defunct feminine or neuter gender with this Slavic etymon. An example of the change of neuter > masculine/feminine is Uk jadro η > Y joder m, f 'kernel, nucleus'. The unexpected masculine gender may derive from Y kern(s) (< G m; there is no evidence that Slavic ever had a masculine variant of this root) or < -er. Pol pudio, Uk dial pudlo η 'box, case' > Y mpudle(s) f and dim mpudelefx) n. In the latter form, root -/- has been reinterpreted as dim -/ (on the model of Y groz[n ~ grezer] 'grass' and dim grezl[ex] η 'blade of grass'), which induces the neuter. Sometimes it is unclear whether Yiddish masculine nouns owe this gender assignment to the Slavic substratum or not. Uk stremeno (stremena) 'saddle' may be the source of Y astremen(es) m. If so, the model of Yiddish nouns ending in -en (see e.g. rimen[s] m 'strap, thong; belt') may have been responsible for the gender change; there is no trace of Y *stremene f. While the plural of Υ ιstremen is A lm-es, that of mrimen is (•>,?: the distribution of the two variants needs to be explored. Possibly, A lm-es was preferred with substratal Slavic components while A!m-(e)s was used for other components (but see Y stekn m 'stick' < German with pi stekns or stekenes; see also chapter 4.2.3). Alternatively, the Yiddish Slavism may be from Uk stremin m (Bernstejn 1974: 179); since Br stremja η has no masculine counterpart, the Yiddish term could come either < northern Kiev-Polessian or < USo trmjen m (see Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1546-1547). For Hebrew examples, see below. In some instances, Yiddish Germanisms which are clearly old in Yiddish may follow (presumably post-relexificational) German rather than Slavic gender assignment(s), see e.g. Y hare (hercer) ~ G Herz(en) η (the lowering of e > a before r, χ is presumably a feature of old Germanisms); Y hare is feminine only in the Lithuanian dialect (see above). The Slavic translation equivalents have either feminine or neuter gender which should have yielded a feminine noun for 'heart' in Yiddish, see USo wutroba f, Uk serce n. Yiddish also makes limited use of the latter, see Y mserdce(s) f 'heart' (M. Weinreich 1973, 3: 25), mserce(n'u) (inteijection) 'darling'.

408

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Occasionally, parts of a Yiddish paradigm match the Slavic gender assignments of both German and Slavic. For example, Y ajzn(s) 'iron', a mass noun, matches the neuter gender of G Eisen (zero pi) and Uk zalizo, which suggests a late date. However, Y ajzn(s ~ ajzenes) m 'iron bar, flatiron', a count noun, differs from synonymous G Eisen η 'iron bar, tool', and could match Ukpras m. Y ajzn never has feminine gender. On the other hand, the opposition of gender in Yiddish could reflect an internal tendency to distinguish mass (neuter) and count nouns (all genders). (iv) Rarely, Yiddish gender variation results from the merging of two originally independent German morphemes due to phonetic similarity. For example, #Zaum(-"e) 'bridle' and G Zaun(-"e) m 'fence' > Y cojm(en) f, m 'bridle' and m, f 'fence' (~ cam[en] m; note the difference in gender preference of the two homophonous Germanisms). The gender variation is patterned on USo wuzda f 'bridle' and plot m 'fence' or Uk vuzdecka f, povid m vs. ohoroza f, tyn, parkan m, respectively. In one example, Yiddish has two genders for a Germanism acquired both directly from German and indirectly from Slavic, see e.g. Y kant(n) m, f 'edge, rim' < G Kante(n) f vs. ukant(n) 'region' < Uk kant m 'border, angle, ridge' < German. (v) Internal Yiddish phonological considerations could also dictate gender change. For example, while the neuter gender of Y naxes could be derived from synonymous fargenign(s) (< G Vergnügen [zero pi] n), how do we account for the masculine gender option, given that the Ukrainian equivalents are either neuter (zadovolennja) or feminine (vtixa, nasoloda, rozvaha)? The best explanation is that Hebraisms ending in -es tends to take masculine gender; see also YAemes(n) m 'truth' and stales (talejsim) m 'a striped tasseled shawl worn by Jews during certain prayers' < He f. (vi) A shift in morpheme boundary could create a new singular back formation from the plural form, resulting in the creation of a historically unattested gender; see e.g. Y mblince(s) f 'blintz,

Assignment of gender

409

pancake' vs. pan-Slavic masculine: Y *blinc m sg > mblinc\es pi > mblince\s pi > new blince f sg, unless the feminine gender is due to ##Plinse f. (vii) Sometimes, relexification seems to involve different underlying Slavic synonyms (depending on the relexifier?), thus resulting in a variety of genders in the relexified German word. For example, Y bojx (bajxer) m 'stomach' ~ f in LiY could have both genders from Slavic, see e.g. Uk cerevo n, zyvit m (see also below). Such cases are rare so I regard multiple relexification as questionable. Gender differences are recommended by some Yiddish language planners as a means of disambiguating (see J. Mark's suggestion to distinguish two genders for ##Artikel in Yiddish, 1943a). Hence, it is difficult to know whether the Slavic gender assignment of a Yiddish noun dates from a relexification phase, or is the result of a more recent intervention. See also discussion of #alt. (viii) Gender flux within and across Slavic languages could also influence Yiddish gender assignment. Agrell back in 1917 noted that nouns that were neuter in one Slavic language could be masculine in another Slavic language, and that some neuter nouns also had an optional masculine or feminine gender in a single Slavic language (with no resulting semantic differentiation), see e.g. LSo leso η (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 828) -Rlesm 'forest'; Pol brzuch m ~ brzucho n, Cz brich m ~ bricho n, USo, LSo brjuch m ~ LSo brjucho n, R brjuxo η ~ OR brjuxt m 'belly'; SC jar am m vs. Uk jarmo η 'yoke'; SC krastravac m vs. Mac krastavica f 'cucumber' (for geographical details of Polish gender flux, see Brzezina 1982). (The Slavic variation with 'stomach' could be the basis for the two genders in Y bojx f, m-see above.) Gender flux shared by many Slavic languages in the same nouns suggests a chronology of considerable antiquity. Below are selected examples of German nouns in Yiddish with multiple gender assignments or with a gender assignment that agrees

410

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

only with a Slavic translation equivalent. All the German examples cited below are attested in Middle High German; I will cite the gender of Middle High German nouns when it differs from that of Modern German: 1. bajl(n) m, f 'bump, lump' ~ USo horb, Uk (pajhorb m (see also #Berg) ~ G Beule f 2. bak(n) f 'cheek' ~ USo lico n, Uk scoka f ~ MHG backe m (but G Backe f) 3. bet f, η 'bed' ~ USo lozo, Uk lizko η,postil' f ~ G Bett η 4. bojx f, m 'stomach' ~ USo brjuch, Uk zyvit m, cerevo η ~ G Bauch m (see also discussion below) 5. bret f, η 'board' vs. ~ USo deska, Uk doska, polycja f 'shelf ~ G Brett η 6. bruk f, m 'bridge' ~ USo most, Uk mist m ~ G Brücke f (see ##Boderi) 7. brojt f (NY), η (UkY) 'bread' ~ USo chleb, Uk xlib m, bulka f ~ G Brot η 8. cuker f, m 'sugar' ~ USo cokor, Uk cukor ~ G Zucker m 9. cung f, m 'tongue' ~ USo jazyk, Uk jazyk m 'language, tongue', mova 'language' ~ G Zunge f'tongue; language' (see also discussion below) 10. cvajg f, m 'branch' ~ USo haluza, Uk hilka, haluz' f ~ G Zweig m 11. gloz f 'cup'/ η 'material'- USo sklenca 'cup, material', skia f 'glass bowl', Uk sklo η 'material', skljanka f 'cup' ~ G Glas η 'cup; glass' (#alt) 12. hojz f, η 'house' ~ USo dom m, chäza, Uk χata, budivlja f, zytlo ~ G Haus η (see also MHG #nähe[n]t) Another area in which Yiddish follows Slavic rather than German norms is the domain of semantic bifurcation based on gender

Assignment of gender

411

oppositions. Gender (usually accompanied by different plural suffixes) is used in German to disambiguate ambiguous nouns, but the German examples almost always differ from the corpus of Yiddish examples of bifurcation. A rare German-Yiddish parallel is G Band(-"e) m 'volume' vs. Band(-"er) η 'ribbon, tape' and Y band (bend) m 'volume' and band (bender) f 'ribbon', but the Yiddish gender is based on the Slavic translation equivalents (though Y band 'volume' is relatively new; see Frajnd srajbn 1938), e.g. Uk torn m 'volume' vs. lenta f 'ribbon'. UkY sup(n) m 'soup with meat, beans, potatoes, etc.' (~ stY 'soup') vs. zup(n) f 'liquid dish' with the genders < Uk sup m and G Suppe f, respectively (J. Mark 1941: 229). Unique German examples are Verdienst m 'earnings, salary' vs. Verdienst η 'merit', Gehalt(e) m 'contents' vs. Gehalt(-"er) η 'income, salary'. But Yiddish has only fardinst(n) η 'earning(s)', which suggests that the gender bifurcation in German postdates the relexification phases. Some Modern German examples of bifurcation arose when different Middle High German roots, or roots from two different German dialects, became homophonous, see e.g. Steuer (zero pi) η 'rudder, helm' vs. Steuer(n) f 'tax, excise', Tau m 'dew' vs. Tau(e) η 'rope, cable'. Yiddish has only toj m 'dew' (and rose < Uk rosa f). Significantly, I know of no lexical bifurcation via gender involving Hebrew or Slavic nouns. Yiddish examples of semantic bifurcation involving gender, usually with no change in plural suffix, are given below: 1. Y -aj f denotes the place where an action is performed vs. -aj η verbal noun suffix, see e.g. Y bekeraj f 'bakery' ~ bekeraj η 'baking', farberaj f 'dye works' ~ farberaj η '(profession of) painting' (see chapter 4.2). In G, -ei [aj] f denotes place of action while the verbal noun is identical with the inf and has η gender, see G Bäckerei(en) f ~ Backen η (zero pi), Färbereien) f ~ Färben (zero pi: #Farbe) n. The Y gender assignment follows Uk -nja f 'place where' vs. -nnja η verbal noun-as in pekarnja f 'bakery' ~ γypikannja η 'baking', farbarnja f 'dye works' ~ farbuvannja η 'profession of painting'. A similar distinction obtains in USo pjekarnja f 'bakery' ~ p j e k a r j e n j e η 'baking', barbjernja f 'dye works' ~ barbjenje η 'painting' (with -nja and -nje, respectively). The fact that Uk -nnja retains its η gender in Y rather than becoming f (as in relexification) may point to

412

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

a post-relexification loan, unless we are dealing with subsequent G influence on a suffix acquired earlier through relexification. Nominalized infs in G also preserve their η gender in Y, see e.g. G Essen (zero pi) 'food' > Y esn n. 2. Y bod(-"er) f'bath (house)' ~ η 'spa' (also bad[-"er] 'spa') vs. a single G #Bad(- "er) η; the Y f gender follows USo kupjel(nja) 'bathroom', Uk vanna, kupal'nja f 'bath(house)' (vs. kurort < G Kurort m 'spa'), while the η gender is a recent loan from G. 3. The choice of a m gender variant in Y cung(en ~ cirtger) m, f 'tongue; language' is surprising; historically G Zunge(n) is f. Μ gender could come from USo, Uk jazyk m 'tongue (anatomical)'. The existence of the pi variant Y cinger suggests that originally the noun was m and after the gender change the pi (m)-er was retained with the new f gender (such examples are rare in Y and non-existent in G). The f gender of Y cung could be in imitation of G practice. It is also conceivable that there was an early gender split in Y cung when USo jazyk m 'tongue (anatomical); language' and rec (or Uk movä) f 'language; speech' were relexified. Some speakers could have opted for a gender split in Y cung(en) m, f 'language' vs. m 'tongue (anatomical)', while other speakers, during the first relexification phase, could have borrowed He läsön (lesönöt) f to produce Y Alosn (lesojnes) η 'language' (the innovative η gender of the latter is a later internal Y development). Possibly the η gender of Y A losn (lesojnes) 'language' < the η gender of SI verbal nouns, see e.g. Uk hovorennja 'speaking', recennja 'sentence' n. 4. Y heft(n) f 'notebook' ~ m 'scar; juncture' (~ G Heft[e] η 'notebook; hilt'). It is tempting to ascribe Y deviations from G gender to the SI substratum of Y, see Uk zapysna knyzka f 'notebook' (~ synonymous zsytok), sram 'scar' (also > Y msramfenj m). 5. There is no gender difference in stY jugnt(n) 'young woman' and jugnt f 'youthful years', but see LiY jugnt f 'youthful years' vs .jugnt m 'young people' (J. Mark 1943a: 130; see also Schaechter 1986: 149). The etymon, G Jugend f, denotes both 'youth' and 'young people' (as in MHG). The LiY gender differentiation appears to reflect the SI practice of distinguishing 'young person' and 'youth' morphologically, see e.g. Uk junist' f 'youth' and junactvo η 'young people', USo mtodosc f, mlode leta

Assignment of gender

413

pit 'youthful years' and mlodzina f, mlodzi ludzo pit 'young people', knjezna f 'young woman; Miss'. See also #alt. 6. Y krig(n) m, f 'war' vs. krig(n) f 'quarrel, strife' ~ G Krieg(e) m 'war; quarrel'. The f gender of Y krig has a parallel in Uk vijna 'war', svarka, lajka 'quarrel' and borot'ba f 'strife'. Such pairs may enable us to reconstruct chronological levels in relexification to G; Y krig f (in any meaning) is presumably older than Y krig m, and indeed in the meaning of 'war' Y uses alternatively • milxome(s) f. 7. Y sild(n) f 'signboard' vs. m 'shield' ~ G Schild(er) η 'signboard' vs. Schild(e) m 'shield'. If one assumes that gender and pi markers of old Germanisms in Y are set by substratal SI parameters, the common m gender of Y sild(n) and G Schild(e) 'shield' should be regarded as fortuitous; the Y genders are determined by Uk vyviska f 'signboard' vs. scyt, zaxyst m 'shield'. It is difficult to posit the relative chronology of this pair in Y, since USo also offers a parallel, e.g. USo tafla f and skit m, respectively. Since MHG had only m gender, and the η dates only to the ModG period, it is conceivable that Y acquired the genders of the common Germanism at different chronological periods (see also the discussion of compounds in chapter 4.5.2). 8. Y shmg(en) f 'gullet' vs. slung(en) m 'swallow' < G Schlund(-"e) 'gullet' (see MHG slunc, slunt) vs. G Schluck(-"e) m 'swallow' ~ Uk hlotka f, horlo n, stravoxid 'gullet' vs. kovtok 'swallow' (Uk stravoxid m is probably a neologism). 9. Y traxt(n) f 'womb' ~ ψίταχί(η) m 'costume'; see Uk matka, utroba f, öerevo η 'uterus' ~ Pol stroj, ubior, kostium, Uk kostjum m (but also odeza f) 'costume'. Here too Y 'costume' may acquire its m gender from synonymous mkost'um, ontuexc m (< G) or Llevus(im) m, η 'garb'. See G Tracht(en) 'costume' and MHG tttraht f 'pregnancy; burden'. The m of Y Xtraxt 'costume' separates Y from USo drasta 'costume', but Y treat 'womb' ~ USo macernica, rodzenca f. 10. Y tux (fixer) η 'cloth' ~ tux (tixer) f'kerchief, woman's shawl'; see Uk polotno, sukno η 'cloth', xustka, kosynka f 'kerchief-but also Uk scarf, platok m 'kerchief! A f gender for Y tux 'kerchief suggests that it was a Uk f noun that was relexified to G Tuch η, and not Uk sarf platok m; see also chapters 4.5.2 (on compounds with tux) and 4.5.4. Y tux preserves the

414

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

η gender of G Tuch(- "er) which has both meanings. The acceptance of G η gender may be because of the need to preserve the SI semantic bifurcation of 'cloth' and 'kerchief. The f gender of 'kerchief may also be patterned on synonymous Y facejle(s) f (< Nit faz[z]udlo or Balkan Lat *faciola; see Wexler 1992: 43-44; 1993c: 127). See also Y cojm 'bridle' f, m; 'fence'm, f (see #Zaum), kant 'edge, rim'm, f; 'region'm above and #alt. Yiddish even assigns a Slavic gender to a Germanism when there is no unambiguous mark of gender in the underlying Slavic form. For example, G Salz η has two genders in Yiddish, e.g. Y zalc n, f. The feminine gender assignment derives from USo sei, Uk sil', yet there is no mark on the latter which would reveal an unambiguous feminine gender. After all, phonetically similar Uk bil' 'ache, pain; suffering' is masculine gender (the feminine gender is kept in cognate USo bol, Br, R bol'). In the case of Y vej(en) ~ vejtik(n) m 'pain' (vs. G Weh[e] η), I assume the term was acquired in the KievPolessian lands, since the gender matches Uk bilBr bol' m rather than USo bol f. The ability of relexifiers to identify correctly the gender of an underlying Slavic noun, even when the latter lacked an overt marker, is proof that at the time of acquisition of the Germanism the dominant language of the relexifiers was Slavic. (Of course, G Salz η also provides no formal clue to its gender; see also G Pelz m 'fur, hide'.) In its treatment of Slavic gender, Yiddish differs strikingly from that of German loans in other Slavic languages. In the latter, German nouns ordinarily get assigned gender according to the morphophonological peculiarities of the borrowing (target) language, see e.g. the shift of German nouns ending in -e > -a f in Polish (Pohl 1987: 192-194; for Polish Germanisms, see Kaestner 1939). All German neuter nouns in Polabian have been reclassified as feminine (if they end in -e nom sg) or masculine nouns (if they end in a consonant in the nominative singular: PoMski 1962: 21-22). A parallel to the Yiddish treatment of Slavic substratal nouns is the Polish speech of Germans; not infrequently, German gender influences the gender assignment of nouns in the Polish speech of these bilingual Germans, see e.g. "GPol" czupryn < G Haarschopf 'head of hair', "GPol" drog < G Weg 'road', "GPol" glow < G Kopf

Assignment of gender

415

m 'head', "GPol" kosciola < G Kirche 'church' (Brzezina 1989: 113) vs. Pol czupryna, droga, glowa f, kosciol m. It is noteworthy that in former Slavic-speaking areas of Germany, the gender of German nouns in the local German dialects often follows Sorbian or Polabian gender assignment rather than standard German norms. This suggests that Polabian and Sorbian speakers may have initially relexified to German prior to making a complete switch to the latter. See Polab gobel m 'fork' < G Gabel f m (Polahski 1971, 2: 168; see the discussion of Y gopl above, where the masculine gender reflects the Polabian treatment?). An example from the Lüneburg area in northwest Germany (which had a Polabian-speaking community up through the 18th century) is LG melk η 'milk' ~ Slavic vs. G f (Wesche 1969: 269; see also ttmelkeri). In Lausitz, the substratal Sorbian gender assignments can also affect the gender of German nouns in the local dialect, see e.g. LusG Teig η 'dough', Affe f 'monkey' ~ USo desto η, wopica f vs. stG m in both nouns. Some German neuter nouns become masculine, even though the Upper Sorbian translation equivalent has feminine gender. The explanation for this is that in Upper Sorbian neuter nouns are relatively rare, there are no neuter nouns ending in a consonant and the neuter and masculine paradigms are too similar in both German and Upper Sorbian, thus LusG Frühstück m 'breakfast' (vs. G η and USo snedan f), Kleid m 'garment' (vs. G η and USo drasta f; see S. Michalk 1969: 133: Mbekleiden). Future studies should contrast idiosyncratic gender shift in Yiddish and Sorbian dialects. Finally, a word about relative chronology. The process of relexification allows for a one-to-one replacement of the Slavic word by a German equivalent; the quantity of Slavic synonyms determines how many German terms can be accepted via relexification. When the substratal Slavic language has more terms than are available in German, there are several possible outcomes to preserving the underlying Slavic inventory: inventing unique Germanoid and Hebroid forms, relexifying to Hebrew, or retaining Slavicisms. But if the Germanism is to be accepted, there are theoretically only two possible treatments: the Yiddish Germanism could acquire (i) more

416

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

than one gender assignment from the Slavic substratum (with possible semantic implications) or, arbitrarily (ii) a single gender assignment. The second option is found widely; cases where different gender assignments match different Slavic translation equivalents are extremely rare, and in all cases German could be the source of one of the genders (see also discussion above). This suggests that the relexifiers had one specific Slavic substratal word in mind. The choice of underlying Slavic gender can cast light on the inventory and meanings at the time of relexification. For example, 'belly' in Ukrainian is now zyvit, slunok m and cerevo n. The existence of LiY bojx (bajxer) f (~ elsewhere m) 'belly, abdomen' suggests the original source of bojx may have been KP (Uk) cerevo n. While the masculine gender of Y bojx could be ascribed to either Uk zyvit and slunok, it could come from German as well. If Y bojx has been relexified < Uk cerevo n, this implies either (i) that the other two terms may have either not been used in Kiev-Polessian at that time, or (ii) were used then with different meanings. Alternatively, as I suggested above, it may be that different speakers chose different underlying Slavic inputs-which could also contribute to gender flux in the relexified language. The second assumption finds support in the fact that Uk cerevo η and zyvit now also mean 'abdomen', while zyvit and slunok m also mean V

'stomach'. Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 125 assumes the original meaning of CS1 *cervo (> Uk cerevo) was 'intestines' (as in USo crjewo, R dial cereva pl-n; see also OPol, dial strzewo 'intestines', Pol trzewia pl-n 'viscera': L'vov 1966: 278 and Trubaöev 1977, 4: 82-83); for 'intestine(s)', Ukrainian now has kyska (> Y mkiske f), which suggests that at some time before the second relexification phase, Uk cerevo η must have shifted from 'intestine(s)' > 'belly', necessitating the new term for 'intestine(s)'-Äys£ar f. The meaning of CS1 *zivotb may have been 'body; life; bodice'; see also Br zyvot 'belly; life', Uk zyvit m arch also 'life'. See also discussion of Y tux f'kerchief above and chapter 4.5.4. Y kind 'child', of German origin, is attested in different Yiddish dialects in no fewer than all three genders (stY has only neuter); the neuter gender might be a recent acquisition from stG Kind,

Assignment of gender

417

while the masculine gender reflects an internal Yiddish tendency (of Slavic origin?) to give natural gender to animate nouns; finally, the feminine matches Uk dytyna f ~ dytja, cado η For other examples of natural gender in Yiddish vs. German, where animate nouns can have a gender that is not coordinated with the sex of the object, see e.g. G Glied(er) 'limb', Mitglied(er) 'member' ~ Y glid(er) η but animate mitglid(er) m. See also G Schildwache f 'sentry' and Mädchen η 'girl' vs. Y Lsojmer (somrim), vexter(s) m 'sentry' and Y mejdl(ex) n, f 'girl' (the neuter is called for because of the -/ dim). In contrast with G Schildwache f 'sentry', Y mtate(s) 'father' is feminine in form but masculine syntactically and semantically (as in Slavic). See also chapter 4.5.2. With the termination of the second relexification phase, and the subjection of Yiddish to strong Modern German influence in various parts of Eastern Europe, it is not surprising if the Slavic principle of gender/plural assignment in Yiddish nouns undergoes change. This is presumably also the time when the dual category became obsolete (see chapter 4.5.4). Another reflection of a breakdown of Slavic substratal norms in Eastern European Yiddish is the possibility of assigning neuter gender to some Hebrew masculine and feminine nouns in Yiddish. Hebrew itself lacks a neuter gender and the latter was considerably reduced in scope (and even eliminated altogether from relexified Germanisms) in Yiddish due to the inability of retaining Slavic neuter nouns as such. It seems reasonable to assume that the assignment of neuter gender to Hebrew nouns in Yiddish is a post-relexification phenomenon; the spread of the neuter to Hebraisms could have been inspired both by Slavic and Modern German models (Rejzen opted for German influence: 1924: 319; Bischoff erroneously ascribed gender shift in Yiddish nouns to Hebrew influence, see 1901: 14 and, on gender flux, 1901: 49). Unfortunately, it is unclear at present whether neuter Hebraisms in Yiddish have a geography that would reveal the venue (and thus the relative chronology) of the "revived" neuter. One question that needs to be answered is whether Hebraisms tended to acquire neuter gender on Polish rather than Kiev-Polessian territory. Hebraisms were also accepted after relexification, which shows that not all He-

418

Evidence of two-tiered

relexification

braisms were borrowed by Yiddish in order to substitute for Germanisms blocked in the relexification process (see chapter 3). Hebrew masculine nouns that have acquired an additional or sole neuter gender in Yiddish include Y Anaxes 'pleasure, satisfaction', Agojrl (gojroles) 'fate, lot, destiny, doom', • mojfes (mofsim) (all also m) 'miracle, magical sign'; • mazl (mazoles) 'luck; sign of the zodiac', • merxec(n) η 'bathhouse' (see #Bad). Occasionally a Hebrew feminine noun appears in Yiddish with neuter gender, e.g. Y A losn (lesojnes) η < He läsön (lesönöt) f. Extension of the neuter gender to Yiddish Hebraisms could be due to internal Yiddish considerations. For example, the neuter gender option in Y Abeged (bgodim) m, η 'garment' (vs. Uk odezfynja f, odjah m, vbrannja η 'suit of clothes') may have spread from synonymous Y klejd(er) < ##Kleid(er) n. The multiple gender of Y Asejfer (sforim) 'religious book' and Amaxzer (maxzojrim) 'prayer book for Jewish holidays' may derive from Y bux m, η < G Buch η. The masculine gender of Y bux could have come from Uk torn 'volume, book', molytvennyk m 'prayerbook' or from phonetically similar words like Y pux 'fluff, fuzz, down' and dux(n) 'breath' < Uk pux, dux m 'breath; air; spirit'. This is tantamount to saying that Ukrainian phonotactics could survive in Yiddish after relexification. See also Y Aruex (ruxes) m 'ghost, devil' < He f 'wind; spirit' (and chapter 4.5.2). In Y A mazl (mazoles) η 'luck; sign of the zodiac' or Agojrl (gojroles) m, η 'fate, lot, destiny, doom', one thinks immediately of semantically related Y glik(n) 'good luck' ~ G Glück ~ USo zbozo n; see also Y J*sikzal < G ^Schicksal(e) η 'fate' (16th c; see also #besonneri). The neuter of Y A mojfes 'miracle, magical sign' is puzzling, given the existence of synonymous Y Anes (nisim), which preserves the masculine gender of Hebrew. A synonymous Germanism, Y vunder(s), is masculine (vs. G Wunder [zero pi] η). Y A mojfes may have acquired neuter gender < Y vunder which was probably originally neuter; nowadays, most Yiddish nouns ending in -er, regardless of whether the latter is the masculine agentive suffix, have masculine gender. The only other explanation is that Uk scastja 'luck' or cudo η 'miracle, wonder' influenced the gender assignment of Y A mazl, Agojrl, A mojfes, after relexification.

Gender of simplex nouns in compounds

419

Ukrainian could have in principle supplied a feminine gender for almost all Yiddish neuter Hebraisms, see e.g. Uk dolja 'fate, luck', udaca f 'success'. Puzzling too is that Y Anes m 'miracle' does not acquire neuter gender under the impact of synonymous Uk cudo n; this would suggest that it too was acquired after the relexification phase had terminated. One is tempted to ascribe the neuter gender of Y Amerxec(n) 'bathhouse' to #Bad n, but the latter appears in Yiddish as bod(- "er) f 'bath(house)' (with the gender < Uk kupal'nja f). I doubt that Y bod(- "er) η 'resort, spa' (the gender bifurcation does not exist with G Bad which means both 'bath[house]' and 'spa') would be the source of the neuter of Y • merxec(n), for semantic reasons and because of the probable relative newness of Y bod n. On the neuter gender of Υ Α los η (lesojnes) 'language', see discussion above. To summarize: Relexification caused unrelexified Slavic as well as relexified Slavic neuter nouns now appearing as German phonetic strings to acquire feminine gender in Yiddish. After the second relexification phase, a new rule applied whereby German and sometimes Slavic neuter nouns could impose their gender on (postrelexificational) borrowings from Hebrew; this fact shows that relexification was over, and constitutes a sort of "modernization". Of course, while the neuter gender may be relatively recent, the nouns themselves may be of greater antiquity in Yiddish.

4.5.2. The gender of Yiddish simplex nouns in compound constructions Yiddishists have repeatedly claimed that the gender of a Yiddish simplex noun determines that of the compound in which the simplex is the second member, see e.g. mzejger(s) 'clock' (< SI < G) > mvantzejger(s) 'wall clock', tis(n) 'table' > arbetstis(n) m 'work table', mil(n) 'mill' > vasermil(n) f'watermill' (Rejzen 1924: 317; Zarecki 1929: 94; J. Mark 1978: 124; Jacobs 1991: 317; Jacobs et al. 1994: 399; Lockwood 1995: 35). J. Mark cites instances of gender differences between cognate simplex and complex nouns, but he ventures no explanation, see e.g. cajt(n) f 'time' ~ jorcajt(n) f, m

420

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

'anniversary of a person's death' (1954: 39, 1978: 124); Jacobs 1991: 317 repeats the example again with no explanation (see discussion of Y cajt below). The fact is that most Yiddish simplex nouns are assigned a different gender (and often even plural suffix) when they appear as the second component of a complex morpheme. This is because the genders of Yiddish complex nouns are determined by the Slavic substrata: gender differences abound between simplex and complex, since in most cases, the Slavic languages have different roots corresponding to the Yiddish simplex and complex forms. Even the examples above of no gender shift between cognate simplex and complex forms reflect Slavic norms, see e.g. Uk hodynnyk m '(wall)clock' (vs. G [Wand]uhr[en] f); Uk stil 'table', robocyj stolik m 'work table'. A rare deviation from Slavic gender is the pair Y mil(n) 'mill'/ vasermil(n) 'watermill', vintmil(n) f'windmill' which are also feminine in German {[Wasser]'mühle [η], Windmühle [η]) and partly masculine in Ukrainian {[vodjanyj'] mlyn, vitrjak m, but see also mlynycja f dim 'watermill'). I presume that G Mühle f was initially blocked by Yiddish relexifiers since the Germanism is used in most Slavic languages and could have been identified by bilinguals; hence, Yiddish continued to use USo mfyn(k) 'mill(er)' (see discussion in ##Arbeit). In the Kiev-Polessian lands the existence of a separate Ukrainian term for 'miller', Uk mlyn 'mill', but mlynar ~ mirosnyk m 'miller', might have facilitated the relexification to (or post-relexification borrowing from) G Mühle f 'mill' and MHG mülncere ~ müller m 'miller'. A relatively late chronology of Y \mil f, supported by the absence of the 'mill'compounds in Middle High German, could explain the German rather than the Slavic gender (see chapter 4.2). The generalization made by J. Mark and others is valid for German, where it is uncommon to find a shift in gender and/or plural assignments when a simplex noun becomes the second component of a complex noun; a rare example is G Stapfe(n) > Fussstapfe(n) f vs. Fussstapfen (zero pi) m 'footprint'. In German the "breaking of links" between the gender of the simplex and complex usually takes place only after speakers no longer can identify a common root in the pair, or when paradigmatic pressures push for a gender change in

Gender of simplex nouns in compounds

421

the compound. An example of gender shift is G Woche f 'week' > Mittwoch m 'Wednesday' (see also below); presumably, the masculine gender of the names of the other days of the week forced Mittwoch, once feminine (see MHG mittewoche f, m, miteche, mittiche f), to assume the single masculine gender (see Montag 'Monday', Samstag m 'Saturday', etc.). In G Rat m 'advice, counsel' vs. Heirat f 'marriage', the gender difference is probably due to the inability of speakers to identify Rat and -rat in Heirat as the same morpheme (see also MHG hirät m, f ~ rät m: #berateri). Gender difference can also trigger different plural suffixes, see Rat(-"e) m vs. Heirat(en) f. Other examples of different plural assignments (but often without a change of gender) are G Wort(e ~ Wörter) η 'word' vs. #Antwort(en) f 'answer'. Yiddish also has a few examples of paradigmatic pressure, see Y vox(n) f 'week' vs. mitvox(n) m 'Wednesday' (with the precedent of USo srjeda, Uk sereda f < 'middle': see G #Mitte); see also compounds with Y -mil(n) 'mill' above. In German, examples of different plural assignments outnumber gender shifts between cognate simplex and complex nouns. The reason for different plural assignments has to be sought in competing plural strategies which can apply equally to nouns of a common formal shape and/or different chronologies and geographies of construction. Occasionally, we find distributional constraints on roots used in complex forms. For example, for 'bone'; dialects in Austria, Bavaria, Bohemia, Württemburg, Baden and Switzerland use Bein(er) n; standard German has Knochen (zero pi) m as a simplex and the first component of compounds, with -bein restricted to compounds, see e.g. UKnochenhaut f 'periosteum', \Knochenfrass m 'bone inflammation, necrosis' but Elfenbein 'ivory', Schienbein 'shin', ^Schlüsselbein 'collar-bone', %Jochbein η 'cheek-bone' (Kretschmer 1969: 299; see also #Arm). Gender shift in Slavic between cognate simplex and complex forms occasionally takes place due to the truncation of compounds. In Slavic, a neuter or feminine noun may become masculine and truncated when it is the second component of a compound, see e.g. R slovo η 'word' > casoslov m 'breviary, prayer book' (lit. 'time' + 'word'), delo η 'thing, matter' > otdel 'section' (lit. 'from' + 'part'),

422

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

razdel m 'division' (lit. 'dis-' + 'part'), Pol siowo η 'word' > imieslow m 'participle'; R eda f 'food, meal' > obed m 'meal', Pol noga f 'foot, leg' vs. czworonog m 'quadruped'. Nouns may also become truncated as adverbs, see e.g. miasto η 'town' > natomiast 'but, instead, on the other hand' (lit. 'on that place'; on these and other examples, see Agrell 1917: 91-92, 99, 111; Varbot 1984: 5758; for discussion of Ukrainian, see Shevelov 1956: 466). Another difference between German and Yiddish is that in the former the choice of plural suffix is occasionally used to disambiguate singular nouns with multiple meanings; this is less true of Yiddish, which prefers gender as a more comprehensive disambiguating technique (affecting singular and plural forms of mainly German components); this is because Yiddish has to compensate for the small German corpus licensed by relexification by expanding its lexicon through gender bifurcation. Examples are G Druck 'print(ing); pressure' > Drucke pi 'prints' and Drücke pi m 'pressures'. In the Yiddish surface congener, gender rather than plural suffix is used to disambiguate, see e.g. Y druk(n) m 'print; pressure' ~ druk(n) f 'printing press, printer's shop'. The choice of gender was determined by Uk druk 'print, press' and tysk m 'pressure' vs. drukarnja f 'printing press, printer's shop'. Corresponding to G Worte ~ Wörter pi cited above or G Lande pi 'territory, state, region' ~ Länder pi 'country; land, ground', Yiddish, like Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian, has only a single plural, see Y vort (verier) 'word', land (lender) η (see #Antwort, Musländer, respectively). Interestingly, while Yiddish shows no trace of the German distinction in the plural of Worte '(string of) words' and Wörter η '(individual) words', Medieval Hebrew distinguishes two plurals of He milläh 'word': millöt '(individual) words' vs. millim '(string of) words' (Lejbl 1964: 239). OHe millJm is the normal plural but millöt is required in the so-called construct form, e.g. 'words o f ; these variants are preserved in Modern (Slavic) Hebrew. It would be interesting to determine whether the retention of the two plurals of ModHe 'word' was influenced by German practice or the Ukrainian need to distinguish between a plural and a dual number, see Uk slovo η 'word' > slovä pi vs. dva slova "pseudo-dual" with 'two' (on direct Slavic impact on Modern

Gender of simplex nouns in compounds

423

Hebrew, see chapters 1; on the dual, see chapter 4.5.4). This is not the sole example of Slavic influence in Medieval Hebrew written by Yiddish speakers that is lacking in Yiddish itself (at least now), see e.g. He paxot ο joter 'more or less' (lit. 'less or more') modeled on USo mjenje (abo) bole, the use of duals that are lacking in Yiddish itself, the indefinite subject marked by subject deletion, etc. Presumably, German influence erased some Slavic features in Yiddish but not in the Hebrew written by Yiddish speakers. In Eastern Slavic, the choice of two genitive singular endings in masculine nouns, -a and -u, can sometimes remove ambiguity expressed elsewhere in the paradigm; see e.g. Br dahavor nom sg 'document; act of agreeing' > dahavara 'document' vs. dahavoru 'act of agreeing', dom 'building; home' > doma 'building' vs. domu 'home', Uk dzvin m 'church bell; sound of the bell' > dzvona 'church bell' vs. dzvonu m 'sound of the bell'. Disambiguating through case is impossible in Yiddish due to the loss of most case distinctions (but see the example of Y mtate ~ tatn in chapter 1). Unlike their German congeners, the gender and, to a lesser extent, the plural suffixes of Yiddish nouns were originally assigned by the substratal Slavic grammar. Significantly, Yiddish Germanisms often have a plural suffix when the German cognates themselves lack a plural, see e.g. Y glik(n) 'good luck' vs. G Glück η. I suspect that J. Mark's examples of no gender change in Yiddish are recent Germanisms acquired after the second relexification phase. If Yiddish compounds consisting of German elements are assigned the gender of the Slavic substratal lexicon, this is tantamount to claiming that the Yiddish compounds are not historically "compounds", but simplex lexical units (Jacobs 1991: 325 makes such a claim for Hebrew compounds in Yiddish). In fact, compounding is much less productive in Yiddish (with Germanisms) than in German. German often forms compounds out of components that are also available to Yiddish, yet the latter does not have a corresponding compound, preferring instead a periphrastic expression. Yiddish thus resembles Slavic more than it does German (on the Yiddish preference for derivational morphology vs. the German preference for compounding, see Weissberg 1988: 206). For example, while Y oreman (oreme-lajt) 'poor man' consists of two

424

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

German roots ('poor' + 'man'), Slavic languages prefer a noun with a suffix or modified noun phrase, see e.g. Pol biedak, Br bedny calavek, harotnik m vs. G der Arme (Y oreman is spelled as a single word in the singular, but as a hyphenated compound in the plural: see also #arm). Other examples are G Tatbestand 'facts, factual findings' vs. Y ecem fun der zax ~ Pol stan sprawy, G Zollabkommen 'duty (toll) agreement' vs. Y opmax vegn opcol m ~ Pol ugoda celna, Br mytnaja umova, G Tabaksdose 'snuffbox' vs. Y tabak'erne ~ Br, Uk tabakerka, Pol tabakierka f, G Stallmist m 'stable manure' vs. Y mist fun stal n, G Sterbeurkunde f 'death certificate' vs. Y dokument vegn tojt m. Given what is known about the relexification hypothesis in Yiddish, it seems reasonable to regard most instances where Yiddish simplex nouns agree in gender with their German surface cognates as fortuitous. For example, Y druk 'print; pressure' and G Druck 'print; pressure' are both masculine, but the source of the assignment in Yiddish is Uk druk 'print' and tyskm 'pressure'. Another disparallel between German and Yiddish compounds (comprising either German and/or non-German components) is component order; in the following examples the Yiddish word order matches that of Slavic. See e.g. Y spic-finger (zero pi) m 'finger-tip' (~ Uk kincyk [m] pal'cja) vs. G Fingerspitze (η) f, Y knaknisl(ex) η 'nutcracker' (~ Uk scypci dlja horixiv lit. 'pincers for nuts') vs. G Nussknacker (zero pi) m, Y knakfajerl(ex) 'firecracker' vs. G Feuerwerk(e) η (> Ukrainian), Y Asof-vox(n) f 'weekend' (lit. 'end of the week') vs. G Wochenende(n) η, Y Lester-tones (estertanejsim; or ester-täjnes sg in the Yiddish pronunciation of monolingual Hebrew) m 'Fast of Esther' (lit. 'Esther-fast', Germanizing the word order of He ta 'ariit ''ester but retaining Hebrew final stress) vs. Y Ajdm-suf 'Red Sea' (lit. 'sea of reeds', with Hebrew word order + German stress), Y Ljesive-boxer 'seminary student' (lit. 'seminary youth', with German word order + German stress vs. He bähür jesTväh m with final stress on the second constituent). Future studies should try to determine the relative age of all Yiddish compounds. Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #48) give the details of EY Lester-tones (also scattered in Western Poland, and the Czech and Slovak lands) and WY, WPolY, rarely Br, UkY Atd(:/j)nes-ester/

Gender of simplex nouns in compounds

425

-ester He order) with German stress; Lester-tones follows the Slavic practice of using possessive forms of proper names, see e.g. Uk Ivan 'John', Ivaniv m sg 'John's' (see also Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #49 for kjsmure-mäce ~ • mace-smure, Amicve-mace ~ Lmäce-micve 'matzah prepared under special supervision'). The Yiddish practice of changing the form, gender and plural selection of roots depending on whether they appear in simplex or complex contexts has a precedent in Upper Sorbian. For example, the simplex dzen 'day' > dnja gen sg, dny nom pi, dnow gen pi, while tydzen m 'week' > tydzenja gen sg, tydzenje nom pi, tydzenjow gen pi, (leaving aside the possibility in the plural of suppletion with the root njedzele nom pi, njedzeli m nom dual). Compare also Pol dzien 'day', dnia gen sg, dm nom pi and tydzien 'week', tygodnia gen sg (also dial tydzienia: Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1567), tygodni m nom pi, where the simplex and complex can be declined in the identical fashion. Uk den' 'day', dnja gen sg and tyzden' 'week', tyznja m gen sg follow Sorbian, and in Belarusian dialects, the simplex dzen' 'day' and tydzen'm 'week' can have different case endings, see e.g. dzen ~ dnej ~ dnew (see the geography in Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #100) vs. NWBr tydnjaw m gen pi (Mackevic et al. 1986, 5). When Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian differ in gender, Yiddish usually follows that of Ukrainian. This reflects the far-reaching changes in the retained Sorbian lexicon of Yiddish due to (i) German influence, (ii) the relative recency of Yiddish-Ukrainian contacts, and (iii) Kiev-Polessianization of the Sorbian substratum of Yiddish. Below are examples (selected from a total corpus of almost 50) of simplex/complex sets of almost exclusively German origin (only three examples involve Hebrew words in Yiddish) where the gender (and sometimes also plural) differ between simplex and complex instantiations of the same root in Yiddish, usually in opposition to German. In these examples the relexification hypothesis could permit us to posit a rough chronology for the Yiddish forms and to assess the impact of standard German on Yiddish after relexification. Thus, discrepancies between the gender of Yiddish and Slavic nouns (except for cases of Yiddish feminine gender = Slavic neuter gender; see discussion in chapter 4.5.1) raise

426

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

the suspicion of recency of the Yiddish form. In the first set below, Y bet f, η 'bed'/ kimpet f 'childbirth confinement'/ tojtnbet η 'death bed', the simplex bet has both the original feminine gender option inherited from the Slavic substratum, as well as the second acquired (post-relexification) neuter gender from standard German. The feminine gender of Y bet and kimpet comes from two different neuter and feminine nouns in Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian. The inability to use Y tojtnbet 'deathbed' as a feminine attests to the recency of the term (see also discussion of #Bahre and example 1 below). Paradigms with mixed gender assignments-one reflecting substratal Slavic norms and one reflecting a more recent German acquisition-are common in Yiddish. In some of the examples, Slavic and German agree in the gender assignment: 1. (a) Y bet(n) f, η 'bed'/ (b) kimpet f 'childbirth confinement' (lit. 'child' + 'bed')/ (c) \tojtnbet(n) η 'deathbed' ~ (a) USo lozo, Uk lizko, loze n, postil' f/ (b) USo njedzelnicne lozo n, Uk rody pit, rodyvo, polohfy) ml (c) USo smjertne lozo, Uk smertne loze η ~ (a) G Bett(en) n/ (b) Kindbett ~ Tf Wochenbett η/ (c) \Totenbahre(n) f 2. (a) Y bret(er) f, η 'board'/ (b) ta'arebret(er) f 'bier' ~ (a) USo deska, Uk doska f/ (b) USo, Uk mary plt(f) ~ (a) G Brett(er) n/ (b) Totenbahre(n) f 3. (a) Y brojt n, NEY f 'bread'/ (b) \puterbrojt m, η 'sandwich' ~ (a) USo chleb, Uk xlib m/ (b) Uk buterbrod m ~ (a) G Brot(e) n/ (b) \Butterbrot(e) η 4. (a) Y bux (bixer) n, m, f 'book' (see Rejzen 1924: 317)/ (b) \verterbux (-bixer) m, η 'dictionary' ~ (a) USo kniha, Uk knyha f/ (b) USo slownik, Uk slovnyk m ~ (a) G Buch(- "er) η/ (b) \Wörterbuch(- "er) η. On the basis for the m gender of Y bux, see chapter 4.5.1; the f could derive < Uk knyha f 'book', while the η reflects G norms; the preferred m gender for Y ifverterbux matches Slavic gender 5.(a)Y cajt(n) f 'time'/(b) jorcajt(n) f, m 'anniversary of a person's death' (see #Jahr)/ (c) molcajt(n) m 'meal' (see ftessen) ~ (a) USo, Uk cas vaJ (b) USo rocnica, Uk ricnycja f/ (c) USo wobjed 'main meal', Uk obid m ~ (a) G Zeit(en) {/ (b) Jahr(es)zeit(en) f/ (c) Mahlzeit(en) f

Gender of simplex nouns in compounds

427

6. (a) Y cvajgfn) f 'branch'/ (b) %opcvajg(n) m '(off)shoot' ~ (a) USo haluza, Uk hilocka f/ (b) USo wotbocka f, wotbocenje n, Uk parostok m ~ (a) G Zweig(e) m/ (b) \ibzeige m 7. (a) Y dax (dexer) m 'roof / (b) opdax(n) m 'shed; shelter' ~ (a) USo kryw, Uk dax ml (b) USo wuchow 'shelter', Uk saraj 'shed', prytulok m 'shelter' ~ (a) G Dach(- "er) η/ (b) Obdach η 8. (a) Y fas (feser) f, η 'barrel'/ (b) hantfas (hantfeser) η 'Jewish ritual washstand' (lit. 'hand barrel')/ (c) futerfas(n) f 'case, sheath'/ (d) gefes η 'dishes'/ (e) \blutgefes η 'blood vessel' ~ (a) USopicel, (colloquial) faska, Uk bocka f, barylo n, boconok ml (b) USo myjaca skia, myjnica, Uk myjnycja, umyval 'nycja f/ (c) USo futeral m, Uk skrynja, pixva f/ (d) USo sudobjo n, Uk posud ml (e) USo zila, Uk krovonosrta posudyrta f 'blood vessel' ~ (a) G #Fass(-"er) n/ (b) ^Waschschüssel f (*Handfass, but attested in MHG)/ (c) Futteral(e) n/ (d) Gefäss(e) η/ (e) ^Blutgefäss(e) η 9. (a) Y folk (felker) η 'folk, people, ethnic group'/ (b) porfolk(n ~ -felker) η 'married couple' ~ (a) USo lud, narod, Uk narod m, nacija f/ (b) USo mandzelskaj m dual, Uk para f ~ (a) G #Volk(- "er) η/ (b) ^Ehepaar η. In this example there is no difference in gender in the Y simplex and complex forms, but the choice of pi suffixes differs; on the dual function of ~(e)n, see discussion in chapter 4.5.4. 10. (a) Y fits (fis) m 'foot' (see Mrm)l (b) drajfus(n) m 'tripod' ~ (a) USo, Uk noha f/ (b) USo trojak m, Uk trynoha f, trynizok m ~ (a) G Fuss(- "e) m/ (b) Dreifuss(- "e) m 1 l.(a) Y gang (geng) m 'walk, gait, process, move'/ (b) arajngang(en) m 'entrance'/ (c) durxgang(en) m 'passage, aisle'/ (d) ojsgang(en) m 'outlet' ~ (a) USo chod, Uk xid red (b) USo prichad, Uk vxid, vstup ml (c) USo prechod, Uk proxid m/ (d) USo wuchod, Uk vyxid m ~ (a) G Gang(- "e) ml (b) Eingangf- "e) ml (c) Durchgang(- "e) ml (d) Ausgangf- "e) m 12. (a) Y glid(er) η 'limb; member'/ (b) ^mitglid(er) m 'member' ~ (a) USo staw 'limb (of the body)', clon m 'member (of the whole)', Uk kincivka f, clen ml (b) USo sobustaw, clon, Uk clen m ~ (a) G Glied(er) η/ (b) \Mitgleid(er) η. Y follows SI in assigning m or f gender to animate nouns, thus Y mitglid m vs. G Mitglied η; see also Y mejdl(ex) n, f 'girl' ~ USo holca, Uk divcyn(k)a f vs. G Mädchen η, Y sojmer (somrim) ~ vexter(s) 'sentry' ~ USo straznik ~ strazowar, Uk vartovyj, karaul m vs. G

428

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

Schildwache(n), Wache(n) f 'watch; man on guard, sentry'. Y assigns η gender to animate nouns only if they denote young humans or animals, a practice common to SI and G both, see e.g. Y kind(er) 'child' ~ USo dzec(k)o n, Uk dytyna f ~ dytja ~ (arch) cado ~ G Kind(er) n. 13. (a)Y groz (grezer ~ η ) η 'grass'/ (b) jam-groz(n) η 'seaweed'(lit. 'sea grass')/ (c) vild-groz(n) η 'weed' ~ (a) USo trawa, Uk trava f/ (b) USo (literaiy) rjasa f, zowjenc m, Uk vodorost m (lit. 'water growth')/ (c) USo njerodz f, Uk bur'jan m ~ (a) G Gras(-"er) n/ (b) Seegras m/ (c) Unkraut (-"er) η. Note that (c) is a negated root in USo and G. In this paradigm, G η gender is intact in all Y complex morphemes. 14. (a) Y hojz (hejzer) n, f'house'/ (b) sandhojz(-hezjer) η 'brothel' ~ (a) USo dom, Uk dim m, xata f/ (b) USo bordel, Uk dim (m) rozpusty (lit. 'house' + ' o f debauchery') ~ (a) G Haus(- "er) η/ (b) öffentliches Haus η 15. (a) Υ hut(n ~ hit) m, f 'hat'/ (b)fingerhut(-hit) m 'thimble' ~ (a) USo klobuk m, Uk sapka f7 (b) USo naporstnik, Uk naperstok m ~ (a) G Hut (- "e) m/ (b) Fingerhut(- "e) m 16. (a) Y kamer(n) f 'chamber, cell'/ (b) foderkamer(n) m 'anteroom' ~ (a) USo komora, Uk palata, kimnata 'chamber', kelija f 'cell'/ (b) USo prijimarnja, Uk perednja kimnata, pryjmal 'nja f ~ (a) G Kammerfn) f7 (b) fEmpfangszimmer (zero pi) η 'reception room'. The SI substrata do not account for the gender of Y foderkamer, where phonological considerations operate (nouns in -er = m); (b) has the same component makeup in Y and Uk-'front' + 'room'. 17. (a) Y lodn(s ~ ledn) m 'shutter'/ (b) \suflod (sufleder) m, n, f'drawer'/ (a) USo wokenca, Uk vikonnycja f, bufetnyk m/ (b) Uk suxlada f ~ (a) G Laden (Läden) m/ (b) ^Schublade (η) f 18. (a) Y lox (lexer) m, f 'hole'/ (b) fukslox (-lexer) f 'foxhole' ~ (a) USo dzera, Uk dir(k)a, jam(k)a fJ (b) USo liska jama, liska dzera, Uk lysjaca nora f ~ (a) G Loch(- "er) η1 (b) ^Fuchsbau(e) m. See also discussion in chapter 4.5.1. (It would be useful to check whether all other instances of Y lox are matched by the So use of dzer(k)a, regardless of the G equivalents;

Gender of simplex nouns in compounds 429 a confirming example would be Y nozlox 'nostril' ~ USo nosowa dzärka, of identical component structure-lit. 'nasal hole'; see #Nase.) 19. (a) Y man (mener 'man' vs. manen 'husband') ml (b) furman (furlajt ~ furmanes) m 'coachman' ~ (a) USo muz 'man' ~ mandzelski m 'husband', Uk ljudyna f, colovik m/ (b) USo woznik, Uk kucer m ~ (a) G Mann(- "er) m 'man; husband'/ (b) Fuhrmann (Fuhrleute) m (see #Abfahrt). The multiple pi options in Y have a parallel in the distinction that several SI languages make between 'man' and 'husband' or between 'men' and 'married couple', see e.g. USo muz 'man' vs. mandzelski 'husband'; Cz manzel (manzelove) m 'man; husband' vs. manzele pi 'married couple'. It is interesting that two USo equivalents of Y man also show morphological irregularity, see e.g. USo knjez (knjeza 'gentlemen' vs. knjezojo 'men'); muz (muzojo ~ rare muze) m 'man'. Unlike Y furman (see above), other Y compounds with -man form their pi exclusively in -lajt, see e.g. Y • xevre-man (-lajt) 'fellow, guy, brat', Ljam-man (-lajt) 'sailor', Akvores-man (-lajt) m 'grave digger' (see #begraben) ~ G -mann(-leute), see e.g. G Kaufmann (Kaufleute) m 'businessman' (see #Einkauf). 20. (a) Y tux (tixer) η 'cloth' vs. f 'kerchief/ (b) tistex(er) m, n, LiY f 'tablecloth'/ (c) hantex(er) m, η 'towel'/ (d) dektux (dektixer) η 'bridal veil'/ (e) yartex(er) m, η 'apron' ~ (a) USo plat, rub m, Uk polotno n/ (b) USo rub, Uk obrus, nastil 'nyk m, skatertka f/ (c) USo trenje n, Uk rusnik ml (d) USo slewjer, Uk vual' m, pokryvalo η/ (e) USo sorcuch, Uk fartux m ~ (a) G Tuch(e ~ - "er) η/ (b) Tischtuch(- "er) η/ (c) Handtuch(- "er) η/ (d) Brautschleier (zero pi),) ml (e) *\Vortuch(-"er) n. Uk words for 'tablecloth' are either m or f. The Atlas ukrajins'koji movy (1984, 1, map #294) lists both m nouns, nastil'nyk and obrus(ok) from the Ν of the territory, to as far S as Kiev. The f term is found in the SW Ukraine. There are several m terms for 'tablecloth' in SW Belarus'-nastol'nik, skacer, abrus(ak), (v)obrus (see Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #325). This is precisely the former KP territory; I assume that Y tistex has its m gender from this area. On the significance of this fact in the hypothesis of the Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis, see chapter 4.6. The f gender of Y tux 'kerchief, woman's shawl' no doubt reflects Uk xustka f (vs. sarf platok m) vs. G ^Taschentuch, Halstuch, Kopftuch 'kerchief MHG houbettuoch ~ ModG Haupt η 'head'). Alternatively, Y tux f may have acquired its gender from synonymous Y facejle(s) f 'kerchief, shawl' < It (see chapter 4.5.1). The fact that the pi of tux (tixer) differs from -tux (-texer) η suggests different chronologies for

430

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

the complex forms and/or the impact of the SI substrata. Unfortunately, the age of the simplex tux n, f in Y is uncertain; it may have been relexified in either relexification phase since both USo and Uk require two separate roots to express 'cloth' and 'kerchief, e.g. USo sukno vs. rubiSko, Uk sukno, polotno n, tkanyna vs. xustka f, respectively. Innovative gender bifurcation in Y through relexification is discussed in #alt.

4.5.3. The assignment of plural suffixes in Yiddish There are six plural strategies in Yiddish involving a single morpheme; five of them may involve concomitant stem changes in the noun: (i) = no change in the stem, (ii) = stress shift, (iii) = stress shift and stem vowel change, and (iv) = stem vowel change only (and possible voicing assimilation if new consonant clusters are created in the plural); examples are all standard Yiddish unless otherwise stated: (a) (u)-(e)n\ (i) tis(en) m 'table'/ (ii) mpol'ak (pol'äken) m 'Pole'/ (iii) (m)minister (ministören) 'minister' (~ Uk minister, G Minister m) (b) k.!{m)-(e)s\ (i) stekn (stekns ~ stekenes) 'stick', susterfs ~ NEY zero pi) m 'shoemaker'/ (ii)förman (furmänes) m 'driver'/ (iii) • xölem (xalojmes) m 'dream', (iv) • dor (dojres) m 'generation' (c) (m)-er: (i) kind(er) η 'child'/ (iv) kalb (kelber) η 'calf (d) A-(i)m: (i) Agvir(im) m 'rich man'/ (iii) Lamorec (amerdcim) m 'ignoramus', suster (sustejrim) m 'shoemaker' (pej; see [b] above)/ (iv) Lzokn (skejnim) m 'old man' (e) -{e)x\ (i) ejnikl(ex) m, η 'grandchild', kecele(x) η 'kitten' (f) zero: (i) ferd (zero pi) m 'horse'/ (iv) slot (stet) f 'city' Of the above, (a), (c), (e) and (f) are < G (on an additional Slavic origin for [a] and [c], see below). Suffix (d) < He -im and usually pluralizes Hebraisms, but not always according to Hebrew norms (e.g. He mäqör [meqöröt] 'source' > Y Amoker ~ mekor fmekoj-

Assignment of plural suffixes

431

rim] m). (e) is mostly reserved for diminutive nouns in Yiddish, but in German dialects can be a plural suffix for feminine and some (weak) masculine nouns, alongside -lich for diminutive plurals (see Rowley 1994). Occasionally, the suffix triggers an /e/ between the final root consonants, see e.g. Y tis m 'table'/ tisl η dim, with either tislex or tiselex pi. Non-diminutive nouns ending in -/ may also acquire -ex as the plural, see Y slisl m 'key', which takes ordinarily (•)-« pi (Jacobs et al. 1994: 403). An additional strategy that is available to standard German and to a number of dialects, -e, is unknown in Yiddish; historically, the addition of -e sometimes triggered length in the root vowel, see e.g. early ModG Weg [vek]/ Wege [veg-] > ModG [vek] ([vega]) m 'road'. (b) is both of German and Hebrew origin. When used to pluralize family names, it is of German origin, see e.g. Y di mvorobejciks '(the) members of the Vorobejcik family' (vs. mvorobejcikes m 'sparrows'); there are some cases of free variation between • -(e)s and -s, e.g. di bregman(e)s '(the) members of the Bregman family' (Zarecki 1929: 68). Since the use of family names among Ashkenazic Jews does not date much before the late 18th century (see Beider 1993, 1996; Agranovskij and Kopilevic 1995), the use of \-(e)s in this function must be regarded as a post-relexification loan from German, which uses -s in this function. With non-family names, Yiddish has Llm-(e)s (see discussion below), whose productivity may have provided the stimulus for accepting G -s (> Y -fejs) as a plural suffix for family names. Y A!m-(e)s is commonly used with Slavic stems, both consonantal and vocalic. StG -s < Low German (and ultimately < Old French) and first surfaced in High German texts only in the 14th century-probably after the first relexification phase. StG -s also pluralizes foreign nouns ending in a vowel (e.g. Auto[s] η 'automobile') and native stems in informal discourse (e.g. Jungen[s] m 'lad'). On an additional Slavic input for suffix (b), see below. (f), the zero plural, which exists with the many German agentive nouns in -er (see e.g. G Lehrer m [zero pi] 'teacher'), is relatively unproductive in Yiddish, since it lacks a Slavic precedent with native nouns. G nouns in (f) usually surface in Yiddish with (b) A/m-s, see e.g. Y lerer(s) m. In some German dialects, as in the

432

Evidence of two-tiered

relexification

Leipzig city dialect, -s arose with words that historically took a zero plural; in other dialects, -s was often applied to nouns ending in -er, -en, -el and occasionally to native diminutive nouns (e.g. EMG löffei[s] 'spoon', taler[s] 'plate' ~ Y lefl [zero pi], teler[s ~ zero pi] m). LG -s mainly occurs with nouns ending in -er, see borgermesterer 'mayor' (Woronow 1966: 400-401; see also Öhmann 1924: 58-59, 65-6, 122-123; Keller 1961: 315). The fact that Y A/m-s has a similar distribution is purely coincidental since Low German was not a lexifier dialect or major source of lexical enrichment for Yiddish. It is conceivable that the Yiddish agentive nouns in (m)-er pluralize in A/m-s because Yiddish relexifiers were aware of the fact that the resonant was originally palatalized in Slavic (as it still is in the oblique forms of the declension), see USo dzelacer m 'worker' ~ -ja gen sg, Uk sljusar m 'locksmith' ~ -ja gen sg. Palatalized consonants in Slavic words often acquired a final vowel in Yiddish (see also discussion of Y frajnd in #befreien); Yiddish adds A/m-s to roots ending in -e and -r, -I and a nasal, and • /m-es to all other consonantal stems (on both these topics, see below). Old (Germanic) Yiddish documents originating in the monolingual German-speaking lands beginning with the late 13th century have examples of an -s-plural (see Timm 1977: 23-24). These documents are devoid of any significant Slavic influence. The A-s plural suffix in these texts reflects a convergence of Hebrew and Romance; hence, I agree with S. A. Birnbaum that there is no identity or continuity between WYA-s and EY A/m-(e)s (1922: 37ff; 1974: 40ff; see also discussion in King 1990). There do not seem to be any plurals in Yiddish of purely regional use, though the dialects do differ in relative preference for one plural strategy over another. This situation contrasts with the state of affairs in German dialects. A cursory comparison shows that the distribution of the German plural suffixes in Yiddish and their counterparts in German dialects, including the standard dialect, differs radically. I cannot agree with the views expressed by a number of authors that the Yiddish and German plural systems are similar, see e.g. Roll (1975: 216-contradicted by his remarks on 1975: 219); Timm (1987: 10-unless she is referring to Western, i.e. Germanic, Yiddish) and Simon (1991: 257). In the same vein,

Assignment of plural suffixes

433

King's comment on the "system of noun plurals" in Yiddish, that the "plural marked by by umlaut alone,...by -er.., by 'zero'... are identical [sic\] to the system of noun plurals in Upper Austrian" (1993: 91) is unacceptable if "system" includes facts of distribution and the total inventory (after all, Y • -im is not known in German). For Yiddish, {m)-(e)n and Lim-(e)s are the two most productive suffixes, greatly surpassing the distribution of G -(e)n and -s; Y (•) -er and the zero plural (with or without concomitant Umlaut in the stem) are less productive than their German counterparts. On the shrinking distribution of the ~(e)n plural with masculine nouns in German, compared to a modest spread with feminine nouns, see R. Ebert et al. 1993: 174 and 179, respectively. Y {m)-(e)n is particularly productive since, (i) it can encroach on the distribution of • -im of Hebrew origin with Hebrew nouns, and (ii) probably also expressed a dual number, especially after the second relexification phase in the Kiev-Polessian lands (see chapter 4.5.4). The replacement of A -im by {m)-(e)n in Yiddish Hebraisms may have a phonological basis, in that final nasals assumed the point of articulation of the preceding consonant, e.g. after a labiodental fricative, the nasal assumed a labiodental point of articulation (= μ), as in Y Αξαηυ,νμ 'thieves' (see #Raub), kjontojvß m 'holidays' (both orthographically -jm)\ similarly, after a velar or bilabial consonant, the following nasal was homorganic, see Y laxn 'to laugh' [laxij] (see Machen), lipn 'lips' [lipm]. From the latter position, • -im seems to have spread, albeit marginally, to the position after -m, see e.g. Y Ajam(im —en) m 'sea' (see more below). A few non-Hebrew nouns ending in a labiodental nasal also require a homorganic nasal plural, see ξηνμ pit 'cracklings, wellbrowned roasted bits of goose skin' (spelled with -ή) < G Grieben pit < f (on neutralization of m ~ n, see chapter 4.5.4 and Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #154). The partial interchange of He • -im and Slavo-German (m)-(e)n could also account for the spread of A-im to Hebrew masculine nouns in Yiddish, see e.g. Y Smoker ~ mekor (mekojrim) 'source' < normative He mäqör (meqöröt) m (see also Wexler 1990a). Hebraisms with (m)-(e)n as their plural suffix are likely to be quite old in Yiddish, since they probably were acquired

434

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

while the dual category was still being expressed by this suffix via relexification. Y (m)-(e)n has spread considerably since it expressed a dual function, mainly in imitation of the "pseudo-dual" in Ukrainian and Belarusian, see e.g. Uk ruka f 'hand, arm', pi ruky, dual dvi ruky (details are given in chapter 4.5.4). The pseudo-dual would account for Y Ljad(n) m 'pointer used in reading the Torah in the synagogue' (< He jäd f 'hand', which forms the dual/plural jädaim, with He -aim dual: see the recency of Y hant in #Arm)\ see also Y Ajarid ~ jerid(n) '(market) fair' (< He järid ~ je- [jerTdim]) ~ blocked G Markt(~"e) ~ Uk jarmarok m, pi jarmarky, dual dva jarmarky. MHG järmarket m is first attested in Polish in 1408 (see Vasmer 1958, 3 under R jarmarka f-known only since 1648). If MHG järmarket does not appear in Ukrainian until long after the second relexification phase was over, I wonder if the choice of -n in Y Ajeridn m was not motivated by an earlier but now obsolete native Ukrainian term for 'fair' (the use of the Hebraism may result from the blockage of this or other Germanisms that produced USo wiki pit, Pol rynek m 'market'). If my reasoning is correct, then the plural markers of Yiddish Hebraisms may provide rare indications of the age of the Hebraisms in the language. For example, the (n)-en plural of Y • j a m cannot be attributed smoothly to the pseudo-dual, since Uk more η does not, at least now, have a pseudo-dual, though the precondition of stress shift is present, see Uk more η nom sg 'sea', morja gen sg vs. morjä nom pi, moriv gen pi. Still, the antiquity of Y Ajam should not be in doubt, since it replaces G Meer, blocked due to similarity with USo morjo n. If Y (m)-(e)n initially expressed the dual, I suspect it could not also have expressed the plural number until the dual category became obsolete. The existence of a few doublet plurals, e.g. with A/m-(e)s and (m)-(e)n (see examples below), suggests the former was originally the sole plural suffix. The absence of -e as a plural strategy in Yiddish might be evidence that the German lexifier dialect of Yiddish had undergone apocope of final schwa before the first relexification phase (see Timm 1987: 14-15; Rauch 1991; Jacobs et al. 1994: 393). Apocope began at the end of the 13th century in Bavaria and spread

Assignment of plural suffixes

435

progressively to the north, west and northwest, reaching Swabia and East Franconia a century later, and Bohemia in the 14th-15th century (Lindgren 1953: 208). East Middle German, a possible lexifier dialect of Yiddish, and standard German (based on East Middle German) never experienced apocope. Apocope caused farreaching alterations in the gender and number system of the German noun, e.g. it extended (i) the Umlaut, as in dial hund (hünd) ~ Y hunt (hint) vs. stG Hund(e), or produced (ii) consonantal alternations as in Hesse G hond (hon) m 'dog', which are not available to Yiddish (see Keller 1961: 214-215; Admoni 1982: 99, King 1987: 79; R. Ebert et al. 1993: 165). Since Yiddish preserves -e in Hebrew and Slavic nouns and in the German adjective paradigm (see Y Jkmatone 'gift', lopete f 'shovel' < Slavic, ofene f sg 'open' < German) it would appear that Yiddish received its German corpus from an apocopating lexifier dialect, but never itself had a phonological rule of apocope. Would it be farfetched to suppose that Yiddish could retain the -e in the German adjective paradigm because of support from Slavic adjectives, which end in -a, see e.g. USo wotewrjena, Uk vidkryta f nom sg 'open'? The German component in Yiddish broadly follows Modern German rather than Middle High German forms that were borrowed initially in the first relexification phase, see e.g. Y vajn, hojz ~ G Wein, Haus vs. MHG win m 'wine', hus η 'house', prior to diphthongization after the 12th century (on a similar process of modernization affecting the Slavic component in Rumanian, see discussion in chapter 3). The process of modernizing the original relexified German component of Yiddish did not extend to the restoration of stG -e. There are no traces of any early nonapocopated German nouns in Yiddish; all Germanisms in Yiddish with final -e are recent borrowings from German, see e.g. dame(s ~ -n) f'lady'. The G -e-plural should have been available to Yiddish, since it matches the Slavic plural strategies which consist of a single vowel (KP *-i/-y for most masculine and feminine nouns, with the choice depending on the character of the final stem consonant, -a for neuter nouns). The blockage of G -e in Yiddish as a plural suffix could have been due to the fact that Slavic languages have far fewer plural

436

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

suffixes than German and thus would not have needed the full German inventory. Moreover, the conditions determining the choice of SI -if -y were lacking in German (i.e. the status of palatalization of the final consonant). If Yiddish had retained Slavic vocalic suffixes, the latter would have merged into Y -e. It is also possible that G -e pi was not available in the German lexifier dialect(s) available to Yiddish. As I noted in chapters 4.2-4.4, formal and semantic similarity between German and Slavic roots was grounds for blockage of the former in Yiddish. Grammatical markers might have constituted an exception (see also the presence of Quechua function words in Ecuadorian Media Lengua, noted by Muysken 1981). On the availability of "conflated" or "merged" function words, during and after the relexification phase, see chapter 3.1. The Yiddish selectivity of German plurals, the productive use of • /u-(e)s and ( m ) - ( e ) n , and the marginality of (m)-er (used with all components in Yiddish) finds the smoothest explanation in the three Common Slavic nominal infixes of similar form: *-en- (in masculine and neuter stems), *-es- (in neuter stems) and *-er- (in feminine stems; if *-er- were from German, I would expect -ar). Y ~(e)x (as in Y kepl[ex] η 'skullcap') may also owe its selection and calibration as a uniquely diminutive plural marker with neuter nouns to functionally identical CS1 *-qt- (in neuter stems exclusively), which productively marked young and small animals and children, see e.g. the modern reflexes in Ukrainian, -ja nom sg ~ -jata nom pi, as in Uk kotja (kotjata) 'kitten', zereb'ja (zereb'jata) η 'foal'. Such nouns could have licensed the Yiddish adoption of the German rule of assigning neuter gender to nouns with the diminutive suffix; though not all Ukrainian diminutive suffixes are neuter. The use of CS1 *-qt- is particularly productive in Ukrainian and Lower Sorbian (see Vaillant 1950, 1: 251; H. Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 248-249). Hence, it is more precise to label the plural strategies (a) and (c) as "Slavo-German" and (b) as "SlavoGermano-Hebrew". Other German plural strategies in Yiddish are used less frequently than in German because they enjoy no support from the Slavic substrata, see e.g. the zero plural + Umlaut, as in Y bruder (brider) < G Bruder (Brüder) m 'brother', but, vs. German, not Y muter(s) f

Assignment of plural suffixes

437

and foter(s) m ~ G Mutter (Mutter) f 'mother' and Vater (Väter) m 'father'. The zero plural alone is more popular in Yiddish, since it involves apocopated German nouns, see e.g. Y ferd (zero pi) η 'horse' and stot (stet) f 'city' vs. stG Pferd(e) η and Stadt (Städte) f. On occasion, we can even observe the shift of a noun in Yiddish from the category of (m)-er + Umlaut to a more productive suffix. For example, since A!m-(e)s does not license Umlaut in Y mcvok (cvekes) m '(metal, wooden) nail', Yiddish must originally have had *cvek(er) pi (with sibilant confusion). If Yiddish acquired the Germanism directly < MHG zwec, then Y mcvok sg is an innovation; however, if Yiddish acquired the Germanism indirectly from a Slavic language (e.g. Uk cvjax), then Y mcvok m sg could be the original form. At the time of the first and second relexification phases, the three Slavic stem infixes in question were already in a state of obsolescence, as can be seen from three developments: (i) with some roots, the stem infixes were restricted to the singular oblique and most plural cases, see e.g. R znamja η 'banner', znamenem inst sg. (ii) In other roots, the stem infix had spread to all forms, see e.g. cognate Cz znameni η sg, pi 'sign', (iii) Finally, some roots were transferred to other more productive (vocalic) declensional types, see e.g. Uk docka 'daughter' with no infix vs. R doc' (doceri) f. The growing tendency to limit the stem infixes to the plural number, though this was not their original function (see Vaillant 1950, 1: 231), together with their formal similarity with one Hebrew plural suffix and two German plural suffixes, licensed relexification to the latter. Traces of the stem infixes are visible in other parts of speech. For example, the noun Uk docka f 'daughter' has lost all traces of the -er- stem infix, but not Uk docernij adj; compare OChSl slovo (slovesy) 'word' with Uk slovo (slova) η 'word', sloves 'nyj 'oral, verbal'. Slavic languages differ on the status of stem infixes, since the changes are post-Common Slavic. For example, while OChSl kamy η sg is in the original -ew-stem declension, the Ukrainian cognate is now in the productive o-stem declension and its gender changed accordingly, see Uk kamin'm 'stone' (for parallel Russian data, see Iordanidi and Sul'ga 1984: 214). Yiddish has no gender restrictions on the use of (m)-(e)n. In a few cases, the reassignment of nouns to V

438

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

more productive declensions resulted in the creation of new doublets, see e.g. R telo (tela) η 'body' vs. telesa m, f 'obese person', USo celo 'body, corpse' vs. celeso 'inanimate body', Uk pys'mo (pys'ma) 'letter' vs. pys'menä pit 'letters (of the alphabet), characters', kolo 'circle, ring; wheel; sphere' vs. koleso 'circle; ring; bicycle; wheel' (with -es- throughout the paradigm), znam'ja ~ znameno nom sg vs. znamena η gen sg 'sign; flag'. The -en- stem was well represented in Old Church Slavic, see e.g. jelenb 'deer', sqzenb 'arm span', grebenb 'comb', remenb 'strap', srasenb 'wasp', though the East Slavic languages have far fewer examples, see e.g. Uk im'ja η nom sg 'name' ~ imeni ~ im 'ja g sg (see Atlas ukrajins 'koji movy 1984,1, map #209 on the fate of the -en-). Old Church Slavic inherited thirteen -es-stem nouns from Common Slavic, in addition to which it created new members, see e.g. OChSl delo 'thing' ~ delesy pi, divo 'wonder' ~ divesa pi (the latter possibly by analogy to cudo [cudesa] n: see Bräuer 1969: 5961; Η. Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 34-35). But there is only one example of the -es- stem declension in Old Church Slavic with a completely attested paradigm, nebo (nebesa) η 'heaven(s)'. The -esdeclension survived best in Polabian, Northeast Bulgarian and Slovene, see e.g. Polab perise η pi 'feathers' (< *peresa; see Vaillant 1950, 1: 234; Bernstejn 1970). USo dzeco η 'child' has acquired -s- in the dual and singular oblique stem, see e.g. dwe dzesci 'two children' (see Fasske 1981: 491). Occasionally, the -enstem noun in Polabian even acquired a tautologous -es-, see e.g. Polab rämq η 'shoulder' > rämeness nom-acc pi ( P o ^ s k i 1976, 4: 628-629). The possibility that some SI -en- and -es- stems fell into common semantic classes may have contributed to the longevity of the infixes in the roots in question (see the social relationship in -enstems and the terminology related to magic expressed by -es- stems, discussed by Isacenko 1954 and Meriggi 1964, respectively). The fact that the -es- stem is most productive in South and West Slavic (in particular Polabian) suggests that Yiddish relexifiers could have identified the Slavic infixes and German plural suffixes in the first relexification phase. The productivity of the stem infix in some South Slavic languages lends strength to the hypothesis that the Sorbian Jews were in part of Balkan (Slavic and other) origin, since

Assignment of plural suffixes

439

the infix was not particularly productive in the earliest attested stages of Sorbian. The -er- stem declension in Slavic languages was reduced to two original words by the time of the first relexification phase, see R doc' 'daughter' (cited above) and mat\ materi gen sg, nom pi ~ USo mac, macerje gen sg, nom-acc pi, macerka dim 'mother' (but see USo dzowka f 'daughter'), Uk maty gen sg, matery nom pi 'mother' (Belarusian parallels Ukrainian, though it also has an optional innovative indeclinable maci f; the appearance of -er- in the nominative singular stem, as in R dial mater', materja, mat[er] i, matr\ is probably a later analogical extension and not a relic of Common Slavic: see Avanesov and Bromlej 1989, map #9.) This explains why Yiddish uses (m)-er far less productively than German itself, and very rarely with Hebrew and Slavic nouns. Often the Hebrew and Slavic nouns in Yiddish that pluralize with (m)-er (and take concomitant Umlaut) coexist with a synonymous Germanism which also pluralizes with -er, see e.g. Y Aponem (penemer) 'face, countenance' ~ gezixt(er) 'countenance' < G Gesichter η (ßAngesieht); Y msod (seder) 'garden' ~ gortn (gertner ~ gortns) (vs. gertner[s] m 'gardener'). StG Garten (Gärten) m 'garden' cannot offer a model. See also Y ustroz (strezer) m 'janitor' ~ G Pförtner (zero pi) m, with ag -ner rather than -er pi, but the latter root is not (now, at least) used in Yiddish. Theoretically, Yiddish could have distributed the three plurals (i) according to the distribution of the similar-sounding stems in the underlying pre-relexified Slavic lexicon, (ii) to capture the opposition of animate vs. inanimate plural suffixes (e.g. Old Belarusian used -ove with animate as well as some inanimate nouns: see details in Bulyka et al. 1979: 64) or (iii) to match stress shifts in the Slavic nominal paradigm. However, there is no evidence that this was the case, though a definitive statement is difficult to make since a number of subsequent post-relexification (mainly phonological) developments have interfered by encouraging disparallelism between Yiddish and the Slavic substratal languages. At present, I am only able to recover a dual function for Y ( m ) - ( e ) n , in accordance with the Kiev-Polessian pseudo-dual (see chapter 4.5.4). The lack of parallelism in the distribution of Slavic infixes and phonetically

440

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

similar Yiddish plural suffixes is to some extent expected, since historical SI -es- stem nouns very often had been shifted to the more productive declensions prior to one or both relexification phases, see e.g. Uk slovo η 'word', originally an -es- but now treated as an -ostem neuter noun (see above). Slavicisms used in Yiddish do not usually appear with the corresponding homophonous plural suffix, which reflects the Slavic transfer of nouns with one of the three unproductive stems to more productive stem types. For example, Uk bremin' m 'flint', an original -en- stem noun > Y ukremen(s ~ -es) m, Uk stremeno η 'stirrup' > Y mstremen(es) m; there is no sign of *kremenen or *stremenen in Yiddish. I doubt that this is because of a tendency to avoid adjacent syllables with the same nasal consonant, since such a sequence is acceptable with some German roots, see e.g. Y fon(en ~ fener) f 'flag', but see (ml)rimen(s) 'strap, thong; belt' (unless the latter is from formally similar but possibly not cognate Uk remin' m: Vasmer 1955, 2 sees no connection between the two forms, but Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1225-1226 posits them as cognates). Neither Uk kremin' m nor stremeno η now has the pseudo-dual, so there would be no basis for the (m)-en pi in Yiddish (but see stress options in Uk stremeno nom sg, stremena gen sg, stremena η nom pi, which are a prerequisite for the pseudodual). In Uk ramja, gen sg rameni η 'shoulder; arm', relexified to Y aksl(en) m, it is unclear if Y {u)-en was triggered by the original membership of the Uk word in the -en- stem declension, or by the need to mark dual number (see the two suffix options in Y mkremen m just above; for other examples of doublet plural endings that might have originally served to distinguish dual from plural, see chapter 4.5.4). If the Yiddish choice of (u)-en to pluralize 'shoulder' has a Slavic basis, then the fact that G Achsel f also pluralizes in -n is coincidental. Y Aol m, η 'onus, burden, drain' (< He 'öl m) takes the plural in (•)-/?, maybe in order to match synonymous USo bremjo, gen sg bremjenja η (the root is no longer used in Ukrainian), though I cannot rule out analogous influence from synonymous Y last(n) ~ G Last (en) f with {m)-(e)n pi. The use of an optional neuter gender in Y ol could suggest that the Hebrew word was a postrelexification loan (see discussion in chapter 4.5.1).

Assignment of plural suffixes

441

The extent to which the choice of Y (m)-(e)n! Alu-(e)s depends on the ending of the stem of the Slavic translation equivalent needs to be explored further. Yiddish prefers • /m-(e)s with stems ending in a vowel, nasal, or a palatalized consonant. For example, Y furman 'wagon driver' may pluralize in A/m-es because the Ukrainian equivalent ends in a vowel-Uk vodij, balagula (< Yiddish; vs. USo woznik m); Y l'arm m 'noise' may have A/m-es because of USo hara f (Uk lacks a word 'noise' ending in a vowel); Y mogn(s ~ megener) 'stomach' ~ USo zoldk m, but see kutlo 'stomach of animals', Uk cerevo, Br cereva, bruxa η vs. Pol brzuch m; Y bojdem(s) m 'attic' ~ USo lubja f, Uk horysce n, mansarda, Br hara f; Y bodn(s) m 'ground' ~ USo poda f; Y bodem(s) m 'bottom' ~ USo, Uk dno η (also used in Yiddish; see MBoden); Y kojmen(s ~ -es) 'chimney' ~ Slavic terms that end in a palatalized consonant, e.g. USo wuhen m; Y getin(s) 'goddess' ~ Uk bohynja, USo bohowka f; Y farmegn(s) 'property' ~ Uk majno, hospodarstvo n, vlasnist' f, USo swojstwo, wobsydstwo, zamozenje η; Y mmajontik (majontkes) 'holding' (< Pol majqtek m, pi majqtki), with • /m-es perhaps favored because of Uk volodinnja, majno n, orendovana diljanka zemli, vlasnist' f. After relexification, the existence of many Yiddish nouns ending in -r, -I or a nasal (and parallel tendency in German) could lead to the formulation of a new phonological rule. Further evidence that Slavic stem structure might determine the distribution of Yiddish plural suffixes is that Yiddish pluralizes agentive (and many non-agentive) nouns in -er with A/m-s; these have a Slavic parallel with palatalized -r' (in Upper Sorbian, the palatalization is not now found in the nominative singular, see e.g. USo wucer nom sg, wucerja m gen sg 'teacher'; similarly in Ukrainian). Occasionally, Slavicisms that end in a palatalized consonant surface in Yiddish with a final vowel, which then requires A/m-s as the plural suffix, see e.g. PolY mugre(s) f (~ stY uvengerfsj m) 'eel' USo wuhor nom sg, wuhorja gen sg, Pol wqgorz m < *-r'), Y •zolode(s) 'acorn' SWBr zoludz, zaludzina f). See also Y mpremsla (cited on a Silesian Jewish tombstone from 1722: Wodzmski 1996: 441) ~ Pol Przemysl (see also Ar -ramfijsli 12th-c, with a final vowel: Lewicki 1954a: 121; see 1954a: 109), Y

442

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

mhornestajpol 'e ~ Uk Hornostajpil' place name. See also discussion of Y frajnd in ftbefreien. Similarly, there is a large number of original Slavic A/a-es-stem nouns that correspond to relexified German nouns in Yiddish which take their plural in (u)-er: Uk cerevo η 'belly, abdomen, paunch' ~ Y mogn(s ~ megener) 'stomach' ~ bojx (bajxer) m, f'abdomen, belly', Uk lyce 'face, countenance' ~ Y Aponem (penemerj ~ gezixt(er) η < German (vs. Y mpiskfes] < Uk pysok m 'snout' ~ Y mminefs] < Uk mina f), Uk derevo η 'wood, tree' ~ Y bojm (bejmer) m, Uk kolo ~ koleso η 'circle, ring, wheel' ~ Y rod (reder) f 'wheel, circle', Uk slovo 'word' ~ Y vort (verier) n. In some of these examples, German (at least in the standard dialect) lacks the -er plural, see e.g. G Magen {Mägen), Bauch(-"e), Baum(-"e) m vs. Gesicht(er) (see #Angesicht), Rad(- "er), Wort(- "er) η (see #Antwort). I am also unable to confirm the hypothesis suggested above that Yiddish plural suffixes might once have been distributed according to underlying Slavic considerations, such as animate vs. inanimate nouns, existence of doublet case endings (see e.g. the Uk genitive and locative singular of masculine nouns), moveable vs. fixed stress in Slavic nouns, etc. If Yiddish relexifiers had sought a means of marking Slavic stress shift after relexification, this would have had to date to the second relexification phase, since stress was relatively stable on the first syllable in Upper Sorbian by the 12th century (Schaarschmidt 1998: 87-88). There are many examples of Ukrainian nouns with stress shift in the paradigm which have Yiddish counterparts with (m)-er (with or without a German parallel). For example, Y gezixter ~ penemer 'faces' ~ Uk lyce (lycja) η (~ G Gesichter: ^Angesicht); Y bojx (bajxerj m, f 'stomach' ~ mogn(s ~ megener) m ~ Uk cerevo (cereva) η (vs. G Bauch[-"e] m), Y mpastex(er) 'shepherd' ~ Uk pastux (pastuxä gen sg) (vs. G Hirt [en] m; see also chapters 4.5.4 and 4.6). Y horn (herner) m, η 'horn (animal's, musical)' ~ Uk rih (rohy) 'horn (musical)' vs. rih (rohy) m 'horn (animal's)' G Horn[-"er] η in both meanings); curiously, Yiddish (at least at present) makes no attempt to utilize the two gender assignments of horn to distinguish 'animal's horn' and 'musical horn', as was the case with elter m 'age' vs. elter f 'old age' (see discussion of gloz below and in #alt, ttGehirn). Maybe

Assignment ofplural suffixes

443

when Y horn was acquired, gender bifurcation (generated by relexification) was no longer productive. See also Y gloz (glezer) η 'glass (material)' vs. f, η '(drinking) glass' ~ Uk sklo (stekla) η 'glass (material)' vs. skljanka (skljanky) f '(drinking) glass' (~ G Glas[-"erJ η in both meanings), Y rind(er) η 'head of cattle' ~ Uk shot m (or xudoba f, with no stress shift) ~ byk (byky) ~ vil (voly) m 'ox' (~ G RindferJ), groz(n ~ grezer) η 'grass' ~ Uk trava (trävy) f (~ G Gras[-"er] η), Y kloc(-"er) m 'wooden beam' ~ Uk brus (brusy) (vs. G Klotz[-"e] m) 'block, log; lout', Y gevelb(n ~ -er) η 'shop, store' ~ Uk lävka (lavky) f (vs. G Gewölbe [zero pi] 'vault; arch' ~ Y gevelbfn] 'vault'), Y dorf(-"er) 'village' ~ Uk selo (sela) (~ G Dorf[-"er] η), Y con (cejn ~ cejner) 'tooth' ~ Uk zub (nom pi zitby but gen pi zubiv, dat pi zubdm) (vs. G Zahn[-"e] m), Y lajb(er) 'body' ~ Uk tilo (tila) n ( ~ G Leib [er] m), Y stub (stiber) ~ Uk χάία (xaty ~ xaty) (vs. Stube[n] f'room'), Y blat (bleter) m, η 'leaf; sheet of paper, newspaper' ~ Uk lyst (lysty) 'sheet of paper; letter' vs. lyst (lystja) m 'leaf (~ #Blatt[-"er] η in both meanings), Y hare (hercer) 'heart' ~ Uk serce (sercjd) (vs. G Herz[en] η), Y bojdem(s ~ bejdemer ~ bojdemer: for the latter see Zarecki 1929: 68) m 'attic' ~ Uk horä (hory) f (vs. MBoden [Böden] m 'ground, soil'), Y fon(en ~ fener) f 'flag' ~ Uk präpor (prapory) m ~ ζηατηέηό (znamina) η (vs. G Fahne[n] f; the use of -en in the Yiddish variant fonen need not be < G Fahnen but could imitate the pseudo-dual of Uk prdpory-SQQ chapter 4.5.4; MHG van[eJ was m). The feminine gender of Y fener is retained from Uk znameno n, thus extending (m)-er to feminine nouns, a development unattested in German itself (see more below). Y brunemfs ~ brinemer) m ~ brune(s) f 'well (water)' (see geographical details in Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #71) ~ Uk kolodjaz' (kolodjazi) m ~ dzerelo (dzerila) η (vs. G Brunnen [zero pi] m). Conversely, German has -er in Kraut(-"er) η 'herb, plant' while Y krojt n, f takes the plural in (•)-« even though Ukrainian lacks stress shift in the equivalent kapusta f (the source of Yiddish feminine gender); see also G Rest(e) m 'rest; left-over, remnant' vs. Y mrest(n) m, f, η ~ Uk resta (pi -y) f, zälysok (pi -y) m, G Gehalt (- "er) η 'pay, salary' vs. Y gehalt(n) ~ Uk pläta ~ pldtnja (pi -y) f. An interesting case is Y noz which has no less than four plurals:

444

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

nozn 'nose' G NasefnJ) ~ nez and ne(f)zer f. The latter could be explained by Uk nis ~ nosy m; on the differences in gender between Yiddish and Ukrainian, see #Nase) and nez could be a secondarily shortened form of nezer (see U. Weinreich 1960). A problem is Y glok m {gleker) 'bell' (vs. G Glocke[n] f) which has at present no Ukrainian translation equivalent with stress shift, see e.g. Uk dzvin m; only the masculine gender assignment of Y glok points to the Kiev-Polessian substratum. This Yiddish noun has additional plural options (e.g. dial gl'okim ~ gloken ~ gloks ~ gl'ek, discussed in Wexler 1991b: 44, 125, fn 324), which, theoretically, could have allowed relexifiers to distinguish the two meanings of Uk dzvin m 'bell' and 'sound of the bell'. In Ukrainian, disambiguation is accomplished in the genitive singular case, see Uk dzvona 'of the bell (instrument)' vs. dzvonu 'of the sound of the bell' (see chapter 4.5.1, vs. USo zwon 'bell' and klinkack m 'ringing; ting-a-ling'). These data are nothing more than suggestive, since very often when Ukrainian nouns use stress shift to emphasize the difference between singular and plural stems, the examples are not matched by Y (u)-er. A further problem is our inability to date stress shift in Ukrainian in many nouns; for example, while Y gevelb can take the plural in (n)-er in the meaning of 'shop, store' (see above), Y gevelb η in the meaning of 'vault' can only take the plural in (•)-«. The Ukrainian equivalents are sklepinnja η 'vault'; (WUk) 'store, shop' or pidval m 'cellar' without stress shift, or I'ox (l'oxy) m 'cavern, cellar; vault' (< German); the absence of (m)-er in this meaning in Y gevelb could mean either that it is a late borrowing from G Gewölbe (which means only 'vault') or that the stress shift in the Ukrainian term developed after the Yiddish acquisition of G Gewölbe η 'vault'. Many of the German nouns that now form the plural in -er are relatively late innovations of the 16th and 17th centuries. Modern German has in its core vocabulary 79 neuter nouns but only 30 masculine nouns that pluralize with -er. In contrast, Yiddish, (•) -er can appear with nouns of any gender (see Lass 1980: 265, 270, in 34 and R. Ebert et al. 1993: 184). Future textual study may help to determine which Yiddish Germanisms are innovations based on Slavic considerations, and which are likely to be post-relexification

Assignment of plural suffixes

445

loans from German. The differences in the distribution of Y (m)-er and G -er (and the possibility of a correlation with many Slavic nouns with movable stress) suggest that Yiddish acquired G -er early on. For example, G Feld(er) 'field' finds a rare reflection in Old High German, but there is no trace of -er with this noun in Middle High German (ModG Felder η was not in general use until the end of the 16th c: Ahlsson 1965: 40, fn 4). Hence, it is unclear if Y feld(er) is a recent post-relexification acquisition from German or an earlier relexification of Uk pole (poljd) n. This means that (u)-er in Y feld in principle could be older than, or independent of, -er with G Feld η. Examples of Modern German masculine and neuter nouns in Yiddish that are only attested with -er for the first time in the 15th-16th centuries are Mod G Abgott m 'god, idol', Bild 'picture, image', Buch 'book', Dorf η 'village', Dorn m 'thorn' (see also below), #Fass 'barrel', Haus 'house', Herz 'heart', Horn 'horn' (flGehirn), Kind 'child', Kleid 'garment' (Mbekleiden), Wrt 'place', Rad 'wheel', Schloss 'lock' (ttbeschliessen) and Tuch η 'cloth'. Nouns with -er first attested in the 14th century include Glas η 'glass', Mann m 'man, husband' (#Mann) and Weib η 'woman, wife' (see Woronow 1962: 181-182 for a description of texts from Nürnberg and Augsburg; for a discussion of relative chronology, see R. Ebert et al. 1993: 185). These Germanisms exist in Yiddish with the (m)-er plural, but as I indicated above, if the latter can also be motivated by stress shift in the paradigm of the Ukrainian translation equivalents, then the Yiddish forms could, in theory, be innovations created earlier than, and independently of, the German -er forms. Besides the Ukrainian examples cited above, see also the translation equivalents of the above Germanisms: Uk boh (bohy) m 'god, God', knyzka (knyzky) f 'book', selo (sela) η 'village', xata (xäty ~ xaty) 'house', sorocka (sorocky) f 'shirt', koleso (kolesa) 'wheel, circle', polotno (polötna) 'cloth', skiο (steklä) η 'glass (material)' ~ skljdnka (skljanky) '(drinking) glass', zinka (zinky) f 'wife, woman' (Ukrainian terms for 'child' and 'garment' presently lack stress shift). G Land 'land' (see #Ausländerj pluralized in -e in the 14th century ~ Y land (lender) η ~ Uk zemljä (zemli) f. G Wurm(-"er) 'worm' is not attested until the 15th century (see Paul 1968, 1: 31) but Yiddish lacks (m)-er in this word, see Y vorem

446

Evidence of two-tiered relexification

(verem); but Uk cerv'jäk {cerv'jaky) m should, arguably, have licensed Y *veremer; hence, I wonder if perhaps verem is a truncated form of the latter (parallel to nejzferj f 'nose' cited above). G Mann 'man, husband' was being used with a zero plural or -e until the late 14th century, when a few scattered instances of Männer m surface (possibly because of semantic attraction to Kind[er] 'child' and WeibferJ η 'wife, woman' with -er)·, Männer m became common in Modern German only in the late 16th century (Woronow 1962: 196 and Paul 1968, 1: 31, citing Molz 1902-1906 and Gürtler 1911-1913). Hence, Y man (mener) could be either an early relexification of Uk colovik(y ~ coloviky) m or a later postrelexification loan from German-say, after the 16th century. The same could be true of G Wald(-"er) 'forest' which came to exist alongside Wälde in the 15th-16th centuries; see Y vald (velder) ~ Uk lis (lisy) m. G Dorn 'thorn' had no less than four plurals, Dorne, Dornen, Dorne, Dörner, with the latter becoming popular in Silesia and Saxony in the 17th-early 18th centuries (Paul 1968, 1: 59); see Y dorn(-"er) m ~ Uk koljucka (koljucky) f. This last example is problematic, since Uk koljucka f has a pseudo-dual (see chapter 4.5.4), so that the expected Yiddish plural should have been *dornen m. I cannot determine when the pseudo-dual developed with this root in Ukrainian. Finally, very late cases of -er plural in German (with Yiddish parallels) include Geist 'spirit', Leib m 'body' (17th c: ttbleiben), Gras η grass' (~ Y gajst m, lajb, groz η [with grozn ~ grezer pi]), as well as examples which do not exist any longer in standard German, such as Bein 'bone; leg' (see Y bejner m 'bones', discussed in Mrm), Hemd 'shirt', Stück η 'piece' (18th c: R. Ebert et al. 1993: 185). The lateness of these Yiddish plural formations is also shown by the failure to match the pseudo-dual (and genders) of Uk dusa f 'spirit' and tilo η 'body' (Y lajb lacks a feminine gender option). In cases where we can follow the spread of Umlaut with a suffix in German, we are in a position to posit relative chronologies for the corresponding Yiddish Germanisms. For example, stG Brust 'breast' for a long time was treated to the plural suffix -en, acquiring its present plural Brüste after the 15th century (R. Ebert et al. 1993: 179); thus Y ^brüst (brist) f is likely to be a relatively recent form. I

Slavic pseudo-dual

447

would expect Y *brustn since the noun denotes a paired object, but the absence of (•)-« may be due to the use of two variants in Ukrainian, hrudy pit and hrud\ both without a pseudo-dual (though the latter has stress shift in the oblique cases, see e.g. hriidi gen sg vs. u hrudi 'on the breast' locative sg; Uk hrudka f dim, on the other hand, does have a pseudo-dual). On the possibility that Polish Yiddish preferred (m)-(e)n vs. Eastern Slavic • !m-(e)s plural, see discussion in chapter 4.5.4.

4.5.4. The Slavic "pseudo-dual" category in Yiddish The distribution of the plural marker (m)-(e)n in Yiddish differs radically from that of its German counterpart, in that Modern Yiddish nouns denoting paired items appear to have gravitated towards the plural in (m)-(e)n. Many of the corresponding terms in Ukrainian and Belarusian (and less frequently Russian) have a separate ending after the numerals 2-3-4 and 'both' (Uk obydva m, n, obydvi f, Br abodva) which consists of the plural ending with the singular stress position. This ending is sometimes called the "new pseudo-dual" (since it differs from the Common Slavic dual endings and involves 3 and 4) or "quantifying" or "counted plural" (since it occurs only after the three numerals). The pseudo-dual is restricted to the nominative-accusative cases; in other cases the numerals govern the normal plural forms. Only Ukrainian and Belarusian nouns with mobile stress are potential candidates for the pseudodual; in contrast, Y (*)-(e)n is not restricted to nouns following a numeral. This would be consonant with the genuine dual which might have been obtained from Upper Sorbian in the first relexification phase. Since the Yiddish distributional facts now correlate with the Ukrainian-Belarusian pseudo-dual, it might be more appropriate to speak of a pseudo-dual in Yiddish as well. Significantly, the pseudo-dual is not widely used in Ukrainian, Belarusian or Yiddish with nouns which denote a paired object (e.g. 'ear', 'eye', 'scissors'). Furthermore, the pseudo-dual in Ukrainian and Belarusian (of Kiev-Polessian origin) can survive since it has

448

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

formal marking; Yiddish lacks the ability to shift stress onto desinences (due to German influence). Since the Yiddish pseudodual was presumably originally not employed widely with nouns denoting paired objects, it not unexpectedly fell into disuse and (•) - ( e ) n became unambiguously a marker of plural number. As Werner Winter has pointed out to me, the dual is not a productive or at least stable category unless it occurs with nouns denoting paired objects (as in Arabic, Old Hebrew-but not so in Modern [Slavic] Hebrewsee below). Zolobov 1998 delineates several types of dual: the free dual (having separate endings, as in CS1 *oci '[two] eyes'), bound (CS1 *ch>va

b r a t a 'two brothers'), and syndetic (CS1 * o t b C b i m a t i

'father and mother', i.e. '[two] parents'), of which Yiddish has only the last two. For a different use of the term "pseudo-dual", see Blanc (1970); for general discussion of number, see Corbett (2000). I suggest that the Kiev-Polessian pseudo-dual became part of Yiddish when Kiev-Polessian was relexified to Yiddish (and German) lexicon (presumably effacing the Upper Sorbian dual). Subsequently, the dual category fell into disuse in Yiddish, so that ( m ) - ( e ) n now denotes plural number exclusively. I know of no case in the literature on bilingual interference where a dual category was successfully borrowed by a language previously lacking the category. Hence, a dual number in Yiddish would be powerful evidence in support of the relexification hypothesis. Contemporary Yiddish tends to apply the ( m ) - ( e ) n plural ending on phonological grounds (i.e. depending on the final consonant of the singular stem). This fact serves to obfuscate the historical functions of Y (m)-(e)n; still, a sizeable number of old Germanisms in Yiddish which arguably took the ( m ) - ( e ) n ending when it still had a dual function can still be identified. I presume that originally nouns with ( m ) - ( e ) n in a dual function had another suffix to denote the plural (see examples below); as the dual category became obsolete in Yiddish, ( m ) - ( e ) n became interpreted as the plural suffix. The Common Slavic dual declension had already reached a state of advanced obsolescence by the earliest attested stages of most Slavic languages. From the original dual declensional types, all Slavic languages (other than Sorbian and Slovene, which still

Slavic pseudo-dual

449

broadly use a dual category) retain a few dual endings which now exclusively express the plural number (see Vaillant 1958, 2: 314321). The nouns which retained the original dual endings longest often denote paired objects, as e.g. R koleni 'knees' (< OR *kolene 11th c ~ kolenbja pi), boka 'sides' (early 19th c),plec0 'shoulders'; Br vocy 'eyes', vusy 'ears', plecy 'shoulders'; Uk usyma 'ears' inst dual (~ vuxamy inst pi); Bg oci 'eyes', usi 'ears'. Even in Sorbian, where a dual category is expressed in most dialects in the noun, pronoun, adjective and verb, the numeral is often added with nouns denoting non-paired objects, which attests to a weakened dual category, see e.g. USo dwaj koncertaj 'two concerts' but starsej 'two parents' dual vs. starsi pi; the dual pronouns and verbs do not require a numeral, see e.g. waju gen-acc dual, indeclinable 'your', USo stej nawariloj 'the two of them cooked'. In Bulgarian, the original dual endings are still retained after numerals, e.g. Bg pet gradä 'five cities'. In some Slavic languages, dual nouns are retained as frozen, partly adverbialized, expressions, see e.g. OR po obe storone 'on both sides' (16th c). The dual endings became obsolete in Belarusian in the 15th century, surviving longest in the southwest (Kiev-Polessian) dialects with feminine and neuter nouns (Karskij 1956, 2-3: 109; Blinava 1963: 7-8; Bulyka et al. 1979: 9095; Blinava and Mjacel'skaja 1980: 69-71). For details on the reflexes of the inherited dual in other Slavic languages, see Dostal (1954); Jordanskij (1960); Lötzsch (1965); Ermakova (1970); Dejna (1981); Fasske (1981); Sul'ga (1984); Derganc (1988); Pavliuc 1989; Zolobov (1997, 1998). There is little mention of the pseudo-dual in contemporary East Slavic grammars, e.g. the Belaruskaja hramatyka 1 (1985) has no discussion at all, despite a rather detailed treatment of accentual variants in the nominal declensions. The pseudo-dual is far more productive in contemporary Ukrainian than in Belarusian; the Belarusian dictionary compiled by Sudnik and Krywko (1999) has approximately 150 examples, most of feminine gender, while Ukrainian dictionaries cite over 600 nouns with the pseudo-dual, again, mainly with feminine nouns (see Pohribnyj 1964, as well as Smulkowa 1978). Whereas Belarusian now has only about 15

450

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

masculine nouns, Ukrainian has over 200. Moreover, the distribution of the pseudo-dual in Ukrainian forms a better match with Y (m)-(e)n than Belarusian, hence, providing precious linguistic support for the assumption that the bulk of the Kiev-Polessian Jews of mainly Khazar origin who first became Slavic speakers originally resided in the southern (i.e. pre-North Ukrainian) part of the territory. Yiddish data may also raise the possibility that East Slavic nouns now lacking the pseudo-dual once had it; e.g., Y trer(n) f 'tear (in the eye)' could only have its (•)-« from Br sljaza +PD, since cognate Uk si 'oza f presently has stress shift in the root but no pseudo-dual. Either Y trer(n) was modeled on Br sljaza, or Uk si'oza f once had the pseudo-dual. Alternatively, the (•)-« pi of synonymous G Träne f (unknown in Yiddish) may be the basis for the Yiddish plural choice. In Belarusian and Ukrainian, the pseudo-dual is now available with most nouns which have stress shift in the paradigm (below nouns will be marked either with +PD vs. -PD or nothing, depending on the availability of the "pseudo-dual"). In Ukrainian most nouns mark the plural number by ending together with stress shift; this tendency, especially pronounced in Western Ukrainian, permits the creation of the pseudo-dual simply by returning to the singular stress position, see e.g. WUk χάία (pi xaty) 'hut, clay-walled cottage' vs. stUk χάία (pi xaty)/ WUk dvi xaty f +PD 'two huts', Uk dub 'oak', pi duby, try duby m +PD '3 oaks'. In some, especially East Ukrainian dialects, the pseudo-dual occasionally has the plural stress but a separate ending, see e.g. EUk korova (korovy) f 'cow' ~ dvi korovi +PD vs. WUk korova (korovy) ~ dvi korovy +PD (see Sul'ga 1984: 238). Some erosion in the use of the pseudo-dual, in favor of the plural, is characteristic of some Ukrainian dialects, e.g. in the Naddnister district of the Ukraine (Janow 1926: 63), the southeast (Prystupa 1957: 44) and Ternopil' district (Dejna 1957: 83; see also Kobyljans'kyj 1953; Bandrivs'kyj 1960: 61; Zylko 1955: 97, 1958: 56). The pseudo-dual is not possible in West Lemkian Ukrainian dialects that have developed fixed stress (see Zylko 1958: 136). In some Ukrainian dialects, the dual is limited to paired nouns, while in

Slavic pseudo-dual

451

other dialects it can be used with some paired nouns without the numeral two (Matvijas 1969: 116). On the other hand, some West Ukrainian dialects (e.g. in the L'viv district) use the pseudo-dual after any numeral ending in the digits 2, 3 or 4 (Prystupa 1957: 44; Matvijas 1969: 121). On the spread of the pseudo-dual endings at the expense of the plural in southwest Volhynia, see Matvijas (1969: 113). In Ternopil' Ukrainian, the dual stress is used with plural endings (Matvijas 1969: 116). Some pseudo-dual forms, e.g. Uk dial ruci 'hands', preserve the stress of the original dual (Skljarenko 1971: 142). The most typical areas for the pseudo-dual fall largely into the former Kiev-Polessian zone, i.e. in southwest Belarus', V

Central and East Polessie, as well as southwest Ukraine (see Zylko 1955: 97, 1958: 40, 56; Avanesaw et al. 1968: 54; Lyzanec' 1969: 189) and in the West Brjansk Russian dialects (formerly those closely associated with pre-Belarusian; see Mixajlov 1974). Though, according to Cabjaruk, the pseudo-dual is very productive in northeast Belarusian dialects (1977: 75). For cartographical details, see (for Ukrainian) Dejna (1957), map #vi; Matvijas (1962: 133, map #389) and Onyskevyc (1971), and (for Belarusian), Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy (1963, maps ##18, 206-207) and Avanesaw et al. (1968: 54,127, 233). As the Ukrainian examples cited above show, (i) the pseudo-dual coincides with the ending of the plural except that it has the stress of the singular stem, and (ii) the nouns with the pseudo-dual need not express paired objects. In fact, in contemporary Eastern Slavic, nouns denoting a paired object usually lack a pseudo-dual, see e.g. Uk oko 'eye', νιιχο η 'ear' (though they may retain an archaic dual ending, as in Uk vocy pi, originally dual 'eyes'). Belarusian uses stress to disambiguate 'branch (of tree)' and 'branch (of study)', but only in the singular, see halina (haliny) and halinä (haliny) f, respectively; neither variant has a pseudo-dual. Semantics offers no clue, e.g. the equivalent Uk haluz' 'branch (of tree, study)' lacks stress shift, and hence the pseudo-dual, but see dim haluzka and hilka, dim hilocka f 'branch (of tree)' +PD. Most nouns in Ukrainian and Belarusian which have the requisite condition of stress shift to distinguish singular and plural stems do not, however, avail V

452

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

themselves of the pseudo-dual. Thus, Uk driizka f 'companion; bride's maid' and zuk m 'beetle' form the plurals druzky druzky) and zuky, but neither has a pseudo-dual (though R zuk m does: dva zuka 'two beetles' vs. zuki pi, also involving stress movement). The pseudo-dual is also available to non-native words, see e.g. Uk torn 'volume' (< Polish), tomy pi, dva tomy '2 volumes'; see also R torn 'volume', tomd pi, dva toma m '2 volumes'. There is no way to posit an accurate chronology for the pseudodual in Ukrainian and Belarusian since stress is rarely marked in texts before the 16th century, but the existence of the phenomenon in both Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects suggests a Kiev-Polessian origin, i.e. predating the 14th-century (the date that Shevelov notes as the first attestation of the plural in Ukrainian after '2': 1963: 234236). Significantly, nouns which lack a pseudo-dual in one Eastern Slavic language may have it in another. Sorbian could not have developed a pseudo-dual since the stress became fixed on the initial root syllable between the 12th-14th centuries (Schaarschmidt 1998: 87-88) and the original dual category survived. In Germanic languages, the dual has left no remains except in the pronoun, see e.g. BavG ös (nom), enk (acc) 'you' and enker 'your', which now have a plural function; these pronouns now survive solely in PolY ec, enk, enker, respectively (first attested in 1567: Marchand 1960: 40, fn 5). Prokosch thinks that the Bavarian dual pronouns derive from the Gothic settlement in southern Bavaria (1939: 230), but their present expanse includes Westphalia and the Ruhr region (1939: 40). If Yiddish is a Slavic language relexified to High German vocabulary, then it should have had a dual category-either of the Upper Sorbian or the Eastern Slavic type. Yiddish (following German) has no substantival endings of dual origin that are used with a plural function (as in the Slavic examples given above), but I am prepared to make the innovative claim that one Yiddish plural marker, (m)-(e)n, may have once had a dual function. If Y {m)-(e)n had a specifically dual function, this function is now largely obsolete. Clearly in all documented periods as well as the present, Y (m)-(e)n always expresses the plural (except in some instances of

Slavic pseudo-dual

453

multiple plural suffixation; see below). No contemporary Yiddish speaker has the feeling that (*)-(e)n marks a specifically dual number. The Yiddish dual can be reconstructed by reference to the pseudo-dual in Ukrainian and Belarusian. It is possible that a dual category existed in Sorbian Yiddish, but there is no way to prove this conclusively; if it did, it was greatly expanded in the KievPolessian area. Germanisms believed to have been acquired in the first relexification phase used (m)-(e)n in a putative dual function. Of course, it is also conceivable that the Sorbian substratum of Yiddish was a dialect which had lost the dual category, such as the southern Upper Sorbian dialects (Ermakova 1970: 48); in that event, the Yiddish dual would have arisen first in the Kiev-Polessian lands. The decision of Yiddish relexifiers to select the German plural suffix (m)-(e)n to express the Eastern Slavic pseudo-dual has its roots in the German lexicon acquired by Yiddish in the first relexification phase. Middle High German had five neuter nouns, four of which denoted paired objects, pluralizing in ~(e)n; this is unusual since (•) -(e)n was mostly used with masculine and feminine nouns. Four of the nouns survive in Modern German: Herz(en) 'heart', Auge(n) 'eye', Ohr(en) 'ear' and Wange(n) η 'cheek' (now ModG f), MHG V

hiwen pi 'spouses' (see Zirmunskij 1956: 395). Yiddish has the first three words, two with an (»-(^«-plural: harc(er), ojg(n) n, ojer(n) n, m as well as a different German term for 'cheek', Y bak(n) ~ G Backe(n) f. Three of the Ukrainian and Belarusian translation equivalents do have the pseudo-dual, e.g. Uk scoka, Br scaka 'cheek' +PD, and Br voka (vocy) 'eye' ~ voki dual, vuxa (vitsyj 'ear' ~ νύχι dual. G Wange f was not accepted by Yiddish either because (i) Slavic has a single term, or (ii) because the German lexifier dialect had the other term, see e.g. BavG Backen, with Wange regarded as standard German (König 1996, 2/1, map #41). Except for 'heart', the nouns are inherently dual in meaning. In addition, G Eltern pit 'parents' expresses both a dual and plural concept; this noun is also found in identical form and meaning in Yiddish. A number of Germanic languages used *-η-, *-ϊηα- to express the dual, see e.g. ONorse fedgin ~ fedrgin 'parents', systlin 'brother and sister' (Krahe 1967, 3: 193; see also Wagner 1956 and Guxman et

454

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

al. 1963, 3: 141). Such examples explain why Yiddish speakers may have decided to assign the dual function to (u)-(e)n. However, there is no reason to suggest that at the time of the first relexification, German speakers also still retained some idea of the original dual ending, except regionally in the pronoun. The use of (m)~(e)n as a common plural marker in Rhineland Rotwelsch lexicons (see data in Honnen 2000), in contrast to the use of other plural suffixes in standard German, needs a separate study. There is no chance that individual Slavic dual endings could surface in Yiddish, after either relexification phase. Sorbian nominal dual endings would have been impossible to maintain in Yiddish. Yiddish stress ordinarily falls on the initial root syllable in almost all German and many Hebrew and Slavic components. Hence Sorbian final vowels and diphthongs would have all merged into a schwa in Yiddish, see e.g. USo woblek 'garment' > -y pi and -aj dual > Y *vobleke. The rarely used Eastern Slavic historical dual endings would have had almost exclusively plural functions at the time of the second relexification phase. The East Slavic use of stress to distinguish the plural and pseudodual could, in theory, have been maintained in Yiddish after the second relexification phase. For example, some Yiddish nouns, usually of Hebrew origin (but not < German), distinguish singular and plural stems by stress shift (together with a plural marker), e.g. (i^minister (ministorn) 'minister' < G Minister or Uk minister (with fixed stress, ultimately < Latin), • tdlmed (talmidim) 'student', mpol'ak (pol'dken) m 'Pole'. In Y fur man (furmdnes) 'driver', the components are of German origin but lack the suppletion found in MHG vuorman (vuorliute) (following USo woznik, Uk vodij m). However, there are no examples of a non-singular noun in Yiddish with two stress patterns, say uministorn pi vs. *ministorn dual. The age of moveable stress in Yiddish nouns is unknown; it is widely believed that the Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew loans probably arose in a language other than Yiddish (see Jacobs 1990a; Katz 1991b). (I suspect that the tendency to move stress to plural endings in Modern Hebrew is either of East Slavic origin or Old Hebrew supported by parallelism with East Slavic).

Slavic pseudo-dual

455

The Yiddish dual must have become unproductive sometime after the second relexification phase in the 15th-16th centuries, to judge from the fact that Yiddish productively uses (u)-(e)n as a plural marker-far in excess of G -(e)η (though modern German influence also contributed to the productivity of Y [*]-[e]ri). There are six factors that led to the demise of the dual category in Yiddish: 1. The dual category has become obsolete in most languages that developed it. 2. The ambiguity of (m)-(e)n as a mark of both dual and plural number jeopardizes the dual category. 3. The pseudo-dual is relatively unproductive in the East Slavic languages. 4. The ending {m)-(e)n in any function is rarely encountered with Hebraisms in Yiddish, which tend to pluralize with Hebrew suffixes, k!m-(e)s and L-im (the Hebrew dual ending, ~[t]aim, barely encountered in Yiddish, if at all, is restricted to Hebraisms). In addition, Hebrew loans rarely denote paired objects. The rare use of {m)-(e)n with Hebrew nouns may reflect the fact that the dual had become obsolete in Yiddish before the acquisition of most Hebraisms. Moreover, the (m)-(e)n dual could be interpreted as -In, a rare Mishnaic Hebrew variant of -Jm pi (see examples below). While the dual category, expressed now by -(,tjaim, shows signs of becoming productive in Modern Hebrew, presumably under the influence of Yiddish and the (Ashkenazic) Hebrew written by Yiddish speakers, there is no evidence that the OHe -(t)aim dual played a significant role in the development of the dual in Yiddish. 5. The dual can never be expressed with nouns which require a different plural suffix, for phonological, morphological or etymological reasons, e.g. diminutives require the plural suffix -(ejx and Slavic and Hebrew nouns ending in -e must take A/u-s (in general,

456

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Hebrew loans in Yiddish take a Hebrew plural, though not necessarily the same one as in native Hebrew). When the use of Yiddish plurals is determined by phonological considerations, Yiddish usually lacks (m)-(e)n as the equivalent of the Ukrainian pseudo-dual. For example, most Germanisms in Yiddish that end in the syllable -er (often marking agentive nouns) are masculine and take their plural in A/m-s, see e.g. Y lajter(s) 'ladder', lerer(s) m 'teacher' (vs. G Leiter[n] f, Lehrer [zero pi] m). The few exceptions are Yiddish Germanisms in -er not denoting an agent. For example, Ukpohrib 'cellar' permits the pseudo-dual, thus Y keler takes (•)-« as the plural marker, instead of the expected A / · -s (vs. G Keller [zero pi] m). See also Uk pomylka f +PD 'mistake' ~ Y grajz(n), A toes(n), feler(n) (instead of the expected Alms plural in the latter ~ G Fehler [zero pi], Irrtum [-"er]) and Uk paj +PD 'share, portion, part' ~ Y mpaj(en) (for expected Alm-es, vs. G [Beute]anteil[e] m). Failure to acquire (m)-(e)n in Y emer(s) (*emern) ~ Uk vid.ro η 'bucket' +PD (but see Y kibl[en]) ~ G Eimer, Kübel (zero pi) m, might mean the Germanism was a relatively recent, possibly post-relexification, acquisition-at a time when the dual category in Yiddish was obsolete. There is mixed evidence that G Eimer m is, indeed, a relatively recent acquisition in Yiddish. On the one hand, most Middle High German variants have -b-, see eim(b)er ~ einher ~ ember m. Y emer matches the contemporary G Eimer m best. Vasmer (1953-1958) cites the Germanism as the source of Polab wumberak 'milk pail', LSo bork 'water pail', OR ubortkh 'dry measure', Cz iibor, oubor m 'basket' (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 55, 1741 posits a native Slavic etymology). If relexifiers regarded the German and West Slavic forms as related, relexification to G Eimer m could have been blocked in the first relexification phase. This would make Y emer m a more likely candidate for acquisition in the Kiev-Polessian lands, during or after the second relexification phase. For other examples, see list #2 below; on the plural strategies of Yiddish nouns in (m)-er, see paragraph 2 at the end of this chapter.

Slavic pseudo-dual

457

6. Unlike Upper Sorbian, Yiddish (following Belarusian and Ukrainian) never developed a new means of expressing dual number in adjectives or verbs; nor did Yiddish succeed in enshrining the dual syntactically, as was the case in Slovene, where, e.g. a conjoined neuter singular and feminine singular subject, as well as two neuter singular subjects, require a dual predicate (see Corbett 1991:317). I can muster nine facts in support of the hypothesis that Yiddish once had a dual: 1. Yiddish and German differ radically in the distribution of their common endings. Since the distributional norms of the Yiddish plural endings do not resemble those of any potential German lexifier dialect, I assume that Yiddish set its own norms independently of the German lexifier dialect, first according to the norms of one of its Slavic substrata, and subsequently, according to internal phonological and/or semantic grounds. Given that most of the grammatical and lexical features of Yiddish can be motivated by reference to Slavic grammar impels me to seek a Sorbian or KievPolessian basis for the Yiddish inventory and distribution of plurals. 2. All Yiddishists readily identify the two plural markers (m)-(e)rt and (m)-er (and some even include A lm-[e]s), as German components in Yiddish. Above I expressed my belief that these three morphemes have a double origin, in that they continue both German or Hebrew plural morphemes and homophonous Slavic nominal stem markers. The part Slavic origin of (u)-(e)n could also have led to its ability to express the Ukrainian and Belarusian pseudo-dual. In post-relexification borrowings from German we find the greatest likelihood that Yiddish will imitate the German distribution of (my(e)n. One methodological complication is that, given the undiminished popularity of {m)-(e)n in Yiddish, the choice of (m)-(e)nplural in violation of German norms does not necessarily mean that the ending was originally a dual marker at the time of the loan. For example, Y \cvejfl 'doubt' (possibly < 'two') is most likely a post-

458

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

relexification loan, but unlike MZweifel (zero pi) m, the Yiddish plural is (•)-«. I can only be sure that an instance of (m)-(e)n might have had an original dual function when a Yiddish noun has multiple "plurals", including the option of (n)-(e)n; in such cases, the latter might have had a dual function and the other options unambiguously expressed the plural (see examples below). Yiddish can achieve a measure of independence in the use of (•) ~(e)n with a dual function from the East Slavic languages. In Ukrainian and Belarusian the pseudo-dual is often available to a base noun but not to its diminutive, or vice versa. An example of the first type is Uk steblo η +PD '(cabbage) stalk; blade (of straw, grass)' but steblyna f - P D 'small blade of grass' ~ the suppletive pair Y zang(en) 'stalk; ear of corn' MHG sange f) but dim stengl(ex) η 'stem, stalk' (< stang[en] m, f 'beam, bar', where the masculine gender matches that of G Stengel and Uk stebel' m 'stalk, stem', and the feminine matches Uk steblo n). An example where the diminutive has the pseudo-dual but the base form lacks it is Uk hrebinka f +PD vs. non-dim hrebin' - P D 'comb' ~ Y kam(en) 'comb; crest of a bird' ~ G Kamm(-"e) m (and dim Y keml[ex] η 'comb'). Yiddish diminutives never have the pseudo-dual, since they always entail neuter German) and thus their plural is ~(e)x. When a Yiddish noun with (m)-(e)n corresponds to a number of Ukrainian terms, only some allowing the pseudo-dual, we can reconstruct the likely Slavic input for relexification. For example, Uk lavka 'shop', but not kramnycja f, has the pseudo-dual. Hence, I assume that the Yiddish choice of (•)-« pi in gevelb(n ~ -er) η 'shop, store' was motivated by Uk lavka f (~ G Laden [Läden] m; see other examples in chapter 4.5.1). However, in Y gevelb η 'vault'with a single plural option in (•)-«-Yiddish acts independently of Ukrainian, since corresponding Uk sklep m, sklepinnja f both lack the pseudo-dual, at least nowadays. Possibly the (•)-« plural option of 'vault' spread from homophonous 'store, shop'. The possibility that the (m)-(e)n dual/plural could be "dragged" between synonyms needs to be examined. For example, Uk vijna +PD 'war' ~ Y krig(n) m, f, milxome(s) f (vs. G Krieg[e] m). But while synonymous Uk

Slavic pseudo-dual

459

bij m and borot'ba f lack the pseudo-dual, the corresponding Y kamf 'struggle, fight, combat' pluralizes with (•)-« (vs. G #Kampf f - " e ] m). I suspect that Yiddish came to innovate in its distribution of (m)-(e)n in the dual function especially after the second relexification phase, when the Slavic substratum no longer operated so pervasively, and/or Jews gradually became monolingual in Yiddish. This seems borne out by Y kamf m-a relatively recent acquisition-to judge from the - / (vs. Y kop with -p < G Kopf: see also #Dampf). Just as Ukrainian does not extend the pseudo-dual to all synonyms (see the example of Uk lavka ~ kramnycja f above), Yiddish also does not extend (m)-(e)n to all synonyms. See also discussion of Uk cerevo η 'stomach' in chapter 4.1 and Y cojm(en) m, f 'fence' below (and #Zaum). 3. Nouns which denote a paired object or an object with two parts in Yiddish very often pluralize with (m)-(e)n. Most of the examples are < German (though [m]-[e]n is almost never the plural with these nouns in German). There are only a few Yiddish Slavicisms and Hebraisms denoting a paired object which take their plural in (•) ~(e)n. In the case of Hebrew nouns in Yiddish, this is because the latter usually pluralize with Hebrew suffixes; Yiddish Slavicisms usually form the plural in A!m-(e)s; see e.g. Y mskirde(s) 'haystack' < Uk skyrta +PD, R skirda f +PD. Yiddish feminine Slavicisms which denote a paired object and which usually end in a schwa also pluralize in A/m-s, see e.g. Y mplejce(s) 'shoulder', mlape(s) 'paw', mvie(s) 'eyelash', mlitke(s) 'calf (of the leg)', mzabre(s) 'gill', mhencke(s) f 'glove' (see discussion of the latter in MHG #buntschuoch). The Slavicisms cited here are Uk piece η (which still has the original dual ending in pleci pi), lapa - P D (but lapka dim +PD), vija, lytka f +PD and zabry pit. There are also occasional Germanisms in Yiddish which denote a paired object but which cannot pluralize in {m)-(e)n since they have (a) the dim -/, which almost automatically triggers neuter gender and hence, the plural in -(e)x, see e.g. Y ojgn-ledl 'eyelid', ojeringl η 'earring', or (b) end in the syllable (often also the agentive morpheme) -er, which tends to

460

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

attract • !m-s as the plural suffix, see e.g. Y cviker(s) m '(pair of) tweezers' < G zwicken 'to pinch'. The handful of Slavicisms that fall into the class of (•)-(^)«-plurals denote paired objects; these may be Kiev-Polessian retentions or very early loans from Ukrainian. Two examples are Y mbreg 'riverbank' and »cub 'tuft of hair'; both Uk bereh, cub allow the pseudo-dual (on the original absence of mbreg m in Polish Yiddish, see M. Weinreich 1980: 597; see also Hanover 1660 who has bortn 'shores' < Ukrainian < Polish < German). Y mbreg m allows two plurals, Llm-es and (•)-«. Herzog et al. (#006061) note that mbregn is the more widespread variant, prevailing in Eastern Belarus' and Northern Ukraine; mbregn is nearly the exclusive plural in the eastern and southern extremes of the Ukrainian language territory. In the remaining areas, in Poland, Western Ukraine, Rumania and the Baltic area, mbreges competes with mbregn. The geography suggests that mbregn developed in the Kiev-Polessian zone (on multiple plural assignment, see further discussion below). Y • cub m 'tuft of hair' could resist relexification to German if it originally denoted specifically the 'ritual sidelocks of orthodox Jewish males', a concept for which German lacked a corresponding morpheme. Nowadays, this concept is denoted exclusively by Y Jkpejes f; the use of (m)-n with mcub(n) m makes me wonder if only at the time of the second relexification did Yiddish begin to use He pe'öt pl-f ('edge, border; lock of hair') to denote the 'sidelocks of orthodox Jewish males'. The Biblical Hebrew use of the term in the meaning of 'forelock' seems to be limited to the singular number, and therefore doesn't denote 'ritual sidelocks'; I also find no Medieval Hebrew attestation of He pe'öt pl-f in the meaning of 'forelock'. Upper Sorbian lacks a cognate of Uk cub m, which raises the possibility that the orthodox Jewish practice of wearing ritual sidelocks began in the Kiev-Polessian area. On the orthodox Jewish male practice of wearing sidelocks and beards, see Wexler (1993c: 168-169). Al-Mas'üdl 943-947 mentions the custom of growing forelocks among Eastern Slavs, which might be the origin of the Orthodox Ashkenazic custom (see mention in Dunlop 1954: 99). See also discussion below of OY /cwttw"t/ *cojtes 'tuft of hair,

Slavic pseudo-dual

461

shag' (13th c; the use o f " in Medieval Hebrew usually denoted a foreign word) ~ ModY cojtn (M. Weinreich 1973, 4: 92); there is no evidence that these two plurals ever coexisted. See also discussion in chapter 4.5.3 on Slavic nouns of the original *-qnt- stem declension which resist (m)-(e)n as the plural marker in Yiddish. The following partial list comprises Yiddish nouns of German origin that denote a paired object and that pluralize with {m)-(e)n. German and Slavic equivalents are given for comparison. Significantly, few of the German surface cognates take (m)-(e)n as the plural, and a small minority of the Ukrainian counterparts have (at present) a pseudo-dual, though some nouns show a stress shift in the paradigm, which suggests that they may once have had a pseudodual. I cannot rule out the possibility that Y (m)-(e)n matched Ukrainian nouns with stress shift only and not necessarily those which actually had the pseudo-dual. The German facts suggest that Yiddish acquired the dual category after the first relexification phase from Judeo-Sorbian, expanding the use of (m)-(e)n after the second relexification phase in the Kiev-Polessian lands in conformity with the Ukrainian-Belarusian pseudo-dual. The fact that Yiddish nouns in (m)-(e)n denoting paired objects rarely parallel Ukrainian nouns with the pseudo-dual strongly suggests that the Yiddish use of (•) ~(e)n with paired objects might have developed in the language independently of the Kiev-Polessian pseudo-dual. This hypothesis contradicts the view that the original function of the dual was to mark specifically paired objects (see Janda 1996: 175-176, citing Dostal 1954). a. Y aksl(n) m 'shoulder' ~ G Achsel(n) f ~ USo ramjo, Uk ram'ja ~ rameno η -PD. The use of m gender in Y may result from internal phonological considerations, since a relexified SI η noun would yield f gender in Y. See also discussion of Y mplejce and Uk piece above. b. Y bak(n) 'cheek' ~ G Backe(n) ~ Uk scoka f +PD c. Y brust(n) 'breast' ~ G Brust(-"e) ~ USo hrudz, Uk hrud' f (with stress shift in oblique cases, but -PD; see R grudi gen sg = nom pi, thus dve

462

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

gritdi 'two breasts' but final stress after most prepositions, as in iz grudi 'from the breast'). The Uk dim has +PD. d. Y cojm(en) f, m 'bridle' ~ G #Zaum(- "e) m ~ USo wuzda, Uk vuzdecka f +PD. The (•)-« dual suffix is appropriate since a bridle has two straps; the favored f gender in Y < SI. e. Y cojm(en) ~ cam(en) m, f 'fence' ~ G Zaun(-"e) m (#Zaum) ~ USo plot, Uk plit -PD (though there is stress movement, e.g. plotu ~ plotä gen sg, ploty nom pl) ~ tyn m +PD ~ ohoroza f -PD. The (•)-« dual suffix is called for since a fence separates two areas. The favored m gender in Y could also be ascribed to a Uk noun with +PD (> Y mplojtfen] m 'fence'). f. Y cvajg(n) f 'branch; junction' ~ G Zweig(e) m ~ USo hahtza, Uk haluzka +PD (but underlying Uk haluz' -PD!), hil(oc)ka f +PD g. Y cvang(en) f '(pair of) pliers' ~ G Zwang(-"e) m 'compulsion' (Zange[n] f 'pliers' is unrelated) ~ USo klesce, Uk scypci pit h. Y Xcvejfl(en) 'doubt' ~ G Zweifel (zero pl; G #verzweifeln) ~ USo dwel, Uk sumniv m -PD. I list 'doubt' in the present list since the concept implies two (or more) views and the Germanism < zwei 'two'. i. Y cviling(en) 'twin' ~ G Zwilling(e) ~ USo dwojnik, Uk dvijnyk m -PD, blyznja η -PD j. Y eitern 'parents' ~ G Eltern pit (G #alt) ~ USo starsi pl, starsej dual, Uk bat'ky pit, rodytel'm -PD (see also chapter 4.3). The use of -n by Y and G may be coincidental, with Y (•)-« motivated by the USo dual form. k. Y fligl(en) 'wing' ~ G Flügel (zero) m (G UFliege) ~ USo kridlo, Uk krylo η -PD (but see R dva krylä dual vs. kryl 'ja nom pl) 1. Y fojst(n) f, m 'fist' ~ G Faust(- "e) ~ USo pjasc f, Uk kulak - P D (> Y mkulikfes], mkulakfes] m) m. Y gevixt(n ~ er) 'weighing scale' ~ G Gewicht(e) η (G #bewegen) ~ USo waha, Uk vaha f -PD. The term can be included in this list since scales often have two trays (see He moznaim dual t 'scalefs]').

Slavic pseudo-dual

463

η. Y \hantgelenk(en) η 'wrist' ~ G \Handgelenk(e) m ~ USo ruöne zhibadlo n, Uk zap 'jastok m -PD ο. Y himl(en) 'sky, heaven' ~ G Himmel (zero pi) m ~ USo njebjo n, pi njebjesa. The choice of (•)-« in Y may also have been influenced by He sämaim pit with the historical dual suffix. p. Y ingevejd(n) pit 'intestines' ~ G Eingeweide (zero pi) ~ USo crjewa pit < n, Uk kyska f +PD q. Y por(n) f, η 'pair, couple; match, mate; a couple of ~ G Paar(e) η 'pair, couple' ~ USo por, poraj (dual), Uk para f 'pair, couple (of persons)' -PD r. Y porfolk(n ~ -felker) 'married couple' ~ G \Ehepaar(e) 'married couple', (*Paarvolk) ~ USo mandzelskaj η (dual), Uk para f 'pair, couple (of persons)' -PD. See also Y • ben-zug (bne-zug) m and paragraph 7 below. It is significant that when Y folk η 'people, folk, ethnic group' is used alone, the pi is uniquely felker. M. Mieses claims that Paar Volk is found in Styrian G (1924: 208), for which we could suspect a SI substratum. 4. A number of German, Slavic and occasionally Hebrew nouns take two or three plurals, usually without semantic implications, see e.g. Y vogn(s ~ vegn ~ vegener) m 'cart', knifes ~ -en ~ zero pi) m, f 'knee', noz (nez ~ neßjzer ~ rare -n) f 'nose' (see U. Weinreich 1960 and #Nase). Multiple pluralization in Yiddish could be (a) the result of the merger in the standard language of different dialectal choices, e.g. Rejzen describes mbreges m 'riverbanks' as typical of Polish and Volhynian [Ukrainian] Yiddish vs. mbregn, which is found elsewhere (1926: column 401). (b) It could also reflect differences and changes in productivity through time and space, (c) It could result from a survival of the original plural and dual endings (on mbregn, see below). Doublets in A/m-s ~ A/m-es could also have distinguished dual from plural (I cannot say which was which), as in Y stekn 'stick', ejdem m 'son-in-law' (S. A. Birnbaum 1979: 228) ~ Uk prut +PD ~ palycka +PD (but non-diminutive palycja f - P D ; see also below) and zjat' m +PD.

464

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Nouns that display semantic distinctions in the plural usually also differ in gender, see e.g. Y band {bender) f 'ribbon, band' vs. band (bend) m 'volume (book)'. In some cases, the Yiddish examples have German parallels. In standard German the first two examples in the preceding paragraph have a single plural, Wagen (zero pi) m Cftbewegen) and #Nase(n) f, but note G Band{-"er) η 'ribbon' vs. Band(-"e) m 'volume' vs. Band(e) η 'tie, bond'. The Yiddish gender assignments are dictated by Slavic grammar, see Uk stricka, lenta, tas 'ma, stjazka ~ Pol wstqga (see also Y •/ 'ente, wtasme, mstenge f) 'ribbon' and Uk, Pol torn m 'volume'. See also Y ugvald(n ~ es) m 'cry, scream' (but mgvald 'violence, force') vs. #Gewalt(en) f 'might, power, violence'. I assume that immediately after the second relexification phase, {m)-(e)n denoted the dual while the second plural marker (A/m-[eJs, [m]-er) denoted the plural. Examples of Yiddish nouns not denoting paired objects which now allow pluralization with either (m)-(e)n and •/• -(e)s include Y mgevald 'cry, scream, hue and cry' (received via Uk gvalt 'help!'; 'violence'), mskrip 'squeak, creak' (< Uk skryp), mpireg ~ mpirog 'meat pie' (< Ukpyrih, Rpirog), mdrong(en ~ -es ~ drenger) 'pole, bar' (< Pol drqg), mlobes 'urchin' (Uk loboz lacks the pseudo-dual, but see synonymous lobur +PD), mvalik, mvalc 'roller, bolster' (< Uk valok, valec' m, ultimately < G Walze[n] f), mvazon 'flower pot' (< Pol wazon, Uk vazonok < Fr), snek m 'snail, shrimp; urchin' (< G Schnecke[n] f), keler 'cellar' (vs. G Keller [zero pi]; Uk pohrib +PD); bloter m 'blister, blotch' (< G Blattern pit 'smallpox'; see ftblähen), mdemb 'oak(tree)' (< Pol ~ Uk dub +PD), Vinter m 'winter' (Uk zyma f +PD), mserp f 'sickle' (< Uk serp), Y stojg 'haystack' (< Uk stih +PD), Y sklad 'storehouse, warehouse' (< Uk sklad), mxart 'greyhound' (< Pol chart; the latter has a rounded vowel in USo chort and Uk xort m; see also J. Mark 1954: 123).

There are also a smaller number of doublets, involving other plural strategies, e.g. • / • -s ~ Umlaut, e.g. lodn 'shutter', • !m-(e)s ~ ledn (originally *ledner, since [•]-« alone does not require Umlaut), e.g. gortn 'garden'; A/m-s ~ • -im ~ gertner; mpastex(er) 'shepherd' (< Uk pastux) was formerly pluralized as PolY mpastexes in the

Slavic pseudo-dual

465

early 17th century (Stif 1932: column 33; M. Weinreich 1980: 596; see also chapters 4.5.3 and 4.6); (•)-« and Umlaut, e.g. hojfiji ~ hejf m) 'courtyard' (ttGehöft). Of this list, three nouns allowing a choice of both (u)-(e)n and A/m-(e)s denote a paired object: mbreg, ucub m and kni m, f (see paragraph 3 above). On the semantic bifurcation of federn and feders f, see paragraph 8 below and #Feder. On the possibility that the variant A/m-(e)s originally prevailed in the KievPolessian lands while (u)-(e)n was favored in Polish-speaking areas, see discussion below. J. Mark gives additional Slavic examples, asserting that the measure of the integration of a loan is the use of the original • / • ~(e)s plural marker (characteristic of Slavicisms in Yiddish) rather than (m)-(ejn; some doublets differ in their stylistic register, as e.g. mbobrt m 'beans' (in scientific terminology) vs. ubobes (in the marketplace) < Uk bib (boby) m (1954: 123; see also Herzog 1965: 150). Such developments are presumably post-relexificational. 5. Sometimes a single Yiddish noun can take two plural suffixes at once. There are two types of double suffixation: (a) If the word is from Hebrew, then the first plural suffix is usually native A/w-es, rarely A -im (there is no native [m]-[ejn plural marker in Hebrew but some nouns in Judeo-Aramaic and Rabbinical Hebrew can have the plural suffix -Tri) and the second (•)-«, rarely {*)-er. The practice of assigning double plural suffixes to Hebraisms in Yiddish may have begun in plurals which became singulars in Yiddish, and thus attracted a second plural marker, see e.g. He ραηϊπι pit 'face' > Y Aponem sg > penemer pi, He smü 'äh f sg 'rumor' > smü 'öt pi > Υ smues m sg A'talk, chat' > smuesn pi (on the latter, see also chapter 3.1, paragraph d). The reason for having both a singular and plural number is Slavic practice, see e.g. Uk lyce n, cutka f, respectively, (b) If the word is from German, the order of suffixes is usually the reverse of (a)-with concomitant -e-insertion in the stem. Consider Lpeje(s) f 'side curl worn by orthodox Jewish males' (< He pe'äh) ~ pejesn f. The addition of (•)-« (presumably in a dual function) is probably motivated by the perception of Apejes as singular (Apeje is rarely used: see this and other examples in Rejzen

466

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

1926: column 409). In Alosn η 'language', double prefixation seems to entail a dual meaning; contrast the expected plural Llesojnes vs. lesojnesn A'(Classical) Hebrew and Aramaic' (Rejzen 1926: column 409). The "union" of the latter two languages is possible because they are closely related Semitic languages with common unspoken literary and liturgical functions in the Yiddish-speaking communities; as a result, they are called by the common Yiddish glottonym _Llosn kojdes (lit. 'holy language'). See also Y Lsude(s) f 'repast, feast' (< He se 'üdäh f 'meal') vs. Lsalesudes(n) n, m 'late afternoon meal on the sabbath' (< He salös se 'üdöt f 'three meals')now singular. Double prefixation with Germanisms in Yiddish sometimes provides a means of distinguishing between dual number (with single prefixation) and plural number (double prefixation). The creation of the unambiguous plural form Y ojgenes 'eyes' (~ G AugefnJ) suggests an attempt to remove the ambiguity of ojgn 'eyes', which is conceptually dual or plural; this leaves ojgn (~ G Augen pi) free to mark the dual unambiguously. Note also Warsaw Y hojzes ~ hojzenes '(pairs of) pants', thus leaving the original hojzn 'pant legs' free to mark the dual 'pair of pants; two pant legs' (the standard language also has hojz m sg ~ G Hose[n] f: Prilucki 19261933: 58; the Ukrainian counterpart lacks the pseudo-dual). However, in the pair Y najes ~ najsn pit 'news' there is no apparent opposition of dual: plural (J. Mark 1954a: 39, fn 6). My interpretation of double suffixation finds no reflection in the literature. Grammarians have rather ascribed an augmentative function to the double suffixation, see e.g. Y ojgenes 'large eyes', fisenes 'large feet' (M. Mieses 1924: 132; Safir 1944). Historically, the "pluralized dual" could have assumed an augmentative function (conceptually the plural is an "augmented" dual)-not without influence from the Kiev-Polessian substratum of Yiddish, since Ukrainian and Belarusian have a number of augmentative suffixes (distinct from the plural suffixes), see e.g. Uk did 'grandfather; old man' > augmentative didysce ~ diduhä(n) ~ didur m. The augmentative is also expressed in Yiddish by expanding the suffix • !m-s > Llm-es, together with insertion of -e- in the stem (e.g. with

Slavic pseudo-dual

467

bisyllabic «-stems, especially typical of northeastern Yiddish), see e.g. stekn(s) m 'stick, cane, club' > stekenes 'large sticks' (Prilucki 1926-1933: 59; this is not double suffixation, since there is no Y *stek). Note that Yiddish, unlike Ukrainian and Belarusian, lacks an augmentative noun in the singular. Future studies should seek to determine if in older stages of Yiddish stekenes originally denoted the plural in opposition to dual stekns m: see Uk palycka +PD (but non-dim palycja f -PD), kyj +PD, prut +PD (but synonymous cipok m, palka f -PD; see also discussion above). Szulmajster-Celnikier cites Y loks(n) 'noodle' > loksenes m 'large badly formed noodles' (1991: 51; see the proposed etymology of this word in chapter 4.7). Safir (1944) adds that plural forms of Hebraisms not usually used in Yiddish could also express the augmentative, see e.g. He bänJm 'sons', baqbüqJm 'bottles' > Y A.'large sons', A.'large bottles' (for U. Weinreich 1968 and Niborski 1997 Y Abonim is contemptuous or humorous). In one case at least, a noun with a double plural becomes recalibrated as an adverb, see e.g. Y Amaxsove(s) f 'thought' > Lmaxsovesn 'incidentally'. In the case of Y ucikaves(n) η 'curiosity, point of interest, sight' < Uk cikavist' f 'interest, curiosity', the A/a-s-suffix was either no longer (never?) taken as a plural marker or should be derived from the Hebrew abstract suffix, -üt, which > Y A -es\ in either event, the use of Alm-es could have been chosen to match the last syllable of the Ukrainian etymon. (See also Y mcikav[e] 'curious, interesting'; here and above Y c- reflects sibilant confusion, characteristic of some Belarusian Yiddish dialects.) Note that Yiddish also cultivates double suffixation with diminutive nouns of Hebrew origin, involving the plural suffix Α-im + G dim -/, see e.g. Y Abeged (begodim) m 'garment' > begedl (bgodimlexj η dim, pojer(jkim) m 'peasant, farmer' > pojerl (Apojerimlexj η dim, doktor (Ldoktojrim) m 'doctor' > doktorl (doktojrimlex) η dim (Rejzen 1926: column 407). With German-origin words, there is no double pluralization, since the diminutive stem is identical to the plural stem, see e.g. Y vant (vent) 'wall' (< G Wand f) > ventl (ventlex) η dim 'wall, screen'.

468

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Future studies will need to determine the age of double suffixation. For discussion of double plural markers in German dialects, see Öhmann (1924: 58); for discussion of He millim ~ millöt 'words', see chapter 4.5.3; for further examples, mainly Hebraisms, see Schaechter (1986: 158). 6. The use of (m)-{e)n with Yiddish Hebraisms in place of the widely used Hebrew plurals also suggests a dual function for Y (m)-(e)n with some nouns. For example, some Hebrew masculine nouns pluralize with (m)-(e)n rather than with the expected He -Tm or -öt (> Y A/u-[eJs), see e.g. Y Ajarid(n) '(market) fair'(< He järid) ~ G Markt(-"e) ~ Uk jarmarok m +PD, Y • j a d ( n ) m 'pointer used in reading the Torah in the synagogue' (< He jäd f 'hand', a meaning not used in Yiddish; the shift from Hebrew feminine to Yiddish masculine might be due to Uk pokazcyk m 'pointer'; the Hebrew plural is jädaim, with the original dual ending). See also the use of (•)-« pi in A s e l j a d ( n ) m 'arm piece of the phylactery' (lit. 'of the arm'; see chapter 4.5.3) and Aselros(n) 'head piece of the phylactery' (lit. 'of the head'). The second component is also used in Yiddish as Aros(im) 'chief, head', with the Hebrew plural but with no alternation ~ OHe rös (räsim) m. Since Br halava (halovy) f 'head' +PD might have licensed the Hebrew morphophonemic alternation, I assume the Hebraisms were acquired in the first relexification phase, or in southern Kiev-Polessie where there is no vocalic alternation-see USo htowa (-y), Uk holovä (holovy) f +PD. In the following three Yiddish Hebraisms, there is no Ukrainian equivalent with the pseudo-dual: • sxum(en) 'amount', Agvar(n) 'strong man, manly person', Lgzar(n) m 'fateful sentence, fiat'. (Y Agvar is a possible Old Hebrew canonic shape, but normally this root appears in Hebrew in the form gever; on the Slavic canonic shape C'C2VC3, see also Y Lylad ~ OHe veled m 'fetus' discussed in #Bahre; see also discussion of He AgvJr m in #Mann) I hypothesize that originally these plurals coexisted with variants in A-im, which would have provided Yiddish speakers with the opportunity to distinguish between dual and plural number. Rarely, there are cases of free variation, e.g. Y • j a m m 'sea' can take the Germano-

Slavic pseudo-dual

469

Slavic plural (m)-en as well as the original plural • -im; at present, these doublet plurals are semantically identical. In fact, there may be other reasons for the choice of (m)-(e)n that are not connected with the dual category. The plural doublets may have been an attempt to capture the difference between G See(n) m 'lake' vs. See (Meere) f 'sea, ocean' (though now Yiddish lacks G See altogether; Middle High German also had the same two gender options, but it is unclear if they differed semantically). Alternatively, the neutralization of the point of articulation of nasal consonants after a preceding consonant in Yiddish may have led to indeterminacy with regard to the plural variants ending in a nasal and their semantic functions (see also chapter 4.5.3). OHe tefillm pit denotes the two phylacteries, small boxes strapped to the left arm and the forehead during weekday morning prayers by observant male adults; there is no singular form in Hebrew. The root is presumably related to tefilläh f 'prayer', which pluralizes with -öt, which also > Y • tfile(s) f 'prayer'. This means that OHe *tfill- took two plurals: -in (a variant of -im) 'phylacteries' vs. -öt pi 'prayers'. Yiddish has the root in both forms, • tfiln pit and • tfile(s) f, respectively. Even if Y • tfiln is a borrowing from OHe tfillm, it might have been construed as a dual noun in some dialects/ idiolects of Yiddish. The evidence is that some dialects have an innovative singular Atfil m (see Rejzen 1926: column 412; Harkavy 1928 and above; standard Yiddish lacks a singular). Moreover, in other Jewish or Judaized languages, the word does appear with the plural morpheme -im, characteristic of masculine nouns. This means that some Jewish languages may have originally inherited a colloquial Old Palestinian He tfil(l~) with pi -Jm (the root had a geminate lateral that was neutralized in word-final position), possibly through a chain of Jewish languages in contact with the latter, before its extinction as a native language in the third century A.D. Hence, we need not assume an uninterrupted link between OHe tfillm and the cognate that surfaces in later Jewish languages. In other words, Yiddish speakers could first have acquired kjfil (*tfillim) m (the plural in -Tm is not as a rule attested in Yiddish, though Perferkoviö 1931 gives the pronunciation as [tvilm], with syllablic [m]), and at a

470

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

later date borrowed written OHe tflllm which either coexisted with or replaced *tfillJm altogether (on the use of Yiddish and other Jewish languages for reconstructing colloquial Old Palestinian Hebrew, see Wexler 1990a). Two Judeo-Ibero-Romance languages do preserve both plural variants: JSp tefilin ~ tefilim (Saloniki: Nehama and Cantera 1977), (Moroccan) tefellim ~ tefellin 'phylacteries' vs. tefellimes 'celebration of conferring phylacteries on a boy attaining adulthood at the age of 13'; JPort tafalim (late 15th-early 16th c), Port tefelim 'talisman, magic written formulas' (Benoliel 1952: 274; Wexler 1982a: 77, 84-85). If Y tfiln was an innovation of Yiddish rather than a continuation of OHe tfillin pit, I could argue that Yiddish speakers chose (•)-« explicitly in order to express the dual (the phylacteries come in two parts!). The fact that this choice parallels Classical Hebrew usage may also have been a consideration for Yiddish speakers. There may also be other, indirect, evidence for OY kjfil. Y Atifle(s) f is an innovative (usually contemptuous) designation for a Christian church, which may be a merger of He tfile f 'prayer(book)' and He täfel m sg, tfeläh f sg 'abominable' (on blends, see chapter 3.1). The feminine form and gender of the term for church finds support in three languages: in G Kir che (n) f (which is not recommended for Yiddish: see G Kathedrale f > Y katedral[n] m or Uk katedra > Y ukatedre[s] f), He knesiäh ('community; Christianity; church' but I cannot determine the age of the last meaning) and Slavic (e.g. USo cyrkej, Uk cerkva < Gmc < Gk [see details in Vasmer 1958, 3 and Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 105]-the latter is used in Yiddish as mcerkve(s) f 'Slavic/Greek Orthodox church'). Y Ltifle may not have been created by Ashkenazic Jews, to judge from a Judeo-Arabic example (see Wexler 1996a: 227). However, in German Hebrew texts of the late 14th century, tifle f appears as a masculine noun meaning '(Christian) prayer', see e.g. tifläh 'exad 'one Christian prayer', 'ötö tifläh m 'the same Christian prayer' (Urbach 1935: 76; the use of the objective 3rd singular pronoun 'ötö 'him' in the meaning 'same', of Biblical Hebrew origin, finds a parallel in Uk toy-usually with samyj, vs. USo sam). The only masculine noun that might have imparted its gender

Slavic pseudo-dual

471

assignment to GHe tifläh is USo pacer m 'Catholic prayer' (vs. G Gebet < MHG gebet[e] η 'prayer', gebete f, η 'request; prayer' [#beten] and USo modlitwa, Uk molytva f 'prayer'), which supports the assumption that a masculine noun tfil existed in Old Yiddish. (There are other examples of non-Jewish impact on Yiddish terms denoting Christian artefacts, see e.g. Y tume [pej] 'church' < He füm'äh f 'abomination', modeled on similar-sounding MHG tuom m, η 'cathedral'.) In addition to the two expressions, Y Aseljad(n) and Lselros(n) m noted above, Yiddish also has another term connected with ritual prayer accessories in the form of • cice(s) f ~ Aarbe-kanfes(n) m 'undergarment worn by orthodox Jews which covers the chest and upper part of the back and which has an opening for the head and tassels on its four corners' (the latter is lit. 'four' + 'wings o f ) . The (•)-« as a dual marker in the second variant would have been motivated by the fact that there are two parts (front and back), each with two sets of tassels. Y jk-kanfes continues He kanfot (the construct form) 'wings of vs. the allomorph He -knäf- 'wings' (as in He knäf aim dual form with dual or plural meaning). On the other hand, (m)-n may have been required with Hebraisms ending in -s. The Yiddish term for Poland is pojln < G Polen η; the Ashkenazic Hebrew term is polin (attested since the 12th c), with the final stress that is typical of Slavic toponyms ending in -in in German and Yiddish both, see e.g. G Schwerin, Berlin (see M. Weinreich 1973, 3: 88, 1980: 575). Ashkenazic Hebrew commonly denotes a European country not by a German term, but rather, (i) applies biblical toponyms to European locales, e.g. 'askenaz 'Germany' (for a discussion of the changing meaning of this toponym and ethnonym, see discussion and references in chapters 1 and 4.4), or uses either (ii) a Classical Hebrew term, e.g. jävän 'Greece' < Gk 'Iönia, or (iii), in the case of Slavic toponyms, a native or Latinized form of the name, e.g. cexja 'Czech lands', rusja 'Rus' (Ukraine and Belarus'); Eastern Slavic, Russian lands'. I would expect a similar designation for Poland, and, indeed, a Latinized variant polanja existed until recently in Modern Hebrew, before being replaced by polin. Hence, it is not convincing to derive YHe polin < G Polen

472

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

(where -en is historically a plural suffix; see also MHG Reussen 'Eastern Slavic lands'), or Y pojln. Uncertainty about the form of He polin may be reflected in the popular folk etymology where the latter is interpreted as He poh län 'here he spent the night' (see the etymologies suggested by Blanc 1989: 57; the variant He polanja 'Poland' [and He polani 'Polish, Pole'] < Pol polane, the name of a tribe in Great Poland, might have provided the model for the reinterpretation of He polin). I prefer to regard the -in of He polin as the dual-reflecting the two kingdoms of Malopolska ('Little Poland', comprising the Krakow, Sandomierz and Lublin districts, first attested in the 14th c) and Wielkopolska ('Great Poland', first attested in the 10th c: G^siorowski 1977). The earliest attestation of He polin appears to be in the writings of Ptaxja ben Ja'akov of Regensburg (c. 1150: see Carmoly 1831)-a city at that time on the Germano-Slavic border. The ethnonym "Pole" to denote Slavs on the territory of the early Piast kings dates from the 10th-11th centuries and replaces an earlier tribal epithet Lech (see Gol^b 19911992: 90). Kunstmann suggests that Lech as a term for Poland derives from the Balkan Slavic term for Romance speaker, see Bg vlax (< Lat Volcae, a Celtic tribe; see also Uk volox m: 1996: 17580). The only historical reference to Lech in Hebrew sources that I know of is in the Sefer josippon, composed around 980 in Southern Italy (and preserved in a 12th-century manuscript), which has Iwwmn, amended to *ljjkjn 'Lech' by Flusser (1947-1948: 239-240) and Turek (1957: 89, 1974: 34). The disuse of the latter ethnonym by the Northern Slavic Jews would not cast any light on the (independently supported) hypothesis that the latter are of Balkan origin, but it may be significant that the Celtic tribal name has become a common Ashkenazic Jewish family namQ-valax, blox. Mishnaic He, JAram -in pi may have had a dual function in He hngrjn /hungrin/ 'Hungary' (attested in the late 10th-century letter of the Spanish Jewish diplomat Hasdaj ibn SaprüJ to Josef, the Khazar king; see Golb and Pritsak 1982: 92). A Czech Jewish scholar, Eliezer ben-Jicxak, in the late 12th century also has 'wngrjn /ungrin/ (which Kupfer and Lewicki 1956: 150 gloss, unconvincingly, as 'Hungarians', in the absence of sg *ung[e]r, see also

Slavic pseudo-dual

473

Modelski 1910: 61). Spanish Hebrew uniquely may be imitating the practice of other European languages (but not of Hungarian itself) of denoting Hungary by a plural morpheme, see e.g. G Ungarn, Pol Wqgry. I am tempted to interpret -in as an innovative dual, denoting the two Hungarian tribal groupings, known in Old German and Old Ukrainian manuscripts as the "White Hungarians" (in Ukraine) and "Black Hungarians" (in the Caucasus), where the colors denote, in the Turkic tradition, 'west' and 'east', respectively. There were also two spheres of power in Hungary and Transylvania (practicing two distinct forms of Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox, respectively) after the settlement of the Hungarians in Central Europe, but this dichotomy developed in the late 10th century, hence, too late to be reflected in the Spanish (but not necessarily Czech) Hebrew form. In the early 13th-century Hebrew text known as 'Or zaru'a by Jicxak ben-Mose (probably a native of the Polabian lands) Hungary is called 'wngrjj'"h /ungarija/ without a dual ending, but Austria appears as 'wsfrj"n' /ustrin/, with a dual ending perhaps motivated by the two districts of Upper and Lower Austria (Kupfer and Lewicki 1956: 49, 229). There is some support for a dual function for at least OHe (if not JAram) -In in post-Classical Hebraisms of the type nisu 'in 'marriage' (~ nisu'im), kidusin 'wedding', gerusin 'divorce'-which invoke a dual subject; perhaps also xilufin 'replacement(s)' (often pit). Other Hebrew terms where -in has a purely plural function appear to be from Judeo-Aramaic, see e.g. simuxin pit 'references'; additionally, Modern Hebrew has also some adverbs in -in, see e.g. leserugin 'intermittently'. If my hypothesis of a dual function for this suffix is correct, then a secondary factor in the rise of the Yiddish dual number might have been OHe -In pi (though apparently not the original OHe ~[t]aim dual). 7. Many nouns in Modern Hebrew which take the dual in -(t)aim and that lack Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew precedents (see data given in Tobin 1988 and Svarcvald 1996) find motivation in the distribution of the East Slavic and Yiddish pseudo-dual. V

474

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

8. Yiddish has some compound nouns of non-German origin with a dual meaning which are used in the literary language mainly as a plural and in colloquial Yiddish in the singular, e.g. Υ (in)tate-mame '(two) parents' (modeled on Uk bat'ko-maty, lit. 'father' + 'mother'), Lxosn-kale 'bridal couple' (< He 'groom' + 'bride'), zejde-bobe '(two) grandparents' (lit. 'grandfather' + 'grandmother'). The first example matches Pol ociec i mac, attested since the early 15th century (Reczek [1963] 1991: 166-167]); the latter has equivalents in the Slavic substratal languages of Yiddish, see USo died a wowfca 'grandparents', though Br dzed i baba (cited in Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, #244, only at point 40a) now means 'dandelion' (kinship terms often came to denote plants and insects, reflecting the belief that the spirits of the deceased were transferred to the latter; Yiddish, unlike the Upper Sorbian, Belarusian, and Polish examples, lacks a conjunction in the construction: see also #alt). G Eheleute pit 'man and wife' (lit. 'marriage' + 'people' < Ehemann[-männer] m 'husband', Ehefrau[en] f 'wife') is not parallel to Y Lxosn-kale 'bridal couple'. Yiddish occasionally has compounds of German origin, used only in the plural with a superordinate meaning, such as Y gopl-lepl (pit) 'silverware' (< 'fork' + 'spoon' and unattested in German-see also synonymous meservarg η < 'knife' + 'ware': see U. Weinreich [1961] 1980: 95-96, fn 72]). The corresponding German term is Besteck(e) η (#bestechen; see also discussion in #Angesicht). 9. For Ukrainian nouns that can form the pseudo-dual and do not designate a paired object or inherently express a dual notion, Yiddish has at least one translation equivalent with (m)-(e)n pi in the overwhelming majority of examples, with an approximately equal number of plurals in A/m-(e)s and (u)-er. Often, the choice of • / • -(e)s and (m)-er are necessitated by internal Yiddish phonological reasons. If I exclude Eastern Slavic masculine or feminine nouns and Hebrew feminine nouns in Yiddish, which usually require the plural in A!m-(e)s (such as Y mjascerkefsJ 'lizard' ~ Uk jascirka

Slavic pseudo-dual

475

+PD, Y balebostefsj 'lady of the house' ~ Uk xazjajka f +PD), then the relative proportion of (m)-(e)n plurals rises slightly. Following are five lists of Ukrainian (or Belarusian) words with the pseudo-dual: list #1 comprises Eastern Slavic words for which there is at least one Yiddish translation equivalent of any origin pluralizing in (m)-(e)n; lists #2 and 3 comprise Slavic words for which Yiddish pluralizes in Afu-(e)s and (m)-er, respectively. List #4 comprises Slavic words with the pseudo-dual which have Yiddish translation equivalents that take plurals other than (m)-(e)n, Α/·-(ίφ or (n)-er. List #5 comprises a small number of Yiddish nouns, mostly of Slavic origin, which pluralize in (*)-(e)n and which lack a Slavic counterpart with the pseudo-dual. The examples in list #5 suggest either that Ukrainian gave up the pseudo-dual in a number of roots, and/or that Yiddish expanded the distribution of the pseudo-dual (in the form of [u]-[ejn) beyond the immediate Eastern Slavic model. German translation equivalents are added to show the relative weakness of G -en as a plural marker compared to Yiddish. List #1: Ukrainian (or Belarusian) words with the pseudo-dual corresponding to Yiddish nouns (of any component origin) with the plural in (m)-(e)n. The examples were drawn from a total corpus of over 130 examples: a. Uk bak 'reservoir, tank' ~ Y rezervwar(en), tank(en) m, cisterne(s) f ~ G Reservoir n, Behälter m, Sammelbecken η (zero pi), Tank(s) m, Zisterne(n) f b. Uk balka f 'valley (in steppe)' ~ Y tol(n) m, mdolene(s) (< Uk dolynaPD) ~ G Niederung(en) f, Tal(- "er) η c. Uk ban'ka f 'vial, small vase, cupping glass' ~ Y fiol(n) m, mban'ke(s) ~ G Gefäss(e) η (ßFass), Büchse(n) f d. Uk batjuska, pip 'Orthodox priest' ~ Y mpop(n) (< Ukρϊρ,ρορα gen sg) ~ G Priester (zero pi) m e. Uk bdzola, bdzilka 'bee' ~ Y bin(en) ~ G Biene(n) f

476

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

f. Uk bida f 'misfortune' ~ Y umglik(en) n, mal'erfn) m ~ G Unglück η g. Uk bidka '(hand-)cart' ~ Y fur(n) f, vogn(s ~ vegn, vegenerj ~ G Handwagen (zero pi) m (#Abfahrt, ttbewegen), Karre(n) f, Karren (zero pi) m h. Uk bik ~ bort m 'side, flank, edge' ~ Y zajt(n) f, flank(en), rand(en), ubreg(n), kant(en) m ~ G Seite(n), Flanke(n), Kante(n) f, Rand(- "er) m i. Uk bil'mo η 'cataract' ~ Y katarakt(n) m, mbel'me(s) f (< Br bjal'mo [bei 'my\ n) ~ G (grauer) #Star(e) m j. Uk bocka f 'barrel' ~ Y tun(en), fas (feser) f ~ G #Fass(- "er) η k. Uk boloto η 'swamp' ~ Y zump(n) m, mblote(s) f 'mud, dirt' (~ Uk boloto η) ~ G Sumpf(- "e) m 1. Uk bramsel' 'topgallant sail' (< Du bramzeil),parus m 'sail' (but vitrylo η -PD) ~ Y zegl(en) m ~ G Segel (zero pi) η 'sail' m. Uk brova 'brow' ~ Y brem(en) ~ G Braue(n) f, dial bräm(e) η η. Uk buj m 'space, expanse' ~ Y gesprajt(n) n, Asetex (stoxim) ~ G Raum(- "e) m o. Uk bunt 'rebellion' ~ Y ojfitand(n), ubunt(n) m, Ameride(s) f ~ G Aufstand(- "e) m p. Uk castka f 'part' ~ Y tejl(n) m, f ~ G ##Teil(e) m q. Uk ceber m, cebro η 'tub' ~ Y bit(n), cuber ~ • ceber(s) (< Uk ceber) ~ G Zuber (zero pi) m r. Uk cep m 'chain' ~ Y kejt(n) ~ G Kette(n) f s. Uk colovik m 'person' ~ Y perzon(en) f, parsojn(en) m ~ G Person(en) f t. Uk cub(ok) 'tuft of hair, forelock; crest (birds)', zmutok m 'tuft of hair' ~ Y mcuprine(s) f (< Uk cupryna 'thick bushy hair, head of hair'), kam(en)

Slavic pseudo-dual

477

m, cojt(n) m, f ~ G Schopf(- "e) m, Zotte(n) f (see also discussion of Y cojt[n] in Uschaben and number h' below) u. Uk jarmarok 'fair, market' ~ Y •jarid(n), mark (merk) ~ G Jahrmarkt^ "e) m, Messe(n) f v. Uk jastrub 'hawk' ~ Y falk(n) ~ G Falke(n) m w. Uk klejno η 'brand' ~ Y sort(n), brandcejxn(s) m, marke(s) f (G #Marke) ~ G Stempel (zero pi) m (see MHG Ustaffel) x. Uk korop 'carp' ~ Y mkarp(n) ~ G Karpfen (zero pi) m y. Uk lavka 'shop' (but synonymous kramnycja f -PD) ~ Y gevelb(n ~ er) (vs. Y gevelbfnj η 'vault' ~ Uk sklep m, sklepinnja f -PD) ~ G Laden {Läden) m, arch Gewölbe (zero pi) η ζ. Uk rjad m 'row, file, rank, range' ~ Y rej(en) f, mrond(n) < (Pol rzqd), rang(en) m ~ G Reihe(n) f, Glied(er) n, Rang(- "e) m a'. Uk rjazka f 'basin' ~ Y bit(n), bekn(s) m ~ G Wassergeschirr(e) n, Schöpfeimer (zero pi) m, Biitte(n) f b\ Uk rucka f 'handle' ~ Y ojer(n) m/ hentl(ex) n, • tronik(es) m ~ G Grim η c'. Uk ryska f 'dash (line)' ~ Y tire(en) ~ G Strich(e) m d'. Uk sablja 'sword, saber' ~ Y sverd(n), msabl'e(s) (with sibilant confusion ~ Uk sablja f) ~ G Säbel (zero pi), Degen (zero pi) m e\ Uk saha f 'gulf ~ Y ajngos(n) m ~ G Bucht (en) f, Meerbusen (zero pi) m f . Uk xid 'gait, pace' ~ Y Lhilex(n), gang (geng) ~ G Gang(-"e) m, Gehen (zero pi) n, Tritt(e) m (see MHG #stajfel) g\ Uk xlib m 'roll' ~ Y brojt(n) ~ G Brot(e) η h\ Uk zmutok m 'tuft of hair'. See example (t) above.

478

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

See also items cited in lists ##2-5 below.

List #2: Ukrainian words with the pseudo-dual corresponding to Yiddish nouns (which can be of any component origin) with the plural in A/m-(e)s: The choice of • /u-(e)s is dictated both by phonological and etymological considerations: e.g. words of any source that end in -er, -I, a nasal consonant or a vowel ordinarily take A/m-s; in other words, A/m-s on phonological grounds can supersede the (•)-« which would have been expected given the existence of a Ukrainian or Belarusian translation equivalent with the pseudo-dual. The existence of a phonological rule for the use of A/m-(e)s in Germanisms as well as the large number of Eastern Slavicisms (matched by the pseudo-dual in Eastern Slavic itself) falling into the category of A/m - (^-plurals testifies to the weakening of the dual category in Yiddish after the second relexification. In addition, most Slavicisms (either masculine or feminine gender) and Hebrew feminine nouns take A/m-(e)s for their plural. Given the fact that the A/m-(e)s plural is found as early as the 12th-13th centuries with Slavic words, it is clear that the competition between (m)-(e)n and A/m-(e)s characterized Yiddish from its earliest stages in the Sorbian lands. The Yiddish Slavicisms with (m)-(e)n are for the most part of Eastern Slavic origin. The list below gives Ukrainian words with the pseudo-dual where at least one Yiddish translation equivalent pluralizes in A/m-(e)s; synonyms that do not pluralize in A/m-(e)s are also added. German surface cognates are given when the Yiddish term is of German origin. Semantically, the nouns have nothing to do with the concept of duality, which might have increased the likelihood of not using (m)-(e)n as the plural marker. Another possibility that requires further study is that Germanisms that were acquired during the first relexification phase are less likely to match Eastern Slavic nouns with the pseudo-dual than Germanisms acquired during the second relexification phase. The problem with exploring this hypothesis is

Slavic pseudo-dual

479

that we rarely know in which relexification phase the Germanisms were acquired. The total number of examples found was almost 50: a. Uk bir m 'pine forest, wood' ~ Y msosne(s) (< Uk sosna f) b. Uk bis 'fiend, devil, demon' ~ Y Lruex (ruxes), tajvl (tajvolim), nitguter (gute), Ased(im) m c. Uk bondar 'cooper' ~ Y mbodner(s) m d. Uk borozna 'furrow' ~ Y • gare(s), mbrozde(s) f e. Uk borona 'harrow' ~ Y mbrone(s) f f. Uk brus m 'rafter' ~ Y nkrokve(s) f, balkn(s), kloc (klecer) ~ G Balken (zero pi), Klotz(- "e) m 'block, log' g. Ukbudka 'booth' ~ Y mbud(k)e(s) f, bajdl(ex) n ~ G B u d e ( n ) f h. Uk bulava 'staff ~ palycka f 'cane, stick' ~ Y steknfs ~ stekenes) ~ G Stecken (zero pi) m (see #bestechen) i. Uk bulka, buxanka 'roll' ~ Y ubulke(s) f, zeml (zero pi) m ~ G Semmel(n) f j. Uk cereda f ~ Uk stado η 'herd' ~ Y mstade(s), mcerede(s) f k. Uk cereslo η 'ploughshare' ~ Y aker-ajzn(s) m ~ G Eisen (zero pi) η 'iron' 1. Uk jakir 'anchor' ~ Y anker(s) ~ G MAnker (zero pi) m List #3. Ukrainian nouns with the pseudo-dual are sometimes matched by Yiddish nouns (of all component origins) that pluralize with (*)-er (with or without Umlaut). I cite German translation equivalents when the Yiddish terms have German cognates; altogether almost 20 examples were found:

480

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

a. Uk bas 'bass' ~ Y bas (beser) ~ G Bass(- "e) m. The Germanism is a 15th-c loan from It, and may reach Y too late to imitate the Uk pseudodual. b. Uk boh 'God, god' ~ Y got (geter) ~ G Gott(- "er) m c. Uk javir 'maple(tree)' ~ Y nezbojm(-bejmer) m d. Uk jam(oc)ka (but jama -PD) 'hole' ~ Y lox (lexer) f ~ G Loch(- "er) η List #4. Ukrainian nouns that have a pseudo-dual which are matched by Yiddish nouns which take a plural suffix other than (m)-(e)n, • /•(e)s or (e)-er-i.e. in ~(e)x, L-im, the zero plural, or Umlaut. I know of only 7 examples: a. Uk boroda 'chin, beard' ~ Y mbord (berd), mgombe(s), mmorde(s) f, (colloquial) Lzokn (skonim) m 'beard' ~ Askejne (hum) f (probably motivated by the feminine gender of Slavic; see also chapter 3.1) b. Uk sestra 'sister' ~ Y svester (zero pi) ~ G Schwester(n) f c. Uk burul'ka f 'icicle' ~ Y strempl(ex) η d. Uk ptaska f (but non-dim ptax -PD) 'bird' ~ Y fojgl (fejgl) ~ G Vogel (Vöge l) m e. Uk torn 'volume' ~ Y band (bend) ~ G Band(- "e) m f. Uk travynka f 'blade of grass' ~ Y grezl(ex) η g. Uk vikno 'window' ~ Y fender (zero pi) ~ G Fenster (zero pi) η List #5: Yiddish has nine Slavic nouns that do not denote paired objects but pluralize exclusively in {m)-(e)n; the corresponding Ukrainian terms may or may not have the pseudo-dual, though some do have a stress shift in the paradigm:

Slavic pseudo-dual

481

a. Uk ambar, mahazyn, sklad 'storehouse, warehouse' ~ Y msklad(n), mambar(n), mmagazin(en) m (note that the three Y terms may have a common pi as members of a synonym set; see also item g below) b. Uk kalac, USo dial kolac 'festive baked goods' ~ Y *kojlec(n) m c. Uk karb 'notch' ~ Y (m)karb(n) m (or < G Kerbe[n]; see also USo karba f < G; Bielfeldt 1933 also lists USo karb m) d. Pol karp 'carp' ~ Y mkarp(n) (or < G Karpfen [zero pi] m e. Uk mox 'moss' ~ Y amoxfrt) m f. Ukplid 'brood, breed, litter' ~ Y mplid(n) m g. Uk saraj 'shed' ~ Y msaraj(en) m (see item a above) h. Uk stih (+PD) 'haystack' ~ Y • stojg(n) m (the lenition of *g > h in Uk is dated between the mid-11th to the 15th c, in Podolia by the late 13th c: Shevelov 1979: 350) i. Pol chart 'greyhound' ~ Y mxart(n) m My analysis of the putative dual functions of Y (m)-en is made complicated by the use of this suffix to mark the plural. Future research should try to assign relative chronologies to the two functions of Y (m)-en. There are four points which should be kept in mind: 1. Yiddish characteristically uses (m)-(e)n with new Germanisms acquired after the second relexification phase, mainly in the 19th century, e.g. Y sprax(n) 'language' ~ G Sprache(n) vs. Uk mova f, jazyk m, both -PD. Occasionally Germanisms in Yiddish allow either (•)-« or • / • -s (sometimes grammarians recommend arbitrary semantic distinctions), e.g. Y {m)dame(n —s) 'lady', (m)mase(n) 'masses' ~ (-s) 'mass, bulk' ~ Uk dama, masa 'masses; mass', G Dame, Masse f 'mass, multitude' (no doubt the characterization of the etymon, Slavic vs. German, helps determine the choice of

482

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

plural). There is some evidence that as recent loans become more integrated into Yiddish, the greater the likelihood that the plural will be (m)-(e)n. The switch from • /u-(e)s > (m)-(e)n may even apply to veiy old words in the language as well. For example, the Hebrew text known as Or zarua, written by Jicxak ben-Mose in the early 13th century (the author may have been a native of Meissen, though he spent some time in the Czech lands: for details, see Kupfer and Lewicki 1956: 202), contains the form cwttw"t 'tufts of hair', which could be vocalized as /co(j)tes/. The etymon is G Zotte(n) f (~ MHG f, m). The current plural of Y cojt m, f is with (•)-«. There is no certainty that early Yiddish had *cojtes, since the form cwttw"t may be a Germanism in an unrelexified form of Judeo-Slavic. The masculine gender of Y cojt(n) matches that of Uk cub and one of the Middle High German variants, while the feminine gender copies the Middle High German feminine variant. Even if the term were available in the early Yiddish that crystallized after the first relexification phase, there is no way to ascertain its original gender assignment. Upper Sorbian has both seser m and promjo η for 'tuft of hair'; the latter could have produced a feminine gender in relexified Judeo-Sorbian. By the second relexification phase at the latest, Y cojt would have acquired its masculine gender. Due to common gender assignments among the Slavic languages, it is almost impossible to identify the source of Yiddish gender based on cognate Sorbian or Eastern Slavic roots. It is easier to venture a tentative generalization about the assignment of Old Yiddish plurals than genders. If *cojtes was indeed relexified Sorbian (Yiddish), then we have a rare opportunity to distinguish between the plural strategies of Sorbian Yiddish and Kiev-Polessian Yiddish. Early Sorbian Yiddish clearly had the plural • / • -(e)s, even with German components (e.g. Y bexer[s] 'goblet' vs. G Becher [zero pi] m < Romance). On the basis of this example, I would assume that OY *cojtes > cojtn pl-m, f after the second relexification phase in the Kiev-Polessian lands, as a way of marking the Kiev-Polessian pseudo-dual class, of which Uk cub m was a member. See also discussion of this word above.

Slavic pseudo-dual

483

2. In paragraph 3 above of the first list of factors supporting the use of (m)-(e)n as a dual marker, I cited Yiddish Germanisms that denoted a paired object and pluralized with (m)-(e)n, usually in the absence of an Eastern Slavic translation equivalent with the pseudodual and always in the absence of the -(e)n plural in German. Below I cite Yiddish Germanisms that lack an inherently dual meaning but which pluralize in (w)-(e)n, in opposition to the German etyma. (I eliminate Yiddish Germanisms which are known to be of recent origin, such as Y sprax[n] 'language' < G Sprache[n] f.) These examples are difficult to interpret: they might suggest, alternatively, (a) that (m)-(e)n, assuming it was used in the earliest forms of Yiddish, did not express a dual function, or (b) that by chance the corresponding Kiev-Polessian terms had lost their pseudo-dual form, due to stress regularization that postdates the second relexification phase in Yiddish, (c) It also may be that Yiddish sets the distribution of (m)-(e)n independently of the distribution of the pseudo-dual in Ukrainian and Belarusian. German nouns in Yiddish that end in -er are almost exclusively masculine gender, and usually agentive nouns; they take the plural in A/m-s, e.g. Y srajber(s) m 'writer' ~ G Schreiber (zero pi) ~ Uk pysar' 'writer; scribe' +PD (vs. pys'mennyk m -PD 'writer'). There are a few examples where -er is not a suffix, and there is hence no obligatory masculine gender and no agentive meaning; these nouns take (m)-(e)n as their sole plural marker. Most of the latter nouns have Ukrainian translation equivalents which lack the pseudo-dual: see e.g. Y oder f, m 'vein, blood vessel', vaser η 'water', tojer m 'gate', mojer m, f '(outside) wall', numer m 'number' (but synonymous cifer m, f takes the zero plural ~ Uk cyslo +PD, nomer +PD),feder 'feather' (but not feder f in the meaning of 'pen', which takes the plural A/m-s ~ Uk pero η +PD in both meanings), feler m 'fault, error' (~ Uk pomylka f +PD; synonymous [ojhrix m, which might be the source of the masculine gender in Yiddish, lacks the pseudo-dual), cimer m 'room', kamer f 'cell, chamber', fajer m, η 'fire; ardor' (with m < Uk vohon'?). The German surface cognates only partly agree with Yiddish: G Ader(n) f, Wasser (zero pi: see Vertränken), Tor(e) n, Mauer(n) ßGewand), Nummer(n), Ziffer (n),

484

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

#Feder(n) f, Fehler (zero pi) m, Zimmer (zero pi) n, Kammer(n) f, Feuer (zero pi) n. Where Yiddish deviates from German gender assignment, it usually follows Ukrainian norms. It is the widespread gender overlap between Yiddish and Ukrainian which prompts me to regard Yiddish-German parallels in ~(e)n as coincidental. See also Y gift(n) m 'poison' ~ G Gift(e) η (UGabe) ~ Uk otruta f; Y glik(n) ~ G Glück η ~ Uk dolja, udaca f, scastja η (the use of -n may have spread from Y umglikfn] n, for which Ukrainian does have a corresponding pseudo-dual in bida f: see list #1, paragraph [6] above). Y gus(n) 'cast' ~ G Guss(-"e) m ~ Uk lytvo η; Y sprox(n) m 'incantation' ~ G Sprache(n) f 'language' ~ Uk zakljattja, zaklynartnja, caklunstvo n, cary pit. 3. Above I noted that competition with other plural suffixes, especially when their distribution was determined by phonological, morphological and/or semantic considerations, could diminish the use of (m)-(e)n, ultimately leading to its elimination as a dual suffix altogether. There are phonological environments that encourage the use of the plural (m)-(e)n, which override other semantic considerations, but unfortunately, I cannot determine their age. In this respect, the putative Yiddish dual in {m)-(e)n is identical to the Eastern Slavic pseudo-dual, which only applies to a limited number of nouns in each language. For example, nouns in Yiddish which end in German feminine suffixes -enis, -eraj, -exc, -hej't, -kej't, -saft, -ung or the synonymous neuter suffix • -es (< He -üt f), take the plural in (•) ~(e)n, see e.g. Y sutfes(n) n, sutfisaft(n) 'partnership' ~ Uk spilka f +PD. Also Slavicisms with final stress can take (m)-(e)n in Yiddish, see e.g. uMz 'order, decree', samovär m 'samovar'. In addition, all bi- and polysyllabic nouns with final stress, polysyllabic internationalisms and nouns ending in non-dim -/ also take their plural in (m)-(e)n. Uk komir m 'collar' and xmarka f dim 'cloud' both license the pseudo-dual, but the Yiddish equivalents cannot imitate the pseudo-dual because of the phonological requirement that most nouns in Yiddish that end in the syllable (m)-(e)n take their plural in A/m-(e)s, see e.g. Y kragn(s)/ krogn(s) m 'collar' (the latter also means 'neck of a fowl': see ##Koller), Y volkn(s) m 'cloud'.

Slavic pseudo-dual

485

Half of the Hebraisms with one syllable take (m)-en, see e.g. • so(en) f 'hour(s)' (see R cäsa gen sg 'of the hour' vs. dva casd dual 'two hours'), •jam(en) m 'sea(s)' (see R morja gen sg 'of the sea' vs. morjä pi; there is also stress movement in the paradigm of Uk more), Isamfen) 'poison(s)'. Moreover, Hebrew bi- and polysyllabic nouns ending in -t, -üt f which are pronounced • -(e)s η or m in Yiddish also pluralize in (•)-«, see e.g. Y • emes m 'truth', Lgoles m, η 'exile', parojxes m A'curtain over the arc in which the Torah scrolls are kept in a synagogue', Lhisxajves η 'duty, obligation'. The choice of (•)-« as the plural of many of these Hebraisms may have been dictated by the awkwardness of accepting the infix -jö-, the native Hebrew pluralization strategy for Hebraisms in -üt, see e.g. Medieval He hitxajvüt sg/ hitxajvüjöt pi. There is no precedent for plural infixes in either German or Slavic. Further weakening the dual category in Yiddish is the fact that synonymous or near synonymous Yiddish terms often appear with different plural markers, see Y mblote f 'mud, filth, dirt, smut' with obligatory • /u-s but zump m 'swamp, bog, marsh' with -η ~ Uk boloto η +PD 'marsh, bog, swamp, mud, dirt' (see USo bioto, Pol bloto η with the meanings of Y mblote vs. USo bahno, Pol bagno η 'swamp'). See also Uk rucka f +PD 'handle' ~ Yiddish nouns with no less than three plural suffixes, e.g. hentl(ex) n, tronik(es) m, ojer(n) m, n; Uk syto +PD, reseto η +PD 'sieve' ~ synonymous Yiddish nouns with two suffixes, e.g. Y zip(n), mresete(s) f, zajer(s) m 'sieve'. Future research would need to determine whether the Yiddish noun with (m)-(e)n was older than the forms with other plural markers. If so, I could assume that the dual category died out early in Kiev-Polessian Yiddish and that new Germanisms received subsequent to the second relexification stage did not utilize (m)-(e)n for purposes of expressing a dual number. Future study should try to determine whether the choice of plural suffix gives any indication of the relative chronology of the acquisition of a Germanism. Often, as the many examples given above compellingly demonstrate, Ukrainian and Belarusian themselves offer synonyms which differ in the availability of the pseudo-dual. This fact may permit us to specify which Kiev-Polessian word was relexified to which

486

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Germanism in Yiddish. For example, Uk mec m 'sword' has no pseudo-dual, but synonymous sablja f 'sword' does; the Yiddish equivalent is sverd(n) f (vs. G Schwert[er] η). In this case, Yiddish would seem to have relexified Uk (KP) sablja > sverd, accepting feminine gender and the availability of the pseudo-dual (expressed by Y [•]-«). Similarly, Y gevant(n) η 'cloth' ~ Uk tkanyna f (-PD) and synonymous polotno +PD; dial (and poetic) #Gewartd η 'garment, dress' (MHG gewant meant both 'cloth' and 'garment') takes the zero plural. Y gevant(n) would seem to have relexified the second Ukrainian variant, though it is surprising that the gender of Y gevant is neuter and not feminine! Perhaps it originally was, but under the post-relexification influence of Ukrainian and/or German, the neuter was admitted. One further example, Y tojer(n) m 'gate', parallels both Uk vorota pit (by definition -PD) and xvirtka f +PD. The link between Y tojer m (with masculine gender triggered by er) and Uk xvirtka is strengthened because the latter was also borrowed as fortke f 'wicket, porthole' (see list #2 above and chapter 4.2). Undoubtedly, the distribution of the (m)-{e)n plural to some extent is due to analogy within a "semantic field" (also true for the assignment of gender-see chapter 4.5.1), e.g. Y msl 'ax(n) 'way' may have gotten its plural suffix not from Uk sljax +PD, but from synonymous Y veg(n) (< G Wegfe] m), or vice versa. See also discussion above of the assumed coexistence of Slavicisms and relexified Germanisms, e.g. Uk hnizdo η ~ Y nest(n) f'nest'. 4. There is some indication, albeit tentative, that the distribution of Y (m)-(e)n and • / • -(e)s as plurals once had geographical correlates, i.e. Polish Yiddish preferred (m)-(e)n with nouns of both German and Slavic origin while Eastern Slavic Yiddish preferred • !m-(e)s. This is especially clear with those Yiddish Slavicisms which can be derived unambiguously from either Polish or Eastern Slavic. Examples of Polonisms with (m)-(e)n are Y upajac(n) 'clown' < Pol pajac, Y mvarstat(n) 'workshop' < Pol warsztat m. An example of an East Slavicism is Y nzavulik(es) 'alley' < Br zavulak vs. Pol zautek m. Slavicisms which have both • tm-es and (m)-(e)n as plural

Slavic "pseudo-dual"

487

options reflect a broad geographical spread, see e.g. Y cex(n ~ -es) m 'guild', shared with Russian, Ukrainian, Polish < MHG zech(e) f 'group of people of the same standing, class'; see also Y mbregfn ~ -es) m 'edge, brim, border; bank, shore' (also discussed above). See the preference of (m)-en in Ukrainian and Polish Yiddish vs. • -es in Northeastern Yiddish with Y gribenes, etc. 'cracklings' in Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #116) (~ stY grivn pit). There are a number of blatant exceptions. For example, Y mparobek (parobkes) m 'farmhand' < Polish and yet takes Alm-es. Might this exception be due to {vowel + k} which pluralizes with k/m-es in all dialects of Yiddish? Similarly, Yiddish terms taking the Slavic m ag m-nik also pluralize automatically with A lm-es. Alternatively, maybe these words date from a period when even Polonisms in Polish Yiddish could take A.lm-es, i.e. before the pressure of G (•)-« (which is stronger in Polish Yiddish than in other Yiddish dialects); see e.g. Y mvilkolak(es) 'werewolf < Pol wilkolak m (see #Welt). Perhaps these Polonisms replaced original Eastern Slavicisms in Yiddish-see also Y mvolkelak(es) ~ Uk vovkulak(a), Br vawkalak m. See alsoY msuk(es) 'knot (tree), gnarl' < USo, Uk suk ~ Y msenk(es) < Pol sqk m. Consider also Y mplid(n) 'brood, breed, litter' < Ukrainian with pi (m)-n (though its use may be an imitation of the stress shift in Uk plid ~ plodu -PD) vs. Pol plod m. It may also be the case that instances of flux in the plural suffix assignment, in addition to reflecting an original opposition of dual/plural, also reflect disparate geographical preferences that cover more than a single coterritorial Slavic language, see e.g. Y mserp(en ~ -es) ~ Uk serp, Pol sierp; Y msenk(es) ~ suk(es) 'knot of a tree, gnarl' ~ Pol sqk and Uk suk m. Y rams(en ~ -es) 'junk' ~ Pol ramsz (< G Ramschfe] m 'job, lot; junk'), though there is no trace of the latter in Belarusian or Ukrainian. The fact that the East Slavic translation equivalents end in a vowel may explain the use of A/· -es: Uk bryla, koloda f. Y urinstok(es ~ -n) 'drain, gutter' ~ USo zlob m, ryna; Uk rynva, rynna f, rynstok, rystak m. The analysis of the data is complicated by the fact that many Polonisms entered Ukrainian and Belarusian and vice versa; hence, Yiddish could acquire Polonisms from Ukrainian and Belarusian and not neces-

488

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

sarily via diffusion from Polish or Polish Yiddish, see e.g. Pol widty 'forks' > Br (Hrodna) vidly pi {Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1980, 2; see also below); Pol rynwa (dial) 'groove, eaves' > Uk rynva f. An example of an Eastern Slavicism that diffused westward is Uk unuk > Pol wnuk, which replaced Pol wnqk m in the 14th-15th centuries (Kiparsky 1934: 56); Y mknut(es) m 'whip' is an Eastern Slavicism (ultimately of Old Norse origin) which is first attested in Russian in the 13th century and in Polish in the 16th century (Vasmer 1953, 1: 580-581). For more on the topic of intraSlavic borrowings, see chapter 4.6.

4.6 Unrelexified Upper Serbian and Kiev-Polessian elements in Yiddish Yiddish has acquired Slavic components from all coterritorial Slavic languages. Most scholars postulate initial contact with Czech (and possibly Sorbian to a limited extent), followed by Polish, then Belarusian and Ukrainian, and lastly (since the late 18th century), with Russian (M. Weinreich 1973); however, a few scholars regard Polish as the first Slavic contact language of Yiddish (see Stif 1932: column 38). While there is broad agreement that Polish and the three Eastern Slavic languages are the major donors, there is no unanimity over the origins of many individual Yiddish Slavicisms. The relexification hypothesis offers a means of separating substratal from adstratal Slavicisms in Yiddish. More Eastern Slavicisms appear in Polish Yiddish than Polonisms in Eastern Slavic Yiddish. This fact was noted over half a century ago by Sulman (1939: 82), who cited a figure of about 10% Polonisms among the Slavicisms in Eastern Slavic Yiddish, as opposed to some 50% Eastern Slavicisms in Polish Yiddish, see e.g. PolY mmucen 'to torment', up'ate(s) 'heel', mpiß)cevke(s) 'trifle', mxval 'e(s) f 'wave' (< Uk mucyty, pjata, pidsyvka 'lining', xvylja f vs. Pol piqta, mqczyc [> CePolY umencen], podszewka, fala [unless Y mxval 'e = Pol fala f 'wave' with the Ukrainian substitution of xvfor foreign /-]). See also Knowles' characterization of the Eastern V

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

489

Slavic component in Strack's dictionary of Polish Yiddish from 1916 (1993). In my view, most Yiddish Polonisms are either newly acquired loans postdating the second relexification phase, or "modernizations" of substratal Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian elements that were never relexified. The relatively small number of Polonisms in Ukrainian-Belarusian Yiddish is remarkable for two reasons: (i) At the end of the 19th century the Jews constituted the dominant ethnic group in both small and large towns in the Vicebsk and Mahilew gubernijas alongside Poles (for demographic facts, see Juxneva 1987). (ii) According to the traditional theory, Jews allegedly migrated from Germany across Poland into Belarus' and Ukraine. The meager impact of Polonisms on Eastern Slavic Yiddish stands in sharp contrast to the direction of diffusion of Slavicisms between Polish and the Eastern Slavic languages. The Polish impact on Belarusian and Ukrainian is much greater than the impact of the latter on Polish dialects, i.e. we see the opposite of the intra-Yiddish situation. No less than 14% of the Ukrainian vocabulary has been shown to be of Polish origin (Shevelov 1975: 452-453, fn 12; see also Stone 1981-1983). Ukrainian Yiddish has nowhere near 14% Polonisms in its Slavic component. On the difficulties of identifying Polonisms in Ukrainian, see the discussion of Uk diza 'kneading trough' in Shevelov 1975: 456; for a discussion of Polonisms in Belarusian, see Arasonkava 1963; Bulyka 1972; Wexler 1977: 75, 77. The intensive Polonization of Belarusian and Ukrainian means that some of the Polish impact on Eastern Slavic Yiddish may have come into the latter through the intermediary of Belarusian and Ukrainian. This further reduces the direct impact of Polish (or Polish Yiddish) on Eastern Slavic Yiddish, since a certain amount of the Polonisms, from the point of view of the Yiddish target dialects, are Ukrainianisms and Belarusianisms. For example, Y mjatke(s) 'meat market', though ultimately of Polish origin, could have been acquired directly from Pol jatka or from Uk jatka f, where the Polonism first appeared in the 16th century; similarly Y mvidle(s) f 'pitchfork', though ultimately from Pol widto n, might have been acquired

490

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

from WCeBr vidly pl-n, vidla f (Mackevic et al. 1980, 2; on the East Slavic cognate with magical connotations, see below); Y mparenc(n) m (U. Weinreich 1968) ~ mparence(s) f (Harkavy 1928) 'railing' < Br parency pit, parencyna (Mackevic et al. 1982, 3 vs. Uk porenca f) < Pol porqcz m (the Eastern Slavic cognates, Br porucan', Uk poruccja, are not found in Yiddish). Another problem in identifying Polish influences in Yiddish is that Eastern Slavicisms can assume a Polish-looking form in Yiddish, e.g. Y mblote(s) f 'mud, filth, dirt' could be < Uk boloto 'swamp, marsh; mud, dirt' with the loss of the initial unstressed syllable, or from Pol bloto n; similarly, Y ubrodevke(s) 'wart' < Uk borodavka ~ Br barodawka or Pol brodawka [brodäfka] f. An additional topic that should be on the agenda of Yiddish linguistics is how to distinguish between Slavic substratal lexicon in Yiddish that was never relexified and post-relexification Slavic loans. U. Weinreich also posed this question (in slightly different terminology) when he discussed the need to distinguish Slavic terms acquired from Christian Slavic and Judeo-Slavic sources (1958: 410). Yiddish Slavicisms are of three types: (i) A few substratal Upper Sorbian terms resisted relexification (for a suggested partial corpus, see Wexler 1991b). The Eastern Slavic component in Yiddish is of two types: (ii) Some elements show a strong local imprint (see e.g. the Ukrainian and Belarusian corpus collected by Ljubarski 1927, Swoboda 1979-1980, 1990 and Skljar 1933). (iii) A great many Slavicisms lack language-specific features, such as the Belarusian affrication of CS1 *t', d' (idzekanne, cekanne; on the absence of the latter in 16th-century Belarusian texts written in Hebrew characters and in some of the texts written by Tatars in Arabic characters, see Wexler 1977: 171), Br akartne, Uk i < CS1 *e, *o in newly closed syllables. I suspect that the second category consists mainly of post-relexificational items while the third category comprises both sub- and superstratal Slavicisms. Weissberg has explained the relative rarity of regional Slavicisms in Yiddish on the grounds that Yiddish is particularly receptive to broadly attested Slavicisms (1988: 202); unfortunately, he did not buttress this hypothesis with facts. In principle, the hypothesis is

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

491

plausible, but I doubt that it is correct (however, on the parallel Balkan Romani tendency of preferring pan-Asianisms and panBalkanisms, see Wexler 1997b). Even if Yiddish Slavicisms very often turn out to have congeners in many or all of the Eastern Slavic languages and Polish, this need not necessarily mean that such roots were chosen by Yiddish speakers precisely because of their broad geographic expanse within Slavic (how would the average sedentary Yiddish speaker know this anyway?). Many Yiddish Slavicisms "appear" to be pan-Slavic because most Slavic roots are common to Polish and the Eastern Slavic languages and often have a similar form. Moreover, the Yiddish corpus of East Slavicisms that displays few distinctive Ukrainian and Belarusian properties was acquired from Kiev-Polessian before it split into Belarusian and Ukrainian. In actual practice, characterizing a Yiddish Slavicism as "sub-" or "superstratal" is often difficult. For example, U. Weinreich 1968 cites Y mdribne 'minute, fine, nice, petite' but avocates mdrobne as a better variant; the former < Uk dribnyj while the latter could be from USo, Br drobny or even from Kiev-Polessian before the change of ο in newly closed syllables > i (Stuckov 1950 cites both but has reservations about drobne). A source with /o/ could account for Y mdrojb 'giblets; small fry' (Herzog et al. 1995, 2, #123051) ~ USo drob, Pol droby 'intestines of slaughtered animals' vs. Uk drib 'domestic fowl; mathematical fraction' (see Varbot 1984: 91). See also Y mdribne, mdrobne, mdrivne 'drizzle', mdribnen 'to drizzle' (Herzog et al. 1995, 2, #216070). Future studies will need to determine the chronology of Yiddish Slavicisms with languagespecific features (see also below on Slavic variants in Yiddish). An important piece of evidence for the hypothesis that KievPolessian contributed some unrelexified lexicon comes from the geography of Eastern Slavicisms in Yiddish, many of which appear to come specifically from southern and western Belarusian and northern and western Ukrainian dialects-i.e. precisely from the area of the original Kiev-Polessian dialect up until its disintegration and realignments in c.1400. It is impossible to determine whether the number of unrelexified Kiev-Polessianisms in Yiddish was originally larger than it is today, or whether in the last six centuries since the

492

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

disintegration of Kiev-Polessian, many Kiev-Polessianisms have been replaced by new Ukrainian and Belarusian localisms. Uriel Weinreich appreciated the importance of Kiev-Polessian almost four decades ago (though he spoke in terms of "Ukrainian"): "...it would...be fair to say that the Ukraine-and particularly the eastern Ukraine...have been the Yiddish dialect region with the heaviest lexical influence from the coterritorial language; and that on the whole the influences of East Slavic (Ukrainian and Belorussian) have been stronger than those of West Slavic (Polish, but especially Czech and Slovak) or of the non-Slavic languages. And no one, I believe, as yet knows why this should have been so" (1962: 13; quoted also in chapter 3). In the traditional view, Yiddish speakers first made contact with Belarusian and Ukrainian in the western-most fringes of those lands, prior to reaching the eastern borders of the two territories. There are several facts that render this view problematic: 1. The earliest Yiddish-speaking settlements of Central and Eastern Belarus' and Ukraine date from only about a century after the earliest settlements in the western areas (see Herzog 1969: 68-70; U. Weinreich 1969: 86-89). 2. South Belarussian and north Ukrainian elements contribute to the Eastern Slavic corpus of Yiddish. 3. Yiddish has archaic and unique Slavicisms/Slavoidisms (e.g. mpral'nik m 'laundry beetle'-see also below) which suggest an old contact with Eastern Slavic dialects that could predate the gradual creation of "Ukrainian" and "Belarusian" in the 15th century. 4. Slavicisms with Belarusian or Ukrainian features appear in Polish Yiddish. This is best explained by the migration of Slavic-speaking descendants of Khazar Jews to the west and north in the wake of the Mongolian/Tatar onslaught on Kiev in the 13th century (see also M. Weinreich 1980; Sobolev 1998).

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

493

5. The denotation of both Ukrainian and Belarusian by common glottonyms, e.g. Y mxoxlis and mxaxläcke (see Herzog et al. 1995, 2: 83) points to a time before the contemporary divide between Belarusian and Ukrainian became fully forged. Yiddish also uses a Germanized reflex of the original Slavic epithet Rus' to denote Kievan Rus' (consisting of the dual Ukraine and Belarus', like He polin 'Poland'?), see Y rajsn η (< G Reusseri). In the 19th century, the term came to denote Belarus' exclusively. On the use of the term in Balkan and Ashkenazic Hebrew sources beginning with the 11th century to designate the ancestors of the Ukrainians and Belarusians, see M. Weinreich 1973, 3: 82,4,296. 6. Polish, Belarusian and Ukrainian have a slang term for 'Jew' that might be derived from the Lithuanian term for 'Belarusian', see e.g. Uk (Lvov) kudlaj, (organgrinder's slang) gudlaj, gud(z), etc. (Horbac 1957: 35, 40; 1963: 19), kudlaj 'shaggy-headed dog, man' (Budziszewska 1955: 141, from the Κοηΐή district and Cz^stochowa), Br gud (Bondaletov 1973: 82), kudlej (Traxtenberg 1908: 102-103), (Sluck poor people's slang) gudlaj (Scepuro 1881, appendix xxv), Pol gudlaj, kudlaj, kudlecz 'dissheveled person' (Kurka 1907). Originally, I was inclined to derive these terms from Y godl A'celebrity, prominent man' or Agadlen m 'conceited, vain person' or from the Yiddish male anthroponym judl (see Wexler 1987a: 144). The problem with a Yiddish etymon is the unexpected vocalic reflexes. I now suspect the term may be related to Li Gudas, pi Gudai 'Belarusian', which is derived from the Germanic ethnonym 'Goth'-a group which inhabited parts of present-day Belarus' up to the 4th century before migrating south into what is now Ukrainian territory (this suggestion was made by Budziszewska 1957: 74). The Lithuanian Germanism is not ordinarily used in Belarusian. The possible Slavic identification of Jews with the Lithuanian term for Belarusians may be of considerable antiquity (for a discussion of the Lithuanian term, see Bednarczuk 1996 [1999: 146-148] and Citko 2000: 42).

494

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

1. Mann published a letter witten in Hebrew introducing a member of the "Rusian" (< "Rus"', i.e. pre-Ukrainian) Jewish community in Saloniki to the Jewish community in Cairo. From an analysis of the parchment, Mann dated the letter to the 11th century or perhaps earlier (1922, 2: 192). This is the only known piece of evidence that identifies a Rusian Jew in Saloniki, a city that at the time had a sizeable Byzantine Jewish community. The term Rus' originally denoted the merchant or warrior class of partly Scandinavian origin that controlled Kiev in the 9th century. Subsequently, the term came to denote an East Slavic ethnic group, the ancestors of the contemporary Ukrainians and Belarusians, and several centuries later was expropriated as an ethno-political term by the northern Eastern Slavs, the ancestors of the Russians. In Medieval European Hebrew documents the term for Western Slavs was kna'an 'Canaan', alluding to the fact that Slavs were frequently being sold into slavery up until the 11th-12th centuries. It is significant that Mann's document defines the bearer as a Rusian, rather than "Canaanite" Jew, even though Eastern Slavs were also victims of slavery (see Hrushevsky 1997: 219-220, 222-223). This fact suggests the Rusian Jews of the 11th century may have seen themselves as an integral part of the indigenous population. 8. There are some striking parallels in the phonological system of Eastern Slavic Yiddish and coterritiorial Belarusian and Ukrainian which predate the 1500s. Southeastern (roughly Ukrainian), partly Central (Polish) and Northeastern (Belarusian, Baltic) Yiddish dialects underwent a number of major sound changes that have parallels in Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects (see Shevelov 1979: 780). Most scholars have not insisted on a Slavic origin for the Yiddish phenomena on the grounds that the relative chronology of the Yiddish phenomena is insufficiently understood and the geography of the Yiddish features often differs from that of the putative Slavic source languages. A disparate geography is not disconcerting, since Jews and non-Jews enjoyed different migrational patterns (see Herzog 1965: 42-45). The fact that the phonological features shared by Yiddish and Eastern Slavic specifically characterize the Belarus-

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

495

ian and Ukrainian dialects that developed on a Kiev-Polessian dialectal base strongly suggests that the Yiddish features were inherited from a pre-relexified Kiev-Polessian substratum. Kiev-Polessian features include (a) the effects of the second regressive palatalization of velars, followed by e (a Common Slavic development of the 6th-7th centuries): CS1 *kv was retained before *e and *i in the bulk of the Kiev-Polessian area (i.e. in the dialects at the basis of Southern Belarusian, Northern Ukrainian and partly Southern Russian) while changing into cv in the Polack-Rjazan' dialects and other Eastern Slavic and South Slavic dialects, see e.g. KP kvett 'flower, blossom' vs. Uk cvit (see Wexler 1977: 68-70; Shevelov 1979: 57-58). Yiddish follows the Kiev-Polessian reflex, see Y mkvejt(n) m 'flower, blossom', (b) The retention of voiced consonants in final position and before a voiceless consonant in Ukrainian and Southwest Belarusian dialects, see e.g. Uk, SWBr [dubka] 'little oak', SWBr [dub] vs. NEBr [dup] 'oaktree' (Wexler 1977: 136 and fn 1). See Y veg(n) 'road' vs. G Weg [-k] m. Some four decades back, U. Weinreich had suggested that West Ukrainian and South Belarusian provided the model of final consonant voicing that now obtains in Eastern European Yiddish (1958: 374). Regional devoicing probably arose in the Polack-Rjazan' area in the 12th century and spread to the south and southwest (see Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #45; for Belarusian data in Hebrew spelling, see Wexler 1977: 137). U. Weinreich also observed that final voicing retention in Yiddish now appears farther north and east than in Belarusian (1958: 375), but he did not suggest that this could reflect the northward migration that resulted from the Mongolian/Tatar invasion in the mid 13th century. Besides the retention of final consonant voicing, there are other features which might tie Yiddish most closely to the southern KievPolessian dialect, i.e. with contemporary northern Ukraine rather than southern Belarus', e.g. the dual category is much more productive in Ukrainian than in Belarusian dialects (see chapter 4.5.4), while Yiddish adjective and noun compounds based on Hebrew and Slavic components without a conjunction may imitate

496

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

the Ukrainian opposition of i and ta 'and' (see discussion in #Angesichi). Admittedly, the delineation of Western Slavic (Upper Sorbian) versus Eastern Slavic components in Yiddish is difficult to achieve for three reasons: 1. There are no texts composed in Slavic Yiddish in Eastern Europe before the 16th century-the date when Ukrainianisms first appear in Yiddish texts (see Shevelov 1979: 405 and discussion below). 2. There are considerable formal and semantic similarities shared by the Western and Eastern Slavic languages. 3. Yiddish Slavicisms often appear in a considerable number of variants, e.g. for 'ant', see Y umuraske, mmureske, mmeriske, mmerecke, mmerzke, umorevke f; for 'gutter', see mrinstok, mrin m, mrinve, mkanave, mrine f; for 'buckwheat', see mgrike, mrecke, mhrecke, mgrecke f; for 'chisel', see mdlot m, mdlote, mdlute, mdolete f; for 'nail (wooden, metal)', see ucvok, mcvek, mcv'ox, mcv'ok, mcvox, wcv'ex m; for 'cranberries', see mzirav(l)ines, uzerexlines, mkljukve, mspongeles, ubrusnices, mbruslines, mbruklines, ubruknes, mborefkes f-(plt) (Herzog et al. 1995, 2, #093040). Probably, Slavic doublets in Yiddish result from exposure to several Slavic (mainly post-relexificational) source dialects, see e.g. Y wfarblondzen ~ udz~ m-z- 'lose one's way, go astray' < Polish ~ pribludne 'stray' < Ukrainian (see Sulman 1939:107); on doublets resulting from the replacement of unrelexified Sorbianisms in Yiddish by Eastern Slavic cognates, see below. Often there are formal or semantic clues which allow us to identify the source of some Slavic elements in Yiddish, especially to distinguish between Polish and Eastern Slavic etyma (if not always between individual Eastern Slavic sources); distinguishing between Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian elements in Yiddish is more difficult. See e.g. Y udemb 'oak' (< Polish, vs. USo, Br, Uk dub m); Y mrose 'dew' (< Polish, Ukrainian vs. Br rasa f); Y mvenger 'eel'
Y mpempik(es) m 'chubby person' (1965: 83). While Weinreich assumed that these facts could prove that West-East Slavic isoglosses were originally further to the west than at present, i.e. that pre-Belarusian dialects extended much further west than they do today, I suggest, alternatively, that the Polish Yiddish facts could mean that Eastern Slavic Jews had migrated westwards to avoid the Mongolian/Tatar onslaught, thus extending Eastern Slavic linguistic material west of the Western-Eastern Slavic divide (see also chapter 4.7). A future task of historians is to seek additional supportive evidence for such westward migrations. Y mmucen 'to torment' could, in principle, be derived from either Uk mucyty, Br mucyc' or from USo mucic. The presence of Y mmucen in Western Poland would seem to mitigate against an Eastern Slavic source; since cognate Polish m^czyc [men-] (which is also attested as CePolY mmencen; (Mac'kevic 3, 1980 lists NWBr mecycca 'suffer'), an Upper Sorbian origin seems most plausible for Y mmucen (see also discussion in Wexler 1987a: 169). Similarly, Y mblince(s) f 'pancake' < USo m (see Wexler 1987a, 1991b); the Belarusian form is available in East Polish dialects, see e.g. blinec m (Zdancewicz 1966: 83). This still would not account for PolY mblince f-since it is too far to the west in Poland. The feminine form and gender of Y mblince may be due either to the creation of a new back formation < mblinces pi (thus *blinc m sg > mblince f, unique

500

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

among the Slavic languages) or to interference with German forms of the Slavism; in either case, a Sorbian origin for the Yiddish term is a distinct possibility (see also discussion of MPlinse and below). Similarly, a Slavicism in Yiddish which is attested primarily or exclusively in the northeastern-most dialects of Belarusian and southern and Galician dialects of Ukrainian-dialects from which Yiddish appears to borrow relatively scantily and/or only recentlymight best be derived from a Western Slavic, say Sorbian, rather than from an Eastern Belarusian or Ukrainian, source. For example, of the two Slavic roots for 'pine', USo chojca, Br, Uk xvoja and Br sasna, dial LSo, Uk sosna, Yiddish has only msosne(s) f. Since Br sasna is ubiquitous and the sole term in the north, while xvoja is limited to southern Belarusian, I would assume that Y msosne f might have been acquired in Sorbian territory (see Leksicnyj atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, #138; unfortunately, I lack information on the geography of Uk sosna f). By the same token, Y mtuce(s) 'dark cloud' is unlikely to be from Br tue a, since the latter is found primarily in the northeastern dialects; it might be from Uk tuca, scattered blockwise throughout the territory, alongside the more ubiquitous xmara f (but Kuraszkiewicz [1947] 1985: 250] says Uk xmurno ~ xmarno 'overcast' < Polish) or arch USo tuca (Pol t$cza f is irrelevant: see Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #313; Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1988, 2, map #356; Leksicnyj atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #18). Y skobl(ex) η 'cramp iron' ~ Br skoblja, which is ubiquitous except in the far south {Leksicnyj atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #287); thus the Yiddish Slavicism might be from USo skobla f 'cramp, clamp'. These examples are necessarily tentative and require further study. The following Yiddish Slavicisms (and one Germanism) are found in all Eastern Slavic languages (and often also in Polish), but within the Belarusian speech territory, they predominate or appear exclusively in the southern or southwestern dialects, and within the Ukrainian speech territory, they predominate in the northern dialects, i.e. in areas which fell within the original Kiev-Polessian area. These were the East Slavic areas which probably contained

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

501

the largest and oldest Jewish populations (see the maps of Jewish settlement in the Eastern Slavic lands in Siper 1914, map and explanatory notes, following p. 112). On the possibility that these Jews, at least in part, could be of Khazar origin, see the discussion in chapter 4.7. 1. Y mbereze(s), uber'oze(s) 'birch' ~ ubiquitous Br bjaroza, while bjareza is rare and limited to the SW area; see also Uk bereza f {Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #29; Nazarova 1985, map #14; Leksicnyj atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #147). 2. Y mbloxe(s) 'flea' ~ Uk bloxa ~ blyxa f {Atlas ukrajins 'koji movy 1984, 1, map #84; see also Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, maps ##57-58 and discussion of unstressed ο in maps ##59-60, 66, etc. and Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1988, 2, maps ##52-54) 3. Y • c(e)ret(es) 'reed' ~ Br carot mainly in the SW and ceret, a rare form encountered in the SCe and SW areas (vs. Uk oceret m: Leksycny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #276) 4. Y mdremlen, mdrimlen ~ USo dremac 'doze'. The former resembles BavG dremsfo, dro.msh, trumseln 'doze', but it is unclear if the G term is of SI origin or not; the Slavicism has a CS1 pedigree (see also discussion in Uschlaf). In any event, the common corpus suggests a possible blockage of the Germanism and retention of the U Sorbianism in Y. In Y mdreml, mdriml η 'nap', the dim(?) -/ might have been based on such forms as Uk drimka, Pol drzemka with -ka (according to Richhardt 1954, the Uk form is a loan from Pol). On the other hand, the absence of Y *dremke, *drimke suggests that the -I was initially part of the verbal root, from say the first person sg present tense, see Br dramlju {Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #159). Br dials also have a verbal paradigm without -/-, but rarely in the extreme SW and extreme NW of the speech territory. The SI geography suggests Y might have acquired the term in the KP period (for the geography of -/- in the first person sg in Uk dials, see also Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, maps ##252-253, 1988, 2, maps ##238-239). Stankiewicz has pointed out that there is an insertion of -I- in a few Slderived verbs in Y, see e.g. Y mbrizlen 'to splash, sprinkle' < R bryzgat' ~ bryznut' (or < Uk bryzkaty ~ bryznuty), Y m(ge)driblen < Pol rozdrobic 'to

502

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

crush' (see also Uk rozdrobljuvaty[sja] 'to crumble'), Y mtre(f)slen < R trjasti 'to shake' (1993a: 227). 5. Y mkacer(s), ukocer(s) 'drake' ~ Br kacar m (and variants), which is mainly found in the SW and SE dials, and scattered in the NW (Leksicnyj atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #96) 6. Y mkacke(s) duck' ~ Br kacka, which is found primarily in the W half of the territory as well as SE and Uk kacka f, which, while ubiquitous, is the unique form in dials W of the Dnepr river {Dyjalektalahycny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963: 297 and Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, map #321). U. Weinreich assumed, on the basis of the geography of ukacke within BrY (e.g. SWBrY mkacke f vs. NEBrY entl n) that the first wave of Jewish migration brought G-origin entl η into the Ε of Belarus', while a later wave in the mid-18th c acquried local kacka f in WBelarus' (1969: 87-89). I prefer to argue that entl η was a relexified acquisition that failed to push out the original unrelexified SI (USo?) term entirely. 7. Y mkalemutne 'gloomy, dejected' ~ Br kalamutny, mainly in the SW and scattered elsewhere {Leksycny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #79) 8. Y mkl'on(en), mklen(en) 'maple' ~ Br klen found everywhere (a well as in R), but klen [kl'en] m is found only in the SCe dials {Leksycny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #162; on the maple in folk medicine and beliefs, see Slavjanskie drevnosti 1999, 2: 507-508) 9. Y mkocere(s) 'poker, iron' matches Uk kocerha which predominates in the W Ukraine and Bukovyna, as well as in areas Ε of the Dnepr (vs. kocjuba to the W of the river: see Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, map #291, 1988, 2, map #282; Nazarova 1985, map #92; Uk kocjuba is the source of Pol kociuba f: see SJawski 1954, 2: 318-319). On Br kacarha f, see Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak (1997, 4, maps ##90, 95). The latter term is not (at present) found in USo. See also Pol pogrzebacz 'poker' (A. Mark 1908 lists instead PolY sarajzn m). For other suggested Sorbianisms in Y, see Wexler (1991b: 59-72). On Y ukocere f, see also discussion below.

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

503

10. Y mkoromisle(s) 'yoke of a water carrier' matches Br karomysla f (and variants) which, while ubiquitous in Br, predominate in the SW (see Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #249; see also Uk koromislo n) 11. Y m ° k r o l i k ( e s ) 'rabbit' ~ Br krolik, krol', karoV m, scattered throughout Br territory, but densest in the S (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #58; see also ##G König). It is unclear if U. Weinreich's objection (in favor of Y kiniglfex] n) is motivated by objection to a relatively recent Slavicism (1968). 12. Y mlejc(n), mlejce(s) f 'rein' ~ Br lejcy pit in the W dials {Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #330) 13. Y moger(s) 'stallion' ~ Br voher, Uk oher m (see Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #41) 14. Y • osine(s) 'aspen' ~ Br asina, Uk osyna f (see Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #150) 15. Y mpisk(es) 'mouth (of an animal)' ~ Br pysak, Ukpysok m {Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #10) 16. Y upolonke(s) 'ice hole' ~ Br palonka f, mainly in the SW and to a lesser extent in the SE {Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #69) 17. Y mrimer(s) 'harness maker' ~ Br rymar m, which is a W dialectalism {Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1996, 3, map #210) 18. Y mscavej 'sorrel' ~ Br scavej, which is rare, and attested only in the SWBr lands and Uk scavej m in the NWUkraine, including the border area with Br {Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1988, 2, map #145; Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #261) 19. Y msidele(s), ms'edele(s) 'roost, perch' ~ Br sida(j)la f (see Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #106)

504

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

20. Y msline 'saliva, spittle' coexists with sl'une; the Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1996, 3, map #56 sites Br sl'unä in the Ε half and slina f in the W half of the speech territory (see discussion in #brach) 21. Y msl'ute 'slush' ~ Br sljuta, found only at a few points in the S (see Uk slota f 'rainy weather': Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, map #375 and Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, maps ##36, 38). See also stUk sl'ota 'autumn bad weather' ~ SWUk, Br slota f (Shevelov 1979: 652). The meaning 'slush' is occasionally found in the Zytomyr oblast' (Usaceva 1983). See also #Gewitter. 22. Y msnar(n) 'scar' ~ Br snar m 'scar (on the hide of an animal)' appears in the SWBr area (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #49) 23. Y mstel'max(n) 'wheelwright' ~ Br stel'max, mainly in the SW dials (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #336; see also Uk stel 'max m) 24. Y tistex(er) 'tablecloth' is both m and η vs. G Tischtuch(- "er) η. The η gender assignment can be ascribed to G and the m to Uk, where the words for 'tablecloth' are either m or f. The Uk m terms for 'tablecloth', nastil 'nyk and obrus(ok) are encountered from the Ν of the territory to as far S as Kiev (Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, map #294). The f term is found in SW Ukraine. There are several terms for 'tablecloth' in SW Belarus': nastol'nik, skacer, abrus(ak), (v)obrus m (see Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #325). The Br and Uk m terms are found now precisely in the former KP territory (see also discussion in chapter 4.5.2). 25. Y mtitun 'tobacco (possibly of inferior quality)' ~ Br tytun m in the SW mainly (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 1, map #216) 26. Y mtopol'e(s) 'poplar' ~ Br tapolja f in the SE (see Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #164)

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

505

27. Y mtxojr(n) 'skunk' ~ Br txor m, which is spread through the Br territory, but without competition from other roots in the south (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #81) 28. Y mveverke(s) 'squirrel' matches pan-Br vaverka f, which is especially popular in the W and Uk vivirka f in the Ν areas, including areas bordering Br speech territory (Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #308; Atlas ukrajins 'koji movy 1984, 1, map #318) 29. Y mxl'ev(es) '(pig)sty' matches Br χlew which is ubiquitous, but mainly in the SW {Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #231), and Uk xliv m which predominates in NUk areas and is scattered elsewhere (Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984, 1, maps ##5, 284; Nazarova 1985, map #10) 30. Y mzolode(s) 'acorn' ~ Br zoludz', zaludzina f, which are rare, and found only in the SW area (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993,1, map #157) 31. Y uzabre(s) f 'gill' ~ Br zabry pit, found in the S and scattered in the Ν (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993, 1, map #325) 32. Y mzvir 'gravel' ~ Br zvir m is ubiquitous, but especially concentrated in the SW dials (Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1994, 2, map #55)

Two other possible indications of unrelexified Judeo-Slavic corpus are when Yiddish Slavicisms either differ from coterritorial Slavic formally or are rare Slavicisms/Slavoidisms; both types of lexicon are critical for reconstructing the outlines of a Judaized Eastern Slavic. One example is Y mpral'nik(es) 'laundry beetle'; Br pral nik, Uk praVnyk m are found only at scattered points in south central Belarus' (on the Ukrainian border), at some points in northwest Ukraine next to the Belarusian frontier and in the areas between Rivne and Luc'k and between Rivne and NovhorodVolyns'kyj (see U. Weinreich 1958: 406; Dyjalektalahicny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963, map #252; Atlas ukrajins 'koji movy 1984, 1,

506

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

map #171, 1988, 2, map #148 and Wexler 1987a: 95, 186-188; forms such as Br [ajpranik, Br, Uk prac m, etc. are the preferred terms). See also Pol dial praln'ik m 'laundry beetle' in the Sejn district, perhaps < Belarusian (Zdancewicz 1964: 231). The scattered nature of the few surviving locales with Br pral 'nik and Uk pral 'nyk m suggests a once popular form in Kiev-Polessian. For semantic differences between Belarusianisms in Yiddish and their etyma, see Öernjak 1928 and for unique use of Slavic among Eastern European Jews and in Yiddish, see Wexler 1987a: 171-176 and 1994. On the unique Y mnudnik(es) m 'bore, pest', see M-er. Another possibly original Slavicism in Yiddish is mpustepaseven 'to loaf, go around idle' (and related mpust-un-pas adj 'idle', mpustepasnik[es] m 'idler, loafer') < Uk pustyj 'idle; empty; deserted' + pasty 'to pasture' (see chapter 4). The corresponding Ukrainian formation is pustopas adv 'without a shepherd, unguided', xodyty pustopas 'wander about (without guidance)'. Yiddish appears to have formed the compound from Uk pasty 'to pasture', while the Ukrainian compound is based on the relatedpasa 'pasture, pasturage; feed' (which, curiously, is also found as Y mpase f). Yiddish also derives a verb mpasen 'to pasture, tend grazing animals' vs. Uk vyhnaty shot na pasu (lit. 'turn out cattle to pasture'). Yiddish also retains mpastex(er) m, mpastexerin(s) f 'shepherd(ess)' from the same root (for more on the latter term, see chapters 4.5.3-4.5.4; this is a rare instance where -er- only denotes the female agentive vs. Ukpastux m/pastuska f, see also ##-er). Evidence of the unique use of Slavicisms in Yiddish also comes from the morphology. Yiddish makes limited use of the Slavic suffix -(')ak. Most of the Yiddish examples involve either Slavic stems or non-Slavic stems with translation equivalents in Slavic languages which are combinable with the suffix, see e.g. Y mxerl'ak 'sickly person', upol'ak 'Pole' ~ Uk xyrljak, poljak m. Disparallelism between Yiddish and Eastern Slavic (and Polish) is found in Y mpaskudn'ak(es) 'nasty person', mlitvak(es) 'Jew from the Lithuanian territory, i.e. from Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus' (but ulitviner [zero pi] m 'Lithuanian Christian') vs. Uk paskudnyk, Pol litwyn 'Lithuanian', Uk lytvyn 'Belarusian' (19th c; see also Wexler 1987a:

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

507

172-174 and chapter 3.2 above). The choice of rare m-(')ak in Y mpaskudn 'ak is striking since the original source suffix m-nik is also available as Y upaskudnik m. Occasionally, Yiddish integrates SI ~{')ak as m-ek, see Y • bojdek 'thistle' < Uk bodjak m. In 1987 I attributed the innovative use of Y •-( ')ak to an earlier Judeo-West Slavic norm, but in light of the two-tiered relexification hypothesis, a (Judeo-)Eastern Slavic source should also be entertained. See also discussion of Slavic-component mergers in chapter 3.1. Finally, there are concepts which are expressed in Yiddish by Slavic elements often without German or Hebrew synonyms; these terms appear to be substratal elements that withstood relexification in the first and second relexification phases, probably in order to denote culture-specific terms. These Slavicisms fall into a number of unrelated semantic domains, see e.g. Jewish religion and culture, flora and fauna (see tree and berry names in Weissberg 1988: 202, Herzog et al. 1995, 2). Many of the Eastern Slavic or Upper Sorbian terms in Yiddish denoting flora and fauna are also widely used in early Slavic toponyms, e.g. SI bagno 'swamp' is much rarer in Slavic placenames than SI blato η (and aside from Ukrainian and Belarusian, limited to West Slavic languages); the latter is used in Yiddish but not the former (for details, see Miklosich 1927: 224-226 and Trautmann 1949, 2). The retention of some Slavic tree terms, see e.g. Y udub m 'oak', mbereze f'birch' (and variants), may reflect the revered status of these trees in Slavic mythology (see Gimbutas 1967: 744-745; Borovskij and Mocja 1990: 125; Vinogradova and Usaöeva 1993; Slavjanskie drevnosti 1999, 2: 141-146 and discussion in chapter 3.1; Dubiiiski also reports that Karaites held the oaktree in their cemetery of Cufut-Kale in high respect: 1994: 58). The role of the oaktree in Karaite and Slavic culture requires a detailed study. The blockage of relexification to Germanisms is also likely in the semantic domain of topography. Many Slavic roots which are still abundantly attested in German place names of Sorbian and Polabian origin are preserved in Yiddish (where they are presumably of Sorbian origin), e.g. Y mblote 'mud, swamp' (see above), uricke f 'stream, creek' < USo bloto n, recka f. A sizeable number of the terms found in the Elbe and Baltic Slavic toponyms

508

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

are used in Yiddish, e.g. CS1 *mogyla 'hill, mound' {ttbegraberi), *skovarda 'frying pan' (##Pfanne), *glina f 'clay' (#Erde), *koteh 'boiler', *bregb m 'riverbank' contemporary USo brjoh, but older breh m was still used in Frentzel's writings of the late 17th century; see Schuster-Sewc 1996: 103), *blato 'marsh', *vapbno η 'kalk' and the names of some trees, e.g. *breza 'birch', *sosna f 'pine', *buhb 'beech', *dqbt m 'oak' (Trautmann 1949, 2). Names of tools and farm artifacts are also frequently expressed in Yiddish exclusively by Slavicisms (again, I assume many are Sorbianisms), e.g. CS1 *xlevb 'stall', *xomott m 'horse's collar', *lopata f 'shovel'. Sorbian fruit terms are often kept in Yiddish. For example, today Yiddish lacks G Beere 'berry', using uniquely mjagde(s) f of Slavic origin; see also Y mmalene(s) 'raspberry' < USo malena, Uk malyna vs. G Himbeere(n) ~ Maline f (< Slavic). A few Slavic food terms appear to have been retained in Yiddish, see e.g. • blince(s) f 'pancake' (discussed above and in ##Plinse; on this term in Belarusian dialects, see the Leksicny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1997, 4, map #375). The Southeastern German dialects have borrowed the term as well. Yiddish may have succeeded in retaining the original Upper Sorbianism perhaps because the German baked goods were prepared in a different way (though Germanization has resulted in feminine gender in Yiddish vs. masculine elsewhere in Slavic). Kieser (1972: 164) notes that Plinsen was mainly made out of buckwheat flour and milk. Kreis Liebenwerda has blins in the north, blinse in the Middle area and plinsn in the south. Feminine gender is not encountered in this area. Vladimirskaja (1982: 75) discusses the different meanings of R bliny, blincy pl(-m) in dialects of the Balakleev region of the Xar'kiv oblast'; bl- is found now only in Ukrainian Polessian dialects vs. ml- elsewhere in Ukrainian (see also Wexler 1993c: 167). Some Yiddish kinship terms can be expressed only by Slavicisms, see e.g. mplemenek m 'nephew', mplemenice f 'niece' (in early East Slavic, denoting relatives on the father's side: see Schräder 1929, 2: 100), mbabe f 'grandmother', mzejde m 'grandfather' (perhaps kept because the latter stem also denotes the custom of remembering

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

509

deceased relatives [see below], while SI baba f also denotes insects, clouds, etc., which were believed to be imbued with the spirits of the dead [see Väzny 1955]). The first Yiddishism appears to be from Ukrainian. If so, I could assume that elements of the Eastern Slavic kinship terminology differed from those in use among Sorbian Jews, thus necessitating a new Ukrainianism. The corresponding Upper Sorbian terms for 'nephew, niece' are bratrowc m, bratrowka f (brother's children); sotrjenc, sotrowc, sotrenc m, sotrjenca f (sister's children) (Schuster-Sewc 1978-1996: 1335-1336 gives no indication of the age of these terms)-with obligatory distinction between the paternal and maternal nephew and niece. This is not the case in Ukrainian today and presumably was not the case in KievPolessian Jewish circles, to judge from the absence of this distinction in Yiddish. Where Yiddish has only a Slavicism, I could presume an originally unrelexified Slavicism, e.g. G Herde(n) f 'herd, flock' and Hirt(en) m 'shepherd' are both missing in Yiddish, which has instead Slavic terms, such as mstade(s) f USo stadlo n), mcerede(s) f 'herd', Y mpastex(er) m, mpastexin(s) ~ mpastuske(s) f 'shepherd' (see also above). For semantic fields such as food, clothing, household utensils, children's affairs and traditional women's activities, in which Slavic terms are heavily represented in Yiddish, see Tavjov 1923: 286-287 and Sulman 1939: 109. The class of women's activities is significant, since women traditionally tended to stay at home more than men and would be expected to be less in contact with non-Jewish Slavs; yet, if women could introduce Slavicisms from this semantic domain into Yiddish, this must mean that they spoke Slavic fluently (natively?). In this context, it is imperative to collect information on the knowledge of Slavic languages among Jews through time and space. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, Jadvihin S. 1910: 404-405 (cited in Wexler 1974: 216), praised the fluent Belarusian of a contemporary village Jewess in Western Belarus'. On the other hand, the publication of a Polish grammar for Yiddish speakers in the early 19th century might suggest that most Polish Jews were ignorant of Polish at that time (see Schaechter 1990; Geller 2001: 12-13,20).

510

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

For concepts connected with the Jewish religion which are not easily labeled in German, Yiddish often retains Sorbianisms, replacing some of them later by Hebraisms, see e.g. •trejbern 'porge meat' < USo trjebic and Y mpraven 'to conduct (religious ceremony)' < USo prajic, stY mkajln 'slaughter in a non-Jewish manner', mkojle(ne)n 'to slaughter (ritually)' < USo Hoc 'to prick, pierce' (i.e. the first person present singular stem, with partial replacement by the Belarusian cognate in the case of the first Yiddish variant) alongside Asexto (see details in ##Gurgel). In some cases, where Yiddish now has a Hebraism corresponding to a native term in the Slavic languages, I could hypothesize that the former is a later replacement for an unrelexified Slavism in Yiddish. For example, Y • tojre f 'Torah' in Slavic languages can be denoted by a term that normally means 'law', as in Br zakon 'Jewish law', (respectful term) 'Jew' (19th c), OCz zdkon 'Pentateuch' (late 14thearly 15th c). The use of this term with Jewish associations appears to be quite old, to judge from the use of OChSl zakonbnikb 'Jewish, Christian priest' in the Freising Fragments, late 10th-early 11th c, a Church Slavic liturgical text prepared by Germans for Western Slavic Christians (see discussion of this word in Wexler 1987a: 1223, 149). For Slavic terms used by non-Jews to denote Jewish practices, see Wexler (1987a) and chapter 4.4. These terms may have been used by Slavic Jews before relexification to German and Hebrew terms. For Slavic non-Jewish perceptions of Jewish holidays and practices, see Belova (1997a). Some presumably substratal Slavicisms in Yiddish, which might also owe their retention in Yiddish to the fact that they were terms lacking German parallels (e.g. Judeo-Slavic artefacts, customs, kinship terms), were cited in the chapters above: mblince 'pancake' (M-Plinse and above), ubobe f 'grandmother' (chapter 4.5.4), ubok '(non-Jewish) God', gojlem A'homunculus' (chapter 3.1, #Gabe), «(and • l)homen-tas(n) 'Purim pastry' (MBeutel m), mkojl(en)en 'to slaughter meat' (=MGurgel), nkonop(l)'e f 'hemp' (#Bad n), mkovel'm 'blacksmith' (ttbezaubern and above), mkundes m 'prank' (Mbezaubem), loks m 'noodle' (chapter 4.4), mmo(ho)lkes pit, etc. 'non-Jewish cemetery' (chapter 3.1 and #begraben), mmol'en zix 'pray' (ttbeten, MGurgel

Unrelexified Upper Sorbian and Kiev-Polessian

511

f), mnad(a)n, mnodn m 'dowry' (chapter 3.1 and #Gabe f), mnebex 'misfortunate', mtrejbern 'to render the meat kosher by removing the forbidden parts' (chapter 3), mvolkelak m 'werewolf (#Welt f) and mzejde m 'grandfather' (chapter 4.5.4). When Yiddish has concepts that have a parallel in Slavic languages but not in German, I would expect to find such concepts denoted in Yiddish by unrelexified Slavisms or newer Hebraisms/ Hebroidisms. An example is Y Amexutn 'parent-in-law' m (see übefreien, #besonnen). If Yiddish speakers fail to use the Slavic equivalent (e.g. Uk svat m), this could reflect a change in its original meaning, either among Yiddish and/or Slavic speakers, thus necessitating the use of a new word in Yiddish. A new disparallelism, either during or after the second relexification phase, could have necessitated the use of a distinctive Hebroidism, like Y Amexutn. Indeed, svat has developed a number of new meanings in some Ukrainian dialects, which could account for the need for Hebroid Lmexutn in Yiddish (for further discussion, see Wexler 1993c: 174; 1997b). Interestingly, in some East Slavic languages, the term denoting 'matchmaker' (either male or female; for semantic changes, see P. Friedrich 1979: 181, 193) is also expressed by the same root, see e.g. R svat m, svaxa f. But in Yiddish, 'matchmaker' is expressed solely by Hebroid Lsatxn (satxonim) m-uniquely masculine in gender and meaning. This is reminiscent of the Ukrainian dialectal practice of distinguishing svat m, svaxa f 'parent-in-law' from starosta m 'matchmaker' (< staryj 'old': see also #besonnen). These assumptions are borne out by Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #55), and show how EY kjna/ex(e)tineste f, a kinship category typical of Slavic, Turkic, Mongolian but not German (even though the category is expressed only by Hebroid terms), has diffused to the west. Apparently, in the west of the Yiddish speech territory or in Judaized German, mexutn denoted both a 'male' and 'female inlaw'. The pleonastic expression of feminine gender in Lmalex(e)teneste (< Y • -es < He -et and Y • -te < J Aram -tä') may represent two original forms (long and short) needed to disambiguate substratal Uk svaxa f 'matchmaker; in-law' (see Romanjuk 1983: 198-200 and Y mesumedeste f 'apostate from Judaism' in

512

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

^abtrünnig). When Slavic languages started to distinguish the meanings, as in Uk dial svaxa f 'in-law' vs. starosta m 'matchmaker', Yiddish followed suit with Asatxn 'matchmaker' < He vs. Lmexutn, etc. m, leaving the pleonastically marked EY Lmalex(e)teneste f as the sole form for 'in-law'. The shorter kmexutnte!Amaxetenes f became extinct in Eastern Yiddish, remaining in Western Yiddish and Judaized German only at Vel'ky Mager (Slovakia), Harderwijk (Holland) and Köslin (Pomerania, now Koszalin, Poland). Could the pleonastic expression of gender in EY Am(a/e)x(e)teneste f 'in-law' with -este < Judeo-Aramaic be a conscious attempt to match similar-sounding Uk -sta in starosta m 'matchmaker'? In another case, we find Yiddish using a Germanism to designate a religious ritual once practiced by German Catholics and still found in East Slavic societies. Consider Y jorcajt m, f 'anniversary of a relative's death marked by the lighting of a candle at home' (see Wexler 1993c for details). Yiddish makes no use of the corresponding Slavic terms (see e.g. Br dzjady, Uk didy pit: for details of the Slavic ritual, see Schräder 1917-1923, 1: 21; Mansikka 1932; Sedakova 1983; Hrushevsky 1997: 258; Lic'vinka 1998 and Slavjanskie drevnosti 1999, 2: 43-45), perhaps because the Sorbian Jewish custom replaced the original mourning custom of the KievPolessian Jews; hence, the (Sorbian) Yiddish term jorcajt m, f would have been more appropriate than the original Slavic terms (see #Jahr). Future research is needed to determine to what extent putative Judeo-Sorbian customs could survive in the new East Slavic environment when the coterritorial Slavs and Slavic Jews had dissimilar practices. For example, I would imagine that the Ashkenazic custom of breaking a glass (or some other object, since before the end of the first millennium glass would have been too precious a commodity) at the close of the wedding ceremony, which I assume to be of pagan German origin, survived in the East Slavic lands because it was supported by a similar practice among Ukrainians (and Kiev-Polessian Jews before contact with the Sorbian Jews?), performed after the religious ceremony (for a description of the latter, see Stscherbakiwskyj 1952-1953: 335, 338,

The Khazar component

513

while the Jewish custom is described in Wexler 1993c with numerous references). A future study should explore the extent to which Slavic terms preserved in Yiddish are also found in Albanian, Rumanian and Hungarian, languages spoken in territories once populated by Slavic speakers (including Khazars, in Hungary). The entries describing Slavic folklore and magic in Slavjanskie drevnosti (1995-1999) include quite a number of terms which are also expressed by Slavisms in Yiddish, see e.g. R vily pi 'fork', used for identifying unclean forces, e.g. vampires. In Ukraine and Belarus', throwing the fork at the vampire assisted in turning him back into a person (on the Polish cognate [> Belarusian], see chapter 4.4 and above). Y mkocere f 'poker, iron' cited above, figures in Slavic rituals (e.g. engagements and weddings, house dedications), and is believed to offer protection (against birds, snakes, insects, unclean forces) and to bestow health (see Belova 1997b; Slavjanskie drevnosti 1999, 2: 635-637); Y ukase f 'grain, cereal' had ritual functions in a number of Slavic communities (see Valencova 1997; see also Y loksfnj 'noodle' in chapter 4.7). Sedakova (1983) discusses the lexicon of funeral customs. Many Yiddish Slavicisms also surface in Hungarian (see Leschka 1825; Kniezsa 1955). Presumably, these terms also owe their survival in Hungarian to the fact that they were substratal terms describing local Slavic folk medicine and magic, etc. that had no immediate Hungarian counterparts. It would also be useful to compare the Slavic corpus of Yiddish with the approximately 1400 Slavic words in Albanian in this regard as well (see Ylli 1997).

4.7. The Khazar component in the language and ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews The volume of scholarly and popular literature on the Khazars over the last century and a half is enormous and in recent years shows no signs of abating. The subject of the Khazars and their putative descendants has long spilled beyond the traditional centers of East

514

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

European scholarship in Europe and America to attract Turkish and Iranian scholars (see Atabinen 1934; Togan 1946; Barimani 1947; Kuzgun 1985), as well as Arab anti-Israel polemicists ('Amära 1967; SäkTr 1981, 1984). The bulk of this literature has dealt with such questions as the ethnic roots of the Khazars (most of whom did not convert to Judaism, but remained animists, or adopted Islam and Christianity) and the fate of both the Judaized and non-Judaized Khazar communities after the collapse of their empire in the 10th century. Reconstructing the fate of the Judaized Khazars is difficult since in situ the term fell into disuse in the 11th century. The famous Arabic philosophical treatise of the Iberian Jehuda Halevi, Kitäb alhudza wa-l-dalTl β na§r ad-din ad-dalll c. 1140 (known better by its Hebrew title Hakuzari ("The Khazar", translated c.1170), makes reference to the name (see also reference to Lerner 1867 in paragraph 3 below); the travelogue of Ptaxija ben-Ja'akov of Regensburg in the late 12th century mentions the Khazars but not their conversion to Judaism (see Carmoly 1831: 12, fn 1). The ethnonym "Khazar" itself was last used in the 13th century by an Italian observer in regard to a North Caucasian population said to be practising Judaism (see Vasiliev 1936: v, 164, 178, 188, 196, Bartol'd 1968, and Magomedov 1983: 174). Once the term lost its raison d'etre as a political label after the fall of the Khazar empire, the mainly Turkic and Iranian populations merged with coterritorial and contiguous groups according to linguistic, ethnic and/or religious bonds; it was then that the Judaized Khazars merged with nonKhazar Jews and adopted the epithet of the latter. There was, thus, no further need for the label "Khazar". There are two major and three minor avenues of research available to us in searching for the descendants of the Khazar Jews: the major avenues are linguistics and toponymies. The two relatively weaker avenues of research are numismatics and history together with archaeology. A potentially promising avenue of research is genetics. 1. Linguistic evidence: Much attention has been paid to the collection of putative Khazarisms in languages with which the Khazars appear to have

The Khazar component

515

been in contact. By Khazar I mean a Turkic language, though clearly the Khazar empire was occupied by a variety of ethnic groups, e.g. Turkic, Iranian, Slavic and other, all of whom presumably had their own language. Some scholars speak of a minor Khazar impact (taking the form of both Turkic loans and Hebraisms in a non-Ashkenazic guise) on Karaite (the now obsolescent Kipchak Turkic language spoken by Karaites in the Crimea and in the Belarusian and Ukrainian lands), Byzantine Greek, ProtoBulgarian (Turkic), Balkar, Karacaj, Cuvas, Hungarian, Ossete and Yiddish (see Gombocz 1912: 199-201 [rejecting a Khazar source for Old Turkic words in Hungarian]; Grzegorzewski 1916-1918: 288; Samojloviö 1924; Moravcik 1931; Bruckus 1935: 102; A. Zaj^czkowski 1947: 58; Abaev 1949, 1958, 1: 73-79, 1973, 2: 603, Czegledy 1952: 81, 1953: 176-177; Harmatta 1953: 183; Dunlop 1954: 222; Benveniste 1956; Moskovic and Tukan 1980; Moskovich 1985: 90-91; Kuz'min-Jumanadi 1987; Wexler 1987a: 21, 26, 53, 146, 221-229; Veres 1996; Zeiden 1996, 1998; Sobolev 1998). Putative Khazar terms in other languages can reveal the historical areal of Khazar linguistic contacts, but not necessarily the fate of the Khazar Jews after the late 10th century, since the loans could predate the collapse of the Khazar Empire. The suggestion by Poljak that the Khazars spoke Gothic and that the latter is the basis for Yiddish (1951: 256-258; possibly he was influenced by claims in the 18th-19th centuries that speakers of "Gothic" were actually Hungarian and Polish Yiddish speakers, as noted by Vasiliev 1936: 275) and Snejder's claim that the Khazars spoke an Aramaicized dialect of Hebrew (1998: 383-393, cited in chapter 1) are both devoid of factual basis. By far the most reliable index of the fate of the Khazar Jews is the grammar of Yiddish, whose Kiev-Polessian imprint strongly suggests the existence of Slavic-speaking Jewries in parts of the former Khazar kingdom in close contact with West European Ashkenazic Jews. The important Kievan Khazar Hebrew document from the 10th century is instructive not only for its rare snipet of Khazar language in runic writing, but because it confirms the presence of Khazar Jews in Kiev in the mid 10th century (see Golb

516

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

and Pritsak 1982; Neubauer's claim that Turkic phrases in Old Hebrew documents, assuming we knew their provenience, might be Khazar speech, is unsubstantiated: 1866: 150). On the founding of Kiev by Khazars, see Pritsak (1955: 2), Boba (1967) and Golb and Pritsak (1982: 20, 50, 53,55). Eastern Slavic Jewish communities that predate the Ashkenazic emigration could only derive from a population of Khazar (and other) proselytes to Judaism between the 8th-10th centuries that may have merged with the small group of non-indigenous Jews who had originally introduced Judaism into the Khazar area. Future research should attempt to determine if and when Khazar and non-Khazar Jews merged; Nestor's Russian Primary Chronicle denotes the two groups in Kiev by different names but in the Vladimir-Suzdal' Principality for the year 1175 only Jews are mentioned (see Pinkus 1988: 4 and Paszkiewicz 1983: 93, respectively; the popular North European Karaite claim nowadays to a Khazar descent preserves the dichotomy of the two communities, Khazars/Karaites vs. Jews, though in my view, all East European Jews and Karaites are of Turkic extraction; see below). The Khazar Jews, speaking Turkic, Iranian and other languages, could have become fluent in Eastern Slavic as early as the 9th-10th centuries from contacts with the Slavs (see Kalinina [1999]). Curiously, the earliest mention of the Slavic term for 'German' (or perhaps in these earliest attestations, in the meaning of 'any foreigner'), nmc /nemec/ (~ Uk nimec' m, usually thought to derive from the native root for 'mute', but probably a Celtic tribal name; see Kronsteiner 1980, 1982), appears in a late 10th-century letter written in Hebrew by the Khazar king Josef to Hasdaj ibn Saprüt, the representative of the Caliph of Cordoba (see Golb and Pritsak 1982: 75-121 and Wexler 1987a: 160). This fact is important for two reasons: (i) It suggests that He 'askenaz, the customary term for 'German(s), German lands, Germany' in Medieval Hebrew, had not yet become the usual designation for Germans, German Jews and the German lands at that time (I assume that the habit of preferring biblical toponyms and ethnonyms over the actual appellatives of "new" people who came to the attention of the European Jews, like BibHe ''askenaz, which denoted an Iranian

The Khazar component

517

people, derived from the Byzantine Greeks; see Pritsak 1981: 4647). Indeed, in the Lezgian language spoken in southeast Daghestan and parts of north Azerbajdzhan, Caucasian Jews are called "Ashkenazic" (Czortkower 1933: 148, fn 1, citing Byhan 1926: 669). (ii) It reveals contact with Slavic speakers, though can tell little about the status or origin of Slavic in the Khazar empire, since the few attested Khazar Slavicisms, including the above term, are found in a number of languages, see e.g. pre-migration Hungarian, Byzantine Greek and Arabic, and thus might reflect either a common corpus or knowledge of Slavic (which at this time was acquiring the status of an international lingua franca) well beyond the Khazar community. A possible indirect clue to the knowledge of Slavic among Khazars is the appearance of ethnonyms in Arabic texts beginning with the 10th century with the suffix -in, see e.g. nämdzm 'Germans, Germany; northern Europeans' (see Marquart 1903) < Slavic (see e.g. Uk nimec' 'German' cited above). If -In was the Slavic masculine singulative suffix (see Uk -yn as in Uk musul 'manyn m ~ musul'manka f sg 'Muslim'), its appearance in Arabic documents could suggest a Turkic (Khazar?) intermediary (on the habit of denoting peoples by the singular number in Turkic languages, see Schütz 1977: 83). The singulative suffix is also found in Byzantine Greek forms of Slavic tribal names, see e.g. Gk dervleninoi pi (10th c) 'Derevljanians' < ESI *drevljanim>. On the use of Slavic by Khazars, see Marquart (1903: 192), Vernadsky (1940-1941: 74, 1946: 244-245, 330, 347, 1959: 94, 128), Menges (1951: 53), Stender-Pedersen (1953: 38-39-who also suggests that the Rus'-a mixed Slavic and Scandinavian population of traders and mercenary soldiers-used Khazar in their dealings with the Byzantine Greeks), Zaxoder (1962, 1: 40-citing the 10th-century Armenian writer Moses Kagankatvaci, 1967, 2: 152-153), Paszkiewicz (1963: 148citing Kowalski 1946: 51-52), Karaketov (1997), Serjakov (1997: 27-28, 52). The Catalan Jewish traveler to Central Europe in the second half of the 10th century, Ibrahim ibn Ja'qüb, included the Khazars in his list of speakers of Slavic (see Peisker 1905: 113, fn 2,

518

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

133). On the alleged Khazar use of the Cyrillic alphabet, see Lewicki (1954b), Zaxoder (1962,1: 162) and Ligeti (1981). I have already had occasion to mention four linguistic facts of Slavic origin that were never discussed before in the Yiddish linguistic literature, that revealed the historical contacts between Khazar Jews speaking Kiev-Polessian (and Turkic?) and Ashkenazic Sorbian Jews speaking Yiddish: (i) The gender assignment of Yiddish nouns (primarily of German origin) very often imitates that of the Sorbian, Belarusian and Ukrainian translation equivalents, (ii) The choice of German plural strategies and their distribution within Yiddish are suggestive of Slavic grammatical patterns (both Upper Sorbian and Eastern Slavic), (iii) The use of the plural marker ~(e)n with German nouns, often in violation of German norms, matches well the distribution of the pseudo-dual category in Belarusian and Ukrainian-twin heirs to Kiev-Polessian. (iv) A sizeable corpus of Eastern Slavisms in Yiddish dialects comes primarily from the southern Belarusian and northern Ukrainian dialects-precisely the territory of the original Kiev-Polessian dialect spoken up to the 15th century. While Eastern Yiddish dialects reveal Kiev-Polessian grammatical features that could not have entered the former via bilingual interference, there are almost no Altaic grammatical or phonological features in Yiddish (with the possible exception of the periphrastic construction for Hebrew verbal elements; see below), though some linguists suspect that Yiddish has a small corpus of lexical items of possibly Turkic and Iranian origin which cannot be ascribed to a non-Judeo-Slavic intermediary. These facts also support the hypothesis of contact between the descendants of the Khazar Jews-who by then were presumably Slavic-speaking-and Ashkenazic Jews. The geography of these lexical terms and the grammatical construction within Yiddish and other languages support the claim of a Khazar migration to Western Europe before the collapse of the Khazar Empire at the hands of Kievan Rus' in the late 10th century (M. Mieses 1924: 271 proposes that the Jews of Germany came from Italy, Hungary and the Balkans, but without noting that the latter two areas were populated by Judaized Turkic peoples). An

The Khazar component

519

open question is how long the Kiev-Polessian Jews retained fluency in a Turkic language. Several years ago I raised the possibility of a Turkic substratum that might have manifested itself in the stereotyped Ukrainian speech of Jews in Ukrainian plays (so-called "intermediaries") of the 17th-18th centuries; the chief feature of the Jewish Ukrainian speech was sibilant confusion, which could be ascribed to a Turkic language, though other explanations for the stereotyped speech come to mind (see details in Wexler 1987a: 192ff and 1994). The feature is also found sporadically in South Russian, but according to Kasatkin (1998), is of a late date, and thus would be irrelevant. Yiddish has a few Iranian words which are also attested in Eastern Slavic, but not always in the same form and meaning. This suggests that Yiddish could have acquired the terms through its own contacts with the relevant source languages and not indirectly through coterritorial Slavic intermediaries. Two variants of a single Iranianism are Br, UkY sabas 'tip given to a musician at a wedding by guests who participate in the dancing' and sibes (sibusim) m 'trifle; small coin' (the latter is spelled as if it were a Hebrew term but has not acquired the meaning of homophonous He sibusfimj m 'complication'). The first variant (but often with a meaning closer to that of the second variant) is found in non-Jewish languages extending from Russian in the east to Dutch slang in the west; in the area between Dutch and Polish, Hungarian it usually appears in a truncated form (for details, see Wexler 1987a: 64-69, 218 and 1993c: 108-110); the second variant is restricted to Yiddish. The meaning of Y sabas is identical to that of its etymon Pers säbäs (see also discussion of this word and of Y • kesene in MBeutel). My impression is that Y sabas is unknown in Polish Yiddish (see Wexler 1987a: 64-69). A second Iranianism is Y loks(n) m 'noodle', with close congeners in Br, Uk loksa, loksyna f and Pol lokszyn(a) m (f) (mentioned in chapter 4.5.4); the earliest mention of Y loks m is in a 16th-c Krakow text (Kosover 1958: 67; see also Kagarov 1928: columns 743-744). The term is also found in Czech, Slovak and Hungarian (in the latter as laska 'baked dough' [1516], a meaning also found in

520

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Slovak: see Kniezsa 1955, 1: 306-307), but unknown in South Slavic languages. The ultimate source seems to be Pers lakce, lakse (Karlowicz 1894-1905, 1: 355) or Turkic (Tatar) lakca {Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1990, 6: 29-30). Karlowicz (18941905, 1: 355) cites Pol lokszyna f, loksiny pit 'Jewish macaroni' as "provincial" (it is unclear if he means a noodle eaten only by Jews or a type of noodle attributed to Jews, and if he means the mixed Polish-Eastern Slavic areas of pre-World War II Poland; see also Prilucki 1923: 6 and Vasmer 1955, 2). In a similar vein, Brückner regards Pol tokszyny pi as a relatively late loan from Yiddish (1915: 144), a view echoed by Cyxun and Litvinowskaja (1995: 213). M. Mieses' suggestion that Y loksn m derived < It lasagne (1924: 239) has no basis. See also Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy (1990, 6) for further Belarusian variants, and Etymolohicny slovnyk ukrajins 'koji movy (1989, 3) for Ukrainian variants. If Yiddish acquired the term from Slavic, then I will need to explain the masculine gender (versus a feminine gender in the coterritorial Slavic languages) and the status of the nasal. Perhaps Uk loks(yn)a f > Y *loks(en)e, where the Eastern Slavic singulative infix was construed as the plural suffix (•)-«. Then * Y loks m might be a new singular back formation. If the Yiddish term was borrowed directly from a Turkic or Iranian language, I would have expected Y loks or *lokse, in which case (•)-« could have been added in Yiddish as a plural marker. A fact that lends some support to the argument that Yiddish acquired the term independently of Slavic is the unique meanings of the term in some Belarusian dialects, see e.g. Br (Hömel' district) loksa f 'sauce made from wheat flour; milk soup with starch' {Etimalahicny slownik belaruskaj movy 1990, 6: 29-30). Curiously, loksn pit is widely known in the (now extinct) Yiddish of Germany and Austria; it is unclear if the term spread westward along with the food or whether it should be regarded as a term of Sorbian Yiddish which never became extinct in the German lands, spreading even into historically non-Slavic areas (very much like EY mkojlec ~ WY mkowlec 'hallah, a twisted loaf of white bread eaten on the Sabbath or on holidays' ~ USo kolac m 'round baked goods'). The three Eastern Slavic languages have an additional

The Khazar component

521

variant, e.g. R, Br, Uk lapsa, which Vasmer also derived from the same Turkic source as ESI loksa f (1955, 2). This variant is not found in Yiddish. See also BrY loksn 'whip', on the model of Br lapsa f that has acquired this second meaning (Skljar 1933: 67). The Yiddish term may have survived, unrelexified, up to the present due to the ritual use of the food term among the Eastern Slavs, as e.g. in the Russian wedding and funeral rituals in the Kursk and Vladimir areas (see Filin 1980-1981, 16-17). If Nichols (1987) is correct that the Slavic term for 'werewolf is of Iranian origin, then Yiddish may have acquired (Iran) volkelak(es) m independently of the Slavic languages (see #Welt). Another possible Turkic or Iranian term (which I tentatively derived ultimately from Arabic) is Y dav(e)nen 'pray' (see ttbeten and Wexler 1987a: 61-64 and 1993c: 111; for a proposed Khazar etymology, see Zeiden 1996, 1998; on Arabisms in West Iranian languages, see Szemerenyi 1981). In chapters 3 and 4.1.2 (see #-er) I mentioned EY balemer m 'pulpit' < Ar 'alminbar, which has undergone a variety of deformations in Eastern and Western Yiddish, partly due to folk etymologies, a testimony to the ignorance of the source (see details in Herzog et al. 2000, 3, map #114). While M. Weinreich (1980: 394) derived the term from a Judeo-IberoRomance or Judeo-Arabic intermediary, which is conceivable through the medium of written Hebrew texts, I would also entertain the possibility of an acquisition via an Iranian or Turkic language from Eastern Arabic. Herzog et al. (2000, 3, map #114) give the remarkable rare variants in Western Yiddish territory halemer and (de)lemer, which suggest that speakers could recognize that common WY almemer contained Ar 'al- 'the', which they replaced by He ha- and Y di f 'the'. The atlas analyzes de- as a deformation of the feminine determiner, di, but der m might be a better source, given that the noun is masculine in all Yiddish dialects. Knowledge of Ar 'al- would imply that the deformations are old and that 'invariants were once known in Eastern Yiddish (they are not now)having diffused from Khazaria. The Turkic custom of naming boys born on a holiday by the name of the holiday itself is found in Yiddish in the first name Apejsex (< He pesah m 'Passover') and

522

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

the rare (now family) name kxaneke (< He hanükkäh f 'Hannukah'); neither name is found in the medieval western German lands, nor in Judeo-Romance languages. The earliest attestation of the two male names is in the 10th-century Khazar Hebrew document studied by Golb and Pritsak (1982; see details on these and other names in Wexler 1987a: 54, 74-78 and 1993c: 136140). If Y mcvorex(c) ~ msvorex(c) ~ mtvore(x) 'cottage cheese' is indeed of Iranian or other Asian origin, it could be added to the present list (see disscussion in chapters 3,4.1). A curious word of possible Turko-Iranian origin is prakes pit 'stuffed cabbage', found in Rumanian and Ukrainian Yiddish as far north as Ovruc in the northern corner of the Zytomyr oblast' and Dubrovyca in the northern part of the Rivne oblast', both points bordering on Belarus' (see Herzog et al. 2000, 3: 298; elsewhere Yiddish dialects have reflexes of Uk holubci pit). On the surface, the Yiddish term looks like a syncopated form of Tu yaprak dolmasi or yaprak sarmasi 'stuffed vine leaves, vegetables' (< yaprak 'leaf). The problem is that no Slavic languages, including Balkan Slavic and Rumanian, appear to have the Turkish word for 'leaf, which is the etymon proposed by Herzog et al. (2000, 3) via a Slavic intermediary (see instead Bg särmi, Rum sarmale for the food < Tu). While it is conceivable that the Turkism could have diffused only to Yiddish (see Y pecajj], pece as far west as NW Belarusian Yiddish < Rum pifea < Tu ραςα 'jellied meat dish made from the leg of an animal', not used in Eastern Slavic), Y prakes may, alternatively, be a deformation of Pers berg 'leaf, attested in Ottoman Turkish as barg, or synonymous Ar waraq ('awräq pi) There is no sign of initial ^-dropping before a in Turkish. As I indicated in chapter 4, Eastern Yiddish dialects have a periphrastic conjugation reserved almost solely for the integration of Hebrew verbal material. The construction consists of an indeclinable Hebrew masculine singular participle (active or passive voice) and a Yiddish auxiliary (e.g. zajn 'be', vern 'become'), see e.g. Y • bojdek zajn 'inspect' (< He bödeq m sg part 'inspecting, he inspects': see Y Abatkenen below). The Hebrew participle, which is inflected for number and gender in the source language, becomes V

The Khazar component

523

indeclinable in Yiddish; only the masculine singular form can be taken by Yiddish. There are three striking facts about this construction: a. It is extremely rare in Western (German) Yiddish dialects, and is altogether unknown in German Rotwelsch lexicons which feed on Western Yiddish; Western Yiddish and Rotwelsch prefer to conjugate Hebrew roots non-periphrastically, like German and Slavic components. The non-periphrastic conjugation is also possible in Eastern Yiddish, but is rare and often pejorative, see e.g. • mastin zajn 'urinate' vs. • mastinen 'to piss' < He mastin m sg part 'he urinates, urinating'. Non-Hebrew elements are rarely integrated in the Yiddish periphrastic conjugation. b. Analogous periphrastic constructions are also found with Arabic (and many other) elements in a wide variety of languages spoken predominantly by Muslims, see e.g. Turkic, Iranian, Indie languages and Chinese (specifically Dungan, spoken by Muslims; for details, see Wexler 1971, 1980a, 1980c). Two major differences between the Yiddish and Islamic periphrastic conjugations are (i) that in the latter Arabic nominal stems are also integrated periphrastically, which is not the case with Hebraisms in Yiddish, see e.g. Pers te 'lim kerden, Tu tälim etmek 'teach' (< Ar 'teaching' + Pers, Tu 'make') but E, WY Lganvenen 'steal' (< Y Lganef [ganovim] m < He gannäv 'thief), and (ii) in the Islamic languages the conjugation of the auxiliary verbs is identical to that of the homophonous verbs, while in Yiddish the past tense of zajn 'be' is bin geven 'have been, was' but in periphrastic verbs is hob gehot, see e.g. ix bin mojxl Ί forgive' > ix hob mojxl gehot Ί forgave'. c. The periphrastic construction is also found with Hebrew verbal elements in Karaite, in 17th-century Judeo-Eastern Slavic fragments (see Wexler 1987a: 98-99) and in Eastern Mediterranean JudeoSpanish (< Ottoman Turkish?: see Wexler 1996a: 167).

524

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

The geography of the periphrastic construction for Semitic verbal elements both within and outside Yiddish leads me to suspect that the Eastern Yiddish periphrastic conjugation may have been acquired through contact with speakers of Kiev-Polessian whose ancestors once spoke Turkic and Iranian languages. The rarer non-periphrastic integration of Hebrew material in Yiddish (based on the 3rd person pi past tense form) involves the linking morpheme kjm-en- (< He -an m sg ag + < Slavic verbal noun suffix) before the G inf -en can be attached, see e.g. Y batkenen JL/M'inspect slaughtered animals for impurities' < He bädqü 'they inspected + kjm-en- infix + -en inf; see Y Abojdek zajn 'inspect' above); the Yiddish practice of nominalizing the Hebrew stem by means of kjw-en- has a parallel in Karaite (involving also native noun stems, see Pritsak 1959: 330; Dubmski 1994: 147), and may also be motivated by a Turkic substratal grammar. The only linguistic argument against a Khazar substratum in Yiddish that I know of was tendered by Faber and King (1984; since repeated by Snejder 1998: 386, 389), who pointed out that Yiddish lacks Altaic linguistic features such as vowel harmony, subjectobject-verb order and any Altaic vocabulary (as I suggested above, there may be a minute Turkic component, not shared by the coterritorial Eastern Slavic languages and Polish). Their argument is misplaced, since there does not need to be a significant Turkic substratum in Eastern European Yiddish, if by the time of the second relexification phase, the descendants of the Khazars were speakers of Kiev-Polessian. Faber and King do not discuss any of the linguistic claims raised here. A potential clue to the approximate western-most boundary of a Slavo-Khazar presence might be gleaned from the distribution of Hebrew loans in East Slavic and Polish (and occasionally also Yiddish) which lack a distinctly Yiddish imprint. An example attested in Belarusian and Ukrainian since the 16th century is He bähür 'boy' > Y Lboxer m-with a rounded vowel in the first syllable and initial stress (see details in chapter 3.1). The unrounded vowel in the first syllable and frequently final stress in many Slavic reflexes suggests a non-Yiddish, possibly Khazar, source for this

The Khazar component

525

Hebraism in the Slavic languages (but not in Yiddish). Polish, Czech and German dialects also have the Hebraism, but with a rounded vowel in the first syllable, belying a Yiddish source. See also He qähäl 'community' > Y köl ~ kui A'Jewish community' vs. Br dial kahäl 'noisy crowd' (WBrjansk: Rastorguev 1973: 127) 'group of people; relatives; center of a village' (Brest: Aljaxnovic et al. 1989), Uk Polessian dial 'flock of birds' (Lysenko 1974), R Don dial kahal(aj 'band, horde' (Filin 1976, 2), R Krasnodar dial kagal(a) 'family with many children' (Filin 1977, 12), Volhynian Uk dial (argot of tailors) parnds m 'Pole; soldier; neighbor; husband; uncle; policeman; lad' < He parnäs 'one of the elected heads of the Jewish community' (Dzendzelivs'kyj 1986: 73) vs. Y Lpärnes (parnejsim ~ parnosim) m; see also discussion of Y ta'arebret f 'bier' in #Bahre. He sammäs 'synagogue sexton' surfaces in Yiddish as • sames; the latter is probably the source of the metathesized Pol samasz (17th c), but is unlikely to be the source of R somas m. Indeed, Dal' observes convincingly that the Russian Hebraism must be derived from the Karaite pronunciation samas, and not from Y • sames (1903-1909). See also discussion of He kappäräh and hämän in Wexler (1987a) and discussion of OR zamra in ##Musik. Some Ashkenazic family names based on Hebrew proper nouns and Slavic suffixes also have a non-Ashkenazic shape. Hebraisms such as Lmagidin (lit. 'preacher'), Ajakirevic (vs. expected Y maged, *joker- < OHe mägid 'announcer, one who brings news', jäqJr 'dear') are presumably of non- or pre-(?)Ashkenazic origin (the examples are from Rabinovic 1993: 117). As family names, these examples cannot be very old since family names probably date only to the late 18th century, but the personal names from which they are derived are old. Whereas Unbegaun derives the Jewish family name χαζάη(ον) < Y Axazn (xazonim) m 'cantor' (1972: 344), a non-Ashkenazic reading norm such as kxazän makes more sense. A particularly intriguing example is the Jewish family name kagan (with various suffixes, and always with non-initial stress). Unbegaun derives the name from He kohen m 'priest' (1972: 344). A Hebrew

526

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

etymon is appropriate for Y kogan (also with various suffixes); see also Y • kojen(-im ~ kehanim) m 'priest in ancient Palestine'. A more plausible etymon for Y kagan, etc. would seem to be the rare OR kagant, koganb, the title of a Rus' ruler attested between the 9th-11th centuries (see Marquart 1903: 200, 202; Doerfer 1967: 172-173; Golden 1982: 81-82; Moravcsik 1983: 148-149, 157-158, 332-334; Rona-Tas 1999: 38-39) < Khazar qagan, denoting the 'Khazar emperor', an office which bore certain religious and shamanic aspects (see Göckenjan 1972: 29; Golden 1982: 84-85). The Turkic term is attested in many languages (for details, see Menges 1951: 32-35; Doerfer 1967), including 10th-century Hebrew (kgn /kagan/: Golden 1980, 1: 193). The shamanic religious connotations associated with the Khazar title would have facilitated either retention of the title, or its replacement by a similar-sounding Hebraism after conversion to Judaism, either kohen 'priest' or Medieval He häxäm 'learned person; title for a rabbi in a number of non-Ashkenazic communities' (see Kar haxan 'communal leader' cited by A. Zaj^czkowski 1935: 219, 1961a: 71 and Brinner 1989: 72, fn 29, and KarHe gaxan [purposefully Turkicized?] attested in the 19th century: see Miller 1993: 61; the Karaite forms are also reminiscent of Ar xäqän, also from Khazar, found in 10th-century Arabic accounts: see Togan 1939: 296). The Ukrainian family name kaganec cited in the Cernihiv area (not necessarily borne by Jews) by Nikonov 1993: 48 (but not by Unbegaun 1972) is probably from Uk kahanec'm 'small lamp; candelabrum' (Beider 1993: 282 cites variants in Mahilew and Hömel' in east and southeast Belarus'; Bilec'kyj-Nosenko derives the name from kagan 'Khazar king': 1966: 176). Beider's dictionaries of East European Jewish family names give some indication of the geography of the variants; significantly, kagan(-) variants are particularly well attested in the Belarusian, Volhynian and Kiev areas (the core areas of Kievan Rus') vs. the variants kogen(-), typical of southern Ukraine and Bessarabia (1993: 17-18, 282, 323; for other variants of the name, see Narumi 1983 and Nikonov 1993). Jewish family names based on kagan(-), kogen(-), etc. are much rarer to the west, in Polish territory (see Beider 1996). However, Beider follows Unbegaun (1972) in

The Khazar component

527

deriving kagan exclusively < He hohen, and the family name kagangon (found in Lityn, Ukraine) < Medieval He hohen gäon, lit. 'priest-genius' Y Agoen [geojnim] m). He assumes the compound name designated an eminent rabbinical scholar, but no rabbinical scholar would be called an "ancient priest". The term is better derived from the Khazar politico-religious title. To the best of my knowledge, only Tugendhold (1848: 33), Krasnosselsky (1912: 23) and Poljak (1951: 266) have equated "chahan" with He "hahan"/hohen, and Snejder follows suit (1998: 276, 369-370). An early 10th-century Khazar Hebrew document from Kiev records the name Gwstata bar Kiabar Köhen, which Pritsak explained as a Jew who was a member of the political clan Gostan, and the ruling Khazar tribe (Kabar) with the hereditary ancient Hebrew title of hohen replacing the Khazar title that marked the bearer of the name as a medicine man and rainmaker who had now become Jewish (1979: 15; 1981:69). A weakness in my hypothesis is the absence of examples of the sobriquet kagan predating the acquisition of surnames, but this may be due to the paucity of data before the early 19th century. On East Slavic placenames derived from this root, see Tupikov (1989: 186187) and toponyms below. I am unable to verify von Kutschera's claim that Polish Jews in Moldavia (sic!) called their rabbi by the title kagan (1910: 261). (One final thought: Petruxin, noting that fighters portrayed on a Khazar drinking horn had either a braid or long hair, remarks that a braid was traditional for Turkic warriors, while only the qagan had the right to have long hair [1992: 398]. The question of whether Khazar hair styles had any connection with the East European Orthodox Jewish male practice of growing ritual sidelocks needs further study. In an earlier discussion [1993c: 168169], I assumed that the Jewish sidelocks, unattested before the Middle Ages [Yiddish denotes the sidelocks by the term ±(?)pejes pi] had an immediate parallel in pre-Christian Slavic practice.) For possible Russian names of Khazar origin, see Baskakov (1979) under Kacar-Kagan, Kazarinov and Kozarskij. Poljak's suggestion that some Ashkenazic family names traditionally derived from German toponyms were actually Turkic (including

528

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

Khazar) personal names, see e.g. (h)alperin, etc. (1951: 262-266) should not be rejected out of hand. Beider (1993) derives the name from the German town Heilbronn, but also cites variants which suggest a possible Turkic name (alper was Poljak's suggestion), see e.g. gal'per in Trakai, a major Karaite center near Vilnius, and gal'perin with the SI matronymic suffix (see e.g. the family name Y rivkin 'son of Rivke' < rivke f name + -in 'belonging to'), predominantly in neighboring Vilnius, Bialystok and Hrodna, all in Belarusian ethnic territory. On a possible (additional) Slavic origin of Ashkenazic family names like AImlevi, A/mlevin, ordinarily interpreted as He 'Levite', see Wexler (1993c: 209). An interesting topic that requires further study is the possibility that Slavic terms that label Jewish holidays and institutions may have spread from East to West Slavic, see e.g. OR bozbnica, originally 'Christian church' > 'non-native church' > 'synagogue' or Pol kuczki 'Feast of the Tabernacles (Sukkot)', attested since 1431 and probably of Ukrainian origin (see Lucic-Fedorec 1969: 204-205 and Moszyήski 1992: 116, 118, though the possibility that the Old Russian term originally denoted a non-Christian church is suggested by a passage in the Povest' vremennyx let or Nestor Chronicle preserved in the Codex Hypatianus under the year 1146; see Stender-Petersen 1953: 142). This would lend support to the hypothesis that the Slavicized descendants of the Khazar Jews migrated north and westward primarily (see more on this below). The Polish authorities were keen on inviting Armenians, Germans and Jews into eastern Galicia in the 13th century to repopulate areas devastated by the Mongolians/Tatars (Deny 1957: 10), but it is unclear if migration from the east was also encouraged. It stands to reason that most Slavic terms for Jewish artefacts would be for the most part Judeo-Slavic innovations (see Wexler 1987a: 124-128), though the use of the root 'God' (the basis of OR bozbnica) to denote 'synagogue' is not widely attested in Jewish languages; European Jewish languages prefer to denote the structure either by the roots 'school' (e.g. SI skola or Y sul ~ sil f < JGk sxole) or 'pray' (e.g. Georgian salocavi, JAr §ja\ for details, see Wexler 1981c). Other compounds with 'God' in East Slavic languages

The Khazar component

529

which are attested among the Jews are Uk bohomillja 'phylacteries', Vicebsk Br bohomolennemb inst sg 'synagogue' ~ JBr (Barysaw) bogomoliem inst sg 'phylacteries' (see details in Wexler 1987a: 128129,133-134). See also discussion in chapter 4.6. Finally, there is some evidence that Ashkenazic Jews may have retained a reference to their Khazar origins; e.g. Rawita-Gawnmski notes that Warsaw Jews (and perhaps others) called Lithuanian (Belarusian) and Russian Jews by the contemptuous term chazery, which he glossed as 'pigs' (see Y • xazer [xazejrim] 'pig' < He häzir m). He explicitly rejects the etyma "Khazars" and He h-z-r 'return' ([n.d.]:3). (The plural Lxazejrim may be relatively new, to judge from the lack of initial consonant cluster, as in Y xosed [xsidim] m A'Hasidic Jew'.) Yet, only the etymon "Khazar" would make any sense here. Furthermore, the Lithuanian Karaites do not refer to the Ashkenazic Jews as "Ashkenazim", the self-epithet in vogue among Yiddish speakers. Rather, they apply this Biblical ethnonym (from Jeremiah 51: 27, where it originally referred to an Iranian people and much later, designated both Slavs and Germans in the 11th century, and the Germans and German Jews uniquely in the 13th century) to Germans; the Karaite designation for 'Jews' is rabban (< 'rabbi'), though in Halyc, the term cufut (< Persian) is also encountered (Wl. Zaj^czkowski 1976: 259). The Yiddish use of He 'askenaz in the new meanings of 'Germany, Germans, German Jews' (and their alleged progeny in Eastern Europe), as well as the Karaite practice, suggest that there may have been a time when the Ashkenazic Jews did not regard themselves as originating in the German lands (see above, as well as Wexler 1993c: 48, 1996a: 7576 and chapter 1 above). On the possibility that some of the Hebrew letters on Hungarian coins from the 13th century represent the names of Khazar Jewish minters, see Göckenjan (1972: 53-55, 58, 61, 66-68, 75, 141; see also below). Among Crimean Karaites, a dark halvah known as xazar xalvasy 'Khazar halvah' is eaten on days of mourning (Dubmski 1994: 58).

530

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

2. Toponymic evidence: It is possible to identity placenames thought to be associated with Khazar tribes on a broad territory encompassing Hungary, Serbia, Rumania, Poland, Moravia, Slovakia, Ukraine, southern Russia and Austria (see Gombocz 1912: 198, fn 1; Göckenjan 1972: 27, 40-44, 46, 55, 69, 84, 164, 236; Erdelyi 1983; Lewicki 1988; Sobolev 1998: 175 and references below). Some of these Khazar communities presumably developed in the west prior to the collapse of the Khazar Empire in the late 10th century, as participants in the international trade routes linking Bavaria with Khazaria (Nazarenko 1988) or as allies of the Hungarians in their westward migration (Lazar 1913; Halevy 1957). (Might the fact that mainly the central and northwestern areas of Kievan Rus' carried on an active foreign trade with the Islamic world be a reflection of Khazar settlement there in the 9th-10th centuries: see Golden 1991: 88 and Noonan 1991: 105-106?) The sacking of Kiev in 1169 by Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij of Rostov-Suzdal' (and the transfer of the capital of Kievan Rus' from Kiev to Vladimir) and the Mongolian/Tatar invasion of 1240 led to the precipitous decline of the city and its hinterland. As a consequence, large numbers of Slavs are believed to have migrated to the north and northeast, into present-day Russian territory after 1169, and into the immediately adjacent southwestern and western lands after 1240 (Artamonov 1962 gives references to these migrations). For suggestions of possible Khazar place names from Kiev and the Kiev district, see Zakrevskij (1868: 311-315); Bruckus (1924: 20; 1933 [the latter publication was rightly criticized by de Baumgarten 1939 and A. Zaj^czkowski 1947: 18-19], 1944: 112, 114, 118, 123); Vernadsky (1939: 202, 1959: 333); Golb and Pritsak (1982: 55-59); Pritsak (1988: 8, 12); Petruxin (1997: 213); for Belarus', see Rapanovic (1981, 1982); for the Caucasus, see Togan (1939: 309). Shevelov has suggested that Khazars settled in the Cernihiv principality (in Kiev-Polessian territory) after the destruction of their empire (1979: 211; see also de Baumgarten 1939: 69; Bruckus 1939: 22 and Petruxin 1992: 398-399, and the mention of a Jew named Isa of Cernihiv in the late 12th or early 13th century: Pritsak 1988: 9). I

The Khazar component

531

wonder if the Jews mentioned in a Rus'ian source of 1175 in the Vladimir-Suzdal' principality arrived there together with a documented influx of Slavs from Öernihiv (which is several hundred kilometers to the south; see Paszkiewicz 1983: 93, citing Nestor's Povest' vremennyx let 12th c: see Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor [1953]). Bruckus adds that Khazars migrated from Volhynia and Halyc (Ukraine) into Lithuania and Belarus' (1939: 30; see also Siper 1914: 105 and Visnicer 1914: 27). On the Khazar origin of the name of the Russian city Caricyn (later renamed Stalingrad and Volgograd), see Trubacev (1997: 73-77). On the alleged Khazar origins of the Polish Jews, see Gumplowicz (1903). For Hungarian data, see Kiss (1970: 347) (citing Györffy 1960, 1963); for Poland, see Slownik geograficzny (1882, 3: 916-917); Baiaban (1920, 3: 257); Altbauer (1961, 1991: 14); Lewicki (1988, with additional valuable bibliography) and the discussion in Ubegraben. On possible Austrian placenames derived from the roots 'Jew' and 'Avar', see Grunwald (1973); Kronsteiner (1978: 154); Mader (1986: 42, 67, 112); Nazarenko (1994: 27); Wexler (1997d: 61). A discussion of putative place names derived from 'Jew' and 'Khazar' may also be found in Berlin (1919: 150), Golden (1980) and Vixnoviö (1997: 56-57). Eastern Slavic toponyms and hydronyms with kazar-, kozar-, kozor-, kozyr- and xozar- listed in Miklosich (1874: 46) and Vasmer (1962-1981, 1960-1973), deserve to be checked for Khazar connections (see also Marr [1926] 1935: 351-352, 367, 370, [1930] 1935: 404). Xajnman (1983: 10-11, 15, 18-19) has unconvincingly derived ESI rus' < He rasa' 'evil', allegedly used to denote a Jew who embraced paganism. In her view, the name was applied to the pagan merchant-warriors (largely of Jewish origin) who allegedly contributed to the establishment of the Kievan Rus' state in the 9th century and Rus' (Ukrainian) ethnogenesis (she also derives the names of the Dnepr river falls, recorded in Old Scandinavian and Slavic, from Hebrew: see Xajnman 1983: 46-49). If Pritsak is right that the origin of the city name Uk Kyjiv is East Iranian (see references above), then the question arises as to whether the appearance of variant forms of the root in other Slavic territories

532

Evidence for two-tiered

relexification

(see Zeleznjak 1993, as well as Nestor 12th century [1901: 22], Brajöevs'kyj 1963 and Xajnman 1983: 63) is also a reflection of Khazar migrations. Also in favor of an Indo-Iranian etymon for Uk Kyjiv is Lozinski (1963). Lehr-Splawmski has specifically rejected Lozinski's claims, adding that R kujava m 'messy person' is unlikely to be related (1965, a view also argued by Vasmer 1953-1958). R kujava m may actually offer support for Pritsak and Lozinski, since pejorative terms are often derived from discarded ethnonyms (see also R dial duleb 'fool, simpleton' < OR dulebi pi, the name of an East Slavic tribe in Volhynia: Vasmer 1953-1958). One of LehrSplawmski objections was that Lozinski's claim that members of the East Slavic Poljane tribe migrated from Rus' to Poland lacked historical support; if the placename Kiev has cognates in Polish toponyms, the reason may be the migration of Khazars rather than East Slavs (Lozinski makes no mention of the Khazars). Trubacev also rejects a non-Slavic etymon for Uk Kyjiv (1997: 56). On the unfounded claim that Lvov was founded by Khazars, see Caro (1894: 1-3,5). A problem with toponymic data derived from the ethnonym "Khazar" is that the latter may not have always been used to refer uniquely to Jewish proselytes, but became a collective name of several peoples that included Iranians and possibly even Bulgars (see Poljak 1964: 43-47; Chekin 1994: 37; Lunt 1995: 343, fn 33). In an Eastern Slavic document of 1083, the term Khazar is used anachronistically to denote another Turkic group, the Polovcians (Minorsky 1958: 142), while in Nestor's Russian Primary Chronicle (the earliest attestation of which dates to the 12th century), the Khazars are called Khvalisians (Halevy 1957: 98; Mazon denied the very existence of such a people: 1929). Halasi-Kun observes that Hg kazär did not have a strict ethnic meaning so that not all settlements with this name (now a pejorative term for 'Jew') should automatically be attributed to Khazars (1975: 157, 162-163). Barac has suggested that the term Khazar in the Life of Constantine (9th century) refers to inhabitants of Kievan Rus' since the latter was under Khazar control (1927, 1/2: 836; see also 486).

The Khazar component

533

As Heather points out in a discussion of "disappearing" ethnic groups, it is extremely difficult to uncover past ethnic configurations without historical group narratives which relate how the group in question acted when faced with outside stimuli. Such historical folk narratives are important, not just in understanding ethnic composition, but in gauging whether ethnic identity was a key determinant of the behavior of any given set of individuals (1998: 111). Unfortunately, Ashkenazic legends of origin make no mention of Khazars (see Weinryb 1962 and Bar-Itzhak 1996). Possibly the Khazars "disappeared" with the obsolescence of their Turkic name(s) following their assimilation with Slavic-speaking Jews, or by a shift to Slavic language and culture in the Kiev-Polessian lands. For example, Kniezsa notes that Hg paloc, the name of a Hungarian tribe in Upper Hungary (1683) < SI plavbcb 'Cuman' (1955; see OR polovb 'pale gold': Vasmer 1955, 2), i.e. a Turkic ethnonym/tribe, assumed a "Hungarian" identity (for a parallel, see the variety of meanings associated historically with the term vlax in Bulgarian and other Balkan languages, discussed in Wexler 1997b: 165-171). When ethnic terms shift among linguistically and/or ethnically related groups, reconstruction becomes particularly cumbersome, see e.g. the northward transfer of the East Slavic term Rus' from its pre-Ukrainian (Kiev-Polessian) context to the ancestors of the Russians. On the "disappearance" of the (partly Judaized) Avars through merging with the Slavs before the arrival of the Hungarians in Hungary, see Rona-Tas (1997: 247); on the migration of Judaized Kabars (Khazars) to 9th-century Hungary and their survival as a group as late as the 11th century, see Gyoni (1938); Tolstov (1948: 230); Schönebaum (1957: 145). See also discussion of the Khazar tribal name kabar in ttbegraben. 3. Numismatic evidence: It may also be possible to recover information about Khazar settlement and migration patterns from the geography of Khazar cultural influences on non-Khazar societies. I have in mind specifically the geographical distribution of Turkic clan marks (e.g. the bident and trident to indicate the ruler issuing the coin) and Old

534

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Norse runes on some 10th-12th-century Kievan Rusian coins as well as Arabic graffito inscriptions on some 8th-9th-century Arabic coins. The Old Norse graffiti on Kievan Rusian coins consist of letters (which represent the name of a rune) and words with magic or cultic meaning; according to Pritsak, these graffiti have their roots in Arabic letters found on Arabic dirhams (1998: 62-65). If Khazars indeed passed on an original Arabic practice to Rus' coin makers, then we have a rough means of reconstructing cultural contacts, which, in turn, may have been accompanied by Khazar settlements (see also Bykov 1974). Future research should explore wherther the use of individual Hebrew letters ( k , m, p, f, x) on Hungarian coins minted by Istvän V and Bela IV in the 13th century are also a continuation of Khazar practice and not the initials of Jewish mintmakers, as is customarily maintained (see e.g. Frojimovics et al. 1999: 4; see also Göckenjan, cited above); for Hebrew letters and abbreviations on Polish coins of the 12th-13th centuries, see Gumowski (1975, who makes no mention of a possible Khazar influence). 4. Historical and archaeological evidence: Historians have sought to uncover a putative Khazar impact on other Jewish and non-Jewish ethnic groups, as well as a Khazar role in the dissemination of Judaism. The findings suggested by these studies are less useful than the linguistic data since they are mainly hypotheses that, while often plausible, are difficult to evaluate. While archaeology is important in uncovering the role of the Khazars in East European history in the steppes of Daghestan, Ceöeno-Ingusetia and the lower Volga (see Artamonov 1936: vii), it is of little use in tracking the fate of Judaized Khazars after the 10th century, especially outside the Eastern Slavic lands. Khazar descendants have been postulated for a number of contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish communities: the Daghestani Tats, Crimean Krymöaki and Bukharian (Tadjik-speaking) Jews (see Bruckus 1927, 1933, 1937: 42, 1939: 30; also on Daghestanian Jews, see Baron 1964, 3: 208). This is the reverse of the view put forward by Novosel'cev that the Khazar Jews came from Daghestan

The Khazar component

535

(1990: 152, fn 667). The Khazars are also said to have been both absorbed by, as well as descended from, Karaites, a Judaic sect that denies the authority of the Talmud; the Karaites in the Russian Empire were speakers of a Turkic language, Karaite (see Samojlovic 1924; Bruckus 1938; A. Zaj^czkowski 1947: 62, 1961a, 1961b; Szyszman 1957: 174; Ankori 1959: 65; Kramer 1983; Faber and King 1984: 412; Erdal [1999]). The claim of European Karaites to be of Khazar origin dates from the 19th century (see Zaveryaev [1999]); this is a view also maintained by some non-Karaites and is a far ciy from the anti-Khazar attitude of Karaite writers in the 10th11th centuries (Ankori 1959: 70; see discussion in Dachkevytch 1982: 361, 365, 369, 376, 396). The Karaite-Khazar links are weakened by the chronology of Karaite settlement in the Crimea, e.g. in Cufut-Kale not before the 14th century and in Mangup not before the 15th century (see Ezer [1999]), but our information may be fragmentary (see also above). The Karaites have also been regarded as the descendants of Cumans (Polovcians) who were Judaized in the 12th century (Lewicki 1984). Lerner (1867: 21) alone posits a Khazar emigration to Spain. Other successor groups to the Khazars are said to include Muslims in Daghestan, e.g. Cumans, Pechenegs (see Magomedov 1983: 173-174, Faber and King 1984: 412 [citing Krueger 1961: 8] and Menges 1968: 32) and Hungarians (see Hunfalvy 1877: 218 [cited by Wiener 1910-1911: 84]; Ligeti 1927, 1986; Macartney 1930; Gyoni 1938; Baron 1964, 3: 212; D^browska 1979: 164; Ratobyl'skaja 1993: 63; Rona-Tas 1997). The Hungarian-Khazar connection has spawned the hypothesis that Hg zsido 'Jew' was acquired by Hungarians from Khazars or Eastern Slavs in the proto-homeland of the Hungarians prior to their westward migration (see Bälint 1989: fn 490, but Benkö 1967-1984: 1217-1218 has doubts; note also the discussion above on the knowledge of Slavic among Khazars). Posselt sees Khazar ancestors among the Ashkenazic, Afghan, Bukharian and Chinese Jews, Karaites and Szeklers in Transylvania (1982; on the latter, who are attested only since the 16th century, see also Godbey 1930: 370-371, 389 and Lotter 1997: 164). Also the Ukrainian Cossacks have been derived from the Khazars in late 17th-century

536

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

Ukrainian historical accounts (see Hrabjanka 1854; Lutsenko 1990: xxii-xxvi; Hrushevsky 1997: 53); Ewers, citing medieval Arabic sources, goes still further to suggest that the "Russians" (i.e. Rusians or pre-Ukrainians) are related to the Khazars (1814: 104, 106, 316, though elsewhere he distinguishes between "Khazars" and "Slavic Russians": 1814: 315; see also Nikolaenko 1991:103). For the suggestion that many Russians are descended from Jews, see Duchmski (1901, 1: 149) and Xajnman (1983). On the suggestion that the liturgy of the Romaniote (Greekspeaking) Jews in the Balkans shows affinities with that of the Khazars, see Gershenson (1996: 85, referring to the materials studied by Golb and Pritsak 1982). On the proselytizing activities of Khazar Jews in Kiev in the 11th century, which allegedly incurred the wrath of church officials, see Trubetzkoj (1973: 120). Historians have suggested variously that the Jews who brought Judaism to the Khazar lands were of Byzantine, Iraqi, Iranian and Caucasian extraction (see Bruckus 1937: 41; Dunlop 1954: 45, fn 25, 89; Lewicki 1984: 36-9; see also Bihari 1969: 161). However, Chekin is right to caution that the presence of an important Jewish community in the Khazar lands or in Kievan Rus' after the collapse of the Khazar state is not a prerequisite to the presence and spread of Judaism in the latter regions (1994: 37). On Khazar religious and cultural influences in non-Jewish societies, see Zlatarski (1927: 6566); Obolensky (1948: 83, fn 1) and Zakiev and Kuz'min-Jumanadi (1993: 69). For the suggestion that Sabbatean sects derived from the Khazars, see Slouschz (1909: 75). On forms of Judaic-paganZoroastrian syncretism, see Tolstov (1948: 225-226, 230). On possible Khazar-East Slavic literary connections, see the references given in chapter 1. Most scholars are sceptical about the hypothesis (that has its roots in the late 19th century) that the Khazars became a major component in the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews when the latter emigrated from Germany to Poland (13th century), Belarus' and Ukraine (beginning with the 15th century), and, hence, are reluctant to pursue the search for the possible descendants of the Khazars (see Ankori 1979; Golb and Pritsak 1982: xv; Faber and

The Khazar component

537

King 1984: 410-411; Simonsohn 1997). Enthusiastic supporters of the theory of a Khazar component in the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews include Gumplowicz (1903), von Kutschera (1910), Bruckus (in all his works), Koestler (1976) and Sobolev (1998) (with rich literature). While a few scholars entertain the possibility of a minor Khazar component in the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis (e.g. Siper 1932: 21-22; Harshav 1990: 5-6), still fewer cautiously call for further research (Barthold and Golden 1978: 1179). There are three reasons for the widespread scepticism about a Khazar contribution to the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews: a. Most writers who have supported the Ashkenazic-Khazar hypothesis have not argued their claims in a convincing manner. For example, Bruckus' support of the Khazar-Ashkenazic nexus could hardly be convincing when the author wrote glibly, and often without any supporting evidence, that "...not only [were Rus'] administration, army, and laws...founded on Khazar tradition, but even religion, agriculture, handicrafts, and arts came from the East through the hands of the Khazars" (1944: 124). More recently, Koestler, who popularized the hypothesis in 1976, presented an unoriginal synthesis that was based entirely on impressionistic and inconclusive non-linguistic data (taken from Poljak 1951). Adding to the disreputability of the hypothesis is its espousal by Arab antiIsrael polemicists (see 'Amära 1967; Säklr 1981, 1984). Nevertheless, a bad defense does not necessarily make for a bad hypothesis, as Fridman noted in his critique of Poljak (1951) (1952: 300): "Poljak's book is...full of erudition...his sense of large historical perspectives have brought him to a series of very original interpretations which could have revolutionized our science, had they had a more concrete and solid foundation". The opponents of the Khazar-Ashkenazic nexus are no less guilty of empty polemics and unconvincing arguments. For one example, Weinryb argued that the East European Jews must have been primarily of German and Bohemian rather than Khazar extraction, on the grounds that Western European rabbis took an interest in them and that the latter were ready to comply with the instructions

538

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

of Western rabbinical scholars. According to Weinryb, had the East European Jews been of Khazar extraction, they could not have attracted the attention of Western European Jews (1977: 154). Consider also the succinct and anonymous entry "Khazars" in The encyclopedia of Judaism: "The notion that Ashkenazi Jewry is descended from the Khazars has absolutely no basis in fact" (see Wigoder 1989: 414). No facts are given. Brook (1999) provides a summary of the polemics. b. Important archaeological materials that could lend valuable support to the thesis that Khazar (and possibly Avar) Jews migrated westward into Europe are the stone fragments with Jewish motifs and some Hebrew writing from the 6th-8th century found in Celarevo (Vojvodina, Serbia) and Khazar rings with Hebrew letters found in the neighboring district of Baranya in southwestern Hungary (see Bunardzic 1978-79, 1980, 1985 on the former site, and Kiss 1970 on the latter; see also Ratobyl'skaja 1993: 65, referring to a document from c. 1141 from the Baranya district that speaks of the purchase of slaves from four Jewish merchants). Yet, most of these findings have not been referred to, let alone reviewed, in Western scholarly journals. For example, the Celarevo site (the importance of which I mentioned in Wexler 1993c: 193-195, 271), was, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned outside of Yugoslavia only in Russian publications (by Erdelyi 1983 and Petruxin, in his commentary to Golb and Pritsak 1997: 204). On Hebrew inscriptions found in archaeological sites in the Khazar homeland, see Bartha (1975: 138, fn 71) and Afanas'ev ([1999]). While we have a rough chronology for the Judaization of the Khazars in the mid to late 9th century (see Vernadsky 1946: 292, 1959: 351; Tolstov 1948: 225-226; C. Zuckerman 1995), it is unclear when Avars became Jewish; that some did so is suggested by the findings in the vast Avar necropolis at Celarevo, Vojvodina, unless the Jewish skeletal remains are of specifically Khazar extraction. Bälint (1989: 174) doubts that the Vojvodina Jews were of Khazar origin, since they appear to have been in their present site prior to the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, but the

The Khazar component

539

description of Judeo-Avar artefacts in the Historical Museum in Novi Sad (Vojvodina, Serbia) explicitly associates the Mongoliantype skeletal remains with the Khazars. c. Political or ideological constraints often interfere in scholarship. For example, there is a strong revulsion in many Jewish circles against a proposal that derives most of the Ashkenazic Jews-who constitute the bulk of all Jews in the world today-from a TurkoIranian people, rather than from Palestinian Jews. Not surprisingly, Israeli historians are particularly vocal in their rejection of the Khazar connection. The Khazars disappeared from history by the 12th-13th centuries, both voluntarily, by assuming the identity of other ethnic and religious groups, and involuntarily, by being made to disappear by non-Khazar Jews and non-Jews eager to deny a mass act of conversion to Judaism or sceptical about the "quality" of the conversion. The "disappearance" of the Khazars has enabled Jews for centuries to cultivate the belief in their direct and largely unalloyed descendance from the Palestinian Jews. It might be useful for historians to explore whether knowledge of the Judaized Khazars' fate after the collapse of their empire was not suppressed by the contemporary German (Sorbian) Jews who settled in Eastern Europe. Another "truism" that needs urgent reappraisal is that a majority population of immigrant Ashkenazic Jews absorbed the small pockets of Slavic-speaking Jews who would have been candidates for descendance from the Khazars. It is more plausible, on the basis of Yiddish grammar, to assume that it was the relatively smaller numbers of Ashkenazic Jews who were, in fact, absorbed by the more numerous Khazar Jews. Pseudo-demography has long been a major weapon in the hands of the "anti-Khazarists". Moreover, in the ex-Soviet Union, ideological considerations at certain times required downgrading the Khazars and dispatching them to oblivion, in order to glorify the Slavic role in the rise of Kievan Rus'. Compare the remarks of Artamonov, a major Soviet scholar of the Khazars, made in 1936 and in 1962: "In actuality, the Khazar state, having unified an enormous part of our country,

540

Evidence for two-tiered relexification

naturally did not pass away without a trace. It left a definite stamp on all subsequent history. Within it began the formation of a whole string of peoples in existence today and having now a sparkling future" (preface, 1936: vi). A denunciation of his "pro-Khazar" views in Pravda by P. Ivanov in 1951 prompted Artamonov to downgrade the role of the Khazars in early Rus' society in his 1962 publication: Attempts to find the descendants of the Khazars have been unsuccessful up till now, apparently because they were nowhere preserved. Also rather unconvincing are the attempts to find traces of Khazar culture...in the languages and religions of their neighbors. The Khazar state perished, and so did the Khazar people. This fact deserves special attention, since peoples usually do not disappear with the destruction of their state...the Rus' took nothing from the...Khazars... Precisely because there remained no traces of the late Khazar culture (1962: 446-458).

The fact that Artamonov's newer, "repaired" views have been republished as recently as 1994 suggests that traditional Soviet views are still popular (though, on the espousal of Soviet scholars of the hypothesis of a Khazar component in the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis, see Shnirelman [1999]). The strong likelihood that the Khazar Jews became "redefined" as Ashkenazic Jews speaking Yiddish should encourage scholars to redouble their efforts to identify traces of Khazar language and culture. Part of the problem in trying to identify the descendants of the Khazars stems from our understanding of the origins of the Jews. The claims for a separate peoplehood for the Jews have tended to divorce the latter from their immediate non-Jewish neighbors, thus leading to historical distortions and fallacious assessments. One distortion is reflected in the nearly universal habit of regarding Slavs as Christians, Muslims or atheists, but never as Jews. In describing the religious affiliation of Slavs, Florinskij cited 70% as Orthodox Christians, 2.3% as Russian sectarians who rejected Orthodoxy, 2.7% as Uniates, 23% as Catholics, 1% as Protestants and 1% as Muslims, but it never occurred to him to define as Slavs those inhabitants of Slavic

The Khazar component

541

countries who professed Judaism or who were of Jewish ancestry (1911:26). 5. Genetic evidence: Appreciation of the role of the Khazars and Avars in the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews (the Avars are never cited in this capacity) can only grow in the future, especially now that the Khazars are losing their taboo status both inside and outside the former Soviet Union. An international symposium held on the topic of the Khazars in Jerusalem in May 1999 is testimony to the growing interest in the subject (though there is no sign that the Israeli sponsors will ever publish the proceedings). Any increase in our knowledge of the fate of the Judaized Khazars may erode the belief that the Ashkenazic Jews are largely of Eastern Mediterranean origin (for a recent survey of Soviet denials of Jewish ethnic unity, see Dymerskaja-Cigel'man and Kipnis 1997). I am particularly hopeful that together linguistics and genetics (specifically DNA studies) will be in a position make a major contribution to Khazar studies, and to Jewish studies in general, by positing possible origins for the contemporary Jews. Quite by chance, an international symposium on Ashkenazic Jewish genetics was convened in MayJune 1999 in Jerusalem, following closely on the heels of the international Khazar symposium. Almost no one participated in both symposia, but I would like to believe that the near overlap of the meetings augurs well for the future (see also chapter 5).

Chapter 5 Future challenges

Almost 40 years ago, the historian Cecil Roth asked: Does the line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry of today go back to a quasiautochthonous Jewry already established in these lands, perhaps even earlier than the time of the earliest Franco-German settlement in the Dark Ages? This is one of the mysteries of Jewish history, which probably will never be solved (1966: 303).

This book has attempted to provide an answer to Roth's mystery, by showing how the Yiddish language provides the sole reliable indication that Khazar Jews participated in the final crystallization of the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis. The book thus provides new evidence to substantiate the claim (expressed in detail in Wexler 1993c) that the contemporary Ashkenazic Jews are unlikely to be, in any significant sense, the direct descendants of the Palestinian Jews of the Roman period. Hence, Ashkenazic culture and religious ritual may owe more to the Judaization of Slavic and German pagan, Christian, and maybe even Islamic, culture and ritual them to a recalibration through time of inherited Palestinian Jewish cultural and religious practices. The study of other Jewish groups also reveals an important non-Palestinian component in the language and ethnography of the speakers, e.g. the Sephardic Jews appear to be descended primarily from Moroccan Berbers rather than Palestinian Jews (see Wexler 1996a). It will undoubtedly surprise most readers to learn that Yiddish can provide more evidence for the Khazar participation in the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis than history or archaeology. The latter fields of endeavor can shed more light on the study of the Khazar Empire in situ than on the fate of the population after the demise of the empire. The unexpected importance of Yiddish linguistics for Khazar studies is reminiscent of the findings of the art historian, E. Goodenough, almost a half century ago, that the Jewish symbols in

544

Future challenges

the Greco-Roman world unexpectedly provided rich indication of an otherwise almost totally lost Jewish artistic culture that flourished in the early Christian period in the Roman world: ...Jews throughout the Roman world borrowed...[pagan] emblems with deliberate symbolic intent. We have no literature telling us of a Judaism which could do this, but the conclusion seems ineluctable that such a Judaism did exist for centuries. And it is a likely hypothesis that on the completion and dissemination of the Talmud, and with the beginning of Christian persecution of the Jews, a great reaction set in which abolished this Judaism and destroyed its writings. This possibility is heightened by our knowledge of the efficacy of Jewish censorship. If we were dependent upon Jewish tradition and Jewish preservation of records, we should never have heard of Philo and the Jewish Hellenism of his day. Philo and Josephus were both preserved by Christian copyists and in Christian circles, and we should not have known even Philo's name if Christians had not adopted him... Furthermore, once Jews and Christians came to complete antipathy, Christians had no interest in preserving the writings of contemporary Jews. Hence, it is highly possible that there once existed a considerable literature of the Judaism of these synagogues and graveswritings which have disappeared as completely as rabbinic Jews would have had Philo and his Judaism disappear. Thus, absence of literature reflecting this kind of Judaism which, we are beginning to suspect, went with these symbols, proves nothing. Still, the symbols exist as data clamoring for explanation, and they must be allowed to speak for themselves (Goodenough 1954: 44-45).

Similarly, the Yiddish language-which, in Central and Eastern Europe, appears to be a unique blend of West and East Slavic grammatical and lexical elements-holds clues to the origins of the Jews in the West and East Slavic lands in the late first millennium A.D. that are barely alluded to in historical or archaeological data, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. Up until now, the prevailing view held that Yiddish was a form of High German that developed in response to a need for a separate ethnolect to match the ethno-religious separatism of the Jews (see M. Weinreich 1973). Yiddishists usually conceive of the language as a "fusion" language from birth, in which the Hebraisms derive either from substratal transmission leading back to languages that were in contact with old spoken Hebrew, e.g. Aramaic and Greek (it

Future challenges

545

is generally accepted that the pronunciation of Yiddish Hebraisms was fixed prior to the rise of Yiddish: see Katz 1985; Jacobs 1990a; Manaster Ramer and Wolf 1997: 208), or from later textual borrowings (the latter are the majority). A pressing goal of Yiddish linguistics has been the reconstruction of "proto-Yiddish" (see BinNun 1973; M. Weinreich 1973; Manaster Ramer and Wolf 1997). In the present study I have accepted the notion of a fusion language, but have proposed a different motivation (i.e. the requirements of relexification). I also accept the notion of two kinds of Hebraismswhich I extend to Germanisms and Slavicisms as well, depending on whether the acquisitions (and inventions) took place during or after relexification (rejected recently by Manaster Ramer and Wolf 1997: 225). I also accept religion as a factor leading to the creation of a separate Jewish ethnolect-but I would locate the desire for a separate ethno-religious identity in the community of new converts to Judaism rather than in that of the Jews. Since the relexification hypothesis views the lexicon of "reconstructed proto-Yiddish" as identical to the German lexifier input, and the syntax and phonology as Slavic, there is no need to reconstruct "proto-Yiddish". It may also come as a surprise for many readers that on the surface the least visible component of Yiddish-the Slavic component-holds the key to the genetic classification of Yiddish as well as to the presence of such a tremendous Hebrew/Hebroid component (which Krogh 2001: 41 recently found implausible). Also, the relexification hypothesis may provide a means of resolving the question of whether Old Yiddish texts from the German lands are "(lightly Judaized) German in Hebrew orthography" or "Yiddish" (see Marchand 1960). Finally, the present study suggests a nine-pronged research agenda for the future: 1. The two-tiered relexification hypothesis proposed here for Yiddish means that dialects of Yiddish may utilize variously an Upper Sorbian or Kiev-Polessian grammar, and some, possibly the majority in our day, a merged, Western-Eastern Slavic grammar; all dialects of Yiddish retain a small substratal Slavic lexicon. As a

546

Future challenges

profoundly "multilayered" Slavic grammar, Yiddish is hardly unique within Slavic. First there are the obvious cases of (a) most codified literary languages (which are usually polysynthetic by definition), see e.g. literary Russian, which combines features of Northern and Southern Russian dialects, and (b) mergers involving closely related dialects, e.g. southeast Ukrainian developed as a new "colonial" dialect in the 1600s, by incorporating the morphology of the northern dialects and the phonology of the southwest dialects; a once very distinctive Old Novgorod variant of Eastern Slavic acquired features of the Moscow dialect after the late 15th century; Central Belarusian, arising after the 1500s, combines features from both the northeast and southwest dialects. In addition, there are Slavic languages whose very heterogeneous Slavic components resemble Yiddish. Consider the following eight examples: (a) The massive Old Church Slavic component in Russian lexicon, phonology and morphology made Russian, as early as the 11th century, heir to multiple Eastern and Southern reflexes of Common Slavic, (b) Isaöenko has defined the written Ruthenian language of the late 16th-early 17th centuries as lexically and syntactically Polish but morphologically East or Church (South) Slavic (1980: 311). (c) The Rusyn language in Yugoslavia is either an East Slovak dialect with a considerable number of Ukrainianisms or a Ukrainian dialect onto which Slovak was grafted in the 16th-17th centuries (see Tolstoj [1977] 1999: 13, fn 2 for discussion), (d) German cyclically became relexified to Sorbian lexicon, thus producing a multilayered language whose Slavicity consists solely of a Sorbian lexicon, while (e) the Russian that was relexified to Belarusian and Ukrainian lexicon in the 20th century offers immediate parallels to Yiddish. Occasionally, Slavic languages become incorporated or "perintegrated" with neighboring Slavic languages by sharing the innovations of the latter, see e.g. (f) the Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, which is of Slovene origin, or (g) Kashubian which has become attached to Polish; such languages are also multilayered. (h) The different "recensions" of unspoken Church Slavic, adapted to the linguistic norms of the native languages of the Czech (Moravian), Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Eastern Slavic or German scribes, are

Future challenges

547

also confirming examples of multilayered languages (see Shevelov 1988-1989: 600, 607, 613). On the mixing of centum and satem elements in Common Slavic, see Wojtyla-Swierzowska (1998: 48). For less dramatic cases of intra-Slavic interference, usually only on the level of the lexicon, see Thomas (1985). A reflection of the differential impact of Upper Sorbian and KievPolessian on Yiddish grammar may be the different Hebraisms selected dialectally to replace blocked Germanisms, see e.g. Y Agvir ~ WY Abetu(a)x ~ Y Aojser ~ Lköcn 'rich man' (see ttermahneri) or competition between Hebraisms and Slavicisms, see e.g. Y mturme < Slavic (possibly < OTc türmä (11th c: Vasmer 1958, 3) vs. WY Atofes ~ EY Atfise 'jail' (see chapter 4.1, paragraph 7, as well as the status of synonyms in chapter 3.2). This topic requires further study. A typology of relexified and non-relexified merged Slavic languages should be an important desideratum of both Slavic and general linguistics. 2. Does the present-day dialectal division within East European Yiddish (which U. Weinreich long ago showed was the result of local developments, rather than ready-made differences imported from the German lands) reflect differences between, or different "mixes" of the two relexified Slavic languages (or "Yiddishes") in the territories of Belarus', Ukraine and eastern Poland? In 1991b, I hypothesized that Belarusian Yiddish preserved Sorbian Yiddish norms more faithfully than Polish Yiddish did, since the latter was in longer contact with German, and thus able to undergo a greater de-Slavicization. I suspect that contemporary Polish Yiddish descends from the Yiddish imported from the German lands at a much later date (c. 16th century) than the ancestor of Belarusian and north Ukrainian Yiddish, which reached Poland in the 13th century and the East Slavic lands in the 15th century. If staggered migration from the German lands created two types of Sorbian Yiddish, then some of the dialectal divisions within contemporary East European Yiddish could have been initially

548

Future challenges

imported from the west (contrary to U. Weinreich's assumption in 1958). This question requires further study. 3. An open question following from the second point is whether the relatively modern appearance of Germanisms in all dialects of modern Yiddish is due to (a) the more Germanizing norms of Polish Yiddish, (b) the use of Modern High German as a lexifier language for the Kiev-Polessian descendants of the Khazar Jews and/or (c) imitation of Modern German norms after the second relexification phase (what is natively called dajcmeris). 4. A detailed study of the distribution of Yiddish Hebraisms and Hebroidisms is called for. It would be interesting to know if Hebroidisms generally imply blockage of Germanisms in one of the relexification phases. If so, then most Hebroidisms could be assumed to be acquisitions predating the 15th-16th centuries, while Yiddish Hebraisms that displayed little or no deviation in form and/or meaning from Old Hebrew could have been acquired, in principle, at any time; an early chronology for Hebroidisms requires finding a Slavic motivation for the acquisition. Because of the importance of Hebrew in the relexification process, the Ashkenazic Hebrew written by Yiddish speakers would have to constitute an integral component of a Yiddish etymological dictionary. Since Israeli Hebrew is a relexified form of Yiddish, the study of the Hebrew and Hebroid components of Yiddish promises major benefits for Modern Hebrew linguistics. It is to be hoped that the study of relexification in Yiddish will stimulate interaction between the fields of Yiddish and non-Semitic Hebrew (on the application of the predictability test to Modern Hebrew, see Wexler 2002a). 5. More detailed comparisons of Yiddish, Upper Sorbian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and German grammars are urgently needed, since such studies would immeasurably strengthen the relexification hypothesis for Yiddish. Geller's comparisons of Yiddish and Polish grammar (1991, 1999, 2001; see also Engel and Geller 1996) are

Future challenges

549

important contributions (though Polish is not the optimal candidate for ascertaining the Slavic substratum of Yiddish grammar). 6. The present study emphasizes the usefulness of linguistics in questioning old and in formulating new hypotheses for consideration by historians. This is because many historical events have gone unrecorded or survive only in fragmentary descriptions. Historians should reexamine the hypothesis that a large-scale Jewish migration from Palestine to Europe (either voluntarily or under duress) followed in the wake of the Roman occupation of Judea in the 1st century A.D. There is no historical documentation to support such a migration. Moreover, the fact that Palestinian Christianity spread to Europe in the absence of mass migration of Palestinian Christians to Europe suggests that Judaism also could have taken root in many parts of Europe in the absence of a large-scale Jewish migration. The chronology of Jewish settlement and migration within the German and Slavic lands beginning with the late first millennium A.D. calls out for fresh study. Another sort of collaboration that I hope will emerge from the present findings involves that between students of early south Eastern Slavic (pre-Ukrainian) history, culture and language and students of the Jewish presence in those lands. 7. The present study invites collaboration between linguistics and disciplines other than history. While the study of Yiddish seeks to establish the genetic classification of the language and cast new light on a number of historical linguistic developments, geneticists must seek to determine the origin of the speakers of Yiddish (and other Jewish languages). It is still too early to say whether DNA studies can confirm a predominantly non-Jewish origin for the speakers of Yiddish. Even if geneticists reject a Palestinian Jewish origin for the Ashkenazic Jews, they may not propose the same Slavo-Turkic origins for the latter that I have proposed for the Yiddish language. It will be particularly interesting to see in the coming years to what extent genetic evidence lends support to the claim that the contemporary Jews constitute a people that is largely descended

550

Future challenges

from the Palestinian Jews of 1700 years ago. A new research question presents itself now: while scholars for over a century were asking what became of the Khazar Jews after the 10th century, a no less intriguing question for the future is going to be what became of the Palestinian Jews after 300 A.D. In 1993 I regarded the Ashkenazic Jews as a "Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Jewish identity"; that may have been an appropriate description for the first relexification phase. For the second relexification phase, it is probably more accurate to speak of a "TurkoSlavic people". Hopefully, geneticists will have something to say about the changing mix of Slavic and Turkic in the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews. 8. A comparative description of Ashkenazic and the relevant Slavic ethnographies should be undertaken. Rich materials have been published in both domains but a detailed and systematic comparison still remains to be carried out. Extremely interesting is the Polish ethnographer Jan Stanislaw Bystrori's unique study of the geography of Slavic- and Germanorigin folksongs and folk motifs in Yiddish folk songs (1923). Bystnm found that the text of one East Ukrainian Yiddish folksong from the Poltava district was also attested in one form or another among Sorbs, Moravians and Poles, but that the Polish variants were distinct from Sorbian and Yiddish which shared more common features: "...the dependence of [the Yiddish folk song] on the Sorbo-Moravian texts cannot be doubted—however, we do not know by what paths the song...reached the far-away Poltava area" (1923: 9). Bystroh suggested a Carpatho-Ukrainian intermediary, but the relexification hypothesis could suggest, alternatively, that the Eastern Slavic Jews might preserve Sorbian folksong texts in the same way that they preserve relexified Upper Sorbian language. A parallel linguistic geography is shown by Y mmucen 'to torment', attested in Western and Eastern Polish and Eastern Slavic Yiddish dialects vs. synonymous umencen, which is restricted to Central Polish Yiddish (see chapter 3); the geography suggests Y mmucen is

Future challenges

551

of Sorbian rather than (or along with) formally plausible Eastern Slavic origin, while • mencen is of later Polish origin. Another important line of study is the geography of Yiddish folk customs. For example, W^grzynek (1999) has noted that the 17thcentury Eastern Polish and Western Ukrainian Purim festivities (described from Sochaczew, Przemysl and Luc'k) not only differ from those practiced by contemporaneous Western European and Poznan Jews but they also resemble festivities practiced in the Byzantine Empire in the 5 th century. 9. The present study invites comparison of relexification in Yiddish with that in other languages, both Creole and non-creole, with the aim of creating a general typology. There are both parallels and disparallels in the various relexification case studies. For example, in the present study it seemed reasonable to assume that the acquisition of German morphemes that have actual or apparent cognates in Upper Sorbian or Kiev-Polessian (except for function words, such as the Slavic noun infixes -en-, -er-, -es- and German and Hebrew plural suffixes [m]-[ejn, [m]-er, A/[m]-[eJs) was a postrelexificational development. Similarly for conflation phenomena in Modern Hebrew. On the other hand, studies of Creole languages suggest that apparent cognates are actively cultivated during the initial stages of Creole formation. The relative chronology of conflation in different Creole and non-creole languages awaits further scrutiny. Another open question is the duration of relexification in different languages. It is clear why a relexified language can only take some of the lexicon of the lexifier(s); yet, it is not altogether clear why the lexicon of the relexified language should tend to be smaller than the total lexicon of the primary lexifier. For example, why does Yiddish not retain a much larger unrelexified Slavic component than it does? I suspect that after the relexification process, Yiddish speakers gradually came to regard their language as unrelated to the Slavic languages, so that the latter ceased to be regarded as productive sources of enrichment. A gradual shift from bilingualism in Yiddish and other Slavic languages to monolingualism in Yiddish might also

552

Future challenges

have contributed to the erosion of the unrelexified Slavic component of Yiddish. It would be useful to know the relative proportions of outright loans from all major sources after the second relexification phase. Also of interest is the extent of bilingualism in each Eastern Yiddish community; it appears that Yiddish speakers were earlier and typically more conversant in Belarusian than Polish but this question calls for study. It would be useful to construct a typology of instances of cyclical relexification. On the one hand, two-tiered relexification in Yiddish involved two Slavic substratal languages, whereas many Caribbean Creoles underwent two-tiered relexification first from African > Portuguese and then from Afro-Portuguese Creole to a different European superstratum language. Relexification shows vividly how minority speakers who chose to create their own ethnolect need to be constantly "looking over their shoulders" to see what majority speakers are doing (on this topic, see also Wexler [ms a]). Yiddish linguistics began in the 16th century as the handmaiden of Germanic studies. By the 20th century the Yiddish language had acquired a fully independent status within Germanic linguistics. The present study not only moves it into formerly uncharted Slavic waters, but also links Yiddish studies closely for the first time with (i) Jewish genetics, (ii) Turkic and Creole linguistic studies, (iii) Eurasian history, and (iv) Hebrew linguistics. Yiddish compels us to focus on two population movements and their languages and on their ultimate merger: Jews and Judaized non-Jews were moving simultaneously northwards from the Serb to the Sorb lands (perhaps even accompanying the first Serb migrants in their trek to the Sorb lands) and westwards from the Khazar to the Kiev-Polessian lands. Both movements must have been in full force by the 9th century. The first movement set the scene for the first relexification that produced "Sorbian" Yiddish and the "Ashkena-zic" Jews; the second set the scene for the second relexification that produced "Kiev-Polessian" Yiddish. The coalescence of these two populations and their relexified Slavic languages could have begun in different

Future challenges

553

in different locales as early as the 9th century, but certainly ran its course by the 17th century, with the ultimate disappearance of unrelexified Judeo-East Slavic. Given the obsolescence of Yiddish in our days, accelerated by the effects of Russian Communism, German Nazism and Israeli Zionism on the Yiddish-speaking community, the research agendas outlined above cannot be long postponed.

References Ababurka, Mikalaj V. 1979 Dyjalektyzmy w tvorax belaruskix saveckix pis 'mennikaw. Karotki slownik-davednik. Minsk: Vy§fcj§aja Skola. Abaev, Vasilij IvanoviC 1949 Drevneevrejskie ölementy ν osetinskom. In his Osetinskij jazyk i fol'klor, 331-332. Moskva-Leningrad: AkademijaNauk SSSR. 1958-1979 Istoriko-etimologiceskij slovar' osetinskogo jazyka 1-3. MoskvaLeningrad: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Admoni, Wladimir 1982 Der deutsche Sprachbau. München: C. H. Beck. Afanas'ev, Gennadij E. [1999] Archeology of the Khazar problem. The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 1. JeruSalaim: The Ben-Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts. Agranovskij, G. and R. Kopileviö 1995 Kogda rossijskie evrei prinjali familii? Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta ν Moskve 1(8): 80-83. Agrell, Sigurd 1917 Slavische Lautstudien. Lund/Leipzig: C. W. K.Gleerup. Ahlsson, Lars-Erik 1965 Zur Substantivflexion im Thüringischen des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts. (Studia germanistica upsaliensia 3). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Alekseev, Anatolij A 1979 Pesn' pesnej po russkomu spisku XVI veka ν perevode s drevneevrejskogo originala. Palestinskij sbornik 27: 63-79. [1980] "Pesn' pesnej" ν drevnej slavjano-russkoj pis'mennosti 1-2. Moskva: Institut russkovo jazyka AN SSSR. Predvaritel'nye publikacii 133-134. 1987 Perevody s drevneevrejskix originalov ν drevnej Rusi. Russian linguistics 11: 1-20. 1993 Russko-evrejskie literaturnye svjazi do 15 veka. In: Wolf Moskovich, Shmuel Shvarzband and Anatolij Alekseev (eds.), Jews and Slavs 1: 44-75. JeruSalaim/Sankt Peterburg: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Slavonic Bible Foundation/Russian Academy of Sciences. 1998 [Review of Moshö Altbauer 1992.] Slavjanovedenie 2: 132-135. AljaxnoviC, Mikola M., Halina MalaZaj and Fedar D. KlimCuk (eds.) 1989 Dyjalektny slownik Brestcyny. Minsk: Navuka i tdxnika.

556

References

Allerhand, Jacob 1991 Die jüdisch-deutsche Mundart als Sprache der Aschkenasim-ihre Opposition im aschkenasischen Raum am Ausgang des Mittelalters. In: Alfred Ebenbauer and Klaus Zatloukal (eds.), Die Juden in ihrer mittelalterlichen Welt. 11-16. Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau. Alleyne, Merwyn C. 1980 Comparative Afro-American. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Allsopp, Richard 1996 Dictionary of Caribbean English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. al-Mas'üdi, Abi al-Ha§an 1966-1979 Murüdz al-dahab wa-ma'ädin al-dzawhar 1-7. Bajrut: al-D2ämi'a al-lubnänijja. Originally written 943-947. Altbauer, Mosh£ 1967 Zum Rückgang der Slawismen im literarischen Jiddisch. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung Beiheft n.F. 3: 14-18. (Verhandlungen des zweiten Internationalen Dialektologenkongress, Marburg/Lahn, 5.-10. September 1965. Edited by Ludwig Erich Schmitt, Hans Peter Althaus and Helmut Henne.) Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. 1977 Al mexkaro §el jicxak Siper al hajesod hakuzari-jehudi bemizrax eropa. In his Mexkarim belason, 44-50. JeruSalaim: R. Mas. First published in: Sefer jicxak siper, 47-53. New York: Ogen [1966]. Reprinted as Jeszcze ο rzekomych chazarskich nazwach miej^cowych na ziemiach polskich. Onomastica 13 (1968): 120128. 1991 Ο j?zyku dokumentöw zwi^zanych ζ samorz^dem fcydowskim w Polsce. In: Andrzej Link-Lenczowski and Tomasz Polanski (eds.), Zydzi w dawnej Rzeczpospolitej, 13-22. Wrociaw/Warszawa/ Kraköw: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. 1992 The five biblical scrolls in a sixteenth-century Jewish translation into Belorussian. JeruSalaim: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Altbauer, Mosh£ and Moshe Taube 1984 The Slavonic Book of Esther: When, where, and from what language was it translated? Harvard Ukrainian studies 8: 304-320. Althaus, Hans Peter 1963 Jüdisch-hessische Sprachbeziehungen. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 30: 104-156. 1972 Yiddish. In: Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics 9: 1345-1382. 's Gravenhage/Paris: Mouton. 'Amära, M. 1967 Isrä 'Tl. Hai hija sämijja? Al-Qähira: Dar al-kitäb al-'arabl.

References

557

Andersen, Henning 1999 The Western South Slavic contrast Sn. sah-ni-till SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenskijezik 2: 47-61. Andersen, Roger W. (ed.) 1983 Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA/London/Tokyo: Newbury House. Anderson, Robert R., Ulrich Goebel and Oskar Reichmann (eds.) 1989ff Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch Iff. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Ändert, Herbert (ed.) 1997 Unse Äberlausitz labt! Bautzen: Lusatia Verlag. Dr. Stübner & Co. Andrusyshen, C. H. and J. N. Krett 1957 Ukrainian-English dictionary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Aniökov, Evgenij V. 1914 Jazycestvo i drevnjaja Rus'. Sankt Peterburg: Μ. Μ. Stasjuleviö. Ankori, Zvi 1959 Karaites in Byzantium. The formative years, 970-1100. New York: Columbia University Press. 1979 Origins and history of Ashkenazi Jewry (8th to 18th century). In: Richard M. Goodman and Arno G. Motulsky (eds.), Genetic diseases among Ashkenazi Jews, 19-46. New York: Raven Press. AraSonkava, Hanna Uladzimirawna 1963 Ab tak zvanyx palanizmax u belaruskaj move. (Sufiksy -dl- i -isk-). Vesci Akademii Navuk Belaruskaj SSR, Seryja hramadskix navuk 2: 85-95. Artamonov, Mixail IlarionoviC 1936 Ocerki drevnejsej istorii xazar. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe socialno-äkonomiöeskoe izdatel'stvo. 1962 Istorija xazar. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo gosudarstvennogo ErmitaZa. Chapter entitled Xazarskoe nasledstvo was reprinted in Mir L 'va Gumileva. "Arabeski" istorii 1 (1994): 317-336. Moskva: Di-Dik. Arxipov, Andrej A. [1982a] Drevnerusskaja kniga proroka Daniila ν perevode s drevneevrejskogo (k istorii gebraizmov ν drevnerusskom kniinom jazyke) 1-3. Moskva: Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR. Predvaritel'nye publikacii 151-153. [1982b] Iz istorii gebraizmov ν russkom kniinom jazyke XV-XVI w . Avtoreferat. Moskva. 1984 Ob odnom drevnem nazvanii Kieva. Istorija russkogo jazyka ν drevnejsijperiod, 224-240. Moskva. 1994 Κ istorii slavjanskogo perevoda knigi Esfir'. Stanford Slavic studies 8: 105-124.

558 1995

References

Po tu storonu Sambationa. Etjudy ο russko-evrejskix kul'turnyx, jazykovyx i literaturnyx kontaktax ν X-XVI vekax. Berkeley: Berkeley Slavic specialities. Atabinen, Re§it Saffet 1934 Hazar türkleri; Avrupa devleti (VI-XII asir). Istanbul: Kaatfilik ve Matbaacilik Anonim §irketi. Atlas ukrajins'koji movy 1984-1988 1-2. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Avanesaw, Ruben Ivanaviö, Kandrat KandrataviC Krapiva [Atraxoviö] and Juzefa Flaryjanawna Mackevii (eds.) 1968 Linhvistycnaja heahrafija i hrupowka belaruskix havorak. Minsk: Navuka i t£xnika. Avanesaw, Ruben Ivanaviö [Ruben IvanoviC Avanesov] and Sof ja V. Bromlej (eds.) 1989 Dialektologiceskij atlas russkogo jazyka. Centr evropejskoj casti SSSR 2. Moskva: Nauka. Balaban, Majer 1920 Historia i literatura zydowska ze szczegolnym vwzgl^dnieniem historii Zydow w Polsce 1-3. Lwöw/Kraköw: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolmskich. 1930-1931 Kiedy i sk^d przybyli Zydzi do Polski. Miesi$cznik zydowski 1: 112; 2: 112-121. Reprinted as Ven un fan vanen zenen di jidn gekumen kejn pojln. Bieter far gesixte 12 (1960): 3-24. 1933 Der Gang der jüdischen Kulturelemente vom Rhein bis an die Weichsel und die Dniepr (XI-XVII. Jahrhundert). La Pologne. Au Vile Congres International des Sciences Historiques 3: 191-216. Warszawa. Bälint, Csanäd 1989 Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Wolga una Donau vom 6. bis zum 9. Jahrhundert. Wien: Böhlau. Bandrivs'kyj, Dmytro H. 1959 Hovirky pidbuz'koho rajonu L'vivs'koji oblasti. Kyjiv: Vydavnyctvo Akademii Nauk Ukrajins'koji RSR. Barac, German MarkoviC 1908 Biblejsko-agadiceskie paralleli k letopisnym skazanijam ο Vladimire Svjatom. Kiev: Tipografija 1-oj Kievskoj arteli peCatnogo dela. 1912 Ο biblejskom elemente ν Slove ο polku Igoreve. Kiev. 1913 Proisxozdenie letopisnogo skazanija ο nacale Rusi. Kiev. 1924-1927 Sobranie trudov po voprosu ο evrejskom elemente ν drevnerusskoj pis'mennosti 1(1-2) (1927). Paris; 2 (1924). Berlin: Imprimerie d'art Voltaire. Barimani, A. 1947 Dar'ja-ji-xazar ja dar'ja-ji mazandaran. Tehran: Capxanah-i

References

559

rangin. Bar-Itzhak, Haya 1996 Polin-agadot resit. Tel-Aviv: Sifriat poalim. Reprinted as Jewish Poland-legends of origin. Ethnopoetics and legendary chronologies. Detroit 2000: Wayne State University Press. Bar-MoSe, Jicxak 1903-1904 Leket joSer 1-2. Edited by J. Freimann. Berlin. Originally written 1470. Barney, Stephen A. 1984 Word-hoard. An introduction to Old English vocabulary. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Baron, Salo Wittmayer 1952-1980 A social and religious history of the Jews 1-17. New York: Columbia University Press. Bartha, Antal 1975 Hungarian society in the 9th and 10th centuries. Budapest: Akadömiai kiadö. Barthold, Wilhelm and Peter Β. Golden 1978 Khazar. The encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition 4: 1172-1181. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Bartol'd, Vasilii V. 1929 Ο pis'mennosti u xazar. Kul'tura i pis'mennost' vostoka 4: 17. Reprinted in his Socinenija 5 (1968): 466-467. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo vostoönoj literatury. Baskakov, Nikolaj AleksandroviC 1979 Russkie familii tjurkskogo proisxozdenija. Moskva: Nauka. Baskakov, Nikolaj AleksandroviC, Ananiasz ZajonCkovskij and Seraja M. SapSal (eds.) 1974 Karaimsko-russko-pol 'skij slovar'. Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Baumgarten, Nicolas de 1939 Aux origines de la Russie. Roma: Pontificium institutum orientalium studiorum. Baxan'kow, Arcem Ja., Arkadz' IosifaviC Zurawski and Mixail RamanaviC Sudnik (eds.) 1970 Histaryönaja leksikalohija belaruskaj movy. Minsk: Navuka i töxnika. Bednarczuk, Leszek 1997 Mownaja suisnasc' Vjalikaha Knjastva Litowskaha. Slowianie wschodni. Miqdzy jqzykiem a kulturq, 55-61. Kraköw: Bohdan Grell. 1999 Nazwiska i przezwiska etniczne battyckich mieszkaAcöw Wielkiego Ksi?stwa Litewskiego. In: Stosunkijqzykowe na ziemi-

560

References ach Wielkiego Ksiqstwa Litewskiego, 129-150. Kraköw: Edukacja. First published in: Wilno i Kresy Polnocno-Wschodnie 3(3): 7-41. Biafystok: Towarzystwo literackie im. Adama Mickiewicza. Oddziai bialostocki [1996].

Bedr2ickij, L. 1911-1912 Zametki k literature ZidovstvujuSCix. Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 66 (1911): 370-392, 67 (1912): 351-355. Beer, A. 1923 Parentes-pfietete-friunt In: Milo§ Weingart (ed.) Slovansky sbornik venovany ...Frantisku Pastrnkovi, 53-57. Praha: Klub modernich filologü. Beider, Alexander 1992 A dictionary of Jewish surnames from the Russian Empire. Teaneck, NJ: Avotajnu. 1996 A dictionary of Jewish surnames from the Kingdom of Poland. Teaneck, NJ: Avotajnu. Beit-Ari6, Malachi 1993 Hebrew manuscripts of East and West. Towards a comparative codicology. London: British Library. Belaruskaja hramatyka 1985 1. Minsk: Navuka i tdxnika. Bellmann, Günter 1971 Slavoteutonica. Lexikalische Untersuchungen zum slawischdeutschen Sprachkontakt im Ostmitteldeutschen. Berlin/NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. 1977 Slawisch-deutsche Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachwandel. In: Sprachwandel und Sprachgeschichtsschreibung. Jahrbuch 1976 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, 249-259. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Belorussko-bolgarskie jazykovye paralleli 1992 Minsk. Belova, Ol'ga V. 1997a Etnokonfessional'nye stereotipy ν slavjanskix narodnyx predstavlenijax. Slavjanovedenie 1: 25-32. 1997b Iz slovarja 'Slavjanskie drevnosti'. Slavjanovedenie 6: 7-10. Ben-Jicxak Hanesia, M. See Klar Benkö, Loränd 1967-1984 A magyar nyelv törteneti-etimologiai szotära 1-4. Budapest: Akaddmiai kiadö. Ben-Moäe, Jicxak 1956 Or zarua. In: Kupfer and Lewicki, 202-262. Originally written early 13th century. Reprinted Zytomyr: Al jede haSutafim nexde harav mislavita [1862].

References

561

Benoliel, Jos£ 1952 Dialecte judeo-hispano-maroqui ο hakitia. Boletin de la Real Academia Espahola 32: 255-289. ben-Sim'on Kara, Josef 1956 In: Kupfer and Lewicki, 101-123. Originally written in the 12th century. Benveniste, Emile 1956 Etudes sur la phonötique et Etymologie de l'ossfete. Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris 52: 6-59. Bergmann, Gunter 1987 Kleines sächsisches Wörterbuch. München: C. H. Beck. Berlin, I. 1919 Istoriceskie sud'by evrejskogo naroda na territorii russkogo gosudarstva. Petrograd: Evrejskaja istoriöeskaja biblioteka. Bernätejn, Samuil BorisoviC 1970 Sledy konsonantnyx imennyx osnov ν slavjanskix jazykax. (Sledy osnov na -s.) Voprosyjazykoznanija 3: 71-86. 1973 Ocerk sravnitel'noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov: ceredovanija, imennye osnovy. Moskva: Nauka. Bibliophilus 1750 Jüdischer Sprach-Meister oder hebräisch-teutsches Wörterbuch. Frankfurt/Leipzig. Β ickerton, Derek and C. Odo 1976 General phonology and pidgin syntax. Volume 1 of Final Report on NSF Grant GS-39748. Bieder, Hermann 1980 Die deutschen -er-Bildungen in den westrussischen Texten aus der Sicht der deutschen und slavischen Wortbildung. In Erwin Wedel, Ivan Gäläbov and Herbert Schelesniker (eds.), Symposium slavicum 1977, 15-39. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Slavia aenipontana 3.) Innsbruck: Amoe. Bielfeldt, Hans Holm 1933 Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Obersorbischen. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Bihari, J. 1969 Zur Erforschung der slawischen Bestandteile des Jiddischen. Acta linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19: 157-199. Bikl, älojme 1941 Rotn, derrotn, trefn. Yidishe shprakh 1: 154-155. Bilec'kyj-Nosenko, Pavlo 1966 Slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy. Edited by V. V. NimCuk. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka.

562

References

Bin-Nun, Jechiel 1967 Cum vort smoxen (smoxn). Yidishe shprakh 27: 60-62. 1973 Jiddisch und die deutschen Mundarten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ostgalizischen Jiddisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Birnbaum, Henrik 1989 Was there a Slavic landtaking of the Balkans and, if so, along what routes did it proceed? Migrations in Balkan history, 47-60. Beograd/Santa Barbara: Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences/ University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Histoiy. Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken 1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort. Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. München: Otto Sagner. Birnbaum, Salomo A. 1922 Das hebräische und aramäische Element in der jiddischen Sprache. Kirchhain in N.-L.: Zalm & Baendel. 1974 Die jiddische Sprache. Ein kurzer Überblick aus acht Jahrhunderten. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1979 Yiddish. A survey and a grammar. Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Bischoff, Erich 1901 Jüdisch-deutscher Dolmetscher. Leipzig: Τ. Grieben. Bjal'keviC, Ivan KandrataviC 1970 Kraevy slownik usxodnjaj Mahilewscyny. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. Blanc, Haim [1948] The Yiddish language: A brief survey of its Slavic element. Unpublished B.A. thesis, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. 1970 Dual and pseudo-dual in the Arabic dialects. Language 46: 42-57. 1989 [Blank, Xaim] Leson bne-adam. Jeru§alaim: Mosad Bialik. Blinava, Evelina D. [1963] Dvojstvennoe Cislo suSöestvitel'nyx ν istorii belorusskogo jazyka. Avtoreferat. Minsk. Blinava, Evelina D. and E. Mjacel'skaja 1980 Belaruskaja dyjalektalohija. Minsk: VyS£j§aja §kola. Boba, Imre 1967 Nomads, Northmen and Slavs. Eastern Europe in the ninth century. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. Bolozky, Shmuel 1994 On the schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew [Review of Wexler 1990b]. In: Russell A. Stone and Walter F. Zenner (eds.), Critical essays on Israeli social issues and scholarship. Books on Israel 3: 63-85. Albany: SUNY Press.

References

563

1995

[Bolocki, Smuel] Ivrit jisraelit kesafa Semit: genealogja vetipologja. Mexkarim balason 7: 121-134. JeruSalaim: Hauniversita haivrit. Bondaletov, V. D. 1972 Belorusskie argo ν ix otnoSenii k argo russkim i ukrainskim. Typolohija i wzaemadzejanne slavjanskix mow i literatur, 1-83. Minsk. Bonfante, Giuliano 1939 Etudes sur le tabou dans les langues indo-europöennes 1. Melanges offerts a Charles Bally, 195-207. Gendve: Georg et Cie. Boretzky, Norbert 1983 Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert and Birgit Igla 1995 Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch. Mit einer Grammatik der Dialektvarianten. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Borisov, A. Ja. 1987 Κ voprosu ο vostoCnyx ölementax ν drevnerusskoj literature. Palestinskij sbornik 29: 154-167. Borovskij, Ja. E. and Α. P. Mocja 1990 Koncepcija jazyCestva i xristianstva ν zarubeinoj istoriografii i dannye arxeologii. Slavjane i Rus' (v zarubeznoj istoriografii), 121138. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Brajöevs'kyj, Mixail Ju. 1964 Koly ijak vynyk Kyjiv. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Bräuer, Herbert 1969 Slavische Sprachwissenschaft 3/2. (Sammlung Göschen 1236/ 1236a). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Brinner, William M. 1989 Karaites of Christendom-Karaites of Islam. In: C. E. Bosworth, Charles Issawi, Roger Savory and Abraham L. Udovich (eds.), Essays in honor of Bernard Lewis. The Islamic world from classical to modern times, 55-75. Princeton: Darwin. Brook, Kevin A. 1999 The Jews of Khazaria. Northvale, NJ/Jeru§alaim: Jason Aronson. Brückner, Alexander 1915 1957

Wplywy j^zyköw obcych na j?zyk polski. Encyklopedya polska volume 2, section 3 (part 1), 100-153. Kraköw: Gebethner i Wolff. Slownik etymologiczny jqzyka polskiego. Warszawa: Wiedza powszechna.

Bruckus, Julij 1924 Pis 'mo xazarskogo evreja otXveka. Berlin: [s.n.]. First published in Evrejskaja mysl' 1922.

564 1927

References

Peräi zvistky pro jevrejiv u Pol'Sii ta na Rusi. Naukovyj zbirnyk rik 1927 26: 3-ll.Kyjiv. 1929 Di er§te jedies vegn jidn in pojln. Historise sriftn 1: 55-72. 1933 [Brutzkus] Die Chazaren und das Kiewer Russland. Vlle Congres International des Sciences Historiques. Resumes des communications presentees au Congres 1: 108-113. Warszawa. 1935 Die « V a r j a g e r » und « K o l b j a g e r » . Seminarium Kondakovianum 7: 81-102. 1937 Di geäixte fim di berg-jidn ojf kavkaz. Historise sriftn 2: 26-42. 1938 Di opStamung fun di karaimer in lite un pojln. YlVO-bleter 13: 109123. 1939 Istoki russkogo evrejstva. Evrejskij mir 1: 17-32. 1944 The Khazar origin of ancient Kiev. Slavonic and East European review 22 (American series III, 4) (1): 108-124. Brzezina, Maria 1982 Variancja rodzaju gramatycznego rzeczownikow niezywotnych w potocznej polszczyznie. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kraköw/Gdansk/ Lödz: Zaktad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. 1986 Polszczyzna zydow. Warszawa/Kraköw: Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. 1989 Polszczyzna Niemcow. Warszawa/Kraköw: PaAstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. Budziszewska, Wanda 1955 Zargon ochweSnicki. Rozprawy komisji j^zykowej 3: 92-150. 1957 Zargon ochwesnicki. Lödz: Zaklad im. Ossolinskich we Wroclawiu. Bulitta, Erich and Hildegard Bulitta 2000 Wörterbuch der Synonyme und Antonyme. Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch. Bulygina, Τ. V. and A. D. Smelev 1999 "Narodnaja fctimologija": morfonologija i kartina mira. Slavjanskie etjudy. Sbornikk jubilejuS. M. Tolstoj, 103-115. Moskva: Indrik. Bulyka, Aljaksandr MikalaeviC 1972 Dawnija zapazycanni belaruskaj movy. Minsk: Navuka i töxnika. Bulyka, Aljaksandr MikalaeviC, Arkadz' IosifaviC Zurawski and 1.1. Kramko Histarycnaja marfalohija belaruskaj movy. Minsk: Navuka i 1979 töxnika. Bunardiiö, Radovan 1978-1979 IzveStaj sa zaStitnog arxeoloäkog iskopavanja rano-srednjovekovne nekropole lokalitetu "Ciglana" kod Celareva. Grahia za proucavanje spomenika kulture Vojvodine 8-9: 33-67. Novi Sad. 1980 Izlozba menore iz Celareva. Beograd: Savez jevrejskih opStina Jugoslavije.

References 1985

565

Celarevo. Risultati delle ricerche nelle necropoli dell 'alto medioevo. Roma/Novi Sad: Museo della citta, Novi Sad. Bunis, David M. 1993 Hebrew and Aramaic elements in Modern Judezmo. JeruSalaim: Magnes/Misgav Yerushalayim. Buxtorf, Johann 1645 Lexicon hebraicum et chaldaicum. Basel: Sumptibus Haeredum Ludovici König. Byhan, Artur 1926 Kaukasien. Illustrierte Völkerkunde Georg Buschan 2. Stuttgart: Strecker und Schröder. Bykava, N. U. 1990 ZapazyCanni hermanskaha paxodiannja pawnoöna-zaxodnjaj dyjalektnaj zony u belaruskaj move. Belaruskaja linhvistyka 37: 1825. Bykov, Α. A. 1974 Iz istorii deneinogo obraSCenija xazarii ν VIII i IX w . In: Anna Stepanovna Tveritinova (ed.), Vostocnye istocnikipo istorii narodov jugo-vostocnoj i central'noj Evropy, 3: 26-70. Moskva: Nauka. Bystroii, Jan Stanislaw 1923 Uwagi nad dziesi^ciu piesniami ludowymi iydöw polskich. Archiwum nauk antropologicznych 1(10). Warszawa/Lwöw: Towarzystwo Nauczyceli Szköl Wyzszych. Cabjaruk, Alena Ivanawna 1977 Licebnik u belaruskix havorkax. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. CagiSeva, V. I. 1968 Κ voprosu ο kategorii srednego roda ν mestnyx govorax. Pskovskie govory 2: 146-159. Calvet, Georges 1993 Dictionnaire tsigane-frangais. Dialecte kalderash. Paris: L'Asiatheque. Carmoly, Eliakim (ed.) 1831 Sivuv haolam. Tour du monde ou voyages du rabbin Pethachia de Ratisbonne, dans le douzieme siecle. Paris: Imprimörie royale. Caro, Jecheskiel 1894 Geschichte der Juden in Lemberg. Krakow: [privately printed]. Cassidy, Frederick Gomes 1986 Etymology in Caribbean Creoles. In: Manfred Görlach and John Holm (eds.), Focus on the Caribbean, 133-139. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cassidy, Frederic Gomes and Robert B. LePage (eds.) 1979 Dictionary of Jamaican Creole English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edition.

566

References

Cernjak, J. 1928

Paraleln in der Sprax fun jidn un vajsrusn in Stetl xocimsk, mol'ever krejz (v.s.s.r.). Dijidise sprax 4-5: columns 65-70.

Cernov, V. A. 1978 Κ ötimologii russkogo oblastnogo goljamo. Etimologija russkix dialektnyx slov, 36-44. Sverdlovsk: Ural'skij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet. Chadwick, Nora K. 1946 The beginnings of Russian history: an enquiry into sources. Cambridge: The University Press. Chekin, L. S. 1991 The role of Jews in early Russian civilization in the light of a new discovery and controversies. Russian history!Histoire russe 17: 379394. 1995 [Öekin] Κ analizu upominanij ο evrejax ν drevnerusskoj literature XI-XIII vekov. Slavjanovedenie 3: 34-42. Citko, L. 2000 Odetniczne nazwy osobowe na Podlasiu (XVI-XVII w.). Studia russica 18: 39-44. Comrie, Bernard 1999 Review of Thomason 1996. Language in society 28(4): 615-621. Corbett, Greville G. 1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crews, Cynthia 1957 Miscellanea hispano-judaica. Vox romanica 16: 224-245. Cross, Samuel Hazzard and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (translators, eds.) [1953]. The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian text. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America. Cvejg, A.R. 1927 Α "frage" oder a "freg". Dijidise sprax 3-4: columns 77-78. Cyxun, Henadz' and Ales'ja Litvynowskaja 1996 Les jawr£skix zapazyöannjaw u belaruskaj move. Belarusikal Alboruthenica 4: 212-217. Minsk: Navuka i tdxnika. Czeglödy, Karoly 1952 Sarkel. Magyar nyelv 48: 79-86. 1953 Α kazär kil-tel eredete. Magyar nyelv 49: 175-178. Czekanowski, Jan 1959 Anthropological structure of the Jewish people in the light of Polish analyses. Jewish journal of sociology 11(2): 236-243. Czortkower, Salamon 1933 Podloze rasowe iydöw kaukaskich. Archiwum Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie part 3, volume 6, book 8: 145-176.

References

567

D^browska, El2bieta 1979 W^grzy. Awarzy-Wqgrzy, 131-250. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Krakow/ Gdansk: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolmskich. Dachkevytch, Ya. R. 1982 Who are Armeno-Kipchaks? (On the ethnical substrate of the Armenian colonies in the Ukraine) [sic!]. Revue des etudes armeniennes n.s. 16:357-416. Dal', Vladimir I. 1903-1909 Tolkovyj slovar' zivogo velikorusskogo jazyka 1-4. Sankt Peterburg/Moskva: M. O. Vol'f. DeCamp, David 1971 Towards a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In: Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, 349-370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeGraff, Michel (ed.) 1999 Language creation and language change. Creolization, diachrony, and development. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Dejna, Karol 1957 Gwary ukrainskie Tarnopolszczyzny. Wroclaw: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. 1981 Atlas polskich innowacji dialektalnych. Warszawa/Lodz: Panstwowe wydawnyctwo naukowe. Deny, Jean 1957 L'Armeno-Coman et les"Ephemerides" de Kamieniec (1604-1613). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Der neue Brockhaus 1938 1. Leipzig: F. Α. Brockhaus. Derganc, Alexandra 1987 On the history of the dual in Slovene and Russian. Wiener slawistischer Almanach 22: 237-247. Doerfer, Gerhard 1967 Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit 3. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Dostäl, Antonin 1954 Vyvoj duälu ν slovanskych jazycich, zvlaste ν polstine. Praha: koslovenskä Akademia V6d. Dovhopol, S. F. 1966 Kartohrafuvannja nazv voziv za jix funkcijamy ν atlasi ukrajins'koji movy. Ukrajins'ka linhvistycna heohraßja, 24-30. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka.

568

References

Dralle, Lothar 1993 Die Deutschen in Ostmittel- und Osteuropa. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Dreessen, Wulf-Otto 1977 Zur altjiddischen Synonymik. In: Hermann-Joseph Müller and Walter Röll (eds.), Fragen des älteren Jiddisch, 63-67. (Trierer Beiträge. Sonderheft 2.) Trier: Der President der Universität Trier. Pressestelle der Universität. Drosdowski, Günther (ed.) 1989 Duden 7. Etymologie. Herkunftswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zürich: Dudenverlag. Dubinski, Alexander 1995 Caraimica. Prace karaimoznawcze. Warszawa: Dialog. Duchinski, Franc iszek 1901 Pisma Franciszka Duchinskiego 1. Rapperswyl: Naklad i wydawnictwo Muzeum Narodowego Polskiego. Dunlop, Donald M. 1954 The history of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton: Schocken. 1974 Η. Μ. Baratz and his view of Khazar influence on the earliest Russian literature, juridical and historical. In: Saul Lieberman (ed.), Salo W. Baron Jubilee volume 1: 345-367. (English section). Jeru§alaim/New York: American Academy for Jewish Research. Du§man, L. 1928 Fun kacovim-loSn. Cajtsrift 2-3: columns 873-878. Dyhr, Mogens and Ingeborg Zint 1988 Lubliner Jiddisch: ein Beitrag zur Sprache und Kultur des Ostjiddischen im 20. Jahrhundert anhand eines Idiolekts. Tübingen: G. Narr. Dyjalektalahiöny atlas belaruskaj movy 1963 Minsk: Akadömija Navuk BSSR. Dymerskaja-Cigel'man L. and M. Kipnis 1997 Voprosy etniieskogo opredelenija evreev ν sovetskix £nciklopedijax do serediny 80-x godov. Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta ν Moskve 2(15): 82-113. Dzendzelivs'kyj, Josyp O. 1969 Ukrajins'ko-zaxidnoslov'jans'ki leksycni paraleli. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. 1986 Pro arho ukrajins'kyx remisnykiv. (Kolkivs'ke kravec'ke arho na Volyni.) Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 29(1): 63-81. Ebert, Robert, Oskar Reichmann, Hans-Joachim Solms and Klaus-Peter Wegera 1993 Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Ebert, Wolfgang, Theodor Frings, Käthe Gleissner, Rudolf Kötzschke and Gerhart Streitberg

References 1936

569

Kulturräume und Kulturströmungen im mitteldeutschen Osten \-2 and separate maps. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Eggers, Eckhard 1998 Sprachwandel und Sprachmischung im Jiddischen. .Frankfurt/Berlin/Bem/New York/Paris/Wien: P. Lang. Eichler, Ernst 1964 Appellativa im altsorbischen Namenschatz. Letopis 11:9-35. 1965 Studien zur Frühgeschichte slawischer Mundarten zwischen Saale und Neisse. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1968 Die Gliederung des altsorbischen Sprachgebietes im Lichte der Namenforschung. In: Helmut Fasske and Ronald Lötzsch (eds.), Prinoski k serbskemu recespytej, 23-27. BudySin: VEB Domowina-Verlag. 1974 Beziehungen zwischen Südslawisch und Westslawisch im Lichte der Toponomastik. Makedonski jazik 25: 87-97. Eisler, Robert 1927 Les origines de la traduction slave de Josöphe Flavius. Revue des etudes slaves 7: 63-74. Eist, Gaston van der 1983 Abweichungen bei der Genuszuordnung in den deutschen Dialekten. In: Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.), Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, 1/2: 1202-1209. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Elzet, Jude 1936 Vider mekojex katoves. YlVO-bleter 9: 149-151. 1958 Smuesn vegn hebrei§-jidi§ un jidiS-hebreiS. In: Judl Mark (ed.), JudaA. Jofe-bux, 236-256. New York: YIVO. Engel, Ulrich and Ewa Geller 1996 Das Verb in seinem Unfeld: die deutsche Standardsprache im Licht des Schwäbischen, des Jiddischen und des Polnischen. In: Ewald Lang and Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Deutsch-typologisch, 384401. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Eppert, Franz 1963 Der politische und religiöse Flüchtling in seiner sprachlichen Bezeichnung im Deutschen. Inaugural dissertation. Cologne: Photostelle der Universität. Erdal, Marcel [1999] The language of the Khazars. In: The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 8. JeruSalaim: The Ben-Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts.

570

References

Erdelyi, I. 1983

Kabary (Kavary) ν kaφatskom bassejne. Sovetskaja arxeologija 4: 174-181. Ermakova, Maja Ivanovna 1970 Dvojstvennoe Cislo ν serboluiickix jazykax (na materiale pamjatnikov XVI-XVIII w.). Issledovanija po serboluzickim jazykam, 44-110. Moskva: Nauka. Escure, Genevifeve 1981 Decreolization in a Creole continuum: Belize. In: Arnold Highfield and Albert Valdman (eds.), Historicity and variation in Creole Studies, 27-39. Ann Arbor: Karoma. 1997 Creole and dialect continual Standard acquisition processes in Belize and China (PRC). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Etimalahiöny slownik belaruskaj movy 1978ff Minsk: Navuka i tdxnika. Etymolohi&iyj slovnyk ukrajins'koji movy 1982ff Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Even-SoSan, Avraham 1966Hamilon hexadas 1-7. JeruSalaim: Kirjat sefer. 1970 Evseev, Ivan E. 1902 Kniga proroka Daniila ν perevode zidovstvujuscix po rukopisi XVI veka. Moskva: Izdanie imperatorskogo ob§öestva istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom Universitete. Ewers, Johann Philipp Gustav 1814 Kritische Vorarbeiten zur Geschichte der Russen. Dorpat: Weinshausen. Ezer, Michael [1999] Tombstones in Crimea [sic!] as a source for the Karaite presence in the Peninsula. In: The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 9-10. Jeru§alaim: The Ben Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts. Faber, Alice and Robert D. King 1984 Yiddish and the settlement history of Ashkenazic Jewry. Mankind quarterly 24: 393-425. Fal'koviö, Ε. Μ. 1984 Ο jazyke idi§. In: Mojsej Al'teroviö Sapiro, Il'ja G. Spivak and M. Ja. §ul' man (eds.), Russko-evrejskij (idis) slovar', 666-720. Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Farrall, Melissa [1981] A Jewish translator in Kievan Rus': a critical edition and study of

References

571

the earliest redaction of the Slavic "Life of Moses". Unpublished PhD, Brown University, Providence, RI. Fasske, Helmut (with the assistance of Siegfried Michalk) 1981 Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie. Bautzen: VEB Domowina Verlag. Feller, Marten D. 1994 Posuki, rozdumy i spohady jevreja, jakyj pam'jataje svojix didiv, pro jevrejs'ko-ukrajins'ki vzajemyny, osoblyvo ζ pro movu i stavlennja do nyx. Drohobyd: VidrodZennja. Ferguson, Charles 1989 [Review of Versteegh 1984.] Al- 'Arabiyya 22: 5-17. Filin, Fedot P. (ed.) 1965ff Slovnik russkix narodnyx govorov. Leningrad: Nauka. Florer, Warren Washburn 1900 Gender-change from Middle High German to Luther, as seen in the 1545 edition of the Bible. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 15: 442-491. Florinskij, Timofej D. 1911 Etnograficeskaja karta zapadnogo slavjanstva i zapadnoj Rusi. Prilozenie. Ob "jasnenija. Istocniki i posobija. Statisticeskie dannye. Popravki. Kiev: S. V. Kul'zenko. Flusser, Gustav 1947Zpräva ο Slovanech ν hebrejske kronice ζ 10. stoleti. Cesky 1948 casopis historicky 48-49: 238-241. Frajnd Srajbn-mir entfern. 1938 Jidis far ale 182-185. Frakes, Jerold C. 1988 The politics of interpretation: Alterity and ideology in Old Yiddish studies. Albany: State University of New York Press. Friderichs-Müller, Theresia (ed.) 1981 Die 'Historie von dem Kaiser Octaviano' 1. Hamburg: H. Buske. Fridman, Filip 1952 [Review of Poljak 1951.] YlVO-bleter 36: 294-300. Friedrich, K. W. 1784 Unterricht in der Judensprache und Schrift. Prenzlau: Christian Gottfried Ragoczy. Friedrich, Paul 1979 The linguistic reflex of social change: From Tsarist to Soviet Russian kinship. In his Language, context, and the imagination, 168-200. Stanford: Stanford University Press. First published in: Stanley Lieberson (ed.), Explorations in sociolinguistics, 31-57. (International journal of American linguistics 33/2, part 2.) 's Gravenhage [1966] and Sociological inquiry 36(2): 159-185 [1966],

572

References

Frings, Theodor 1956 Sprache und Geschichte 3. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Frojimovics, Kinga, Göza Komoröczy, Viktöria Pusztai and Andrea Strbik 1999 Jewish Budapest. Monuments, rites, history. Edited by G£za Komoröczy. Budapest: Central European University Press. Gammal, M. and R. Kaplanov 1995 Novoe ο proiznoSenii ivrita u karaimov vostoinoj Evropy. Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta ν Moskve 1(8): 242-246. G^siorowski, A. 1977 Wielkopolska. Slownik starozytnosci slowianskix 6: 440-441. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kraköw/Gdarisk: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolmskich. Geller, Ewa 1991 Jiddische und polnische Parallelen im situationsspezifischen Sprachgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur slawischen Komponente des Jiddischen. In: Yoshinori Shichiji (ed.), Akten des VIII Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses (Tokyo 1990) 11: 536544. München: iudicium. 1993 Jidysz-j?zyk "mieszany"? Studio ζ filologii polskiej i slowiafiskiej 30: 167-179. 1994 Jidysz: Jqzyk Zydow polskich. Warszawa: Pahstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. [1997] Germanocentric vs. Slavocentric approach to Yiddish. Unpublished paper presented at the 12th World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. 1999 Hidden Slavic structure in Modern Yiddish. In: Walter Roll and Simon Neuberg (eds.), Jiddische Philologie. Festschrift für Erika Timm, 65-89. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 2001 Warschauer Jiddisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Gershenson, Daniel E. 1996 Yiddish davenen and the Ashkenazic rite: Byzantine Jewry and the Ashkenazim. Yiddish 10(2-3): 82-95. Gerzon, Jacob 1902 Die jüdisch-deutsche Sprache. Eine grammatisch-lexikalische Untersuchung ihres deutschen Grundbestandes. Frankfürt: J. Kauffmann. Ge§ev, Valentin 1996 [Review of Wexler 1993c.] Säpostavitelno ezikoznanie 21: 81 -100. Gieysztorowa, Irena 1976 Wstqp do demografii staropolskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo naukowe. Gimbutas, Marija 1967 Ancient Slavic religion: A synopsis. In: To honor Roman Jakobson

References

573

1: 738-759. (Janua linguarum, Series maior 31-33.) 's Gravenhage/ Paris: Mouton. Gininger, Xaim 1937 Vi azoj darf ojsgesedert Alfred Landojs etimologiger verterbux? YlVO-bleter 12: 396-409. Gitlic, M. 1936 Slavizmen in jidi§ fun 16-18 jorhundert lojt Sriftlixe kveln. Lingvistise zamlung 3: 73- 97. Glinert, Lewis 1991 Language choice and the Halakhic speech act. In: Robert L. Cooper and Bernard Spolsky (eds.), The influence of language on culture and thought. Essays in honor of Joshua A. Fishman's sixtyfifth birthday, 157-182. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Göckenjan, Hansgerd 1972 Hilfsvölker und Grenzwächter im mittelalterlichen Ungarn. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Godbey, Allen H. 1930 The lost tribes. A myth. Suggestions towards rewriting Hebrew history. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Gofyb, Zbigniew 1967 The traces of vfddhi in Slavic. In: To honor Roman Jakobson 1: 770-784. 's Gravenhage/Paris: Mouton. 1991Jak s^siedzi zachodni nazywali polakow w polowie X wieku? 1992 Slavia occidentalis 48-49: 85-92. Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak 1982 Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth century. Ithaca/New York/London: Cornell University Press. In Russian translation as Xazarsko-evrejskie dokumenty X veka, with a commentary by Vladimir Ja. Petruxin. Moskva/JeruSalaim: Gesharim [1997]. Gold, David L. 1980 Towards a study of possible Yiddish and Hebrew influence on Esperanto. In: I. Szerdaheylyi (ed.), Miscellanea interlinguistica, 300-367. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadö. 1981 The plural of Yiddish componds with ben- and bas- and their significance for the study of Hebrew. Jewish language review 2: 66-71. 1984 [Comment.] Jewish language review 4 (1984): 351. Gol'del'man, Menashe 1995 Evrei ν ötniieskoj istorii Xazarii. Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta ν Moskve 1(8): 61-79. Golden, Peter B. 1980 Khazar studies 1-2. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. 1982 The question of the Rus' Qaganate. Archivum Eurasiae medii aevi

574

References

2: 77-97. 1991 Aspects of the nomadic factor in the economic development of Kievan Rus'. In: I. S. Koropeckyj (ed.), Ukrainian economic history. Interpretive essays, 58-101. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gombocz, Zoltän 1912 Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lehnwörter in der ungarischen Sprache. Helsinki: Sociötö finno-ougrienne. Goninaz, M. D. 1974 Les influences slaves en esperanto. Cahiers de linguistique, d'orientalisme et de slavistique. Etudes slaves 3-4: 31-53. Goodenough, Erwin R. 1954 Jewish symbols in the Greco-Roman world 4. The problem of method. Symbols from Jewish culture. New York: Pantheon. GorjaCeva, Τ. V. 1997 Κ £timologii i semantike vostoCnoslavjanskix meteorologiieskix i astronomiCeskix terminov. Etimologija 1994-1996, 27-35. Moskva: Nauka. Gorskij, Aleksandr 1860 Ο slavjanskom perevode Pjatikniinija Moiseeva, ispravlennom ν XV veke po evrejskomu tekstu. Pribavlenija k izdaniju tvorenij svjatyx otcov ν russkom perevode 19: 134-168. Graur, Alexandria 1965 La romanite du roumain. (Bibliotheca historica Romaniae, Etudes 9.) Bucure§ti: l'Acadömie de la R£publique Socialiste de Roumanie. Green, Eugene 1969 On accentual variants in the Slavic component of Yiddish. In: Marvin I. Herzog, Wita Ravid and Uriel Weinreich (eds.), Field of Yiddish 3: 216-239. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. Greenberg, Marc 2000 A historical phonology of the Slovene language. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm 1854Deutsches Wörterbuch. New edition, E. Adelberg, et al. (eds.), 1871 Leipzig 1983ff: Hirzel. Granik, Ottar 1982 The words for 'heir', 'inheritance' and funeral feast' in early Germanic. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Grunwald, Kurt 1973 The early Jewish settlements in Austria: A chapter of economic history. Journal of European economic history 2: 101-108.

References

575

Grzegorzewski, Jan 1916-1918 J?zyk Lach-Karaitöw. Narzecze pohidniowe (tucko-halickie). Rocznik orientalistyczny 1(2): 252-296. Gumowski, Marian 1975 Hebräische Münzen im mittelalterlichen Polen. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Gumpertz, John and Robert Wilson 1971 Convergence and creolization. A case from the Indo-Aryan/ Dravidian border in India. In: Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of language, 151-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumplowicz, Maksymilian Ernest 1903 Poczqtki religii zydowskiej w Polsce. Warszawa: E. Wende i S-ka. Gurco, A. P. 1988 Praslavjanskoe kve- i vosxodjaSCie k nemu obrazovanija ν belorusskom jazyke. Russkij jazyk 8: 122-129. Minsk. Gürtler, Hans 1911Zur Geschichte der deutschen -er-Plurale, besonders im Frühneu1913 hochdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 37 (1911-1912): 492-543; 38 (1913): 67-224. Gusmani, Roberto 1981 "Rekomponierte" Lehnbildungen. In: Yoel L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono homini donum. Essays in historical linguistics in memory of J. Alexander Kerns 2: 837-843. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Guxman, Mira Mojseevna et al. (eds.) 1963 Sravnitel'naja grammatika germanskix jazykov 3. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Gyoni, Mätyäs 1938 Kälizok, kazärok, kabarok, magyarok. Magyar nyelv 34: 86-96, 159-168. Györffy, György 1960 A magyar törzsi helynevek. In: D. Pais and S. Mikesy (eds.), Nevtudomanyi vizsgälatok, 27-34. Budapest. 1963 Az Arpäd-kori Magyarorszäg törteneti földrajza 1. Budapest: Akadömiai kiado. Haberman, Avraham M. 1976 Xadasim gam jesanim. JeruSalaim: R. Mas. Halasi-Kun, Tibor 1974 Kipchak philology and the Turkic loanwords in Hungarian. Archivum Eurasiae medii aevi 1: 155-210. Halevi, Jehuda c. 1140 Kitäb al-hudza wa-l-dalil β na$r ad-din ad-dalll. Translated into

576

References Hebrew as Ha-Kuzari c.l 170. English translation, Book of Kuzari, translated by Hartwig Hirschfeld. New York: Pardes [1946].

Halevy, M. A. 1957 Do zagadnienia Chazaröw i Chwalisöw w XII wieku. Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 21: 93-9. Halperin, Charles J. 1975 Judaizers and the image of the Jew in medieval Russia: A polemic revisited and a question posed. Canadian-American Slavic studies 9(2): 141-155. Hanover, Nosn Note 1701 Sefer safa brura. Amsterdam: MoSe Mindis Kvitinjo. First published Prague [1660]. Hansen, Björn 2000 The German modal verb müssen and the Slavonic languages-the reconstruction of a success story. Scando-Slavica 46: 77-92. Harkavi, Albert A. 1865 Ob jazyke evreev zivsix ν drevnee vremja na Rusi i ο slavjanskix slovax vstrecaemyx u evrejskix pisatelej. (Trudy VostoCnogo Otdelenija Imperatorskogo Arxeologiöeskogo ObSöestva 14.) Sankt Peterburg: Issledovanija ob istorii evreev ν Rossii. 1867 [Garkavi, A. Ja.] Hajehudim usfat haslavim. Vil'na: J. R. Rom. 1884 Sledy znakomstva s evrejskim jazykom ν drevnej russkoj pis'mennosti. Evrejskoe obozrenie January, 57-64. Harkavy, Alexander 1928 Jidis-englis-hebreiser verterbux. New York: Hebrew Publishing Company. Reprinted New York: Schocken/YIVO [1988], Harmatta, Janos 1953 Α kazär kil szö magyaräzatähoz. Magyar nyelv 49: 178-183. Harshav, Benjamin 1989 The meaning of Yiddish. Berkeley: University of California Press. Haugen, Einar 1953 The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1956 Bilingualism in the Americas. Gainesville: University of Alabama Press. Havlova, Eva 1997 Zu einigen Lehnbedeutungen in den slavischen Sprachen. In: Karl Heinz Hengst, Dietlind Krüger, Hans Walther and Inge Bily (eds.), Wort und Name im deutsch-slavischen Sprachkontakt. Ernst Eichler von seinen Schülern und Freunden, 175-179. Köln/Weimar/ Wien: Böhlau. Heather, Peter J. 1998 Disappearing and reappearing tribes. In: Walter Pohl and Helmut

References

577

Reimitz (eds.), Strategies of distinction. The construction of ethnic communities, 300-800, 95-111. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Ε. J. Brill. Hegewald, Leonhard Linold 1850 De l'origine de la nation russe. Sankt Peterburg: C. Hinze. Hendler, Maximilian 1993 zamarbnyj-ein altrussisches hapax legomenon. Anzeiger für slavische Philologie 22(1): 97-103. Herman, Louis J. 1975 A dictionary of Slavic word families. New York/London: Columbia University Press. Herrmann, Joachim 1983 Wanderungen und Landnahme im westslawischen Gebiet. Gli slavi occidentali e meridionali nell'alto medioevo 1: 75-101. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro. Herzog, Marvin I. 1965 The Yiddish language in Northern Poland: Its geography and history. Bloomington/'s Gravenhage: Mouton. 1969 Yiddish in the Ukraine: Isoglosses and historical inferences. In: Marvin Ϊ. Herzog, Wita Ravid and Uriel Weinreich (eds.), Field of Yiddish 3: 58-81. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. Herzog, Marvin I., Uriel Weinreich and Vera Baviskar (eds.) 1992ff Language and culture atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry 1992, 1; Andrew Sunshine, Uriel Weinreich, Beatrice S. Weinreich and Robert Neumann (eds.), 1995, 2; Marvin I. Herzog (ed.), 2000, 3. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. HistaryCny slownik belaruskaj movy 1982ff Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka. Hofinann, Hans-Rainer [1998] Lachoudisch sprechen. Mit Wörterverzeichnis. Dinkelsbühl: Brunnen. Holm, John 1988Pidgins and creoles 1-2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989 Hofynska-Baranowa, Tatiana 1969 Ukrainskie nazwy miesiqcy na tie ogolnoslowiafiskim. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Krakow: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossoliriskich. Holzer, Georg 1998 Zur Rekonstruktion urslavischer Lautungen. In: Jerzy Rusek and Wieslaw BoryS (eds.), Praslowianszczyzna i jej rozpad, 56-72. Krakow: Energeia. Honnen, Peter 2000 Geheimsprachen im Rheinland. Köln/Bonn: Rheinland Verlag.

578

References

HorbaC, Oleksa 1957 Ar go ukrajins'kyx lirnykiv. (Naukovi zapysky Ukrajins'koho Vil noho Universytetu 1: 7-44.) München: Logos. 1963 Argo ukrajins'kyx vojakiv. (Naukovi zapysky Ukrajins'koho Vil'noho Universytetu 7: 138-173.) München: Logos. Horvath, Julia and Paul Wexler 1994 Unspoken languages and the issue of genetic classification: the case of Hebrew. Linguistics 32: 241-269. 1997a (eds.) Relexification in Creole and non-creole languages. (With special reference to Modern Hebrew, Haitian Creole, Romani and Rumanian). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1997b Relexification: Prolegomena to a research program. In: Julia Horvath and Paul Wexler (eds.), Relexification in creole and non-creole languages. (With special reference to Modern Hebrew, Haitian Creole, Romani and Rumanian), 11-71. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Hrabjanka, Hryhorij 1990 Dejstvija prezel'noj i ot nacala poljakov krvavoj nebyvaloj brani Bohdana Xmel'nyc'koho, Hetmana Zaporozskoho, s poljaky. Yuri Lutsenko (ed.), Η. Hrabjanka's The Great War of Bohdan Xmel'nyc'kyj. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally written 1710; first published Kyjiv [1854]. Hrushevsky, Mykhailo 1997 History of Ukraine-Rus' 1. Edmonton/Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. Hunfalvy, Päl 1877 Ethnographie von Ungarn, Budapest: Franklin-Verein. Hutterer, Claus J. 1975 Die germanischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akaddmiai kiadö. Hymes, Dell (ed.) 1971 Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iordanidi, Sof ja I. and Μ. V. Sul'ga 1984 Morfologiöeskoe vyraZenie kategorii roda ν istorii russkix govorov. Obsceslavjanskij lingvistiöeskij atlas 1981, 87-228. Moskva: Nauka. IsaCenko, Aleksandr V. 1954 Prispevok k gtudiu najstarSich vrstiev zäkladneho slovnöho fondu slovanskych jazykov. (Slovanskö neuträ na -men). In: Studie a präce lingvisticke k sedesätym narozeninäm akademika Bohuslava Havränka, 114-130. Praha: Öeskoslvenskä Akademie Vöd. 1980 Geschichte der russischen Sprache 1. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitäts-

References

579

verlag. Ising, Gerhard 1968 Zur Wortgeographie spätmittelalterlicher deutscher Schriftsdialekte 1-2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Ivanov, P. 1951 Ob odnoj oäiboönoj koncepcii. Pravda no. 359, 25 December, p.3. Izgor, Α. H. 1903 Hasafa haiargonit mezakeha veleceha. Hamelic no. 15-16. 1910 Hasafa vehatarbut haivrit. Kiev. (Lecture given at Histadrut ceire jisrael lasafa velatarbut haivrit in Kiev.) Jacobs, Neil G. 1990a Economy in Yiddish vocalism. A study in the interplay of Hebrew and non-Hebrew components. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1990b Northeastern Yiddish gender-switch: Abstracting dialect features regionally. Diachronica 7: 69-100. 1991 A reanalysis of the Hebrew status constructus in Yiddish. Hebrew Union College Annual 62: 305-327. 1996 Toward a phonological description of / palatalization in Central Yiddish. In: Rosina L. Lippi-Green and Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), Germanic linguistics, 149-168. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jacobs, Neil G., Ellen F. Prince and Johann van der Auwera 1994 Yiddish. In: Ekkehard König and Johann van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic languages, 388-419. London: Routledge. Jacobson, Steven A. 1999 A guide to the more common Hebraic words in Yiddish. Fairbanks, Alaska: [privately printed]. Jadvihin, S. 1910 [A. I. Ljavicki] Listy ζ darohi. VI. Traby. -TakarySki. -Dawnary. -BakSty. Nasa niva 27: 403-406. Jakobson, Roman 1954 Minor native sources for the early history of the Slavic church. Harvard Slavic studies 2: 39-73 1957 Reö a pisemnictvi Ceskych iidü dobs pfemyslovskö. In: Ladislav MatSjka (ed.), Kulturni sbornik ROK, 35-46. New York: Moravian Library. 1985 Iz razyskanij nad staroieSskimi glossami ν srednevekovyx evrejskix pamjatnikov. In: Stephen Rudy (ed.), Roman Jakobson, Selected writings 6: 855-857. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton. Also in Slavica hierosolymitana 7: 45-46 [1985]. Jakobson, Roman and Morris Halle 1985 The term Canaan in Medieval Hebrew. In: Stephen Rudy (ed.), Roman Jakobson, Selected writings 6: 858-886. Berlin/New York/

580

References

Amsterdam: Mouton. First published in: Lucy S. Dawidowicz, Alexander Erlich, Rachel Erlich and Joshua A. Fishman (eds.), For Max Weinreich on his seventieth birthday. Studies in Jewish languages, literature and society, 147-172. 's Gravenhage: Mouton [1964], Janda, Laura A. 1996 Back from the brink: a study of how relic forms in languages serve as source material for analogical extension. Miinchen/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Jänichen, Hans 1965 Der oder die Bach. Ein Beitrag zur fränkisch-alemannischen Stammesgrenze. Festschrift für Karl Schümm, 72-77. SchwäbischHall. Janöw, Jan 1926 Gwara maloruska Moszkowiec i Siwki Naddniestrzanskiej ζ uwzglqdnieniem wsi okolicznych. (Archiwum Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie part 1, volume 3.) Lwow. Janusz, Bohdan 1927 Karaici w Polsce. Kraköw: Naklad Ksi?garni Geograficznej Orbis. Jentsch, Helmut, Siegfried Michalk, Irene Sörak and Georg Mirtschink (eds.) 1989Deutsch-obersorbisches Wörterbuch 1-2. Bautzen: Domowina1991 Verlag. Jochnowitz, George 1994 A yearning for Yiddish [Review of Wexler 1993c]. Midstream October, 35-38. Jofe, Jude A. 1927 Katoves ce ktvwt? Pinkes 1(1-2): 129-134. 1928 Der slaviäer element in jidi§. Pinkes 1(3): 235-256, 296-312. 1959 The etymology of davenen and katoves. American academy of Jewish research. Proceedings 28: 77-92. Jofe, Jude A. and Judl Mark (eds.) 1961Grojser verterbux fun der jidiser sprax 1-4. New York/JeruSalaim. 1980 Komitet farn grojsn verterbux fun der jidiSer Sprax. Jordanskij, Anatolij MixailoviC 1960 Istorija dvojstvennogo cisla ν russkom jazyke. Vladimir: [s.n.]. Juxnöva, Natalija Vasilievna 1987 Materialy k dtniCeskomu rajonirovaniju gorodskogo naselenija Evropejskoj Rossii (po dannym perepisi 1897 g.). Etniceskie gruppy ν gorodax evropejskoj casti SSSR, 112-26. Moskva: Moskovskij filial Geografiöeskogo ObSöestva SSSR. Kaczmarek, Leon 1968 Pröba chronologizacji zapozyczen siowianskich w j^zyku niemieckim. Ζ polskich studiow slawistycznych series 3. Jqzykoznawstwo,

References

581

303-312. Warszawa: Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. Kaddari, Menakhem Zvi 1984 Hebrew mikol-makom, mamash, and the nitpael in Responsa Literature. (With reference to probable or possible Yiddish influence on Hebrew.) Jewish language review 4: 30-33. 1991 An overlooked source of Modern Hebrew. In: Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Semitic studies. In honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday 1: 784-793. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Kaestner, Walter 1968 Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Polnischen 1. Einleitung und Lautlehre. Nendeln: Kraus Reprint. First published Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz [1939]. Kagarov, Je. 1928 Cu der frage vegn dem jidiän etimologi§n verterbux. Cajtsrift 2-3: columns 741-746. Kaiser, Käre 1930 Mundart und Schriftsprache. Versuch einer Wesensbestimmung in der Zeit zwischen Leibnitz und Gottsched. Leipzig: Eichblatt. Kalinina, T. [1999] Al-Khazar wa-'l-§aqäliba: Contacts and conflicts. The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 20. JeruSalaim: The Ben-Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts. KalmanoviC, Zelig 1938 Der SojreS fun dajömeriS. Jidisfar ale 8: 209-216. Kalnyn', Ljudmila E. and Ljudmila I. Maslennikova 1995 Issledovanija po slavjanskoj dialefctologii 3. Moskva: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki. Karaketov, M. 1997 Xazarsko-iudejskoe nasledie ν tradicionnoj kul'ture karaCaevcev. Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta ν Moskve 1(14): 103-110. Karaljunas, Simas 1986 Κ vyraZeniju protivopostavlenija 'rannee'-'pozdnee (vremja dnja)' (sootv. 'utro'-'veCer') ν baltijskix i nekotoryx indo-evropejskix jazykax. Etimologija 1984, 71-78: Moskva: Nauka. Karas, Mieczyslaw (ed.) 1980 Slownik gwar polskich 1(2). Wroclaw/Warszawa/Krakow/ Gdansk/Lodz: Zaktad narodowy im. Ossolmskich. Karlowicz, Jan A. 1894-1905 Slownik wyrazow obcego a mniej jasnego pochodzenia uzywanych w jqzyku polskim 1-3. Krakow: Gebethner. 1900 Slownik gwar polskich. Kraköw: Wydawnictwa artystyczne i filmowe.

582

References

Karskij, Evfimij F. 1956 Belorusy. Jazyk belorusskogo naroda 2-3. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Kasatkin, Leonid L. 1996 Glasnye zvuki na konce slova ν sovremennyx severnorusskix govorax na meste reducirovannyx glasnyx drevnerusskogo jazyka. In: A. A. Gippius, Tatjana Mixailovna Nikolaeva and Vladimir Nikolaeviö Toporov (eds.), Rusistika. Slavistika. Indoevropeistika. Sbomik k 60-letiju Andreja Anatol'evica Zaliznjaka, 243-255. Moskva: Indrik. 1998 Razliöija ν projavlenii odnoj jufcnorusskoj dialektnoj derty ν ustnoj i pis'mennoj reCi. Russian linguistics 22: 59-69. Katz, Dovid Hebrew, Aramaic and the rise of Yiddish. In: Joshua A. Fishman 1985 (ed.), Readings in the sociology of Jewish languages, 85-103. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1991a A late twentieth century case of katoves. In: Dov-Ber Kerler (ed.), History of Yiddish studies, 141-163. Chur: Harwood Academic. 1991b [Kac] Der semitiäer xejlek in jidi§. Α jeruäe fun kadmojnim. Oksforder jidis 2: 17-90. 1991c The children of heth and the ego of linguistics-a story of seven Yiddish mergers. Transactions of the Philological Society 89(1): 95-121. 1993 East and West, khes and shin and the origin of Yiddish. In: Israel Bartal, Ezra Mendelsohn, Chava Turniansky (eds.), Studies in Jewish culture in honour of Chone Shmeruk, 9-37 (English section). JeruSalaim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-toldot yisra'el. 1995 [Kac] Cum ur§prung funem milel. Oksforder jidis 3: columns 389416. Kazdan, X. S. 1960 Vegn faräidene grupes hebreizmen. Yidishe shprakh 20(2): 33-45. Keller, Rudolf E. 1961 German dialects. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kerler, Dov-Ber 1988 East meets west: The dialectal climate of two early Eastern European Yiddish prints. In: Dov-Ber Kerler (ed.), Dialects of the Yiddish Language, 69-84. Oxford: Pergamon. 1999 The origins of modern literary Yiddish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiefer, Ulrike 1985 Das Jiddische in Beziehung zum "Mittelhochdeutschen". In: Wer-

References

583

ner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, 2/2: 1201-1210. Berlin/New York: Walterde Gruyter. Kieser, Otto 1972

Kihm, Alain 1989

Diatopik eines Wortschatzes nach Sachgruppen. Dialektuntersuchung des Kreises Liebenwerda. (Ludwig Erich Schmitt, ed., Deutsche Wortforschung in europäischen Bezügen 6 and 6/2.) Glessen: W. Schmitz

Lexical conflation as a basis for relexification. Canadian journal of linguistics 34: 351-376. King, Robert D. 1980 The history of final devoicing in Yiddish. In: Marvin I. Herzog, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Dan Miron and Ruth Wisse (eds.), Field of Yiddish 4: 371-430. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. 1987 Proto-Yiddish morphology. In: Dovid Katz (ed.), Origins of the Yiddish language, 73-81. Oxford: Pergamon. 1988 Two of Weinreich's four riddles revisited. In: Dov-Ber Kerler (ed.), Dialects of the Yiddish Language, 85-98. Oxford: Pergamon. 1990 On the origins of the s-plural in Yiddish. In: Paul Wexler (ed.), Studies in Yiddish linguistics, 47-53. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 1992 Migration and linguistics as illustrated by Yiddish. In: Edgar C. Ροΐοηιέ and Werner Winter (eds.), Reconstructing languages and cultures, 419-439. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993 Early Yiddish vowel systems: A contribution by William G. Moulton to the debate on the origins of Yiddish. In: David Goldberg (ed.), Field of Yiddish 5: 87-98. Evanston, IL/New York: Northwestern University Press/YIVO. Kiparsky, Valentin 1934 Die gemeinslavischen Lehnwörter aus dem Germanischen. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Kiss, Α. 1970 1 Ith century Khazar rings from Hungary with Hebrew letters and signs. Acta archaeologica hungarica 22: 341-348. Klar, Benjamin (ed.) 1947 The Sepher haShoham (The Onyx Book) by Moses Ben Isaac Hanessiah 1. Jeru§alaim/London: Mekice nirdamim. Kleczkowski, A. 1928 Wyrazy niemieckie w staroczeskiem i staropolskiem. Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski 2: 331-345. Kraköw: Gebethner i Wolff.

584

References

Klein, Ernest 1987

A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the Hebrew uage for readers of English. Haifa: Carta.

lang-

Kligsberg, M. 1944 Materialen cu a terminologje fun psixologje. Yidishe shprakh 4: 16-22. Kluge, Friedrich 1899 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Reprinted, 22nd edition, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter [1989]. KlySka, Mixas' K. 1976 Slownik sinonimaw i blizkaznacnyx slow. Minsk: Vy§£j§aja Skola. Kna'ani, Ja'akov 1960-1980 Ocar halason haivrit litkufoteha hasonot 1-17. JeruSalaim/TelAviv/Givataim: Massada. Kniesza, Istvän 1955 A magyar nyelv szlav jövevenyszavai 1-2. Budapest: Akad&niai kiado. Knowles, Frank 1993 Strack's "Jüdisches Wörterbuch" of 1916-a "period-piece" of lasting value. In: Wolf Moskovich, Shmuel Shvarzband and Anatolij Alekseev (eds.), Jews and Slavs 1: 307-318. JeruSalaim/Sankt Peterburg: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Slavonic Bible Foundation/Russian Academy of Sciences. Knutsson, K. 1929 Die germanischen Lehnwörter im Slavischen vom Typus buky. Lunds Universitets Ärsskrift n.s. part 1, vol. 24, no. 9. Lund. Kobyljan'skyj, Β. V. 1953 SyntaksyCnyj zv'jazok kil'kisnyx ßyslivnykiv dva, try, cotyry ζ imennykamy (na materiali ukrajins'koji i rosijs'koji mov). Movoznavstvo 12. Koche ν, N. 1978 The question of Jews and the so-called Judaizers in the Balkans from the 9th to the 14th century. Bulgarian historical review 6(1): 60-79. Koestler, Arthur 1976 The thirteenth tribe. The Khazar empire and its heritage. London: Hutchinson. Koller, Erwin, Werner Wegstein and Norbert R. Wolf (eds.) 1990 Neuhochdeutscher Index zum mittelhochdeutschen Wortschatz. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.

References

585

Koitzsch, Fritz 1928 Kursachsen und die Juden in der Zeit Brühls. Engelsdorf/ Leipzig: C. & M. Vogel. König, Werner 1981 Dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag. 1996-1997 (ed.) Bayerisches Sprachatlas. Sprachatlas von BayerischSchwaben 1,2/1, 3/1. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. KopeCny, Frantiäek 1968 Zur Frage der lexikalischen Struktur des Sorbischen. In: Helmut Fasske and Ronald Lötzsch (eds.), Prinoski k serbskemu recespytej, 135-140. Budyäin: VEB Domowina-Verlag. Kosover, Mordexaj 1958 Jidige majxolim. Juda A. Jofe-bux, 1-145. New York: YIVO. Kotkov, Sergej I. 1963 Juznovelikorusskoe narecie ν XVII stoletii. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Kowalski, Tadeusz 1946 Relatio Ibrahim ibn-Ja 'küb de itinere slavico quae traditur apud al-Bakri. Krakow: Gebethner i Wolff. Koz'min, M. 1913 Prosloe i nastojaäöee sibirskix sektantov-subbotnikov. Evrejskaja starina 5(1): 3-22; (2): 162-183. Krähe, Hans 1963-1967 Germanische Sprachwissenschaft 1 -3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Krakowski, J. 1923 Ρojlis-judis verierbux. Warszawa: Central. Kramer, Je. 1983 Zyvyj xozars'kyj slid na Ukrajini. Ukrajins'kyj istoryk 2-4 (7880): 103-112. Krasnosselsky, Leizar 1912 Zur Geschichte der Karäer im Russischen Reich. Bern: H. Spahr. Kretschmer, Paul 1969 Wortgeographie der hochdeutschen Umgangssprache. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KriStal, S. B. 1928 Di fax-terminologje fun a Suster. Cajtsrift 2-3: columns 884-892. Krogh, Steffen 2001 Das Ostjiddische im Sprachkontakt. Deutsch im Spannungsfeld zwischen Semitisch und Slavisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Krojs, S. 1932 HaSemot aSkenaz usfarad. Tarbic 3(4): 423-435. 1935 [Krauss, S.] Die hebräischen Benennungen der modernen Völker.

586

References

In: Salo Wittmayer Baron and Alexander Marx (eds.), Jewish studies in memory of George A. Kohut, 379-412. New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation. Kronsteiner, Otto 1978 Gab es unter den Alpenslawen eine kroatische ethnische Gruppe? Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 24: 137-157. 1980 Sind die slovine "die Redenden" und die nembci "die Stummen"? Zwei neue Namen der Slawen und der Deutschen. In: Peter Wiesinger (ed.), Sprache und Name in Österreich. Festschrift für Walter Scheinhauser zum 95. Geburtstag, 339-361. Wien: W. Braumüller. 1982 Zur Etymologie der Bezeichnung nembci 'die Deutschen'. Onomast ica jugoslavica 9: 237-241. Krueger, John 1961 Chuvash manual. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kuhn, W. 1963 Die Siedlerzahlen der deutschen Ostsiedlung. In: Karl Gunter Specht, Hans Georg Rasch and Hans Hofbauer (eds.), Studium sociale, 131-154. Köln/Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 1967 Die deutsche Ostsiedlung. In: Eberhard Gunter Schulz (ed.), Leistung und Schicksal. Abhandlungen und Berichte über die Deutschen im Osten, 19-35. Köln/Graz: Böhlau. Kunstmann, Heinrich 1987 Beiträge zur Geschichte der Besiedlung Nord-und Mitteldeutschland mit Balkanslaven. München: Otto Sagner. 1996 Die Slaven. Ihr Name, ihre Wanderung nach Europa und die Anfänge der russischen Geschichte in historisch-onomastischer Sicht. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Kupfer, Franciszek and Tadeusz Lewicki 1956 Zrodla hebrajskie do dziejow Slowian i niektörych innych ludow srodkowej i wschodniej Europy. Wrociaw/Warszawa: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolüiskich. Kuraszkiewicz, Wladyslaw 1985 Szkic polonizuj^cej si? ruskiej gwary archaicznej w dratowie pod L?czn^. In his Ruthenica, 249-262. Warszawa: Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. First published in Slavia occidentalis 18: 139-152 [1947]. Kurka, Antoni 1979 In: Olexa Horbatsch (ed.), Polnische Gaunersprache 1. Frankfurt: Kubon und Sagner. First published as Slownik mowy zlodziejskiej. L'vov: [privately printed] [1907]. Kurkina, Ljubov' V. 1996 Slav. *plqsati. Slavjanovedenie 1: 7-14.

References

587

Kutschera, Hugo Freiherr von 1910 Die Chasaren. Historische Studien. Wien: Α. Holzhausen. Kuzgun, §aban 1985 Hazar ve karay Türkler i. Türklerde yahüdilik ve dogu Avrupa yahüdilerinin mensei meselesi. Ankara: Kayseri. Kuz'min-Jumanadi, Ja. F. 1987 Ο gebraizmaxv CuvaSskom jazyke. Sovetskaja tjurkologija 2: 6876. Kvitni, M. 1927 Slavismen ba mendelen. Dijidise sprax 7: columns 53-60. 1928 Hebreizmen ba mendelen. Dijidise sprax 3: columns 22-27. Lado, Robert 1957 Linguistics across culture. Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Landoj, Alfred 1938 Cvej verter fun etimologi§n verterbux. YlVO-bleter 13:228-231. Laskowski, Roman 1965 Sfowiaiiskie *bachorb: *bachorb: *bachurb. Rocznik slawistyczny 25: 51-57. Lass, Roger 1980 Paradigm coherence and the conditioning of sound change: Yiddish 'schwa-deletion' again. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology, 251-272. 's Gravenhage/Paris/New York: Mouton. Lazar, S. M. 1913 Meajin moca hajehudim bimdinot polin? Haeskol 7: 50-57. Lefebvre, Claire 1974 Discreteness and the linguistic continuum in Martinique. Anthropological linguistics 16: 47-78. 1986 Relexification in Creole genesis revisited: the case of Haitian Creole. In: Pieter Muysken and Norbert S. H. Smith (eds.), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis, 279-300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1993 The role of relexification in creole genesis: the case of functional categories. Travaux de recherche sur le creole haitien 14: 23-52. 1997 On the cognitive process of relexification. In: Julia Horvath and Paul Wexler (eds.), Relexification in creole and non-creole languages. (With special reference to Modern Hebrew, Haitian Creole, Romani and Rumanian), 72-99. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1998 Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefebvre, Claire and John S. Lumsden 1989 Les langues cröoles et la th£orie linguistique. Canadian journal

588

References

of linguistics 34: 249-272. Relexification in Creole genesis. In: Claire Lefebvre and John S. Lumsden (eds.), MIT Symposium on the role of relexification in Creole genesis: the case of Haitian Creole. Unpublished research report. Cambridge, MA. Lehr-Splawinski, Tadeusz 1965 E§öe raz ο nazvanii goroda Kiev. Problemy sovremennoj filologii; sbornik statej k semidesjatiletiju akademika V. V. Vinogradova, 197-198. Moskva: Nauka. Lehr-Splawinski, Tadeusz and Kazimierz P o ^ s k i 1962 Slownik etymologiczny Drzewian polabskich 1. Wroclaw/ Warszawa/Krakow: Polska Akademia Nauk. Continued in Polanski 1971-1994. Leibowitz, Nehama 1931 Die Übersetzungstechnik der jüdisch-deutschen. Bibelübersetzungen des XV. und XVI. Jahrhunderts dargestellt an den Psalmen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 55: 377-463. Lejbl, Doniel 1929 EtimologiSe noticn. Filologise sriftn fun YIVO 3: columns 211[1994]

222.

1964

Ribui cabor veribui mefurad beSemot ecem nekeva. In: JehoSua Meir Grinc and Ja'akov Liver (eds.), Sefer segal, 234-251. JeruSalaim. LeksiCny atlas belaruskix narodnyx havorak 1993. Minsk. Belaruski Respublikanski Fond Fundamental'nyx Dasle1998 davannjaw. LePage, Robert B. 1974 Processes of pidginization and creolization. York papers in linguistics 4: 41-69. Lerer, Lejbuä 1943 Fun poj liSn dialekt. Yidishe shprakh 3:51-53. Lerner, J. J. 1867 Hakuzarim. Ma 'amar al dvar korotehem kefi hajediot hanimcaot besifre divre hajamim. Odesa: M. Bejlinson. Leschka, Stephanus 1825 Elenchus vocabulorum europaeorum cum primis slavicorum magyarici usus. Budapest: Typis Typographiae Regiae Universitatis Hungaricae. Levin, Jankev 1958 Verterbixl fun hebreis-jidise verier. New York: Cika-frojencentrale bajm Jidiäe kultur-kongres.

References

589

Levkievskaja, Ε. Ε. 1998 Karlik, karliki. Slavjanovedenie 6: 14-17. Levy, Ernest-Henri 1924 Langue des hommes et langue des femmes en judeo-allemand. Melanges offerts a M. Charles Andler par ses amis et ses eleves, 197-215. (Publications de la Faculty des Lettres de Γ University de Strasbourg, fascicule 21.) Strasbourg. Lewicki, Tadeusz 1954a Polska i kraje sqsiednie w swietle "Ksiqgi Rogera" geografa arabskiego ζ XII w. al-IdrlsT'ego, part 2. Warszawa: Naklad Polskiej Akademii Umiej^tnosci. 1954b Ze studiöw nad tzw. "Korespondencj^ Chazarsk^". Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 11-12: 1-16. 1984 Poc^tki osadnictwa zydowskiego w Europie srodkowej i wschodniej," Kalendarz zydowski 1984-1985, 36-39. Warszawa. 1988 Kabarowie (Kawarowie) na Rusi, na W^grzech i w Polsce we wczesnym Sredniowieczu. In: Gerard Labuda and Stanislaw Tabaczynski (eds.), Studia nad etnogenezq Slowian i kulturq Europy wczesno-sredniowiecznej, 2: 77-87. Wroclaw/Warszawa/ Krakow/Gdansk/Lödz: Naklad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Lexer, Matthias 1980 Mittlehochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. 36th edition. Full edition, 1-3. Leipzig 1869-1878: S. Hirzel. Lic'vinska, Vasil' D. 1998 Svjaty i abrady belarusaw. Minsk: Belarus'. Ligeti, Lajos 1927 Α kazär iräs es a magyar roväsiräs. Magyar nyelv 23: 473-476. Reprinted in his A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai es ami körülöttük van 2: 96-99. Budapest 1979: Magyar Tudomänyos Akademia Könyvtara. 1981 The Khazarian letter from Kiev and its attestation in runiform script. Acta linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31:518. 1986 A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai α honfoglaläs elött es az Ärpädkorban. Budapest: Akadämia kiadö. Lindgren, Kaj B. 1953 Die Apocope des mittelhochdeutschen -Ε in seinen verschiedenen Funktionen. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Liondor, L. 1827 Slownik polski w jqzyku zydowsko-niemieckiem. Wilno: Manes i Zymel. Ljubarski, K. F. 1927 UkrainiSe verter in der jidiSer Sprax (hojptzaxlex in doremdikn

590

References

dialekt). Zapysky Odes'koho Instytutu Narodn'oji Osvity 1: 161130 (reverse pagination). Lockwood, William B. 1995 Lehrbuch der modernen jiddischen Sprache. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Loma, Aleksandra 1998 Mundartliche Gliederung des späten Urslavischen und frühe slavische Stammesbildungen. In: Jerzy Rusek and Wieslaw BoryS (eds.), Praslowianszczyzna ijejrozpad, 143-160, Krakow: Energeia. Lotter, Friedrich 1997 Christliche Völkergemeinschaft und Heidenmission. Das Weltbild Brun von Querfurt. In: Przemyslaw Urbanczyk (ed.), Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, 163-174. Warszawa: Semper. Lötzsch, Ronald 1965 Die spezifischen Neuerungen der sorbischen Dualflexion. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. 1974 Slawische Elemente in der grammatischen Struktur des Jiddischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 19: 446-459. 1990 Jiddisches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. 1992 Slawische Elemente in Wortbildung und Grammatik des Jiddischen. In: Janusz Siatkowski and Ignacy Dolinski (eds.) PolonoSlavica Varsoviensia. Slowiansko-nieslowianskie kontakty jqzykowe, 97-104. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. 1996 Interferenzbedingte grammatische Konvergenzen und Divergenzen zwischen Sorbisch und Jiddisch. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(1): 50-59. Louden, Mark L. 2000 Contact-induced phonological change in Yiddish. Another look at Weinreich's riddles. Diachronica 17(1): 85-100. Lowenstein, Steven 1969 Results of atlas investigations among Jews from Germany. In: Marvin I. Herzog, Wita Ravid and Uriel Weinreich (eds.), Field of Yiddish 3: 16-35: 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1997 The shifting boundary between Eastern and Western Jewry. Jewish Social Studies 4(1): 60-78. Lozinski, B. P. 1963 L'origine prakrite du nom de la ville Kiev-1'implication des donnees historiques des sources arabes. Etudes slaves et esteuropeennes 8: 3-16. Luöic-Fedorec, 1.1. 1969 Sud'ba praslavjanskix kotja i xyzja ν Poles'e. In: Viktor Vladimi-

References

591

roviö Martynov (ed.), Tipologija i vazimodejstvie slavjanskix i germanskix jazykov, 203-211. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Lumsden, John S. [1994] A comparison of the lexical semantic representations of French, Fongbe and Haitian Creole. Unpublished paper presented at the 10th biennial conference of the Society for Caribbean Linguistics and the Society for Pidgin and Creole Languages, University of Guyana, Turkeyen, 24-27 August. 1999a Language acquisition and creolization. In: Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change. Creolization, diachrony, and development, 129-157. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. 1999b The role of relexification in creole genesis. Journal of pidgin and creole linguistics 14(2): 225-258. Lunt, Horace G. 1995 What the Rus' Primaiy Chronicle tells about the origin of the Slavs and of Slavic writing. Harvard Ukrainian studies 19: 335-357. Lunt, Horace G. and Moshe Taube 1988 Early East Slavic translations from Hebrew? Russian linguistics 12: 147-187. 1998 The Slavonic Book of Esther. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Luria, Jakov S. 1984 Unresolved issues in the history of the ideological movements of the late fifteenth century. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Michael S. Flier (eds.), Medieval Russian culture, 1: 150-171. (California Slavic studies 12.) Berkeley. Lutsenko, Yuri 1990 Introduction to H. Hrabjanka's The Great War of Bohdan Xmel'nyc'kyj. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. L'vov, Andrej Stepanoviö 1966 Ocerki po leksike pamjatnikov staroslavjanskoj pis'mennosti. Moskva: Nauka. Lysenka, I. F. 1998 Uzaemadaöynenni belaruskaj i ruskaj mow u XV-XVII stst. (Na materyjale leksika-semantyCnaj hrupy vaennaj leksiki.) In: Lidzija SjameSka and M. R. Pryhodzix (eds.), Belaruskaja mowa ν druhoj palove XX stahoddzja, 68-72. Minsk: Belaruski Dzjar2awny Universitdt. Lysenko, Panas S. 1974 Slovnykpolis 'kyx hovoriv. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Lytvak, S. 1995 Nekotorye voprosy teoriijazyka idiäa. Jevrejs'ka istorija ta kul'-

592

References

iura ν Ukrajini. Materialy konferenciji, Kyjiv 8-9 hrudnja 1994, 101-103. Kyjiv. Lyzanec', P. M. 1969 Morfolohiöni osoblyvosti dejakyx ukrajins'kyx hovirok Pin§Cyny (BRSR). In: Fedot T. Zylko, (ed.), Ukrajins 'ka dialektna morfolohija, 187-191. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Macartney, C. A. 1930 The Magyars in the ninth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Machek, Väclav 1971 Etymologicky slovnik jazyka ceskeho. Praha: Academia. Mackeviö, Juzefa Flaryjanawna, Elena I. Hrynaveckene and Jawhenija Mixajlawna RamanoviC (eds.) 1979-1986 Slownik belaruskix havorak pawnocna-zaxodnjaj Belarusi i jae pahranicca 1-5. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. Mader, Brigitta 1986 Die Alpenslawen in der Steiermark Eine toponomastischarchäologische Untersuchung. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Magomedov, Murad G. 1983 Obrazovanie xazarskogo kaganata. Po materialam arxeologiceskix issledovanij i pis'mennym dannym. Moskva: Nauka. 1994 Xazary na Kavkaze. MxaCkala: Dagestanskoe kniinoe izdatel'stvo. Maler, Bertil 1979 Western Yiddish berkhes or barkhes, its origins and offshoots in Scandinavian languages. Nordiskjudaistik 2: 1-5. Malkiel, Yakov 1975 Etymology and modern linguistics. Lingua 36: 101-120. Manaster Ramer, Alexis (with the assistance of Meyer Wolf) 1996 Yiddish origins: The Austro-Bavarian problem. Folia linguistica historica 17(1-2): 193-209. 1997 The polygenesis of Western Yiddish-and the monogenesis of Yiddish. In: Ir£n Hegedüs, Peter Michalove and Alexis Manaster Ramer (eds.), Indo-European, Nostratic, and beyond. Festschrift for Vitaly Sheveroshkin, 206-232. (Journal of Indo-European studies. Monograph Series, 22.) Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. Mann, Jacob 1922 The Jews in Egypt 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansikka, Viljo J. 1932 Zum ostslavischen Ahnenkult. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae series Β 27: 132-145.

References

593

Marchand, James W. 1960 Three basic problems in the investigation of early Yiddish. Orbis 9: 34-41. Mark, Aron Pelny slownik polsko-zydowski. Warszawa: Ahisef. [1908] Mark, Judl 1941 Fun der jidiSer Spraxarbet in sovetn-farband. YlVO-bleter 17: 222234. 1943a Der gramatiSer min fun zaxverter. Yidishe shprakh 3(4-6): 97-136. 1943b Lomir zix lernen jidiS ojf linkolnen. Yidishe shprakh 3: 1-32. 1944 Di litviSe jidn un der nejtraler min. Yidishe shprakh 4: 83-94. 1954a A study of the frequency of Hebraisms in Yiddish: Preliminary report. In: Uriel Weinreich (ed.), Field of Yiddish 1: 28-47. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. 1954b Mercol fun zaxverter. Yidishe shprakh 14: 33-42, 80-92, 120-126. 1958 Jidi§-hebrei3e un hebreig-jidiäe naj§afungen. YlVO-bleter 41: 124157. 1961 Sejles un öuves. Yidisheshrpakh2\: 32. 1963-1964 Vegn Sedlexe un niclexe dajömerizmen. Yidishe shprakh 23 (1963): 65-87; 24 (1964): 75-82. 1967 [Comments to Bin-Nun 1967.] Yidishe shprakh 27: 61-62. 1978 Gramatik fun der jidiser klal-sprax. New York: Alveltlexer jidiSer kultur-kongres. Mark, Mendl Verter un ojsdrukn fun majn Stetl palonge. Yidishe shprakh 10: 161950 31. Marquart, Josef 1903 Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge. Leipzig: Dietrich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Marr, Nikolaj A. 1935a CuvaSi-jafetidy na Volge. Izbrannye raboty 5: 323-372. Moskva/Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe social' no-ekonomiöeskoe izdatel'stvo. First published Ceboksary: CuvaSgosizdat [1925]. 1935b Rodnaja reö'-moguCij ryCag kul'turnogo pod"ema. Izbrannye raboty 5: 393-447. Moskva/Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe sociaPno-ekonomiöeskoe izdatel'stvo. First published in: Leningrad. Vostocnyj Institut [1930]. Martel, Antoine 1938 La langue polonaise dans les pays ruthenes. Lille: Travaux et m&noires de l'Universite de Lille. N.s. Droit et lettres 20. Martynov, Viktor Vladimiroviö 1963 Slavjano-germanskoe leksiceskoe vzaimodejstvie drevnejsej pory. Minsk: Akademija Nauk BSSR.

594 1969

References

Ο nadeinosti primerov slavjano-germanskogo leksiCeskogo vzaimoproniknovenija. In: Viktor VladimiroviC Martynov (ed.), Tipologija i vzaimodejstvie slavjanskix i germanskix jazykov, 100-113. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Maslennikova, Ljudmila I. 1973 Nekotorye osobennosti kategorii srednego roda ν pol'skom govore derevni Ornjany Litovskoj SSR. Pol'skie govoryv SSSR2: 73-96. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Mathiesen, Robert 1983 Handlist of manuscripts containing Church Slavonic translations from the Old Testament. Polata knigopisnaja 7: 3-48. Matisoff, James 1979 Blessings, curses, hopes andfears. Psycho-ostensive expressions in Yiddish. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Matvijas, I. H. 1962 Instrukcija dlja skladannja komentariv do kart atlasa ukrajins'koji movy. Dialektolohicnyj bjuleten' 9: 123-133. 1969 Formy mnoZyny imennykiv i vidminy ν ukrajins'kij movi. In: Fedot T. Zylko (ed.), Ukrajins'ka dialektna morfolohija, 112-140. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Matvijenko, Antonyn M. 1958 Analohija hramatyönoho rodu ν ukrajins'kij movi. In: Oleksandr SavyC MePnyduk (ed.), Doslidzennja ζ ukrajins'koji movy, zbirnyk statej aspirantiv ta dysertantiv, 24-38. Kyjiv: Akademija Nauk URSR. Mayer, A. 1956 Zum germ, und slav. Milchnamen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 73(3-4): 235-237. Mazon, Andr£ 1929 Un peuple imaginaire: les Chvalis. Revue des etudes slaves 9: 120123. 1932 L'emploi indefini du nom de Phomme en slave. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae series Β 27: 146-156. Meisel, Jürgen 1983 Strategies of second language acquisition. More than one kind of simplification. In: Roger W. Andersen (ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition, 120-157. Rowley, MA/London/Tokyo: Newbury House. Mel'nyöenko, G. G. 1961 Kratkij jaroslavskij oblastnoj slovar', ob"edinajuscij materialy ranee sostavlennyx slovarej (1820-1956 gg.). Jaroslavl'. Mel'nyCuk, Oleksandr Savyö 1966 Rozvytok struktury slov'jans'koho recennja. Kyjiv: Naukova dum-

References

1986

595

ka. [Aleksandr SaviC Mel'niCuk] ed., Is tor ices kaja tipologija slavjanskix jazykov. Fonetika, slovoobrazovanie, leksika i frazeologija. Kiev: Naukova dumka.

Menges, Karl 1951 The Oriental elements in the vocabulary of the oldest Russian epos, the Igor' tale. (Supplement to Word 7.) New York. 1968 The Turkic languages and peoples. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Meriggi, B. 1964 Praslovanske *divati (sq) a Samanskä terminolögia. Sbornik filozofickej fakulty Univerzity Komenskeho. Philologica 16: 35-38. MeäCerskij, Nikita A. 1956a Κ voprosu ob izuCenii perevodnoj literatury Kievskogo perioda. Ucenye zapiski Karel'skogo Pedagogiceskogo Institut a 2(1): 198219. 1956b Otryvok iz knigi "Iosippon" ν "Povesti vremennyx let". Palestinskij sbornik 2 (64-65): 58-68. 1958 Istorija iudejskoj vojny Iosifa Flavija ν drevnerusskom perevode. Moskva-Leningrad: Akademija Nauk SSSR. 1960 Znaienie drevneslavjanskix perevodov dlja vosstanovlenija ix arxetipov (na materiale drevnerusskogo perevoda 'Istorija Iudejskoj vojny' Iosifa Flavija). Issledovanija po slavjanskomu literaturovedeniju i fol'kloristike. Doklady sovetskix ucenyx na IV Mezdunarodnom S"ezde Slavistov, 61-94. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Sovetskij komitet slavistov. 1964 Κ istorii teksta slavjanskoj knigi Enoxa (sledy pamjatnikov Kumrana ν vizantijskoj i staroslavjanskoj literature). Vizantijskij vremennik 24: 92-108. 1975 Drevneslavjanskij-obSöij literaturno-pis'mennyj jazyk na rannem etape kul'turno-istoriöeskogo razvitija vsex slavjanskix jazykov. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta no. 8: 132140. 1978a Istocniki i sostav drevnej slavjano-russkoj perevodnoj pis'mennosti IX-XV vekov. Leningrad: Leningradskij Universitet. 1978b Izdanie teksta drevnerusskogo perevoda "Knigi Esfir'". Acta Universitatis Szegedensis. Dissertationes slavicae 13: 131-164. Michalk, Siegfried 1969 Über den Einfluss des Sorbischen auf das Neulausitzische. In: Werner Krauss, et al. (eds.), Slawisch-deutsche Wechselbeziehungen in Sprache, Literatur und Kultur, 126-135. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.

596

References

Mieses, Josef 1916 Die älteste gedruckte deutsche Uebersetzung des jüdischen Gebetbuches a. d. Jahre 1530 und ihr Autor Anthonius Margar itha. Wien: R. Löwit. Mieses, Matthias 1907 Bizxut hasafa hajehudit. Haolam 1:281 -283. 1924 Die jiddische Sprache. Eine historische Grammatik des Idioms der integralen Juden Ost- und Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Wien: B.Harz. 1933-1934 Judaizanci we Wschodniej Europie. Miesiqcznik zydowski 3 (1933): 41-62, 169-185,4 (1934): 147-159, 241-260, 342-358, 566-576. Miklosich, Franz 1867 Die slavischen Monatsnamen. Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1874 Die slavischen Ortsnamen aus Appellativen 2. Wien: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe. Denkschriften volume 21. 1926 Die Bildung der slavischen Personen- und Ortsnamen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. First published Wien: Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse volume 14. Kaiserlich-königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei [1860-1874]. Miller, Philip E. 1993 Karaite separatism in nineteenth-century Russia. Joseph Solomon Lutski's Epistle of Israel's delivrance. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College. Minorsky, Vladimir 1958 A new book on the Khazars. [Review of Dunlop 1954], Oriens 11: 122-145. Miroljubov, Jurij 1984 Slavjano-russkijfol'klor. München: Otto Sagner. Mitzka, Walther and Ludwig Erich Schmitt (eds.) 1958 Deutscher Wortatlas 8. Glessen: W. Schmitz. Mixajlov, Mark Alekseeviö 1974 Ο koliCestvennoj forme imen suSöestvitel'nyx (na materiale govora brjanskix pereselencev Primorskogo kraja). Obsce-slavjanskij lingvisticeskij atlas. Materialy i issledovanija 1971, 47-53. Moskva: Nauka. Mladenov, Stefan 1937 Zur armenischen und slavischen Etymologie. Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet 9: 95-102. (Acta Jutlandica.) Modelski, Teofil E. 1910 Krol "Gebalim " w liscie Chasdaja. Lwow: Naklad Towarzystwa

References

597

dla Popierania Nauki Polskiej. Molz, Hermann 1902-1906 Die Substantivflexion seit mittelhochdeutscher Zeit. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 27 (1902): 209342; 31 (1906): 277-292. Moravöik, Ju. 1931 ProisxoZdenie slova tzitzakion. Sbornik statej po arxeologii i vizantinovedeniju 4: 69-76. Moravcsik, Gyula 1983 Byzantinoturcica 2. Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Moskovich, Wolf 1978 Essays on comparative semantics of Slavic languages and dialects 1. Vocabulary of Polessian dialects (a tentative overview). Slavica hierosolymitana 2: 13-24. 1985 Caraimica: The problems of the origin and history of East-European Karaites in the light of linguistic evidence. Slavica hierosolymitana 7: 87-106. 1993 Mr. Khaüruchenka, Miss Shaihets', Mrs. Hoika and others: The origin of some unusual family names in East Slavic areas. Ρhilologia slavica. Κ 70-letiju akademika Ν. I. Tolstogo, 354-364. Moskva: Nauka. Moskovich, Wolf [MoskoviC, Volf] and Boris Tukan 1980 'LeSon kedar'. Netunim leSoniim al moca hakaraim vetoldotehem bekrim uvemizrax-eropa. Pa'amim 6: 79-106. Moszyriski, Leszek 1954 Geografia niektörych zapozyczen niemieckich w staropolszczyznie. Poznan: Padstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. 1992 Die vorchristliche Religion der Sloven im Lichte der slavischen Sprachwissenschaft. Köln/Weimar/Wien: Böhlau. 1997 [LeSek MoSinskij] Sovremennye lingvistiCeskie metody rekonstrukcii praslavjanskix verovanij. Etimologija 1994-1996, 9-20. Moskva: Nauka. Mühlhäusler, Peter 1982 Etymology and pidgin languages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 99-118. 1985 Synonymy and communication across lectal boundaries in Tok Pisin. In: Ian F. Hancock (ed.), Diversity and development in English-related Creoles, 134-153. Ann Arbor: Karoma. 1986 Pidgin and Creole linguistics. Oxford: B. Blackwell. Mutaföiev, Petär 1943 Die angebliche Einwanderung von Seldschuk-Türken in die Dobrudscha im XIII. Jahrhundert. Sofija: Peöatnica knipegraf.

598

References

Muysken, Pieter 1981 Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: the case for relexification. In: Arnold Highfield and Albert Valdman (eds.), Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, 52-78. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Nadeljaev, V. M., et al. 1969 Drevnetjurkskij slovar'. Leningrad: Nauka. Naro, Anthony 1978 A study on the origins of pidginization. Language 54: 314-347. Narumi, Kanzo 1983 Slovnik russkix imen ifamilij. Tokyo: Nauka. Nazarenko, Aleksandr Vasil'eviC 1988 « P u t ' iz nemec ν x a z a r y » i pervye veka drevnerusskoj istorii (IX-X w.). Vnesnjaja politika Drevnej Rusi. Jubilejnye ctenija, posvjascennye 70-letiju so dnja rozdenija V. T. PaSuto. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. 1994 Russko-germanskie svjazi IX-X w . kak wedenie ν istoriju politiieskix vzaimootnoSenij. Drevnejsie gosudarstva vostocnoj Evropy. Materialy i issledovanija. 1991 god. Moskva: Nauka. Nazarova, Tatjana V. 1985 Linhvisticriyj atlas niznoji Pryp 'jati. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Nehama, Joseph (with the assistance of Jesus Cantera) 1977 Dictionnaire du judeo-espagnol. Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientificas. Nejman, I. 1915 Ο subbotnikax na Amure. Evrejskaja starina 7: 183-185. Nemöenko, Vasilij Ν., A. I. Sinica and T. F. Muraikova 1963 Materialy dlja slovar ja russkix starozil'ceskix govorov Pribaltiki. (Udenye zapiski 51. FilologiCeskie nauki, vypusk 8A.) Riga: Latvijskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet imeni Petra Stuiki. Nestor 12th Chronicle [Predanie ob osnovanii Kieva]. In: Fedor IvanoviC century Buslaev, Russkaja xrestomatija. Pamjatniki drevne-russkoj literatury i slovesnosti, s istoriceskimi, literaturnymi i grammaticeskimi ob'jasnenijami i s slovarem, 20-48. Moskva 1904: G. Lissner i A. Ge§el\ For an English translation, see Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Neubauer, Adolf 1866 Aus der Petersburger Bibliothek. Beiträge und Dokumente zur Geschichte des Karäerthums und der karäischen Literatur. Leipzig. Niborski, Yicxok 1997 Verterbuxfun loSn-kojdeS-stamike verier in jidis. Paris: Medembibliotek.

References

599

Nichols, Johanna 1987 Russian vurdalak 'werewolf and its cognates. In: Michael S. Flier and Simon Karlinsky (eds.), Language, literature, linguistics. In honor of Francis J. Whitfield on his seventieth birthday, March 25, 1986, 165-177. Berkeley: Berkeley Slavic specialities. Nikolaenko, Anatolij G. 1991 Severo-zapadnaja Xazarija ili donskaja Rus'? Volokonovka: Belgorodskij oblastnoj kraevedieskij muzej. Nikonov, Vladimir A. 1993 Slovar' russkix familij. Moskva: Skola. Nitsch, Kazimierz 1954 W sprawie kirkutu. Jzykpolski 34: 204-206. Nobl, Slojme 1943 Xumes-tajc. New York: YIVO. 1958 JidiS in a hebreiSn lvu§. YlVO-bleter 41: 158-175. Noonan, Thomas S. 1991 The flourishing of Kiev's international and domestic trade, ca. 1100-ca. 1240. In: I. S. Koropeckyj (ed.), Ukrainian economic history. Interpretive essays, 102-146. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nosoviö, Ivan Ivanoviö 1870 Slovar' belorusskogo narecija. Sankt Peterburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Novosel'cev, Anatolii P. 1990 Xazarskoe gosudarstvo i ego rol' ν istorii Vostocnoj Evropy i Kavkaza. Moskva: Nauka. 1993 Evrei ν Xazarii. Slavjane i ix sosedi 5. Evrejskoe naselenie central'noj, vostocnoj i jugo-vostodnoj Evropy: srednie vekanacalo novogo vremeni, 26-28. Moskva 1993: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki. Obnorskij, Sergej PetroviC 1927 Imennoe sklonenie ν sovremennom russkom jazyke. (Sbornik otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 100, 3.) Leningrad. Obolensky, Dimitri 1978 The Bogomils. A study in Balkan neo-Manichaism. New York: American Mediaeval Society Press. First published Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1948]. Öhmann, Emil 1924 Der s-Plural im Deutschen. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series Β, vol. 18.) Helsinki. Olesch, Reinhold 1956 Zur Mundart von Chwalim in der früheren Grenzmark PosenWestpreussen. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.

600

1962 1970

References Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 6: 345-372. Juglers Lüneburgisch-Wendisches Wörterbuch. Köln/Graz: Böhlau. Slavistische Anmerkungen zum schlesischen Wörterbuch. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 37: 190-203.

Oljanöyn, D. 1936 Aus dem Kultur- und Geistesleben der Ukraine. Kyrios 1: 176-189. Onyäkevyö, Myxajlo M. 1971 Kategorija rodu i Cisla Cyslivnykiv dva-cotyry ν zaxidnij Castyni hovoriv ukrajins'koji movy. In: Fedot T. £ylko (ed.), Praci XII respublikans'koji dialektolohicnoji narady, 252-262. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Orel, Vladimir 1984 Slav. *mogyla. ObSdeslavjanskij lingvisticeskij atlas 1981, 301306. Moskva: Nauka. 1995 [Review of Altbauer 1992.] Slavjanovedenie 2: 107-109. 1997 Ο slavjanskix imenax ν evrejsko-xazarskom pis'me iz Kieva. Palaeoslavica 5: 335-338. Ostrowski, Donald 1998 Muscovy and the Mongols. Cross-cultural influences on the steppe frontier, 1304-1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pan'keviö, I. 1958 Κ voprosu ο proisxoidenii ukrainskix lemkovskix govorov. Slavjanskaja filologija. Sbornik state/' 2: 198-199. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Paszkiewicz, Henryk 1963 The making of the Russian nation. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. 1983 The rise of Moscow's power. Boulder/New York: East European Monographs. Paul, Hermann 1968 Deutsche Grammatik 1-5. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Pavliuc, Nicolae 1989 Dual forms in literary Ukrainian and dialects. Journal of Ukrainian studies 14(1-2): 158-173. Peisker, Johann 1905 Die älteren Beziehungen der Slawen zu Turkotataren und Germanen und ihre sozialgeschichtliche Bedeutung. Berlin/Stuttgart/Leipzig: W. Kohlhammer. Peretc, Vladimir 1908 Novye trudy ο "iidovstvujuSCix" XV v. i ix literature. Universitetskie izvestija 10.

References 1915

601

Do istoriji perekladu Biblii ν Zaxidnij Rusy. Fil'olohicny zbirrtyk pamjaty K. Myxal'cuka. Kyjiv. 1926 Κ voprosu ο evrejsko-russkom literaturnom obSCenii. Slavia 5: 267-276. PerferkoviC, N. 1931 Hebreizmen in jidis. Riga: Globus. Petrova, Τ. E. 1987 Ο proisxoidenii svadebnyx frazeologizmov ν russkix govorax gor'kovskoj oblasti. Vzaimodejstvie vyrazitel'nyx sredstv i semantiki ν istorii drevnerusskogo i russkogo jazykov. Gor'kij: Gor'kovskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet. Petruxin, Vladimir 1992 [Petrukhin] The Normans and the Khazars in the south of Rus' (the formation of the "Russian Land" in the Middle Dniepr area). Russian history!Histoire russe 19: 393-400. 1993 Slavjane i Rus' ν "Iosippone" i "Povesti vremmenyx let". Κ voprosu ob istoönikax naöal'nogo russkogo letopisanija. Slavjane i ix sosedi 5. Evrejskoe naselenie central'noj, vostocnoj i jugovostocnoj Evropy: srednie veka—nacalo novogo vremeni, 44-56. Moskva 1993: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki. 1995 Naöalo etnokul 'turnoj istorii Rusi IX-Xvekov. Smolensk: Rusid. 1997 [Comments to Golb and Pritsak 1982b.] See under Golb and Pritsak 1982. Pfeifer, Wolfgang, et al. (eds.) 1989 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen 1-3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Reprinted 1993, 1995, 1997. Pfui, Christian T. 1866 Luziski serbski slownik. Bautzen: Maöica serbska. Reprinted Bautzen 1968: VEB-Domowina Verlag. Pinkus, Benjamin 1988 The Jews of the Soviet Union. The history of a national minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piron, Claude 1984 Contribution ä I'&ude des apports du yidiche ä l'espöranto. Jewish language review A: 15-29. Pivtorak, Hryhoryj P. 1988 Formuvannja i dialektna diferenciacija davnorus 'koji movy. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Pohl, Alek 1987 Zum Problem des Genus deutscher Lehnwörter im Alt-und im Mittelpolnischen. In: Alek Pohl and Andr6 de Vincenz (eds.), Deutsch-polnische Sprachkontakte, 191-205. Köln/Wien: Böhlau.

602

References

Pohribnyj, Mykola I. 1964 Slovnyk naholosiv ukrajins'koji literatumoji movy. Kyjiv: Radjans'ka äkola. Polanski, Kazimierz 1962 Morfologia zapozyczen niemieckich w jqzyku polabskim. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kraköw: Zaktad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. 1971-1994 Slownik etymologiczny jqzyka Drzewian polabskich 2-6. Warszawa. Continues Lehr Splawinski and Polaüski 1962. Poljak, Avraham Ν. 1951 [Polak] Kazarija. Toldot mamlaxa jehudit be'eropa. Tel-Aviv: Mosad Bialik. 3rd edition. 1964 Novye arabskie materialy pozdnego srednevekov'ja ο vostoCnoj i central'noj Evropy. In: Anna Stepanovna Tveritinova (ed.), Vostocnye istocnikipo istorii narodov jugo-vostoönoj i central'noj Evropy 1: 29-59. Moskva: Nauka. Posselt, Alfred H. 1982 Geschichte des chazarischen-jüdischen Staates. Wien: Verlag des Vereins zur Förderung und Pflege des Reformjudentums. Poznanski, Samuel 1911 [Review of Modelski] Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie 15: 74-76. Prilucki, Noex 1923 Dos gevet. Var§e: Kultur lige. 1926-1933 Af krume vegen. [Review of M. Mieses 1924.] Appendix to Noex Prilucki and §mil Leman (eds.), Arxiv far jidiser Spraxvisnsaft, literaturforSung un etnologje 1: 1-64. Varäe: Najer farlag. 1938a MetodologiSe bamerkungen zum problem dajömeriS. Jidis far ale 1:201-209. 193 8b Xojdes un monat. Jidis far ale 1: 92-94. Pritsak, Omeljan 1955 Eine altaische Bezeichnung für Kiew. Der Islam 32: 1-13. 1959 Das Karaimische. In: Jean Deny, Kaare Grembech, Helmut Scheel and Ahmed Zeki Validi Togan (eds.), Philologiae turcicae fundamenta, 1: 318-340. Wiesbaden: Aquis Mattiacis, Steiner. 1979 The role of the Bosporus kingdom and late Hellenism as the basis for the medieval cultures of the territories north of the Black Sea. In: Abraham Ascher, Tibor Halasi-Kun and B61a Kiräly (eds.), The mutual effects of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian worlds: The East European pattern, 3-21. New York: Brooklyn College Press. 1981 The origin of Rus' 1. Old Scandinavian sources other than the Sagas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1988 The pre-Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe in relation to the Khazars, the Rus' and the Lithuanians. In: Peter J. Potichnyj and Howard

References

603

Aster (eds.), Ukrainian-Jewish relations in historical perspective, 3-21. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies. 1998 The origins of the Old Rus' weights and monetary systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prokosch, Eduard 1939 A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America, University of Pennsylvania Press. Prystupa, P. I. 1957 Hovirky brjuxovyc'koho rajonu I'vivs'koji oblasty. Kyjiv: Akademija Nauk URSR. Puhvel, Jaan 1987 All our 'yesterdays'. In: George Cardona and Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald. On the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 315-318. Tübingen: G. Narr. Putschke, Wolfgang 1968 Ostmitteldeutsche Dialektologie. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung. Beiheft η. F. 5: 105-154. Rabinoviö, Α. I. 1993 Formanty ν strukture familij evreev kak otraienie jazykovyx kontaktov. Rossijskij etnograf\5\ 115-120. RapanoviC, Jawhen N. 1981 Slownik nazvaw naselenyx punktaw minskaj voblasci. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. 1982 Slownik nazvaw naselenyx punktaw hrodzenskaj voblasci. Minsk: Navuka i täxnika. Rastorguev, Pavel AndreeviC 1973 Slovar' narodnyx govorov zapadnoj Brjansciny. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Ratobyl'skaja, Α. V. 1993 Evrejskoe naselenie ν Vengrii (X-XII w.). Slavjane i ix sosedi 5. Evrejskoe naselenie central'noj, vostoönoj i jugo-vostocnoj Evropy: srednie veka-nacalo novogo vremeni, 63-65. Moskva 1993: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki. Rauch, Irmengard 1991 Early New High German e-plural. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 113: 367-380. Rawita-Gawnmski, Franciszek [n.d.] Zydzi w historji i literaturze ludowej na Rusi. Warszawa/ Kraköw/Lublin/Lödz/Poznan/Wilno/Zakopane: Gebethner i Wolff. Rayfield, J. R. 1970 The languages of a bilingual community, 's Gravenhage/Paris: Mouton.

604

References

Reczek, Jozef 1991a Hai^ka. In his Polszczyzna i inne jqzyki w perspektywie porownawczej, 194-198. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kraköw: Zaktadnarodowy im. Ossolinskich. First published in Jqzykpolski 42: 305308 [1962]. 1991b Oddawanie poj?cia parentes 'rodzice' w staropolszczyznie. In his Polszczyzna i inne jqzyki w perspektywie porownawczej, 165-173. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kraköw: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. First published in Jqzyk polski 43:49-57 [1963]. Rejzen, Zalmen 1924 Gramatiäer min in jidi§. Jidise filologje 1: 11-22, 180-192, 303322. 1926 Di deklinacje fun dem §em-ecem in jidiS. Filologise sriftn fun YIVO 1: columns 387-412. Richhardt, Rosemarie 1957 Polnische Lehnwörter im Ukrainischen. (Veröffentlichungen der Abteilung für slavische Sprachen und Literaturen des OsteuropaInstituts [Slavisches Seminar] an der Freien Universität Berlin, volume 15.) Berlin: Otto Harrassowitz. Rickford, John R. 1987 Dimensions of a Creole continuum. History, texts, and linguistic analysis of Guyanese Creole. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rivkind, Icxok 1957 Noticn vegn verter. Yidishe shprakh 17: 11-13. Robak, Avram 1964 Der folksgajst in der jidiser sprax. Pariz: Goldene pave. Roberts, Murat H. 1939 The problem of the hybrid language. Journal of English and Germanic philology 38: 23-41. Rojzenson, L. I. 1969 Κ istorii luiicko-nemeckix jazykovyx svjazej (Germanizmy ν drevneverxnelu2ickom pamjatnike pis'mennosti 'Agenda' [1696]). Tipologija i vzaimodejstvie slavjanskix i germanskix jazykov, 162174. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Röll, Walter 1975 Die Pluralbildung im Jiddischen und im Deutschen. In: Leonard Forster and Hans-Gert Roloff (eds.), Akten des 5. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses (Cambridge), 211-220. Bern: H. Lang. Romanjuk, P. F. 1983 Iz opyta kartografirovanija svadebnogo obrjada pravobereznogo Poles'ja Polesskij etnolingvisticeskij sbornik. Materialy i issledovanija, 198-205. Moskva: Nauka.

References

605

Röna-Tas, Andräs 1997 The migration of the Hungarians and their settlement in the Carpathian basin. In: Ärpäd Berta, Historical-linguistic interaction between Inner Asia and Europe, 243-253. Szeged. 1999 Hungarians and Europe in the early Middle Ages. An introduction to early Hungarian history. Budapest: Central European University Press. Rosetti, Alexandru 1964 Istoria limbii romäne 3. Limbile slave meridionale (sec. VI-XII). Bucure§ti: Editura §tiin{ificä. 5th edition. Roth, Cecil 1966 The early Jewish settlement in Central and Eastern Europe 1. General setting. In: Cecil Roth (ed.), The Dark Ages. Jews in Christian Europe 711-1096, 302-304. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Rowley, Anthony R. 1994 Zur Pluralbildung in den deutschen Dialekten: -ach- Plurale und verwandte Erscheinungen im Oberdeutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 61:3-30. RubStejn, Ben-Cien 1922 Di antsteung un antviklung fun der jidiser sprax. Warszawa: Sul un lebn. Rudnyc'kyj, Jaroslav 1962-1982 An etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language. Winnipeg/Ottawa: Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences. Ryan, William F. 1978 The Old Russian version of the pseudo-Aristotelian Secreta secretorum. Slavonic and East European review 56(2): 242-260. Sacki, Jankev 1935 Vegn di nemen far jidiS. YlVO-bleter 8: 148-154. Sadan, Dov 1973 Bading. Yidishe shprakh 32: 39-45. Saddock, Jerry M. 1973 Word-final devoicing in the development of Yiddish. In: Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli and Sol Saporta (eds.), Issues in Linguistics. Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, 790-797. Urbana/Chicago/London: University of Illinois Press. Sadnik, Linda and Rudolf Aitzetmüller 1963-1975 Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Safir, Μ. M. 1944 Etlexe fargreser-formen in jidiS. Yidishe shprakh 4(3-6): 126-127.

606

References

Säkir, Ά . ar-R. 1981 Dawlat al-xazar al-jadida aw isrä 11. Bajrüt: Dar misbäh al-fikr. 1984 Al-mamätik a$-§ahäyina wa-l-ma$Jr al-'arabJ. al-Qähira: Matba'at xaftäb. Samojloviö, Α. N. 1924 Κ voprosu ο naslednikax Xazar i ix kul'tury. Evrejskaja starina 11:200-210. Sapiro, Mojsej Al'teroviC 1937 Vegn der reglementazirung funem gramatiän min in jidiS. Der emes 14 April. 1939 Der gramati§er min in jidi§. Afn spraxfront 3rd series 3: 111 -163. 1969 Di jidiäe leksikografje un der literari§er jidi§. Sovetis hejmland 9(8): 136-143. Sapiro, Mojsej Al'teroviö, Il'ja G. Spivak and M. Ja. Sul'man (eds.) 1984 Russko-evrejskij (idis) slovar'. Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Scepuro, F. 1881 Russko-niSCenskij slovar', sostavlennyj iz razgovora niäiix sluckogo uezda Minskoj gubernii, mesteöka Semeiova. Sbornik otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 21: xxiii-xxxii. Sankt Peterburg. Söerba, Lev VladimiroviC 1926 Sur la notion de mölange des langues. Jafetiöeskij sbornik 4: 1-19. Schaarschmidt, Gunter 1998 A historical phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian languages. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Schaechter, Mordkhe 1969 The "hidden standard": A study of competing influences in standardization. In: Marvin I. Herzog, Wita Ravid and Uriel Weinreich (eds.), Field of Yiddish 3: 284-304. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1974 [Sexter] FolkiS un poset-folkis. Yidishe sphrakh 33:52-55. 1977 Four schools of thought in Yiddish language planning. Michigan Germanic studies 3(2): 34-66. 1979-1980 [Ser] Dos loSn fun 1567, 1650 un 1814-1822. Yidishe shprakh 37: 43-59. 1986 [Sexter] Lajtis mame-losn. Observacjes un rekomendacjes 1. New York: Yidi§-lige. 1990 The first Polish-Yiddish dictionary (Liondor's Slownik polski w jqzyku zydowsko-niemieckiem). In: Paul Wexler (ed.), Studies in Yiddish linguistics, 75-82. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 1991 Yiddish military terminology: A case of non-institutionalized language standardization. In: David F. Marshall (ed.), Language planning. Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the

References

607

occasion of his 65th birthday 3: 259-280. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schenker, Alexander 1985 Czech lexical borrowings in Polish re-examined. In: Gerald A. Stone and Dean Worth (eds.), Formation of Slavic literary languages, 85-98. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Scherer, Philip 1941 Germanic-Balto-Slavic etyma. (Supplement to Language 17.) Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Schlimpert, Gerhard 1985 Methodologische Probleme des germanisch-slawisch-deutschen Sprachkontaktes. Linguistische Studien. Reihe A, 328-332. (Arbeitsberichte 129/11.) Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Schmeller, Johann A. 1872-1877 Bayerisches Wörterbuch 1 -2. München: R. Oldenbourg. Schneider, Edgar Werner 1990 The cline of creoleness in English-oriented Creoles and semicreoles of the Caribbean. English world-wide 11: 79-113. Schnitzler, Leopold 1966 Prager Judendeutsch. Gräfelfing bei München: Edmund Gans. Schönebaum, Herbert 1957 Zur Kabarenfrage. In: Johannes Irmscher (ed.), Aus der byzantinischen Arbeit der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 142-146. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Schräder, Otto 1917-1929 Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde 1 (1917-1923), 2 (1929). Edited by A. Nehring. Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Schramm, Gottfried 1981 Eroberer und Eingesessene. Geographische Lehnnamen als Zeugen der Geschichte Südosteuropas im ersten Jahrtausend nt Chr. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Schuster-§ewc, Heinz 1977a Historia j?zyk6w hiiyckich i sprawa jej periodyzacji. Prace filologiczne 27: 389-399. 1977b Zur Bedeutung des Sorbischen und Slowenischen für die slawische historisch-vergleichende Sprachforschung. In: Franc Jakopin (ed.), Slovansko jezikoslovje. Nahtigalov zbornik, 433-449. Ljubljana: Izobrazevalna, kulturna in raziskovalna skupost SR Slovenije. 1978-1996 Historisch-etymologisches Wörterbuch der ober- und niedersorbischen Sprache 1-24, plus a separate index. Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag. 1993 [Hinc Sewc] [Review of Wexler 1991b.] Rozhlad 43(1): 25-26.

608

1996

References Bautzen. Die Sprache des Michael Frentzel. (Ein Beitrag zur Dialektgrunde der obersorbischen Schriftsprache.) Ζ historii jqzykow luzyckich, 87-113. Warszawa: Slawistyczny oirodek wydawniczy.

Schütz, Ernst 1977 The Tat people in the Crimea. Acta orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31: 77-106. Schwarz, Ernst 1955-1956 Die Erforschung der Ostsiedlung im Lichte der Sprache. Wirkendes Wort 6: 269-282. 1960 Sprache und Siedlung in Nordostbayern. Nürnberg: Hans Carl. ScjaSkoviö, T. F. 1972 Materyjaly da slownika hrodzenskaj voblasci. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Sebba, Mark 1997 Contact languages. Pidgins and Creoles. London/New York: Macmillan/St. Martin's. Sedakova, O. A. 1979 Pominal'nye dni i stat'ja D. K. Zelenina «Drevnerusskaja jazyCeskaja kul'tura "zaloinyx" pokojnikov». Problemy slavjanskoj etnografii. (K 100-letiju so dnja rozdenija clena-korrespondenta AN SSSR D. K. Zelenina), 123-130. Leningrad: Nauka. Leningradskoe otdelenie. 1983 Materialy k opisaniju polesskogo pogrebal'nogo obrjada. Polesskij etnolingvisticeskij sbornik. Materialy i issledovanija, 246-262. Moskva: Nauka. Sefer josippon c. 980 See Flusser 1947-1948 and Turek 1957, 1974. "Sejles un Cuves" 1942 Yidishe shprakh 2: 63-64. Selig, Gottfried 1768 Der Jude. Leipzig: C. F. Rumpf. Semenova, Τ. F. 1983 Κ voprosu ο putjax proniknovenija tjurkizmov ν nekotoiye zapadno-ukrainskie govory 1. Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy leksikologii, 164-174. Moskva: Nauka. Serjakov, M. L. 1997 Russkaja doxristianskaja pis 'mennost'. Sankt Peterburg: Omega. Shevelov, George Y. 1953 [Yury Serech] Problems in the formation of Belorussian. (Supplement to Word, monograph no. 2.) New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. 1954 Ukrainisches vantaz 'Ladung, Frachgut, Last' und das Problem der

References

609

. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 23: 146-167. Reprinted in his Teasers and Appeasers. Essays and studies on themes of Slavic philology, 181-198. München: W. Fink [1971]. 1956 On truncated compounds in Slavic: type Pol. ptakoryb, Rus. kosogor. In: Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt, Hugh McLean and Cornells H. van Schooneveld (eds.), For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 458-466. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1963 The syntax of modern literary Ukrainian, 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1965 A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. 1971 Issues and non-issues. Five years after A prehistory of Slavic. In his Teasers and Appeasers. Essays and studies on themes of Slavic philology, 297-326. München: W. Fink. 1975 On lexical Polonisms in literary Ukrainian. In: Victor Erlich, Roman Jakobson, Czeslaw Milosz, Riccardo Picchio, Alexander M. Schenker and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.), For Wiktor Weintraub, 449-463. 's Gravenhage/Paris: Mouton. 1979 A historical phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. 1988-1989 Prosta cadb andprostaja mova. Harvard Ukrainain studies 12-13: 593-624. 1991 Me2du praslavjanskim i russkim. In his In and around Kiev, 7-31. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. First published in: Russian linguistics 6(3): 353-376 [1982]. 1994 Comu obsderusskij jazyk a ne vibcorus 'ka moval Kyj iv. Shnirelman, Victor [1999] The Khazars and Russian antisemitisim. The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 31. JeruSalaim: The Ben-Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts. Silverstein, Michael 1972 Chinook Jargon: Language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems. Language 48: 378-406, 596-625. Simon, Bettina 1991 Judendeutsch und Jiddisch. In: Alfred Ebenbauer and Klaus Zatloukal (eds.), Die Juden in ihrer mittelalterlichen Welt, 251260. Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau. Simonsohn, Shlomo 1974 The Hebrew revival among early Medieval European Jews. In: Saul Lieberman (ed.), Salo W. Baron Jubilee volume, 831-858 (English section). JeruSalaim/New York: American Academy for

610

References

Jewish Research. 1997 HaSevet haSloSa asar. Mixael 14: 51-76. Singler, John Victor 1996 Theories of Creole genesis, sociohistorical conditions, and the evaluation of evidence: the case of Haitian Creole and the relexification hypothesis. Journal of pidgin and Creole languages 11: 185230. Siper, Icik [Sipper, I.] Rasselenie evreev ν Pol'Se i Litve. Istorija evrejskogo 1914 naroda 11: 105-131. Moskva: Mir. JidiSe nemen in pojln un rajsn bejs dem 15tn j"h. In his Kultur1926 gesixte fun di jidn in pojln bejsn mitlalter, 283-287. Warszawa: Brzoz. [Ignacy Schiper] Rozwöj ludnoici 2ydowskiej na ziemiach dawnej 1932 Rzeczypospolitej. In: Ignacy Schiper and A. Tartakower (eds.), Zydzi w Polsce odrodzonej, 1: 21-36. Warszawa: Naklad wydawnictwa "Zydzi w Polsce odrodzonej". Sirkes, Joel 1631-1639 Bet-xadas. Published JeruSalaim: Mexon or hasefer [ 1977]. Skljar, H. 1933 JidiS-vajsrusiäe Spraxlexe paraleln. LingvistiSe zamlung 1: 65-80. Skljarenko, Vitalij HryhorijoviC 1971 Ζ istoriji akcentuaciji ukrajins'kyx form nazyvnoho-znaxidnoho vidminkiv dvojiny imennykiv typu rukä. Praci XII respublikans 'koji dialektolohicnoji narady, 137-143. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Slavjanskie drevnosti 1995ff Iff. Moskva: Meidunardonye otnoSenija. Slawski, Franciszek 1954 Slownik etymologiczny jqzyka polskiego 2. Kraköw: Naklad Towarzystwa Milo^niköw J?zyka Polskiego. 1974ff (ed.), Slownik praslowianski. Wroclaw/W arszawa/Kraköw/ Gdarisk: Polska Akademja Nauk. Slouschz, Nahum 1909 Les origines du judai'sme dans 1'Europe Orientale. Melanges Hartwig Derenbourg (1844-1908), 67-81. Paris: E. Leroux. Slovar' russkix donskix govorov 1975-1976 1-3. Rostov: Rostovskij universitet. Slownik geograficzny krölestwa polskiego i innych krajöw slowianskich 1986-1987 3. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa artystyczne i filmowe. First published Warszawa: F. Sulimierski [1882], Slownik movy Skaryny 1984 2. Minsk: Vy§fcj§aja Skola.

References

611

Smorgunova, Ε. Μ. 1997 Istoöniki russkogo perevoda biblejskogo teksta: Volokolamskaja rukopis' konca XV veka. Jazyk: izmencivost' ipostojanstvo. Κ 70letiju Leonida Leonidovica Kasatkina, 252-260. Moskva: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk. Smulkowa, Elibieta 1978 Studia nadakcentem jqzyka bialoruskiego (rzeczownik). Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Snejder, Vladimir 1998 Sled desjati. Be'er-Seva: [privately printed]. Sobolev, Denis 1998 VozvraSöenie ν Xazariju. Dvadcat' dva 108: 162-192. Sobolevskij, Aleksej Ivanoviö 1989 Perevodnaja literatura Moskovskoj Rusi XIV-XVII vekov. Köln/Wien 1989: Böhlau. Fist published Moskva: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk [1903]. Sojfer, A. 1920 Verterbux fun ale hebreise un arameis-sirise verier, frazn un nemen vos kumen for in jidiS. Cernovic. Sommerfeldt, Josef 1942 Die Juden in den polnischen Sprichwörtern und sprichwörterlichen Redensarten. Die Burg. Vierteljahresschrift des Instituts für deutsche Ostarbeit Krakau 3(3): 313-354. Speranskij, Mixail Nestoroviö 1907 Psaltyr' zidovstvujusöix ν perevode Fedora lidovina. Moskva. 1908 Iz istorii otreöennyx knig IV. Aristotelevy vrata ili Tajna tajnyx. Sankt Peterburg. Spilrejn, I. M. 1926 Idis. Moskva. Spitz, E. 1965 Beitrag zur Genusbestimmung der deutschen Substantive. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 2(4): 35-43. Spivak, Elje 1934 Vegn dehebraizacje un vegn dem hebreiän 'element' in jidi§. Afn spraxfront 2nd series 2: 3-22. Spivak, Xaim and Slojme Blumgarten 1911 JidiS verterbux. New York: JehooS. Stang, Christian S. 1971 Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II Hist.-filos. Klasse. Ny serie 11.) Oslo/Bergen/Troms0: Universitetsforlaget.

612

References

Stankiewicz, Edward 1993a The Slavic determinant in Yiddish morphology. In: Wolf Moskovich, Shmuel Shvarzband and Anatolij Alekseev (eds.), Jews and Slavs 1: 218-230. Jeru§alaim/Sankt Peterburg: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/Hebrew University of Jerusalem/ Slavonic Bible Foundation/Russian Academy of Sciences. 1993b The Yiddish thematic verbs. In: David Goldberg (ed.), Field of Yiddish 5: 1-10. Evanston, IL/New York: Northwestern University Press/YIVO. Stejnberg, Jisroel (with the assistance of A. Rojxverger) 1949 Hebreizmen in der jidiser sprax. Wroclaw: NiderSlezje. Stender-Pedersen, Adolf 1953 Varangica. Ärhus: Universitets Slaviske Institut. 1974 Slavisch-Germanische Lehnwortkunde. Hildesheim/New York: G. Olms. First published Göteborg: Elanders boktrykkeri [1927]. Stieber, Zdzistaw 1966 Ο krolu, dziqkowaniu itp. Studia jqzykoznawcze poswiqcone profesorowi doktorowi Stanislawowi Rospondowi, 75-77. Wroclaw: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. §tif, Noxem 1928 "bar". Di jidise sprax 3(10): columns 1-14. 1929 Di sociale diferencjacje in jidiS (di hebreiSe elementn in der Sprax). Di jidise sprax 4-5 (17-18): columns 1-22. 1932 Af der §vel funem 19-tn jorhundert II. Afn spraxfront 1st series 3233: columns 27-66. Stone, Gerald 1981-1983 Relics of Ukrainian-Polish contact: four cases of epenthetic -/-. In: Jacob P. Hursky (ed.), Studies in Ukrainian linguistics in honor of George Y. Shevelov, 289-299. (The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S. 15.) New York. 1989 Sorbian interference in the German of Lusatia: Evidence from the archives of the Deutscher Sprachatlas. Germano-Slavica 6(3): 131-153. Stötzel, Georg 1963 Die Bezeichnungen zeitlicher Nähe in der deutschen Wortgeographie von 'dies Jahr' und 'voriges Jahr'. Marburg: N. G. Elwert. Strack, Hermann L. 1916 Jüdisches Wörterbuch, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der gegenwärtig in Polen üblichen Ausdrücken. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Strauch, Gabriele 1990 Methodologies and ideologies: The historical relationship of

References

613

German studies to Yiddish. In: Paul Wexler (ed.), Studies in Yiddish linguistics, 83-100. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Strumiiiski, Bohdan 1996 Linguistic interpretations in early Rus'. Northmen, Finns, and East Slavs. (Ninth to eleventh centuries.) Roma/Edmonton/Toronto: La Fenice Edizioni/Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. Stscherbakiwskyj, W. 1952-1953 The early Ukrainian social order as reflected in Ukrainian wedding customs. Slavonic and East European review 31: 325351. Stuökov, Noxem 1950 Der ojcer fun der jidiser sprax. New York: YIVO. Reprinted 1991. Sudnik, Mixail R. and Mikalaj N. Kiywko (eds.) 1999 Tlumacal'ny slownik belaruskaj litaraturnaj movy. Minsk: Belaruskaja öncyklapedyja. Sudnik, Tamara Μ. 1995 Ob odnoj litovsko-belorusskoj semantiöeskoj paralleli (oras: nadvor'e 'prostranstvo', 'pogoda'). In: Maja Ivanovna Ermakova, Ljudmila E. Kalnyn' and Galina Petrovna Klepikova (eds.), Dialectologia slavica. Sbornik k 85-letiju Samuila Borisovica Bernstejna, 249-257. Moskva: Indrik. Sul'ga, Μ. V. 1984 Κ istorii morfologiöeskoj korrespondencii e-i ν russkom sklonenii (formy dvojstvennogo öisla). Obsceslavjanskij lingvistiöeskij atlas 1981, 228-252. Moskva: Nauka. Sulman, M. 1939 Slavizmen in der leksik fun jidiä. Afn spraxfront 3rd series 3 : 7 1 109. Suprun, Adam Evgen'eviö 1969 Ο nemeckom vlijanii na öislitel'nye ν nekotoryx slavjanskix jazykax. In: Viktor VladimiroviC Martynov (ed.), Tipologija i vzaimodejstvie slavjanskix i germanskix jazykov, 124-134. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. 1974 Κ izuöeniju polabskoj frazeologii. Issledovanie po slavjanskoj filologii, 301-306. Moskva: Moskovskij Universitet. 1983 Iz polessko-juznoslavjanskix izoleks. Poles 'e i etnogenez slavjan: sbornik posvjascennyj pamjati akademika Viktora Vladimirovica Vinogradova. Moskva. 1989a Iz belorussko-slovenskix izoleks. In: Franc Jakopin (ed.), Zbornik razprav iz slovanskega jezikoslovija. Tinetu Logarju ob sedemdesetletnici, 293-200. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti.

614

References

1989b

Iz serboluiicko-belorusskix izoleks. In: Maja Ivanovna Ermakova and Frido Mixalk (eds.), Formirovanie i funkcionirovanie serboluzickix literaturnyx jazykov i dialektov, 132-139. Moskva: Nauka. Svarcvald, Ora 1996 Milim besiomet -aim beivrit: curatan, jeciratan veSimuSehen. In: Moäe Bar-A§er (ed.), Mexkarim balason haivrit uvilsonot hajehudim mugasim leslomo morag, 341-358. Jeruäalaim: Mosad Bialik. Swoboda, Victor 1979-1980 Ukrainian in the Slavic element of Yiddish vocabulary. Harvard Ukrainain studies 3-4: 818-825. 1990 Ukrainianisms in J. M. LifSic's Judes-rusiser verter-bix. In: Paul Wexler (ed.), Studies in Yiddish linguistics, 101-109. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Szajnocha, Karol 1862-1864 Die Slaven in Andalusien. Zeitschrift für slavische Literatur, Kunst und Wissenschaft 1 (1862): 10-29, 67-81; 2 (1864): 22-27. Szemerönyi, Oswald 1981 Sprachverfall und Sprachtod besonders im Lichte indogermanischer Sprachen. In: Yoöl L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono homini donum. Essays in historical linguistics in memory of J. Alexander Kerns 1: 281-310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Szulmajster-Celinkier, Anne 1991 Le yidich a trovers la chanson populaire. Les elements nongermaniques du yidich. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Szyszman, Simon 1957 Les Khazars-problemes et controverses. Revue de l'histoire des religions 152(2): 174-221. Taube, Moshe 1985 On two related Slavic translations of the Song of Songs. Slavica hierosolymitana 7: 203-210. 1992 On certain unidentified and misidentified sources of the Academy Chronograph. In: Wolf Moskovich (ed.), In honour of Professor Victor Levin. Russian philology and history, 365-375. Jeruäalaim. 1993 The Slavic Life of Moses and its Hebrew sources. In: Wolf Moskovich, Shmuel Shvarzband and Anatolij Alekseev (eds.), Jews and Slavs 1: 84-119. Jeru§alaim/Sankt Peterburg: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Slavonic Bible Foundation/Russian Academy of Sciences.

References 1995

615

The "Poem on the Soul" in the Laodicean Epistle and the literature of the Judaizers. Harvard Ukrainian studies 19: 671-685. Tavjov, Jisrael Xaim 1924 Hajesodot haivrim beiargon. In his Kol kitve tavjov. Berlin: Moriyah. First published in: Hazman 3: 126-144 [1903]. Τέηέ, David 1996 Hebrew linguistic tradition. In: E. F. Konrad Koerner and Ronald E. Asher (eds.), Concise history of the language sciences. From the Sumerians to the cognitivists, 21-28. Oxford: Pergamon/ Elsevier Science. Tesnidre. Lucien 1933 Les diphones tl, dl en slave: essai de göolinguistique. Revue des etudes slaves 13: 51-95. Tetzner, Franz [1895] Wörterbuch sinnverwandter Ausdrücke. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam jun. Thomas, George 1985 Problems in the study of migratory loanwords in the Slavic languages. Canadian Slavonic papers 27: 307-325. Thomason, Sarah Gray (ed.) 1996 Contact languages: A wider perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thomason, Sarah Gray and Terrence Kaufman 1976 Context-induced language change: Loanwords and the borrowing language's pre-borrowing phonology. In: William M. Christie (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 167-179. Amsterdam/New York/Oxford: Elsevier/North Holland. 1988 Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Thompson, R. W. 1961 A note on some possible affinities between the Creole dialects of the Old World and those of the New. In: Robert LePage (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Creole Language Studies, 107-113. London/New York: Macmillan/St.Martin's Press. Timm, Erika 1977 Jiddische Sprachmaterialien aus dem Jahre 1290: Die Glossen des Berner kleinen Aruch-Edition und Kommentar. In: HermannJoseph Müller and Walter Röll (eds.), Fragen des älteren Jiddisch, 16-34. (Trierer Beiträge. Sonderheft 2.) Trier: Der President der Universität Trier. Pressestelle der Universität. 1987 Graphische und phonische Struktur des Westjiddischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung derZeit um 1600. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

616

References

Tobin, Yishai 1988 The dual number in Modern Hebrew. Journal of literary semantics 17(3): 172-201. 1997 Phonology as human behavior. Theoretical implications and clinical applications. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press. Todd, Loreto 1984 Modern Englishes: Pidgins and Creoles. Oxford: B. Blackwell. Togan, Ahmed Zeki Validi 1939 Ibn Fadläns Reisebericht. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. 1946 Ümumi türk tarihine giri$ en eski devirlerden 16. asra kadar. Istanbul: Ismail Akglin Matbaasi. Tolstaja, Svetlana M. 1987 Terminologija obrjadov i verovanij kak istocnik rekonstrukcii drevnej duxovnoj kul'tury. Moskva. Tolstoj, Nikita I. 1997 Iz geografii slavjanskix slov 1. 'do2d". 2. 'salamandra'. In his: Izbrannye trudy 1: 122-143. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury. First published in: Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 6: 140-55 [1962], 1999 Ο sootnoSenii central'nyx i marginal'nyx arealov ν sovremennoj Slavii. In his Izbrannye trudy 3: 10-30. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury. First published in: Areal'nye issledovanija ν jazykoznanii i etnografii, 37-56. Leningrad [1977]. Tolstov, Sergej P. 1948 Ρ ο sledam drevnexorezmijskoj civilizacii. Moskva/Leningrad: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Tombak, Dovid 1955 Vegn vort 'cimes'. Yidishe shprakh 15(4): 124-126. Toporov, Vladimir NikolaeviC 1993a Evrejskij Element ν kievskoj Rusi. Slavjane i ix sosedi 5. Evrejskoe naselenie central'noj, vostocnoj i jugo-vostocnoj Evropy: srednie veka-naöalo novogo vremeni, 28-43. Moskva: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki. 1993b Κ rannym russko-evrejskim literaturno-tekstovym svjazjam (XIXVI w.). Slavjane i ix sosedi 5. Evrejskoe naselenie central'noj, vostocnoj i jugo-vostocnoj Evropy: srednie veka-nacalo novogo vremeni, 45-64. Moskva: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki. 1993c Spor ili dru2ba? In: I. G. Viäneveckij and E. G. RabinoviC (eds.), Aequinox. Sbornikpamjati o. Aleksandra Menja, 91-162. Moskva: Carte blanche. 1995 Svjatost' i svjatye ν russkoj duxovnoj kul 'ture 1. Moskva: Gnozis.

References

617

Trautmann, Reinhold 1948-1949 Die Elb- und ostseeslavischen Ortsnamen 1-2. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Traxtenberg, V. F. 1908 Blatnaja muzyka. (Zargon tjurmy.) Sankt Peterburg: [s.n.] Trubaöev, Oleg Nikolaeviö 1959 Istorija slavjanskix terminov rodstva i nekotoryx drevnejsix terminov obscestvennogo stroja. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. 1963 Ο praslavjanskix leksiöeskix dialektizmax serbo-luiickix jazykov. In: Ljudmila E. Kalnyn' (ed.), Serbo-luzickij lingvisticeskij sbornik, 154-172. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. 1966 Remeslennaja terminologija ν slavjanskix jazykax (etimologija i opyt gruppovoj rekonstrukcii). Moskva: Nauka. 1967 Iz slavjano-iranskix leksiöeskix otnoSenij. Etimologja 1965, 3-81. Moskva: Nauka. 1974ff (ed.), Etimologiceskij slovar' slavjanskix jazykov. Moscow: Nauka. 1997 Vpoiskax edinstva. Moskva: Nauka. Trubetzkoj, Nikolaj S. 1973 Vorlesungen über die altrussische Literatur. Firenze: Studia historica i philologica. Sectio slavica 1. Tugendhold, Wolf 1848 Semitische Nachklänge in den slavischen Sprachen. Vil'na: M. Romm. Tupajlo, Μ. V. 1992 Ukrajins'ko-jevrejs'ki movni vzajemovplyvy. In: I. F. Kuras, F. H. TurCenko and S. F. Orljans'kyj (eds.), Jevrejs'ke naselennja pivdnja Ukrajiny: istorija ta sucasnist', 23-25. Zaporiiäja: ZaporiZs'kyj Deriavnyj Universytet. Tupikov, Nikolaj M. 1989 Slovar' drevnerusskix licnyx sobstvennyx imen. Leipzig-Köln: Zentralantiquariat der DDR. First published Sankt Peterburg [1903]. TurCyn, Je. D. 1977 Leksyka na poznaCennja öasu pryjmannja ji2i ν hovorax ukrajins'koji movy. XIV respublikans'ka dialektolohicna narada, 112-113. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Turek, Rudolf 1957 Die frühmittelalterlichen Stämmegebiete in Böhmen. Praha: Ceskoslovenskä Spoleönost Archeologickä pfi Ceskoslovenskö Akademii V6d. 1974 Böhmen im Morgengrauen der Geschichte. Von den Anfängen der slawischen Besiedlung bis zum Eintritt in die europäische Kultur-

618

References

gemeinschaft. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Tykocinski, H. 1963 Magdeburg. In: Marcus I. Brann, Ismar Elbogen, Aron Freimann and Haim Tykocinski (eds.) (with notes by Zvi Avneri), Germania judaica 1: 163-170. Tübingen: J. Β. C. Möhr. First published Breslau: J. Kauffinann [1934]. Udolph, Jürgen 1979 Studien zu slawischen Gewässernamen und Gewässer-Bezeichnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Urheimat der Slaven. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Ukrajins'ka leksyka ν istoryCnomu ta areal'nomu aspektax 1991 Kyj iv: Naukova dumka. Unbegaun, Boris 1972 Russian surnames. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Unger, MenaSe 1968 Jidiäe verter in lo§n-kojde§n tekst fun sipurej majses. Yidishe shprakh 28: 11-21. Urbach, Efraim 1935 Etudes sur la literature potemique au moyen-äge. Revue des etudes juives 100: 49-77. Urbaiiczyk, Stanislaw, et al. (eds.) 1960-1962 Stownik staropolski 3. Wroclaw/Kraköw/Warszawa: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Usaöeva, V. V. 1983 Iz nabljudenij nad meteorologiöeskoj leksikoj Poles'ja i Karpat. Polesskij etnolingvisticeskij sbornik. Materialy i issledovanija 217-225. Moskva: Nauka. Uspenskij, Boris A. 1987 Istorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (XI-XVII w.). München: Otto Sagner. Vaillant, Andrö 1950-58 Grammaire comparee des langues slaves 1-2. Lyon/Paris: IAC. 1953 Slovo. Öasopis Staroslavenskog Instituta 2:9-13. Vakaljuk, Ja. Ju. 1982 Vesil'na Ieksika ν ukrajin'skyx hovorax Prykarpattja. In: I. H. Matvijas (ed.), Struktura ukrajins'kyx hovoriv, 126-128. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Valdman, Albert and Arnold Highfield (eds.) 1980

Theoretical

orientations

in Creole studies. New York: Academic

Press. Valencova, Μ. M. 1997 Iz slovarja "Slavjanskie drevnosti". Slavjanovedenie 6: 18-24.

References

619

Van Coetsem, Frans 1988 Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris. 1999 A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Varbot, £anna Zanovna 1984 Praslavjanskaja morfonologija, slovoobrazovanie i etimologija. Moskva: Nauka. VaSCenko, Vasilij S. 1963 Zistoriji ta heohrafiji dialektnyx sliv. Materialy do vyvcennja leksyky hovoriv seredn 'oji ta nyzn 'oji Naddniprjanscyny. Xar'kiv: Xar'kivs'kyj universytet. Vasil'ev, Mixail AndreeviC 1992 Sleduet Ii naöinat' &niCeskuju istoriju slavjan s 512 goda? Slavjanovedenie 2: 3-20. Vasiliev, Alexander A. 1936 The Goths in the Crimea. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America. Vasmer, Max 1953-1958 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1-3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. 1960-1973 Wörterbuch der russischen Gewässernamen 4-13. BerlinWiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1962-1981 Russisches geografisches Namenbuch. Edited by Herbert Bräuer 3(3), 4(2), 9(3). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Väiny, Väclav 1955 Ο jminech motylu ν slovenskych närecich. Bratislava: Slovenskä Akadimie Vied. Veres, Peter 1996 Drevnevengerskaja dpoxa. Acta ethnographica hungarica 41(1-4): 11-40. Vernadsky, George 1939 Lebedia: Studies on the Magyar background of Kievan Russia. Byzantion 14: 170-203. 1940-1941 Byzantium and southern Russia. Byzantion 15: 67-86. 1946 Ancient Russia 1. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1959 The origins of Russia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Versteegh, Kees 1982 Structural change and pidginization in the history of the Arabic language. In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 362-373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1984 Pidginization and creolization: The case of Arabic. Amsterdam/

620

References Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Viler, Jankev 1926 Der gramatiSer min fun di hojptverter in mizrex-galiciän jidiä. Filologise sriftn fun YIVO 1: columns 249-264. Vincenz, Andr£ de 1968 Karpackie dil/ί dzial. Symbolae philologicae in honorem Vitoldi Taszycki, 388-395. Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kraköw: Zakiad narodowy im. Ossolüiksich. Vinogradova, Ljudmila Nikolaevna and V. V. UsaCeva 1993 Iz slovarja «Slavjanskie drevnosti». Slavjanovedenie 3: 9-20. ViSnicer, M. 1914 ObSCij oöerk politiöeskoj i social'noj istorii evreev ν Pol'Se i Litve. Istorija evrejskogo naroda 11: 21-104. Moskva: Mir. VixnoviC, V. L. 1997 Karaim Avraam Firkovic. Evrejskie rukopisi. Istorija. Putesestvija. Sankt Peterburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie. Vjarxow, P. V. 1970 Nazowniki na -ar (-jar) u belaruskaj move. Minsk: Navuka i tdxnika. Vladimirskaja, Ε. Α. 1982 Leksiöeskaja sistema juZnorusskogo govora ν uslovijax russkoukrainskogo bilingvizma. Russkie govory na Ukraine, 58-85. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Volm, Matthew 1964 Indoeuropäisches Erbgut in den germanischen und slawischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Vorhooeve, Jan 1973

Historical and linguistic evidence in favour of the relexification theory in the formation of Creoles. Language in society 2: 219232.

Wagenseil, Johann Christoph 1699 Belehrung der jüdisch-teutschen Red- und Schreibart. Königsberg: Paul Friedrich Rhode. Wagner, Heinrich 1956 Zum Dual im Germanischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 74(3-4): 177-184. Waniakowa, Jadwiga 1998 Nazwy dni tygodnia w jqzykach indoeuropejskich. Kraköw: Wydawnictvo naukowe DWN. W^grzynek, Hanna 1999 XVI-wieczne relacje na temat obchodow Swifta Purim. In: Micha! Galas (ed.), Duchowosc zydowska w Polsce, 27-33. Kraköw:

References

621

Ksi?garnia akademicka. Weidlein, Johann 1953 Die deutschen Mundarten in Ruthenien. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 21: 101-106. Weinberg, Werner 1993 Lexikon zum religiösen Wortschatz und Brauchtum der deutschen Juden. Edited by Walter Röll. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Weinhold, Karl 1965 Kleine mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Wien/Stuttgart: W. Braumüller. 14th edition. Weinreich, Max 1924 [Vajnrajx] Jidiäe etimologjes. Jidise filologje 46-55. 1926 [Vajnrajx] A jidi§ lid vegn Sabsej cvi fun jor 1666. Cajtsrift 1: 159-172. 1928a [Vajnrajx] Di jidiäe §praxfor§ung in 17-tn jorhundert. Cajtsrift 23: columns 689-732. 1928b [Vajnrajx] Vegn di dajöiSe elementn in jidi§. Cajtsrift 2-3: columns 677-688. 1931 [Vajnrajx] Vos volt jidiS geven on hebreiS? Di cukunft March, 36: 194-205. 1932 [Vajnrajx] Review of Vilenkin. YlVO-bleter 4: 168-179. 1935 [Vajnrajx] [Obituary of A. Landoj.] YlVO-bleter 8: 250-252. 1941 [Vajnrajx] Vegn engliSe elementn in undzer kulturSprax. Yidishe shprakh 1: 33-46. 1956 Yiddish, Knaanic, Slavic: the basic relationships. In: Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt, Hugh McLean and Cornells H. van Schooneveld (eds.), 622-632. For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1965 On the dynamics of Yiddish dialect formation. In: Uriel Weinreich (ed.), Field of Yiddish 2:73-86. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1973 [Vajnrajx] Gesixte fun der jidiser sprax 1-4. New York: YIVO. Partial translation, A history of the Yiddish language. Chicago 1980: University of Chicago Press. Weinreich, Uriel 1953 Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. 1955 Yiddish blends with a Slavic element. Word 11: 603-610. 1958 Yiddish and Colonial German in Eastern Europe: The differential impact of Slavic. American Contributions to the International Congress ofSlavicists 4: 369-421. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1960 [Vajnrajx] Nozn, nezer, nez\ a kapitl gramatiäe geografje. Yidishe shprakh 20(3): 81-90.

622 1961

References

[Vajnrajx] Haivrit ha'aäkenazit vehaivrit SebejidiS: bexinatan hageografit. LeSonenu 25: 57-80. 1962 Multilingual dialectology and the new Yiddish atlas. Anthropological linguistics 4: 6-22. 1963 Four riddles in bilingual dialectology. American Contributions to the International Congress of Slavicists 5: 335-359. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. 1968 Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English dictionary. New York: McGraw Hill/YIVO. The geographical makeup of Belorussian Yiddish. In: Marvin I. 1969 Herzog, Wita Ravid and Uriel Weinreich (eds.), Field of Yiddish 3: 82-101. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. On the semantic structure of language. In his On semantics. 1980 Edited by William Labov and Beatrice S. Weinreich. 37-96. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. First published in: Joseph Harold Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 114171. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [1963]. Weinryb, Bernard D. 1962 The beginnings of East-European Jewry in legend and historiography. In: Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb and Solomon Zeitlin (eds.), Studies and essays in honor of Abraham A. Neuman, 445-502. Leiden/Philadelphia: E. J. Brill/Dropsie College. 1977 The Hebrew chronicles on Bohdan Khmel'nyc'kyi and the Cossack-Polish war. Harvard Ukrainian studies 1(2): 153-177. Weissberg, Josef 1988 Jiddisch. Eine Einführung. Bern/Frankfurt/New York/Paris: P. Lang. Wesche, Heinrich 1969 "Wendisches" im Wendland. In: Werner Krauss, Zdzisiaw Stieber, Jaromir BöliC and Viktor IvanoviC Borkovskij (eds.), Slawisch-deutsche Wechselbeziehungen in Sprache, Literatur und Kultur, 262-271. (Festschrift Hans Holm Bielfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wexler, Paul 1964 Slavic influences in the grammatical functions of three Yiddish verbal prefixes. Linguistics 7: 83-93. 1971 Some observations on structure in language contact. In: William Harkins, Olexa Horbatsch and Jacob P. Hursky (eds.), Symbolae in honorem Georgii Y. Shevelov, 474-482. (Ukrajins'kyj Vil'nyj Universytet. Naukovyj zbirnyk 7.) München. 1972 A mirror image comparison of languages in contact: Verbal prefixes in Slavicized Yiddish and Germanicized Sorbian.

References

1974

1976 1977 1980a

1980b 1980c 1981a

1981b 1981c

19811983

1982a 1982b 1983

1985 1986a

1986b

623

Linguistics 82: 89-123. Purism in language. A study in modern Ukrainian and Belorussian nationalism (1840-1967). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. On the non-lexical expression of determinedness (with special reference to Russian and Finnish). Studia linguistica 30: 34-76. A historical phonology of the Belorussian language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Periphrastic integration of Semitic verbal material in Slavicized Yiddish and Turkish. In: Marvin I. Herzog, Barbara KirshenblattGimblett, Dan Miron and Ruth Wisse (eds.), Field of Yiddish 4: 431-473. 's Gravenhage: Mouton. The Byelorussian impact on Karaite and Yiddish. Journal of Byelorussian studies 4: 99-111. Zhunyanese (Dungan) as an Islamic and Soviet language. Journal of Chinese linguistics 8: 294-304. Ashkenazic German: 1760-1895. In: Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), The sociology of Jewish languages, 119-130. (International journal of the sociology of language 30.) 's Gravenhage: Mouton. Jewish interlinguistics: facts and conceptual framework. Language 57: 99-149. The terms for 'synagogue' in Hebrew and Jewish languages: Explorations in historical Jewish interlinguistics. Revue des etudes juives 140: 101-138. Formal and semantic parameters of derived verbs in Ukrainian. In: Jacob P. Hursky (ed.), Studies in Ukrainian linguistics in honor of George Y. Shevelov, 343-358. (The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S. 15.) New York. Marrano Ibero- Romance: classification and research tasks. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 98: 59-108. Slavicization and de-Slavicization in Yiddish verb formation (linirn, ojslinirn ~ ojslin'fenjen). Welt der Sloven 27: 359-381. Hebräische und aramäische Elemente in den slavischen Sprachen: Wege, Chronologien und Diffusionsgebiete. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 43(2): 229-279. The role of Yiddish in the recovery of Slavic linguistic history. Welt der Sloven 30: 1-23. Exploring the distinctive features of Wandersprachen·. The case of European Romani and Jewish languages. Mediterranean language review 2: 7-45. The reconstruction of pre-Ashkenazic Jewish settlements in the Slavic lands in the light of linguistic sources. Polin 1: 3-18. Oxford: Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies.

624

References

1987a 1987b

1988a

1988b 1990a

1990b 1991a

1991b 1992 1993a

1993b

1993c 1994

1995a

1995b

Explorations in Judeo-Slavic linguistics. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Reconceptualizing the genesis of Yiddish in the light of its nonnative components. In: Dovid Katz (ed.), Origins of the Yiddish language, 135-142. Oxford: Pergamon. Christian, Jewish and Muslim translations of the Bible and Koran in Byelorussia: 16th-19th centuries. Journal of Byelorussian studies 6: 12-19. Three heirs to a Judeo-Latin legacy: Judeo-Ibero-Romance, Yiddish and Rotwelsch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. The role of Yiddish in reconstructing and reviving old colloquial Hebrew. In: Paul Wexler (ed.), Studies in Yiddish linguistics, 111-126. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. The schizoid nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic language in search of a Semitic past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Jiddisch-die 15te slavische Sprache? In: Yoshinori Shichiji (ed.), Akten des VIII Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses (Τokyo 1990) 11: 530-535. München: judicium. Yiddish-the fifteenth Slavic language. International journal of the sociology of language 91: 1-150,215-225. The Balkan substratum of Yiddish. A reassessment of the unique Romance and Greek components. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Jewish linguistics: 1981-1991-2001. In: Jaap van Marie (ed.), Historical linguistics 1991. Papers from the 10th International Conference of Historical Linguistics, 343-361. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Judeo-Slavic linguistics: Aims, accomplishments and future goals. In: Wolf Moskovich, Shmuel Shvarzband and Anatolij Alekseev (eds.), Jews and Slavs 1:210-217. JeruSalaim/Sankt Peterburg: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Slavonic Bible Foundation/Russian Academy of Sciences. The Ashkenazic Jews. A Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Jewish identity. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Judeo-Slavic frontispieces of late 18th-19th-century books and the authentication of "stereotyped" Judeo-Slavic speech. Welt der Sloven 39(2): 201-230. Languages in contact: The case of Rotwelsch and the two Yiddishes. In: Ronald Po-chia Hsia and Hartmut Lehmann (eds.), In and out of the Ghetto: Jewish-gentile relations in late and medieval and early modern Germany, 109-124. Washington/New York: German Historical Institute/Cambridge University Press. [Review of Altbauer 1992.] Occasional papers in Belarusian studies 1: 64-68.

References 1995c 1996a 1996b

1997a 1997b

1997c

1997d 1998a 1998b [1999]

2000

2002a

2002b [ms a]

[ms b]

625

[V£ksler] Zabyty belaruski kantökst suöasnaj hebrajskaj movy Belarusika/Alboruthenica. 4: 20-34. Minsk: Navuka i tdxnika. The non-Jewish origins of the Sephardic Jews. Albany: SUNY Press. Yiddish-the fifteenth Slavonic language. In: Ian I. Press and Frank E. Knowles (eds.), Papers from the Fourth World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies (Harrogate, July 1990). Language and linguistics, 253-258. London: Queen Mary and Westfield College. University of London. [Review of Weinberg.] Jewish quarterly review 88: 121 -125. The relexification hypothesis in Romani. In: Julia Horvath and Paul Wexler (eds.), Relexification in Creole and non-creole languages. (With special reference to Modern Hebrew, Haitian Creole, Romani and Rumanian), 100-161. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. The relexification hypothesis in Rumanian. In: Julia Horvath and Paul Wexler (eds.), Relexification in creole and non-creole languages. (With special reference to Modern Hebrew, Haitian Creole, Romani and Rumanian), 162-188. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Why there may have been contacts between Slovenes and Jews before 1000 A.D. Slovenskijezik 1: 56-67. Concerning Lewicki's bibliography [see Zaj^czkowski and Lewicka-Rajewska]. Folia orientalia 34: 203-206. Jewish linguistic geography: Some lessons for the historian. Shofar 17(1): 90-96. New linguistic evidence for the Khazar component in the Ashkenazic ethnogenesis. The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 32-33. JeruSalaim: The Ben-Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts. [Vdksler], Sto mohuc' idy§, suCasny iwiyt, dsperanta, a taksama serbaluZyöane, paleSuki i xazary skazac' pra paxodianne habröjaw-aSkenazi? Arche 3: 117-126. Minsk. A German-Slavic bilingual unknowingly knows Yiddish and Modern Hebrew quite well: Why and what? Welt der Sloven 47(1): 57-84. [Review of Herzog 2000] Language in society 31: 294-300. Why the 'Belarusian Tatars' are not likely to be of Turkic origin but the 'Belarusian (Ashkenazic) Jews' are. (Notes on the creation of minority ethnolects.) To appear in the International journal of the sociology of language 2003. Yiddish. In: Philipp Strazny (ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics.

626

References

[ms c] [ms d] Wiener, Leo 1898

Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. An etymological dictionary of the Yiddish language. De la relexification en yiddish: Les Juifs, Les Sorabes, les Khazars et la region de Kiev-Polössie.

Das jüdische Element im polnischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 20: 620-624. 1910-1911 Ismaelites. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society n.s. 4: 83-100. Wiesinger, Peter 1986 Bairisch-österreichisch Maut. Beiträge zur Erforschung der deutschen Sprache 6: 108-125. Wigoder, Geoffrey 1989 The encyclopedia of Judaism. New York/London: Macmillan/ Collier Macmillan. Williams, George H. 1978 Protestants in the Ukraine during the period of the PolishLithuanian commonwealth. Harvard Ukrainian studies 2: 41-72. Wirth, Paul 1933 Beiträge zum sorbischen (wendischen) Sprachatlas. 1-2. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. 1939 Die Umformung des Sorbischen durch das Deutsche. III Medunarodni Kongres Slavista (slovenskih filologa) part 3, 8890. Beograd. Wodzmski, Marian 1996 Hebrajskie ins/crypcje na Slqsku XIII-XVIII wieku. Wroclaw: Towarzystwo Przyjaciöl Polonistyki Wroclawskiej. Wojtiia-Swierzowska, Maria 1998 Elementy kentumowe w siownictwie praslowianskim. In: Jerzy Rusek and Wieslaw BoryS (eds.), Praslowianszczyzna i jej rozpad, 47-55. Kraköw: Energeia. Wolf, Meyer L. [1968] The geography of Yiddish case and gender variation. Unpublished PhD, Columbia University, New York. Printed in: Marvin I. Herzog, Wita Ravid and Uriel Weinreich (eds.), Field of Yiddish 3: 102-215. 's Gravenhage: Mouton [1969]. 1976 [Volf] Di Sprax fun dem sejfer Sivxej bal-§em-tojv. Yidishe shprakh 35(1-3): 32-48. Wolf, Siegmund A. 1956 Wörterbuch des Rotwelschen. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. 1993 Jiddisches Wörterbuch. Wortschatz des deutschen Grundbestandes der jiddischen (jüdischdeutschen) Sprache mit Leseproben.

References

627

Hamburg: Helmut Buske. First published Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut [1962]. Woolhiser, Curt Fredric [ms] Politial borders and dialect convergence/divergence in Europe. To appear in Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens and Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change. The convergence and divergence of dialects in contemporary societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woronow, A. 1961 Die Pluralbildung der Substantive in der deutschen Sprache des XIV-XVI. Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle) 84: 173-198. 1962 Zur Geschichte der Pluralsuffixe der Substantive in der deutschen Sprache. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle) 88: 395-413. Wrede, Ferdinand 1963 Hessische Dialektforschung und die fuldische Dialektlandschaft. In his Kleine Schriften. Edited by L. Berthold, B. Martin and Walther Mitzka, 355-363. (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 60.) Marburg: Elwert. First published in Fuldaer Geschichtsblätter 17: 49-59 [1923]. Xajnman, Irma 1983 Evrejskaja diaspora i Rus'. JeruSalaim: [privately printed]. Xoulett, Ja. R. 1992 [Howlett] Svidetel'stvo arxiepiskopa Gennadija ο eresi'novgorodskix eretikov Zidovskaja mudn>stvujuS5ix'. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 46: 51-73. Yasser, Joseph 1949 References to Hebrew in Russian medieval ballads. Jewish social studies 11: 21-48. Ylli, Xhelal 1997 Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen 1. Lehnwörter. München: Otto Sagner. Ζ historiji ukrajins'koji leksykolohiji 1980 Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Zaj^czkowski, Ananiasz 1934 Elementy tureckie na ziemiach polskich. Rocznik tatarski 2: 199228.

1947 1961a 1961b

Ze studiow nad zagadnieniem chazarskim. Kraköw: Polska Akademija Umiej^tnosci. Kar aims in Poland. History, language, folklore, science, 's Gravenhage/Paris/Warszawa: Mouton. Khazarian culture and its inheritors [sic!]. Acta orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12(1-3), 299-307.

628

References

Zajqczkowski, Wlodzimierz 1976 Regionale Ethnonyme im Karaimischen. Folia orient alia 17: 259-260. Zaj^czkowski, Wlodzimierz and Urszula Lewicka-Rajewska (eds.) 1997 Bibliographie des travaux de Tadeusz Lewicki. Rocznik orientalistyczny 50(2): 11-53. Zakiev, Mirfatyx Z. and Ja. F. Kuz'min-Jumanadi 1993 Volzskie bulgary i ixpotomki. Kazan': Insan. Zakrevskij, Nikolaj 1867 Opisanie Kieva 1. Moskva: Moskovskoe arxeologiöeskoe obSCestvo. Zales'kyj, L. P. 1984 Proslidky zredukovanyx holosnyx u slabkij pozyciji ν ukrajins'kij movi. Movoznavstvo 55-62. Zamoyski, Adam 1997 The Polish way. A thousand-year history of the Poles and their culture. New York/Toronto: F. Watts. Zaprudski, Sjarhej M. 1986 Da pytannja ab pawnevaslavjanska-wsxodneslavjanskix leksiönyx suvjazjax. Belaruskaja linhvistyka 29: 25-31. [1989] [Zaprudskij, Sergej] Serbskoxorvatsko-belorusskie leksiöeskie sootvetstvija. Avtoreferat. Minsk. Zarecki, Icxok 1929 JidiSe gramatik. Wilno: B. Kleckin. Zaveryaev, Maxim [1999] The Khazars in the national consciousness of Russian Karaites in modern times. The Khazars. [An] international colloquium. 24-28 May 1999, 34-35. JeruSalaim: The Ben-Zvi Institute/The Hebrew University/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished abstracts. Zaxoder, Boris N. 1962-1967 Kaspijskij svod svedenij ο vostocnoj Evrope 1-2. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo vostoönoj literatury. Zdancewicz, Tadeusz 1964 Wplywy litewskie i wschodnio-stowiariskie w polskich gwarach pod Sejnami. Acta Baltico-Slavica 1: 227-246. 1966 Wplywy bialoruskie w polskich gwarach pod Sejnami. Poznan: Poznanskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciöl Nauk, Wydzial fllologicznofilozoficzny, Prace Komisji j^zykoznawczej II, 2. Zeiden, Herbert G. 1996 Davenen: A Turkic etymology. Yiddish 10(2-3): 96-99. 1998 Khazar/Kipchak Turkisms in Yiddish: Words and surnames. Yiddish 11(1-2): 81-92.

References

629

Zeleznjak, Irina Mixailovna 1993 Problema povtorjajuSöixsja toponimnyx arealov. Rossijskij etnograf\5: 148-155. Zientara, Benedykt 1973 Foreigners in Poland in the 10th-15th centuries: Their role in the opinion of Polish medieval community [sic!]. Acta poloniae historica 29: 5-28. 2irmunskij, V. M. 1956 Nemeckaja dialektologija. Moskva-Leningrad: Akademija nauk SSSR. Zivier, Ezechiel 1916 Jüdische Bekehrungsversuche im 16. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Juden. Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage Martin Phillipsons, 96-113. Leipzig: G. Fock. Zlatarski, Vasil N. 1924 Istorija na bälgarskata därzava prez srednite vekove 1, part 2. Sofija: DärZavna peCatnica. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena 1995 Bestattungssitten als wesentliches Zeugnis der Christianisierung bei den Slawen. In: Przemyslaw Urbanczyk (ed.), Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, 39-42. Warszawa: Semper. Zolobov, Oleg F. 1995 Über Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der historischen Beschreibung des slavischen Duals 1. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 42(1): 3-48. 1998 Symbolik und historische Dynamik des slavischen Duals. Frankfurt: P. Lang. Zuckerman, Claude 1992 On the date of the Khazars' conversion to Judaism and the chronology of the kings of the Rus Oleg and Igor. Revue des etudes byzantines 53: 237-270. Partial Russian translation in Slavjane i ix sosedi 6: 68-80. Moskva: Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki [1996], Zuckermann, Ghil'ad [1995] Multisourced neologisation: An analysis of "Phono-semantic transposition" focusing on Hebrew. Unpublished M.A., Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv. Zunz, Leopold 1837 Die Namen der Juden. Leipzig: L. Fort. 1892 Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann. 2nd revised edition. First published Berlin 1832: A. Asher.

630

References

2ydoviC, Μ. Α. (ed.) 1968 Materyjaly dlja slownika Minska-Maladzecanskix havorak. Minsk: Belaruski dzjarZawny universitöt imja U. I. Lenin. 2ylko, Fedot T. 1958 Hovory ukrajins 'koji movy. Kyjiv: Radjans'ka Skola. 1966 Narysy ζ dialektolohiji ukrajins'koji movy. Kyjiv: Radjans'ka Skola. 2nd revised edition. First published 1955.

Index of names

Ababurka, Μ. V. 125 Abaev, V. I. 515 Admoni, V. 435 Afanas'ev, G. E. 538 Agranovskij, G. 431 Agrell, S. 409, 422 Ahlsson, L.-E. 445 Aitzetmüller, R. 104, 126,274 Alekseev, A. A. 58 Aljaxnoviö, Μ. Μ. 125, 525 Allerhand, J. 72 Alleyne, Μ. C. 59 Allsopp, R. 137 A. al-H. al-Mas'üdl 460 Altbauer, M. 58, 75, 91, 123, 219, 249, 531 Althaus, Η. P. 20, 262 'Amära, M. 514, 537 Andersen, H. 174 Andersen, R. 59 Anderson, R. R. 146 Ändert, H. 307 Andrusyshen, C. H. 228 Aniökov, Ε. V. 180 Ankori, Z. 535-536 AraSonkova, A. U. 489 Artamonov, Μ. I. 530, 534, 539-540 Arxipov, Α. A. 58 Atabinen, R. S. 514 Avanesaw, R. 1.439,451 Baiaban, M. 44,219, 531 Bälint, Cs. 535, 538 Bandrivs'kyj, D. H. 450 Barac, G. M. 58, 532 Barimani, A. 514 Bar-Itzhak, H. 533 bar-Mo§e, J. 365 Barney, S. A. 267, 276 Baron, S. W. 534-535 Bartha, A. 538 Barthold, W. 537 Bartol'd, V. V. 514 Baskakov, Ν. A. 273, 527 Baumgarten, N. de 530 Baxan'kow, A. Ja. 106 Bednarczuk, L. 135, 493 Bedriickij, L. 58 Beer, A. 216 Beider, A. 58, 431,526, 528 Beit-Ατίέ, M. 367 Böla IV 534 Bellmann, G. 10, 87, 118, 377-378 Belova, Ο. V. 510, 513 ben Jehuda, E. 3 ben-Jicxak, E. 472 ben-Jicxak Hanesia, M. 75, 128 Benkö, L. 535 ben-MoSe, J. 163, 385, 403, 473, 482 Benoliel, J. 470 ben-Sim'on Kara, J. 403 Benveniste, E. 515 Bergmann, G. 307 Berlin, I. 531 BernStejn, S. B. 360, 407, 438 Bibliophilus 235 Bickerton, D. 59 Bieder, H. 364 Bielfeldt, Η. H. 19, 120, 155, 340, 481 Bihari, J. 74,497, 536 Bikl, δ. 226 Bilec'kyj-Nosenko P. 526 Bin-Nun, J. 44, 73, 111, 296, 545 Birnbaum, H. 55, 364, 436, 438 Birnbaum, S. A. 26, 63, 72, 95, 111, 141, 212, 384, 392, 432, 463 Bischoff, E. 417 Bjal'keviö, I. K. 125 Blanc, H. 17, 448, 472, 497 Blinava, E. D. 449 Blumgarten, S. 146 Boba, I. 516 Bolozky, S. 19 Bondaletov, V. D. 493 Bonfante, G. 203 Boretzky, N. 59, 137 Borisov, A. Ja. 58 Borovskij, Ja. E. 507 BrajCevs'kyj, M. Ju. 532 Bräuer, H. 438 Brinner, W. M. 526 Bromlej, S. V. 439 Brook, Κ. A. 57, 538 Brückner, A. 214, 277, 520 Bruckus, J. 219, 515, 530-531, 534-537 Brzezina, M. 103, 126, 409, 415 Budziszewska, W. 493 Bulitta, E. and H. 61 Bulygina, Τ. V. 211 Bulyka, Α. M. 439, 449, 489 BunardSiö, R. 219, 538 Bunis, D. M. 295 Buxtorf, J. 141 Byhan, A. 517 Bykava, N. U. 106 Bykov, Α. A. 534 Bystrofi, J. S. 550 Öabjaruk, Α. I. 451 ÖagiSeva, V. I. 401 Calvet, G. 137 Cantera, J. 470 Carmoly, Μ. E. 269, 472, 514 Caro, J. 532 Cassidy, F. G. 137, 139 Cemjak, J. 506 Cernov, V.A. 170 Chadwick, Ν. K. 58 Chekin, L. S. 57-58, 532, 536 Citko, L. 493 Comrie, B. 35 Corbett, G. G. 392, 448, 457 Crews C. 225

632

Index of names

Cross, S. H. 45, 531 Cvejg, A. R. 140 Czekanowski, J. 46 Czortkower, S. 517

Cyxun, H. 520

Czegtedy, K. 515

D^browska, E. 535 Dachkevytch, Ya. R. 45, 535 Dal', V. I. 525 DeCamp, D. 20 DeGraff, M. 59 Dejna, K. 449-451 Deny, J. 47, 528 Derganc, A. 449 Doerfer, G. 526 Dostäl, A. 449, 461 Dovhopol, S. F. 185-186 Dralle, L. 46 Dreessen, W.-O. 227, 384 Drosdowski, G. 146, 196, 215, 221, 223, 232, 242, 260, 270, 275, 302, 324, 339, 363, 372 Dubinski, A. 507, 524, 529 Duchiriski, F. 536 Dunlop, D. M. 58, 460, 515, 536 DuSman, L. 376 Dyhr, M. 18 Dymerskaja-Cigel'man, L. 541 Dzendzelivs'kyj, J. O. 195, 359, 525 Ebert, R. 57, 433, 435, 444-446 Ebert, W. 203 Eggers, E. 38, 65, 397 Eichler, E. 55, 70, 498 Eisler, R. 58 Eist, G. van der 405 Elzet, J. 27, 138, 146 Engel, U. 548 Eppert, F. 268 Erdal, M. 535 Erd&yi, I. 530, 538 Ermakova, Μ. I. 449,453 Escure, G. 20 Even-So§an, A. 137, 142 Evseev, I. E. 58 Ewers, J. P. G. 536 Ezer,M. 535 Faber, A. 48, 65, 524, 535-536 Fal'koviC, Ε. M. 395 Farrall, M. L. 58 Fasske, H. 438, 449 Feller, M. D. 46 Ferguson, C. 39 Filin, F. P. 126, 211, 284, 360361, 387, 521, 525 Florer, W. W. 406 Florinskij, T. D. 540-541 Flusser, G. 472 Frakes, J. C. 38 Friderichs-Müller, Τ. 97 Fridman, P. 537 Friedrich, Κ. W. 262 Friedrich, P. 230, 511 Frings, Th. 203 Frojimovics, Κ. 534 Gammal, M. 57 G^siorowski, A. 472 Geller, Ε. 5, 15, 34, 38, 44, 94-95, 103, 114-115, 121, 240, 403, 509, 548 Gershenson, D. E. 57, 240, 536 Gerzon, J. 376 GeSev, V. 38 Gieysztorowa, I. 48 Gimbutas, M. 89, 211, 507 Gininger, X. 138 Gitlic, M. 497 Glinert, L. 81 Göckenjan, Η. 526, 529-530, 534 Godbey, A. H. 535 Gol^b, Z. 206,472 Golb, N. 53, 90, 472, 515-516, 522, 530, 536, 538 Gold, D. L. 3, 27, 158, 380 Gol'del'man, M. 57 Golden, P. B. 526, 530-531, 537 Gombocz, Z. 515, 530 Goninaz, M. D. 3 Goodenough, E. R. 543-544 GorjaCeva, Τ. V. 304 Gorskij, A. 58 Graur, A. 42 Green, E. 218 Greenberg, M. 382, 401 Grimm, J. and W. 16, 146, 161, 180, 302, 325, 331 Grenik, O. 372 Grunwald, K. 531 Grzegorzewski, J. 515 Gumowski, M. 34, 534 Gumpertz, J. 23 Gumplowicz, M. 531, 537 Gurco, A. P. 247 Gürtler, H. 446 Gusmani, R. 50, 158 Guxman, Μ. M. 453 Gyöni, Μ. 533, 535 Györffy, Gy. 531 Haberman, Α. Β. 227 Halasi-Kun, Τ. 532 Halevi, J. 514 Halevy, Μ. A. 530, 532 Halle, M. 74 Halperin, C. J. 43 Hanover, Ν. N. 98, 304, 460 Hansen, Β. 118 Harkavi, A. A. 58, 74, 393 Harkavy, A. 138, 226, 359,469, 490 Harmatta, J. 515 Harshav, B. 537 Haugen, E. 35, 139 Havlovä, Ε. 193 Heather, P. J. 533 Hegewald, L. 128 Hendler, M. 384-385 Herman, L. J. 146, 187, 197-198, 200-201, 205-206, 209, 215, 220-221,224,232,236-237,239,244,246,261-262, 264,271,276,281,297,299,303,328,343,373,382 Herrmann, J. 55 Herzog,

Index of names

633

Μ. I. 18-19, 46, 49, 57, 66, 73, 80, 88, 95, 109, 111, 122, 127, 164-165, 171-172, 229, 237, 252, 260, 290, 301, 308, 340, 354, 358-359, 368, 380, 385, 399, 424425, 433, 443, 460, 465, 487, 491-494, 496, 511, 507, 521-522 Highfield, A. 59 Hofinann, H.-R. 170 Holm, J. 20, 59 Hotynska-Baranowa, T. 304 Holzer, G. 280 Honnen, P. 454 HorbaC, O. 493 Horvath, J. 9, 12, 21, 24, 29-30, 42, 51, 59, 76, 380 Hrabjanka, H. 536 Hrushevsky, M. 193, 378, 494, 512, 536 Hunfalvy, P. 535 Hutterer, C. J. 10 Hymes, D. 59 ibn Ja'qüb, I. 517 ibn §aprü{, Η. 472, 516 Igla, Β. 137 Iordanidi, S. I. 437 Isa of Öernihiv 530 Isaöenko, Α. V. 438, 546 Ising, G. 109, 295 Istvän V 534 Ivanov, P. 540 Izgor, Α. H. 4 Jacobs, N. G. 15, 18, 57, 81, 95, 127, 215, 225, 366, 391-392, 396-399, 419-420, 423, 431, 434, 498, 545 Jacobson, S. A. 58, 141, 146 Jadvihin, S. 34, 509 Jakobson, R. 58, 74 Janda, L. A. 461 Jänichen, H. 405 Janöw, J. 450 Janusz, B. 46 Jentsch, H. 136 Jochnowitz, G. 38 Jofe, J. A. 26, 76, 95-96, 101, 122, 128, 137-138, 146, 190, 264, 270, 386, 498 Jordanskij, Α. M. 449 Josef, king of the Khazars 472, 516 Juxneva, Ν. V. 489 Kaczmarek, L. 101 Kaddari, M.-Z. 27 Kaestner, W. 111, 188, 227, 239, 254, 265, 306, 340, 351, 364, 378-379, 414 Kagarov, Je. 138, 519 Kaiser, K. 404 Kalinina, T. 516 Kalmanoviö, Z. I l l , 198, 246, 390 Kalnyn', L. E. 401 Kaplanov, R. 57 Karaketov, M. 517 Karaljunas, S. 161 KaraS, M. 125 Kartowicz, J. A. 125, 520 Karskij, E. F. 449 Kasastkin, L. L. 401, 519 Katz, D. 57, 65, 68, 73, 91, 127, 138, 227, 262, 350, 388, 545 Kaufinan, T. 6, 39 Kazdan, X. S. 146 Keller, R. E. 432, 435 Kerler, D.-B. 16, 67, 405, 497 Kiefer, U. 28, 72, 95, 107 Kieser, O. 405, 508 Kihm, A. 139 King, R. D. 48, 58, 65, 204, 245, 319, 432-433, 435, 524, 535, 537 Kiparsky, V. 121-122, 155, 385, 488 Kipnis, M. 541 Kiss, A. 219, 531, 538 Klar, Β. 75, 128 Kleczkowski, A. 103 Klein, E. 137 Kligsberg, M. 194 Kluge, F. 146, 177, 180, 200, 206, 223, 232, 264, 267, 293, 297, 332, 336, 339, 354, 360, 372, 388 Klyäka, Μ. Κ. 274 Kna'ani, J. 18, 96, 137, 142, 171, 369 Kniezsa, I. 238, 362, 513,520,533 Knowles, F. 488-489 Knutson, K. 121 Kobyljans'kyj, Β. V. 450 Kochev, N. 43 Koestler, A. 537 Koller, Ε. 57, 146, 189, 273, 275, 325 Költzsch, F. 37 König, W. 57, 120, 155, 203-204, 209, 284, 302, 307, 453 KopeCny, Fr. 31, 136, 162 KopileviC, R. 431 Kosover, M. 519 Kotkov, S. I. 401 Kowalski, T. 517 Koz'min, M. 43 Krähe, H. 453 Krakowski, J. 101 Kramer, Je. 535 Krasnosselsky, L. 527 Kretschmer, P. 362, 421 Krett, J. N. 228 KriStal, S. B. 130 Krogh, S. 95, 171-172, 545 Krojs, S. 47 Kronsteiner, O. 516, 531 Krueger, J. 535 Krywko, Μ. N. 449 Kuhn, W. 45-46 Kunstmann, H. 55, 124, 472 Kupfer, F. 385, 403, 472-473, 482 Kuraszkiewicz, Wi. 500 Kurka, A. 493 Kurkina, L. V. 180 Kutschera, H. F. von 527, 537 Kuzgun, §. 514 Kuz'min-Jumanadi, Ja. F. 515, 536 Kvitni, M. 91

634

Index of names

Lado, R. 59 Landoj, A. 138, 188 Laskowski, R. 126 Lass, R. 95, 444 Lazar, S. M. 530 Lebensbojm, R. 102 Lefebvre, C. 9-13,20, 25, 59 Lehr-Spiawinski, T. 532 Leibowitz, N. 94, 227 Lejbl, D. 27, 138, 422 Leman, §.138 LePage, R. B. 137, 139 Lerer, L. 224 Lerner, J. J. 514, 535 Leschka, S. 241, 268, 362, 513 Lessing, G. Ε. 1, 4-5 Levin, J. 141, 146 Levkievskaja, Ε. E. 301 L£vy, E.-H. 304 Lewicki, T. 219, 385, 403, 441, 472-473, 482, 518, 530-531, 535 Lexer, M. 146, 310 Lic'vinka, V. D. 512 Ligeti, L. 518, 535 Lindgren, Κ. B. 435 Liondor, L. 34, 75 Litvynowskaja, A. 520 Ljubarski, K. F. 77, 96, 490 Lockwood, W. B. 94-95, 419, 498 Loma, A. 88 Lotter, F. 535 Lötzsch, R. 18, 40, 95, 137, 204, 394, 449 Louden, M. L. 6 Lowenstein, S. 73, 290 Lozinski, B. P. 532 Luöic-Fedorec, 1.1. 528 Lumsden, J. S. 9-11,25, 59, 147 Lunt, H. G. 58,532 Luria, Ja. S. 43, 58 Lutsenko, Y. 536 L'vov, A. S. 416 Lysenka, I. F. 388 Lysenko, P. S. 525 Lytvak, S. 37 Lyzanec', P. M. 451 Macartney, C. A. 535 Machek, V. 126, 211, 234, 340, 379 Mackeviö, Ju. F. 57, 125,425,490,499 Mader, R. 531 Magomedov, M. G. 57, 514, 535 Maler, Β. 290 Malkiel, Υ. 142-143 Manaster Ramer, Α. 67, 73, 198, 306, 406, 545 Mann, J. 494 Mansikka, V. J. 512 Marchand, J. W. 96, 452, 545 Margaritha, Α. 205 Mark, Α. 155, 502 Mark, J. 4, 26-27, 76, 95, 101, 137-138, 146, 190, 205, 264, 270, 273, 296, 302, 304, 354-355, 365, 384, 386, 394, 409, 411-412, 419-420, 423, 464-466, 498 Mark, M. 206 Marquart, J. 517, 526 Marr, N. Ja. 531 Martel, A. 45, 47 Martynov, V. V. 146, 284, 388 Maslennikova, L. I. 401 Mathiesen, R. 58 Matisoff, J. 18 Matvijas, I. H. 451 Matvijenko, Α. M. 263 Mayer, A. 302 Mazon, A. 301, 532 Meisel, J. 59 Mel'nyCenko, G. G. 125 Mel'nyCuk, O. S. 129, 338 Menges, K. 517, 526, 535 Meriggi, B. 438 Meäöerskij, Ν. A. 58 Michalk, S. 406, 415 Mieses, J. 205 Mieses, M. 65, 67, 219, 350, 381, 386,463,466,497, 518, 520 Miklosich, F. 304, 507, 531 Miller, P. E. 367, 526 Minorsky, V. 532 Miroljubov Ju. 127 Mitzka, W. 203 Mixajlov, Μ. A. 451 Mjacel'skaja, E. 449 Mladenov, S. 307 Mocja, Α. P. 507 Modelski, Τ. E. 47, 473 Mojxer Sforim, M. 91 Molz, H. 446 MoravCik, Ju. 515 Moravcsik, G. 526 Moses Kagankatvaci 517 Moskovich, W. 58,302,515 Moszynski, L. 58, 237, 240, 245, 315, 342, 528 Mühlhäusler, P. 12, 35, 39, 41, 52, 59, 139-140 Mutaßiev, P. 45 Muysken, P. 10,21,436 Nadeljaev, V. M. 342 Naro, A. 71 Narumi, K. 526 Nazarenko, Α. V. 58, 66, 530-531 Nazarova, Τ. V. 57, 501-502, 505 Nehama, J. 470 Nejman, I. 43 NemCenko, V. N. 125 Nestor, 45, 124, 516, 528, 531-532 Neubauer, A. 516 Niborski, Y. 58, 97, 141, 146, 231, 297, 467 Nichols, J. 342, 521 Nikolaenko, A. G. 536 Nikonov, V. A. 526 Nitsch, K. 219 Nobl, S. 27, 146, 222, 328, 347 Noonan, T. S. 530 Nosoviö, 1.1. 125 Novosel'cev, Α. P. 57, 534-535 Obnorskij, S. P. 401,403 Obolensky, D. 43, 536 Odo, C. 59 Öhmann, E. 432, 468 Olesch, R. 70, 117, 304 OljanCyn, D. 43, 58 Onygkevyö, Μ. M. 451 Orel, V. 57,75, 218 Ostrowski, D. 43, 58

Index of names

635

Pan'keviC, I. 45 Paszkiewicz, H. 516-517, 531 Paul, H. 121,445-446 Pavliuc, N. 449 Peisker, J. 517 Peretc, V. N. 58 Perferkoviö, Ν. 141, 146, 317, 342, 353, 384, 469 Petrova, Τ. Ε. 386 Petruxkin, V. Ja. 57-58, 527, 530, 538 Pfeifer, W. 146, 228, 267, 348 Pfui, C. Τ. 295 Philo 544 Pinkus, Β. 45, 516 Piron, C. 3 Pivtorak, Η. P. 53 Pohl, A. 414 Pohribnyj, Μ. I. 449 Polahski, K. 122, 237, 256, 304, 414-415, 438, 497 Poljak, Α. N. 515, 527-528, 532, 537 Posselt, Α. H. 535 Poznanski, S. 47 Prilucki, N. 72, 138, 304, 466-467, 520 Pritsak, O. 53, 58, 90, 472, 516-517, 522, 524, 527, 530-532, 534, 536, 538 Prokosch, E. 452 Prystupa, P. I. 450 Ptaxija ben-Ja'akov of Regensburg 472, 514 Puhvel, J. 307 Putschke, W. 46 Rabinoviö, Α. I. 525 Rapanoviö, Ja. N. 530 Ra§i 75, 90,251 Rastorguev, P. A. 125, 525 Ratobyl'skaja, Α. V. 535, 538 Rauch, I. 434 Rawita-Gawronski, Fr. 58, 529 Rayfield, J. R. 146, 304 Reczek, J. 170, 474 Rejzen, Z. 192, 395, 417, 419, 426, 463, 466, 469 Richhardt, R. 188, 200, 214, 244, 501 Rickford, J. R. 20 Rivkind, J. 243 Robak, Α. A. 94, 111 Roberts, Μ. H. 59 Rojzenson, L. I. 390 Röll, W. 432 Romanjuk, P. F. 511 Röna-Tas, A. 526, 533, 535 Rosetti, Α. 112 Roth, C. 543 Rowley, A. R. 431 RubStejn, B.-C. 350 Rudnyc'kyj, J. 125 Ryan, W. F. 58 Sacki, J. 11 Sadan, D. 195-196, 291, 333 Saddock, J. M. 204 Sadnik, L. 104, 126,274 Safir, Μ. M. 466-467 Säklr, Ά . Ar-R. 514, 537 Samojloviö, Α. N. 515, 535 Sapiro, M. 31, 76, 137, 393-395, 399 Scepuro, F. 493 Sfierba, L. V. 59 Schaarschmidt, G. 58, 184, 218, 234, 268, 316, 320, 384, 388, 442, 452 Schaechter, M. 18, 27, 34, 111, 152, 190, 195, 197, 207-208, 215-216, 243, 245, 276, 292, 296-297, 337, 343, 352, 365,412,468, 509 Schaeken, J. 364,436,438 Schenker, A. 372 Scherer, P. 146 Schlimpert, G. 315 Schmeller, J. A. 109, 146, 163, 253, 275, 278, 381 Schmitt, L. E. 203 Schneider, E. W. 20 Schnitzler, L. 16 Schönebaum, H. 533 Schräder, O. 209, 216, 218, 230, 508, 512 Schramm, G. 112 Schuster-Sewc, H. 39, 55, 57, 88, 103-104, 118, 120121, 126, 133, 146, 151, 154-155, 177, 186, 212, 214, 241-242, 251, 256, 259, 263, 266, 271, 274, 283, 286, 290, 295, 302, 304, 310-311, 313, 317, 339-342, 352-353, 360, 374, 377, 380, 382, 384, 387-388, 390-391, 407, 409, 416, 425, 440,456,470,508-509 Schütz, E. 517 Schwarz, E. 103, 219 ScjaskoviC, T. F. 125 Sebba, M. 20, 52, 59 Sedakova, Ο. A. 292, 512-513 Selig, G. 263 Semenova, T. F. 126 Serjakov, M. L. 517 Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Ο. P. 45, 531 Shevelov, G. Y. 53, 58, 112, 115, 123, 146, 172, 195, 268, 347, 422, 452, 481, 489, 494-496, 504, 530, 547 Shnirelman, V. 540 Silverstein, M. 59 Simon, B. 15, 18, 57-58, 72, 113, 432 Simonsohn, S. 38, 82, 537 Singler, J. V. 5, 9, 13, 59 Siper, I. 219, 501, 531, 537 Sirkes, J. 386 Skljar, H. 361-362, 490, 521 Skljarenko, V. H. 451 Slawski, F. 104, 180, 195, 250, 272, 502 Slouschz, N. 536 Smelev, A . D . 211 Smorgunova, Ε. M. 58 Smulkowa, E. 449 Snejder, V. 37-38, 515, 524, 527 Sobolev, D. 492, 515, 530, 537 Sobolevskij, Α. I. 58 Sojfer, δ. Α. 141 Sommerfeldt, J. 135 Speranskiy Μ. Ν. 58 Spilrejn, I. Μ. 28

636

Index of names

Spitz, Ε. 405 Spivak, Ε. 93, 137 Spivak, X. 146 Stang, C. S. 146 Stankiewicz, E. 58, 105, 498-499, 501-502 Stejnberg, J. 141 Stender-Pedersen, A. 517, 528 Stieber, Z. 195 Stif, N. 76, 93, 109, 465, 488 Stone, G. 70, 203, 406, 489 Stötzel, G. 307 Strack, Η. L. 95, 155, 489, 497 Strauch, G. 38 Strumiriski, B. 281 Stscherbakiwskyj, W. 512 StuCkov, N. 102, 146, 190-192, 203, 217, 222, 226-227, 231-232, 235, 241, 243, 250-252, 256-257, 260, 276, 297, 302, 308, 340, 353, 368, 371, 491 Sudnik, M. R. 449 Sudnik, Τ. M. 284 Sul'ga, Μ. V. 437, 449-450 Sulman, M. 74, 76, 137, 378, 488, 496, 509 Suprun, A. E. 174, 325, 389 Svarcvald, O. 473 Swoboda, V. 77, 96, 107, 122123, 490 Szajnocha, K. 43 Szemerdnyi, O. 521 Szulmajster-Celnikier, A. 37, 128,467 Szyszman, S. 535 Taube, Μ. 58 Tavjov, J.-X. 4, 94-95, 146, 350, 509 Τέηβ, D. 82 Tesntere, L. 241 Tetzner, F. 61 Thomas, G. 547 Thomason, S. G. 6, 39 Thompson, R. W. 59 Timm, Ε. 72, 121, 178, 213, 359, 432, 434 Tobin, Y. 21, 473 Todd, L. 59 Togan, Α. Ζ. V. 514, 526, 530 Tolstaja, S. M. 292 Tolstoj, Ν. I. 284, 546 Tolstov, S. P. 533, 536, 538 Tombak, D. 340 Toporov, V. N. 58 Trautmann, R. 507-508 Traxtenberg, V. F. 493 TrubaCev, Ο. N. 57, 104, 126, 136, 174, 195, 198, 201, 211, 216, 218, 226, 230-232, 234, 240, 256, 263, 274, 279, 303, 311, 317, 360, 372, 377, 379-380, 382, 385, 388,416, 531-532 Trubetzkoj, N. S. 536 Tugendhold, W. 128, 201, 527 Tukan, Β. 515 Tupajlo, Μ. Η. 37 Tupikov, Ν. Μ. 527 Turöyn, Je. D. 262 Turek, R. 472 Tykocinski, H. 219 Udolph, J. 55 Unbegaun, B. 525-526 Unger, M. 260 Urbach, E. 470 UrbaAczyk, St. 340 Usaöeva, V. V. 127, 504, 507 Uspenskij, Β. A. 58 Vaillant, A. 163, 250-251, 401, 403, 436-438, 449 Vakaljuk, Ja. Ju. 379 Valdman, A. 59 Valencova, Μ. M. 513 Van Coetsam, F. 6 Varbot, Ζ. 1. 126, 422, 491 Va§öenko, V. S. 284 Vasil'ev, Μ. A. 382 Vasiliev, Α. A. 514-515 Vasmer, M. 51, 89, 117, 123, 126, 146, 163, 209, 218, 274, 281, 286, 339, 351, 353-354, 359-360, 378, 434, 440, 456, 470, 488, 520-521, 531-533, 547 VäZny, V. 211,509 Veres, P. 57, 515 Vernadsky, G. 517, 530, 538 Versteegh, K. 39 Viler, J. 119, 395 Vincenz, A. de 388 Vinogradova L. N. 127, 507 ViSnicer, M. 531 VixnoviC, V. L. 531 Vjarxow, P. V. 364 Vladimirskaja, Ε. A. 508 Volm, M. 146 Vorhooeve, J. 59 Wagenseil, J. C. 37 Wagner, H. 453 Waniakowa, J. 333 W?grzynek, H. 125, 551 Weidlein, J. 307 Weinberg, W. 58, 214 Weinhold, K. 381 Weinreich, M. 9-11, 18, 37, 50, 54, 56, 63-65, 68-69, 71, 74, 76, 79-81, 82-84, 91-93, 95-96, 105, 120, 122, 130, 134, 138, 140, 154, 194, 204, 209, 225, 263, 296, 332, 360, 380-381, 396, 407, 460-461, 465, 471, 488, 492-493, 498-499, 521, 544-545 Weinreich, U. 6, 17, 23, 27, 30-31, 49, 59, 76, 81, 94-95, 97, 101-102, 105-106, 109, 115, 120, 137, 139, 142-143, 146, 152, 156, 158, 160, 183, 185, 188-190, 194, 198-199, 202, 204, 208, 212, 219, 222, 224, 227-228, 234, 236, 241, 243,

Index of names

637

245, 252, 256-257, 265, 268-269, 271, 279-280, 291, 293, 297, 300, 304, 312, 319, 335, 337, 343-344, 346, 348, 355-356, 358, 360, 381, 387, 398, 404, 444, 463, 467, 474, 490-492, 495, 497, 502-503, 505, 547-548 Weinryb, Β. D. 533, 538 Weissberg, J. 14, 72, 86, 94, 107, 404, 423, 490, 507 Wesche, H. 406, 415 Wexler, P. 4-5, 9, 12, 14, 18-19, 21, 24-26, 28-30, 32, 34, 36, 38-39, 40, 42-44, 47, 49, 51-55, 58-59, 64, 67-69, 71,73-77, 80, 82-84, 86, 88, 90, 92-94, 107, 111112, 120-121, 125-128, 130, 135-136, 138, 142, 147, 150, 155-156, 163, 171, 173-174, 189, 192-193, 196, 204,212,214-215,217-220, 229-230, 232,237, 240, 242, 246, 260, 262-263, 268, 272, 289-290, 292, 297, 304-305, 307, 319, 338, 341-342, 350, 354, 356-359, 364-365, 368, 370, 380-381, 386, 393, 414, 433, 444, 460, 470, 489-491, 493, 495, 497, 499, 502, 506-511, 513, 515-516, 519, 521-523, 525, 527-529, 531, 533, 538, 543, 547-548, 550, 552 Wiener, L. 26, 535 Wiesinger, P. 354 Wigoder, G. 538 Williams, G. H. 43 Wilson, R. 23 Winter, W. 448 Wirth, P. 77, 386 Wodzmski, M. 127, 301, 395, 441 WojtilaSwierzowska, M. 547 Wolf, M. L. 67, 73, 76, 198, 306, 368, 391, 396-399, 406, 545 Wolf, S. A. 66, 95, 124, 152, 256, 262, 304, 319, 353, 376 Woolhiser, C. 123 Woronow, A. 432,445-446 Wrede, F. 307 Xajnman, I. 531-532, 536 Xoulett, Ja. R. 43, 58 Yasser, Y. 385 Ylli,Xh. 513 Zaj^czkowski, A. 515, 526, 530, 535 Zaj^czkowski, Wt. 529 Zakiev, Μ. Z. 536 Zakrevskij, N. 530 Zales'kyj, L. P. 401 Zamenhof, L. 3 Zamoyski, A. 45 Zaprudski, S. M. 174-175, 307, 382 Zarecki, A. 419, 431, 443 Zaveryaev, M. 535 Zaxoder, B.N. 517-518 Zdancewicz, T. 386, 401, 499, 506 Zeiden, H. G. 57, 240, 342, 359, 515, 521 Zeleznjak, I. M. 532 Zientara, B. 37, 47 Zint, I. 18 Zirmunskij, V. A. 332, 453 Zivier, Ε. 43 ZIatarski, V. Ν. 536 Zoll-Adamikowa, Η. 218 Zolobov, Ο. 448-449 Zuckerman, C. 538 Zuckermann, G. 129, 139 Zunz, L. 54, 138 Zydoviö, Μ. A. 125 Zylko, F. T. 450-451

Index of examples

Hebroidisms are listed under Hebrew; examples from Dutch, German, Swiss Yiddish and Old Yiddish Bible "translations" are listed under Judeo-German. Plural forms are cited if they merit a special discussion in the text. Hebrew and Arabic ' and ' and Slavic τ> and b are disregarded in alphabetizing; as single segments, they appear at the end of the alphabet. Arabic-Hebrew A is treated as h, θ as t. German and Upper Sorbian reflexive verbs are listed under sich and so respectively.

Arabic 'A/521 'alminbar 8 0 , 3 6 8 , 5 2 1 haffar 3 6 5 -in 5 1 7 'isnän 4 0 nämdzm 5 1 7 *qabbär, q-b-r 365 -ram(i)slJ 441 s, sab 'a 40 §ähib al-mahall 367 t, θαΐαθ 40 waraq 522 xäqän 526 xardz 228 zamr 385

Avestan kata- 218

Belarusian -a 423 abodva 447 abrus(ak) 429, 504 (a)pranik 506 -ar 364 asina 503 bac'ka, bac'ki 175 badzery 174, 402 barodawka 490 bavel 121 baxor, baxur(a), baxurcyk 18, 125 baxurfok), baxurstvo, baxyr 125 bedny calavek 424 bexur 125 bjal'mo 476 bjareza 501 bjaroza 122, 501 blin(ec) 386, 500 bliznja 3 0 9 bohomolennemt 5 2 9 Z ? O / ' 4 1 4 6 / M A 4 4 1 c' 1 0 7 C A R O / 5 0 1 ceAar 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 c e r e / 5 0 1 dereva 4 4 1 cern 3Π cjasljar 4 9 8 cybuljall% öytac' 3 8 2 V 1 0 7 < s f a - 1 2 0 dahavor 4 2 3 dnej, dnew 4 2 5 dom 4 2 3 dosled 185 dramlju 5 0 1 drobny 492 dub(ka), dup 4 9 5 - 4 9 6 Ί Ώ ' 1 0 7 dzedibabaAlA, dzen, dzen' 4 2 5 dzjady 5\2 -(e)c(') 1 2 3 E / T A 4 9 7 / 1 7 1 fantazer 3 7 0 £ 2 6 8 gudflaj) 4 9 3 A 2 6 8 A A / O V A 4 6 8 A A / W A , A A / M Y 4 5 1 A A / O V Y 4 6 8 A A R A 3 6 1 , 4 4 1 harotnik 4 2 4 hinuc'\22 hlina 1 1 9 , 3 7 3 A W J C / 3 8 4 jalina 4 9 7 jubiljar 3 7 0 kacar(ha), kaöka 502 kahal(a) 214, 525 kalamutny 502 kalju, kaloc' 316 karol', karomysla 503 kesen', kisen' 359 klapotny 132 klen, klen 502 klopat 132 koval' 498 krol', krolik 503 kudlej 493 kulja 118 kupac', kupala, kupalle 211 -/-501 laps a 52\ lejcy 5 0 3 Ace 1 9 8 licvin, licvjak 1 3 4 135 litovec 134 loks(yn)a 519 /w zavulak 486 znataj, znecb 123 zoludz 441, 505 zv/> 505 zyvof

416 Bulgarian knez 3%0 mälzja, mlaka 302 oöi, pet grada 449 särmi 522 svidetel 347 us/ 449 vidja 347 ν/αχ 472, 533

Common Slavic 363 231 *Z>ers*j/ 121 *blato 50% *blqsti, *bldditi 250 *όο- 402 232 *®7>, *6reza, 508 *c'w//, *&tati 382 Vervo 416 107,490 *dqb-b 50S *drugb 216 *dumati \95 *dwa brata 448 *e490 *e 495 *-e«-, *-er-, 436 */171 218, 268, 325 *glina 50% *gösb 117 */'495 *hbnezbja 380 *köb(t)lo 385 *kolti31% *konopja2\\ *koteh 508 *kupaty 211 *kupbcb 256 *kv 495 */fcveft> 248 *kvbteti 241 *ljub(b) 184 *lödüi 25\ *lopata 50% *lukb 378 */w«a 304 303 *m/7- 184 * modiiti (sq) 240, 372

*mogyla 508

*mysliti (sq) 195

*myty (sq)

211 *o 490, 497 *o-bWditi, *ob-lÖditi 25\ *oci 448 *-ogi> 88 *orbiti 353 *otbCb i mati 448 * pies ati 180 *r'115 *rabb, *robiti 312 *rogb 119 *serbro 316 *skovarda, *sosna 508 *sbrebro 316 *straxb 274 *studb, *studiti 259 */' 107, 490 *tert, *tolt, *tort 119 *tvarogb 88 *vapbno 508 *ved(eti) 341 *vedro, *vejati 284 *veleti 331 *vetn> 284 *VK/Ä/ 347 *vo/T 121 *xlevb, *xomotb 508 *zivotb 416 *zdsb 117

Czech bachor 126 bavlna 121 bedla3%l brich(o) 409 chvile 39\ clo 354 hranice 87 jicha 311-31% knez 379 / a W 163 I'ubiti se 184 manzel(i)/ (ove) 429 ma/y 214 mlaka, mleko 302 oubor 456 panev, ράηνα 133,386 pomalu 121 ρrietele 216 puchnouti 126 wior 456 varmuza, varmuzä 340 ve/e/ 337 velikän 124 vlasti 2%0 zakon 510 znameni 431

640

Index of examples

Dutch bramzeil 476

East Slavic -a 400, 423 bljudo 317 - i d 124 cv 496 * drevljaninb 517