The Loshn Koydesh Component in Contemporary Hasidic Yiddish

Abstract

The loshn koydesh (Hebrew and Aramaic) component has historically influenced the development of Yiddish lexis and grammar. We examine its contemporary use among 26 native speakers of contemporary Hasidic Yiddish from Israel, New York, and London using a written questionnaire examining the gender of loshn koydesh nouns, periphrastic verbs with a Hebrew/Aramaic element, and adjectives derived from the loshn koydesh element of periphrastics. Our findings show that there are differences on both the geographical and gender axes, many of which are consistent with the speakers’ varied exposure to Modern Hebrew, English, and loshn koydesh. We also found that the loshn koydesh component has developed since the pre-War stage of the language in ways that seem to affect contemporary Hasidic Yiddish usage in all locations and for both genders. We take these developments to provide evidence for the existence of this newly emergent variety of Yiddish – Contemporary Hasidic Yiddish.

Absence of Morphological Case and Gender Marking in Contemporary Hasidic Yiddish Worldwide

“…Results were mixed for stereotypically male nouns such as ‫דאקטער‬ dokter(NOM) 'doctor' and ‫ציינדאקטער‬ tseyndokter(NOM) 'dentist', with 42% (38/94) of them appearing with ‫די‬ di, 55% (52/94) with ‫דער‬ der, and 4% (4/94) with ‫דע‬ de. We also had 10 instances of the form ‫דאקטער‬ dokter(DAT), two of which were used with ‫דעם‬ dem, three with ‫די‬ di, two with -‫ן‬ -n, one with ‫דע‬ de, and one with ‫-ן‬ ‫די‬ di -n. These findings are consistent with those of Belk et al (2020b), where we argue that some speakers (often male Israelis) have a tendency to use the written form ‫דער‬ der for human males and items or concepts perceived to be important (such as ‫ספר‬ seyfer 'religious book'). In many cases, these two categories overlap, as in ‫חתן‬ khosn 'groom', ‫מלך‬ meylekh 'king'.…”

“…We also had 10 instances of the form דאקטער dokter ( dat ), two of which were used with דעם dem , three with די di , two with ‑ן -n , one with דע de , and one with די ‑ן di ‑n . These findings are consistent with those of Belk et al (2020b), where we argue that some speakers (often male Israelis) have a tendency to use the written form דער der for human males and items or concepts perceived to be important (such as ספר seyfer ‘religious book’). In many cases, these two categories overlap, as in חתן khosn ‘groom’, מלך meylekh ‘king’.…”

“…12This point has been examined in more depth in our paper on the Semitic component of contemporary Hasidic Yiddish (Belk et al 2020b). In that study, we found no correlation between a noun’s morphological gender in Modern Hebrew or loshn koydesh (premodern Hebrew) and the Yiddish definite determiner forms speakers used with that noun.…”

Translating COVID-19 information into Yiddish for the UK Hasidic community

“…Owing to the very strict gender roles in Hasidic society and the different models for boys' and girls' education, Hasidic Yiddish is used differently by men and women in certain respects (Belk et al 2020b). In some cases, these gender differences had an effect on our translation and necessitated specific solutions that would ensure accessibility of the Yiddish document to men and women alike.…”

“…Contemporary Hasidic Yiddish exhibits striking linguistic differences from the traditional pre-war Eastern European dialects of the language as well as from its standardized variety, such as a distinctive orthographic system, absence of morphological case and gender, developments in the pronominal system, various syntactic differences, and many salient lexical differences (see e.g. Assouline 2014;Assouline 2017;Belk et al 2020aBelk et al , 2020bBelk et al , 2022Bleaman 2018;Bleaman 2020;Fader 2009;Kamoshida 2008;Krogh 2012, Krogh 2018Nove 2018b;Sadock and Masor 2018). However, despite the intriguing differences in its structure, and its central role in the contemporary Yiddish world, apart from the studies mentioned above very little research exists on Hasidic Yiddish grammar or language practices (see Nove 2018a for discussion of reasons for this lacuna).…”