Information About ™Language-dialect Aphorism |
|
CITABLE REFERENCE: MAX WEINREICH Most references that credit the aphorism to Max Weinreich overlook the fact that he presented it as an indirect quotation of something told to him by an auditor at one of his lectures, in a series held between 13 December 1943 and 12 June 1944 (detailed in ''YIVO Bletter'', vol. 23 nr. 3, May–June 1944 , pp. 420–421). He describes his informant in some detail but does not give a name. Weinreich says nothing more than that this person was relating a phrase, without in any way indicating whether he had devised it personally or acquired it from an earlier source. The relevant passage appears on p. 13 of the 1945 article: :Last year we held a course in the Dr. Tsemakh Shabad Jewish Studies Program with twenty lectures on the subject, 'Problems in the History of the Yiddish Language'. A teacher at a Bronx high school once appeared among the auditors. He had come to America as a child and during the entire time had never heard that Yiddish had a history and can also serve for higher matters. I do not know how he came to be among the YIVO scholars, only that he was there from then on. Once after a lecture he came up to me and asked, 'What is the difference between a dialect and language?' I said that it was a matter of intellectual subjectivity, and sensed that he felt this led in the right direction, but he interrupted me and said, 'I know that, but I want to give you a better definition. A language is a dialect with an army and navy.' It then struck me that I had to convey this wonderful expression of the social plight of Yiddish to a large audience. ''(A transcription of the original text and a romanized transliteration appear at the end of the present article.)'' WHO MIGHT HAVE MADE THE REMARK? The details of the lecture series provided in the 1944 number of ''YIVO Bletter'' (to which footnoted reference is made in the 1945 article) include a description of a core audience of twenty students who attended all of the lectures (of which there were twenty-one not twenty) plus as many as twenty additional people who might attend any individual lecture. Informal discussions were frequently held between the lecturer, who was not always Max Weinreich, and the audience after a lecture was over. Weinreich's last presentation in the series was made on 8 May 1944 , and he indicates that his informant joined the group at some point after the first lecture. The second lecture was held on 20 December 1943 , thus narrowing the interval within which their exchange can have occurred. There has been some speculation about the unnamed participant in the lecture having been the preeminent Sociolinguist and Yiddish scholar Joshua Fishman , and he is indicated as the originator of the army-navy statement in several references. This may have been prompted by his own suggestion, apparently made in the belief that Max Weinreich was describing an event that occurred more than twenty years later In any case, the description of the person in the Weinreich text does not match Fishman's biographical details well enough for it to have been him (born in America, 17 years old and a high school student at the time of the lecture, well aware of the history and signficance of the Yiddish language [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/Spencer_PRproject/indexaffiliates.htm ). The .) Another possibility is Louis-Hubert Lyautey (1854–1934). The statement, ''"Une langue, c'est un dialecte qui possède une armée, une marine et une aviation"'', appears in a number of online contexts naming Lyautey as the author, but here again no source or verifiable reference is provided. Other suggested sources post-date the Weinreich publication. Pending substantiation for any earlier attribution being brought forward, the identity of the person who first drew the military analogy will remain a matter of speculation and may, indeed, have been the unnamed auditor of Max Weinreich's lecture. The 1945 date for the first published appearance of the aphorism must, in any case, be accepted in the interim. Weinreich clearly stated that he was not the author of the famous statement, but was attempting to bring it to the attention of a broad audience. WEINRICH'S YIDDISH-LANGUAGE TEXT Here is the passage from the 1945 text in the original Yiddish, followed by a romanized transliteration: פֿאַר אַ יאָרן האָבן מיר אין דער ד״ר צמח שאַבאַד־אַספּיראַנטור געהאַט אַ קורס פֿון צוואַנציק לעקציעס אויף דער טעמע׃ „פּראָבלעמען אין דער געשיכטע פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּראַך“. צװישן די צוהערערס איז אײן מאָל אױך אַרײַנגעפֿאַלן אַ לערער פֿון אַ בראָנקסער הײַסקול. ער איז געקומען קײן אַמעריקע װי אַ קינד און האָט פֿאַר דער גאַנצער צײַט קײן מאָל ניט געהערט, אַז ייִדיש האָט אַ געשיכטע און קען דינען פֿאַר העכערע ענינים אױך. װי אַזױ ער איז פֿון דער אַספּיראַנטור פֿון ייִװאָ געװױר געװאָרן װײס איך ניט, נאָר פֿון יעמאָלט אָן האָט ער שױן גענומען קומען. אײן מאָל נאָך אַ לעקציע גײט ער צו צו מיר און פֿרעגט׃ „װאָס איז דער חילוק פֿון אַ דיאַלעקט ביז אַ שפּראַך?“ איך האָב געמײנט, אַז עס רופֿט זיך אים דער משׂכּילישער ביטול, און איך האָב אים געפּרוּװט אַרױפֿפֿירן אױפֿן ריכטיקן װעג, נאָר ער האָט מיך איבערגעריסן׃ „דאָס װײס איך, אָבער יך װעל אײַך געבן אַ בעסערע דעפֿיניציע׃ אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט“. איך האָב זיך יעמאָלט באַלד פֿאַרגעדענקט, אַז די דאָזיקע װוּנדערלעכע פֿאָרמולירונג פֿון דער סאָציאַלער מערכה פֿון ייִדיש מוז איך ברענגען צו אַ גרױסן עולם Far a yorn hobn mir in der d {Link without Title} r Tsemekh Shabad-aspirantur gehat a kurs fun tsvantsik lektsyes oyf der teme, "problemen in der geshikhte fun der yidisher shprakh". Tsvishn di tsuherers iz eyn mol oykh arayngefaln a lerer fun a bronkser hayskul. Er iz gekumen keyn amerike vi a kind un hot far der gantser tsayt keyn mol nit gehert, az yidish hot a geshikhte un ken dinen far hekhere inyonem oykh. Vi azoy er iz fun der aspirantur fun YIVO gevoyr gevorn veys ikh nit, nor fun yemolt on hot er shoyn genumen kumen. Eyn mol nokh a lektsye geyt er tsu tsu mir un fregt, "Vos iz der khilek fun a dialekt biz a shprakh?" Ikh hob gemeynt, az es ruft zikh im der maskilisher bitl, un ikh hob im gepruvt aroyffirn afn rikhtikn veg, nor er hot mikh ibergerisn "Dos veys ikh, ober ikh vel aykh gebn a besere definitsye. A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot." Ikh hob zikh yemolt bald fargedenkt, az di dozike vunderlekhe formulirung fun der sotsyaler marokhe fun yidish muz ikh brengen tsu a groysn oylem. |
|
|