# Judeo-German (passage)



## jugen

Hello all, I'm in the process of paraphrasing an article written around 1955 about Jewish life in a Prussian village during the last few years of the 20th century.  This passage is about the Schammes (sexton), Jakob Frühling. The article appears online and contains quite a few scanning errors. Here is the passage and my attempt at interpretation:
".... Unvergesslich bleibt, wenn er zu Simchath Torah bei der Ausgabe der Thora-rollen für den Umzug ausrufend feststellte: 'Jacob Cohn bechabet mit seinem eigenen Sefer'. Ueber die Einnahmen aus den Lihes führte er an den Sabbat- und Feiertagen getreulich Buch, mit einem System von Schnüren und Falten; denn aufgeschrieben konnten sie doch nicht werden."

"[He was] unforgettable on Simchat Torah; when it was time to unroll the Torah rolls for the procession, he would yell out:  "Jacob the priest _bechabet?? _with his own Sefer [Torah]".  On the taking (?) on the altar ("Lihes" I think is the yiddish version of the plural of Aliya, Aliyot= Aliyes - maybe the whole phrase just refers to the act of being called up to the Torah?), he regularly led  Sabbath and Holy Days (services?) [from?] a book with his own system of lines and squiggles (as cantillation marks??) since they could not be properly notated."

Looking forward to your ideas-
jugen


----------



## perpend

I think "bechabet" is from "beschaben". I think "Einnahmen" is income. I can't put my finger on "Lihes", but it's a source of income that can't be put into the books of the synagogue.

Jakob Frühling sounds a little cooky/eccentric, from a bit of the surrounding text that I read.

Here's my understanding: It was unforgettable, as the Torah was unrolled on Simchath Torah for the procession, when he called out with conviction: _Jacob Cohn whittles with his own "Sefer". _Regarding the income from the "Lihes/("Lines" is in your link), he dutifully kept the books on the Sabbath and other Holidays, using a system of strings and creases; this income wasn't supposed to be recorded.

Oy vey. Das war eine schwere Geburt. I spent a bunch of time on it, out of curiosity, so I thought I'd give you my input. Native German speakers will do better.

Je suis Charlie!


----------



## manfy

Sounds good to me! Especially the rear end - but I'm not familiar with the Yiddish terms.

Cela dit manfy! ... un ami de Charlie!


----------



## jugen

Fabulous work, perpend!  This writer uses "Lihes" in another passage, definitely referring to the auctioning off of the chance to make the Aliya to the Torah. I'll see what others say, but I really like what you've done here.  Yes, Frühling was evidently quite an eccentric.  I translated "Cohn" as priest because I think he was talking about himself (Cohan = the priestly class - in dna).  A sheinem Dank!


----------



## berndf

perpend said:


> I think "bechabet" is from "beschaben".


I can't understand your reasoning. "ch" for "sch" is an unlikely OCR error and I can't se how you would scrape/grate with a Sefer (book). 


perpend said:


> I think "Einnahmen" is income.


Yes. At least in this context "proceeds" would be a more accurate translation.


perpend said:


> I can't put my finger on "Lihes", but it's a source of income that can't be put into the books of the synagogue.


Nor do I. Neither "Lihes" not "Lines" rings a bell with me. (_Lines _would be the Ashkenasi pronunciation of Hebrew _Linot_, plural of _Linah _= _logding/staying overnight_. But I can't see how this could fit.)


----------



## berndf

jugen said:


> I translated "Cohn" as priest because I think he was talking about himself (Cohan = the priestly class - in dna).


No _Cohn _is a family name (obviously derived from _Cohen_). If you meant _priest _then you would be write _Coh*e*n _(not _Coh*a*n_; the vowel is a segol in Hebrew; it becomes patah only in the plural _Coh*a*nim_).


----------



## Demiurg

perpend said:


> _Ueber die Einnahmen aus den Lihes führte er an den Sabbat- und Feiertagen getreulich Buch, mit einem System von Schnüren und Falten; denn aufgeschrieben konnten sie doch nicht werden._
> 
> ... he dutifully kept the books on the Sabbath and other Holidays, using a system of strings and creases; this income wasn't supposed to be recorded.



I think it rather means he couldn't write down the numbers (because any work is forbidden on Sabbath), so he used a system of strings and creases instead to "record" them temporarily.


----------



## jugen

Thanks, berndf, for your suggestions. So the Cohn reference is probably to a person well-known in the congregation.

Re. "Lihes", here's another passage in this article with that word: _ Festtags war das Verauktionieren der "Lihes" für uns ein besonderes Schauspiel_ Wouldn't this indicate that it was a source of income? Not all synagogues do this; here's a  discussion of the practice.
So "bechabet" is still a mystery.


----------



## jugen

Demiurg, this is making sense now, especially in the light of the sometimes controversial practice I linked in the reply to berndf.


----------



## jugen

Regarding this passage: _denn aufgeschrieben konnten sie doch nicht werden_,  now I'm guessing that in this particular community the _Schnüren und Falten _were used because this method of income was not quite "kosher" as discussed in this site, which I haven't had the patience to read _in toto. _ What do you all think?  
By the way, the writer died in 1964 and this selection (written around 1955) is based on his memories of the town in which he lived from 1888-1899, from age 3 to 11.


----------



## berndf

jugen said:


> Re. "Lihes", here's another passage in this article with that word: _ Festtags war das Verauktionieren der "Lihes" für uns ein besonderes Schauspiel_


This passage makes it quite clear that _`aliyoth_ were indeed meant. So, the _h_ would then be just indicating a long _i_ (the _yud_-consonant merged into the preceding vowel) and the first syllable (`a) is omitted. Very strange spelling. I would never have guessed that.


----------



## jugen

Very gratifying to see your learned reply, berndf


----------



## Demiurg

jugen said:


> So "bechabet" is still a mystery.



I found the noun "Bechabet" here.  But it doesn't make sense in this context.


----------



## berndf

Demiurg said:


> I found the noun "Bechabet" here.  But it doesn't make sense in this context.


If it were really from _barukh _and _habbo _then it could also mean "Jacob Cohn begrüßt mit seinem eigenen Buch". Could that make any sense to you?


----------



## jugen

berndf said:


> If it were really from _barukh _and _habbo _then it could also mean "Jacob Cohn begrüßt mit seinem eigenen Buch". Could that make any sense to you?


There's not enough context for me to make that decision. Since this is not a translation I will be submitting but a paraphrasing for a book about this town, I may just disregard the passage, but am grateful for all your suggestions and also to Demiurg for citing from that amazing book.  Writer was born in Potsdam, lived in that town in Poznan; so is this (and _Lihes)_ East- or West-Yiddish?  His own dialect or that of the townspeople?  I'm taking my leave here, with many thanks and much respect.


----------



## berndf

Poznan is definitely East-Yiddish territory. The Berlin area was really a big ethnic melting pot so you have to look at the individual family background. The native area of Western Yiddish is roughly on both sides of the Rhine (Germany and France), in Franconia, in Switzerland in in the North West (both sides of the German-Dutch border).  But already in the 19th century, there weren't may Western Yiddish speakers left. In the early 20th century maybe in 10s of thousands. True native speakers with Western Yiddish as there first language certainly less than 10'000 already back then.

_Bechabet _appears specifically in a Western Yiddish dictionary and nowhere else so it must be. But as we all agree, it is doubtful that this is really the word in the text. As I said, I have never come across the spelling _Lihes_ nor a pronunciation of _`aliyoth_ I could imagine being spelled like this. So, I can't help you there.


----------



## jugen

Fascinating!  I wish I had more time to "pick your brains" - Also looked at some of your Charlie posts and I probably agree w you there...


----------



## manfy

Just a thought about 'bechabet':
I seem to remember that some words in AHD and or MHD (old/middle high german) changed from 'ch' to 'h' or 'g' in NHD, hence I'd guess the infinitives might be behaben or begaben. It is thinkable that this 'ch' has survived in Yiddish.
behaben -> behalten
begaben -> beschenken

From the context it's clear that 'Jacob Cohn bechabet mit seinem eigenen Sefer' means that Jacob Cohn brought his own book/Torah in a wider sense (which is an uncommon thing, because the writing of a Torah must follow very strict rules, hence is ultimately very expensive and practically unaffordable to individuals). Since the Simchath Torah festival is a time when the Torah is taken from its sacred place for the purpose of 'being brought closer to the worshippers' (at least, that's how I understand it), it seems logical to conclude: The more Torahs you have, the happier. 

So, I'd assume 'Jacob Cohn bechabet mit seinem eigenen Sefer' means 'Jacob Cohn begabet/beschenket [uns] mit seinem eigenen Sefer' (im Sinne von : gibt uns die Ehre, seine Thora verwenden zu dürfen).
This is mere linguistic conjecture, but within this context it seems to fit. But better wait what others think about this!

PS: Or maybe it's just a regional, dialectal mispronunciation! There's many German dialects that even today pronounce 'g' as 'ch', i.e. begabet -> bechabet


----------



## jugen

Hmmm.. Very interesting, but why would the Schammes, Jacob F., yell this out to the whole congregation?  By the way, the writer was a highly educated person and was awarded the Grosses Verdienstkreuz des Verdienstorden.


----------



## manfy

jugen said:


> Hmmm.. Very interesting, but why would the Schammes, Jacob F., yell this out to the whole congregation?



In the preceding sentence you read "An Sabbat und Festtagen führte er sein Amt ganz in seiner Art, mit einem unbewussten Zug ins "komische". Unvergesslich bleibt ..."
So, it's safe to assume that this public announcement "Jacob Cohn bechabet mit seinem eigenen Sefer" has a comical side to it. I don't quite know the reason for it because I'm not really familiar with Jewish practises and thinking, but comparing it to Christian practises, it might sound sort of funny if somebody brings his own statue of Holy Mary to a procession that is normally only done with the Church's statue.




jugen said:


> By the way, the writer was a highly educated person and was awarded the Grosses Verdienstkreuz des Verdienstorden.



With "mispronunciation" I did not mean mispronunciation out of ignorance! The use of regional pronunciation can be a matter of pride and an expression of unity within that community. After all, the phrase is enclosed in quotation marks, i.e. should be interpreted as a literal quote: 
_... ausrufend feststellte: "Jacob Cohn bechabet mit seinem eigenen Sefer". _


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> I seem to remember that some words in AHD and or MHD (old/middle high german) changed from 'ch' to 'h' or 'g' in NHD, hence I'd guess the infinitives might be behaben or begaben.


Not syllable initial. In OHG  and [x] weren't distinguish yet, neither orthographically nor phonemically. Both where spelled "h". This distinction emerged in MHG only:  in the beginning of the syllable and [x] at the end. Some of these syllable final /h/s later became mute. That is why we have "na*h*" but "nä*ch*st".


manfy said:


> PS: Or maybe it's just a regional, dialectal  mispronunciation! There's many German dialects that even today pronounce  'g' as 'ch', i.e. begabet -> bechabet


PPS: Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus, mein Lieber. The Germanic <g> was a fricative and not a plosive. The re-development into a plosive was a gradual one and not always consistent among language. It happened very early in most languages for initial <g>s but very late or never at the end, e.g. in your dialect _Tag _is pronounced with a devoiced [g] but not in English (_day_), not in Dutch (_dag_ = /dɑx/), not in _Icelandic _(_dagur _= /ˈtaːɣʏr/) and not in Northern German (_Tag = _/tɑx/). When final obstruent devoicing kicked in OHG, final <g> and <h> became indistinguishable, i.e. pronouncing _Tag _like _Tach _(i.e. as if derived from a fictitious OHG word *_tah_) is the original pronunciation. The shift to plosive pronunciation in Upper German also for final <g> most likely happened after this (at least partial) merger. The reason for that is that this reinstatement of the plosive (but devoiced) <g> is not always along etymological lines but sometimes also affects etymological <h>, e.g. Standard German _sie*h*st_ vs. Bavarian _si*g*st_.


----------



## jugen

So now I'm thinking that this was some sort of "insider" joke that none of us can possibly understand. I did find a Jacob Cohn in that town, which did not help at all... 
Thanks for your thinking and your humor.


----------



## berndf

It certainly is.


----------



## manfy

jugen said:


> So now I'm thinking that this was some sort of "insider" joke that none of us can possibly understand.



 In this case I have a (final) theory to offer:
The author says "... mit einem *unbewussten* Zug ins "komische"", i.e. Jacob was inadvertently funny with this statement.

Therefore I'm now very certain that Jacob intended to say "_Jacob Cohn begabet mit seinem eigenen Sef_er"
Duden shows these synonyms for begaben: ausstatten, segnen, versehen, versorgen (and all of them fit to the context)
This dictionary shows frequent use for the same purpose: "*II* *insbesondere für kirchliche Zwecke stiften; eine Kirche, Altar usw. ausstatten*"

However, because of Jacob's regional accent he pronounces it as "bechabet" instead of "begabet"
In Yiddish this word has a close connotation to Bechawer (Rüge, Schimpfe), Bachafer (Ohrfeige) and in extension to Bechabet with similar undertones.
(as shown in this entry of the West-Yiddish dictionary)

So ultimately, for a Yiddish speaker the intended
"_Jacob Cohn segnet [uns] mit seinem eigenen Sef_er"
sounds like
"_Jacob Cohn ohrfeigt [uns] mit seinem eigenen Sef_er"
and all because of a regional oddity of pronunciation. That makes the whole thing funny and surely inadvertent. (And it explains why the author had to write the word the way it was pronounced and not the way it is normally written!)

As always, no guarantees - but you have to admit, this theory could work, don't you think?

PS: Thanks, Bernd, for the details! Those odd bits and pieces of our language evolution are always interesting to me.
I agree that it's more common to pronounce ending g as 'ch' (like Könich for König) but I'm sure I've heard dialects doing the same for g in the middle of words, e.g. "Wir tragen das nicht" comes out like "Mia traachen des nich!"


----------

