language/dialect again

[Alice Faber]

A. Maberry wrote:
>The question of the origin of the saying "A language is a dialect with an
>army/navy" seems to come up with some regularlity. It is usually
>attributed to the Yiddishist Max Weinreich, but I haven't seen a reference
>to the exact source. I think I might have found it in a speech Weinreich
>gave in honor of the 20th anniversary of YIVO (Yidisher visnshaftlekher
>institut), titled "Der Yivo un di problemen fun undzer tsayt" ("YIVO and
>the problems of our time") published in Yivo Bleter, bd. 25, num. 1
>(Yanuar-Februar, 1945) p. 13. Weinreich is telling an anecdote about a course
>of lectures he was giving at YIVO in 1944 and:
>
>"Eyn mol nokh a lektsye geyt er [a student] tsu tsu mir un fregt: 'Vos iz
>der khilek fun a dialekt biz a shprakh?'  Ikh hob gemeynt, az es ruft zikh
>op in im der maskilisher bitul, un ikh hob im gepruvt aroyffirn oyfn
>rikhtikn veg, nor er hot mikh ibergerisn: 'Dos veyst ikh, ober ikh vel
>aykh gebn a besere definitsye: A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un
>flot".
>
>roughly translated; Once after a lecture he came up to me and asked: "What
>is the difference between a dialect and a language?" I thought that a bit
>of the contempt which characterized the Haskalah period had affected him,
>[im not sure how to convey the phrase "az es ruft zikh op in im der
>maskilisher bitul" but I think this is pretty much the sense of it--adm]
>so I tried to lead him to the right way, but he interrupted me: "I know
>that, but I'll give you a better definition: A language is a dialect with
>an army and navy."
>
>My apologies if this has been reported before and escaped my notice!
>
Thanks very much for posting this. This account makes a lot of sense.
Like you, I've always heard the remark attributed to Max Weinreich.
But it's really inconsistent with the entire body of his scholarly
work. After all, the thrust of his entire career was to demonstrate
that Yiddish is a distinct (and interesting) language and not a
corrupt non-standard dialect of German. However, Yiddish was never a
national language and never had an army or a navy associated
specifically with its speakers, facts that were well-known to
Weinreich. As a result, I've been puzzled at the attribution of this
mot to Weinreich.

But, if Weinreich's reporting a remark made by someone he clearly has
little respect for, it makes a whole lot more sense. The attitude
that Yiddish is merely corrupt German is much more consistent with
Haskala thinking than with Weinreich's own attitudes, expressed in
his veneration of the culture and language of medieval Ashkenazic
Jewry.


 =============================================================================
Alice Faber                    new, improved email: faber at pop.haskins.yale.edu
Haskins Laboratories            old email, if you must: faber at haskins.yale.edu
New Haven, CT 06511 USA           tel: (203) 865-6163 x258; fax (203) 865-8963