In the obit, the phrase Written in the Hebrew alphabet and containing Semitic, Germanic and other components isn't technically wrong, but it misrepresents the relationships. Better: A Germanic language with Semitic, Slavic, and other components and written in the Hebrew alphabet. (You could go back and forth forever about which contributed more, Semitic or Slavic languages.)
By the way, Yiddish is apparently an officially recognized minority language in Sweden, and there's some evidence that it is also so in Moldova and the Netherlands.
Posted by John Cowan at March 27, 2007 12:43 PMFor anyone interested in the etymology of his surname, dict.leo.org gives ‘shochet’ as an English rendering, which the OED describes as ‘a Jewish slaughterer, a person officially certified as competent to kill cattle and poultry in the manner prescribed by Jewish law.’ Apparently from a Hebrew root, not the Germanic of the English ‘slay’.
Posted by Aidan Kehoe at March 27, 2007 04:19 PMJohn, it may be that the writers wanted to avoid objections from devotees of Paul Wexler with their phrasing.
Posted by Aidan Kehoe at March 28, 2007 09:01 AMSomething about him on my blog:
http://zackarysholemberger.blogspot.com/search/label/Mordkhe%20Schaechter
...and an obit for him in the Forward:
http://www.forward.com/articles/in-memory-of-a-one-man-yiddish-empire/
His name was not Mordechai. He wished to be known as Mordkhe, curiously enough, because that was his name. Sheesh.
He is missed a great deal.
Posted by Zackary Sholem Berger at March 28, 2007 10:16 PMI wish I weren't such a pedant, but this paragraph from the Times (U.K.) obit is just weird:
"Today Yiddish is used as the language of instruction in Talmudical colleges which train Orthodox rabbis and teachers, but is rarely spoken outside, even by its teachers and students."
The teachers and students are the ones speaking Yiddish, and they do so in the hundreds of thousands, to their children and grandchildren. Not one of the more widely spoken languages, by any means, but the excerpt does misstate the case, I think.
The NYT's obit is better because it focuses on the person. The Times' obit writer made the mistake of pontificating about the language as well on the basis of limited knowledge. (Something the NYT has done often enough.)
Posted by Zackary Sholem Berger at March 28, 2007 11:22 PMExcellent points all, and thanks for the links!
Posted by language hat at March 29, 2007 08:00 AM