Sacred Texts and Standardization:
Jewish prayerbooks for women and translations of the Bible into Judeo-Italian are the earliest texts that exist in Judeo-Italian. They are written in a relatively uniform variety of Judeo-Italian that is often called the koine by scholars of the language. When we consider the koine, the written Judeo-Italian of the Renaissance, we do find that there are some differences, but the differences are minimal when compared with the spoken languages as we know them today. In addition to being a language used for translations and prayerbooks, the koine was used for poetryfrequently elaborate puns designed to mean something in Hebrew and something else in Italian when read aloud. A language that has been deliberately created is not very likely to have regional variations.
The study of Jewish languages may contribute a great deal to our knowledge of the history and sociology of language standardization. Language standardization is widespread and quite old. The Indian grammarian Panini, who lived in about 400 B.C.E., gave us 3,995 rules concerning the Sanskrit language. Standardization apparently took place in Judeo-Italian as well. It may have taken place before the language had a name and before there was consciousness that it existed.
Minority languages have dialects just as majority languages do. Frequently, however, the minority language shows less dialectal variation than the coterritorial language. We see this in African-American Vernacular English, or Black English. The Black English spoken in
We find a parallel phenomenon in Judeo-Italian. The spoken Judeo-Italian of Mantova or
Nevertheless, the koine has a life of its own. Standard languages also evolve. Luisa Cuomo points out that the language used in translations, which follows the Hebrew text very closely and exhibits a syntax not found in any variety of spoken Italian or Judeo-Italian, nevertheless has a life of its own, continually renewing itself "continuamente rinovantesi" (p. 109).
Even an artificial language changes. Linguistic change is inherent in the fact that language is learned, that we are not born speaking any particular language. Furthermore, linguistic development is a prerequisite for human existence. We human beings have no fangs, claws or armor. We cannot run very fast. We have survived because it is natural for us to be unnaturalto invent and use tools, to develop specialized skills and consequently to divide labor, to do things that have not been done before and to communicate these innovations to our contemporaries and our posterity. Human language must be designed to produce sentences that have never been said before, which can happen not only because grammatical rules are recursive, but because languages have processes to augment the lexicon and the grammar.
Nevertheless, the evolution of language, inevitable though it may be, is itself an obstacle to communication. The
The relative uniformity of the Judeo-Italian koine is evidence that standardization existed even in a minority community with no political structure. It reflects the universality of prescriptivism.
The impulse to standardize shown by the existence of the koine did not mean the adoption of the standard language of
The first two features are found in 20th-century Judeo-Italian. Can it be that the reason Italian Jews in the 20th century said quanno instead of quando and li donni instead of le donne meaning “the women” because they continued to use these forms in their prayers and in their study of the Bible? Did the anonymous translators of the Hebrew prayerbooks choose to create a Jewish standard? Did they recognize a pre-existing Judeo-Italian and try to maintain the tradition? Did they try to write in the variety of Italian that would be easiest for a Jewish reader to comprehend? These are important questions. Before the 16th century, Italian Jews were relatively assimilated according to the practices of the time. The 14th and 15th centuries are described in the Encyclopedia Judaica as "a period of unprecedented cultural activity, and the Jewish scholars, poets, physicians, and codifiers, who at the same time cultivated secular disciplines and languages, are significant more for their number than for individual excellence" (EJ 9, 1122). Jewish texts could have been written in the language of Dantein the Hebrew alphabet, of course. Was a conscious decision made not to write in Tuscan Italian that was accepted as the lingua franca of the
We do know, however, that there were times when even the Hebrew alphabet was not chosen. The inscriptions on tombstones dating from the
One variable we must consider is the fact that the prayerbooks were written for the use of women. Adjectives and nouns referring to the person praying were in the feminine gender. Were women less likely to know standard Tuscan than men? Did they live in a more Jewish environment? Among Hasidic Jews today, it is women who are more likely to speak better English and function in the outside world (see Jochnowitz 1968).
The existence of prayerbooks in Judeo-Italian for women but not for men suggests that women were less likely to know Hebrew than men were, which fits in with our knowledge of both religious communities and the world before the 19th century. We have no knowledge of how many Jewish women could read at all and how their numbers compared with women in the general population.
An interesting aspect of the Judeo-Italian koine is that it contains very few words of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. Today, we can debate whether Judeo-Italian still exists. On the one hand, the grammatical peculiarities are gone. Nobody says li donni any more. Many Italian Jews don’t even recognize the fact that such a construction once existed. On the other hand, words of Hebrew or Aramaic origin still exist. Sometimes they are needed to refer to religious rituals, such as minkha for the afternoon prayers. In at least one case, a word needed to refer to a religious custom comes from Yiddish: the word is ortsai, from Yiddish yortsayt, meaning “anniversary of a death.” Other words survive, albeit marginally, to refer to unpleasant phenomena. Thus, just as American Jews who don’t speak Yiddish may still use the word ganef meaning “thief,” so may Italian Jews call a male thief un ganavve, a female thief una ganavessa, and may say ganavviare meaning “to steal.”
The standardization of Judeo-Italian has meant the preservation of grammatical forms and phonological features not found in standard Italian. Our old texts, however, tell us nothing at all about the local pronunciation of Hebrew. Words of Hebrew origin, the few that we find, are spelled the way they always were. We don’t know how old the Italian practice of pronouncing the word for “Sabbath” as shabad or shabadde isa pronunciation different from both Israeli shabat and Ashkenazic Hebrew shabes. Similarly, we don’t know the age of the Judeo-Provençal sabaf. The only standardization of Hebrew pronunciation that seems to have taken place is taking place today, where local variants are being replaced by Israeli pronunciation.
The pronunciation of merged Hebrew in Judeo-Provençal is unique. The letters samekh, sin, and sav are all [f]. Thus, 'horse' is [fuf] or [fyf]. shin is [s]. A new sh sound entered the language from yud. Thus, we have the word for 'wine' spelled chayin or chain in the Latin alphabet. Intervocalic and final dalet are often [z]. The Passover song has been recorded as both had gadya and haz gadya. "Talmud" is [talmuz]. The existence of all these f sounds suggests an earlier θ, resulting from a merger of thavwhich is what we find in Judeo-Greek and Judeo-Arabic and which is preserved in English words like Sabbathwith the older s sounds.
The medieval and renaissance standardization of Judeo-Italian, in all likelihood, led to the preservation of unique grammatical and phonological features into the 20th century, when they could be recorded and preserved. The current standardization of Hebrew pronunciation is leading to the eradication of variant forms that have existed for centuries or millennia. We think of standardization as a force leading to uniformity. In the case of Judeo-Italian, the internal uniformity led to the preservation of many non-standard features that otherwise would have vanished without leaving a trace.
Colorni, Vittore. 1970. "La parlata degli ebrei mantovani," Rassegna Mensile di Israel (Scritti in memoria di A. Milano) pp. 1109-164.
Cuomo, Luisa. 1988. Una traduzione giudeo-romanesca del libro di Giona. Beihefte zur Zeitschrifte fu:r romanische Philologie, Band 215. Tübingen, Max Niemayer Verlag.
Freedman, A. 1972. Italian Texts in Hebrew Characters: Problems of Interpretation.
Jochnowitz, George. 1968. "Bilingualism and Dialect Mixture Among Lubavitcher Hasidic Children." American Speech 43.3, 188-200. Reprinted in Never Say Die: A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and Letters, ed. Joshua A. Fishman.
---. 1981. "... Who Made Me a Woman." Commentary 71.4 (April), 63-64.
Saboly, N. 1824 (new ed.) Noué Juzioou (Jewish carols).
Silberstein, Susan Milner. 1973. The Provencal Esther Poem Written in Hebrew Characters
This paper was read at the Fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies