On the intensifier particles den and dokh

12 Pages·2.225 MB·Yiddish-English

by  Newman Z.K.

lOv
lljLUMuiA UNiVtft ...
WORKING PAPERS IN YIDDISH AND EAST EUROPEAN JEWISH STUDIES
Number 2 0CT 6 ""
3
LIBRARIES
ON THE INTENSIFIER PARTICLES DM AND DOKH
by
I
Zelda Kahari Newman
Department of English
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
issued April 1977 by the
Max Weinreich Center for Advanced Jewish Studies
of the
YIVO Institute for Jewish Research
10U8 Fifth Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10028
under a grant from the
National Endowment for the Humanities
-1-
ON THE INTENSIFIBR PARTICLES DEN AND DOKH
It is not surprising that the particles den and dokh 'plague
translators from Yiddish into English* (Weinreich 1955:2^). Weinreich (1965:246]
calls the« 'attitude words'; for reasons which will became apparent later, we
will call them intens!flera. No matter what they are called, it is clear to
the native speaker TnaV'lihey are used in very special circumstances. When
they are used properly the speaker not only expresses his/her own views and/or
attitudes, he/she also presupposes that the addressee holds certain views
and/or attitudes. In using den and dokh the speaker tries - in the case of den
- to change, and in the case of dokh - to strengthen the addressee's tiews.
For a while we will treat den and dokh separately. We will elaborate
on Weinreich'a terse comments and discuss the likeness of den to the negative
particle nlsht and the likeness of dokh to the affirmative particle Then
we will discuss the theoretical questions they raise. Finally we will look
at some literary passages to see how a Skillful writer uses them both to
achieve rather subtle effects.
den
Combining what Weinreich says in College Yiddish (Weinreich 1965:2^6-7)
with what he says in his dictionary (Weinreich 1960:139), we come up with the
following understanding of den; when den is used in the same sentence as a
WH question word, it immediately follows the word and gives the whole sentence
the meaning of 'wh- then (if not)...' An example of this usage would be:
1) ver den Iz gekumen? 'Who then came (if not Moyshe)?'
When den is not used with WH question words, it nevertheless still
occurs in sentences which appear to be interrogative sentences. An example
of this usage would be:
2) s'lz den montik? 'It isn't Monday, is it?'
For these cases Weinreich has two slightly different explanations.
In College Yiddish he says den 'indicates the speaker's doubt of a statement
previously made, or a thought previously entertained' (Weinreich 1965:21+7).
The difficulty with this explanation is that the den particle does more than
just indicate the speaker's doubt. In his dictionary Weinreich says that
den 'implies [a] negative answer' (Weinreich 1968:139). The difficulty with
this second explanation is twofold. For one thing, it is perfectly possible
to respond to a den sentence like (2) with a positive sentence like
3) yo» s'lz take montik. 'It is so Monday.'
When a non-negative response of this sort is given, the addressee
is simply telling the speaker that he/she - the speaker - is under a mis-
apprehension. One problem with this explanation, then, lies in its use of
the word 'implication'. No understanding of the notion of implication would
rJ
j7/i
4
'
lead us to accept (3) as an acceptable response to (2). And here we com«
to the second difficulty. No 'answer' is expected in response to a den
question because the den question is not a question at all. It is a
statement couched in question form. Although it is true that a negative
is somehow involved in the understanding of den, its place is not in the
answer of the questionee (addressee), but in the mind of the questioner -
speaker.
To understand what den does in a sentence, we will need somethii
of each of Weinreich s explanations. From the former we will take 'state
ments previously made or thoughts previously entertained', while from the
latter we will take the concept of negation. Welded together the new
formulation is: den is used when the speaker feels the addressee holds
an incorrect view. He/she uses den to negate this view and to forcefully
put forth his/her own contrary view.
Until now we have not discussed the position of den in a sentenc
To be sure, we know that it occurs immediately after WH question words, bu
what about sentences that contain den but do not contain WH question word
Here are some sample sentences:
ta) er geyt den? 'He isn't walking, is he?'
!>*) er geyt den aheym? *He isn't going home, is he?'
6a) er 1b den gegangen 'He didn't go, did he'
7a) zey hobn den faynt yidn 'They don't hate Jews, can't you i
Let us look at the pure negative analogs of the above sentences:
l*b) er geyt nisht 'He isn't walking'
5b) er geyt nisht aheym 'He isn't walking home'
6b) er iz nisht gegangen 'He didn't go'
7b) zey hobn nisht faynt yidn 'They don't hate Jews'
Both nisht and den occur directly after the inflected verb. If
there are pronominal direct and indirect objects both immediately precede
the uninflected verb:
8a) ikh hob im nisht faynt 'I don't hate him'
8k) ikh hob im den faynt 'You don't think I hate him, do you?'
9a) Ikh hob es im nisht gegebn 'I didn't give it to him'
9b) ikh hob es im den gegebn 'You don't think I gave it to hin
do you'
It is this congruency of possible positions of occurrence that serves to
reinforce the feeling that den is some sort of negative. As a first
approximation we might say that while nisht merely negates, den negates
very strongly. Put differently, we might call den the intensifier analog
of nisht.
We are not suggesting, however, that whenever nisht can occur in
a sentence, so can dm. In seme of the fallowing sentences nisht can occur
but den cannot or is felt to be strange:
10a Ikh hob nisht moyre gehat az er vet kamen. *I wasn't
afraid that he would come.'
10b Ikh hob den moyre gehat az er vet kumen. 'You don't think
I was afraid that he'd come, do you'
10c ikh hob moyre gehat az er vet nisht kumen. *I was afraid
he wouldn't case.'
lOd *lkh hob tsoyre gehat az er vet den kumen
11a zi iz gegangen, ober er iz nisht geven tsufridn. 'She went,
I. in »«iiiiiiMiiWMMMiiMIfcaaanli» niiMWgU—wt«<bKi»ruiiiinitii — I>hMHeIW wasn't satisfiem d' i.-w't— w—— «——i »ii mi«
lib zi iz gegangen, ober er iz den geven tsufridn. 'She went, but
you don't think he was satisfied, do you?'
12a zi izgegangen, iz er nisht geven tsufridn. 'Because she
went, he wasn't satisfied,'
12b •zi iz gegangen, iz er den geven tsufridn.
13a er tantst nisht un zingt nisht. 'He neither dances nor sings.'
13b •er tant st den un ziagt den
I3c er hot nisht getantst un filsht gesunken. 'He neither danced
nor sang.'
13d »er hot den getantst un hot den gesungen»
13e **er hot den getantst un den gesungen.
13f er hot den getantst un gelungen. 'You don't think he danced
and sang, do you'
l4a nisht ikh un nisht aayn shvester hobn es geton. 'Neither
I nor my sister did It.'
Ikb •den ikh un den mayn shvester hobn es geton.
-4-
Fraaa the first group of sentences (lOa-d), we can see that whereas
nlsht can be used freely to negate elements of embedded sentences, den, on
the other hand, occurs comfortably only in the simplex sentence dominated by
the performative verb (10b). When den is found in a clause not immediately
dominated by the performative (lOd), the sentence is - if acceptable at all -
less than comfortable. Although we have no formal mechanism for character-
izing the presuppositional structure of den, we can conjecture that it is
the allusion to the addressee contained in den that discourages distance
from the performative sentence where the addressee is found as the indirect
object of a verb like 'tell'. Sentences (I2a)-(l2b), although similar to
sentences (lla)-(llb), differ in one characteristic that appears to be
crucial for the use of den. Whereas (11a) has the structure:
^ S
HP^
/
• J
tell N S but B
den
(12a) has the structure:
i.e. - the two apparent conjuncts of (12a) are not really conjuncts at all;
one is a subordinate consequence of the other. In (12a) it is the absence
in the immediately dominating sentence of a second person pronoun identical
in reference to the pronoun in the den presuppositional structure that blocks
an occurrence of den. From sentences (13a) and (13b) we see that although
two conjoined verbs can both be (separately) negated, if we want to use den
we cannot use it after each verb. The only permissible use of den in a
case like this would be after the last of the conjoined verbs: er tantst un
zingt den. Here den encompasses the verbs as a bundle and not as individual
units. Sentences (13d) and (I3e) were both rejected by native speakers of
Yiddish but (l3e) seemed worse. My conjecture for this is that the more a
clause retains of its original structure, the better it can support a den
of its own. (13d), which is missing only its NP subject, thus, seems less
outrageous for its incorporation of den than (13«) which has had its inflected
verb as well as its NP subject gapped (deleted). Sentence (lUb) shows us
-5-
that unlike nisht, den cannot be used to negate the subject or subjects of
a sentence (or as logicians would say, the argument(f) of the proposition).
Here we get to the heart of the difference between nisht and den. While
the scope of the negative nisht can be any argument of the proposition,
the predicated) of the proposition, or the whole proposition itself, the
scope of the negative of den is always nothing less than the whole pro-
position. That explains why we generally are allowed one den per sentence,
or in the case of conjoined sentences, one den for each conjunct.
dokh
Our discussion of dokh will parallel our discussion of den. First
let us see what Weinreich has to say about dokh. In College Yiddish he tells
us that a speaker uses dokh when "he wishes to indicate the obviousness of
his observation* (Weinreich 1965:2M>), while in his dictionary he has as an
entry for dokh 'yet, still; obviously, as you know' (Weinreich 1968:131).
As sample sentences he brings in College Yiddish:
15) er iz dokh a kindI 'Can't you see that he'ssfcill a child?*
(Weinreich 1965:2^7)
while in his dictionary he brings the sentence:
16) s'iz dokh montik 'It's Monday, isn't it?' (Weinreich 1968:131)
Once again Weinreich's explanation seems right but not precise
enough. As with den, the user of dokh presupposes that the addressee holds
certain views. Here is where Weinreich's 'as you know* comes into play.
The speaker knows that the addressee entertains the very same view that he/she
- the speaker - does, but he/she is fearful that the addressee may change
his/her mind. In an effort to prevent this from happening, the speaker re-
affirms his/her (obviously correct) view by using dokh.
Knowing what we do about den sentences, we are not surprised to
find that a dokh sentence like (15) has an element of insistence and an
undertone of superiority about it. Nor are we surprised to find that a dokh
sentence like (16) creates a pseudo-question. Here then,in table form, are
the parallel underpinnings of den and dokh:
effect presuppositions
den -to bully addressee into -addressee holds wrong view
changing his/her mind -speaker's view is correct
dokh -to insist on correctness -addressee undecided on the
of speaker's view correctness of speaker's view
-speaker's view is correct
-6-
Just as den can be seen as the irrt ens ifiar analog of the negative
night, so dokh can be seen as the intensifier analog of the affirmative yo.
However, niaht and den are both unstressed, whereas there is a stress
difference between £o (stressed) and dokh (unstressed in the meaning 'can't
you see'). Por sentences paralleling the ones we considered above we can
construct sentences (^e)-(lld):
4c) er geyt dokh 'He's going (walking), can't you see1
bd) er geyt yo 'He is so going/walkiag'
5c) er geyt dokh aheym 'He's going home, can't you see'
5d) er geyt yo aheym 'He is so going home'
6c) er lz dokh gegangen 'He went, don't you know'
6d) er iz yo gegangen 'He 4M so go'
7c) zey hobn dokh faynt yldn. 'They hate Jews, can't you see'
7d) zey hobn yo faynt yidn. 'They do so hate Jews.'
8c) ikh hob im dokh faynt. 'I hate him, can't you see'
öd) Ikh hob im yo faynt. 'I do so hate him.'
9c) ikh hob es im dokh gegebn. 'I gave it to him, don't you know'
9<l) Ikh hob es im yo gegebn. 'I did so give it to him.'
A consideration of the dokh and go analogs of sentences 104fe
shows that the major features of den are shared by dokh, though there do
appear to be some differences.
lOe) ikh hob yo moyre gehat az er vet kumen. 'I was so afraid
he would come.'
10f) ikh hob dokh aoyre gehat az er vet kumen. 'Can't you tell
I was afraid he would come.'
10g) ikh hob moyre gehat az er vet yo kumen. 'I was afraid that
he would (so) come.'
10h) (?) ikh hob mpyre gehat az er vet dokh kumen. 'I was afraid that
he would come /nevertheless T~*
1*dan't you seej
As we would expect, we have no problems substituting dokh for j£0 in the
simplex sentence of (lOe). (lOh), however, seems less unacceptable than the
equivalent sentence with den in the embedded sentence (10d). The reading
upon which dokh seems somewhat acceptable is one in which dokh means 'never-
theless', and comes to counter not the views of the addressee, but rather
some other views that the speaker has or had. However, dokh meaning Never-
theless' is stressed; there is no analogous instance of stressed de».
T
Because of the requirements on conjoining sentences with ober 'but'*, it
is somewhat tricky to find yo/dokh equivalents of U. To the extent that
(11c) is a faithful analog of (lla), (lid) is a faithful analog of (lib):
11c) zi iz nisht gegangen, ober er lz yo seven tsufridn.
'She didn't go, but he was so pleased.'
lid) zi lz nisht gegangen, ober er iz dokh geven tsufridn.
'She didn't go, but he was still/nevertheless pleased.*
(12c) and (I2d) present the same phenomenon as (10g) and (10h). To the
extent that dokh is substitutable for it counters not the views of the
addressee but the views of the speaker.
12c) zi iz gegangen, lz er yo geven tsufridn. 'Because she
went, he certainly (definitely) was pleased.*
12d) (?) zi lz gegangen, lz er dokh geven tsufridn. 'She
went, but he was satisfied $»can't you see 1
[ nevertheless (if stressed dokh)]
A look at (13g)-(13k) shows that like den, dokh can be used once for
each independent clause.
13g) er tantst yo un zingt yo. 'He does so dance and sing.'
13h) *er tantst dokh un zingt dokh
13i) er hot yo getantst un hot yo gezungen. 'He did so dance and
sing.'
13j) *er hot dokh getantst un hot dokh gezungen
13k) **er hot dokh getantst un dokh gezungen.
Since we cannot get a jro sentence parallel to sentence 14, we are not sur-
prised to find that there is no dokh analog for that sentence either.
den and dokh are theoretically interesting for a number of reasons.
The fact that they cannot comfortably occur in embedded sentences suggests
that when we unravel the myriad tangled notions that go under the name of
*presuppositions' we may want to sort out those that relate directly to the
speech act situation from those that do not. It may well be that in the
former case (as in the case under discussion here where we are talking of the
(Speaker's views of the hearer's views) embedding is possible - if at all -
only under very restricted conditions, while in the latter case, with pre-
suppositions that involve the speaker's view of the world, embedding is either
unrestricted or else follows very different conditions.
Another question that might be asked is whether den and dokh share
any properties with other sentence elements whose scope is the whole sentence.
1 The original sentence - (lla) is positive in its main clause and negative
in its subordinate clause. If we want to retain the ober 'but' nature of
the sentence, altering one clause alone will not do. We must negate the
main clause and make an affirmative out of the second clause.
-8-
One «uch element is sentence adverbial«. It sight just be that elements
which comment on sentences and have as their scope the entire sentence are
constrained in similar ways.
And if we should ever reach the point of finding the ground rule«
of discourse it would be worthwhile to find out what possible (non aequituz
responses there are to den and dokh sentences. Supposing that the address«
challenged with a den or dokh sentence, wants to give battle. Is there any
thing we can say about the possible linguistic avenues open to him/her?
For now the question resaains unanswered.
So far we have looked at the meaning of den and dokh sentence«
and we have indicated the theoretical questions they raise. When the subtl
meanings of dan and dokh are manipulated by a skillful writer they take on
new dimensions. Such a writer was Handele Moykher-Sforte (the pseudonym of
S. Y. Abramovitcb) and it is to excerpts from hi« Masoes biaycmin hnghliahl
(The Travels of Benjamin the Third) that we now turn our attention.
In order to understand the first passage, we will give the few
sentences that precede it:
"er hot afile gelebt in dakhkes; er mit zayn vayb un
kinder zenen gegangen kriye bliye..." (p.7)
translation (ay own); He even lived in desperate straits, He and his wife
and children walked around in tattered nothings.
Row we cct&e to our first passaget
passage #1
"nor hot [den} odom horlshn un zayn vayb beshas zey zaynen
geven in gan-eydn farshtanen zikh tsu shemen, vos zey
zaynen a&ket un borves?" (p.7)
translation: But Adam and Eve In paradise weren't ashamed (literallyi
didn't understand enough to be ashamed) that they were naked and barefoot» v«
they?
What we know of den sentences leads us to look for the addressee
whose views are being countered here by the use of den. I« the author (or
rather, this persona) arguing against views the reader might hold (and if
he is doing so, does he really believe that his readers think Adam and Eve
were ashamed of their nakedness) or is he speaking tongue in cheek? Or is
the author conveying the hero's own internal dialog? I will leave the
question open. But it is clear that someone who wants to understand the way
in which Mendele use« irony ought to pay careful attention to passage« of
this sort.
The next passage is a clear case of the speaker addressing him-
self in an attempt to calm his own fears.
-9-
passage # 2
"...isegst, kh'lebn, zikh ah «men blnyomin, it [denj aleksander
mukdn oykh antlofn azcy vi chi? hot (denj aleksander mukdn
oykh azcy vi du zikh meyaesh geven?...neyn, aleksander lz
nisht antlofn..." (p. 12)
translation: You should be ashamed of yourself, Benjamin. Alexander the
Great didn't run away like you, did he? Alexander the Great didn't despair,
did he?...No, Alexander the Great did not run away...
Once again the presence of den makes us realize that there is an
antagonist here. True, the antagonist is the hero himself; but it is only
when we realize that we have here a situation in which one side bullies the
other, that we fully appreciate the struggle going on within Benjamin.
In passage #3 we encounter an instance of dokh that is explained by
Weinreich's 'yet, still':
passage #3
"dl shabesdjke kapote zayne lz oykh dort gelegn. men muz
fdokhj far der velt a ponlm hobn un yoytse zayn far layt." (p. 25)
translation: His Sabbath overcoat lay there too. After all (still/yet) one
must show one's face in the world and satisfy people's expectations (alter-
natively, one must still show one's face...)
What is dokh doing in this passage? Once again we have a passage
in which the author describes the hero's contempt for clothes (and other ex-
ternal, worldly matters). He tells us that despite what one might think,
one must still conform somewhat. Here again we can see the adversary (the
one who thinks tbat clothes are unimportant) either as the hero himself or
as the reader. And if we choose the latter alternative, we must decide
whether or not the author Is playing with us.
passage #b
"mit mayn genitshaft, mit mayn bahartstkayt un mit mayn
shtikl yediye in di sheve khokhmea vel ikh nlshkoshe
ergets nisht farfaln vern. haynt derbay bin ikh {dokhj
epes a yid, a shtikl bal-bitokhn..." (p. 26)
translation: With my experience and my courage and my bit of knowledge of
the seven wisdoms, I won't get lost anywhere. After all, I'm gti^A a Jew, I «till
have a bit of faith... (alternatively, I'm a Jew, aren't I...?)
Once again we see dokh used to portray internal dialog. The hero
has doubts about the future;" his confidence is wavering. But he knows that
to be Jewish, after all, is to maintain one's faith in happy endings. So
he reminds himself of his Jewlshness and in so doing brings to his conscious-
ness the characteristically Jewish faith in the future.