אויף ענגליש איז de Blasio איז פֿאַר וואָס ניט אויף ייִדיש אויך?

נו, איך בין אַ האַלבער גוי, האָב איך דאָך אַ תּירוץ :)

Not to overlook an important element of the Joys... I must mention one aspect in which Mr. Rosten has considerably enlarged upon his parent[s'] world. I am thinking of the "vulgarisms" as he calls them. He was fortunate to see among the thousands of buttons s[e]wed for fun, or so he tells us, two which read: 'Proust is a yenta' and 'Kafka is a kvetch.' I wish I knew in what way the existence of such buttons can add to an understanding of Yiddish. Certainly the buttons were printed in English for English speakers using sub-standard words. The social stratum to which Mr. Rosten's parents belonged probably knew neither Proust nor Kafka. The only explanation that I see is again the same: vanity. Mr. Rosten, we are given to understand, is a conoisseur of world literature; but what would you expect of the humble residen[ts] of New York's lower East Side or Chicago's West Side?
"..1 Vulgarity has its raison d'etre," Mr. Rosten asserts [...] He does not explain what this "raison d'etre["] is but, to make his view more convincing, adds outright obscenities. "I never heard my elders, certainly not my father or mother, use schmuck which was regarded as so vulgar as to be taboo." But here Mr. Rosten has no scruples in reaching beyond the narrow world of his parents. He indulges in telling stories that sometimes aren't even funny, or at least not to every reader. Then again, he offers an article on sheeney, which is an opprobrium directed at the Jews, but is certainly not Yiddish.
One could go on an on in quoting examples of intrinsic weakness. But this will suffice.
In spite of his repeated asides against philologists and linguists, Mr. Rosten seems to be at great pains to prove that his work, too, is relevant to scholarship. This is not so. It is as far from the science of language as a piece of hot, fragrant French garlic bread is from botany. This may come as a surprise to Mr. Rosten, but he has certainly done the Yiddish language a great disservice by dragging it into the mire. Why did he reward it this way for the "joys" which he has been deriving from it?
On the other hand , there is no question in my mind that the book might be used as an object for psychological study. In this respect, it may even represent a somwhat larger group of persons of Jewish origin in the arts or in the profesions who do not simply su[p]press their childhood memories and try to derive some pleasure from the remnants of an earlier nursery-kitchen-lavatory stage. By learning more about the supra-familial aspects of Jewish civilization they could acheive so much more for themselves and their prospective audience.
I wonder to what degree you are interested in this kind of reasoning, but I confess, I am.

יאָ, דער אָריגינאַל איז אויף ענגליש. איך קען אים צוגעבן דאָ אין די קאָמענטאַרן:
While I am dealing with the subject of "What's Chutzpah?…" I would like to share with you some of my impressions of the saddening book which Mr. Leo Rosten chose to call The Joys of Yiddish. Perhaps I can contribute something to the solution of the question.
There is no doubt that the author's professed love for Yiddish is genuine. He is trying to transmit this love to others as best he can. But his knowledge is very limited, to say the least. If you deduct the quotations from books, quasi-learned discussions on irrelevant variants of transcription and irrelevant statements on pronunciation, what remains is a tiny book of childhood memories and a collection of anecdotes that quite often have nothing to do with Yiddish. All this is overshadowed by a vanity that compells Mr. Rosten to inform the reader about where in the whole world he was served the most delicious lox and bagel. Imagine, it is a fashionable restaurant in London, England. No matter how great The Joys of Yiddish, the average reader would hardly fly to London to verify Mr. Rosten's statement. But the effect is here; at least he knows that Mr. Rosten, the globetrotter, has made the statement.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Rosten, on the evidence of his book, has done very little to compliment his childhood memories by delving more patiently into Yiddish and what it stands for. An adequate conception of a civilization cannot be achieved without study even by a participant observer, let alone by an (agile, deft, dexterous, adroit) writer who basically leans on his memories. Not every person born in America can write a competent book on American civilization. The world in which Mr. Rosten lived in his childhood must have been a rather limited one as far as Yiddish prose and poetry or Jewish social movements go (are concerned), at least if we are to judge by the scope of the book. An overdose of "shmaltz" is no substitute for intellectual or spiritual horizons, and what Mr. Rosten tries to introduce by way of poorly integrated source-material is pitifully dry.

טאַקע גערעכט אין ביידע פֿאַלן, נאָר פֿון דעסט וועגן שרײַבט סטוטשקאָוו "סאָביעצקיס צײַטן" און ס'איז אַ סבֿרא, אַז ייִדן האָבן דעם נאָמען אַזוי אַרויסגערעדט

קען זײַן אַז ביליאָן איז אַן אַמעריקאַניזם, אָבער אַזוי ווי דער "פֿאָרווערטס" דערשײַנט אין אַמעריקע און ס'רובֿ ייִדיש־לייענער איבער דער וועלט לעבן אין אַמעריקע, איז דאָס אַ גוטע סיבה צו כּשרן ביליאָן אין דעם זינען.

די אוניטאַריער הייסן אויף ענגליש Unitarians. זיי זײַנען בדרך־כּלל זייער ליבעראַל און אומדאָגמאַטיש, אָפֿט גלייבן זיי בכלל ניט אין דער קריסטלעכער רעליגיע, זיי קענען אַפֿילו זײַן אַטעיִסטן. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universali...

אפֿשר האָב איך ניט געדאַרפֿט אַרײַנמישן די הײַנטיקע חסידים אין דער מעשׂה, ווײַל, אַזוי ווי איר שרײַבט, באַניצן זיך אַ סך חסידים יאָ מיט ווערטערביכער. איך האָב אַליין געקויפֿט אין קרית־יואל דעם "ווערטער־אוצר" פֿון א. ראָטה, דאַכט זיך, וואָס איז זייער שיין געמאַכט און באַזירט אויפֿן הײַנטיקן חסידישן לשון. מיט דעם האָב איך פּשוט געוואָלט אַרויסברענגען, אַז ס'רובֿ ייִדישע ייִדן ווייסן הײַנט ניט וועגן דעם "גרויסן ווערטערבוך", און ווען זיי וואָלטן יאָ געוווּסט, וואָלט זײַן מצבֿ אפֿשר געווען אַ בעסערער.
איך אַליין בין אַ גרויסער אָנהענגער פֿונעם חסידישן ייִדיש און איך האַלט, אַז די חסידישע און ייִדישיסטישע לעקסיקאָגראַפֿן וואָלטן געדאַרפֿט זי פּרטימדיק באַשרײַבן און דאָקומענטירן. למשל, ווי אַזוי איז דאָס הײַנטיקע חסידישע ייִדיש אַרויסגעוואַקסן פֿון די אַמאָליקע ריידענישן אין דער אַלטער היים? מע הערט קלאָר, אַז דער אַלטער דור חסידים רעדן גאַנץ אַנדערש פֿונעם יונגן דור. דאָס אַלץ דאַרף מען אויספֿאָרשן, און דער אמת איז, אַז די בעסטע פֿאָרשער פֿאַר דער טעמע זײַנען די חסידים אַליין.

שטאַרק אינטערעסאַנט — הלוואַי וואָלט איך אים געקענט

זײַט מוחל די טעותים/טעותן! מיר האָבן שוין ניט קיין קאָרעקטאָר, נעבעך.