Re: -dona(y) un doss kelbl

[Leopold N Friedman <apikoyros...>]

khevre,
I agree with Christian and Helen about the value of this virtual
community, even 
when my mailbox does get a little full from the activities here. In our
midst, we 
have scholars and "non-scholars" --I suspect most of us are quite
well-trained
in some areas relevant to this list-- and we share an interest and love
for world 
music and, specifically, the Jewish part of it. I like the breadth of our
scope as 
well as the parochial (but not "provincial") depth of our concern for
Jewishness 
in our music. Certainly, certain of us are more expert in some areas than
others 

I agree with Paula and most Yiddish "folkies" that the idea that the song
uses "dona" 
as a reference to "adonay" is a little far-fetched. Nevertheless, when I
read Michel's suggestion (hypothesis) I was intrigued with his khidesh
('new interpretation') whether it was valid or not. 

Someone who has an acquaintance with or habit of expressing the word
"adonay" from his 
lips, might automatically lengthen "dona" to "donay" and, liking the
sound or the potential 
significance of it referring to God, add it in his interpretation of this
song. If that's not true,
maybe it should be?

Incidentally, calling a hypothesis good or bad isn't productive. It is
merely a suggestion 
of a possibility that will either be validated by forthcoming supportive
evidence or disproved 
by lack of it. Unless someone researches the author's manuscripts, etc.,
we won't find 
anything like an authoritative answer on this issue (at least, from a
historical perspective), 
so we won't be able to assert anything from that perspective, but the
suggestion certainly 
has started useful discussions. 
 
Perhaps what Reyzl was objecting to was the too ready acceptance of new,
unvalidated 
suggestions or hypotheses as facts without corroboration. We do have to
be careful about 
that, but most of us here likely already are. 

I don't play a linguist on TV, but I did take a bunch of linguistics
courses in college, and  
I had the privilege of studying Yiddish literature with a man who, as a
little boy, sang on 
at least one of Bikel's recordings. So I guess that qualifies me to say
something.  

Given Bikel's artistry, whether the song's author "intended" it or not,
couldn't Bikel have
contributed this very small interpretation in his performance of the
song? And from the
perspective of deconstruction of the text, couldn't it have been there
all along? :-)

Unlikely, but worth considering.

So I went back and checked the 1959 Bikel recording of "Dona Dona" on his
"Theodore Bikel 
Sings More Jewish Folk Songs" (Elektra 7165, available as a CD as
Bainbridge BCD 2508). 
The song's title on that recording was "Dona Dona" and the text of the
choruses provided 
only "dona, dona, ..." (that is, "dona" written twice and then an
ellipsis, so the final syllables 
weren't transcribed).  If a reference to the deity had been intended,
would the chorus have 
been left as an ellipsis? I ask you! :-) 

Incidentally, the LP record had the song texts in English, in
transliterated Yiddish, and in 
Yiddish in Jewish characters; on the CD, the entire liner notes and
accompanying text are 
still included, but the Yiddish song texts printed in Jewish characters
are gone. (Perhaps 
it was a matter of typesetting cost, but, don't worry, those of us who
read Yiddish will make 
do with the transliterations.)

For those who haven't heard it lately, Bickel sang both "dona" and
"donay," so he 
recognized the difference, but didn't signify any distinction between the
two or that 
they refer to the deity; they vary in appearance across the three
choruses he sang
on that recording. "Donay" appeared penultimately (mostly before "day")
or finally, 
but the third chorus began " dona, dona, dona, dona ... dona dona donay
day," 
so he was able to end his phrases without always using the rising vowel
at the end. 
The transition between the open "a" vowel and and dental "d" accomodates
but does 
not require such a rising and vocalized vowel. In contrast, I believe
Joan Baez sang 
"dona dona dona don" instead.  (How's that for in-depth analysis?)

So what we have here is simply a beautiful folk song (albeit written for
the theater).  
Thanks, Michel, for providing the excuse to enjoy his recordings again.

Now, here're my questions (for those who've read this far):
1. Is there any connection between the Bainbridge Entertainment Co.,
which put out the Bikel recordings on CD, and the Bainbridge area
in the Northeast Bronx (New York City) which is a locus of Yiddish 
cultural activity?

2. Teddi Schwartz did a number of song translations from Yiddish
to English and I believe I heard that she did one for "Dona Dona" 
(for theater or perhaps Joan Baez's version?). Does anyone have 
the Baez album handy to check that?

Zayt mir ale gezunt, 
Lee (Nokhem Leyb) Friedman
 

Reyzl wrote:
>I then write quickly because I want this 
issue out of my overstuffed computer.  There are so many uninformed
people 
on this list and they can't tell the difference between what is good and 
bad hypothesizing.  They pick up all kinds of bad seeds and bad
methodology 
this way.  Guessing by looking at similar words in other languages should

really be done by trained linguists who always keep cultural contexts in 
mind.  It is also usually unproductive.<

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+