I WAS amused to read that, according to our report of Brian Cowen's visit to New York, a city councillor there was heard to wonder aloud why the distinguished visitor's job title was in "Yiddish", writes Frank McNally
An understandable mistake, I suppose. In its second syllable, "Taoiseach" shares two of the trademark sounds of Yiddish that make it such an expressive language and so popular a source of imports into American English. There is the "sch" sound, as in "schmaltz", and there is the hard "ch" sound, as in "dreck" - both classic Yiddish words.
When combined in a single syllable, the sounds are even more expressive, giving us such show-business favourite terms as "shtick", "schlock", and "schmuck". And while the first syllable of "Taoiseach" must soften the effect in New York ears, the word still sounds vaguely like a Yiddish lament. You can imagine a Brooklyn store-owner complaining that business since the credit crunch has been "teeschuck".
Not many Yiddish words have thrived in Irish English. But the great exception is "shemozzle", which is almost as vital to the GAA lexicon as "amateur". Apart from that, one thinks of "goy", the Yiddish for "non-Jew". There are a lot of goys in Dublin, especially in rugby circles; but it would be harsh to blame Jews for that.
For whatever reason, its mixture of old German and Slavic vocabulary, filtered through Hebrew, has made Yiddish particularly rich in insults.
There's a whole spectrum of words to describe a person who is either clumsy or stupid, or both: putz, klutz, yutz, schlub, schlemiel, schmendrik, schmo, etc. Even the more sympathetic terms can sound harsh. A gullible, easily-imposed-upon person is a "schnook", which makes it sound like his own fault. Likewise "schlimazel", a person with chronically bad luck.
In a poll of linguists a few years back, this last example was voted the second hardest word to translate into precise English. But Yiddish experts sometimes illustrate its meaning by suggesting that when a "schlemiel" (a clumsy, inept person) spills his soup, he will probably spill it on a "schlimazel".
As he returns from New York, Mr Cowen must be starting to wonder if he is a schlimazel. Barely two months in the job, he has already presided over a referendum defeat and the official start of a recession. All he needs now is a visit from a notoriously unpredictable French president.
No doubt the Taoiseach will be familiar with another famous Jewish term, used to express grief or dismay. When things go badly wrong, Yiddish speakers exclaim: "Oy Vey!", or sometimes just "Oy!".
It's an exaggerated lamentation, along the lines of: "Woe is me!" Even so, it can hardly help Mr Cowen's mood that, whenever he goes home to Offaly these days, the gloom is all around him. Every time a car passes, the registration plate throws its hands to heaven and says: "Oy". It's enough to depress a man.
INCIDENTALLY, I also see from yesterday's report that Mr Cowen stressed Ireland's advantages for investors while "addressing a breakfast at the New York Stock Exchange". This is worrying news.
I have addressed a few breakfasts myself over the years, admittedly. A decade ago, having spent too long in a Belfast BB while covering the peace talks, I stared balefully at my Ulster fry one morning and said: "Oh no, not you again!" But I wasn't Taoiseach at the time. And besides, it was only my cholesterol levels talking.
In fairness to Cowen, he is required to do a lot of schmoozing (yet another Yiddish term) while abroad, and it must be hard to switch off. But if any New Yorkers noticed him addressing his breakfast, I hope he didn't look like a schmo.
THE question of addressing things brings us back to last week's column on Richard Dawkins. In which context, I would like to thank the several eagle-eyed readers who noticed that, during my dissertation on correct grammar, I used the phrase: "none of these have changed since". Your comments ranged from the gentle ("should that not be "none of these has changed since"?) to the robust ("Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!").
Mr first instinct was to claim this as a deliberate error, designed to check if those of you at the back of the class were awake. My second instinct was to plead guilty and appeal for clemency. But there's always a "C", as the beer ad claims. So I finally decided to refer my case to the language lawyers, to see if they could get me off on a technicality.
The news is encouraging. It appears that the notion, popular among grammar enthusiasts, that "none" is a contraction of "not one" and therefore always takes the singular verb, may be a myth. My OED gives no such meaning. It defines "none" as "not any" and suggests the sample phrase: "\[NONE] of them is, or are', according to sense required".
The Irish Times style-book, it is true, prefers "none" to take a singular verb. My lawyers considered suppressing this on the grounds that the prosecution might not have a copy. But then they noticed that the style guide allows the plural verb in exceptions, and offers this example: "Of all sections of society, none are more deserving of sympathy than the disabled." Which provokes the question: are the disabled a plural entity; or is it a singular section of society? Either way, my legal team has/have asked the jury for an acquittal, on grounds of reasonable doubt.