Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!boyle
From: boyle@netcom.com (Joseph Boyle)
Subject: Re: The Khazar theory and Yiddish
Message-ID: <boyleCyz4B5.3FH@netcom.com>
Organization: Boyle, Boyle, toil and trouble
References: <rsavageCyLoLs.F94@netcom.com> <rsavageCyoFLB.DJx@netcom.com> <39a2sc$ait@aludra.usc.edu> <rsavageCyrDKM.G6H@netcom.com> <39hijo$bed@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <rsavageCywrI1.Doq@netcom.com> <boyleCyxCu5.2tG@netcom.com> <rsavageCyyyyJ.BxF@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 00:06:40 GMT
Lines: 157

rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage) writes:

>Joseph Boyle (boyle@netcom.com) wrote:
>: The problem with the theory that Eastern European Jews are descended from 
>: Turkic or Mongolian tribes is that Jews neither have an Asian physical 
>: appearance, nor do they speak a language of Asian origin.

>    The problem with the above is solved when we understand more about 
>the "Jewish" people.  They are so mixed with other people that they are 
>no longer an identifiable "race" of people.
>    Dr. Raphael Patai, a leading Jewish scholar, felt compelled to write 
>a book entitled 'The Myth of the Jewish Race' (Scribners, 1975).  In 
>reviewing an earlier work by Dr. Patai, 'Israel Between East and 
>West,' Dr. Camille Honig, literary editor for the Voice (Jewish 
>Voice of California, Sept. 25, 1953), stated:  "If you studied Jewish 
>types and communities in five continents, as this writer had the 
>opportunity of doing, you would have realized that it is sheer 
>nonsense, and very dangerous nonsense, as well as unscientific, to 
>speak about a Jewish race."  

Speaking about any "pure race" is very dangerous nonsense, indeed. 
Ashkenazi Jews have mixed genetic origins, as all peoples do. It is just 
not likely that "Mongolian" was a significant fraction in the mix, or 
else Jews' appearance and genetics would reflect this.

>    The so-called "theory" of descent of modern "Jews" from 
>turkic/Mongolian tribes is proposed by people far more credible than yours. 
>You offer no support to your ideas, and indeed contradict more 
>authoritative sources than your unsupported one.

Koestler and Lilienthal are certainly real people, and Koestler certainly 
wrote about the Khazar theory, although his thesis has not stood up. (I 
think the Khazars are covered in the soc.culture.jewish FAQ, to name one 
place.) Your Dr. Friedman cited below, on the other hand, sounds far less 
than credible.

>: The most damning evidence for the Khazar theory is that the language of 
>: Eastern European Jews is Yiddish, a dialect of German, rather than any 
>: language native to Asia or Eastern Europe. If Jews came to Eastern Europe 
>: from farther east, how did they come to speak a language found only 
>: farther west? It is possible that refugees from Khazaria could have made 
>: a genetic contribution to Eastern European Jews, but only if they were 
>: assimilated into a dominant culture of German-speakers from the west.

>    This is not "evidence" at all and in no way "damns" the Khazar 
>theory.  It simply shows your ignorance of languages and the "Jews" 
>mongrolized language of "Yiddish" is as mongrelized as their genes.  
>Yiddish is not a dialect of German, it merely borrowed many words from 
>the German as many other languages do from other dialects.

Yiddish grammar is almost entirely German, with the exception of Hebrew 
words that continue to be inflected in Hebrew fashion, and a few 
formative suffixes borrowed from Slavic. In fact Yiddish grammar points 
to an origin in a specific part of Germany, Franconia and North Bavaria.

Yiddish vocabulary is mostly German, with the largest other component 
being Hebrew/Aramaic. There are also some Slavic and Romance words.

>    For who don't now anything about Yiddish, I present the 
>following from the letter _Facts Are Facts_ by Benjamin Freedman.  
>Available by anon. FTP:  ftp.netcom.com /pub/SFA:

>    Since the conquest of the Khazars by the Russians and the 
>disappearance of the Khazar Kingdom the language of the Khazars 
>is known as Yiddish.  for about six centuries the so-called or self-
>styled "Jews" of eastern Europe have referred to themselves while 
>still resident in their native eastern European countries as "Yiddish" 
>by nationality.  They identified themselves as "Yiddish" rather than 
>as Russian, Polish, Galician, Lithuanian, Rumanian, Hungarian or 
>by the nation of which they were citizens.  They also referred to the 

"Yiddish" is just "Jewish" in Yiddish. It is not likely that an actual 
Jew would miss this. 

>common language they all spoke as "Yiddish" also.  There are 
>today in New York City as you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, many 
>"Yiddish" newspapers, "Yiddish" theaters, and many other cultural 
>organizations of so-called or self-styled "Jews" from eastern 
>Europe which are identified publicly by the word "Yiddish" in 
>their title.

Sounds hokey too. This is supposed to be news to Goldstein?

>     Before it became known as the "Yiddish" language, the 
>mother-tongue of the Khazars added many words to its limited 
>ancient vocabulary as necessity required.  These words were 
>acquired from the languages of its neighboring nations with whom 
>they had political, social or economic relations.  Languages of all 
>nations add to their vocabularies in the same way.  The Khazars 
>adapted words to their requirements form the German, the Slavonic 
>and the Baltic languages.  The Khazars adopted a great number of 
>words from the German language.  The Germans had a much more 
>advanced civilization than their Khazar neighbors and the Khazars 
>sent their children to German schools and universities.

There is no Turkic grammar or vocabulary in Yiddish. There is no way the 
language could have evolved by gradual modification of a Turkic base.

>      The "Yiddish" language is not a German dialect.  Many 
>people are led to believe so because "Yiddish" has borrowed so 
>many words from the German language.  If "Yiddish" is a German 
>dialect acquired from the Germans then what language did the 
>Khazars speak for 1000 years they existed in eastern Europe before 
>they acquired culture from the Germans?  The Khazars must have 
>spoken some language when they invaded eastern Europe.  What 
>was that language?  When did they discard it?  How did the entire 
>Khazar population discard one language and adopt another all of a 
>sudden?  The idea is too absurd to discuss.  "Yiddish" is the 
>modern name for the ancient mother-tongue of the Khazars with 
>added German, Slavonic and Baltic adopted and adapted numerous 
>words.

If you want to use linguistics to support the "Jews are Khazars" theory, 
then presuming the truth of the Khazar theory in advance and cutting the 
linguistics to fit is circular reasoning.

>      "Yiddish" must not be confused with "Hebrew" because 
>they both use the same characters as their alphabets.  There is not 
>one word of "Yiddish" in ancient "Hebrew" nor is there one word 
>of ancient "Hebrew" in "Yiddish".  As I stated before, they are as 
>totally different as Swedish and Spanish which both likewise use 
>the same Latin characters for their alphabets.  The "Yiddish" 
>languages is the cultural common denominator for all the so-called 

Of course they are totally different languages. Germanic (Yiddish) and 
Semitic (Hebrew) are quite dissimilar if you know even a little of each.
But they do share much Hebrew vocabulary, just as Swedish and Spanish 
share much Latin-derived vocabulary.

>or self-styled "Jews" in or from eastern Europe.  To the so-called or 
>self-styled "Jews" in and from eastern Europe, "Yiddish" serves 
>them like the English language serves the populations of the 48 
>states of the United States.  Their cultural common denominator 
>throughout the 48 states is the English language, or wherever they 
>may emigrate and resettle.  The English language is the tie which 
>binds them to each other.  It is the same with the "Yiddish" 
>language and so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world.

Accurate, although not furthering your point.

>: Ashkenazi Jews are most accurately viewed as a people formed on European
>: soil with a mixed Mediterranean and northern European genetic inheritance,
>: and with a basically European culture that incorporates religious elements
>: from the Middle East -- just as can be said about their Christian
>: neighbors. I think it was Czeslaw Milosz who described the Jews as the 
>: most European of peoples, and Israel as the beating heart of Europe, torn 
>: out and planted in the Middle East.

>     They are definately mixed.  Though the majority them are not from a 
>"Mediterranean and northern European genetic inheritance" except through 
>mongrelization with people from those areas.  The majority are of a 
>Turkish, Hun, Khazarian people who have mixed with the peoples of 
>"Mediterranean and nothern Eueropean" descent.

Most peoples are the result of fairly recent "mongrelization", the best 
known example being white Americans. The same can be said of the major 
European nationalities.
