In vital Yiddish (not in japanese Yiddish! ) there's the specific distinction [b ~ p] in liber as opposed to lip, [d ~ t] in reyder as opposed to rut (wheel), [g ~ okay] in klugn (mourn) as opposed to kluk. Com pare additionally the time designations (in crucial Yiddish) fineve (five o ’clock), eleve (eleven o ’clock), tsveleve (twelve o ’clock), as opposed to fin(e)f, el(e)f, tsvel(e)f. this alteration from the m iddle o f the note to the top o f the note was once even carried over to the Hebrew part o fY identification d ish (8. 5). 7. 26. 01 Yiddish has types corresponding to ofrt (open), shlofn (sleep), s h if (ship), tsayt (time), zetsn (seat), vaser (water), fa s (barrel), nets (net), makhn (make), ikh (I), milkh (milk), tokhter (daughter), zayt (side), intestine (good). T h e thesis that, with admire to the second one consonant shift the Germ an part o f Yiddish follows excessive Germ an and never Low Germ an, is basically right. (This is continually proven regardless o f the half o f the Germ an part taken. ) O n ly within the case o f the labials does the thesis now not carry. Yiddish has fu n t (pound), epl (apple), kop (head) opposed to M H G pfunt, apfel, kopf, and N H G Pfund, A pfel, Kopf. T h e /p/ in epl, kop is going the w ay o f Low Germ an, and the /f/ in fu n t is diverse back (7. 30, 7. forty two. 3). In examining concrete Yiddish fabric we will have social gathering to debate different evidence within the Germ an part that remind us o f Low Germ an. however it needs to be borne in brain that it truly is unsuitable to spot “ excessive G erm an” with the N H G typical language. As for /pf/ ~ the northern Ip l, this usual language follows not just basic excessive Germ an yet U pper Germ an. a number of Low Germ an qualities also are to be present in the northern half o f H igh G erm an, that's, in crucial Germ an. consequently it truly is more secure to name the Low Germ an components detected within the Germ an part o fY identification d ish , with much less specificity, northern parts. T h ey may have come at once from the significant Germ an (in distinction T h e Linguistic D eterm inants 437 to the U pper German) proportion within the Germ an determinant. “ can have com e” and never “ have com c” can be a truly priceless precaution, for it's also achieveable that yes proof within the Germ an part, even supposing just like yes proof in Germ an, must be ascribed to a later Yiddish improvement (7. 30. 1, 7. 31). This particular improvement is obviously obvious within the mirrored image o f the M iddle Germ an neutralization o f consonants (7. 26) within the Germ an part o fY identification d ish . Yiddish doesn't have this neutralization as a common phenomenon; regularly the oppositions /p t okay ~ b d g/ bring up doubtless. In Yiddish they're explicitly separate sequence o f pheno­ mena. I f this separateness be the outcome o f a coterritorial Germ a power, the resource o f the impact must be sought in a single o f the subsequent components: at the southern rim o f U pper G erm an; in huge elements o f the Low Germ an territory; within the sector round Cologne; in Silesia. yet none o f those conjectures holds within the mild o f cost heritage.