lilyvonpseudonym:

doughtier:

ricekrispyjoints:

nerdyqueerandjewish:

captainlordauditor:

jewish-privilege:

palominojacoby:

kazoobard:

Jewish mood

It’s almost that time of the year!

?חנוכה

?חֲנֻכָּה

Xanike?

xanike made me ascend out of the physical realm and into an astral plane

Honka and Xanike are on opposite sides of the spelling spectrum

the answer to “how do you spell Hanukkah” is “with a different alphabet”

Gather round, my children, and let me tell you how to spell this pesky word.

I’ll start by what everybody agrees on in the spelling: the vowels. Everybody agrees that they go -a-u-a- (I’m using the dashes to denote possibly missing consonants for now).

You may have noticed the 2 different spellings of The Word in Hebrew above:

  1. חֲנֻכָּה: the original word, in which the /u/ portrayed in 

    נ֝  (/nu/) is a short one. Biblical Hebrew distinguished between long vowels, short vowels, and half-sized vowels. Due to Biblical Hebrew syllable-structure shenanigans, the /u/ is short.

  2. חנוכה: the modern way of writing the word. The נו (/nu/) would have denoted a long vowel in Biblical Hebrew … but Modern Hebrew does not distinguish vowels by length.  
  3. The first /a/ (in 

    חֲ) used to denote a half-length vowel. Since vowel-length doesn’t mean anything anymore in Hebrew, both /a/ are equal.

Therefore, in Modern Hebrew, 

חנוכה = 

חֲנֻכָּה.

That covers the vowels. Next, the bits where everybody who knows even a bit of transliteration would agree on:

  1. There’s only 1 /n/. That means it’s -anu-a-.
  2. There are 2 /k/ after the /u/. That’s because the Hebrew is 

    כָּ. You see the little dot in the middle? That used to mean that the sound used to be geminated. We don’t really observe gemination in Modern Hebrew anymore, except that in some letters (v, f, ch) the little dot (dagesh) denotes something very important.

    • In case you don’t want to double the K, because the language that you’re using, AKA English, that doubling means absolutely nothing, you can skip it.

This leaves us with -anuk(k)a- as a definite spelling so far.

This is where things get murky. Because you see … this is when the transliteration rules start falling apart by way of a long tradition of transliteration as well phonology rules across several languages in the duration of about 2000 years.

The beginning

ח: is it h, kh, or ch? Frankly, it could be any of these.

  • KH: This is the transliteration of a sound in Hebrew that no European language has or has had. Standard Modern Hebrew doesn’t have it anymore, but it’s still considered an acceptable, very common variance of the consonant ח. In linguistics, it’s written as [

    ħ

    ], and in Semitic studies, it’s written as

    ḥ (an h with a little dot below it). You can listen to it [here on Wikipedia]. This is the classical, old-fashioned, origins-faithful spelling … which looks very very wrong: Khanukka-. Weird, right? Still correct.

  • If you listened to the recording, you might think it sounds between an /h/ and an /x/ (as in ‘ch’ in the Scottish Gaelic word for lake ‘loch’), depending on which sound you preferred.
  • H is how the Greeks transliterated the letter ח in the Bible (such as in the second h in the word ‘Bethlehem’)
  • CH is how Standard Modern Hebrew pronounces via the Ashkenazi pronunciation of Yiddish.
  • So if you spell it with a KH, you’re an out-of-date traditionalist; if you spell it with an H, you’re faithful to the name of the holiday in your own language, and if you spell it with a CH you’re faithful to the Standard Modern Hebrew pronunciation (and probably have family who speaks either Hebrew or Yiddish).

Possible, correct options so far:

  • Khanuk(k)a-
  • Hanuk(k)a-
  • Chanuk(k)a-

Which leads us to the very last dash! Is there an H at the end? Should there be an H at the end?

  • This is where it gets the most complicated, because it requires some background in Hebrew noun-noun constructs.
  • The word ‘

    חנוכה

    ‘ is an actual word in Hebrew that means ‘inauguration, dedication, consecration‘ according to morfix.co.il (the Hebrew-English-Hebrew web translator). Since Hebrew is a gendered language, The Word is a feminine noun. A lot of feminine nouns in Hebrew end with what can be directly transliterated as ‘-ah’, or, in Hebrew, a word-final ‘

    ה

    ‘ (the name of this letter is either He or Hey, depending on how much official Hebrew education the person had).

  • This Hey is silent. It hanging around does not mean there’s an /h/ sound in the word. All it does is tell the user of the language that they should pay attention to this word, because in noun-noun constructs, the Hey becomes a Tav (or Taf). This was ‘inauguration of [noun]’ is חנוכת-בית (khanukkat-bayit in pefect translit; ‘bayit’ is ‘house’ or ‘home’).
  • So, it’s really up to you whether to add that last H or not.

What you should be careful of, probably, is mix-and-matching. Khanuka is just outright weird, because you’re mixing a bunch of translit styles – going from extreme translit mode (KH) to mild mode (one K, no H). Chanuka also looks strange, because the CH is also somewhat strict-ish translit.

This all means that these are all the correct spellings in English, from a Hebrew standpoint, from most-strict transliteration to the most permissive:

  • Khanukkah
  • Chanukkah
  • Hanukkah
  • Chanukka (h is silent, double-k still serves a phonetic purpose that I didn’t bother going much into)
  • Hanukah
  • Hanukka
  • Hanuka (as much as it makes me twitch)

You’re welcome, and may you all confuzzle everybody you come across! 

🎉

“Honka” is still not acceptable, however.

backstageleft:

bapeonion:

brooklynfeministfury:

tarynel:

shitrichcollegekidssay:

When the Boss Says, ‘Don’t Tell Your Coworkers How Much You Get Paid’

The HR manager tried to convince me that the offer was competitive. She told me that she couldn’t offer more because it would be unfair to
other paralegals. She said that if we did not agree to a salary that
day, then she would have to suspend me because I would be working past
the allowed temp phase. I insisted that she look into a higher offer and
she agreed that we could meet again later. Before I left, she had
something to add.

“Make sure you don’t talk about your salary with anyone,” she said
sweetly, as if she was giving advice to her own son. “It causes conflict
and people can be let go for doing it.” (This is to the best of my
recollection, not verbatim.)

It wasn’t all that surprising to hear this from a corporate HR manager. What was surprising was the déjà vu.

Just three months earlier, some of my coworkers at the coffee shop
told me that our bosses, who worked in the office on salaries, and even
the owner, got a higher cut of the tips than we did. One barista told me
that when she complained about it, the managers reduced her hours.

When you make minimum wage and have to fight for more than 30 hours
per week, tips are pretty important, so I sat down with my managers to
discuss the controversy. That’s when they told me not to talk about it
with the other baristas. The owner “hates it when people talk about
money,” my manager added, and “would fire people for it if he could.” I
sulked back to the espresso machine, making my lattes at half speed and
failing to do side work.

In both workplaces, my bosses were breaking the law.

Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), all workers
have the right to engage “concerted activity for mutual aid or
protection” and “organize a union to negotiate with [their] employer
concerning [their] wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment.” In six states, including my home state of Illinois, the law
even more explicitly protects the rights of workers to discuss their pay.

This is true whether the employers make their threats verbally or on
paper and whether the consequences are firing or merely some sort of
cold shoulder from management. My managers at the coffee
shop seemed to understand that they weren’t allowed to fire me solely
for talking about pay, but they may not have known that it is also
illegal to discourage employees from discussing their pay with each
other. As NYU law professor Cynthia Estlund explained to NPR,
the law “means that you and your co-workers get to talk together about
things that matter to you at work.” Even “a nudge from the boss saying
‘we don’t do that around here’ … is also unlawful under the National
Labor Relations Act,” Estlund added.

And yet, gag rules thrive in workplaces across the country. In a
report updated this year, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research
found that about half of American employees in all sectors are
either explicitly prohibited or strongly discouraged from discussing
pay with their coworkers. In the private sector, the number is higher,
at 61 percent.

Damn managers have definitely told me this before

Always reblog

adding to this on the subject of medical/family leave: 

a coworker of mine (and integral part of a voluntary team he and I are the sole members of) had to have foot surgery and was told he’d need six weeks to recuperate. when he went to HR they told him his best option was to resign and then reapply for his same job after his 6 week recovery time. 

he originally asked them if he could take those weeks as unpaid time off, and was about to take their “quit and come back” offer because they made it sound like the only option. this would have cancelled the very same healthcare he was using to pay for the treatment in the first place. 

this is a fairly common tactic HR managers will try to use to scare workers out of taking any leave at all, or force you to reduce the amount of time you are “unproductive.” 

it is also illegal under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act – http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/ 

you are entitled to twelve full weeks of (unpaid) time off to care for a family member or to recuperate from medical conditions. the explicit qualifying scenarios are listed on the website above.

you are entitled to keep your job and return to your position on completion. any repercussion/dismissal from your company is illegal. do not get bullied out of your job for medical treatments you or a family member needs. if you are in a situation where you are being forced to quit for a situation that qualifies under FMLA you should contact a lawyer.

TO REITERATE:

IT IS ILLEGAL TO BE FIRED FOR DISCUSSING PAY WITH FELLOW EMPLOYEES. IT IS A TYPE OF WORKER/UNION SUPPRESSION.