Phrasebook

A few things you might need to say at a café, on the street, or halfway through an argument. There are 66 phrases here, each with an English meaning, a Latin reading, and Hebrew script.

These phrases use Yuddish Version 0. The numbers in assertions are sample commitments by the imagined speaker. Change them to match your own confidence; they are not numbers prescribed by the sources. Questions, requests, wishes, and greetings use their own operators. No colon follows an utterance tag.

Reading aloud: pronounce the Latin line; hyphens join an auxiliary to its number, and the equals sign is silent. Kh sounds like the end of Bach, sh like ship, ts like cats, ey roughly like day, ay like eye, and oy like boy. See the sound key for more detail. The Hebrew and Latin lines are two renderings of the same utterance, not consecutive turns.

Using the phrases: Freg asks; tu requests or directs; vintsh wishes; fil expresses; banem acknowledges. Tu zay azoy gut adds “please.” Tu lomir invites “let’s …”. Short wish and greeting formulas can have phrase-sized contents. Each example is its own paragraph. An ordinary freg question closes at ?, so it needs no following oys. In a question inside nem, ? closes the question and oys closes the supposition. For an extended question frame use freg lang … oys; its question marks do not close it. The phrases use singular du; plural or polite ir requires the corresponding verb forms. Articles and pronouns never acquire case endings.

In the technical phrases, H means a proposition already named in the conversation and E a specified piece of evidence. An EF-only reply assesses that established H. To introduce H as “it rains tomorrow,” say Heys H tsit [morgn regnt es] oys. / הײס H ציט [מאָרגן רעגנט עס] אױס. The naming act supplies no credence.

Browse all vocabulary

Greetings

Hello.

A greeting uses the expressive marker; it makes no forecast about peace.

Good morning.

Literally, a wish for a good morning. Gut stays invariant.

Good evening.

Good night.

Goodbye / take care.

A wish for the other person’s health.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Groys has no case or gender ending.

Excuse me / please forgive me.

Ikh is also the object form; never mikh.

Getting around

Where is the toilet?

Where is the station?

Please show me on the map.

Tsu ikh marks the recipient without a dative pronoun.

Go left.

Go right.

How much does this cost?

One ticket, please.

May I use your phone?

A question about permission, not ability.

Food and help

Water, please.

Coffee, please.

I’m hungry.

Literally, I have hunger; av is +10 bits, assessed from my own experience.

I’m tired.

I need a doctor.

This reports the speaker’s perceived need; it is not a diagnosis.

Help me!

Urgent requests do not need an invented probability.

Stop!

Here halt is an imperative inside Tu, not the judgment-suspension operator.

Conversation

What is your name?

My name is Rivke.

Replace Rivke with your name.

Do you speak Yuddish?

I speak a little Yuddish.

+6 bits, an autobiographical assessment.

Please speak slowly.

Please say that again.

I don’t understand.

I understand what you said.

A claim of understanding takes EF. Banem dayn verter would only acknowledge the utterance; it does not assert comprehension or agreement.

Words and models

The map is not the territory.

Karte is the representation; gebit is what it represents. The finite credence belongs to the speaker.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — What Do We Mean By Rationality?.

Let’s taboo that word.

Continue explaining the idea while avoiding the word. This is the rationalist sense of taboo.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Taboo Your Words.

Explain it without that word.

The short, usable version of rationalist taboo. On dos has no case contraction.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Taboo Your Words.

Let’s taboo that topic / set it aside for now.

This pauses a topic. It is different from the word-avoidance exercise.

Give me a concrete example.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Taboo Your Words.

What would we see if this were true?

The question closes at ?. The remaining Oys closes the surrounding supposition.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Making Beliefs Pay Rent.

What would we see if this were false?

Compare the two anticipated observations; do not just rename the claim. The question closes at ?; Oys closes the supposition.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Making Beliefs Pay Rent.

Which hypothesis are we discussing?

Name the specific claim before diagnosing a motte-and-bailey maneuver.

Idea source: Scott Alexander — All In All, Another Brick In The Motte.

Let’s keep the definition fixed.

Idea source: Scott Alexander — All In All, Another Brick In The Motte.

Credence and updates

How confident are you in H?

H is a proposition you have already named. Ask for signed log-odds.

I give H four-to-one odds.

Elliptical assertion of the established H: +2 bits, or 80%.

I give H even odds.

Zero bits means 50%, not certainty and not a refusal to judge.

I’m suspending judgment on H.

No numerical probability is assigned.

I heard that H is true; I give it four-to-one odds.

Reportative evidence, with the same 80% credence.

I saw it myself; I give it sixty-four-to-one odds.

Perceptual evidence about the established claim: +6 bits, about 98.46%.

I’ve updated from −3 to +1 bits on E, a +4-bit shift.

The update adds four bits: −3 + 4 = +1. Ledger quantities use minus and plus; bound un- and oy- belong to EF. A stipulated test with P(E given H)=0.8 and P(E given not H)=0.05 supplies a Bayes factor of 16. These numbers are an example, not a universal response to evidence.

Don’t count the same source twice.

Repeated reports may share a single source; the independent-information assumption needs checking.

I retract H.

Withdraws the identified commitment. It does not by itself assert not-H.

Disagreement

What would change your mind?

Idea source: CFAR — Double Crux.

What is your crux?

Idea source: CFAR — Double Crux.

That is not my crux.

An assessment of what your own belief depends on.

Let’s find a double crux.

A disputed subclaim on which both people’s opposing conclusions depend; not merely two separate objections.

Idea source: CFAR — Double Crux.

If H were false, I’d change my mind.

A conditional self-assessment at +4 bits. It does not say that H is actually false.

Idea source: CFAR — Double Crux.

Is that your real reason for rejecting it?

An invitation to examine reasons, not an accusation of dishonesty.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Is That Your True Rejection?.

Please correct my account of your view.

Useful before arguing against someone’s position.

Have I understood you correctly?

Du remains unchanged as the object.

Getting things done

Let’s take the outside view.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Planning Fallacy.

What happened in similar cases?

Name a relevant comparison class before turning its outcomes into a forecast.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Planning Fallacy.

Which reference class are we using?

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Planning Fallacy.

Let’s understand the problem before proposing a solution.

Idea source: Eliezer Yudkowsky — Hold Off On Proposing Solutions.

Let’s try this for five minutes.

An invitation to a bounded attempt, not a claim that it must work.

Idea source: CFAR Handbook — Resolve Cycles.

What is the next action?

Idea source: CFAR Handbook — Resolve Cycles.

What incentives keep this problem going?

Identifying incentives does not establish a complete explanation.

Idea source: Scott Alexander — Meditations on Moloch.

Let’s change the incentives.

Idea source: Scott Alexander — Meditations on Moloch.

We should test it: recommendation grade 3, confidence +4 bits.

The 3 grades the recommendation; the +4 bits assess that classification. They are different scales.

Sources and reading notes

The rationalist phrases are original phrasebook renderings inspired by LessWrong, the Center for Applied Rationality, and Scott Alexander’s writing. They are not presented as verbatim quotations or as established expressions already spoken in Yuddish. The familiar map-and-territory saying predates this project; the source below explains its use in rationalist discussion.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky — What Do We Mean By Rationality? — Models, beliefs, and their correspondence with the world.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky — Taboo Your Words — Explaining an idea without leaning on a disputed label.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky — Making Beliefs Pay Rent — Asking what observations distinguish competing beliefs.
• CFAR — Double Crux — Finding a disagreement that matters to both conclusions.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky — Is That Your True Rejection? — Checking which reasons actually sustain a rejection.
• Scott Alexander — All In All, Another Brick In The Motte — Keeping track of the specific proposition under discussion.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky — Planning Fallacy — Using comparable cases to inform an estimate.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky — Hold Off On Proposing Solutions — Understanding a problem before attaching to a solution.
• CFAR Handbook — Resolve Cycles — Trying a bounded five-minute attempt and identifying practical next actions.
• Scott Alexander — Meditations on Moloch — Looking at incentives and coordination problems.

The everyday phrases use the current Yuddish vocabulary and grammar. Additional lexical checks include tualet, redn, map vocabulary, ovnt, and lomir examples from YiddishPOP. Source-language gender and case patterns are not imported. New words and forms are in the same vocabulary list as everything else.

The new phrasebook text and new lexical documentation are offered under CC BY-SA 4.0. Linked source works retain their own rights and notices. Existing language-reference and dictionary material retains its source acknowledgements.