Roots of Afrikaans: Selected writings of Hans den Besten (Creole Language Library) 902725267X, 9789027252678

Citation preview

Roots of Afrikaans

Creole Language Library (CLL) A book series presenting descriptive and theoretical studies designed to add significantly to the data available on pidgin and creole languages. All CLL publications are anonymously and internationally refereed. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/cll

Editors Miriam Meyerhoff

University of Auckland

Umberto Ansaldo

The University of Hong Kong

Editorial Advisory Board Mervyn C. Alleyne

Pieter Muysken

Marlyse Baptista

Peter Mühlhäusler

George L. Huttar

Shobha Satyanath

John Holm

John Victor Singler

Silvia Kouwenberg

Norval Smith

Susanne Michaelis

Sarah G. Thomason

Salikoko S. Mufwene

Tonjes Veenstra

Kingston, Jamaica Ann Arbor, USA Dallas, USA

Coimbra, Portugal Kingston, Jamaica Leipzig, Germany Chicago, USA

Nijmegen, The Netherlands Adelaide, Australia Delhi, India

New York, USA

Amsterdam, The Netherlands Ann Arbor, USA Berlin, Germany

Volume 44 Roots of Afrikaans. Selected writings of Hans den Besten Edited by Ton van der Wouden

Roots of Afrikaans Selected writings of Hans den Besten Edited by

Ton van der Wouden Meertens Institute & University of Leiden

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Besten, Hans den. Roots of Afrikaans : selected writings of Hans den Besten / edited by Ton van der Wouden. p. cm. (Creole Language Library, issn 0920-9026 ; v. 44) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Afrikaans language--Etymology. 2. Afrikaans language--Grammar. 3. Afrikaans language--History. 4. Languages in contact. 5. Grammar, Comparative and general. I. Wouden, Ton van der, 1958- II. Besten, Hans den. III. Title. PF861.B53   2012 439.3’6--dc23 2012012725 isbn 978 90 272 5267 8 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7382 6 (Eb)

© 2012 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents Introduction Ton van der Wouden and Pieter Muysken

1

Chapters by Hans den Besten chapter 1

The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s)

7

chapter 2

The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions

25

chapter 3

What a little word can do for you: Wat in Afrikaans possessive relatives

35

chapter 4

Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems

41

chapter 5

Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin: A first attempt

61

chapter 6

Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans

79

chapter 7

The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony

95

chapter 8

On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin: Morphosyntax, pronunciation and origin

123

chapter 9

Relexification and pidgin development: The case of Cape Dutch Pidgin

133



Roots of Afrikaans

chapter 10

Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans

153

chapter 11

Reduplication in Afrikaans Hans den Besten with Carla Luijks and Paul T. Roberge chapter 12 Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans

195

221

chapter 13

From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans: The creation of a novel grammar

257

chapter 14

Creole Portuguese in South Africa: Malayo- or Indo-Portuguese?

289

chapter 15

The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir

313

chapter 16

A badly harvested field: The growth of linguistic knowledge and the Dutch Cape colony until 1796

333

chapter 17

Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics

355

Appreciations

Giving voice – the archive in Afrikaans historical linguistics Ana Deumert

377

Afrikaans: “Might it be a little more ‘South Africa’?” Paul T. Roberge

389

Partial restructuring: Dutch on the Cape and Portuguese in Brazil John Holm

399

Bibliography of Hans den Besten’s writings on Afrikaans

419



Table of contents 

References Language index Place index Author index Subject index

423 447 449 451 455

Introduction* Ton van der Wouden and Pieter Muysken

1. Hans den Besten’s involvement with Afrikaans Perhaps it is best to begin this introduction by quoting from a recent call for contributions from South African scholars to a volume honouring Hans den Besten put out by his colleagues, Johan Oosthuizen and Theresa Biberauer, from Stellenbosch University: Hans den Besten (1948–2010) made numerous contributions to Afrikaans linguistics over a period of nearly three decades. ..., these contributions covered a wide range of topics, including grammatical structure, vocabulary, and the historical development of Afrikaans. Hans was also particularly interested in the structure and vocabulary of Khoekhoen. In 2005, he was appointed as Professor Extraordinaire in General Linguistics at Stellenbosch University.

The appointment in Stellenbosch and the efforts to honour Hans’s work point both to the importance of his work for the study of Afrikaans, and to his excellent relations, in fact often deep friendships, with his South African colleagues. These relations date from the time that, after the end of the Apartheid regime, the cultural boycott of South Africa was lifted. The University of Amsterdam, where Hans studied and then worked, strongly endorsed this boycott and hence it was not until 1990 that Hans visited South Africa for the first time, having been invited by Christo van Rensburg of the University of the Free State. Hans also attended the annual conference of the Linguistic Society of Southern Africa, which was held in Stellenbosch that year. There he met Johan Oosthuizen, whom Hans later, until his untimely death, was to supervise in his doctoral research. At the conference Hans is reputed to have remarked:

* We are grateful for comments from members of the Linguistics Department at the University of Stellenbosch on the reception of Hans den Besten’s research in South Africa, and from Johan Oosthuizen for detailed comments on this introduction.



Roots of Afrikaans

[Afrikaans original] “Ek het gedink Suid-Afrika is ’n linguistiese woestyn, maar ek sien nou dis eerder ’n semi-woestyn!” ‘I thought South Africa was a linguistic desert, but in reality it is a semi-desert!’

The year 1990 was far from the beginning, however, of Hans’ involvement with Afrikaans. Coming from a background of Dutch, German and General Linguistics, and quickly having become very well respected in the heady Amsterdam scene of 1970s generative linguistics, Hans became interested in other languages and language varieties related to Dutch and German, including Yiddish and Afrikaans. These varieties turned out to have word order patterns sometimes similar to but also subtly different from the intricate rules that Hans helped chart formally for Dutch and German. Once his interest was aroused, Hans did not let go, and he started on a research program combining structural analysis with typology, philology, and historical sociolinguistic reconstruction. As pointed out by his Stellenbosch colleague Christine Anthonissen, his work stressed the fact that Afrikaans possesses structures with ‘nothing similar in Dutch’. This then led him to start looking for patterns found in Khoekhoen, Malay, Creole Portuguese, and those provided by Universal Grammar, that may have been the source of these Afrikaans structures, in a seemingly unending series of papers. The presence of colleagues interested in Creole languages in Amsterdam stimulated him in placing the development of Afrikaans in a more general perspective. In this book some of these papers are reproduced. The reception of his work in South Africa at the time was mixed if not cool. Afrikaans nationalism was still strong, stressing the ‘sophistication’ of Afrikaans and its strong roots in Netherlandic dialects. In the beginning, only some scholars, such as the historical linguist and Khoekhoen specialist Gabriel Stefanus (Gawie) Nienaber (1903–1994) appreciated his work. Hans succeeded, however, in de-ideologizing the field of Afrikaans grammar and history. Currently the idea of plural origins for this language, also leading to considerable internal variation in the different groups of speakers, has gained much more acceptance. On his numerous visits to South Africa Hans collaborated and interchanged ideas with a large number of scholars, including Christo van Rensburg, Johan Lubbe and Theo du Plessis (all from the Free State University), Hester Waher and Johan Oosthuizen, (University of Cape Town), Rufus Gouws (University of Stellenbosch), Hein Gräbe (University of Pretoria), Willem Botha (Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, Stellenbosch), and Anna Coetzee (Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, currently University of Johannesburg). Even the reclusive Afrikaans novelist Karel Schoeman mentions Hans’s work in one of his books on the Cape Dutch period. Hans also had a close working relation with Paul Roberge (University of North Carolina) who, like him, has done important work on the genesis of Afrikaans, and who is also Professor Extraordinaire in General Linguistics at Stellenbosch University. The bibliography included in this volume includes all Hans’ writings on Afrikaans.



Introduction

2. Afrikaans and the history of South Africa While the details of the genesis of Afrikaans are still being hotly contested, the broad outlines of the history of the settlement of South Africa, and in particular the Cape Province (currently the Western Cape Province) are clear. The relevant dates can be summarized as in Table 1: Date

Event

Significance

10.000 BP

Originally nomadic Khoe and San groups settle in the Cape; cattle herding Jan van Riebeeck settles in the Cape and builds a ship supply station Simon van der Stel founds Stellenbosch Extensive trading with the Khoekhoe populations Slaves are brought in to work the farms from Madagascar, India, Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies The English capture the Cape province

Khoekhoe were a significant group of early users of Cape Pidgin

1652 1679 1660–1700 1660–1750

1795

1875 1880–81 and 1899–1902 1931 1948

1996

Varieties of Dutch brought to the Cape A larger semi-stable population of Dutch speakers settles in the area A contact language emerged involving both Khoekhoe amd Dutch elements Varieties of Malagasy, Malay, and Indo-Portuguese Creole brought to the Cape English brought in as a second dominant language, and slow subsequent spread of English in public life

Afrikaner movement starts struggling for the recognition of their language Anglo-Boer wars Independence of the Republic of South Africa The Nationale Party wins the Afrikaans and English are adopted as elections and pushes for extensive the two official languages of South political reforms leading to the Africa. Apartheid regime. New constitution is adopted by the Afrikaans recognized as one of the Congress eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa.

These events form the backdrop to Hans den Besten’s portrayal of the emergence of Afrikaans, as will be clear from the papers in this volume.





Roots of Afrikaans

3. Structure of the present volume Although this was not always easy and to some extent artificial, we have divided the material in this book into three parts. The structure more or less follows den Besten’s own development, in which the focus shifted from the structure of Afrikaans, via historical developments, to perspectives for further research. In Part One, the structure of Afrikaans as such is the focus. While the position of the verb had been a central question in Hans den Besten’s work on continental Germanic, many of his papers on Afrikaans deal with the noun phrase. ‘The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s)’ and ‘The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions’ are good examples of this. It is shown that the Afrikaans nominal systems are different from those of Dutch in many ways. Two further chapters deal with relative clauses: ‘What a little word can do for you: wat in Afrikaans possessive relatives’ and ‘Afrikaans relative wat and West-Germanic relative clause systems’; den Besten’s main claim is here that Afrikaans wat may look like a relative pronoun but should rather be analyzed as a conjunction. The paper ‘Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin: a first attempt’ sketches the development of the Afrikaans demonstrative system as a combination of an autonomous evolution from the original Dutch system and Cape Dutch influence; it thus bridges the descriptive papers in this first section and the more historical and comparative papers in the next section (although the comparative perspective is always present in Hans den Besten’s work). The section concludes with a phonological excursion, rare in Hans den Besten’s intellectual trajectory: ‘Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans.’ In Part Two, a number of studies on the origins of Afrikaans is collected. First, there is the seminal ‘The Dutch Pidgins of the Old Cape Colony’, originally published as ‘Die niederländischen Pidgins der alten Kapkolonie’. This is followed by the reflex of Hans den Besten’s first set of speculations ‘On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin: morphosyntax, pronunciation and origins’, a topic which kept returning in his work. This paper is one of a series in which the potential contribution of Khoekhoe is charted. ‘Relexification and pidgin development: The case of Cape Dutch Pidgin’ offers details of the forces that shaped Cape Dutch Pidgin, whereas ‘Khoekhoe Syntax and its Implications for L2 Acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans’ argues that Khoekhoe and Dutch were sufficiently similar syntactically to easily combine into a new language. ‘Reduplication in Afrikaans’ and ‘Double Negation and the Genesis of Afrikaans’ focus on features of Afrikaans that Dutch lacks, whereas ‘From Khoekhoe Foreigner Talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans: The Creation of a Novel Grammar’ retells the history of the development of Afrikaans with emphasis on the Khoekhoe contribution, on the one hand, and on the Creole phase(s), on the other. This section closes with Hans den Besten’s main contributions to the debates surrounding the role of the enslaved Asians brought to the Cape: ‘Creole Portuguese in South Africa: Malayo- or Indo-Portuguese?’ and ‘The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape Colony and Afrikaans vir.’



Introduction

Finally, in Part Three, two programmatic papers of Hans den Besten are reproduced, as well as three appreciations by colleagues who help to situate his work in current debates. In ‘A badly harvested field: The growth of linguistic knowledge and the Dutch Cape Colony until 1796’, Den Besten makes a first attempt in describing the earliest linguistic research carried out at the Cape; in ‘Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics’ he proposes to put more energy into the investigation of archival data, Early Afrikaans and Early-Modern Afrikaans, the topic of ‘mixed’ stages and parallel constructions; to reopen the discussion on a possible founder dialect; and to try to answer the question which languages (apart from Khoekhoe) Cape Dutch has been in contact with. In the first appreciation, Ana Deumert focuses on the archival work of Hans, and the unearthing of little known sources for the history of the language. John Holm links Hans’s contribution to the debates about the position of Afrikaans among the Creole languages. Is it a Creole or not. What are the relevant arguments? Holm argues that Afrikaans, like Vernacular Brazilian Portuguese, is best viewed as a semi-Creole. Finally, Paul Roberge situates Hans’s work in the history of the debates about the genesis of Afrikaans, in large part held in South Africa itself, of course, and in the evolution of the views about the origin of this fascinating language. The volume concludes with a hopefully complete list of the publications of Hans den Besten on Afrikaans and with a general bibliography for all the papers in the book.

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Viveka Velupillai who translated two papers that were originally written in German and to Frits Beukema who translated two papers that were originally written in Dutch, to Amsterdam University (Kees Hengeveld) and Meertens Instituut (Hans Bennis), who gave financial and logistic support, and to the publishers of the papers for their consent and cooperation.



chapter 1

The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s) 1. Introduction: Questions about Afrikaans possessive structures The Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive (PNP) structure with a nominal possessor, [DP – se – NP], looks like a simplified version of its Dutch counterpart, [DPi – pron.i – NP], where the connecting pronoun has to agree with DP, one of these pronouns being z’n ‘his’, in fast speech also ze. The change from a variable pronoun to an invariant particle may be due to the influence of three substrate languages: Pasar Malay, Asian Creole Portuguese and Khoekhoe, where we find PNP structures of the type [DP – lig. – NP] with an invariant ligature (cf. le Roux 1923: 97–98, den Besten 1978: 28–38, Ponelis 1993: 244–247). Implicit in this hypothesis is the assumption that the Afrikaans PNP system is a compromise between the Dutch system and its substrate counterparts, since attributive pronominal possessives follow the rules of Dutch.1 Yet, there are several issues of detail that must be elucidated: (i) There are further, unexpected differences that separate the PNP structures of Dutch and Afrikaans; (ii) There are differences between Afrikaans and the substrate languages; (iii) It is unclear why se rather than sy, the strong pronoun, was chosen; and (iv) Variation in Early Modern Afrikaans and the facts of Cape Dutch Pidgin have been neglected. In the following sections I discuss PNP constructions of Dutch and Afrikaans (Section 2), their governing syntactic principles (Section 3), the founder dialect and variation in Early Modern Afrikaans (Section 4), the three substrate languages (Section 5) and Cape Dutch Pidgin (Section 6).

2. PNP constructions in Dutch and Afrikaans 2.1

Data 1: Attributive pronominal possessives

Pronominal possessors in Dutch, Standard Afrikaans, and related dialects seem to exclude a ligature. It is zijn boek ‘his book’ in Dutch and sy boek ‘his book’ in Afrikaans. 1. This paper is a condensed version of a paper that was prepared and, for the most part, written during my stay at the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences in Wassenaar, the Netherlands (academic year 2003–2004). It was presented at the Curaçao Creole Conference, August 2004.



Roots of Afrikaans

However, nonstandard Dutch allows hem z’n auto ‘him his book’ and hun d’r huis or rather hullie d’r huis (both ‘them their house’). And even though each Afrikaans possessive pronoun (except sy ‘his’) can be analyzed as an object pronoun, combinations like julle se ‘2PL SE’ are restricted to non-standard varieties. Now, note that the singular possessive pronouns of Dutch come in two forms: one with a full vowel and a weak (proclitic) form with a schwa, which is spelled with an apostrophe or an , depending upon the context: mijn/m’n ‘1SG’, jouw/je ‘2SG’, zijn/ z’n ‘3SGM’ and haar/d’r ‘3SGF’. In Afrikaans only the strong forms survived: my, jou, sy and haar. Something similar applies in the case of the personal pronouns. This preference for strong pronouns must be due to incomplete L2 acquisition and gelled foreigner talk among non-native and native speakers of Cape Dutch respectively. So why was connecting se preserved in the nominal PNP structures? – especially considering that sy is reported as a recessive variant for Early Modern Afrikaans (cf. e.g. le Roux 1923: 89–90). Furthermore note that 3SGM is sort of an exception in the Afrikaans pronominal system in that its possessive form (sy) is not homophonous with its Objective form (hom). However, Scholtz (1963: 104) mentions a local dialect of Afrikaans with possessive hom ‘his’ (cf. Weijnen 1966: 294 on a similar pronoun, humme ‘his’, for a large cluster of Dutch dialects).

2.2

Data 2: Attributive nominal possessives

In present-day Dutch there are three PNP constructions of the nominal type, vs. only one in Afrikaans: (i) the pronominal ligature construction, (ii) a construction with the Saxon genitive (-s): DP – S – NP, which is restricted to names (e.g. Jans auto ‘John’s car’) and (iii) a construction with a morphological genitive: DPGEN – NP. It is unlikely that the latter construction, which derives from the older written language, was part of the founder dialect. And apparently Afrikaans se has absorbed the Saxon genitive -s. As stated above, the Afrikaans construction looks like a simplified version of the Dutch pronominal ligature construction, as below: (1) a. Du: {Jan z’n, Carla d’r, de kinderen hun} huis2 {John his, Carla her, the kids their} house b. Afr: {Jan, Carla, die kinders} se huis {John, Carla, the kids} se house At first sight this seems to be correct, since both constructions accept full DPs as possessors. However, in Dutch the nominal possessor is [+ animate] or rather [+ individuated] whereas the nominal possessor in Afrikaans may be described as [± abstract] – e.g., die huis se dak ‘the house SE roof ’, hierdie land se regering ‘this 2. Some speakers may use d’r instead of hun. D’r ‘their’ derives from the obsolete pronoun haar ‘their’.



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s)

country SE government’, vandag se mense ‘today SE people’ and vier uur se werk ‘four hours SE work’ [= ‘four hours of work’] (cf. Donaldson 1993, Ponelis 1993: 239–244, Conradie 2001). In Dutch *het huis z’n dak ‘the house his roof ’ and *dit land z’n regering ‘this country his government’ are ungrammatical – or at least highly implausible. This may be related to the fact that the Dutch third person possessive pronouns have a strong tendency to refer to animate DPs only. Yet, things may have been different in Early Modern Dutch (Ponelis 1993: 243) – although no Early Modern Dutch counterparts are attested for Afrikaans constructions like gister se vertoning ‘yesterday SE show’, Kroonstad se distrik ‘Kroonstad SE district’, Juliemaand se koue ‘July SE cold’, etc. (Ponelis 1993: 243). I would like to add that pronominal ligature constructions with inanimate possessors seem to be very rare in Early Modern Dutch. The data on van Riebeeck’s use of PNP constructions (Bosman & Thom 1955: 581–582) may be indicative: The wellknown example het schip den Oliphant syn tou ‘the ship den Oliphant [= the Elephant] his rope’ is a hapax legomenon (i.e. a unique example). Therefore, if the Afrikaans se construction is a simplification of the Dutch counterpart, this simplification has given rise to a tremendous expansion of the latter’s expressive power.

2.3

Data 3: Free possessives

Nominal free possessives are grammatical in Afrikaans and ungrammatical in Dutch; cf. Afrikaans Dis Anna s’n/sinne ‘It’s Anne ’s’ [in Early Modern Afrikaans also ...syn(e)...] vs. Dutch *Het is Anna d’r ‘It is Anne her’. The ungrammaticality of nominal free possessives in Dutch may be due to the fact that the ligature must be a weak pronoun with a reduced vowel (although this is not completely true for 3PL). In some other dialects of Dutch and in German and Frisian the possessive pronouns keep their full vowels and – cf. le Roux (1923: 96) and Scholtz (1963: 109) – nominal free possessives are possible: (2) a. dieses Schloss wäre Lord Eduards seinem gleich this castle were Lord Eduard-gen his-dat equal  (19th century German [le Roux]) b. Dat is Jan zienn That is John his+suff

(Groningen & Drenthe [Scholtz])

c. hwa sinen who his+suff The ligature constructions in (2) share the following structure:

(3) [DP DP – PRON+suff – [NP e]]

(Frisian [Scholtz])





Roots of Afrikaans

Most probably the suffix on the possessive pronoun licenses the empty NP. The Dutch ligature pronoun – being a clitic – blocks the presence of such a suffix. I will assume that Dutch possessive pronouns are adjectives, which – like eigen ‘own’ – do not inflect, except for 1PL (mijn ‘my’ etc. vs. ons ~ onze). These adjectives may be nominalized: witness the structure of the closest Dutch counterparts of English mine, yours, etc.: [DP ART – [NP[N[A PRON + -e]]]] – for example, de/het {mijne/jouwe/ etc.} ‘the {my + -e/yourSG + -e/etc.} [= mine/yoursSG/etc.]’. However, jullie ‘2PL’ is excluded from this structure: i.e., de/het jullië ‘the yourPL + -e’ [jullië = jullie-e] is ungrammatical. This must be due to the fact that jullie ‘youPL, yourPL’ derives from je ‘you, your’ + -lie, a truncated variant of lieden ‘people’. Now note that in seventeenth century Dutch – and even in mid-nineteenth century Dutch – a possessive pronoun could serve as a free possessive predicate: Dat is mijn(e) ‘That is my(+-e) [= mine]’. Since Dutch predicative adjectives do not inflect, I would like to suggest that predicative mijn is an AP and predicative mijne a DP with an empty possessum NP: [AP[Amijn]] vs. [DP mijn + -e [NP e]]. The latter structure is supposed to be a recessive variant. Furthermore, evidence for argument DPs of this type is utterly scarce: the well-known example mijn oude en uwe ‘my age and yoursREV’ seems to be a nearly unique construction. Nevertheless, I will assume – with Scholtz (1963: 106) and Ponelis (1993: 229) – that such argument DPs once were grammatical (cf. also van Helten 1881: I, 123–125, II, 68; van der Veen 1905: 53–54; WNT sub mijn, zijn, etc.; Changuion 1848: 78–79; Brill 1854: 220).3 This recessive seventeenth century Dutch pattern has survived (or perhaps has been revived) in Afrikaans – however, only in the singular. In the plural there are, strictly speaking, no free possessive pronouns but pronominal free possessive expressions consisting of the possessive pronoun and s’n/sinne. It is a similar situation for reverential u. Thus it is myne, jou(n)e, syne and hare in the singular but ons s’n/sinne, julle s’n/sinne and hulle s’n/sinne in the plural – as well as u s’n/sinne. It is unclear, however, why the Dutch free possessive forms onze ‘ours’ and uwe ‘yoursREV’ have not been preserved in Afrikaans. Onze must have been part of the founder dialect, but only Hoogenhout (1904) mentions òñse as a variant of òñs syn(e) (= ons s’n/sinne). Similarly, ue, a loan from Standard Dutch (< uwe), has been given up in favor of u s’n/sinne. The impetus for this innovation may have come from more creolized varieties of Afrikaans, where free possessives like julle s’n/sinne ‘yoursPL’ correspond to se-marked attributive possessive pronouns (ons se, julle se, etc.; cf. Ponelis 1993: 230), but an explanation is needed for the fact that in Standard Afrikaans and related varieties se does not combine with pronouns except in plural and reverential free possessives.

3. Van Helten (1881: II, 68) mentions mijn oude en uwe as an exceptional case in the works of the seventeenth century poet Vondel. Van der Veen (1905: 53–54) in his study on the language of the early seventeenth century poet Bredero hardly fares any better. Only one case is an argument of the required type: zyn wil en myne ‘his will and mine’.



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s)

(Note as well that evidence for this phenomenon is relatively late, 1836; cf. Ponelis 1993: 230, 236–238.)

2.4

Summing up the problems

In brief, the problems are these: i. Given that the Afrikaans PNP construction seems to derive from the Dutch pronominal ligature construction, why was a weak pronoun (se < ze/z’n) chosen rather than a strong one? ii. Why did the semantics of the possessor DP change from [+ animate] (or [+ individuated]) to [± abstract] (or alternatively: [± concrete])? iii. Why are there only pronominal free possessives in Dutch? iv. Why does Standard Afrikaans se combine with pronouns in plural and reverential free possessives and not in attributive possessives? I have suggested partial answers for questions (ii) and (iii): The semantics of the Dutch third person possessive pronouns may restrict the semantics of the possessor DP. Moreover, in order to license an empty possessum NP a suffix is needed on the ligature, but the relevant pronouns in Dutch block such a suffix because being weak pronouns they do not accept suffixes.

3. A tentative descriptive model for PNP constructions What is sorely missing in my analysis up to now (and what is also missing in the relevant literature) is a morphosyntactic model that enables us to compare languages, discuss historical changes and come to grips with what seem to be quirks in individual systems.

3.1

Attributive possessives

Let us start with constructions with nominal possessors. What Dutch and Afrikaans and many other languages have in common is a structure of the type [DP – POSS – NP]. Since the type of ligature seems to determine the semantics of the possessor, while in the Continental West Germanic languages DP and the pronominal ligature agree in gender and number there must be Spec-Head Agreement (SHAgr) between POSS and DP – at least if we assume that POSS is the head of a functional projection above the NP. I will assume that a PNP construction is an AgrP, which defines a ‘DP’-internal possessive predication:

(4) [AgrP DPi – Agri – NP]





Roots of Afrikaans

This AgrP may be nothing but a special variant of DP, but I leave this open for future discussion. Agr can be occupied by elements of various kinds: possessive pronouns (Dutch, Frisian, German), invariant particles (Afrikaans, English), and agreeing particles as in Buru (cf. Grimes 1991). In Tidore such an agreeing particle is also used as a possessive copula (cf. van Staden 2000), and below we will see that full verbs can be in Agr too. These Agr elements determine the semantics of the possessor DP. The pertinent Dutch pronouns tend to have [+ animate] reference and so *het huis z’n dak ‘the house HIS roof ’ is ungrammatical or at least most unlikely. Many (though not all) speakers of German accept dem Haus sein Dach ‘the house ITS roof ’, which is in accordance with the referential possibilities of the German 3rd person singular possessive pronouns. The particles of Afrikaans and English do not seem to impose any clear semantic constraint upon the possessor DP – although this does not explain the differences between Afrikaans and English yet. Since the possessor DP is in the Dative case in German and in the Objective case in Dutch the pertinent ‘DP’-internal possessive predication must be of the esse ‘be’ type as in Latin mihi liber est ‘meDAT bookNOM is’. The same may apply to Afrikaans. Now what about pronominal PNP structures? First note that my description of the pronominal ligature construction of Dutch and other West Germanic languages implies that possessive pronouns must be able to appear in the Agr position. In many languages, however, a ‘possessive pronoun’ rather is a personal pronoun in the possessor position. Examples can be found in West Cape Afrikaans and Khoekhoe Afrikaans: ons se huis ‘1PL SE house’, julle se huis ‘2PL SE house’, etc. (cf. Ponelis 1993: 230, Links 1989: 82). Non-standard Dutch hem z’n boek ‘him his book’ is a mixed case. In so far as I can see two variants of the structure in (4) are available for the description of possessive pronouns in Dutch and Afrikaans:

(5) [AgrP [DP e] – [Agr pron.] – NP]



(6) [AgrP [DP pron.] – [Agr e] – NP]

The variant in (5) is the structure needed for the possessive pronouns of Dutch and Afrikaans – with the possible exception of Du. jullie ‘2PL’ and the plural and reverential pronouns in Afrikaans. The empty possessor DP can be explained as a case of pro-drop. The variant in (6) should at least be available for the plural and reverential pronouns in Afrikaans since they combine with s’n/sinne in free possessives. The empty Agr position can be explained if we assume that in such a structure Agr is head-bound by the pronoun under DP, which is possible only if the DP is a ‘head only’ phrase: [DP[D pron.]]. This implies that se in Standard Afrikaans and related varieties still carries a pronominal feature but is underspecified for person and number, which makes it invariant. Therefore, Standard Afrikaans se is a compromise between the Dutch pronominal ligature z’n/d’r/hun and non-standard Afrikaans se, which – being non-pronominal – does not undergo this case of “counter-pro-drop”; witness non-standard julle se huis ‘2PL SE house’ (see above).



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s)

Unfortunately, the integrated appellatives of Afrikaans pose a problem for the theory. These are words like Pa ‘Dad’, Tannie ‘Aunt/Mrs.’, etc., which have turned into 2nd person pronouns (cf. den Besten 1996). Yet, they do not license an empty Agr nor may they occupy the Agr position: it is Oom se huis ‘Uncle SE house’ [i.e. ‘your house, Uncle’] and not *Oom huis. Therefore, integrated appellatives either are nouns with an extra pronominal feature or pronouns with extra nominal features. Either analysis may suffice to explain the ungrammaticality of *Oom huis, but I leave this for future research.

3.2

Free possessives

Free possessives can now be defined as structures of the following type:

(7) [AgrP DP – Agr+F – [­NP e]]

Here F denotes an N-feature that raises from the NP to Agr and licenses the empty NP. This feature may be expressed by a suffix on the Agr element. English does not need such an affix, Afrikaans and Dutch do. However, Dutch is a complicated case because we have to distinguish between present-day Dutch and previous stages. For present-day Dutch we might claim that the suffix required does not exist so that DPs like *mijne ‘mine’ and *Jan z’n ‘John his [= John ’s]’ are ungrammatical. In older phases of Dutch, however, mijne ‘mine’ and zijne ‘his’ were grammatical, so that a special explanation is required for the ungrammaticality of nominal free possessives during that period. In Standard Dutch and other Hollandic dialects almost all possessive pronouns (the exception being ons ‘our’) lost their endings. This paved the way for the development of clitic versions of these pronouns. Since the prosody of the pronominal ligature construction requires a ‘weak’ element in the Agr position this could be reinterpreted as a requirement for a clitic possessive pronoun. Adding the licensing suffix F (most probably -e) would enforce the use of a non-clitic and so ‘strong’ pronoun. This clash of requirements could not be solved and so nominal free possessives became ungrammatical. It is conceivable that this was later reinterpreted as a general filter against the licensing suffix F, so that nowadays even free possessive mijne ‘mine’ and zijne ‘his’ are ungrammatical. This having been said we now have to consider the morphosyntax of free possessives in Afrikaans, more specifically the realization of Agr + F as indicated in (7). In nominal free possessives Agr + F is realized as se + -n/ne (i.e. s’n/sinne). In singular pronominal free possessives it is realized as pronoun + -e/-ne (e.g. myne, joune, hare). Both se and the singular possessive pronouns are generated under Agr. Compare the following examples:

(8) [AgrP DP [Agr se [Suff –n/ne]] [NP e] ] (e.g. Piet s’n/sinne)



(9) [AgrP [DP e ] [Agr pron.+[Suff –(n)e ]] [NP e ] ] (e.g. myne)





Roots of Afrikaans

But why may se show up in a free possessive with a plural or reverential pronoun? Apparently, such pronouns do not accept the licensing suffix F, but why? First note that in principle an Afrikaans possessive pronoun and the Objective variant of the corresponding personal pronoun are homophonous – the sole exception being 3SGM: my, jou, hom ~ sy, haar, ons, julle, hulle, u. In the singular Objective and Nominative case are kept apart (also in the more creolized varieties of Afrikaans), while the plural and reverential pronouns do not make any case distinction at all so that they behave like nouns, or rather DPs, which are not formally marked for case. In a sense ons, julle, hulle, and u are pronouns with a nominal feature, which makes them unfit for receiving the licensing suffix F. So structure (10) is ungrammatical: (10) *[AgrP [DP e ] [Agr pron.PL/REV + F ] [NP e] ] (cf.(9)) The alternative structure (11a) would be equally ungrammatical because a suffix cannot be added to an empty element. The structure can be salvaged only by inserting se under Agr, so that F can find a host. Cf. (11b): (11) a. *[AgrP [DP pron.PL/REV] [Agr e + F] [NP­ e] ] b. [AgrP [DP pron.PL/REV] [Agr se + F] [NP­ e] ] (cf. (8)) I furthermore assume that se + F cannot be bound by the pronominal possessor phrase, so that counter-pro-drop is blocked.

4. The founder dialect and variation in (Early Modern) Afrikaans Given what is known about Afrikaans and its history at least the following possessive pronouns were part of the founder dialect (Table 1): I have left out reverential uw ‘your’ because it most probably was a peripheral pronoun, only used in cultivated speech. Furthermore, the weak forms are in a sense irrelevant of course – except maybe for z’n/ze. As for the strong forms: Afr. my ‘my’ and sy ‘his’ are well-known non-standard variants in the history of Dutch, but the same can be said of jullie ‘yourPL’ (now Standard Dutch) and hullie, haarlie and zullie ‘their’. Furthermore the Afrikaans variants julle and hulle, and obsolete haarle and sulle most probably were part of the dialect mix that I call the founder dialect since these variants are attested for Hollandic dialects. I furthermore assume that both free possessive pronouns (such as mijne ‘mine’) and nominalized pronominal adjectives (as in de/het mijne ‘mine’) were part of the founder dialect. However, both paradigms must have had gaps due to the nominal origin of -lie/-le (< lie(den) ‘people’). That is, there must have been a full paradigm in the singular (mijne, jou(n)e, zijne, hare) vs. only onze in the plural. Therefore, the plural series was up for grabs. First of all, the empty slots in the plural series could be filled with the new, ‘Creole’ formations julle s’n/sinne and hulle s’n/sinne. In the case of 1PL things must have been slightly more complicated. Most probably L2 speakers of Cape



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s)

Table 1.  The possessive pronouns of the founder dialect

SG

strong weak

PL

strong weak

1

2

mij(n) m’n/me 1 ons/onze –

jouw je 2 jull(i)e je (?)

3M

3F

zij(n) haar z’n/ze d’r 3 hull(i)e/haarl(i)e/zull(i)e d’r (?)

Dutch interpreted both attributive onze/onse ‘our’ and free possessive onze/onse ‘ours’ as ons se ‘1PL + SE’. Since se in free possessives requires a suffix (-n or ne) ons s’n/sinne was born and so was a new sub-paradigm for plural free possessives, which the L1 speakers of Cape Dutch could not resist. Furthermore, the competition between more ‘Dutch’ and more ‘Creole’ variants may well explain the existence of non-standard hybrid forms like myne syn, jouwe syn, hare syn or myne s’n, jouwe/joune s’n, hare s’n, which are reported for Early Modern Afrikaans by Hoogenhout (1904: 10) and le Roux (1921: 45; 1923: 93).4 (However, also see Section 5.2.) Now note that the paradigm in Table 1 also makes predictions about the pronominal ligature construction in the founder dialect. We may assume that originally the pronominal ligature was a weak pronoun (z’n ‘his’, d’r ‘her’ and d’r ‘their’), as in colloquial present-day Dutch. Most probably there were no free possessives of this type. However, with the rise of the use of strong pronouns only things changed drastically: L1 speakers of Cape Dutch started using strong (but weakly stressed) possessive pronouns in the ligature position, e.g. [AgrP [DPJan] sy(n) [NPhuis]] ‘John his house’, [AgrP [DPMarie] haar [NPhuis]], [AgrP [DPdie kinders] hulle/haarle/sulle [NPhuis]] ‘the kids their house’. Due to these strong forms nominal free possessives became possible (again), e.g. Jan syne ‘John his’, Marie hare ‘Mary hers’. However, it follows from this prediction that even then there were no nominal free possessives with plural possessors such as *die kinders hulle (s’n/sinne) ‘the kids theirs’. This is due the fact that hulle does not accept the licensing feature F (see above), while s’n/sinne cannot be inserted in Agr since hulle cannot take refuge in the possessor DP position. Interestingly, this prediction can be tested, since this Cape Dutch version of the Dutch pronominal ligature construction happens to be reported as a recessive variant for Early Modern Afrikaans, and was still in use among elderly people in the Boland in the 1970s, as Ponelis (1993: 233–234) states, quoting from an MA thesis by Frank S. Hendricks. According to Ponelis (234–235) there were/are no plural nominal possessives in this recessive variant. Compare: 4. Hoogenhout (1904) and le Roux (1921) use syn, although le Roux is aware of the variants s’n and sinne. In le Roux (1923), however, he opts for s’n. Note that Hoogenhout also mentions syne syn ‘his’.





Roots of Afrikaans

(12) *Die plaas is my ouers hulle *The farm is my parents theirs This is confirmed by a survey I did on 22 grammars of Afrikaans published between 1897 and 1952 (see den Besten 2009). This having been said, we may conclude that our expectations (predictions) have been confirmed. Furthermore, we may also conclude that due to the gap in the paradigm caused by the (historically) nominal nature of hulle the Cape Dutch pronominal ligature construction was no match for the particle construction with se and s’n/sinne. However, I would like to stress again that there is something mysterious about se and s’n: why did the weak form ze/z’n survive while all other weak forms were abolished, also in the pronominal ligature construction? Why were the particles sy and syn the recessive variants, rather than se and s’n?

5. Possessive constructions in the substrate languages Given the model expounded in Section 3, the substrate languages have become less important for the genesis of the Afrikaans PNP construction than was thought before. They may well have given the impetus for the change from pronominal z’n/ze ‘his’ to the particle se, but the concomitant change in the semantics of the possessor is partially a UG effect. Yet, it would be futile to deny influences from Pasar Malay, Creole Portuguese and Khoekhoe. Therefore, we have to pay some attention to them too. As has been noted in the literature (e.g. le Roux 1923: 96–98, den Besten 1978: 28–38, Ponelis 1993: 244–247), the substrate languages mentioned above seem to share a possessive ligature construction, which I now interpret as follows: (13) [DP DP – [Agr Prt ] – NP ] Furthermore, in each of these three languages the possessor DP may be realized as a personal pronoun. However, on closer inspection they also differ: their ‘particles’ differ and they also differ as to the realization of pronominal possessors.

5.1

Possessive constructions in Pasar Malay

In order to find Pasar Malay data I have consulted a number of Malay grammars from the Dutch colonial period, and I have compared my findings with what Schuchardt (1890) has to say about it. Most useful for my purposes were: Pieters (1911: 2), Badings (1915: 13, 21), van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal (1929: 11), Spat (1931: 38, 74–76), van der Valk (1937: 9–10, 25–26), and van Bergen (1938: 31). Unfortunately, for reasons of space many details cannot be discussed.



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s) 

The Pasar Malay PNP construction involves the denominal verb punya ‘to possess’ (whose complicated etymology I will not discuss), which can also mean ‘possession’, e.g. Ali punya kuda ‘Ali PUNYA horse [= Ali’s horse]’ or saya punya rumah ‘1SG PUNYA house [= my house]’. The corresponding free possessive consists of DP + punya: Buku ini {Ali/saya} punya ‘Book this {Ali/1SG} PUNYA [= This book is {Ali’s/ mine}]’. The punya construction is in clear competition with two other possessive constructions, which I will not discuss here: the adnominal construction and the -nya construction (kuda Ali and kuda-nyai Alii ‘horse-3i Alii’ respectively). Since punya is a verb (‘to possess’) we more or less predict that the DP will be restricted to animate possessors, and the lengthy ‘conversations’ in the grammars I consulted do not contradict that. Nevertheless, there is some disagreement on this point: Badings (1915: 13), van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal (1929: 11) and grammars referred to by Schuchardt (1890) declare something like lemari punya kunci ‘cupboard PUNYA key’ ungrammatical, which is denied by Schuchardt (1890: 216). Furthermore, compare the evidence from Schuchardt’s Batavia – Tugu sources (Schuchardt 1890: 208, 216–219) as well as evidence on Ambon Malay in van Minde (1997: 161–164), where we do find inanimate possessors. I therefore would like to suggest that there were several varieties of non-standard Malay and that these differed in their uses of the punya construction. Therefore, Pasar Malay may have played a role in the creation of the Afrikaans se construction but that influence differed from variety to variety. However, note that Pasar Malay differs in one important aspect from all varieties of Afrikaans: punya can be preceded by any personal pronoun, whereas that is not true for Afrikaans se.

5.2

Possessive constructions in Asian Creole Portuguese and Khoekhoe

In the Asian Creole Portuguese PNP construction the ligature derives from the (feminine) Portuguese possessive pronoun sua ‘3POSS’. At least in the variety of Ceylon Portuguese described by Dalgado (1998a) the possessive pronoun sua and the ligature sua existed side by side (104). However, the ligature was no longer a 3rd person pronoun, since 1st and 2nd person pronouns could be possessors as well, e.g. eu sua vida ‘1SGNOM SUA life’, which must be equivalent with minha vida ‘my life’, since Dalgado also mentions the possessive pronoun minha (86). Finally notice that eu is a nominative. This means that speakers of this type of Creole Portuguese may have introduced similar structures, e.g. *ek se lewe ‘1SGNOM SE life’, into Cape Dutch, but such a pattern is not attested. Apparently this pattern was too deviant for the L1 speakers of Cape Dutch and the pertinent L2 speakers were used to possessive pronouns as such. On the other hand pronoun + se with a plural pronoun may have sounded less strange to the ears of L1 speakers: ons se could be interpreted as onse, i.e. as the inflected form of ons ‘our’, and the partly nominal nature of julle and hulle/haarle/sulle may have helped to accept se patterns with plural pronouns, which could not be recognized as



Roots of Afrikaans

nominatives. And se patterns with invariant pronouns (u, ons, julle) are indeed attested for Bokaap Afrikaans, a variety of West Cape Afrikaans (Kotzé 1984: 56). However, this can only be the beginning of an explanation, because a similar system is attested for late eighteenth century Batavia Portuguese, which – in a source edited by Schuchardt – is described as having possessive pronouns in the singular vs. pronoun + sua in the plural (Schuchardt 1890: 100). Furthermore, sua had to be added to a singular possessive pronoun if the possessum NP was empty (except for 3SG): mienja soea ‘my SUA’ and boséé soea ‘yourSG SUA’ are reminiscent of – and yet not completely comparable to – Non-Standard Afrikaans myne syn/s’n ‘mine S’N’ and jou(n)e syn/s’n ‘yoursSG S’N’. Further research will have to show whether similar phenomena can be traced in Indo-Portuguese. What is lacking in Dalgado’s description of Ceylon Portuguese, however, is an indication as to whether the possessor can be inanimate or even abstract. But in Dalgado (1998b: 175) we can find data of the required type for at least one other dialect of Indo-Portuguese (Mangalore) and similar evidence for older Malayo-Portuguese can be found in Schuchardt (1890: 208, 217–219), e.g. unga anu suwa dura ‘one year SUA period’, eli suwa dosi ‘it SUA sweetness’ and agora suwa tempu ‘now SUA time’ (Schuchardt). Therefore the presence of Creole Portuguese speakers at the Cape may have been conducive to the rise of inanimate and abstract possessors in the Afrikaans se construction. As for Khoekhoe, the filler for Agr in the PNP construction is a particle: di. The particle di may be empty, provided the possessum NP is not empty – with one exception to be discussed below. Some examples are: aogu (di) haib ‘the men’s stick’, i.e. [DP[AgrP[DP ao-gu] (di) hai] -b] ‘man-3PLM (DI) stick -3SGM’ and ti omi din ‘those of my house’, i.e. [DP[AgrP[DP ti om-i] di [NPe]]-n] ‘my house-3SGM DI e-3PLC’ (e.g. xūn ‘the things’, i.e. xū-n ‘thing-3PLC’, C = Common Gender). As the glosses indicate, each DP ends in a pronominal clitic, also known as the person-gender-number marker or pgn-marker. Thus, haib ‘the stick’ actually is hai-b ‘stick-3SGM’ or ‘stick-he’; taradi ‘the women’ is tara-di ‘woman-3PLF’ or ‘womantheyFem’. For these and other issues see Rust 1965: 27–28, 40–42, Haacke 1976, Hagman 1977: 36–37, 40–41, 47–48, and den Besten 1978: 34–37 for Nama (now: Khoekhoegowab) and Meinhof 1930: 40, 45–46 for Korana. Now note that the possessor DP in the specifier of AgrP does not carry a case suffix and therefore counts as a nominative. Nominative case is reserved for the sentential subject if and only if it is in the spec of sentential AgrP (see den Besten 2002), for the possessor DP (see above) and for the complement of a denominal postposition. In other environments we find the so-called dependent case, which is expressed by means of a free, enclitic morpheme -a: aogu (di) haiba, ti omi dina, etc. The possessor position can also be occupied by a personal pronoun: //î-b (di) hā-b ‘he (DI) horse-3SGM’, i.e. //îb (di) hāb ‘his horse (stallion)’. Note that //îb ‘he’ consists of a nominal part //î ‘the very one, the one referred to’ and a pgn-marker -b. Other pgn-markers such as -ta ‘1SG’ can also be attached to //î. Even ‘pronouns’ like tita



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s) 

‘1SGM/1SGF’ or sas ‘2SGF’ have such a structure (ti-ta, sa-s). Therefore, these elements are not pronouns but rather pronominal expressions (cf. Haacke 1977). Yet, the pronominal expressions for 1SG and 2SG may not show up as possessor DPs. Instead ti and sa are used, albeit with different tonal melodies: ti (di) om-i ‘1SG (DI) house-3SGM’, sa (di) hai-b ‘2SG (DI) stick-3SGM’. In a sense ti and sa are the sole possessive pronouns of Khoekhoe. The grammars differ as to whether ti and sa may be combined with di at all. And even those grammars that allow this combination make it crystal clear that di is completely superfluous: in a free possessive structure di can be left out as well: ti (di)-b ‘1SG (DI)-3SGM’. I will therefore assume that ti and sa are Agr elements and cause pro-drop in spec of AgrP. Finally, the semantics of the possessor phrase seems to be fairly free, as expected, e.g. !hūb di gao-aob ‘the-land DI king’, skoli di /gôan ‘the-school DI children’. Given the above data it will not come as a surprise that speakers of Khoekhoe Afrikaans can say hy se ‘s/he SE’ – with a nominative pronoun. Unfortunately, while discussing hy se le Roux (1923: 98) made the mistake to suggest that Khoekhoe ti di khoen and sa di hūb may be rendered as ek se vrinde ‘I SE friends’ and jy se perd ‘youSG NOM SE horse’. But ti and sa are not nominatives (and the status of di is dubious). The (implicit) suggestion that one might be able to find collocations such as ek se and jy se, has been haunting Afrikaans linguistics ever since. Rademeyer did not find ek se or jy se (nor my se or jou se) – and he is surprised about it (Rademeyer 1938: 66–67). But given what we know about Khoekhoe there is nothing to be surprised at: the distribution he found for pronoun + se, namely only if the pronoun is plural or 3rd person singular, is in accordance with Khoekhoe syntax. The use of the nominative, namely only on the 3rd person singular hy is not surprising either, because the 1SG and 2SG possessors of Khoekhoe are not nominatives (nor accusatives).5 Rademeyer’s findings are basically in accordance with what Links – more than 50 years later – found for Namaqualand Afrikaans, another variety of Khoekhoe Afrikaans than the ones studied by Rademeyer (Links 1989: 81–83). However, besides hy se ‘his, her’ Links also found sy se ‘she’s [= her]’. Note that se may not be dropped in hy se and sy se. Furthermore, hy se (and possibly sy se and hulle se) can (could?) also be used as the ligature in a Khoekhoe Afrikaans pronominal ligature construction, witness ... dan staan deenk eek weer aan een van ou Tieties-goed hyse preeke ‘... then stand think I again of dear Tities-GOED he-SE sermons’ (van Zyl 1947: 136). (Also compare van Zyl 1947: 33, 112, 146, and Rademeyer 1938: 67.) This means that Khoekhoe Afrikaans hy se is – or at least also can be – a word.

5. Roberge (1994: 72) quotes a possible example of my se ‘me SE’ from van Rensburg (1984), but immediately concedes that another analysis is possible as well.



Roots of Afrikaans

5.3

Substrate? Which substrate?

It is clear that Khoekhoe and Asian Creole Portuguese may have played a role in the genesis of the Afrikaans se possessive. This may explain the preference for the use of se with plural pronouns in non-standard varieties of Afrikaans and hy se in Khoekhoe Afrikaans. Collocations such as myne s’n may be due to the struggle between more Dutch-like Cape Dutch and more Creole-like varieties, but it may also be a Creole Portuguese substrate feature. The Pasar Malay construction, on the other hand, is a bit problematic because of the semantics and because it should have furthered the use of singular pronouns + se. But then again: if the se construction derives from the Dutch pronominal ligature position, and if the Cape Dutch variant thereof switched from weak to strong pronouns, how is it possible that the weak form z’n/ze rather than the strong form zij(n) was generalized?

6. Possessive constructions in Cape Dutch Pidgin and a new source for se Although we know quite a bit about the substrate languages and about the speech habits of the colonists (at least in writing) we know little about possessives in Cape Dutch Pidgin. This may be due to the fact that up till now the historical linguists of Afrikaans have been looking for early cases of se (or sy for that matter) and for free possessive pronouns. If we take all of the pidgin evidence into account a fairly complicated picture arises. We find (i) unmarked possessive constructions, (ii) a few cases that are ambiguous between the pronominal ligature and the se construction, (iii) the Saxon genitive construction, and (iv) numerous cases where it is difficult to decide whether the suffix -s is a possessive marker, an adjectivalizer or maybe a plural marker. I will start with the unmarked possessives.6 In the preamble to the peace treaty with the Caepmans (then usually called Caepman) we find a list of Caepman subaltern chiefs, among whom are ... Goaso, Lochhoeve broeder ... Loeckhoeve, Goaso broeder ... ‘... Goaso, Lochhoeve brother, ... Loeckhoeve, Goaso brother ...’ (5 July 1658, van Riebeeck 1658; 1955: 325–326). Around 1700 we find: Jantie van Sosequa Broer ‘Johnny of [THE] Sosequa-[PL] brother’, i.e. ‘the brother of Johnny of the Sosequas’ (around 1700, CA The Hague; Elphick 1985: 209). And a

6. The references to my sources will have the following structure: the period, year or even day that the example was recorded ^ comma ^ a reference to the manuscript or the book the example can be found in (^ semicolon ^ a reference to a modern edition). The van Riebeeck manuscript (1651–1662) will be treated as consisting of 11 manuscripts and the Bosman and Thom edition as consisting of three books.



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s) 

rather late example is: Vor my niet meer Compagnie Hottentot ‘ObjM me not anymore VOC Hottentot’ (1750–1765, Hemmy [1767] 1959: 11). In the early period there is exactly one case of the pronominal ligature construction and/or the se construction: Boebasibier ‘lac’ (1673, ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 154). Latin lac means ‘milk’ and Boebasibier actually is a phrase: Boeba si bie(r) ‘Cow HIS beer/drink/milk’, i.e. ‘milk’. Si is the monophthongic predecessor of afr. sy.7 Two other cases are late and therefore inconclusive: Neen! daar is volk zijn tand! ‘No! There is people HIS tooth-[PL?]’ (1776, Heuningberg, a young Khoekhoeb, CJ 411, 14, pp. 65, 81, 89; Scholtz 1963: 120) and ... den babiaan dat is den ouden tyden zijn mens by haar, ... ‘... the baboon, that is the old times HIS human-being among them ...’ (1778–1779, Wikar 1779; 1935: 60). For the Saxon genitive I can quote three cases from the early period: Boubaes toebak ‘cattle + S tobacco’ (1673, ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 134) and Ruyters Vader, Oude Heers Zoon ‘Ruyter’s Father, Old Gentleman’s Son’ (ca. 1700, CA The Hague; Elphick: 209). Especially Oude Heers is instructive, because the Dutch called this chief de Oude Heer. This possessive marker could also be attached to names of ethnic groups, which originally were unmarked for plural. An early example is: Schacher (sijnde Caepman’s capiteyn zoon) ‘Schacher (being Caepman’s captain son)’, i.e. ‘the son of the chief of the Caepmans’ (1 July 1658, van Riebeeck 1658; 1955: 319–320). Another example is: mijn ende Caepmans beesten ‘my and Caepman’s cattle’, i.e. ‘my cattle and the Caepmans’ cattle’ (30 October 1657, van Riebeeck 1657; 1955: 185) and na Chainouquas legers ‘towards Chainouqua-S encampments’, i.e. ‘towards the encampments of the Chainouqua’s’ (8 November 1658, van Riebeeck 1658); 1955: 412). However, an -s attached to an ethnic name could also be an adjectivalizer, as in Dutch, but usually these adjectives don’t inflect, which is against the rules of Dutch – thus defining such adjectives as pidgin inserts in a Dutch text: (14) ... sagen wij een wonder dingh van de Hottentoos vrouwen, ... ... saw we a strange thing of the Hottentoic women, ...  (13 September 1655, Muller [1655] 1952: 417) (15) Hottentotsch manier zoo. ... Hottentottic custom this-way

(1705–1713, Kolb 1727: I, 167)

(16) de gemelde Gregriquas Hottentot the above-mentioned Gregriquaic Hottentot  (11 October 1724, Rhenius [1724] 1947: 136) (17) Het is ons Hottentots manier niet die dieren te eeten It is our Hottentottic custom not those animals to eat  (29 January 1777, Swellengrebel [1777] 1935: 25) 7. Bier ‘beer’ for ‘milk’ may have been a running gag at the Cape. The West Cape Khoekhoen often dropped syllable-final [r], thereby creating bie out of bier. However, they also had their own word bi ‘drink, milk’.



Roots of Afrikaans

Note that ons Hottentots manier in (17) is potentially ambiguous and could also be a possessive phrase: ‘us, Hottentots’. And there are more cases where the status of -s is unclear. For instance: what did the Khoekhoen who called a certain area Hottentoos Hollandt mean: ‘the Holland of the Hottentoos’ (possessive) or ‘Hottentoic Holland’ (adjectival)?8 These ambiguities are due to deflexion in the pidgin adjective, of course, for which we have independent evidence such as: grot Captain ‘great chief ’ (1694, Langhanß 1715: 119), die oud volk ‘die old people [= our forebears]’ (1705–1713, Kolb 1727: I, 520) or die Duits Tovervrouw ‘the Dutch magic-woman’ (1705–1713, Kolb 1727: I, 528). However, the Cape Dutch adjectives never completely deflected, and especially derived adjectives in Afrikaans keep their inflexional ending. For example, predicative Afrikaans corresponds to attributive Afrikaanse. Similarly for Engels ‘English’, dorps ‘rustic’(< dorp ‘village’), etc. Now, suppose that pidgin speakers, further adapting their speech to Cape Dutch, hypercorrectly applied their newly acquired rule of adjectival inflexion both to adjectival -s and to possessive -s. This way they created possessive ­se, which must have reminded the L1 speakers of their own pronominal ligature ze/z’n.9 The answer to the question of why possessive se is se and not sy may then be that se has a double etymology: an extended variant of possessive -s helped to keep possessive ze/z’n weak. The recessive variant sy may then be due to what might be called etymological thinking among the white settlers.10

7. Summing up We have found that the possessive marker se of the Afrikaans nominal PNP construction may have a double origin: it may continue both Dutch ze/z’n ‘his’ of the Dutch pronominal ligature construction and the ambiguous possessive-adjectival ending -s of Cape Dutch Pidgin. The distribution of se/s’n in the Afrikaans pronominal PNP construction seems to be determined by weaknesses in the founder dialect’s PNP system (Standard Afrikaans), by Asian Creole Portuguese substrate (West Cape Afrikaans) 8. Cf. Godée Molsbergen (1916: 36–37). 9. Maybe the Khoekhoe Afrikaans plural ending -se (instead of Standard Afrikaans -s) can be explained along similar lines. 10. The evidence on pronominal possessors in the pidgin is not of the right type. Yet, there is the following tantalizing case in the field notes on the Khoekhoen of Robert Jacob Gordon (1779–1780; 1992: 39): (i) en was de grootste om dat hy van voorouders kauwaup waren and was the greatest because he of forebears chief were ‘and he was the greatest [of the two chiefs of the Ogoqua] because his forebears had been chiefs too’



Chapter 1.  The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s) 

and by Khoekhoe substrate (Khoekhoe Afrikaans). These factors taken together make it unlikely that combinations like ek se ‘I SE’, jy se ‘youSGNOM SE’ or my se ‘me SE’, jou se ‘youSGOBJ SE’ will ever be found – unless Pasar Malay has played a larger role than the data available seem to suggest.

Acknowledgment This paper is dedicated to Glenn Gilbert, whose presence in the Netherlands during the academic year 1984–1985 was conducive to the founding of the Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. I fondly remember our discussions on Afrikaans, Cape Dutch Pidgin, and Flaaitaal.

chapter 2

The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions 1. Introduction The Standard Afrikaans associative construction, usually exemplified with Pa-hulle, (lit.) ‘Dad-them’, is one of those Afrikaans structures that are in need of a diachronic explanation, because it seems to lack a Dutch counterpart. There are two (or maybe three) ways to tackle the problem: either we try to find a solution in terms of one or more substrate constructions or we take recourse to universals of creolization, which is more or less the approach chosen by van Rensburg (1998). Since the relevant Creole associative (and pluralizing) structures are restricted to the Atlantic Creoles and seem to be due to a widespread West African substrate phenomenon, as is pointed out by Hesseling (1905: 94), Boretzky (1983: 87–91) and Holm (1988–1989: 193–194), I would like to opt for a substrate solution, however without excluding Universal Grammar altogether and without rejecting a (dialectal) superstrate solution out of hand.1 Yet, finding the right substrate (or, if necessary, superstrate) construction(s) is not an easy task at all. The original proposals by du Toit (1905) and le Roux (1923) are linguistically inaccurate at best, as I will show below, and even after some necessary rephrasing and trimming we are left with a substrate hypothesis that is socio-historically implausible. Furthermore, the alternative Frisian-Hollandic superstrate hypothesis discussed by Kempen (1969) is based upon doubtful wishful thinking about Frisian substrate in the Central Hollandic dialects. And it is not until the 1990s that a Khoekhoe substrate hypothesis was put forward that seems to hold water (cf. Nienaber (1994) and below). But we may wonder whether that is enough. As I will show below, the slaves also played a role in the genesis of the Afrikaans associative construction, but in order to see that we have to turn our heads from Africa to Asia. Yet, I would first like to discuss the various associative constructions that are in use in the Afrikaans language area and the universal properties thereof (Section 2). This will give us a firm basis for a brief discussion of the substrate and superstrate hypotheses put forward in the older literature (Section 3). In Section 4, finally, I will discuss two substrate hypotheses, which we can use to explain the occurrence of the various associative constructions of Afrikaans. 1. This paper was first published in Taallandskap. Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg, Adelia Carstens & Heinrich Grebe (ed.), 49–58. Pretoria: Van Schaik 2001. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged.



Roots of Afrikaans

2. Afrikaans associative structures and a bit of language typology Whenever the Afrikaans associative is discussed in the literature two structures are mentioned: the Standard (and Orange River Afrikaans) formation Pa-hulle, (lit.) ‘Dad-them/3PL’, and the Orange River Afrikaans (henceforth ORA) formation Pagoed, (lit.) ‘Dad-things’. The use of Afr. goed ([xut]) ‘things’ (< Du. goed ‘stuff ’), which is frequently used in Afrikaans compounds, is a bit surprising and our understanding does not really improve if we consider that goed resembles the nominal stem xū- ‘thing’ in Khoekhoe, the language spoken by the forebears of most of the speakers of ORA (cf. Nienaber 1994: 48, 57, Rademeyer 1938: 68, fn. 1). However, le Roux (1923: 83) has pointed out that -goed may be a hidden form of the Khoekhoe enclitic pronoun -gu ‘3PL.M’. If this hypothesis is correct, Pa-goed may be nothing but a variant of Pa-hulle. The general structure of these associatives can then be defined as X + 3PL. However, three more structures can be found in the Afrikaans language area, as is pointed out by Kempen (1969: 291–294). First of all, there is the minor but fairly general structure Pa-en-dié, (lit.) ‘Dad-and-these/those’ (cf. the WAT 2 sub die II). Secondly, there is the Paanulle construction recorded among older people in the Malmesbury-Piketberg area. Paanulle may be interpreted as Pa-en-hulle, (lit.) ‘Dadand-them’, which is confirmed by Gert en hulle, (lit.) ‘Gert and them’, recorded in the nearby Saldanha Bay area (van Rensburg 1989: 50, fn. 29). And thirdly, there is the enigmatic Paandoe(n)/Paando(n) construction (recorded among older people in the Malmesbury-Piketberg area, and also heard in the Swartland area), which Kempen interprets as Pa-en-doe(n) ‘Dad-and-doe(n)’ (cf. Kempen (1969: 294) and Nienaber (1994: 16), who is quoting from an earlier publication by Kempen on this subject). The troublesome element -doe(n)/-do(n) might be interpreted as a (completely isolated!) variant of -dié, which leaves the optional [n] unexplained, and equating it with Afr. doen ‘to do’ makes even less sense, even if we disconsider the fact that now the optional absence of the [n] as well as the variation between [u] and [f] become problematic. Yet, as is pointed out in Nienaber (1994: 31–32), -doe ([du]) may very well be the Khoekhoe enclitic pronoun -gu ‘3PL.M’ with Cape Khoekhoe [g]-[d] interchange, which leaves space for the [u]- [f] variation, while the optional [n] in -doe(n)/-do(n) may be due to folk etymology by speakers who did not understand -doe/-do any longer. Since Pa-goed is also known in the Piketberg area (Nienaber 1994: 16), this hypothesis may very well be on the right track, which implies that Pa-en-dié, Paanulle and Paandoe(n)/Paando(n) are all instantiations of one pattern: X + and + 3PL. So basically there are two associative patterns in the Afrikaans language area: X + 3PL and X + and + 3PL, which correspond to two typologically well-known associative patterns, about which more below. One could, of course, try to derive the former pattern from the latter, arguing, as Ponelis does, that “[t]he coordinative origin of the -hulle-construction is fully in line with its associative meaning” (Ponelis 1993: 563), but I have to partly disagree here, since the X + and + 3PL pattern is not a coordination at all. If it were a coordination, main stress would fall on 3PL, which is not the case, and



Chapter 2.  The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions 

the reference of 3PL would be independent of the reference of X, which is not the case either because the reference of 3PL (‘they to whom X belongs’) is determined by the reference of X, as is also true for the reference of 3PL in the X + 3PL pattern. (Also cf. den Besten 1996: 16, fn 2.) This does not mean that I have a fully articulated alternative hypothesis for the syntax of the X + and + 3PL pattern yet, but I suspect that its structure will be more or less like the structure proposed for the X + 3PL pattern in den Besten (1996) plus one extra functional projection to accommodate and. Now, where else in the world do we find the above associative patterns? Although I haven’t done a full typological survey yet, some indications can be given. As for the X + 3PL pattern, note that it comes in two variants: X + 3PL and 3PL + X. The X + 3PL variant is attested for Ewe: Kofi‑wo ‘Kofi-3PL’ (Felix Ameka, p.c.), Papiamentu: Marianan ‘Maria = 3PL’ (Dijkhoff 1983), many of the Caribbean English Creoles: John dem ‘John 3PL’ (cf. Allsopp 1996 sub dem2, Holm 1988–1989: 193), and in a couple of South East Asian languages (see below). I have reasons to believe that there are more West African languages with this pattern and recently I found two (somewhat opaque) examples in 18th century Negerhollands (Magens 1770: 42, 63). The 3PL + X variant is less well attested. I only have data for Old (and Modern) Icelandic: þeir Gizorr ‘3PLNOM GizorrNOM’ (Heusler 1967: 120–121, 123–124; Halldór Sigurðsson, p.c. on Modern Icelandic; cf. den Besten 1996), Yoruba: àwn Táíwò ‘3PL Táíwò’ (Holm 1988–1989: 193) and again for a couple of languages in South East Asia (see below). But here too I have reasons to believe that more West African languages may be involved. Finally, for the moment the X + and + 3PL pattern is only attested for Frisian: mem-en-hjar/dy ‘Mum-and-3PL/those’ (Kempen 1969: 294–295) and for the Caribbean English Creoles: John and dem (Allsopp 1996 sub dem2). It should be noted that the Afrikaans patterns also share an important semantic feature with the associative patterns in the various languages mentioned above (at least in so far as I have been able to assess on the basis of native speaker judgements or grammatical descriptions): the number of people referred to by X + (and +) 3PL or 3PL + X does not have to be higher than two, e.g. Afr. Jan-hulle ‘Jan-3PL’ can refer to Jan and his wife. Similarly for Ewe Kofi-wo ‘Kofi-3PL’, etc. (den Besten 1996, Kempen 1969: 294–295). This means that we are dealing with syntactic patterns with universal properties, which pop up as soon as a language chooses to use such a pattern. Finally some remarks about minor issues. First, note that Icelandic can construct associatives with pronouns of any person, e.g. vit Gunnarr (1DUALNOM GunnarrNOM) ‘Gunnarr and I’, where grammatical number determines the upper limit of the number of people involved. This can be compared with Namaqualand Afrikaans Piet-ons ‘Piet-1PL’ recorded by Kempen (1969: 291), where grammatical number does not restrict the number of people involved: ‘1. Piet and me, 2. Piet and us’. (Also cf. Rademeyer 1938: 67, fn. 2.) Secondly, in Papiamentu 3PL can also be added to locative and temporal adverbs, as in akinan ‘here = 3PL’, which means ‘here somewhere’ (Vos-De Jesus 1989). I do not know yet how widespread this phenomenon is, but a similar vagueness or widening of



Roots of Afrikaans

locative and temporal reference through the use of -goed (or -hulle) has been noted for ORA (Links 1989: 32; cf. van Rensburg 1998: 133). Third, due to the phenomenon of integrated appellatives, such as Oom ‘you, Uncle’, which are based upon ‘titles’ and so in a sense upon 3rd person expressions, Afrikaans can construct 2PL associatives, such as Oom-hulle ‘you, Uncle-3PL’ (= ‘you, Uncle, and X’) and even u-hulle ‘yourev.-3PL’, which is considered the plural of reverential u, a pronoun unmarked for number (cf. den Besten 1996). Owing to the requirement of there being integrated appellatives (a Malayism in Afrikaans) this cannot be a widespread phenomenon and up to now I have only found it in South East Asia (see below), while the Negerhollands appellative subject Meester sender ‘Master 3PL’ in Magens (1770: 63) is ambiguous between a 2PL reading (‘you, Master, and your brother’) and an indirect, 3rd person form of address (‘Master and his brother’). Fourth and last, I do not regard the hypocoristic use of -goed, as in ORA Jakob-goed ‘Jakob-GOED’ (= ‘Jakob’), as being part of the associative phenomenon (cf. Rademeyer 1938: 67–68, Kempen 1969: 294, Links 1989: 32). This usage probably came about through secondary reinterpretation of associative -goed on the basis of Afr. goed ‘good’ and it provided the basis for the so-called stacked associatives noted by Kempen and others, as in ORA Pa-goed-hulle ‘Dad-GOED-3PL’, which are in fact combinations of a name, hypocoristic -goed and associative -hulle. This analysis also explains why the inverse order of markers, -hulle-goed, does not exist, while the combination -goed-goed is shunned for obvious linguistic reasons. This much having been said about associatives, some remarks have to be added about the relationship between pronominal associative markers and pronominal pluralizers, because this is relevant for the discussion of the older substrate hypotheses in the next section. In den Besten (1996) I suggested analyzing the pronominal associative constructions as double DP structures, i.e. as [DP1 DP2 Pron.[-sing.]] or [DP1 Pron.[-sing.] DP2] with the pronoun serving as the head of DP1. I furthermore suggested that in case of such a structure [...] the following holds for the set of individuals denoted by DP2: ∀x (x ∈ DP2) ⊃ (x ∈ pron.[-sing.]) where DP2 and pron.[-sing.] are shorthand for the sets of people denoted by DP2 and pron.[-sing.] respectively (pp. 18–19) This rule, which is based upon the semantics of associatives as described by Kempen (1969: 291–296) and the WAT vol. 4 sub -hulle, but which may be assumed to be universal (see above), predicts that the number of people denoted by DP1 may involve only one person more than the number of people denoted by DP2. However, it also predicts that if DP2 is plural, the reference of DP1 may be equal to the reference of DP2. That is to say, Afr. Jan en Piet-hulle ‘Jan and Piet-3PL’ may refer to ‘Jan and Piet and more’ or to ‘Jan and Piet’. This means that if DP2 is an uncoordinated plural DP we can



Chapter 2.  The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions 

get a reading that looks very much like a normal plural, e.g. die seuns-hulle (the boys-3PL) ‘1. the boys and one or more others, 2. the boys’. The latter observation suggests an alternative analysis for those languages that mark their plurals by means of pre- or postnominal 3PL pronouns, such as Ewe, Yoruba, Bambara, etc. in Africa and Papiamentu, Haitian, Negerhollands, etc. in the Caribbean (cf. Hesseling 1905: 93–94, Westermann 1907: 50, Boretzky 1983: 87–91, Holm 1988–1989: 193–194). These pronominal plurals may be nothing but associative structures, or new structures developed out of older associatives, in languages without independent plural marking, i.e. in languages whose nouns can have both a singular and a plural denotation, without there being a change of form. Adding an associative marker to a noun with a plural reading will strengthen that reading, which inter alia also explains why for so many of the languages mentioned above both pronominal associatives and pronominal plural marking are attested. The sole thing needed for such a development to take place is the extension of associatives from persons (and animals) to objects. Data discussed in Boretzky (1983) suggests that such a process of grammaticalization may indeed be assumed. In fact, more could be said about plural marking and 3PL pronouns, but I refer the reader to Boretzky (1983) and Holm (1988–1989) for more details, because I would now like to turn to the discussion about the origins of the Afrikaans associative constructions.

3. Previous scholarship In 1905 D.C. Hesseling published a book on Negerhollands in which he made the suggestion to relate pronominal plural marking in languages like Negerhollands and Papiamentu to similar phenomena in languages like Ewe (Hesseling 1905: 93–94). This gave du Toit (1905: 86–87) the idea to compare the Afrikaans X + hulle associatives, which he attributed to Khoekhoe influences on sociolinguistic grounds, with pronominal plurals in various Creole languages – however, without going deeper into the matter and without discussing the exact relationship between the -hulle and the -goed associatives (cf. du Toit 1905: 27, 86–87, 90–91). His suggestions were taken over by le Roux (1923: 80–83), who went a few steps further. Firstly, le Roux started by attributing the genesis of the X + hulle associative to the original language(s) of slaves from West Africa, because of the above-mentioned plurals. Secondly, for confirming evidence he referred to Bantu Afrikaans pidgin, where any subject (plural or singular) may – after a slight pause – be followed by a resumptive pronoun. Thirdly, he suggested that the Khoekhoen of the Cape Colony may also have contributed to the X + hulle associative, since in Khoekhoe masculine plural is expressed by an enclitic 3PL.M pronoun -gu as in Kh. khoegu ‘person = 3PL.M’ (i.e. ‘the men’), while the Khoekhoen of the interior followed a different path by substituting the element goed ‘stuff, things’ of Dutch/Afrikaans collective compounds



Roots of Afrikaans

such as rookgoed ‘smoking ware’ for this plural ending -gu. Le Roux’s suggestions were taken over by Hesseling (1923: 107, 121). (Note that le Roux is slightly mistaken in that X-hulle is also ORA, witness du Toit (1905: 27, 86–87, 90–91).) Although le Roux has provided us with a reasonable etymology for associative -goed, about everything else in the above hypothesis is wrong in one way or another. It is clear that the Bantu Afrikaans subject doubling phenomenon has nothing to do with plurals or associatives as such. And the same applies to plural marking in Khoekhoe, because Khoekhoe nouns are rounded off by enclitic pronouns anyway, i.e. the singular counterpart of khoegu is khoeb ‘person = 3SG.M’. Furthermore, despite le Roux’s terminological hedging (e.g. ’n meervouds- of ‘n kollektiewe begrip ‘a plural or a collective notion’, p. 80), a plural is not an associative, even though an associative is plural in number, as has been pointed out by Kempen (1969: 292), Ponelis (1993: 563) and den Besten (1996: 14). Yet, with the information we now have we could rephrase le Roux’s hypothesis by stating that the X + hulle associative may be due to a West African associative construction. However, there hardly were West African slaves in the Cape Colony. Le Roux probably was aware of that and so in a later publication he pointed at the two first slave cargoes that arrived in South Africa from Guinea and Angola in 1658 (le Roux 1947: 59). Yet, we know that within about a year this group of slaves had almost completely disappeared through marronage and illness and death (cf. Nienaber 1994: 29). And although in the next decades more slaves were imported from West Africa, this stream ended in a trickle, compared to the constant (and larger) streams of slaves from Madagascar and Asia, and later also from Mozambique-Natal (cf. Shell 1994: 41–42), which makes linguistic influences from West Africa not impossible but certainly unlikely. So much for the older substrate hypotheses. In so far as I can see, superstrate hypotheses do not fare any better. Although once in a while reference is made to the 3PL + X associative of Icelandic (e.g. van Rensburg 1989: 49), no scholar of Afrikaans seems to have dared to come up with a superstrate hypothesis on the basis of that observation, most probably because Dutch and Icelandic, though both being Germanic, are too far apart. However, in 1940 J.J. Smith, while discussing le Roux’s substrate hypothesis, suggested that the X-hulle construction might be related to the Frisian X + and + 3PL associative (cf. Nienaber 1994: 14–15), a suggestion that was taken over and elaborated upon by Kempen (1969: 293–296). According to Smith the Frisian (and Afrikaans) X + and + 3PL associative may also have existed in die verfrieste Noord-Hollands van Amsterdam, i.e. in the frisianized North Hollandic dialect of Amsterdam. Now it is certainly true that in the early Middle Ages the area of what was to become the county of Holland was part of Frisia, although we do not know what that means in terms of Germanic dialects. However, after the late Merovingian (Pippinid) conquest and colonization most of Holland soon was firmly Franconian-speaking, apart from some so-called Ingvaeonic features here and there, and only in the northernmost parts of the present province of North Holland, in the area of West-Friesland (which was not added to the county of Holland until the high Middle Ages), do we find a Hollandic dialect with a recognizably Frisian substrate.



Chapter 2.  The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions

Therefore, there is a lot of wishful thinking in Smith’s hypothesis and although we may not reject the possibility of a Hollandic X + and + 3PL associative out of hand, we still have to wait for the evidence (cf. Kempen 1969: 296). So much for possible superstrate hypotheses.

4. New hypotheses: Khoekhoe and the Eastern Malay dialects (and beyond) Fortunately, in recent years some progress has been made through the appearance of Nienaber (1994). This paper, which was inspired by my own suggestion, and which – through a complicated line of correspondence with Wilfrid Haacke and myself – finally returned to the original suggestion, defends the idea that the Afrikaans associative constructions may be due to the associative construction in Khoekhoe, which had not been noted before. It is discussed, at least for Nama (presentday Namibian name: Khoekhoegowab), by Hagman (1973: 56–57). The general structure of the Nama associative is X + hã + pgn[-sing.], where X may be a proper or a common noun, while pgn[-sing.] indicates a plural (and maybe also dual) enclitic pronoun, which must agree with X in gender, unless indefinite gender (also called common gender) is chosen, e.g. Brian hãgu ‘Brian and the guys (who are with him)’ (i.e. Brian HÃ = 3PL.M) and saru hãn ‘cigarettes and other things (associated with smoking)’ (i.e. cigarette HÃ = 3PL.C). Brian hãgu can be translated with Afr. Brian-hulle, while Nienaber (1994: 51) suggested the Afrikaans translation sigaret-goed, (lit.) ‘cigarette-things/stuff ’, for saru hãn. Although I do not know yet how to analyze hã in this construction (cf. the pertinent remarks by Haacke in Nienaber (1994: 42)), it is clear how through relexification and restructuring the various associative structures of Afrikaans may have come about. Pgn[-sing.] may have given rise to the various instantiations of 3PL in Afrikaans: hulle, dié, -goed and -doe(n)/-do(n), although -dié may be a later form triggered by the opaque variant -doe(n)/-do(n). The nasal hã, which did not make sense in Afrikaans, could either be left out or reduced and then reinterpreted as en ‘and’. In the former case the universal X + 3PL pattern could arise, in the latter case the equally universal X + and + 3PL pattern. Furthermore, it is not impossible that the Khoekhoen in the case of X being a common noun resorted to Dutch compounds ending in -goed, which we know they were using already in the 17th century and whose ‘ending’ they may have understood as a substitute for Cape Kh. -gu in its function as a plural nominalizer. This may have been an extra impetus for using goed as a substitute for pgn[-sing.] in associatives with proper nouns such as Jan-goed. For further details and considerations see Nienaber (1994). Yet, this cannot be all. There also were slaves in the Cape Colony. Many of the slaves came from Asia and many of the Asian slaves came from Indonesia. Now, no associative pattern has been attested (yet) for Standard or Pasar Malay. But we may be searching in the wrong part of Indonesia. The majority of the Indonesian slaves came





Roots of Afrikaans

from the eastern parts of the archipelago (R. Shell, p.c.) and so we should consult grammatical descriptions of Eastern Malay dialects (also cf. work in progress by de Ruyter (1998)). And it is here that we can find the associatives we are looking for. The X + 3PL pattern is attested for Ambon Malay, e.g. Anis dong ‘Anis 3PL’ (cf. Collins 1980: 38, Grimes 1991: 107–108, van Minde 1997: 169), and for Kupang Malay (Timor), e.g. s∂s Lis dong ‘Sis Liz 3PL’ (cf. Steinhauer 1983: 50–51). However, also the 3PL + X pattern can be found in that area. It is attested for North Moluccan Malay (Halmahera, etc.), e.g. dong Habel ‘3PL Habel’ (cf. Taylor 1983: 20), and also for Manado Malay (North Sulawesi), which is an offshoot of North Moluccan Malay, witness dong Éto’ ‘3PL Éto’ in Watuseke & Watuseke-Politton (1981: 334 sub [16]). Besides these general observations there are also points of detail that are of interest for the diachrony of Afrikaans. First of all, Steinhauer (1983: 50–51) notes for Kupang Malay that X-dong can also denote “a collective of people or things”, which means that the value of 3PL can be zero in terms of reference, e.g. to’o pung bini ana dong ‘uncle POSS wife [and] child 3PL’ can mean ‘uncle’s wife-and-children’ and orang-orang dong ‘person-person 3PL’ means ‘(all) the people’. The optional zero value of 3PL in terms of reference in these cases is in accordance with Afrikaans and follows from the rule discussed in Section 2, because the asyndetic coordination bini ana and distributive orang-orang are plural DPs. And since – similarly to what is going on in Ewe and Yoruba (cf. Westermann 1907, Boretzky 1983) – Malay nouns can have both a singular and a plural value (orang can mean both ‘person’ and ‘persons; reduplication is reserved for distributive plurals), it is also predicted that Ku.Mal. tanta dong ‘aunt 3PL’ can mean both ‘Auntie and X’ and ‘the aunts’ (Afr. Tannie-hulle and die tannies-hulle resp.). And by extension to objects we also derive mata dong ‘eye 3PL’ in the sense of ‘(the/my) eyes’. Furthermore, Taylor (1983: 20) remarks for North Moluccan Malay that dong can also be added to what I have called integrated appellatives as in dong Om ‘3PL Uncle’ (i.e. ‘you, Uncle, and those with you’), which is comparable to the 2PL associative Oom-hulle in Afrikaans. A similar case can be found in Steinhauer’s paper on Kupang Malay: Susi Ida dong ‘Sis Ida 3PL’, i.e. ‘you, Sis Ida, and X’ (Steinhauer 1983: 50). Finally, some remarks about the typological status of these dong constructions. According to Collins (1980: 38) the X + 3PL construction of Ambon Malay is a typically Creole feature of this contact variety of Malay, which suggestion is taken over by Holm (1988–1989: 583). However, Grimes (1991) has shown that Ambon Malay has much in common with Buru, an Austronesian language spoken on a neighboring island. Thus, Ambon Malay Abdul dong ‘Abdul 3PL’ corresponds to Buru Abdul sira ‘Abdul 3PL’ (p. 107–108). Furthermore, Taylor (1983: 20) notes for North Moluccan Malay that the 3PL + X associative has parallels in the non-Austronesian languages of the same area. Thus NMM dong Habel ‘3PL Habel’ corresponds to Tobelo nao Habele ‘id.’. Therefore, the X + 3PL and 3PL + X associatives of the Eastern Malay dialects are a Sprachbund phenomenon rather than something specifically ‘Creole’.



Chapter 2.  The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions 

5. Concluding remarks Given the above considerations it seems to be clear that the Afrikaans associative constructions are not due to the few slaves from West Africa but rather to the Khoekhoen and to the slaves from eastern Indonesia, who spoke local Austronesian and nonAustronesian languages and/or eastern contact varieties of Malay, which does not exclude, though, that languages from other parts of the world may have been involved as well. And also in other respects more research has to be done: First of all, why is there no 3PL + X structure among the Afrikaans associative constructions? This may be due to the influence of the Khoekhoen, but it is also possible that most slaves from eastern Indonesia were used to the order X + 3PL anyway. Therefore, we need more detailed statistics on the various points of origin of those slaves and we have to expand our sample of languages and Malay dialects spoken in eastern Indonesia, because the above survey is rather incomplete to say the least. Similar questions can be asked about the distribution of the various Afrikaans associative constructions. That X-goed is not used in Cape Afrikaans may be due to the retreat of the Cape Khoekhoen in 1713. But what about the other variants? Is it true that -en-hulle and -en-doe(n)/-en-do(n) only occur in a limited area as Kempen seems to suggest? And if so, why would that be so? These are questions for further research.

chapter 3

What a little word can do for you Wat in Afrikaans possessive relatives This paper is meant as an appendix to den Besten (1981, 1998a), in which the idea is defended that the Afrikaans relative marker wat ‘WHAT’ is a complementizer. Now invariant wat can also be used in possessive relatives in colloquial Afrikaans, which seems to argue for a pronominal status of wat (at least in so fas as the pertinent environment is concerned). However, I will show that there are good reasons to stick to a unitary analysis for invariant relative wat.*

1. Relativization in Afrikaans In Afrikaans, bare DP relativization does not evidence pronominal variation: a single relative marker wat is used, which is homophonous with the interrogative pronoun wat ‘what’: (1) a. die man/mans wat hy gesien het the man/men what he seen has b. die boek/boeke wat hy gelees het the book/books what he read has c.1 die probleem wat jy van praat the problem what you of speak c.2 die seun wat jy mee gesels het the boy what you with talked have In the case of PP relativization (pied-piping of P), however, pronominal variation is available. Thus, instead of wat ... van in (1c1) waarvan ‘where-of ’ can show up, and instead of wat ... mee in (1c2) both met wie ‘with whom’ and waarmee ‘where-with’ are possible: (1) c.1’ die probleem waarvan jy praat c.2’ die seun met wie/waarmee jy gesels het

* This paper was first published in Small words in the big picture. Squibs for Hans Bennis [HIL Occasional Papers 2], Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 13–21. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics (HIL), 1999. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged.



Roots of Afrikaans

Furthermore, pronominal variation also seems to be available in the case of possessive DP relativization (another case of pied-piping). Discussion thereof will be deferred until Section 3. In view of the opposition between (1a)–(1c2) on the one hand and (1c1’)–(1c2’) on the other it seems reasonable to assume that wat is a specialized complementizer that is in construction with an empty operator in Spec,CP. This way we can explain why the R-pronoun waar does not show up under stranding:

(2) a. die mani/mansi [CP OPi [C’ wat [AGRP hy ti gesien het]]] (= (1a))

b. die probleemi [CP OPi [C’ wat [AGRP jy ti van praat]]] (= (1c1)) (For another argument having to do with object marking of [+human] DPs, see den Besten (1981).) However, this reasoning has been criticized by Ponelis (1981) and Swanepoel (1980), who argue that the West Germanic R-phenomenon has become optional in Afrikaans so that waaraan ‘where-of ’ in Waaraan dink jy? (‘(lit.) Where-of think you?’) not only varies with waar ... aan (with a stranded preposition) but also with aan wat ‘of what’ and with wat ... aan. Furthermore it is argued that even [–R, +human] interrogative DPs such as wie ‘who’ can be extracted out of PPs. Yet, this argument does not hold because the syntax of PPs is quite different in the case of relativization. First of all, relative P wie ‘P whom’ does not have wie ... P as a counterpart with a stranded preposition, as is indicated in (3b). Furthermore, the combination wat ... P ‘WHAT ... P’ never corresponds to a relativized PP P wat, be the antecedent human or nonhuman. (Cf. (4b).) And finally, one could try to construe a sequence waar ... P ‘where ... P’, corresponding to relative waar P, but the outcome is so utterly archaic (i.e. Dutch), as is pointed out in Ponelis (1985a and b), that the three question marks in (5b) are in fact equivalent to a star. (3) a. die seun met wie jy gesels het (= (1c2’)) b. *die seun wie jy mee gesels het (4) a. *die seun wat jy mee gesels het (= (1c2)) b. die seun met wat jy gesels het (5) a. b.

die probleem waarvan jy praat (= (1c1’)) waar jy van praat

???die probleem

Therefore, wat may very well be an invariable functional element.

2. WHAT as a WH-marker in Afrikaans From a typological point of view the above conclusion is hardly surprising. Afrikaans is one of the languages that follows the WH-strategy for relativization:

(6) ... Ni ... [CP proni [C’ C [AGRP ... ti ...]]]



Chapter 3.  What a little word can do for you 

On the basis of comparative data we know that the relevant positions in this construction, i.e. Spec,CP and C, which can be referred to as Position 1 and Position 2, respectively, can be filled in various ways. Thus, Position 1 may contain an empty operator, while Position 2 may contain an empty COMP. This yields four possible variants, three of which are realized in modern English: the boyi whomi/that/Ø we saw ti. The fourth option can be found in other languages. Furthermore, we know that due to pied-piping Position 1 may be filled with more than just the bare pronoun, while Position 2 may either contain the declarative complementizer THAT, but also a specialized relative marker, e.g. WHAT, WHERE or THERE – although an alternative Split CP analysis with a designated head position for each specialized relative marker cannot be excluded. (For comparative data on relativization strategies and variants, cf. Lehmann (1984) and den Besten (1998a).) As for Afrikaans, it is clear that it allows pied-piping but requires an empty operator in the case of a bare pronoun, which must be accompanied by a specialized complementizer wat ‘WHAT’, while ‘doubly filled COMPs’ are excluded. So Afrikaans fits well into the pattern of parametric choices for relativization known to us. Now notice that analyzing relative wat as a signalizer for an empty operator also provides a means for understanding the use of wat in other constructions. First of all, wat is also used in Cleft constructions, even when the focus position is filled with a PP or an adverb: (7) a. Dis met Piet wat ons gesels het It’s with Pete what we talked have b. Dis toe wat dit gebeur het It’s then what it happened has Furthermore, in comparatives and equatives the connector as ‘than, as’ is followed by wat, whether the ‘antecedent’ is a DP or not. This also holds in the case of Subdeletion: (8) a. Hy het vinniger gehardloop as wat ons kon hardloop He has faster run than what we could run b. Die vrou is nes vet as wat haar ou mannetjie lank is That woman is as fat as what her dear husband tall is In traditional analyses of Afrikaans (e.g. Ponelis (1979: 439)) wat in (7) and (8) is regarded as a complementizer in contradistinction to the ‘relative pronoun’ wat. However, in view of what has been said above, it is clear that the occurrence of wat in Cleft and Comparative-Equative constructions is just another instance of the WH-marker wat in relative clauses. Therefore the subordinate clause in (7a) can be analyzed as: [CP OPi [C’ wat [AGRP ons ti gesels het]]]. Similarly for the comparative clause in (8a): as [CP OPi [C’ wat [AGRP ons ti kon hardloop]]].



Roots of Afrikaans

3. WHAT in possessive relatives Now possessive relatives pose a potential problem for the above analysis, although at first sight they only seem to provide us with another case of pronominal variation under pied-piping, witness the following examples: (9) a. die man wie se dogter gister in ‘n motorongeluk dood is the man who poss daughter y.-day in a car-accident dead is ‘the man whose daughter died in a car-accident yesterday’ b. die tafel wat se poot stukkend is the table what poss leg broken is However, note that wat se in (3b) is considered to be colloquial and varies with a construction with a free of-phrase (in this case: waarvan die poot ‘whereof the leg’) – which is supposed to be the sole construction possible in Standard Afrikaans (Ponelis (1979: 465) and Donaldson (1993: 149)) – and that colloquial possessive wat se is also possible with human antecedents: (10) die man wat se dogter gister in ’n motorongeluk dood is (cf. (9a)) Given the evidence provided the conclusion seems to be inescapable that invariant wat in possessive relatives is a pronominal element, as Swanepoel (1980: 74) points out. However, it is does not necessarily follow that wat in bare DP relatives is a pronoun too. Now there are good reasons to even doubt the pronominal status of wat in possessive relatives, since – as Donaldson (1993: 149) points out – wat se N may not be embedded in a PP, while P wie se N is grammatical: (11) a. die man met wie se dogter ek gedans het the man with who poss daughter I danced have b. *die stoel op wat se leuning Karel sit *the chair on what poss arm Charles sits (reconstructed after Donaldson’s statements) c. *die man met wat se dogter ek gedans het *the man with what poss daughter I danced have Yet, an even stronger restriction seems to hold in that wat se N may only bind a subject position, so that both (11c) and (13b) are ungrammatical. (I thank Hester Waher for confirming my hunch.) (12)

*... Ni [CP [XPk (P) wati se Nj] [AGRP ... [AGR’ ... tk ...]]] ...

(13) a. die man wat se vrou dood is the man what poss wife dead is b. *die skrywers wat se boeke ek gelees het *the writers what poss books I read have



Chapter 3.  What a little word can do for you 

Note that substitution of wie for wat in (11c) and (13b) yields grammatical results – which is confirmed by the paradigm for wie se in Ponelis (1979: 465) – although there is no substitute for wat to salvage (11b). Furthermore note that grammars discussing relative wat se only provide examples of wat se N in subject function (e.g. Ponelis (1979: 465–466) and Donaldson (1993: 149)), while examples with wie se N in object function are easy to come by. Now the observations in (11b–c) and (13a–b) cannot be explained if wat in relative wat se N is assumed to be a pronoun. Therefore let us assume that only relative wie se N contains a pronoun (wie) and that wat in wat se N is the specialized COMP discussed in the previous sections. It then follows that the sequence wat se N is not a constituent, be the antecedent human or nonhuman, and so cannot be the complement of a preposition either. This leaves us with two possible analyses for the subsequence se N: either it is a ‘remnant DP’ or we have to analyze se as a resumptive pronominal element: (14) a. die man [CP OPi [C’ wat [AGRP [DP ti se vrou] dood is]]] b. die man [CP OPi [C’ wat [AGRP [DP sei vrou] dood is]]] Independent support for this analysis stems from observations by the writer Langenhoven in 1912 as quoted by Steyn (1989: 26), according to which also the following possessive relatives are possible: (15) die man wat die/sijn vrou dood is the man what the/his wife dead is I take it that sijn (sy in modern Afrikaans) is meant to be a resumptive element and not a variant of possessive se, since Langenhoven, who gives a long list of syntactic variants, does not mention a variant *wie sijn (instead of wie se). Examples of this type of speech can be found in the visions of the ‘Boer prophet’ Siener van Rensburg (1864–1926), who also used wat se. (Cf. Snyman (1995: ch. 31).) In as yet unpublished material I also found relative wat hul ‘WHAT their’ with resumptive hul ‘their’, which supports the idea of sijn in (15) being a resumptive pronoun. Surprisingly enough, structures like (15) are not mentioned in the grammars. Yet, they can still be heard (Christo van Rensburg, p.c.). Now, everything else being equal it should be possible to find se N as well as die N or PRON N in object position in Nonstandard Afrikaans possessive relatives, unless there are accessibility restrictions. Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question with any certainty yet, since my corpus of Nonstandard Afrikaans is very limited, while speakers of Standard Afrikaans, my usual informants, usually have no clear intuitions about nonstandard structures such as the ones discussed above, let alone about more complicated variants thereof. For the time being I only have vague indications that resumptive die N and se N may be possible in object position. At any rate, whatever the outcome of future research will be, it is clear that the use of Nonstandard Afrikaans wat se N in possessive relatives can no longer be used as an argument to the effect that relative wat is a pronoun.

chapter 4

Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 1. Introduction1 The system of relativization in Afrikaans has a number of striking properties for speakers of Dutch.2 To begin with, relative wat, which is a neutral pronoun for Dutch speakers, is used in Afrikaans for subject and object relativization, where Afrikaans has given up the neutral gender. (1) a. die man wat hy gesien het the man wat he seen has ‘the man he has seen’ b. die boek wat hy gelees het the book wat he read has ‘the book he has read’ c. die mans wat hy gesien het the men wat he seen has ‘the men he has seen’ d. die boeke wat hy gelees het the books wat he read has ‘the books he has read’ Relativization of a PP employs waar + P, just as in Dutch. However, in P-stranding the form waar is excluded and wat is required. (2) a. die probleem waarvan jy praat the problem waarvan jou speak ‘the problem of which you speak’ 1. This paper is the translation by Frits Beukema of “Afrikaans relatief ‘wat’ en de West-Germaanse relativisatiesystemen”, which was published in Afrikaans en variëteiten van het Nederlands, Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, Fritz Ponelis & Piet van Reenen (eds). Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. 1996. Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9: 12–34. [actual date of publication: January 1998]. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. See the grammars by Ponelis (1979) and Donaldson (1993).



Roots of Afrikaans

b. die probleem wat jy van praat the problem wat you van speak ‘the problem which you speak of ’ If the antecedent refers to a human being, PP relativization allows the combination of P + wie, as in (3). (3) a. die seun met wie jy gesels het the boy met wie you chatted have ‘the boy with whom you have chatted’ b. die seun waarmee jy gesels het the boy waarmee you chatted have ‘the boy with whom you have chatted’ c. die seun wat jy mee gesels het the boy wat you mee chatted have ‘the boy who you have chatted with’ Relativization of possessives yields wie or wat, depending on the antecedent, plus the possessive marker se. (4) a. die man wie se dogter gister in ’n motorongeluk dood is the man wie se dogter yesterday in a motorcycle accident dead is ‘the man whose daughter died yesterday in a motorcycle accident’ b. die tafel wat se poot af is the table wat se leg off is ‘the table of which a leg is missing’ But ‘nowadays’ (a not very precise term, admittedly) we also hear3

(4) c. die man wat se dogter gister in ’n motorongeluk dood is

Apart from all this, Donaldson (1993) asserts that possessive wat se must not be separated from the antecedent by a preposition. (5) a.

... Ni [op wie se Nj ...] ...

b. *.. Ni [op wat se Nj ...] ... What is striking in the system outlined above is that on the one hand we are dealing with an invariable wat, which shows up when it is not embedded in a phrase, and on the other hand with a paradigm of dependent pronominal forms, i.e. wie, wat en waar,

3. This is an old construction in fact, which time and again raises its head, contrary to what is standardly accepted. According to Steyn (1989: 26), as early as 1912 Langenhoven provides [die man] wat-se vrouw dood is ‘the man whose wife is dead’ along with ... wie se vrouw..., ... wat die vrouw [v]an ... and two more variants I will deal with later.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

where antecedent and syntactic context determine which form is chosen, although in possessives invariable wat appears to be on the increase. In den Besten (1978) and (1981) I maintained that invariable wat is not a pronoun but a conjunction. My analysis met with criticism from Swanepoel (1980) and Ponelis (1981), who support the pronominal status of wat. In this article I would like to return to this issue, and at the same time address the diachronic development of the system of relativization of Afrikaans. For that purpose I will discuss the typology of relativization systems in Section 2, emphasising in particular the diversity of the so-called wh-movement systems. I will draw my examples almost exclusively from Continental West-Germanic, including North Frisian and Yiddish. On the strength of this I will once again defend the analysis of Afrikaans invariable relative wat as a specialized conjunction in Section 3. In addition I will maintain that no indications can be found in Dutch dialects and older forms of Dutch that an invariable dat or wat-system could be the foundation of the system of Afrikaans. This implies also that, given the relativization system of Dutch, we would rather expect to find die and waar instead of invariable wat as independent relativization elements in South Africa. In Section 4 I will show that such a simplified Dutch system did indeed exist in South Africa but that it had to compete from the start with a putative underlying Creole system in which an invariable wat occurred.

2. Systems of relativization4 In order to be able to evaluate the relativization system of Afrikaans we need to evaluate it against what we know about relativization at all. We cannot here provide a full typological survey; for a more elaborate overview I refer to Lehmann (1984). I will restrict myself in this article to two systems which appear to be totally separate at first sight, although it will turn out on the basis of a close inspection of some West-Germanic languages and dialects that they may show a degree of overlap, which may indicate that they are merely variants of one overarching system. However this may be, we appear to be able to distinguish two relativization systems on the basis of the question as to whether wh-movement has applied. A [–WH] system uses relative clauses containing resumptive pronouns, as shown in (6). (6) The [–WH] strategy: ... Ni ... [CP [C, C [IP ... proni ...]]] As an example of this type of language we may select Modern Hebrew, in which structures like the following may be found: 4. This section (and Section 4 as well) presupposes familiarity with Generative Grammar.



Roots of Afrikaans

(7) ha-iši [še Liora ´ohevetf.sg. (´otoi)] the-man dat Liora loves (him) ‘the man Liora loves’ Note, however, that in this language the resumptive pronoun can be left out, which would yield relative clauses reminiscent of what is possible in some [+WH] languages. A [+WH] system uses relative clauses with a (possibly overt) pronominal operator at the beginning of the subclause, as shown in (8). (8) The [+WH] strategy: ... Ni ... [CP proni [C, C [IP ... ti ...]]] An example of this type of languages is Dutch. When we consider this type of languages more closely, the general definition appears to cover a great deal of variation, which is localized in the ‘head’ of the relative clause as indicated in (9). (9) ... [CP pron [C, C ...] ... 1 2 From now on I will denote the positions of the pronominal operator and the conjunction as position 1 and position 2, respectively. Part of the variation found in the relativization strategy using wh-movement can now be summarized as in (10). (10) a. Position 1 may contain an empty operator. b. Position 2 may contain an empty COMP It follows from (10a) + (10b) that positions 1 and 2 may be lexicalized or be empty at the same time. For the operation of (10a) and (10b) I will take an example from Modern English, which shows the variation in object relativization in (11). The empty pronominal operator is denoted by OP and the empty COMP as e. (11) a. the boyi [whomi [e [we saw ti]]] [that [we saw ti]]] b. the boyi [OPi c. the boyi [OPi [e [we saw ti]]] As (11) shows, Modern English displays variation in position 1 as well as in position 2. Observe, however, that the two positions may be empty simultaneously, but may not be overt simultaneously (*whom that). The overt combination (die dat, waar dat, etc.) is attested in some Dutch dialects, such as Aarschots: (12) de stoelen die (dat) kapot zijn the chairs which (that) broken are ‘the chairs which are broken’ See Pauwels (1958a: 347–349) for more details.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

Apart from the variation implied by (10), there is variation with regard to the way in which the two positions can be filled. I will pass over the variation in the form of the pronominal, which can be a D-word or a W-word in the Germanic languages, as this is irrelevant to this article. The following observations are of greater relevance: (13) a. Position 1 can be filled by more than just the bare pronominal, due to the rat-catcher effect, i.e. Pied Piping. Examples of this type of variation can be found in Dutch, in that position 1 can be filled with strings like met wie (‘with whom’), waarmee (‘with what’), wiens N (‘whose N’), met wiens N, (‘with whose N’), etc. There may be restrictions on these strings in languages, which in extreme cases may lead to nothing but a bare pronominal being allowed to occur in position 1.5 (13) b. Position 2 may contain the declarative conjunction DAT, but also specialized relative clause markers. I want to pursue this latter point now, leaving the so-called que-qui alternations out of account since these are of less importance for Afrikaans.6 On the strength of (10a) we know that, by the side of position 2, an empty operator can turn up in position 1. This does not only hold for English (cf. 11b). In the Dutch language area we find, besides relative clauses introduced by combinations like die dat (‘who that’), also relative clauses introduced by invariable dat, as in the following Middle-Dutch examples taken from Stoett (1923: 35). (14) a. Ene creature, dat een linijn cleet hadde an A creature that a linen garment had on ‘A creature that wore a linen garment’ b. Die lande, dat nu die Pollanen bouwen The land that now the Pollanen till ‘The land that is now tilled by the Pollanen’ An invariable relative dat is also attested in West-Flemish (modulo the que-qui alternation: Bennis & Haegeman (1984)), in the dialect of Louvain (Goemans 1897),7 5. The anti-Pied Piping restriction may also apply in languages/dialects which require an empty operator in position 1 instead of a bare pronominal. In languages/dialects of this kind relative wh-movement is never overt. 6. In a language with a que-qui rule C needs to be nominative when governing a subject trace. Thus, in French sometimes position 2, sometimes a lower C, needs to become qui ‘who’. Compare l’homme qui est venu with l’homme que je crois qui est venu. See Pesetsky (1982). A similar phenomenon occurs in West-Flemish, with die as the required nominative. See Bennis & Haegeman (1984) for discussion. 7. According to Goemans (1897: 155–156) invariable dad ‘that’ is restricted to the accusative, but he is contradicted by Peters (1938: 241).



Roots of Afrikaans

and in the dialect of Tildonk (Van Langendonck 1995). Peters (1938: 241–242) and Weijnen (1966: 295) assume that this is a fairly general phenomenon spread across Flanders and South-Brabant (and the Campine area).8 Instead of the conjunction dat other specialized relative markers exist. Thus we find languages/dialects having an invariable relative marker that can be translated by wat ‘what’. Elsewhere, elements are used that can be rendered by ‘there’ or ‘where’. The Tongeren dialect displays a WAT element (wò:, wò), the only instance of WAT I have been able to find in the Dutch language area. Outside the Dutch language area we find wat in the North-Frisian dialects of Fehring and Amrum, and of the Bökingharde (the dialect of Mooring), βo:z in Northern-Bavarian, wo:z in Standard Bavarian, vos in Yiddish.9 We see an invariable relative marker DAAR expressed as diar, respectively dia, in the North-Frisian dialects of Fehring and the Wiedingharde, and as an en enclitic element -d6 in the Upper-Saxony dialect of Friedersdorf (in the latter case always in combination with a D-pronominal in position 1, for that matter).10 The invariable relative marker WAAR enjoys a wider geographical spread across the West-Germanic language area. It is found as wo, wou or wu (in all kinds of transcription variants) in the dialects of South-Luxembourg, Saarland and South-Hessen, in the Pfalz dialect of Kaulbach, in the Lower-Alemannic dialect of Colmar, the UpperAlemannic dialect of Zürich, in the dialects of Eastern-Franconian, Northern Bavarian and Middle-Bavarian.11 One may wonder whether the invariable elements DAT, WAT, DAAR and WAAR are really fillers of position 2. The alternative would be to analyze these elements as invariable relative pronouns, i.e. as fillers of position 1. It is now quite generally accepted to see dat as a conjunction, also when it is the only element heading a relative clause. See for instance Pauwels (1958: 402). There 8. Weijnen’s mention of the Campine area is a little unfortunate because invariable dat only occurs there as subject of a predicative NP (De Bont 1962: 416–417), which points to a neuter pronominal, as in Dat zijn kersen, literally ‘That are cherries’. 9. See Grootaers (1908–1911) for the Tongeren dialect. For Northern-Frisian Fehring and Amrum see Schmidt-Petersen (1912) and Ebert (1971). For the Northern-Frisian dialect of the Bökingharde see the relevant articles in Russ (1990). For Northern and Middle Bavarian see the relevant articles in Russ (1990). For Standard Bavarian consult the article by Wiesinger in Russ (1990). For Yiddish, Lowenstamm’s (1977) article provides much more information than the grammars by Birnbaum (1990) and Lockwood (1995). See also Weise (1917). 10. For the Northern-Frisian dialect of Fehring see Ebert (1971) and Schmidt-Petersen (1912). According to Ebert diar is on the wane and is only used in appositives. For the dialect of the Wiedingharde consult Jensen (1925, 1927). For the Friedersdorf dialect see Bergmanns’ article in Russ (1990). 11. For these High-German dialects see Weise 1917 and the relevant articles in Russ (1990). For relativization in Züritüütsch and the Upper –Alemannic dialect of Zürich I refer to van Riemsdijk (1975).



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

seems to be greater opposition to place the specialized relative markers in position 2. Still, such an analysis is tenable in many cases and sometimes even inescapable. Thus, Yiddish vos appears to be a pronoun at first sight, comparable to interrogative vos ‘what?’, and to the relative pronoun vos that is tied to non-human antecedents, which may be used freely in PPs. However, Yiddish also appears to have a conjunction vos, rendered as ‘dat’ (‘that’). The sentence in (15) shows this. (15) Ikh bin zikh mekhaye vos du kumst I am refl glad what you come ‘I am glad that you come’ It might be objected that this vos is restricted to ‘exclamative’ subclauses, but this would leave unexplained why vos is also found in combination with resumptive pronouns, as in (16). (16) Die froy vos ikh ze (zi), iz zeyer farnumen The woman what I see (her) is very busy ‘The woman that I see is very busy’. As Lowenstamm (1977) has shown, in cases like this one the pronoun is a resumptive pronoun and not a lexicalized trace. Consequently, Yiddish has both a [+WH] and a [–WH] strategy. Vos is undoubtedly a conjunction in the [–WH] strategy, and so it is not impossible that this also holds for vos in the [+WH] strategy.12 This conclusion is supported by the observation that in a number of the abovementioned High-German dialects the relative marker may be preceded by a relative pronoun. Compare the following examples from Russ (1990): (17) a. mei Fraind, (der)-wo kumme iss my friend (who)-where come is South-Hessen: ‘my friend, who has come’ b. die unnersdidsung, (die) wu my muder do grischt hat the support that where my mother there received has Pfalz (slightly normalized): ‘the support, which my mother received there’ c. da bua (dea) wos des dan hod the boy (who) what that done has Standard Bavarian (normalized): ‘the boy, who has done that’ d. da mon, (den) wo I gesehng hob the man, whom where I seen have Middle-Bavarian (normalized): ‘the man, whom I have seen’ 12. My argumentation concerning Yiddish is based on Lowenstamm’s (1977), although I have carried it a little further. Evidence for the resumptive status of the non-moved relative pronominals can be derived from their obligatoriness in relative clauses with embedded Topicalization and V2.



Roots of Afrikaans

The relevant articles in Russ (1990) indicate that these combinations of pronoun + wo/ wos are quite normal.13 Strings of the type pronoun + wos and pronoun + wo can be put on a level with strings like die dat (who that) or aan wie dat (to whom that). Consequently, wos and wo should be analyzed as specialized conjunctions in position 2, which implies that they can also be categorized in this way when the relative prnoun is missing. It is interesting that in the relevant High-German dialects a specialized relative marker can co-occur with a resumptive pronoun, albeit in more restricted environments than in Yiddish. (18) a. d’Meedchen, wo séng Mamm dout is the-girl where her mother dead is ‘thegirl, whose mother is dead’ (South-Luxembourg: Russ (1990)) b. Tr mann, wu-nissem ksait ha isch nit tu the man where-I.it.him said have is not there ‘the man, whom I have told it, is not there’  (Lower-Alemannic of Colmar: Russ (1990)) c. D6 vrynd wo m6r am6l mit 6m zind The friend where we usually with him are go tšuut6 hæt khyraat614 go play football has married ‘The friend whom we usually play football with has married’.  (Upper-Alemannic of Zürich: Van Riemsdijk (1975)) It is to be regretted that we cannot ascertain from the literature whether we are dealing here with real resumptive pronouns or with lexicalized traces.

3. West-Germanic relativization systems and Afrikaans The variation in West-Germanic relativization systems gives us food for thought, with respect to the analysis of the invariable wat of Afrikaans as well as the diachronic question as to where the relativization system of Afrikaans could have come from.

3.1

West-Germanic relativization systems and the analysis of the relativization system of Afrikaans

In the light of the preceding line of reasoning, the analysis of the Afrikaans invariable relative marker wat as a specialized conjunction seems to be not so exceptional. This analysis provides us with an explanation of the invariable (non-pronominal) 13. Weise (1917) pays very little attention to this phenomenon. 14. Russ in Russ (1990) does not mention this phenomenon.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

behaviour of wat. Moreover, we can avoid in this way to have to distinguish between a relative pronoun wat and a conjunction wat, as I have argued before (den Besten 1978, 1981), apart from the very few cases in which a relative pronoun wat can be defended. Examples of clauses containing a conjunction wat are provided in (19). (19) a. Dis met Piet wat ons gesels het It is with Piet what we talked have ‘It’s with Piet that we have talked’. b.

Hy het vinniger gehardloop as wat He has more strongly run than what ons kon hardloop we could run ‘He has run more strongly than we could run’.

In varieties of Dutch the translation of these sentences would feature the conjunction dat ‘that’ instead of wat. This is in itself not an argument in favour of the status of wat in (19 a,b), but observe that a ‘pronominal’ analysis if this wat leads to problems. In that case wat in (19a) would have to be a ‘pro-PP’, comparable to met wie ‘with whom’, while wat in (19b) would have to be a ‘pro-adverb’. It is not surprising that Ponelis (1979) uses the term ‘conjunction’ in cases like these. The ‘conjunction’ wat only makes its appearance where we may assume that a conjunction of a declarative subclause is adjacent to an empty operator position, as indicated in (20). (20) a. Dis [met Piet]i [CP OPi [C, wat [IP ons ti gesels het]]] b. Hy het [vinnig]i-er gehardloop as [CP OPi [C, wat ons ti kon hardloop]] For further details see den Besten (1978, 1981). The analysis of (19a,b) as represented in (20a, b) agrees with the analysis I propose above of the invariable relative pronoun wat. Examples (1d) and (3c) can then be represented as in (21). (21) a. die boekei [CP OPi [C, wat [IP hy ti gelees het]]] (= (1d)) b. die seuni [CP OPi [C, wat [IP jy ti mee gesels het]]] (= (3c)) This analysis has other advantages as well. Criticizing my analysis, Ponelis (1981) and in later work (Ponelis 1985a,b) argued that P-stranding in Afrikaans is more far-reaching than in Dutch and is not restricted to so-called R-pronouns. Consider the examples in (22). (22) a. Waaraan dink jy? Waar dink jy aan? Where-on think you Where think you on ‘Of what are you thinking?’ What are you thinking of?’



Roots of Afrikaans

b. Aan wat dink jy? On what think you ‘Of what are you thinking?’

Wat dink jy aan? What think you on ‘What are you thinking of?’

(23) a. By wie het jy vanoggend ’n wyntjie gedrink? At who have you this morning a wine-dim drunk ‘At whose place did you drink some wine this morning?’ b. Wie het jy vanoggend ’n wyntjie by gedrink? Who have you this morning a wine-dim at drunk ‘Whose place did you drink some wine at this morning?’ As we may derive from these examples, R-pronouns in Afrikaans are on the wane and it also turns out that NPs can be extracted from PPs without adopting the R-form.15 So it seems possible to argue that in (21b) above the pronoun wat has been extracted from the PP directly from behind the preposition. Such a proposal would lead to problems, however. To begin with, one would expect on the grounds of relative phrases of the form P wie that relative wie can be extracted from a PP. That is not the case, however. Consider example (24). (24) a. die mense met wie ons gepraat het the people with who we talked have ‘the people with whom we have talked’ b. *die mense wie ons mee gepraat het the people who we with talked have c. die mense wat ons mee gepraat het the people what we with talked have ‘the people what we have talked with’ Furthermore, we would expect on the grounds of grammaticality of relative wat ...P that relative P...wat would also be grammatical, if wat is taken to be a pronoun. But this is contrary to fact, as (24d) shows. (24) d. *die mense met wat ons gepraat het the people with what we talked have Something similar applies in relative clauses on a non-human antecedent. Compare the examples in (25). (25) a. die argument waarmee ons vir hom probeer oortuig het the argument where-with we for him try convince have ‘the argument which we have tried to convince him with’ 15. The status of P-stranding in Dutch is also a little more fluid than is generally assumed. But it would seem that in Afrikaans there is a clear linguistic change in progress, which is why I accept the criticism of Ponelis (and Swanepoel 1980) on my earlier views on P-stranding in Afrikaans.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems

b.

???die argument waar

ons vir hom mee probeer oortuig het the argument where we for him with try convince have

c. die argument met wat ons vir hom probeer oortuig het the argument with what we for him try convince have d. die argument wat ons vir hom mee probeer oortuig het the argument wat we for him with try convince have As shown in (25), P wat is also excluded here, while wat ... P is grammatical. Even splitting up strings of the type waar P, which is possible in questions after all, is ruled out. A string of the type waar ... P is archaic and does not belong in present-day Afrikaans. I see hardly any grounds for calling Afrikaans invariable wat a pronoun. I therefore stick to my view that wat is a specialized COMP preceded by an empty operator. In this context the “younger” variant of invariable wat in possessive constructions is all the more interesting. The point is that this invariable wat (se) is an anomaly: opposite to the impossibility of invariable wat in PPs we see the possibility of invariable wat in possessives. Compare the following examples: (26) a. die man wat se dogter gister in ’n motorongeluk dood is (= (4c)) [instead of die man wie se dogter...] b. die tafel wat se poot af is (= (4b)) Yet, possessive wat (se) must not be embedded in a PP, which makes it partly similar to non-possessive wat that should not be preceded by a preposition either. Nevertheless, we cannot equate invariable possessive wat straightaway with nonembedded invariable wat since possessive wat in (26a,b) seems to be a pronoun, and assigning pronominal status to non-embedded invariable wat leaves quite a few things unexplained, as I have indicated above. Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate on this for the time being since “investigation by introspection” of relativized possessives yields fairly contradictory data. However, I want to add a novel insight to the discussion. It has struck me that in early-twentieth-century Afrikaans wat could have the function of possessive waarvan. We see this phenomenon in the visions of Niklaas (Siener ‘seer/soothsayer’) van Rensburg, noted down between 1913 and 1926, and published in Snyman (1995). Compare the following sentence taken from the vision of August 25, 1922:16 (27) Daar staan ’n baksteen huis wat die voormuur heelmaal weggeval het ... There stand a brick house what the front wall totally fallen down has ... ‘There stands a brick house the front wall of which has completely fallen down’ 16. Siener van Rensburg (born in 1864) spoke Afrikaans from the West-Transvaal. In time I hope to be able to publish an edition with linguistic annotations of his all but uncensured use of language.





Roots of Afrikaans

In 1912 this construction had already been noted by Langenhoven, who provided the phrase die man wat die vrouw dood is ‘the man WHAT the wife dead is’ (Steyn 1989: 26). What we see here is an implicit resumptive-pronoun strategy, where the pronoun is represented by the article. A phrase like die tafel wat die poot af is would then get the representation in (28).17 (28) die tafel [CP OPi [C, wat [IP [DP diei poot] af is]]] According to Christo van Rensburg (personal communication) this construction may still be heard in present-day Afrikaans spoken in the country. It is not impossible that possessive wat has something to do with the emergence of invariable wat se. Until further notice this is pure speculation. It is quite clear, however, that the synchronic and diachronic syntax of relative possessives in Afrikaans requires further investigation.

3.2

West-Germanic relativization systems and the provenance of the Afrikaans relativization system

In Section 2 a variety of West-Germanic varieties of language was discussed in the framework of a typology of relativization systems. As the focus was on the invariable relative markers, dialects using relative D or W-pronouns have remained a little underexposed. It should be obvious, however, that none of the dialects or languages dealt with above are connected to Afrikaans by a historically direct line. Afrikaans is grounded in Dutch, which causes the behaviour of a relative marker of the type WAT in Yiddish and North-Frisian and North-German dialects to be of little consequence for the origin of Afrikaans. The Tongeren dialect likewise is not close enough to this language. That a number of not directly related languages or dialects have opted for the same solution with regard to the lexical filling of position 2 is of course quite interesting in itself. What seem to come closest to Afrikaans invariable wat in the Dutch language area is the invariable dat of many Southern dialects, if at least we may assume that a relative marker wat could arise from a mix-up of a conjunction-like relative marker dat with the pronoun dat/wat. Verdenius (1941) already suggested a relationship with Southern dat, which was taken over in Scholtz (1958). However, the Southern dialects have been of no 17. Specifically with a human antecedent a resumptive pronoun ought to be possible. A good example of this is one of Langenhoven’s variants of die man wat die vrou dood is: [die man] wat syn vrou dood is. It is not out of the question to analyze syn also as the strong variant sij(n)/sy(n) of the possessive marker se used in those years, but this only produces a parallel analysis, which does not contradict the first one. Apart from that, in his series of variants (cf. note 2), Langenhoven does not mention a variant of the type ‘... wie syn vrouw ... (= ...wie se vrou ...).



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

importance to Afrikaans, so we will have to look at older stages of Dutch for evidence for an invariable wat. However, there is little or no chance of finding such a Dutch invariable dat. I am not familiar with an invariable relative dat dating back to seventeenth or eighteenthcentury Dutch. And according to Weijnen (1966) the same holds for the modern dialects. My own perusal of the descriptions of the dialects of West-Voorne, Katwijk aan Zee and Gouda confirms this. Although these dialects can differ from Standard Dutch in their distribution of D and W-pronouns, all of them make use of relative pronouns.18 Verdenius (1941) also posits a connection with the use of what he refers to as ‘disgruent’ dat/wat in constructions like in (29). (29) a. de Hallemannetjes, wat zulke fatsoenlijke jongetjes waren the Hallemannetjes, what such respectable little boys were ‘the Hallemannetjes, who were such respectable little boys’ b. coffeeshop De Swart, wat tweehonderd meter hiervandaan is coffee shop De Swart, what two hundred metres away from here is ‘coffe shop De Swart, which is two hundred metres away from here’ I would myself prefer wat in these cases, but Verdenius shows that in Early-Modern Dutch, until the nineteenth century, dat was not unusual. This suggestion in Verdenius (1941) was taken over in Scholtz (1958) but it is unlikely that Afrikaans invariable wat could have arisen from this use of neuter dat/ wat in amplifying relative clauses, as argued in den Besten (1978) and Ponelis (1987). What we are seeing in (29) are appositives in which the occurrence of neutral wat is governed by rules holding for the use of neutral dat in independent clauses as well. This does not imply that for the modern reader of Dutch all cases of disgruent dat/ wat in Early-Modern Dutch appeal to the ear (modulo substitution of wat by dat). In an informal register, rules can be stretched considerably without being broken. For a person having a different sense of style such a ‘transgression’ might mean that the rules are indeed broken. A case in point is provided by the letters and the ‘mondprovisieboekje’ (lit. mouthsupply-booklet) of Johanna Maria van Riebeeck from the early eighteenth century, published in Bosman (1952). Scholtz (1970) quotes some ten cases from it showing a possibly ‘unusual’ dat – naturally, always on the assumption that these have something to contribute to the origin of Afrikaans invariable wat. I investigated these cases in den Besten (1978) and came to the conclusion then that eight of the ten occurrences of wat were predictable, even though I had to strain

18. See Van Weel (1904), Overdiep (1940) and Lafeber (1967).



Roots of Afrikaans

my sense of style a little in one case. As regards the remaining two instances I have been forced to conclude that my analysis was wrong.19 Ponelis investigated the same texts later in 1984 and brought more cases of potentially deviating dat in subject or object function to light, but in those cases too I could not but conclude that the occurrence of dat was predictable. In positions in which dat would be impossible in an independent clause Johanna Maria van Riebeeck does not use it in a relative clause either.20 One thing with another, we have no evidence for a Dutch dialect system with an invariable relative marker dat or wat. This fact has consequences for our thinking about the origin of Afrikaans. As Dutch in all its variants appears to have employed relative pronouns (and still does), it is to be expected that in the natural development of the Dutch two-gender system towards Afrikaans the relative pronouns die, wie, and waar/daar would be preserved, with the simultaneous disappearance of neutral dat/wat. However, this is not what happened, at least not in present-day Afrikaans. To see this, compare the examples of the expected (but non-existing) system in (30) with the comments on the righthand side. The qualification ‘correct’ speaks for itself. “WAT” indicates that Afrikaans uses wat instead of the expected Dutch pronoun. (30) a1 a2 b1 b2

die man/die boek die hy gesien het ‘the man/the book he has seen’ die mans/die boeke die hy gesien het ‘the men/the books he has seen’ die man met wie/waarmee ons gepraat het ‘the man, with who(m) we talked’ die man waar ons mee gepraat het ‘the man, with who(m) we talked’

WAT WAT correct WAT

19. In den Besten (1978) I wrongly analyzed dat in (i) as a subject.

(i) ...en veel contrarie winden, en ook groot stiltens, dat seer holle dijninge veroorsaken, ... (30 januari 1710) ‘... and many contrary winds, and also great lulls, dat cause very hollow swell’... (30 January 1710)

And in example (ii) we appear to be faced with a stylistic transgression which is very close to ungrammaticality:

(ii) In de Eerste boom dat vast is gekuijpt int vaatje, moet in de mid(d)e Een vierkant gat wesen ... (Mondprovisieboekje, p. 136)

‘In the first tree dat is tightly cooped in the cask, there must be a square hole in the middle ...’ 20. Ponelis also mentions four cases of relative dat or die plus stranded preposition. Two of them, however, involve faulty coordinations and one requires a different analysis. The remaining one involves a split relative PP dat ... van (‘that ... of ’). The gender of the pronoun, however, agrees with the antecedent (enig goetje ‘some stuff ’), which makes it highly likely that we are dealing with an isolated mistake.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

c1 c2

die boek waarvan jy praat ‘the book you talk about’ die boek waar jy van praat ‘the book you talk about’

correct WAT

In my opinion the predicted system is less illusory then one might think, but to see this we need to have a closer look at the history of Afrikaans relativization.

4. The age of the relativization system of Afrikaans The literature on the history of Afrikaans appears to be in agreement on the period in which invariable wat had made its definitive entry as the natural relative with citizens born on the Cape. According to Scholtz (1980) and Raidt (1983, 1991) this would have taken place around 1760 or slightly earlier. This conclusion is based entirely or mainly on Scholtz (1958) and (1970), whose investigations were repeated much more elaborately and accurately by Ponelis (1987), of which Ponelis (1993) is a report. Ponelis proceeds a little more carefully than Scholtz, but he concurs with the 1760 date and adds that wat is likely to have gained predominance at an earlier time (Ponelis 1987: 68a). Scholtz’s and especially Ponelis’ data show that the present-day system of Afrikaans is difficult to detect in the eighteenth-century corpus from the Cape. Die occurs very frequently, and dat/wat en daar/waar ... P are well attested. In order to be able to assume here that wat was the standard relative already around 1760 for citizens born on the Cape, we need to take the line of a massive influence of the written Dutch language, as Scholtz and Ponelis in fact do. It would be wrong to deny the influence of the written language and I would even like to add that in the eighteenth (and sometimes well into the nineteenth) century, when it comes to the spoken language, many citizens must have experienced the existence of an Afrikaans-Dutch diglossia. In spite of this, the data do allow for a different interpretation. In my opinion, two competing relativization systems existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The first was a simplified Dutch system with die en waar ... P (and also wie and waar in PPs). In this system wat was restricted to free relatives and appositives, to the extent that the grammar allowed neutral pronouns. Moreover, this system probably also had at its disposal the possessive collocations wie se/sy and wie haar with human antecedents. The competing system must have come ‘from below’, i.e. from the slaves and the Khoekhoen (Hottentot). I refer to den Besten (1978) and Ponelis (1993) for suggestions as to its provenance. The invariable wat of present-day Afrikaans figured in this system. The question is whether or not this system already had Pied-Piping and with it the relatives wie and waar at its disposal. This also holds for the possessives wie se/sy and wat se/sy, although the implicit possessives of the type wati (...) diei might be attributable to the Creole system.



Roots of Afrikaans

Speakers of the derived system of Dutch were especially to be found among the European colonists, even though they experienced the influence of the Creole system, which they had to be able to use every now and then. Their endogenous die-system allowed them to remain fairly close to Dutch in their relative clauses (modulo some gender mistakes). On the grounds of this mixed situation two types of deviation in Cape writings are to be expected from a Dutch point of view: incorrect use of die, due to the simplified Dutch relativization system, and incorrect use of dat/wat, on the grounds of the substandard system that later became Standard Afrikaans. Incorrect use of die can be exemplified by the following words from 1747 written by the Cape citizen Wynand Louw. (31) a. ...een afdack die in syn schaepe krael stondt ...a lean-to die in his sheep pen stood ...‘a lean-to which stood in his sheep pen’

(Scholtz 1970: 41)

We see an incorrect use of dat/wat in the following reported words of a female slave from 1762 (Scholtz 1970: 41). (31) b. dat is immers dinge dat de baas nooijt aan mijn gedaan heeft that is surely things dat the boss never to me done has ‘those are things that the boss has never done to me’ (The other examples of incorrect dat/wat all hail from Cape citizens.) The substandard system with invariable wat, represented by (31b) above, has eventually gained the upper hand of the simplified Dutch relativization system, with a number of aspects of the latter system such as Pied-Piping of prepositions and relative se-possessives being taken over in the Creole system. It is not impossible that the confusion about relative possessives has something to do with this. But it does not mean that the Dutch system had suddenly disappeared around, let us say, 1800. The diachronic data that have come down to us show a gradual process of language death, and we may take it for granted that speakers whose Afrikaans leaned against Dutch more closely took longer over these changes than others. It is a pity that the data on the gradual disappearance of die (and daar/waar ... P) in the nineteenth and early-twentieth century have not yet been put in their proper order in the historical linguistic handbooks of Afrikaans. I will therefore provide a survey of what I have come across in my reading of the historical literature. To begin with, there are the five articles on early-nineteenth-century Afrikaans in Scholtz (1965). Scholtz unearthed a mixed pattern of die and wat (sometimes dat) in the authors Meurant and Boniface and in the bilingual Kaatje Kekkelbek; or, Life among the Hottentots, which has nothing to do anymore with the distribution of die and dat/ wat in Dutch. Two letters in Afrikaans, dated 1829 and 1851, turned out to yield no news on this score, although the use of die sixteen times in the latter stood out as against a single case of alles dat. In addition, Scholtz also mentions one case of wat ... P.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

In his analysis of the diary of the voortrekker-leader Louis Trigardt, the official letters of Michiel A. Oberholster and Gideon Joubert, an official report by Joubert, and some thirty documents of the voortrekker-leader Andries W.J. Pretorius, Smuts (1968) found a possibly even stronger position for die (and daar/waar ... P). In this context it may be proper to point out that Smuts, while referring to the use of die by others in the same period, suggests that die still belonged to the spoken language at that time (Smuts 1968: 12). In Trigardt’s diary, Smuts observed the mixed non-Dutch system of Meurant and Boniface, with a preponderance of die. He noticed almost exclusively die in Oberholster, Joubert and Pretorius, who wrote in a more official style. Moreover, he noted that all the authors investigated by him use waar or daar plus a stranded-or-not preposition, besides only a single instance of wat ... P in Trigardt. During the first half of the nineteenth century, wat was clearly on the advance, while die was still firmly grounded. The use of die must have declined quickly in the second half of the nineteenth century. At any rate this is what Van Rensburg and Combrink (1984) have noted for Transvaal Afrikaans from the period 1866 – 1899. It follows from their calculations that, from 1866 to 1883, 25,2% of the relative clauses still began with die, which had declined to 6% from 1895 to 1899. In an article on 515 documents from two Cape newspapers between 1860 and 1875 and a periodical from the Oranje-Vrijstaat, Raidt (1992: 303) concludes that in the materials she examined wat was obviously the relative pronoun, but that die still led a tenacious existence. Unfortunately, she does not bolster this statement with statistical data, but she does specify that in the documents from 1864 by Jantje Eenvoudig, die occurs 104 times besides 73 times wat and 18 times dat, while Samuel Zwaartman in his documents dated 1871 always uses wat, with one exception.21 These data are not inconsequential since the English-speaking H.W.A. Cooper, who had learned Afrikaans in everyday life, hides behind Samuel Zwaartman, and Jantje Eenvoudig (lit. John Simpleton) presumably is a pseudonym of the Reverend Th. F. Burgers, a future president of the Transvaal province. Thus, these men probably represent different language circles in their use of Afrikaans. It is likely that the acquired Afrikaans of Cooper/Zwaartman was based on the Afrikaans of the common farmer and in that type of Afrikaans (as in the Afrikaans of the coloured substrate) wat evidently was the rule, although die was still known. This would also account for the rapid decline of die in Transvaal Afrikaans: the letter writers adapted themselves to the spoken language more and more, whereas, presumably simultaneously, the low frequency of die deteriorated still more. The high frequency of die in the Afrikaans of Jantje Eenvoudig/Th.F. Burgers does not run counter to this claim, as Burgers belong to a different stratum of society. 21. For relatives in Jantje Eenvoudig see also Raidt (1987: 272, 1989: 281). The second article for that matter provides two different ratings of relative die: 104 vs. 92. It also appears from a quotation that Jantje Eenvoudig also used waar ... P (Raidt 1987: 266).



Roots of Afrikaans

Although this implies a greater familiarity with Dutch, it does not mean that die is a Dutchism in his written Afrikaans. Burgers has tried his best to write the Afrikaans of social interaction, with vir, nie-2 and other characteristics, as becomes clear in Raidt (1987: 271–272, 1989). It would be odd if he had not taken his chances in the case of the relatives. However, in view of his social position Burgers probably spoke so-called Gentlemen-Afrikaans, and for him free variation between die and wat was apparently normal. In view of this, it becomes understandable why Trigardt, Meurant and Boniface make use of the mixed system. Louis Trigardt must have spoken Gentlemen-Afrikaans (cf. Roberge 1994)), while the foreigners Meurant and Boniface, who wrote in Afrikaans, belonged to the cultural superstratum, which Cooper did not. In spite of that, relative die was doomed to death because it had to compete in Gentlemen-Afrikaans with wat, while it was virtually absent in the Afrikaans of the middle and lower classes. It is quite possible that die was still in very occasional use in the spoken language at the beginning of the twentieth century. It might explain why the Cape purist J.H.H. de Waal, in his ‘Netherlandish’ period, dared to use ‘Dutch’ die instead of ‘Afrikaans’ wat, as Pienaar (1919: 127) tells us. The same ‘Netherlandizing’ tendency induced other newspaper writers of that period to (unsystematically) use die instead of wat, as was established by Steyn (1989: 25–26) for the period up to about 1917.22 But less educated people could still use die, as is clear from the following sentence from Siener van Rensburg’s vision of 5 September 1919 (Snyman 1996). (32) ... en toe verander hij in een duif die in die pot loop ... and then change he into a dove die into the pot walk ‘... and then he changed into a dove that walked into the pot’. These are the final convulsions of die, however, for Van Rensburg in principle only used the present-day system of Afrikaans with wat. In tandem with the die-relatives (one clear case, two unclear ones) we find in his writings a few more cases of relatives with waar .. P by the side of the more normal pattern wat ... P.

22. In his English grammar of Afrikaans of 1910 De Waal asserts that wat is in more general use than die. Moreover, in restrictive relative clauses wat would be used: Mense wat nie werk nie is luiaards (People WHAT not work are lazy-bones) vs. Sulke mense, die tog netmaar ‘n las is vir die maatskappy, is daar baiing (Such people, DIE are a burden to society anyway, are there many) (Steyn 1989: 26). In my opinion, this is an indication that ‘Dutch’ die is moribund or obsolete already: only in appositives could De Waal see a connection between relative die and the pronoun die ‘this, that’, which made die sound acceptable.



Chapter 4.  Afrikaans relative ‘wat’ and West-Germanic relativization systems 

5. Concluding remarks In this article I have attempted to defend an earlier analysis of mine concerning the invariable relative item wat, among other things with the help of the relativization systems of West-Germanic. It has become evident that in West-Germanic (somewhat) related systems may be found, but that none of these systems can be connected historically to Afrikaans. On the other hand, the Dutch dialect systems introduced into South Africa should have led to a relativization system with die and waar ... P. This system turns out to have existed earlier, side by side with a substandard system that eventually, with an admixture of a number of Dutch elements, developed into Standard Afrikaans. With my proposal for the diachrony of the Afrikaans relativization system I deviate from the standard treatment in the handbooks of Afrikaans. At the same time, however, I affiliate myself with Roberge’s (1995, 1996) proposal of assuming a sociolinguistically layered language system for the Cape Province, with Dutch-like and Creole-like language varieties next to each other. It would appear that this view, subscribed to in principle by Ponelis (1993) as well, can now also be applied successfully to the history of relativization in Afrikaans.

chapter 5

Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin A first attempt Afrikaans seems to have lost the Dutch independent demonstrative dat ‘that’ as well as the pronoun het ‘it’ and the attributive element deze ‘this, these’, while independent dit ‘this’ seems to have taken over the functions of dat and het and while attributive die ‘that, those’ has acquired a proximate reading (Afr. dié week ‘this week’). In the present paper it is argued, however, that the weak pronoun het was bound to disappear anyway, that dat only underwent phonological change (so that dat and dit couldn’t be distinguished any longer) and that the changes in the system of attributive demonstratives are due to developments in Cape Dutch Pidgin.*

1. Introduction While personal pronouns in Afrikaans seem to continue a non-standard Dutch system,1 Afrikaans demonstratives are quite a different ballgame: (a) The Dutch system seems to be inverted: (a1) afr. dit ‘it, that’ corresponds to du. dit ‘(independent) this’. (However, see below.) (a2) afr. dié ‘this, these’ corresponds to du. die ‘(nonneuter) that, those’. (However, see below.)

* This paper was first published in Complex processes in New Languages, Enoch Aboh en Norval Smith (eds), 201–219. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2009 (CLL 35). It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 1. However, note that in addition to the Germanic 2nd person pronouns (jy ‘2sg’, julle ‘2pl’, u ‘2rev’) there is a set of auxiliary 2sg pronouns derived from titles such as Oom ‘Uncle, Sir’, Pa ‘Dad’, Professor ‘Professor’, etc. Corresponding plurals can be formed by means of the associative marker -hulle ‘-them’: Oom-hulle ‘you, uncle/Sir, and others’, etc. This kind of plural formation has minimally effected the Germanic pronominal system in that there is an associative plural of u ‘2rev’: u-hulle ‘2rev-them’. Cf. den Besten (1996, 2001).



Roots of Afrikaans

(b) Certain forms seem to have disappeared:2 (b1) dat ‘(independent) that’, (b2) dat ‘(attributive, neuter) that’ (b3) deze ‘(attributive, nonneuter) this, these’. (b4) dit ‘(attributive, neuter) this’. (However, see below.) (c) There are new, un-Germanic formations: hierdie (lit.) ‘here-the/that’ [= ‘this, these’] and daardie (lit.) ‘there-the/that’ [= ‘that, those’]. (d) Afrikaans is moving away from the Dutch dichotomous (proximate ~ distal) demonstrative system: hierdie ‘this, these’~ daardie ‘that, those’ to a trichotomous system: hierdie ‘this, these’ ~ daardie ‘that, those’ ~ doerdie ‘yonder’. The facts are more complex than that in that (a) and part of (b) must be qualified (which will be done below). Note that about everything in (a) through (d) is discussed in the literature.3 Yet, for most of the 20th century Afrikaans historical linguistics seems to have taken the surprising semantic swap involving dié (distal → proximate) and dit (proximate → distal) as a fact of history. This partly changed with the publication of Ponelis (1993). Ponelis took things more seriously but this was mainly “thinking on paper”: no clear decision is taken, unfortunately. Since there is quite some in-depth literature on (c) and (d),4 this paper will be devoted to (a) and (b): the origins of dit will be discussed in Section 2, potential evidence from Cape Dutch Pidgin (henceforth: CDP) in Section 3, unexpected uses of dit in older Khoekhoe Afrikaans and CDP in Section 4, and the origins of dié in Section 5. Section 6, finally, will wrap up the results.

2. The origins of dit 2.1

Cautioning remarks

As I indicated above, (a) must be qualified and so must (b). Since the present section concerns the independent pronoun dit, I will restrict my qualifying remarks to (a1) and (b1), which are repeated here for convenience: (a1) Afr. dit ‘it, that’ corresponds to du. dit ‘(independent) this’. (b1) The Dutch form dat ‘(independent) that’ seems to have disappeared Both statements are slightly imprecise in that afr. dit ‘it, that’ may also mean ‘this’ under certain circumstances, while dat ‘that’ may be used in Afrikaans, provided it is in opposition to dit – although in the latter case it is not clear to me whether speakers of 2. Dutch nouns are neuter or non-neuter in the singular an non-neuter in the plural. Attributive demonstratives vary according to the gender of the noun. 3.

See Ponelis (1993: Ch. 8).

4. See den Besten (1989), Ponelis (1993) and Roberge (2001).



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

Afrikaans interpret dit as ‘this’ and dat as ‘that’. But let us assume they do. In that case the following example is illustrative both of the occasionally proximate reading for dit, and of the residual use of du. dat ‘that’:5 (1)

Maar dit kon nie gedoen word nie en dat But this could not done be not and that kon nie gedoen word nie could not done be not [i.e. we couldn’t do anything at all]

However, apart from examples such as (1) it is difficult to imagine a polysemous lexical analysis for afr. dit. Dit seems to be a third person pronoun, which speakers of Dutch and English – due to the structure of their respective lexicons – have to interpret as that, this or it (in Dutch: dat, dit and het) – meaning differences that speakers of Afrikaans do not seem to have to worry about since there is only one form, dit. However, some caution is required. On the one hand, it is true that a sentence like (2) is ambiguous for a speaker of English or Dutch while a speaker of Afrikaans seems to be perfectly happy with such a construction: (2) Dit is my biblioteek/suster This/That is my library/sister However, speakers of Afrikaans are able to express the subtle (and often not so subtle) differences between this and that (du. dit and dat) by adding either the demonstrative hierdie ‘this (one)’ or the demonstrative daardie ‘that (one)’ to the sentence:6

(3) Dit is my {biblioteek/suster}, {hierdie/daardie}

But, again, this does not show that afr. dit is ambiguous. Example (3) only shows that Afrikaans speakers can make the same distinctions as speakers of English or Dutch, while Example (2) shows that they don’t have to. Furthermore, we already know that the difference between dit in the sense of ‘it’ and dit in the sense of ‘this/that’ is nonexistent. However, non-referential, abstract dit may provide counter-evidence, in that it may not be focused or contrastively stressed: (4) a. {*DIT/Dit} reënt {*THAT/It} rains b. {*DIT/Dit} lyk vir my dat hy jou nie verstaan nie {*THAT/It} seems to me that you not understands not For the time being I will assume that these facts can be accounted for under a unitary analysis for dit. The question now is how this generalized demonstrative pronoun dit came to exist. 5.

Cf. the discussion of dit in Ponelis (1969).

6. Cf. Ponelis (1979) and Donaldson (1993).



Roots of Afrikaans

2.2

Afrikaans linguistics on the origins of dit

Donaldson (1993: 127n, 142) assumes that afr. dit ‘it, that, this’ derives from du. dit ‘this’, which seems to be a bit too simplistic. But note that this is a diachronic side-remark in the context of a synchronic description of Afrikaans. However, Ponelis (1993: 169), a diachronic study of Afrikaans, says roughly the same when he is referring to “[t]he conversion of dit ‘it’ from a demonstrative ‘this’ to a neutral third person pronoun.” However, on the preceding page we find: “The demonstrative pronouns dit and dat were bleached to third-person pronouns dit/dat ‘it’.” He should have added that dat would subsequently disappear. But the latter point is elaborated upon in the next chapter from which I quote the following: Currently dat has been ousted completely by dit. Present-day dit ‘it’ may be the continuation of earlier dit ‘this’, the marked demonstrative. If this is so, then it is puzzling that marked dit supervened over unmarked dat. What seems to have happened, is that the demonstrative proximate-distal opposition between dit ‘this’ and dat ‘that’ was lost when these demonstratives moved into the territory of neutral reference occupied by het ‘it’. This entailed the loss of marking: as a neutral referential term dit was as unmarked as dat, and they competed as free variants. As a neutral referential term, the phonologically weaker form with shwa, dit, prevailed over the fuller form dat. There remains a further possibility: that the original dit ‘this’ disappeared and that Afrikaans dit is derived not from earlier dit ‘this’ but from dat by weakening of [a] to shwa: dat > dit. (Ponelis 1993: 212)7

This is the first serious attempt to come to grips with the emergence of the Afrikaans neuter pronoun dit. Although more could be said I will restrict myself to the following comments: (a) In view of the structure of the Dutch pronominal paradigm only distal dat could have been substituted for het (for which see below). Therefore – and for reasons expounded below – Ponelis’ “further possibility” must be on the right track. However, most probably du. dit did not disappear. Instead, it was absorbed by the new pronominal element dit ‘it, that’ ( Dis) nie duidelik of hy kom nie It is not clear whether he comes not b. Dit reën It rains

10. Whenever a sentence starts with a word starting with an apostrophe, the capital marking the beginning of the sentence is realized on the first word that does not start with an apostrophe, usually the second word of such a sentence. E.g. ’t Was waar ‘It was true’.



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

2.4

Where does afr. dit come from?

A quick-and-dirty comparison of Dutch and Afrikaans shows that both du. ’t/het ‘it’ and du. dat ‘that’ have disappeared from South African Dutch and that du. dit ‘this’ seems to have taken over. The disappearance of ’t/het is something to be expected: in the protracted history of L2 acquisition of Cape Dutch the strong forms had the best chances to survive. The only thing that is slightly surprising is the fact that the dummy subject ’t/het, which does not have a strong counterpart, could survive through dit. However, this is only surprising for those who regard the change from the Dutch pronominal system to the Afrikaans one as a case of impoverishment. Note that the other dummy subject of Dutch, er ‘there’, has undergone a similar change: daar, er’s strong counterpart in the functions, and in fact the etymological source for er,11 has taken over all functions of er, among which its function as a dummy subject. Cf. Table 2 and the examples in (11) and (12) below. (11) a. Waarom wordt er niet meer gelachen? b. Waarom word daar nie meer gelag nie? Why is there not anymore laughed (not)?

[Du.] [Afr.]

(12) a. Er zijn hier veel bavianen b. Daar is hier baie bobbejane There are here many baboons Now note that in Afrikaans it is distal daar and not proximate hier that has taken over the sub-paradigm of the demonstrative locative elements. So why did dit ‘this’ take over in the case of the 3rd person singular neuter pronoun? I would like to suggest the following answer: Table 2.  Locative-like elements12 Settler’s Dutch Dummy Subj. Locative R-Pron

s

–

w s w s w

er/d’r/’r daar er/d’r/a’r daar + P er/d’r/a’r + P

Afrikaans

–

daar

–

hier – hier + P –

– daar – daar + P –

hier – hier + P –

11. Note that er is another example of apostrophe avoidance. Er “should” be ’r or d’r. (i.e [6r] or [d6r]). Due to spelling pronunciation er is often pronounced [εr]. 12. Locative element + P stands for P + pronoun with animate reference: P + ‘it/that’ and P + ‘this’ respectively.



Roots of Afrikaans

(13) The Dit/dat hypothesis Afrikaans dit ‘it, that’ does not derive from du. dit ‘(independent) this’ but from du. dat ‘(independent) that’ – and only secondarily from du. dit ‘(independent) this’. Note that this hypothesis slightly differs from the idea that appears almost as an afterthought in Ponelis’s discussion of the problem – which I repeat here for convenience: There remains a further possibility: that the original dit ‘this’ disappeared and that Afrikaans dit is derived not from earlier dit ‘this’ but from dat by weakening of [a] to shwa: dat > dit. (Ponelis 1993: 212)

It is a pity that Ponelis did not work this out in any detail, but it is clear from the text that for Ponelis this was just an alternative hypothesis and not necessarily his main line of thought, whereas the Dit/dat Hypothesis is the core idea of the present paper. Before discussing the phonology of this etymology I would like to expound the bonuses provided by the Dit/dat Hypothesis. First of all, by deriving afr. dit from du. dat we are getting rid of an otherwise strange semantic development. Secondly, afr. dis, a contracted form of dit is ‘it/that is’ can now be derived from du. das, a contraction of dat is ‘that is’. Note that du. dit is ‘this is’ does not contract. Compare: (14) a. Das [< Dat is] waar b. Dis [< Dit is] waar That’s/It’s true

[Du.] [Afr.]

Thirdly, the Afrikaans free relative pronoun wat ‘what’ can also be expressed by means of dit wat ‘that which’. Afr. wat and dit wat correspond to the Dutch free relative expressions wat ‘what’ and dat wat ‘that which’ respectively, while du. *dit wat ‘this which’ is ungrammatical. Compare: (15) a. (Dat) wat hij zegt, is waar b. (Dit) wat hy sê, is waar (That) what/which he says, is true Forthly, dat and das are well-known variants of dit ‘it, that’ and dis ‘it/that is’ in Khoekhoe Afrikaans.13 Now the question is how the form dit may have come about. Let us suppose that in CDP and in Cape Dutch dat was used as an independent demonstrative. If my database can be trusted such was indeed the case. A few examples from the pidgin are:

13. Cf. Rademeyer (1938).



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

(16) a. wat Capiteyn [...] is dat! What Captain [...] is that!

(1668; van Overbeke 1668; 1998: 82)14

b. Dat is doet15 That is good

(1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140)

c. is dat braa? Is that right?

(1705 – 1713; Kolb 1719: 417)

Now it so happens that in non-standard Afrikaans the 〈a〉 of function words like as ‘if ’, lat/dat ‘(subordinating) that’, and sal ‘will’ can be turned into 〈i〉: is ‘if ’, lit/dit ‘(subordinating) that’, and sil ‘will’. This type of variation is reported for Namaqualand by von Wielligh (1925: 160–161). Similar variation between demonstrative dat and dit may have created dit out of the Dutch demonstrative dat. Supporting evidence may be derived from Grebe (2001), which discusses some phonological phenomena in the Swellendam dialect (which is not a variety of Khoekhoe Afrikaans). On p. 93 Grebe mentions the variant ken for the modal auxiliary kan ‘can’. However, I found more occurrences of kin in Grebe’s transcripts than occurrences of ken, as well as many cases of sil (< sal ‘shall, will’) vs. not a single occurrence of *sel.16 If (kan ~) ken ~ kin is part of the more general non-standard [ı] ~ [7] allophony, as Grebe seems to suggest, the pair sal ~ sil becomes even more telling. And since the incidence of [ı] → [7] seems to be higher than the incidence of its converse, with a nasal coda as a facilitating factor for either change,17 we might tentatively construe the historical chains kan → kin → ken and sal → sil.18 This implies that kh. afr. dat does not derive from afr. dit but rather the other way around: afr. and kh. afr. dit derives from dat. In General Afrikaans the non-standard variant dit has become the standard form and has absorbed – or rather: ousted – proximate dit. The question is of course why. The following scenario seems possible:

14. References to the sources of CDP data are structured as follows: year or period in which the sentence was recorded; the original source an – if applicable – the modern edition. 15. Doet is a typo. In the 1685 manuscript original we find goet ‘good’. Cf. den Besten (2007b). 16. In a (fictitious?) letter to the editor of De Zuid-Afrikaan in 1831, written by EEN BOER (‘a farmer’) from the Swellendam district (Nienaber 1971: 52) I found three instances of kan and six instances of dit ‘it, that’ without phonological variation. However, there is variation in the form of the subordinator dat ‘that’: 6 times dat, 6 times dit. 17. Cf. le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 54) and Links (1989: 10–11). Some examples from Grebe (2001): [ı] → [7]: distrek ‘district’, wenkel- ‘shop’, denk ‘think’, deng ‘thing’, seng ‘sing’, en ‘in’, senk ‘zinc’; (b) [7] → [ı]: omtrint ‘about’, ik ‘I’, in ‘and’, mit ‘with’. 18. However, sel can at least be found in the documents of the Cape archives (e.g. Franken 1953: 93). So, maybe sal → sil is a ‘syncopated’ variant of a chain sal → sel → sil. Consequently kin may be an endpoint rather than an intermediary stage. Which scenario is best is something for future research (preferably by a phonologist).



Roots of Afrikaans

Two phonological factors may have played a role here: (a) The Afrikaans [ι] is somewhat centralized and so is difficult to distinguish from the schwa, (b) [α] is a wellknown colloquial and non-standard substitute for the schwa. So the originally non-standard variant dit may have acquired a higher status due to [α]-avoidance. In short: afr. dit out of du. dat is in a sense a case of hypercorrection. Now note that the subordinator dat ‘that’ did not change to dit. So why is there hypercorrection in the case of demonstrative dat and not in the case of the subordinator? In so far as I can see this difference may be due to a difference in sentence prosody, which in turn is due to the different syntaxes of the subordinator and the demonstrative pronoun. The subordinator dat can only appear in clause-initial position and depending upon what follows it will count as a strong or a weak syllable. The demonstrative, however, usually appears in a metrically weak position. Even SpecTopP, which requires the strong form of an object pronoun, is metrically weak. So, demonstrative dat could be misconstrued as a non-standard variant [dιt]/[d6t]. Most probably other factors played a role as well. Dutch speakers of Cape Dutch Pidgin may have understood [dιt]/[d6t] as a new variant of the pronoun ’t ([6t]) ‘it’ and could have integrated this feature into their vernacular. Furthermore, given the high amount of phonological variation involving [ι], [6] and [α] the old opposition between unmarked dat ‘that’ vs. marked dit ‘this’ must have broken down completely, And thus arose a generalized demonstrative, which – insofar as I know – is not due to substrate influences. It is important to notice, though, that this may look like simplification – and it is possible that for a short period this was the case indeed – but after the creation of the items hierdie ‘this (one)’ and daardie ‘that (one)’ the Afrikaans demonstrative system was in a way more complex than its Dutch counterpart – and it still is.

3. Potential evidence from CDP It would be nice if we could find supporting evidence for the Dit/dat Hypothesis in our CDP data. And there is indeed some evidence. First of all, there are two sentences in Kolb (1719) which are identical but for the demonstrative pronouns used (Examples (17a) and (18a) below).19 In both cases Kolb translates the subject with the German proximate demonstrative dieses ‘this’, for which compare (17b) and (18b): (17) a. Dat is Hottentotts Manier, ... That is Hottentottic custom b. Dieses ist Hottentotten Manier, ... This is Hottentots’ custom

(1705–1713; Kolb 1719: 432)

19. The spelling difference Hottentotts ~ Hottentots is irrelevant.



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

(18) a. Dit is Hottentots Manier, ... This is Hottentottic custom b. Dieses ist der Gebrauch bey den Hottentotten. This is the custom amon the Hottentots  (1705–1713; Kolb 1719: 549) This may be indicative of phonological variation but a ‘correcting hand’ (either Kolb’s or somebody else’s), changing dit into dat in (17a), cannot be excluded. But we don’t need these two sentences to argue for phonological variation in the “Dutch” distal demonstrative in CDP. At least some of the occurrences of dat in our CDP data will be original. What we need is at least one case of dit meaning ‘that’. Example (18a) presents us with such a case. Or – to put it differently – dit in (18a) is an early case of afr. dit ‘it, that, (this)’ and my gloss (‘this’) and Kolb’s translation (germ. Dieses ‘this’) are misleading. But misleading though Kolb’s translation though may be, it shows that dit in (18a) is original. For a native speaker of Dutch, however, proximate dit is more marked, formal, literary, etc. than distal dat. (Similarly for germ. Dies/dieses and das). That is why the ‘correcting hand’ changed dit into dat in (17a) – probably in haste, and not noticing dieses in the German translation. Now consider the ‘opposition’ between dat and dit in the following fragment of a monologue concerning a ‘medication’: (19) Vrouw, jou Tover Goeds bra bytum, dat is waar, Woman, your magic stuff heavily bytes, that is true, maar jou Tover Goeds ook weer gezond maakum, dit is ook waar, ... but your magic stuff also again healthy makes, this is also true, ...  (1705–1713; Kolb 1719: 439) Assuming a ‘correcting hand’ in this case is somewhat unlikely, since – from a Dutch (or German) point of view – two times dat is perfect and the textual sequence ... dat ... dit ... (i.e. distal before proximate) is strange. But if this is genuine CDP dat and dit may be two representatives of the same generalized demonstrative, “afr.” dit. And in this case Kolb translates dat with germ. das ‘that’, while editing out dit: ... das muß ich bekennen/alleine ich muß auch gestehen ‘... I have to confess that. However, I also have to admit ...’ So the the sequence dat before dit may very well be original.20 Therefore, Example (19) provides evidence 〈a〉 ~ 〈i〉 variation postulated in Section 2. Finally, the following monologue from Langhanß (1705) may provide evidence for the change from is ‘if, when’ to is in CDP:21 20. The full “translation” runs as follows: Frau ! euer Zauber-Guth beisset wohl hefftig/das muß ich bekennen: alleine ich muß auch gestehen/daßes herrlich heilet und gesund macht ‘Woman! Your magic stuff is biting heavily; I have to confess that. However, I also have to admit that it is healing splendidly and restores one’s health.’ 21. For a discussion of the syntax of this monologue see den Besten (2007a: 159).



Roots of Afrikaans

(20)

Hollænder arbeitem sterbem dem [THE] Dutchman works dies then (?) Hottentot sterbem is storben [THE] Hottentot dies (a) has [3sgm] died [3sgm]

(b) when [3sgm] dies krup der ard als ock Hollender mann crawls [IN(TO)] the earth as also [THE] Dutchman man ‘The Dutchman is working and then dies. The Hottentot dies [i.e. without heavy work.] (a) Has he died, OR (b) When he dies, he slips into the earth, as does the Dutchman.’ (1694; Langhanß 1705: 119)22 This monologue is marred by a couple of Germanicisms and corruptions three of which are important for our understanding of the text. Firstly, dem probably is a typo for the Early Modern German temporal adverb denn ‘then’. Secondly, unless der is a typo we are forced to read it as the dative feminine singular of the German article, which would lead to the undesirable reading ‘crawling around in the earth’. Since we don’t need the subtleties of German grammar anyway, we had better interpret der as another typo.23 Finally: is storben. This could be read as a V1 conditional on the basis of the perfect of sterven ‘die’. This interpretation is a bit doubtful but not impossible. But why is the past participle storben and not gestorben? This is a legitimate question since nonstandard Afrikaans has expanded the use of the participial prefix ge-, e.g. gevergeet ‘forgotten’ as against (*ge)vergeet in Standard Afrikaans (du. (*ge)vergeten). Therefore, Langhanß may have heard is sterben with is as a variant of as ‘if, when’. Being unaware of the change from 〈a〉 to 〈i〉 in function words he interpreted is as a temporal auxiliary and changed the stem-vowel of sterben, although he did not dare to add the prefix gebecause he had not heard that.24 22. Note that in Raven-Hart’s collection of Cape fragments from travelogues (Raven-Hart 1971: II, 407) the following inaccuracies can be found: (a) Hollænder →Hollaender (which hardly can be called an error), (b) storben → storbem (c) ard omitted, (d) Hollender →Hollaender. The inaccuracies (a) and (d) can also be found in my own transcript of this monologue in den Besten (2007a: 159). 23. In German in governing dative case indicates location (‘in’), and in governing accusative case direction (‘into’). – Since early CDP hardly made use of definite articles it is also possible that der is a typo for the preposition onder ‘under’. The German “translation”, which I will quote here in full, does not contain any evidence to choose between die → der and onder → der: die Holländer arbeiten und plagen sich sehr/die Hottentotten aber nicht/endlich sterben sie alle beyde/ und wird auch einer so wohl als der andere in die Erde begraben. ‘the Dutch work and toil very much; the Hottentots, however, don’t. In the end they both die, and one as well as the other is buried in the earth’ (Langhanß 1705: 119). 24. Further aspects: (a) For pro-drop under inversion see den Besten (2007a). (b) For [b] instead of [v] see den Besten (1999).



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

If this argument can be upheld, the likelihood that we may have early pidgin cases of afr. dit ‘it, that’ in (17)–(19) is enhanced.

4. More on dat/dit in Khoekhoe Afrikaans Interestingly, Khoekhoe Afrikaans has introduced further changes, which have never reached General Afrikaans. According to von Wielligh (1925: 109, 141, 163) dit could – at least in his days – be used as an attributive demonstrative (‘that, those’). It goes without saying that the variant dat is also possible: (10) a.

Soos {dit/dat/det}25 man kan rook, Such as that man can smoke het ek nog nie gesien nie have I yet not seen not

b. Ei! is dit meisie nie mooi nie! Wow! is that girl not beautiful not!

[N] [CV]

Von Wielligh mentions this use of dit for Namaqualand [N] and for the districts of Clanwilliam and Vanrhynsdorp [CV].26 I could find no confirmation for this phenomenon in Rademeyer (1938), Links (1989) or van Rensburg (1984). However there is somewhat unusual confirmation in Jacobs (1942), a book full of “Griqua stories”. This book is somewhat problematic in that many of the stories – also those that are supposed to be historical – clearly typify the Griquas (and the Koranas). This probably explains the heavy use of attributive dat ‘that, those’ (also ‘the’). Nevertheless the feature as such seems to be genuine, also in view of the fact that it is restricted to stories about the 19th century. 20th century conversations with Griquas or Koranas reported upon in this book don’t provide any evidence for that feature at all. (22) a. Kom ons lêe-jnaap dat gemsbok se boudvleis (p. 104) Come we asp-cut that gemsbuck ’s haunch-meat b.

As jelle-goed se mans te broekbang ees om dat If 2pl ’s men too trousers-afraid are for those bobbejaansnetters die nek en te moker, ... (p. 47) baboon-chatters [i.e. San] the neck in to bash, ...

This use of attributive dat may well be an old feature of Cape Dutch Pidgin, but this cannot be proven because all instances of attributive dat (or dit) in my pidgin database 25. The same variation (dit, dat, dêt) is mentioned for the complementizer dat (Namaqualand). 26. Scholtz (1958 [1963]: 127) found a similar system in letters written by Piet Retief (early 19th century). E.g. dat natie ‘that nation’, dat school ‘that school’, dat kraalen ‘those kraals’. Note that the nouns are historically non-neuter.



Roots of Afrikaans

are construed with etymologically neuter nouns, such as schaap ‘sheep’, beest ‘animal’, koper ‘copper’, which would require dat (or dit) in Dutch anyway. So we need cases of dat or dit combined with a historically non-neuter noun. Kolb (1719: 358) provides us with one such case in a monologue by Captain Pegu (unfortunately in Dutch, not in CDP): dit Hals-Band ‘this/that neck-lace’. But this may be due to Kolb’s native German, in which Halsband is neuter. Yet, the following mixture of Dutch and German may provide evidence for the use of dat/dit + Noun in CDP: (23)

[on eating lice] dat Schindhund u. beidden wier That/Those blood-sucker-[pl] 1pl.acc bitte 1pl. nom. weder beidden, unser Blut Suugum, wier again/back bitte 1pl.poss. blood suck 1pl. nom. weder suugen unser Blut again/back suck, 1pl.poss. blood

Meister did not try to write Germanized CDP. He tried to write up what he had heard in a graphemically consistent manner.27 Apparently he had heard oens ‘us’ and oens se (or: oense) ‘our’ (as in later Khoekhoe Afrikaans),28 and wi ‘we’. He interpreted these as germ. uns ‘us’ (>u.), unser ‘our’ and wir (here written wier) ‘we’, which was possible due to the existence of syllable-final r-deletion in CDP as spoken by the Khoekhoen.29 What is important for us, however, is the following: Meister didn’t remember the second word of this monologue and he used germ. Schindhund ‘blood-sucker’ as a substitute, while keeping the attributive demonstrative dat in place. So he had heard dat + N and since he did not remember the noun the form of attributive dat (dat and not die) cannot be due to ‘editing’. Furthermore, after inserting the non-neuter (masculine) German noun Schindhund he did not edit the text either. So there was a pattern dat + N in CDP and that means that the following example with the historically neuter noun beest ‘animal’ may be genuine: (24) [concerning a praying mantis] gy dit Beest fangum zoo, en nu dood makum zoo, is dat braa? 2 this/that animal catch son, and now dead make so, is that proper?  (1705–1713; Kolb 1719: 417) 27. Cf. 〈uu〉 (=[y]) in suugum, suugen vs. 〈u〉 (=[u]) in u[ns], unser, Blut, -um. – Graphemic consistency explains why du. bloed ‘blood’ is changed into its homophenous German cognate Blut. – Note that graphemic consistency yields an argument for the presence of a (high) back vowel in the CDP “suffix” -um. But that is the topic for another paper. 28. Cf. oens ‘1PL’ and oense ‘our’ in Khoekhoe-Afrikaans (Rademeyer 1938: 45, 69; Links 1989: 14). 29. Cf. den Besten (2009: 234–235).



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

The same may hold of the following example. But here things are complicated by the fact that the potential pidgin phrase dat schaap is embedded in a Dutch sentence: (25) Waarom neem je dat schaap, ... a. Why take 2 that sheep, ... b. Why take 2 those sheep-[pl]  (1706; Minuuten, Just[.] Attest., 1706, nr. 30; Franken 1953: 93) This is a “translation” of what “the Hottentot Lubbert” said to five runaway slaves who were each trying to steal a sheep (so five in total) from Lubbert’s kraal. What he meant was: “Why are you guys stealing those sheep?” (reading b). And he probably used the pidgin phrase dat schaap with an unmarked plural. In court this phrase was misunderstood as a Dutch singular DP: ‘that sheep’ (reading a).30 Unfortunately, it cannot be excluded that Lubbert actually had said *die schaap, meaning ‘these/those sheep’. After this long intermezzo on aspects of the use of dat in Khoekhoe Afrikaans and CDP we return to the main topic of this article and continue with the demonstrative dié.

5. The origins of dié ‘this,these’ 5.1

The various usages of dié

Dié can be used both as an attributive and as an independent demonstrative. The definition of its meaning is more complicated than was the case with dit. According to Donaldson (1993: 143) dié can mean both ‘this, these’ and ‘that, those’, but there only is an example of the proximate reading: (26) Die R20-pryse word dié week gewen deur mnr. G. du Toit The R20-prize is this week won by Mr. G. du Toit However, it is not impossible that Donaldson is connecting the distal meaning with the use of dié as a kind of third person pronoun, as in: (27) Dié het dorp toe gegaan {He/She/They} {has/have} town towards gone  [example Donaldson’s, slightly adapted] 30. In addition there are the following two early cases: (a) dat coper ‘that/the copper’, said by the Khoekhoe leader Herry (20 September 1655; Muller 1655; 1952: 418). He may have said *die coper ‘this/that/the copper’, in which case his “Dutch” has been corrected – due to the fact that his monologue had been turned into Dutch anyway. (b) dat binnenlandt ‘that/the interior’, said by Jan van Riebeeck in a conversation with Herry. Even though he may have spoken pidginized Dutch, and may have had the intention to use the dat + N pattern, dat binnenlandt does not show anything at all, since binnenlandt is a neuter noun in Dutch (14 January 1658; van Riebeeck 1658; 1955: 231).



Roots of Afrikaans

Note that this is a typically Dutch construction, as are exclamatives consisting of dié plus a given name, e.g. dié Jan! Now note that Ponelis (1979) – who does not deny the existence of pronominal dié – defines attributive dié as being equivalent to hierdie ‘this’ (pp. 91, 125). This is un-Dutch. Another example of this proximate usage can be found in the following exchange: (28) a. Wanneer sal ons dit doenj? When willl we it do? b. Dié {week/maand} This {week/month} Also note that the frozen expression diékant means ‘1. (prep.) on this side of, 2. (adv.) on this side’.

5.2

The origins of proximate dié

Pronominal dié clearly is a superstratal (Dutch) feature of Afrikaans. Proximate attributive dié is not, but I cannot link it to any of the known substrate languages (Khoekhoe, Pasar Malay, etc.) either. Therefore, it should be linked to Cape Dutch Pidgin or its successor Cape Dutch Vernacular. However, since our knowledge of these linguistic entities is very limited, any hypothesis will needs be speculative. Nevertheless let us try. Cape Dutch Pidgin made use of attributive die. Die could be a demonstrative and an article. Let us suppose that die, just like independent dat/dit, was a generalized demonstrative. However, the “invention” of attributive dat/dit may have disturbed this system. If we assume that attributive dit/dat acquired a distal reading, then dié was free to acquire a proximate reading. This is admittedly very speculative, but maybe this was the way Dutch distal die could turn into a proximate demonstrative. Note that this was possible due to the absence of gender in the pidgin and later in Afrikaans. In the Dutch gender-driven system attributive dat and die are both distal demonstratives, dat serving neuter nouns and die non-neuter ones. In Afrikaans with its gender-less system attributive dat and die could be redefined.

6. Concluding remarks In this article I have argued (a) that afr. dit ‘it, that, this’ derives from du. dat ‘that’, and (b) that given the demise of the Dutch weak pronouns in Afrikaans du. dat and (so afr. dit) had to take over the functions of du. ’t/het ‘it’, and (c) that afr. dit absorbed du. dit ‘this’. This generalized demonstrative arose in CDP. CDP dit furthermore developed a new attributive function, which survived until the early 20th century in Khoekhoe Afrikaans. Since both dit and dié could be used as attributive demonstratives functional specialization became possible. Since attributive dit is linked to independent dit, it could acquire the unmarked (distal) reading. This left the marked (proximate) reading



Chapter 5.  Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin 

for dié. Although attributive dit has disappeared, the specialized meaning of attributive dié stuck. Independent dié on the other hand clearly continues Dutch usages. However, these usages are such that independent dié better be called a generalized demonstrative pronoun, there being no demonstrative element it clearly contrasts with. Future research must show whether these hypotheses can be upheld: the semantics must be refined, hierdie ‘this, these’ and daardie ‘that, those’ must also be taken into account, and the demise of du. deze (non-neuter) ‘this, these’ must be investigated.

chapter 6

Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans* 1. Introduction The present paper addresses in the first place the diachrony of [χ]-elision in Afrikaans, as evidenced in such pairs as oog (oo[χ]) ‘eye’ – oë ‘eyes’. However, it will be suggested that this phenomenon may be related to the substitution of Afrikaans [υ] (written 〈w〉) for Dutch [v] (written 〈v〉). As regards [χ]-elision two hypotheses can be found in the literature. On the one hand there is the hypothesis in Raidt (1983) – due to a suggestion by the Belgian linguist Jan Goossens –, according to which [χ]-elision may be a Dutch dialect phenomenon. On the other hand there is the hypothesis put forward by Ponelis in de Villiers/Ponelis (1987) and in Ponelis (1990, 1993), according to which [χ]-elision should be analyzed as the deletion of a [g] which developed out of an earlier Dutch posttonic [γ]. Since there are various problems with Raidt’s (in fact Jan Goossens’s) proposal, this hypothesis cannot be upheld. Ponelis’s proposal, however, which partly goes back to an earlier suggestion by le Roux & Pienaar (1927), seems to me to be on the right track, although I would like to modify it in accordance with earlier suggestions of mine in den Besten (1987a). I would like to suggest that [χ]-elision, or rather [g]-elision, is the side-effect of a lenition phenomenon which is also responsible for the creation of Afrikaans [υ] (written 〈w〉) out of a [b] which derives from a Dutch [v] or [f]. In my view, these historical developments, which gave rise to ‘[χ]-elision’ and posttonic [υ] respectively, may be attributed to the Khoekhoen, although there may also have been some influence from speakers of certain varieties of German (cf. Ponelis 1990, 1993). This paper will proceed as follows: Section 2 will treat of the various changes that Dutch posttonic [χ] and [γ] underwent in Afrikaans, i.e. elision and strengthening. Section 3 will discuss hypotheses put forward by Raidt and Ponelis, which will lead up to my own lenition hypothesis. The latter will be compared with the hypothesis concerning the origins of Afrikaans posttonic [υ] of den Besten (1987a) (Section 4). * Revised text of a talk presented at the Workshop “Harry on the HIL” (= the 2nd Phonologica Lugduno Batavorum), University of Leiden, May 6, 1999, organized by the Holland Institute of generative Linguistics (HIL). This paper was first published in Language genesis [SPIL (Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics) 32], Rudolf P. Botha (ed.), 1999, 45–66. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged.



Roots of Afrikaans

Section 5 will discuss diachronic and dialectal data that seem to argue for influences from Khoekhoe, at least in the case of posttonic [υ], to which will be added some speculative thoughts as to why these changes may have come about (Section 6). However, before I start I would like to point out to my readers, especially to those who are acquainted with phonological and phonetic descriptions of Afrikaans, that I will not make use of the symbol [v] to represent Afrikaans written 〈w〉. The IPA symbol [v] indicates a voiced labiodental fricative, whereas the Afrikaans 〈w〉 – just like 〈w〉 in Dutch and German – stands for a labiodental nonfricative continuant, also known as a labiodental approximant (apart from some contexts where 〈w〉 may or must be pronounced as a bilabial [w]). This labiodental approximant will be represented by means of the IPA symbol [υ], while [v] will be reserved for the voiced realization of Dutch 〈v〉.1

2. [χ]-elision and strengthening: Some data In this section I shall give an overview of elision and strengthening phenomena as regards Afrikaans [χ] by making a comparison between Dutch and Afrikaans forms. For subtler subdivisions see Ponelis (1990, 1993) and le Roux & Pienaar (1927). Note that in the forms given below Dutch medial 〈g(g)〉 may be pronounced as [γ] even by some of the speakers of presentday Hollandic Dutch, where, however, a voiceless pronunciation of 〈g(g)〉 in all positions is preferred. Therefore, it is possible that 17th century Dutch, from which Afrikaans is derived, still had a [γ] in medial position, as in presentday southern Dutch dialects.

2.1

[χ]-elision: A first set of data

In the following set of data illustrating the phenomenon of [χ]-elision (which – from a Dutch point of view – might also be called [χ/γ]-elision) the first column is reserved for forms common to Dutch (D) and Afrikaans (A), i.e. for singular nouns and uninflected adjectives, while the next two columns will compare Dutch and Afrikaans forms respectively. An asterisk indicates that more will be said about the pertinent form in one of the following subsections. As (1a) shows the Dutch/Afrikaans plural ending -e(n) creates a context for [χ]-elision in Afrikaans: 1. I have to admit, though, that IPA (1949) does not seem to use [υ] at all. However, see its definition of [υ], which contradicts its own use of [υ] (and even [w]) for the description of various languages. Also compare Pullum & Laduslaw (1986). – Furthermore, note that the Afrikaans 〈w〉, just like its German counterpart is less ‘heavy’ and more v-like than the Dutch 〈w〉. Yet, in my view it still is a labiodental approximant. Readers who do not agree may substitute [v] for my [υ].



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

(1) a. Nouns + infl.

D/A dag oog brug wig

D dagen ogen bruggen wiggen

A dae oë brûe(ns)* wîe*

‘day’ ‘eye’ ‘bridge’ ‘wedge’

However medial 〈g〉 also deletes in front of a shwa inside nominal stems: (1) b. Nominal stems spiegel vogel wagen(s)

spieël ‘mirror’ voël ‘bird’ wa(ens) ‘waggon(s)’

Furthermore 〈g〉 and 〈ch〉 also delete in front of the adjectival inflectional ending -e and in front of a shwa inside adjectival and verbal stems: (1) c. Adj.s + infl

laag hoog

d. Adj. stems e. Verbal stems

lage hoge

lae hoë

‘low’ ‘high’

mager

maer

‘thin’

ver- loochen- loën*

ver-

‘deny’

A lexical exception is the ‘learned’ word nege ‘nine’, which may even be pronounced with a ‘Dutch’ [χ]:2

(1) f. Numerals  negen  nege*  ‘nine’

Note that [χ]-elision has sometimes given rise to restructured forms in Afrikaans. Thus, Afr. wa ‘waggon’ derives from Du. wage(n), while the plural retains -en-, as in Dutch. Similarly, syncopated Dutch infinitives have given rise to restructured verbal stems in Afrikaans, e.g. kry ‘to get’, which derives from Du. krijgen via an intermediate form krye, or kla/klae ‘to complain’, which derives from Du. klagen via an intermediate form klae. Note that – apart from the cases in (1b) and (1d–e) – there are no such restructured stems in the case of nominal and adjectival stems, i.e. it is oog ‘eye’ and laag ‘low’ and not *o or *la respectively. Also compare Afr. vraag ‘question’ vs. vra ‘to ask’ as against Du. vraag and vragen respectively. As for Afr. moeg ‘tired’, which corresponds to Du. moe, this may be a case of inverse restructuring, but it may also derive from a Dutch dialectal form, since forms like moeg are attested for dialects spoken in the Netherlands.3 Besides these diachronic considerations the following remarks are in order. First of all, note that adjectives ending in -ig do not drop 〈g〉 when they are inflected. Thus, the inflected form of vinnig ‘fast’ is vinni[χ]e. Similarly, -erig derivations of adjectives 2. However, also see Section 2.3. 3. E.g. muug ‘tired’ in the Utrecht dialect (Ponelis 1990: 36). Utrechtian, which does not delete intervocalic [χ/γ], belongs to the group of Hollandic dialects, which is the Dutch dialect group most closely related to Afrikaans.



Roots of Afrikaans

ending in 〈g〉 do not necessarily yield syncopated forms (moeg ‘tired’ > moe([χ])erig ‘slightly tired’). Secondly, Coetzee (1985: 7, 52, 87, 102) notes that a slight [h] may function as a hiatus filler, as in the following inflected forms: (2) dahe ohe

‘days’ – lahe ‘low’ ‘eyes’ – hohe ‘high’

Thirdly, there are quite a few lexical exceptions besides the one already mentioned above (nege). Compare the following (very incomplete) list: (3)

laggend swy(g)e dreigement wiggel riggel

‘laughing’ ‘silence’ ‘threat’ ‘to foretell’ ‘ridge’

boggel ‘hump’ kaggel ‘stove’ oggend ‘morning’

These words, whose 〈g(g)〉 must be pronounced as a voiceless velar fricative, may be Dutch loans, also in view of the fact that present participles are not particularly strong in Afrikaans. However, other factors may be at play here, especially in the case of words with an intervocalic 〈gg〉, which will be discussed in Subsection 2.4 below.4

2.2

Strengthening [χ] after sonorant consonants

Things become more complicated when we consider what happens to Dutch 〈g〉 between a sonorant consonant and a shwa. In that position 〈g〉 is either strengthened or elided. Thus, Du. burger ‘citizen’ corresponds to Afr. bur[g]er, while the Afrikaans plural of Du./Afr. ber[χ] (berg) ‘mountain’ is ber[g]e (written berge) or, in nonstandard Afrikaans also b[ε:]re. Similarly, the inflected form of er[χ] (erg) ‘bad, evil’ is er[g]e, while its comparative is er[g]er ‘worse’. Note that [χ/γ]-elision after sonorant consonants is particularly strong in restructured stems. Thus, the Dutch infinitives such as bergen ‘to store’ and zorgen ‘to care’ have given rise to the restructured Afrikaans verbal stems bêre and sôre respectively. Also compare Afr. môre ‘tomorrow’, êrens ‘somewhere’ and nêrens ‘nowhere’ as well as gorrel ‘throat, to gurgle’ and orrel ‘organ’ (instrument), which derive from Du. morge(n), ergens, nergens, gorgel(en) and orgel respectively. An interesting exception is volgens ‘according to’ (related to volg/vol[g]e ‘to follow’), which is vol[χ]ens/vol[g]ens in the standard pronunciation (with vollens a historical and dialectal variant). In view of the general pattern observed above, I am inclined to interpret the variant vol[χ]ens as a loan from Dutch. Something similar may apply in the case of the plural of gevolg ‘consequence’, which is gevol[χ]e/gevol[g]e. (As for wilgerboom/wilkerboom ‘willowtree’, which has four possible realizations, see Section 2.4 below.) 4. Cf. Ponelis (1990, 1993) and le Roux & Pienaar (1927).



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

2.3

Strengthening [χ] after vowels

After the preceding section it will not come as a surprise that [χ] may also be strengthened after vowels. However, not all cases of strengthening are accepted as Standard Afrikaans. Here the quality of the preceding vowel is the decisive factor.5 Strengthening [χ] after tense vowels is restricted to dialectal and older Afrikaans. Compare the following forms with those in (1) and (2): (4) da[g]e ‘days’ o[g]e ‘eyes’

– la[g]e ‘low’ – ho[g]e ‘high’

An exception is the numeral nege ‘nine’ (compare (1e) above), which has two variant pronunciations in the standard language: ne[χ]e and ne[g]ie – with neë as a dialectal and historical variant. The retention of the Dutch 〈g〉 – or rather of the older/dialectal [g] – may be due to the fact that neë ‘nine’ (now known as a dialectal variant) is homophonous with nee ‘no’, while the variant ne[χ]e may be a Dutch loan or a case of spelling pronunciation (or both). After lax vowels, however, strengthening of [χ] is acceptable in the standard language. Compare the following nouns with their variant plural forms: (5)

brug: bru[g]e / brûe(ns) ‘bridge’ rug 1: ru[g]e / rûe(ns) ‘back’ rug 2: ru[g]e(ns) / rûens ‘ridge’ wig: wi[g]e / wîe ‘wedge’ [where [g] is orthographically rendered as 〈gg〉]

(As for akkedis ‘lizard’, which must derive from an earlier form *a[g]edis (i.e. *aggedis), see Section 2.4 below.)

2.4

Additional remarks

The above sets of data present us with a confusing picture of the phenomena of [χ]elision and [χ]-strengthening. The confusion can be partially reduced, though, if we introduce some further concepts from historical phonology and from morphology. Let us start with the incomplete list of lexical exceptions to the phenomenon of [χ]-elision given in (3) above, which is repeated here as (6): (6)

5.

laggend swy(g)e dreigement wiggel riggel

‘laughing’ ‘silence’ ‘threat’ ‘to foretell’ ‘ridge’

boggel kaggel oggend

‘hump’ ‘stove’ ‘morning’

Cf. le Roux & Pienaar (1927, 1976). Also see Ponelis (1990, 1993).



Roots of Afrikaans

A I pointed out above, these may be Dutch loans. However, note that 〈gg〉 in all of these words corresponds to 〈ch〉, i.e. an historical voiceless fricative [χ], in Dutch. If [χ]elision may be reconstructed as the deletion of a 17th century intervocalic Hollandic Dutch [γ], that would immediately explain why the above 〈gg〉 words are exempted from the elision process. Furthermore, if [χ]-strengthening may be reconstructed as the substitution of a voiced stop [g] for a 17th century Hollandic voiced fricative [γ], that would also explain why wiggel, riggel, etc. are exempted from strengthening, unlike words like brugge ‘bridges’, rugge ‘backs’, etc. (cf. (5) above), whose 〈gg〉 continues an historical Dutch [γ]. This would mean that only the [χ] in swyge and dreigement might be indicative of loan phonology (i.e. spelling pronunciation), which does not exclude the possibility that one or more of the 〈gg〉 words in (6) are Dutch loans as well.6 However note that these considerations leave words like waggel ‘to stagger’ (from Du. waggelen) and verloën ‘to deny’ (from Du. verloochenen) unexplained. As for verloën, this may be a late adaptation of a possible loanword to the wide-spread phenomenon of [χ]-elision after tense vowels, since verlo[χ]en can (or could) also be heard. Waggel, which is wa[χ]el, and not *wa[g]el or *wâel, is more difficult to explain. Either we have to assume that it is a Dutch loan, which has been adapted to the pattern of words like wiggel, riggel, etc. Or we have to assume waggel was *wa[χ]elen in Early Cape Dutch. Both hypotheses seem to be adventurous and I don’t know how to choose between them.7 Finally, something must be said about the distributional relationship between [χ]elision and [γ]-strengthening. If we compare ber[g]e ‘mountains’, er[g]e ‘bad, evil’ (an inflected adjective) and er[g]er ‘worse’ with môre ‘tomorrow’, êrens ‘somewhere’, nêrens ‘nowhere’, gorrel ‘throat, to gurgle’ and orrel ‘organ’, in which a Dutch 〈g〉 has been deleted (cf. Section 2.2 above), [g] seems to be a phonological marker of inflexion, as is noted by le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 108–109). A restructured verbal stem like bêre ‘to store’ (from the Dutch infinitive bergen) seems to confirm that. Furthermore, le Roux & Pienaar point at the opposition between têre ‘tease, irritate’ (from Du. tergen) in the West Cape and in the Northwestern Cape and terg/ter[g]e in the rest of the country, where ter[g]e may have been perceived as a semi-inflectional variant of terg. (Whether this still holds for present day Afrikaans, I do not know.) Now note that [χ]-strengthening in intervocalic position, as in da[g]e ‘days’, o[g]e ‘eyes’, ho[g]e ‘high’ (infl.), bru[g]e ‘bridges’, wi[g]e ‘wedges’, etc. is also restricted to inflectional environments (le Roux & Pienaar 1927: 108). That is to say, a stem-internal 6. As regards the importance of a 17th Hollandic Dutch [γ] in medial position I basically agree with Ponelis (1990, 1993). See Ponelis (1990: 37, 59, 75–77) and (1993: 140–141, 157–158). For more loans from Dutch with an undeleted [χ] see Ponelis (1990: 37) and le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 137). 7. For the expansion of [χ]-elision see Ponelis (1990: 77) and le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 137). As for waggel, Ponelis (1990: 37) claims without further discussion that it was wa[χ]el in Cape Dutch.



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

intervocalic Dutch 〈g〉 may not be strengthened and is consequently deleted. Compare spieël ‘mirror’, voël ‘bird’, maer ‘thin’, etc. The same applies to the [g] of German Lager ‘camp, encampment’, which yields Afr. laer. However, note that this word may have reached Afrikaans in a Dutch form (la[γ]er) through Early Modern Dutch military speech.8 This seems to imply that [g] can be dispensed with if it is not needed for inflexion. However, this leaves the [g] in bur[g]er ‘citizen’, ne[g]e ‘nine’ and wil[g]erboom ‘willowtree’, the [k] in akkedis ‘lizard’ as well as the variation in the use of [g] after vowels unexplained. The latter problem will be discussed in Section 3.2 below, and as for bur[g]er, ne[g]e, wil[g]erboom and akkedis, each of these lexical exceptions seems to have its own explanation. The choice for [g] in bur[g]er may be due to the fact that the second syllable of the alternative form *burrer would have an infelicitous phonological shape, i.e. [r6r], which in fact provides us with a second reason for the use of [g] in er[g]er ‘worse’. Furthermore, as I pointed out in Section 2.3, the [g] in ne[g]e may be a means to circumvent homophony with nee ‘no’. This idea seems to be confirmed by the observation that the allomorph neën- is acceptable in words like neënde/negende ‘ninth’ and neëntien/negentien ‘nineteen’, where no confusion with nee can arise. Unfortunately, no straightforward explanation seems to be available for the voiced stop in wil[g]erboom. However, note that there are four ways to pronounce the first part of this compound: wil[χ]er-, wil[g]er-, willer- and wil[k]er- (also written wilker-). If we put wil[χ]er- aside as a case of spelling pronunciation, the following remarks can be made: First of all, the ‘predicted’ form willer- is an acceptable variant. Secondly, the substitution of [k] for [g] – which resembles the substitution of [k] for [g] in English loans in older Afrikaans (e.g. bluegum tree > Afr. bloekomboom) – may be a way to get rid of the unparadigmatic [g] in wil[g]er-. But why wil[g]er- is used at all (and why we do not find *bur[k]er or ne[k]e) is unclear, although one might – purely speculatively – suggest that willer- superficially looks like an -er derivation of wil ‘to want’, while wil[g]er- can still be interpreted as being related to wilg ‘willow’, which might be a reason to stick to the latter variant. Finally consider the word akkedis ‘lizard’, which most probably derives from an earlier form *a[g]edis (i.e. *aggedis), because it is related to Du. hagedis ‘lizard’ (cf. Ponelis 1993: 140). The preservation of the unparadigmatic [g] may be due to the fact that stress is on the final syllable, which makes the elision variant *âedis fairly difficult to pronounce. And as in the case of wil[g/k]erboom the substitution of [k] for [g] may be a way to get rid of the unparadigmatic [g]. However, it is unclear why the variant *a[g] edis is lost, while wil[g]er- varies with wil[k]er-.

8. Because of the large number of factors involved, differing from suffix to suffix, I shall refrain from discussing the fate of Dutch intervocalic 〈g〉 in Afrikaans derivations.



Roots of Afrikaans

The answer may be that the voiced pronunciation of the obstruent [g] can only be preserved as long as there is a related form which can ‘justify’ it. In inflectional environments [g] is justified by the presence of a [χ] in the corresponding uninflected variants. The obstruent in ne[g]e may be justified through the allomophic relation between ne[g]e and neën-. And the [g] in wil[g]er- may be justified by the presence of a [χ] in wilg – at least for those speakers who still know that word. Similar vague etymological feelings may have preserved the [g] in bur[g]er. Yet, *a[g]edis lacks a justifying variant form and so [g] has been turned into [k].9

3. [χ]-elision: An hypothesis It is clear that [χ]-elision and [χ]-strengthening are in some way related to one another and it will not come as a surprise that this idea can also be found in the literature, i.e. in le Roux & Pienaar (1927) and especially in Ponelis (1990, 1993). Raidt (1983, 1991) on the other hand only deals with [χ]-elision, although the form ber[g]e ‘mountains’ is mentioned (without further discussion) in Raidt (1983: 101). Therefore, the hypothesis concerning the origins of [χ]-elision presented in Raidt (1983) is in a sense not relevant for this paper. Yet, I would like to discuss it briefly, because it is in the literature and because I consider it a typical example of a monogenetic approach to Afrikaans linguistics phenomena.

3.1

Raidt (1983) on [χ]-elision

According to Raidt (1983: 83–84; 1991: 201–202) [χ]-elision should be seen as one of the lenition phenomena of Afrikaans, for which compare e.g. the change from [b] to [υ] (as in dubbel ‘double’ > duwwel). Furthermore, Raidt (1983: 84) quotes a personal suggestion by the Belgian linguist Jan Goossens, according to whom [χ]-elision may have a Dutch dialectal background since a similar phenomenon is attested for southern dialects of Dutch. It seems to me that this hypothesis is untenable. First of all, Afrikaans is related to Hollandic (i.e. Northwestern) Dutch, and not to Southern Dutch. Furthermore, the wider linguistic contexts for Afrikaans [χ]-elision and Southern Dutch 〈g〉-deletion are quite different, as we can derive from Taeldeman (1998: 153–155). The relevant area, east Flemish, is part of the larger Southwestern dialect area. In Southwestern Dutch initial and medial [γ] is laryngealized while at the same time pushing out [h].10 Compare (6):

(7) [γ]oed → [h]oed ‘good’ [h]oed → ‘oed  ‘hat’

9. Bur[g]er may have been felt to be related to -burg in toponyms. 10. Note that further east there are dialects that delete [h] without laryngealizing [γ].



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

In a proper subpart of the Southwestern area, i.e. in large parts of Eastern Flanders and in a small strip of Western Flanders, intervocalic [h] deriving from [γ] is also dropped, which yields a phenomenon similar to [χ]-elision in Afrikaans. In Afrikaans, however, initial 〈g〉, as in goed ‘good’, is an unvoiced fricative [χ], as in Hollandic Dutch and initial [h] is stable – again: as in Hollandic Dutch. Therefore, the conditions for [χ]-elision in Afrikaans and for the deletion of an intervocalic [h] deriving from [γ] in East Flemish may be similar, the wider linguistic contexts of both phenomena are completely different. Since [χ/γ]-elision is not attested for Hollandic dialects (the closest Dutch relatives of Afrikaans), the occurrence of intervocalic 〈g〉-deletion in East Flemish as well as in Afrikaans must be a case of polygenesis, as Taeldeman (1998: 153–155) terms it.11

3.2

The relationship between [χ]-elision and [χ]-strengthening

From a synchronic point of view ‘[χ]-elision’ and ‘[χ]-strengthening’ are appropriate descriptive terms for what seems to be going on in presentday Afrikaans. From a diachronic point of view, though, ‘[γ]-elision’ and ‘[γ]-strengthening’ may be more adequate. In so far as I know we owe the idea that Afrikaans medial [g] derives from Dutch medial [γ] to Ponelis (1990, 1993), who attributes this phenomenon to influences from (High) German – due to the many immigrants from Germany, I suppose. Ponelis furthermore proposes that at a later stage this medial [g] was dropped. Or to put it differently, according to Ponelis [χ/γ]-elision should be reanalyzed as [g]-elision. This 11. However, Taeldeman tries to draw a wider perspective by characterizing the ‘raspy’ pronunciation of velar fricatives in Hollandic Dutch and the introduction of [g] in posttonic position in Afrikaans as attempts to stop the weakening of velar fricatives, which would establish a connection between Northwestern (Hollandic) Dutch and Southwestern (Zealandic and Flemish) Dutch. – In this context Taeldeman is referring to the old idea of a Hollandic-Zealandic basis for Afrikaans. Yet, a partly Zealandic base for Afrikaans does not seem likely, as has also been pointed out by Kloeke (1950). Zealandic has a southern lexicon and there is no trace of a partially southern lexicon in Afrikaans. Furthermore, the Zealandic pronominal system cannot be found in Afrikaans (nor in older South African sources), so that the occurrence of nominative ons ‘IPL’ both in Zealandic and in Afrikaans must be coincidental, Afr. ons ‘we’ (< Du. ons ‘us’) probably being due to pidginization (cf. the data on South African Dutch pidgin in Raidt (1983, 1991) and Ponelis (1993)). Finally, the use of [y] (and an unrounded variant [i]) instead of the diphthong 〈ui〉 in Orange River Afrikaans (cf. Rademeyer (1938: 49, van Rensburg (1984a: 346) and Links (1989: 19–20)) need not be related to the use of [y] in Zealandic, since the diphtongization of [y] in 17th and 18th century Hollandic Dutch has been a slow and sociologically and regionally differentiated process. (Cf. Rademeyer (1938: 49–50) and Schönfeld (1970: 73).) Note that there is some evidence for the use of [y/i] instead of 〈ui〉 by 17th and 18th century Khoekhoen (e.g. Nienaber 1963: sub wyn II). Apparently, by retreating into the interior at a fairly early stage (in the period from ca. 1700 through 1713 or 1714) the Cape Khoekhoen could preserve this [y]. – This having been said, note that the above considerations do not invalidate Taeldeman’s suggestion at all, although it has to be implemented before it can be judged.



Roots of Afrikaans

idea, which can also be found in de Villiers/Ponelis (1987: 118–119), may have been inspired by a suggestion in le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 109).12 Ponelis’s hypothesis could be rendered as follows: (8) Hypothesis 1 [+son]-γ-6 → [+son]-g-6 → [+son]-6 However note that (8) is purely descriptive and may contain superfluous elements. For instance, it may not be necessary to specify the environment of the voiced velar fricative, since it is quite possible that Early Modern Hollandic 〈g〉 could only be voiced in a position between a sonorant segment and an unstressed vowel. Since this hypothesis explicitly links [χ]-elision to [χ]-strengthening (now [g]elision and [γ]-strengthening respectively), it must be on the right track, modulo the auxiliary considerations of Section 2.4 above. Yet, there are some residual problems. The first step in the hypothesis, γ-strengthening, seems unproblematic, although I have my doubts about the claim that this may be due to influences from German. Most probably, only very few German immigrants may have been true standard speakers, and in a couple of German dialects medial [g] is realized as a voiced fricative [γ] or even as a glide [j] (cf. Russ 1990). Furthermore, German speakers have a tendency to substitute [k] for initial [χ] (e.g. [k]oed instead of Du. goed ‘good’), and there is no evidence for such an influence in Afrikaans. However, the second step in the hypothesis, [g]-elision, is more problematic, i.a. because [g]-elision demonstrates differential behavior relative to the phonological context. Therefore, I would like to propose the following alternative: (9) Hypothesis 1 (revised) [+son]-γ-6 → [+son]-g-6 → [+son]-h-6 → [+son]-6 According to (9) medial [g] may undergo lenition and so does not differ from medial [b] and medial [d], which may also undergo lenition in Afrikaans yielding [υ] and [r] respectively.13 By assuming lenition we can more easily explain why medial [g] may ‘delete’, since medial [h] is a better candidate for deletion than is [g] itself. However, note that there is no independent evidence for [g]-lenition, unless Coetzee’s data about the hiatus filler [h] is interpreted as such (cf. Section 2.1 above). Unfortunately, this hiatus filler can also occur in other environments, e.g. in idihoom ‘idiom’, although it cannot be excluded that the latter use is an expansion of the function of medial [h] resulting from [g]-lenition.

12. Cf. Ponelis (1990: 36–37, 75–77) and (1993: 140, 157–158). – According to le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 109) [χ]-elision after sonorant consonants should be seen as a case of assimilation: i.e. [g], which according to le Roux & Pienaar derives from [χ], is assimilated to the preceding consonant. It is unclear to me as to why they did not come up with a more general rule of [g]-elision. 13. Cf. le Roux & Pienaar (1927), Coetzee (1985) and Ponelis (1990, 1993).



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

However, whatever the status of the evidence for intervocalic [h], [g]-lenition may help us to acquire a better understanding of the differential behavior of ‘[g]-elision’. Consider the following example of strengthening and lenition in three phonological environments: (10) strengthening lenition elision

[+son]-γ-6 [+son]-g-6 [+son]-h-6 [+son]-6

da[γ]e da[g]e da[h]e ?dae

wi[γ]e wi[g]e wi[h]e ?wîe

ber[γ]e ber[g]e ber[h]e b[ε:]re

Let us furthermore assume that originally the product of lenition was a clear [h], not an hiatus filler. This laryngeal glide is easiest to pronounce after tense vowels, where it could receive a reduced pronunciation without being deleted. This may be the reason why [g] is least acceptable after tense vowels (in Standard Afrikaans). After lax vowels, however, [h] must be ambisyllabic, which is problematic because [h] may not fill the coda of an Afrikaans syllable. This problem can be resolved by reducing the glide or by reverting to the voiced stop. This may be the reason why [g] is optional after lax vowels. Finally, after sonorant consonants [h] cannot receive a reduced pronunciation, which yields an awkward syllable. This problem can only be resolved by deleting [h] or by reverting to [g]. Apparently, the choice was dictated by the functional considerations discussed in Section 2.4 above.

4. A parallel case I would like to suggest that the revised hypothesis in (9) does not describe an isolated phenomenon because there may be a parallel case in the historical phonology of Afrikaans. The pertinent hypothesis was first put forward in my review article on Raidt (1983) published in 1987 (den Besten 1987a: 75–76). (11) Hypothesis 2: [+son]-v/f-6 → [+son]-b-6 → [+son]-υ-6 Hypothesis 2 involves [v/f]-strengthening. In this context it is not irrelevant to note that I defended the concept of [v/f]-strengthening by referring to medial [g], however without seeing the implications for [χ]-elision. Furthermore, at the time I did not have any evidence for [v/f]-strengthening yet. (However, now see Section 5 below.) As for the second part of this hypothesis, [b]-lenition, there is plenty of evidence for this process in Afrikaans (see the literature mentioned in note 14): (12) dubbel – du[υ]el (duwwel) ‘double’ kriebel – krie[υ]el (kriewel) ‘to tickle, to itch’ bybel – by[υ]el (bywel) ‘bible’

 Roots of Afrikaans

Data that Hypothesis 2 is supposed to account for can be found under (13) and (14) below.14 Under (13) can be found data on [υ] after vowels, while (14) presents data on [υ] after sonorant consonants: (13) D/A a. Nouns/v + infl. duif b. Nominal stems c. Nouns/f + infl. filosoof d. Adj.s/v + infl. lief e. Adj.s/f + infl. dof

D duiven duivel filosofen lieve doffe

A dui[υ]e dui[υ]el filoso[υ]e lie[υ]e do[υ]e

‘dove’ ‘devil’ ‘philosopher’ ‘dear’ ‘dull, faint’

(14) a. Nouns + infl. b. Adj.s + infl.

D werven halve

A wer[υ]e hal[υ]e

‘yard’ ‘half ’

D/A werf half

(Note that filoso[υ]e in (13c) may be a late addition to this inflectional pattern.) Before we proceed to the evidence for [v/f]-strengthening, the following remarks are in order: First of all, [υ] can also be observed in verbal stems deriving from Dutch infinitives such as le[υ]e ‘to live’, del[υ]e ‘to dig, to mine’ and verwer[υ]e ‘to obtain’ (from Du. leven, delven and verwerven respectively), which are used side by side with the shorter forms leef, delf and verwerf. Secondly, a stem-internal [f] as in Du. tafel ‘table’ does not seem to undergo any change in Afrikaans. (However see Section 5 below.) Thirdly, intervocalic [υ] (or historically intervocalic [v]) is sometimes deleted. This is an irregular process, which will not be discussed in this paper.15

5. Diachronic and dialectal data Although the idea of [v/f]-strengthening may seem nonsensical, there is some evidence supporting it. All of the evidence available points into the direction of the Khoekhoen. First of all, in the Neue Ost-Indische Reise ... (Leipzig, 1715) by Christoffel Langhansz, who visited the Cape in 1693, we find the word Dieber ‘Devil’ in the context of a pidgin Dutch taunt song sung by the local Khoekhoen (Raven-Hart 1971: 405).

14. This presentation of data may look nonsensical for those who believe that Afrikaans 〈w〉 represents a voiced fricative [v]. However see the evidence on [v/f]-strengthening below. 15. Cf. Raidt (1983, 1991) and Ponelis (1990, 1993). Note that some instances of [υ]-elision, such as gee ‘to give’ (Du. geven), may rather be [v]-elision and may in fact go back to Hollandic dialects, for which see Scholtz (1964: 89, n. 33). Note that Afr. gee may be attested as early as 1655 if we may analyze pidgin Dutch geme/gemme ‘to give’ as gee + pidgin ending -me (den Besten 1987a: 88; 1987b: 33–34).



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

Dieber, which is not German, derives from Dutch Duivel or rather the undiphtongized variant Duvel.16 Furthermore Rademeyer (1938: 55, 61) found some stray examples of [b] instead of [υ] in early 20th century Orange River Afrikaans: skrybe ‘to write’ instead of skrywe (< Du. schrijven) and berôb ‘to rob’ instead of berowe (< Du. beroven). Rademeyer is somewhat hesitant about these data. However, in de Roubaix (1930: 25), a book often quoted for Orange River Afrikaans data by Rademeyer himself, I found oorlebe ‘to survive’ as a variant for oorlewe (< Du. overleven), and in de Roubaix (1929: 233) there are three instances of the word tabelmes ‘table knife’ (twice in the singular, once in the plural), which is Du./Afr. tafelmes. Therefore, we may assume that [v/f]-strengthening once was a feature of Khoekhoe Dutch. Furthermore, note that [b]-weakening is a phenomenon shared by Afrikaans and Khoekhoe (cf. den Besten 1987a: 85).17 This means that the change from [v] (or rather [b]) to [υ] may also be due to the Khoekhoen. It would be nice if we could adduce similar evidence for [γ]-strengthening (and for [g]-lenition). However, there can be no historical evidence for [γ]-strengthening since Dutch orthography does not have a separate grapheme for [g]. Therefore, we have to rely upon synchronic data. And from a synchronic point of view it is interesting to note that [γ]-strengthening is particularly strong in Orange River Afrikaans, both before inflectional endings and in stem-internal position, as in da[g]e ‘days’, la[g]e ‘low’ (infl.) and te[g]en ‘against’, as is noted by Rademeyer (1938: 53–54) and Links (1989: 24). Since Orange River Afrikaans is Khoekhoe Afrikaans, it is possible that also [γ]strengthening was a feature of Khoekhoe Dutch in the early period.

16. Compare n. 12 on [y/i] instead of 〈ui〉 in Orange River Afrikaans. – Langhansz also gives the verb sterbem ‘to die’ in the context of a short sequence of pidgin Dutch sentences (RavenHart 1971: 407). Sterbem is sterb- plus the well-known pidgin ending -um/-om/-em which the Khoekhoen usually appended to verbs. The stem sterb- seems to be derived from German sterben, which means that Langhansz may have misinterpreted a Dutch pidgin from *stervem as sterbem. However, if my hypothesis about [v/f]-strengthening is right, this may as well be a genuine pidgin Dutch form. 17. According to Beach (1938: 55) the result in Khoekhoe is a bilabial or labiodental fricative. The former ([β]) is attributed to one variety of Korana, the latter ([v]) to Nama as spoken by German missionaries. This suggests a nonnative, German realization of intervocalic 〈w〉, i.e. in my view [υ], according to others [v]. (Compare n. 2.) However, this is also the pronunciation used by native speakers, witness Olpp/Krüger (1977: 8), which equates intervocalic 〈w〉 in Nama with 〈w〉 in Afrikaans (with [β] and [b] as minoritary variants). Hagman (1973: 25) describes medial/p/(i.e./b/) as “voiced and usually slightly spirantized, so that phonetically it is somewhere between [b] and [υ]”. Similarly, Engelbrecht (1982: 7) describes medial 〈b〉 in Korana as varying between a plosive and an (Afrikaans) 〈w〉.



Roots of Afrikaans

6. Back to the hypothesis: Language contact and internal development Let us suppose then that [γ]-strengthening as well as [v/f]-strengthening can be ascribed to the Khoekhoen. This may be due to the fact that (unlike [s] [γ]), [v] and [f] are not part of Khoekhoe. Therefore [g] was substituted for the voiced velar fricative [γ] (while its voiceless counterpart [χ] could not pose any problem for Khoekhoe speakers) and [b] was substituted for intersonorantic [v] and probably also for intervocalic [f]. However, it is clear that the latter change was only partially accepted by other varieties of Cape Dutch/Afrikaans, since it is tafel ‘table’ vs. dowwe ‘dull, faint’ (infl.). Furthermore, note that other occurrences of [f] were never changed into [b] (or [p]) either, since it is [f]er ‘ver’ (ver) and lief ‘dear’, as in Hollandic Dutch. This may be due to the fact that in Dutch initial [b] and [p] are distinctive, as is [p] in final position. So the Khoekhoen may have tried out *[p]er of [b]er for [f]er ‘far’ or *lie[p] for lief ‘dear’, but these variants must have had a very low acceptability rate among the speakers of Dutch. Intersonorantic [b] on the other hand was relatively acceptable because [b] in that position is not distinctive in Dutch (but for one or two exceptions). German speakers, in so far as they were not users of an intersonorantic [υ] instead of Standard German [b] (cf. Russ 1990) may have temporarily supported this [b]. (Similarly for intersonorantic [g].) As indicated in Section 5, Afrikaans [b]-lenition can also be ascribed to the Khoekhoen. In fact, by introducing an intersonorantic [b] the Khoekhoen automatically introduced its allophone [υ], in accordance with their own phonetics. Now, since Afrikaans shares both [b]-leniton and [d]-lenition with Khoekhoe, one might think that [g]-lenition is a Khoekhoe phenomenon as well. However, I could not find any evidence for that in the literature. But it may very well be the case that [g]lenition derives from attempts by Khoekhoen to approximate the Dutch velar fricative [γ] in its continuant aspect, which would mean that intersonorantic [h] was a compromise between Khoekhoe Dutch [g] and Cape Hollandic [γ]. What happened after these changes, may be interpreted in terms of further linguistic compromises between the different varieties of Cape Dutch as well as in terms of language internal phonetic requirements. First of all, note that for Dutch speakers intersonorantic [υ] and [h] may have been better approximations of their own [v] and [γ] than [b] and [g] respectively, which may have favored the use of [υ] and [h]. Yet, intersonorantic [g] can still be heard in Afrikaans, while intersonorantic [b] has disappeared from the language, but for some scattered remnants in Orange River Afrikaans. The reasons for the disappearance of intersonorantic [b] may be twofold: For Khoekhoe speakers [υ] may have been the preferred allophone anyway. For speakers of Dutch intersonorantic [b] may have been slightly awkward in that it was a sound with distinctive properties (even though it was not distinctive in intersonorantic position as such).



Chapter 6.  Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans 

No such problems could arise with intersonorantic [g], because [g] has no distinctive value in Dutch at all. Therefore, the distribution of [g] and [h] could be decided upon on phonetic grounds, as expounded in Section 3.2, modulo some extra functional considerations, as expounded in Section 2.4. I therefore conclude that both ‘[χ]-elision’ and ‘[χ]-strengthening’ and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans may be due to the Khoekhoen, perhaps with a little support from German dialect speakers. Future research will have to show whether more linguistic groups were involved and whether the complex of functional and language contact related factors discussed in this paper can be dealt with in terms of a more Optimality Theory-like approach.

chapter 7

The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 1. Introductory remarks Two pidgins1 (or maybe one pidgin with two varieties) have been handed down to us from the early days of colonialism in South Africa: the Hottentot Dutch of the Khoekhoe or Hottentots2 and the pidgin of the slaves, which has never been given a name. In the literature on the history of Afrikaans (e.g. Raidt 1983) it is pointed out that we already very early find some characteristics of Afrikaans in these pidgins and in the Proto-Afrikaans of the Blacks of the Cape, such as deflection and the use of ons ‘us’ as a nominative as well as die as a definite article. I also find it significant that these pidgins were SOV languages, which may have contributed to the fact that Afrikaans has been able to retain the underlying Dutch SOV word order (with V2/1 in the main clause) (cf. den Besten 1978, 1986 and 1987a). The literature on these pidgins is unfortunately rather incomplete with respect to descriptions of known data, and it is also lamentable that there is no linguistic archive for the Cape pidgins, making it necessary for each researcher to construct their own database. Of the earlier literature I would here primarily like to mention Hesseling (1923) and Franken (1953). Particularly Hesseling (1923) is important due to an (incomplete) list on page 104 of “Sources on Hottentot Dutch”, while Franken (1953) constitutes the most important secondary source for examples of the slave pidgin. The linguistic descriptions of the two pidgins is however rather scanty in these sources, and therefore we must turn to the works of G. S. Nienaber and M. F. Valkhoff. By the first author the following should be mentioned here: Nienaber (1953), (1959) and (1963). While the book from 1963 is about the extinct Cape Hottentot, it also contains examples, especially words, of Hottentot Dutch, since Nienaber is misled by B. Farrington’s translation of ten Rhyne (1686) (cf. Section 4.3 below). Nienaber (1963) is 1. This paper was first published as Die niederländischen Pidgins der alten Kapkolonie. In Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren vom 30.9. – 2.10.1987 [1986] an der Universität Essen [Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 4], Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds), 9–40. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1987. It is translated by Viveka Velupillai and reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. The grapheme OE in Khoekhoe should be pronounced neither as the German/ö/, nor the Dutch/u/, nor the English/o/. It represents a diphthong, which was earlier represented with OI (Khoikhoin).



Roots of Afrikaans

also interesting because he gives early examples of Dutch and English words in a Hottentot context, and because it is possible that in addition to these vocabularies and pidginizations, such as boeba ‘ox, cow, beef ’ the Hottentot wordlists discussed by him sometimes also contain pidginized Hottentot words, as e.g. hacqua/haqua/Acqua ‘horse’ (actually an accusative plural form). Nienaber (1963) is therefore a potentially important secondary source for Hottentot Dutch. Nienaber’s colleague M. F. Valkhoff has written somewhat less on the Cape pidgins (1966 and 1972), but he sometimes discusses other sentences than Nienaber or gives alternative explanations for problematic words. The syntactic structure of these pidgins is however only marginally treated by the two authors. I have myself written some on the Cape pidgins (den Besten 1978, 1986 and 1987b), but almost always within the context of the discussion on Afrikaans and its history. In this paper I would like to bring together and partly extend some of my statements on the Cape pidgins. This will have to be taken as work in progress, partly because a complete discussion of all the phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic aspects of the pidgin data would be beyond the scope of this article, and partly because we, as I already mentioned above, still do not have any linguistic archive of all the available data. The subjects that I will bring up in the following sections are rather diverse, in that I will not only discuss the structure and lexicon of the Cape pidgins, but also their historical and creolistic backgrounds. Section 2 describes the historical background, and Section 3 gives a general outline of the structure and lexicon of the Cape pidgins, including some pidgin sentences that will be compared with some ‘proto-Afrikaans’ sentences of the Khoekhoe and the slaves. After that I will confine myself to the Hottentot Dutch, since this language is the best documented one and since it probably laid the foundation for the pidgin of the slaves. In Section 4 I will deal with the question of what we actually know or at least can assume about the emergence of Hottentot Dutch. In this context a new translation of a Latin text from 1608 will be significant. This will lead to a discussion of the Hottentot Dutch suffix ‑um/‑om/‑me, which I consider a pidginized Hottentot ending.

2. On the history of the Cape pidgins The roots of the Cape pidgins go back to pre-colonial times (before 1652), and it cannot be excluded that foreigner-Khoekhoe or a Bushman-Hottentot pidgin language contributed to the emergence of Hottentot Dutch, since the Khoekhoe and the Bushmen (or San people) of the Cape did not speak related dialects, which has to do with fact that the cattle breeding Khoekhoe, whose language belongs to Central Khoisan, have gradually encroached into the area of the Southern Khoisan speaking Bushmen (see Elphick 1977). The incorporation and Hottentotization of groups of Bushmen which must have taken place, might have led to a foreigner-Khoekhoe or a Hottentot pidgin, but nothing is known about it. This must therefore remain speculation.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

Between 1488 and 1510 the Cape Hotentots were in contact with the Portuguese, who avoided the Cape after a skirmish (in 1510) that ended badly for them. From the nineties of the 16th century there was again contact with visiting Europeans, but this time with the Brits and Dutch. We may assume that this led to the development of an English or Dutch trade jargon. Indications thereof can be found in the data collected by Nienaber (1963). We know that the Brits and Dutch trained interpreters. One of them we know about from the sentence Coeree home go, Souldania go, home go uttered in 1613 in London. The conspicuous SOV word order, which we will also encounter in the later Hottentot Dutch, is a substrate feature from Khoekhoe (Hottentot). A few utterances of the Khoekhoe leader Herry (i.e. Harry) have been transmitted to us from Dutch times (1655, see Godée Molsbergen: 1916; I, 18 and 20). There Harry once says Goo Goo reght, although it is unclear if the last word is Du. recht ‘straight’ or Eng. right. If, however, reght can be read as [rEx], which was possible in the colloquial Dutch of the times, it could also represent a misinterpretation of the Khoekhoe imperative/hortative particle re (cf. Section 4.2). Later Herry says Nosie, which could be No, sir(e), and once more Goo. We can assume that the interpreters themselves taught their people some English or Dutch. Unfortunately the only evidence of this is the words Sir Tho: Smithe English Shipps recorded in 1615, which the Hottentots of Coeree kept repeating to the visiting English, but it is probable that Coeree and the other interpreters taught their people more useful phrases. Whatever the case may be, already early on we encounter a few English and Dutch loanwords, and English vocabulary also played a (limited) role in later Hottentot Dutch. A known loanword is the English bread, which occurs in contemporary Nama as bere‑b ‘bread’ (‑b: masc. sg.). Older transcripts from the Cape are bara (1626), breba (1655) and bree (1691) (bara/bre(e) stem; ‑b masc. sg.; ‑a accusative suffix). The Dutch equivalent was a word which was transcribed as brokwa and brukwa (1705, among other dates) and which meant ‘bread, ship’s biscuit’, maybe also ‘piece, chunk’ (‑kwa is ‑ku masc. pl. plus ‑a acc.). It appears already in 1623 in Danish spelling as várucka, with the contraction of ‑kua also known in Nama. Brokwa/brukwa either derives from Du. brood ‘bread’ or from Du. brok ‘chunk’.3 At the end of the 1640s something happens that suddenly increases the knowledge of Dutch among the Khoekhoe. After the shipwreck of the ‘Haarlem’ (1647) a group of Dutch seamen were to remain a whole year at the Cape (1647–1648). It is known that there was intense language contact between them and the local Hottentots, where the latter ardently learnt (some) Dutch. Unfortunately only one of their Dutch utterances has been handed down to us: eerst houthalen, dan eeten ‘first get wood, then eat’. This 3. In the Afrikaans of the Orange River the diphthong uu [y] or ie sometimes appears instead of ui [%y]. There are some Hott.Du. attestations and loanwords in Cape Hottentot which let us assume that Hottentot at the time still did not use any diphthong. Because uu [y] is the Middle Dutch sound that was gradually replaced by ui in Holland in the 17th century, this could be an indication that the Hottentots learnt Dutch already before 1652. But it could also suggest that the Khoekhoe learnt their Dutch after 1652 from Dutch speakers with a conservative dialect.



Roots of Afrikaans

looks like pure Dutch, even though one is tempted to substitute the infinitive ending ‑en with the Hottentot Dutch verbal suffix ‑um/‑om of the later Cape Colony. The good experiences of the shipwrecked of ‘Haarlem’ contributed to the fact that in 1652 a small settlement was founded on the Cape, out of which a real colony would soon develop. In the beginning phase (1652–1658) there was, apart from a few domestic slaves, still no slave class, so Creole Portuguese and Pasaar Malay could still not be of any significance. In these beginning years the Khoekhoe must have developed their two trade jargons and, with the help of the Dutch of the local Dutch and German settlers, Hottentot Dutch. The slaves, who were imported from 1658, therefore encountered European as well as Pidgin Dutch at the Cape. I am assuming that the pidgin of the slaves which developed from 1658 was partly modelled on Hottentot Dutch, which, among other things, can be deduced from the fact that both pidgins were SOV languages, which with the Khoekhoe in all probability had to do with their mother tongue – although the fact that some of the slaves come from India and Sri Lanka was probably also a contributing factor. Conversely, the pidgin of the slaves of course also influenced Hottentot Dutch, and we can assume that the ‘broken’ Dutch of the slaves and Khoekhoe significantly influenced the direction of the language change of the Dutch of the Whites (cf. Raidt 1983 and den Besten 1987a). At the same time we should not forget that not only Cape Khoekhoe was behind the two pidgins. The slaves, who were native to Mozambique, India, Sri Lanka and the Indonesian archipelago, formed a linguistically heterogeneous community that never had its own common contact language, because apart from the Dutch pidgin, Pasaar Malay and Creole Portuguese were also used, and for the slaves the latter two were the default contact languages. As already mentioned above, the two pidgins were SOV languages. This means that the slaves and the Khoekhoe must have seemed to the Dutch speakers to have been imitating Dutch foreigner talk. (Cf. You now come with, I not you understand, etc.) Thus the Cape pidgins need not have induced the Dutch speakers to radically change their Dutch language syntactically. As the Pidgins of the Slaves and the Khoekhoen had the same underlying order as Dutch, viz., SOV, they had no difficulty learning the Dutch (continental Germanic) V2/1 rule. As utterances by slaves and Khoekhoe appear with V2/1 around 1700, we can assume that a creole Dutch with SOV word order and V2/1 had been established during this time. Let us call this Dutch language Proto-Afrikaans I. This is not meant to imply that with the emergence of Proto-­Afrikaans I the pidgins immediately disappeared. Most of the pidgin attestations are from after 1700, although the sources almost seem to have dried up after 1720. But the Hottentot Dutch word kortom ‘small piece’ (with the typical ‑um/‑om suffix) was still recorded among the Khoekhoe around the Orange River area in 1779 (see Godée Molsbergen 1916:I), and one wonders if the following remarks, which the Dutch Teenstra heard an elderly (female) slave utter in 1825, does not indicate that V2/1 was still optional for a long time:



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

(1) ik kan niet meer doen nie ... och seuer waarom gy mij dan koop  (Franken 1953: 182) I can not more do/work not ... oh Sir why you me then buy [Niet is probably a misprint for Du. niets ‘nothing’ (Afr. niks: also in Du.) or Du. niet ‘nothing’ (obs.), that is: ‘I can’t do anything anymore’.] In Proto-Afrikaans I the deflection must have been more advanced than in the contemporary Dutch of the Whites, but under the influence of this Dutch creole language and the Cape pidgins the deflection spread over more and more systems of the Dutch of the Whites (cf. Raidt 1983, den Besten 1987a). In this way, according to Raidt, Cape Dutch, a not yet completely deflected language, emerged around 1740. Cape Dutch and Proto-Afrikaans I further developed under mutual influence, and from 1775 we can, according to Raidt, speak of Afrikaans. But this early Afrikaans was still not at all as far deflected as the Afrikaans of today: the infinitive ending had still not been entirely lost, and we still had the preterit and the Ablaut. Hence I prefer to call this language Proto-Afrikaans II. Only around 1850 (when the Ablaut had completely disappeared) or possibly already around 1820 or 1830 can we speak of an Afrikaans koiné that emerged from Proto-Afrikaans I and Proto-Afrikaans II. This was, however, a common language with clear dialectal differences. There were and are three or four dialects (see van Rensburg 1983): the Orange River Afrikaans of the Hottentots; West Cape Afrikaans, which is particularly distinct among the ‘Coloured’ of the Cape; and East Cape Afrikaans, where the differences between the ‘White’ and ‘Black’ lects are apparently much less distinct. East Cape Afrikaans spread to the Orange Free State, Transvaal and Natal due to the Great Trek (1835–1838), and must in the Orange Free State and Transvaal have been influenced by Orange River Afrikaans. Standard Afrikaans later emerged from this northern (or Transvaal) East Cape Afrikaans through codification and vernederlandsing (Dutchification). The vernederlandsing brought with it a certain decreolization. The later developments (after 1775) are, however, not relevant for this article. Let us therefore turn to the Cape pidgins.

3. Structure and lexicon of the Cape pidgins 3.1

Introductory remarks

I already mentioned in Section 1 that some of the characteristics of the Cape pidgins are in the literature generally recognized as Afrikaans: deflection and the occurrence of the typical Afrikaans words die ‘the’ and ons ‘we, us’. Further the Hottentot Dutch suffix ‑um/‑om/‑me should be mentioned, which appeared predominantly with verbs. There were, however, many more early Afrikaans traits than only die and ons in these pidgin languages, as the South African Valkhoff (1966, 1972) has indicated. Added to this we have the usual pidgin features, such as the occurrence of nominal

 Roots of Afrikaans

predicates (absence of copula) and the use of temporal adverbs as tense/aspect markers. With respect to the rest of the syntax, the Cape pidgins were SOV and prepositional languages, within the NP there were prenominal adjectives and articles, and the negation was placed (just as in German and Dutch) in the middle (cf. den Besten 1986). Because of this a certain historical development can be deduced (see below). These features are easy to demonstrate with some examples. In Section 3.2 some attestations for Hottentot Dutch will be discussed and in Section 3.3 some attestations of the pidgin of the slaves. Added to that a few examples will be presented that give evidence of the above mentioned Proto-Afrikaans I.

3.2

The Hottentots (Khoekhoe)

The oldest Hottentot pidgin phrase (if it even is a phrase) known to us comes from the travel account of Pieter van Meerhoff (1661), which can be found in Godée Molsbergen (1916), among others. Van Meerhoff recounts how he gets notified by the Cape Hottentot Donckeman that Namaqua Hottentots (Namaquas, also Namas) are standing higher up on a mountain: Mr. Pieter, Namaqua ‘Master Pieter, Namaquas’ (Godée Molsbergen 1916: I, 54). Mr. (Meester) is a Dutch way of addressing experts or professionals, which fits here, since Pieter van Meerhoff was a surgeon. Namaqua is a pidginized accusative plural form from Khoekhoe (‑gu/‑ku masc. pl., ‑a acc.) which has become a word stem. Van Meerhoff himself used the plural form Namaquas in his own Dutch, but in the pidgin there were apparently still no plural forms at the time. Van Meerhoff goes on to say that his companions become anxious, and that they wanted to run away, saying: (2) Namaqua boeba kros moscoqua Nama(s) ox skin/hide very‑evil Van Meerhoff does not give any translation, meaning that that was not necessary for his clients at the Cape of Good Hope, who this account was intended for; he simply says: ick nam mijn verrekijker om te sien off het soo waer ‘I took my telescope, to see if it was so’. In order to better understand the warning in (2), we first have to parse the words in it. Namaqua is already familiar. Boeba is a pidgin word for ‘ox, cow, beef ’. It probably derives from Du. boe ‘moo’, which was transcribed as a ‘Hottentot’ word for ‘ox’ already in 1615, while ‑ba probably derives from the Khoekhoe ending ‑b (masc. sg.) and ‑a (acc.) (cf. Nienaber 1963: sub os II and III). Kros, or rather karos ‘skin/hide, wrap, cover’ is a pidgin word from Khoekhoe (with the dimitutive suffix ‑ro and ‑s fem. sg.) which has entered Afrikaans. Boeba kros means shields of ox hide. Here too the plural suffix is missing. Since ox hide shields are meant here, it also becomes clearer what moscoqua ‘very evil’ suggests: ‘they want to fight’. We know moscoqua from another source as moeske quaad (Nienaber 1963: sub kwaad (boos) I). The sequence ‑qua is a short form of Du. kwaad ‘evil’. The etymology of mosco‑/moeske (in Kolbe



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

(1727: I, 491), also once with a German u: musku) is still unclear. Valkhoffs vague comment “musku (much, from Port.)” (Valkhoff 1966: 218) does not convince me, since I cannot understand how Port. muito (not mucho!) could evolve into mosco‑/ moeske. Nor does Nienaber’s etymology, who derives mosco‑/moeske from Kh. mũtse ‘(I) see you’, an invocation to a god – an etymology which is quite farfetched with respect to the content – explain where the k comes from.4 The syntax of (2) is not entirely transparent. The whole utterance could of course be read as ‘Namaquas! Ox hide shields! (They are) very evil!’. But the Namaquas had already been mentioned, and therefore Namaqua cannot be taken to mean an exclamation. Namaqua should rather be interpreted as a definite NP: ‘the Namaquas’. This ethnonym thus not only lacks a plural suffix, but also the definite article die of later Hottentot Dutch. This interpretation allows us to read (2) as a sentence. Boeba kros seems to interrupt a phrase Namaqua moscoqua ‘(The) Namaqua(s) (are) very evil’, but one could also interpret (2) as follows: ‘(The) Namaqua(s) (with) (their) oxe hide shield(s) (are) very evil’. In that case we are dealing with a pidgin that was still without adpositions. This is not impossible considering the fact that Khoekhoe, the mother tongue of the people who uttered (2), is and was postpositional, while the later Hottentot Dutch was prepositional. The acquisition of the Dutch prepositions would thus probably have needed a certain incubation time. Notice that this hypothesis allows for the following reading: ‘Namaqua(s) (with) ox hide shield(s)! (They) (are) very evil.’ An alternative would be ‘(The) Namaqua(s) (have) ox hide shield(s)! (They) (are) very evil!’ Whichever interpretation is preferred, it looks as if we in (2) are seeing the Hott. Du. nominal predicate emerge. My view that Namaqua can also be translated as ‘the Namaquas’ is confirmed by van Meerhoff ’s report. Van Meerhoff recounts how he tries to keep his Khoekhoe companions from running away. So he says to them: sij souden niet vervaert wesen, Namaqua soude one niet doen (...) ‘you shouldn’t be afraid, (the) Namaqua(s) won’t do anything to us’. Van Meerhoff thus also used Pidgin. The singular form soude could indicate that he uttered a pidginized sal ‘will’. Sal (zal) is the usual present tense singular form of the Du. modal verb zullen, which lives on in the contemporary Afrikaans deflected form sal (pres. and inf.; pret.: sou). From 1672 onwards pidgin phrases and sentences with SOV word order appear. The syntax does not present the kinds of problems as in (2), which does not mean that these examples do not need commenting. I have taken the oldest attestation from Franken (1953: 113): (3) ’t Za lustigh, duijtsman een woordt Calm, ons V kelum tza calm, Dutchman a word say, we you cut‑throat

4. Another possibility would be that mosco/moeske/musku is a compound: Eng. much (– mots – mos) and a Khoekhoe word//kō ‘to be evil’ (in Korana; see Nienaber 1963: sub kwaad (boos) I). This would also explain why one source translates moeske with quaad ‘evil’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

A few important features of Hottentot Dutch appear in this sentence: SOV word order, ons ‘we’ and the ‑um/‑om suffix. It is questionable if a subordinator is ‘missing’ in the example above. Compare: ‘If you Dutch say one word, we cut your throat’. The subject duitsman is here probably meant as a plural, but the expected ending ‑s is missing. The two verbs are easily identifiable. Calm is Du. kallen ‘say, talk, chat’ (obs.; see WNT 7,1), and kelum is not a denominal pidgin verb (from Du. keel ‘throat, neck’), as Nienaber assumes (1953: 116), but the Du. (denominal) kelen (Afr. keel) ‘to cut the throat, to strangle’. The orthography calm instead of callum can be explained by the fact that Du. kalm ‘calm, tranquil’ is usually pronounced with a svarabhakti vowel. The words lustigh and duijtsman remain. Lustigh is probably Du. rustig ‘calm, quiet’ with Cape Hottentot l/r alternation. Duijtsman, ‘Deutschmann’ as it were, meaning ‘Dutch, Netherlander’, might be surprising, but Duits meant “Netherlandish” or ‘Low German’ at the time, or more generally: ‘continental western Germanic, not-Romance’ and therefore sometimes also ‘German’ (MNW 2: sub dietse, duutse; WNT 3,2: sub Duitsch).5 The form duijtsman is as such not only a pidgin compound, as Nienaber (1963: sub leeu I) and den Besten (1986) assume. In the Dutch of the 17th century Duitschman meant ‘1. Netherlander, 2. German, 3. Germanic (person)’ (WNT 3,2). It belongs to the group Engelsman ‘English’, Fransman ‘French’. From this duijtsman the Afr. duusman/diesman ‘White (person), Boer’, a word of the ‘Coloureds’, evolved. Almost all Hottentot Dutch characteristics that have been mentioned can be seen in the following little text, which I have taken from ten Rhyne’s Schediasma de Promontorio Bonae Spei etc (1686). Ten Rhyne was at the Cape in 1673. His booklet from 1686 was republished in 1933 by I. Schapera together with other descriptions of Cape Hottentot (Schapera 1933):

(4) Dat is doet: Was makom? Duytsman altyt kallom: Icke Hottentots doot makom: Mashy (= Masky) doot, Icke strack nae onse grote Kapiteyn toe, die man my soon witte Boeba geme. That is good (?): What‑you do? (The) Dutch always say: I Hottentot dead make: Despite die, I fut to our big Chief (to), the man me fut white cows/ oxen give. In (4) we thus find: SOV word order, a non-verbal predicate, a preposition, prenominal adjectives and temporal adverbs. The ethnonym Duytsman, which could be in the singular, even if ten Rhyne himself translates it as Belgae ‘(the) Netherlanders’, is also here lacking the article die. Apart from that, we find the ‑um/‑om/‑me suffix and already familiar words, such as kallom and Boeba. But this is not all. In order to understand (4) better we should know that a high god is meant by grote Kapiteyn. The Hottentot 5. Cf. also verduitschen (WNT 19), “Germanify” as it were, which meant ‘translate (into Dutch)’. In order to better be able to distinguish ‘Low German’ from High German, i.e. from ‘Upper German’ (that is, Southern German), the term Nederduits “Netherlandic” was used from the 16th into the 19th century. See de Vreese (1909).



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

prisoner of war who ten Rhyne here quotes is thus speaking of a life after death. But his statement contains a number of issues that need to be commented. The first sentence, Dat is doet, is already a problem. Ten Rhyne translates this with Age!. That can, among other things, mean ‘All right, well, etc’. It is thus possible that doet actually, with Cape Hottentot g/d alternation (see Nienaber 1963), is goed ‘good’. But that would mean that the Du. [>] in [>ut] (goed) was pronounced [g] in the pidgin. Another possibility would be that this hypothetical [gut] actually is Eng. good (with Khoekhoe final devoicing), for there were a few English etyma in Hottentot Dutch (cf. Section 4.3 and 4.4). I would like to leave it at this latter hypothesis, in order to avoid a lengthy discussion on the phonology of Hottentot Dutch. The problem with the second sentence, Was makom?, namely the problem that there does not seem to be any subject, will be discussed in Section 4.2. But the sentence is also interesting due to the fact that makom is used here instead of Du. doen ‘do, make’. This is typical for Afrikaans: maak. Typical for Afrikaans is also doot makom (doodmaken) instead of Du. doden ‘kill’. In Afrikaans there is no verb dood ‘kill’. The default word is doodmak. In the same sentence, Icke Hottentots doot makom, we also have the pronoun Icke ‘I’. I have, however, as yet only found it in this text. In Dutch it is an emphatic pronoun, which is almost only used in isolation. The same is true for the Afrikaans ekke, also, it seems, in the nonstandard dialects.6 As for the second part of this text (from Mashy): here are some interesting structural data. The combination Mashy doot shows that the pidgin of the slaves also influenced the pidgin of the Khoekhoe (and not only the other way about). Mashy is, as already Hesseling (1923) claimed, the Creole Portuguese word maske/maskie ‘although, despite, etc’, which is also used in contemporary Afrikaans. Nienaber (1953: 117) raised objections against this, but Franken (1953: 204) shows that there was a combination maske/maskie + content word in the language of the slaves. In both of the sentences quoted by Franken the content word is a verb or at least a nominalized infinitive: Masqui ophagen, ik ben niet bangh (1687) ‘Maskie hang (i.e. even if I am hanged), I am not afraid’; Maske raabraaken, ik sal haar vermoorden (...) (from the period 1726–1735) ‘Maskie wheel-breaking (i.e. even if I am broken on the wheel), I will kill you’. It cannot be excluded that doot in Mashy doot is a noun: Du./Afr. dood ‘death’, but in my glossing the interpretation is that doot is a (nominalized) verb: the nonstandard Afrikaans deadjectivized verb dood ‘die’. In the next sentence (Icke strack etc.) we find a nonverbal predicate with the Dutch combination naar ... toe (at the time also na ... toe) ‘to, towards’ and the future temporal adverb strack. Strack is the Du. adverb straks/strakjes ‘soon, presently, shortly’. Ten Rhyne did not understand this pidgin expression and translates it with statim ‘soon’. It is worth noting that Port. logo ‘soon, shortly’ is also used as a future marker in South African Creole Portuguese. Cf. the following sentence from Franken (1953: 47): Catsidoor bos loge more ‘Dog, you will die’ (1705). In my opinion soon in 6. Makhudu (1984) mentions the combination van ekke ‘of me’ in the Afrikaans pidgin Fly-Taal.

 Roots of Afrikaans

the last sentence has the same function as strack and logo. There are different views on this word in the literature, all of which more or less clash with ten Rhyne’s translation (Vir ille memet albis donabit bobus ‘The man will give me white cows/oxen’). But if soon is understood as the English word soon, nothing really needs to be changed in the translation. As an aside I point out that Boeba (without the pl. ‑s) has to be an unmarked plural according to ten Rhyne’s translation. After this little text, which ten Rhyne recorded at the Cape in 1673, I want to quote a few examples from the book by Peter Kolb(e), who was at the Cape 1705–1713. I am here using the Du. translations from 1727 (Kolbe 1727). The first two examples do not really show anything new: (5) Ons denkum, ons altyd Baas, maar ons ja zienom, Duytsman meer Baas (I: 477) We think, we always master/lord, but we part see, (the) Dutch more master/lord

(6) Die goeds ons ja beitum, en ons bloed op vretum; waarom ons die goeds niet weder beitum en op vretum (II: 66) The things us part bite, and our blood up eat; why we the things not again bite and up eat

[The ‘things’ are lice.] Die in (6) is probably the Afrikaans article die, and in (5) we see that there apparently was no subordinating conjunction dat ‘that’ in Hottentot Dutch. The following sentence from Kolbe (1727) is, among other things, interesting because it shows the connection to the pidgin of the slaves. According to Kolbe, a Hottentot, who is asked if it is not dangerous to kill game with poison, answers: (7) Die Gift al gedaan dood, wie kan hy meer wat schaden. (II: 114) The poison already done (= perf/ant) die, who can it still (anything) hurt I will not discuss the second part of this example. The first part presents evidence for the general definite article die, since Du. gif(t) is neuter and demands the neuter article het ‘the’. The sentence as such is not easy to interpret. It seems as if it says: ‘The poison already done dead/death (or: kill?)’, that is: ‘The poison has already killed’. I have never encountered such an SVO structure in any other pidgin example. But Du. gedaan ‘done’ also means ‘completed, ended’, and is thus similar to the use of Du. klaar ‘completed, done’ as an adverbial in Afrikaans: Afr. klaar ‘already’. The combination alklaar (with Du. al ‘already’) can also be found in Afrikaans. Added to that is the fact that (al)klaar seems to be possible to use as an added perfect marker in Afrikaans (cf. WAT6). Al gedaan is thus a tense/aspect marker for perfect or past tense. It also appears with this function in the pidgin utterances by the slaves (see below). It therefore seems justified to me, to read dood as the nonstandard Afrikaans verb dood ‘die’. In that case the first clause in (7) can be translated as: ‘The poison is (already) dead’, i.e. has lost its power.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

This use of al and gedaan shows parallels to CrP. ja and Mal. sudah. Port. já ‘already’ was a past or perfect marker in the South African Creole Portuguese. Cf. Jacob ja Moré ‘Jacob has died’ (1746: see Franken 1953: 58). The Malay word sudah, which means ‘done, completed, ended’, among other things, can also be used as an adverb (‘already’) or as a past tense auxiliary. Whether al gedaan and the above mentioned strack emerged under the influence of Creole Portuguese and Malay is an open question. It seems to me that universals of pidginization can here not be excluded. After this long discussion of some pidgin sentences of the Hottentots, the following examples of V2-order uttered by Khoekhoes seem like an anticlimax: (8) Waarom neem je dat schaap, wagt wat ons sel jou kost geeven (1706) Why take you the sheep, wait a little we will food give (9) Ons het jouw tabak niet van doen (1707) We have your tobacco not of do ‘We do not need your tobacco’ (See Franken 1953: 93.) It cannot be denied that these sentences seem somewhat Afrikaans: ons ‘we’ and deflection with the finite verbs sel and het. The dialectal form sel has, as far as I know, not been retained in Afrikaans (Afr. sal), but het is typical for Afrikaans. It is a dialectal form for the third person singular, which in Afrikaans has evolved into the (non inflected) present hê ‘have’. However, it is hardly probable that the Khoekhoe said je (instead of the full form jij), and it is utterly improbable that the quoted Khoekhoe Lubbert said dat schaap. It must have been die schaap (or skaap).

3.3

The slaves

The pidgin sentences of the slaves need comparatively little commenting, since first of all most of the structural characteristics are already known, and secondly because the few pidgin sentences of slaves that we have access to show fewer structural or lexicological problems than the Hottentot Dutch examples. The oldest sentence I am aware of is from 1671, that is, around the same time as the Hott.Du. sentences from 1642 and 1673 (see (3) and (4) above): (10) eij ghij Caetjoor, jouw siecken hont ghij die brood tecken eh you lout, you sick dog you the bread steal With this sentence Baddu, a slave, accuses a sentinel of having taken away two loaves of bread (Franken 1953: 47). The context does not make clear whether die brood is meant as a singular or a plural. Apart from that it should be mentioned that Caetjoor is a Creole Portuguese word, and that the typical Afrikaans usage of the oblique case jou ‘you’ in connection with a vocative apposition probably is not a pidginization, but (obsolete) Dutch. The SOV word order of the main clause (ghij die brood tecken) the slaves probably learnt from the Khoekhoe, as I already discussed in Section 2. Another

 Roots of Afrikaans

indication that the slaves learned their pidgin from the Khoekhoe is the verb tecken, which in all likelihood is neither Du. taken ‘grip, take, steal; touch’ nor Du. takken ‘grip, catch; touch’ (both obs.; see WNT 16), but the English take in the dialectal form tek.7 If this is the case, the slaves must have taken over this word from the Hottentots, since the Khoekhoe used an English trade jargon (cf. Section 2 and Section 4). Tecken is also attested in Hottentot Dutch, as part of the compound Taback‑Teckemans ‘tobacco thief ’. This is a calque of the Du. word Tabackdieven, a name that the Dutch gave the Gorachouquas after an incident in 1657 (Elphick 1971: 91; Nienaber 1963: sub leeu). Teckemans ‘thief ’ is thus actually ‘stealing men’. It is constantly pointed out in the literature that the ‑um/‑om ending is a typical feature of Hottentot Dutch which does not occur (or does not seem to occur) in the pidgin of the slaves. However, since the slaves probably learnt their first pidgin from the Khoekhoe, and since tecken is also Hottentot Dutch, and further since there is a word sieckum/sickom in Hottentot Dutch (meaning ‘ill, unhealthy, bad, unsuitable’, cf. Porteman 1986), one feels compelled to read (10) as follows: eij ghij Caetjoor, jouw sieckum hont ghij die brood teckum. But that is of course pure speculation. The following examples do not really show us anything new. I have them from Franken’s book (1953: 50, 89, 93). It is noteworthy that SOV sentences are here mixed with V2-sentences: (11) Jaa, dat weet ick wel, neen, ons niet weer omkomen (1691) Yes, that know I well, no, we not back come (12) Ons soek kost hier, ons al gedaen wegloopen, ons denk jou ook soo (1706) We seek food here, we perf/ant run.away, we believe you also so (13) jij mijn Cameraat gedaan vast maken ik salje betalen, ik jouw nouw ook vastmaken (1720) du my friend perf/ant tie I will.you pay, I you now also tie If this linguistic mix is to be attributed to the court proceedings, or if it actually represents a faithful reproduction of reality, is a question which I here do not wish to answer. Most of the structural characteristics in these sentences are already familiar to us from the previous section. Noteworthy is only the use of jou ‘you’ as a nominative and the optionality of al in (al) gedaan (cf. Afr. (al)klaar). That jou here is a nominative and not an accusative governed by denk is confirmed by a Hott.Du. jou ‘you (nominative)’ in Kolbe (1727: I, 121). In most of the attestations however, we find the correct distribution of jij ‘you (nominative)’ and jou ‘you (oblique)’, which also occurs in Afrikaans and its dialects. It is not clear if soo (or ook so) in (12) is a nominal predicate; soo could also be part of an adverbial ook soo. Now, the amount of examples from the Slave Pidgin is very small, but one single example of Slave Pidgin in Kolbe’s book contains two nonverbal predicates (Kolbe 1721: II, 323): 7.

I am grateful to John Holm for pointing this dialectal form out to me.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

(14) Ik en weet het niet, vader al lang weg, vader al lang na Holland toe (1705–1713) I en know it not, (the) father long(.since) away/gone, (the) father long(.since) to Holland to In the literature on Afrikaans (14) is sometimes called good Dutch, but that must be a misunderstanding, which was probably caused by that V2-order in Ik en weet het niet (with the negative prefix en), because the consecutive sentences are unmistakably pidgin. It is not clear to me whether vader ‘father’ in this example should be understood as the appellation Vader ‘Father, Papa’ or as a definite NP without the article, although I prefer the interpretation ‘the father’. This is because the previous context narrates how a female slave is asked about the father of her rather light-skinned child, to which she replies: Ik en weet het niet, vader al lang weg, vader al lang na Holland toe. In such a context it seems to me that the reading ‘the father’ is more appropriate, but that could be an interpretation that is too farfetched, since not all pidgins need to differentiate between names and nouns. Apart from that one asks oneself if al long ‘for a long time, long since, a long time (ago)’ ought not to be understood as a tense marker for perfect/ anterior, in which case weg would rather mean ‘gone’ than ‘away’. This speculation cannot at this point be confirmed through other examples. But it is at least interesting to know that in Fly-Taal, an Afrikaans pidgin, an additional tense marker lankalal developed for ‘remote past’ from Afr. (al) lankal ‘a long time (ago), long since’ (Gilbert and Makhudu 1984: 18, 27, 28). The Slave Pidgin sentences above hardly brought anything new to light. On the other hand the German O. F. Mentzel, who was at the Cape 1733–1741, has presented us with unexpected pidgin (Hesseling 1923: 56): (15) a. b.

kammene kumi, kammene kuli cannot eat, cannot work kammene kas, kammene kunte cannot money/pay, cannot cunt/fuck

These phrases have an alliterative structure, and the imperfect rhyme in (15a) was probably also functionally intended. (15a) was an expression made by slaves who did not get enough to eat; (15b) was uttered by ‘immoral (female) slaves’ when the seamen did not want to pay. Hesseling, who was not able to identify kammene, took these phrases to be Creole Portuguese, or rather: to be Malayo-Portuguese, because he presumed kumi ‘eat’ to be Creole Portuguese, kuli ‘coolie’ Malay and kas ‘till; cash box’ a Dutch loanword in Malay. Now, kuli is not exclusively Malay. (Many slaves came from India with their Creole Portuguese.) And one wonders whether kas was already Malay at the time. More important, however, is that the function word kammene is Hottentot Dutch: Kamme niet/ka me niet/kame niet ‘cannot, not be able to’ (Kolbe 1727: I, 504, 528). For that reason (15) a. and b. have to be classified as Pidgin Dutch. That is no problem

 Roots of Afrikaans

at all for (15b), since kas ‘till’ and kunte are Dutch etyma. Kunte is Du. kont ‘behind’, at the time also: ‘cunt’. The phrase in (15a) is also ‘more Dutch’ than it seems, since kuli in the Cape Dutch of the times not only meant ‘coolie’ but also ‘(coolie/slave) work’ (see Franken 1953). So kumi here constitutes the exception, but it probably belonged to the Dutch Pidgin of the times. The Examples (15a) and b. raise some questions. First of all, the phonological structure of kunte is somewhat puzzling. Kunte could of course be the Middle Low German and dialectal German word Kunte, but as far as I know Mentzel differentiated between German and Dutch. Now, the u in kunte could have something to do with the (nonstandard) Afrikaans o/u alternation, and if kammene in fact is kamme‑nie, then kunte is probably kunt‑ie, which would mean that the enclitic form of nie‑2 ‘not‑2’ appears in (15b) (den Besten 1986). Secondly we should ask ourselves if kammene here still means ‘not be able to’. Mentzels translation for (15a), if I don’t have anything to eat, I can’t work (Hesseling 1923: 56), seems to me to answer this question affirmatively, but kuli, kas and kunte are only known to us as nouns. It is thus possible that kammene is a general negation word, something like ‘no’ or ‘not any’. That is: ‘no food, no work’, or: ‘Not any food, not any work’, etc. In that case kumi must be a nominalization. Unfortunately I have not yet been able to consult the German original of Mentzel’s Vollständige[r] (...) Beschreibung des (...) afrikanischen Vorgebirges der Guten Hoffnung (1785–1787), but the English translation of the Van Riebeck Society (Mentzel 1944) renders Mentzel’s translation for (15b) as follows: “If you have no money, I have no –”, which seems to confirm my hypothesis. Incidentally the phrases in (15) give clear evidence that the slaves acquired their pidgin from the Khoekhoe. It is thus not impossible that the slaves also used the verbal endings ‑um/‑om/‑me, but without any examples this is not possible to prove. I would like to return to the sentences in (11)–(14). As I already mentioned, SOV examples here appear in connection with V2-clauses. We also find deflected finite verbs in connection with a subject in the plural: ons soek, ons denk in (12). Two more examples of that kind are the following: (16) Jongens ons moet allegaar naar Abraham de Clercq gaan daar goet kost soeken (1720) Lads we must all to Abraham de Clercq go there good food find (17) ons het zoo lang bij malkanderen begleeven tot dat [zijl] ons gevangen het (1721) We are so long together remained until [you (pl.)] us captured have Apart from a possible nonverbal predicate in (16), we here find cases like ons moet, ons het and [zijl] (i.e. zijlieden, literally ‘you-people’) ... het. Het is the Afrikaans perfect auxiliary (a dialectal 3rd person singular in Dutch), which has also taken over the function of the Du. auxiliary verb zijn ‘be’ (here: ons het). However, just as with the Khoekhoe V2-clauses, (8)–(9), one must be cautious to only view these examples as



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

semi-realistic. It is improbable that the pidgins or that Proto-Afrikaans I had any Ablaut (cf. den Besten 1987a). Gebleeven (inf. blijven) is thus probably a Dutchification of gebly or geblywe. Even less probable, or rather: utterly unlikely would be to assume that the slaves used the written language form malkanderen. The expression bij malkanderen ‘together’ actually means ‘next to each other’ (Du. bij elkaar, bij mekaar). The slaves who uttered (17) might have said bij mekaar or bij malkaar, but we can easily reject bij malkanderen, with the written language plural form malkanderen. I would like to point out that these kinds of problems arise not only with the Proto-Afrikaans examples, but also with the Pidgin examples. It would be beyond the scope of this paper to also discuss the various philological issues.

4. Language osmosis and the genesis of Hottentot Dutch 4.1

Introductory remarks

Since Hottentot Dutch probably provided the foundation for the pidgin of the slaves, I would here like to confine myself to the question of the genesis of Hottentot Dutch. The SOV word order of Hottentot Dutch allows for the hypothesis that this language is (partly) a relexified Khoekhoe foreigner talk, for under normal circumstances an SVO order would rather be expected, since V2 in the Du. main clauses could easily be misunderstood as an indication of SVO. Interestingly enough such a pidgin was created, which appeared fairly normal to the speakers of the superstrate, because Dutch or German foreigner talk is formed by leaving out the tense, producing infinitival SOV clauses (You come along, I you not understand, etc.). For that reason the speakers of the superstrate did not need to change the word order of their language when in contact with the slaves and the Hottentots. With tense meant SOV + V2 (Dutch), without tense SOV (foreigner talk and pidgin). As for the pidgin, I need to point out that this was not pure Hottentot foreigner talk. Due to Khoekhoe, postpositions and clause final negation would be expected. But Hottentot Dutch was prepositional and had clause internal negation. This means that the pidgin was accommodated to Dutch and/or Du. foreigner talk. The fact that the attributive adjective is prenominal in the pidgin, while there is also a postnominal (appositional) option in Khoekhoe, indicates that the Du. word order limited the options that were available in Khoekhoe for the pidgin. Something similar also holds for the prenominal position of the definite article. It is true that Khoekhoe does not have any definite article, but the article die ‘the’ (actually a Du. demonstrative die ‘that; the’) probably came into being through contact between the Du. definite and the Hottentot prenominal demonstrative, which can also occur postnominallly or appositionallly. (I.e. as far as concerns Hottentot Dutch. Other than that Creole Portuguese, Malay and universal tendencies were also of importance.)

 Roots of Afrikaans

Although the SOV word order of Hottentot Dutch seems to me to be an indication for relexification, I would still like to give some independent evidence for relexification in Section 4.2. From that it will be seen that apart from relexification, simplification (pidginization) also played a role. After that I will in Section 4.3 give a new interpretation, i.e. translation, to a known text, which is from about the earliest time of the Cape Colony. In 4.4 a few matters will be further discussed.

4.2

Relexification of Khoekhoe

On the 21st of February 1882, Theophilus Hahn, librarian of the Grey Library in Cape Town, wrote a letter to Hugo Schuchardt. In it he states, among other things: “The Griquas as well as the Namaquas also speak a Dutch, and they often speak Namaqua [i.e. Hottentot, HdB] in that they take over Dutch words and Hottentotize them, such as for run‑you = Loop‑tse instead of !gun‑tse come‑you, (imper.) Kom‑tse for hā‑tse. An interpreter was during the sermon supposed to translate By nature completely corrupt to Dutch: Van Natuur geheelenall bedorven. The chap translated: Heeltemaalse (adv) Natuura‑xu bedorven‑he (xu of) (he passive suffix) instead: Hoaragase (in full ũba xu//gau‑//gau‑he). So the Hottentots presumably do as elsewhere, they pick up new words into their lexicon, Hottentotize them, but the grammar remains Hottentot.”8 This relexified Khoekhoe, which, according to Christo van Rensburg (personal communication), could still have belonged to the bilingual Hottentots of Richtervelde in the northwest of the Cape province (and therefore, I assume, also in Namibia), does not look like Hottentot Dutch, as only the content words were relexified. The grammatical particles and suffixes remained: ‑ts(e), the 2nd person singular masculine enclitic pronoun; ‑se, the adverbial suffix; ‑a, the accusative ending; ‑xu, a postposition; ‑he, the passive ending, but it is easy to imagine how a Hottentot Dutch sentence could emerge from such a relexified Khoekhoe sentence. Whether everything happened that straightforwardly, is another question, but if we use this process, the last example of Hahn would yield: Heeltemaal Natuur bedorven, i.e. a structure without adpositions. Cf. van Meerhoff ’s quote ((2) above): Namaqua boebe kros moscoqua, where I also assumed a wrongly realized PP. Indications of a relexified Khoekhoe can be found in a Hottentot word list, which was compiled by Étienne de Flacourt 1655 at the Saldanha-Bai (at that time still far outside the Cape Colony) as he returned from Madagascar. Between the words in this list there are also a few short phrases (some of which de Flacourt (or: Flacourt?) did not recognize as such). There are three such phrases, which show relexification: ghemaré “donnez moy”, atré “manger” and haresi, haremon “que ie voye” (Nienaber 1963: sub gee II, eet II and sien I, II). 8. I am grateful to Glenn Gilbert for providing me with a copy of this letter, which he discovered in the Schuchardt Archive in Graz.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

The status of ghemaré as a relexified Khoekhoe phrase is not entirely certain. Nienaber (1963) interprets ghema‑ as a hybrid compound of Afr. gee ‘give’ (see Section 5.1) and Kh. ma ‘id.’. Such hybrid compounds we also know from second language acquisition. If Nienaber is right, then ghema‑ is a relexification of ma‑ in the phrase ma‑re ‘give!’ (with the imperative/hortative particle re). But it cannot be excluded that de Flacourt actually heard gee, ma‑re, that is an asyndetic coordination of two clauses. The other two examples do not pose such problems. Atré, translated by de Flacourt as manger ‘eat’, is a Khoekhoe imperative clause: Du. eet‑ ‘eat’ + Kh. -re imp./hort. particle, that is: ‘eat!’. (The e/a alternation we also find in the following words recorded by de Flacourt: baquery “boutaille”, from Du. beker ‘mug’.) In haresi, haremon “que ie voye” we see the relexification in action, as it were. Due to another entry by de Flacourt: hare mon “que mon oeil voye”, it is certain that we are here dealing with an imperative or hortative. For that reason ‑re‑ is probably the imp./hort. particle. The meaning of ha‑ is not clear. It could be hā ‘come’, in which case haremon would mean ‘come, look’ (Nienaber 1963), since mon definitely must be Kh. mũ ‘see, look’. In any case, through relexification of mũ with either Eng. see or Du. zie‑ (stem of zien ‘see’) the (half)relexified phrase haresi emerges from haremon. That relexification might have been a factor in the genesis of Hottentot Dutch, can, as far as I am concerned, be assumed not only on the basis of the SOV word order, but also due to two peculiar examples in ten Rhyne (1686) and Kolbe (1727). In the quote above (4) from ten Rhyne the second sentence is as follows: Was makom?, which I have glossed as ‘What-you do?’. One wonders why there is no subject (jij or g(h)ij) here. Hesseling (1923: 104) hesitantly suggests classifying Was makom? as a German idiomatic expression (Was macht’s? ‘So what?/What does it matter?’), and Nienaber too is uncertain what to do about this sentence. But Hesseling’s interpretation does not fit with the Latin translation given by ten Rhyne, quid facitis? ‘What are you doing?’. Added to that is the fact that Kolbe (1727: I, 502) gives almost the same sentence: wat maakum zoo? ‘What do so?’ in a context where ‘What does it matter’ is impossible, and where the translation ‘What are you doing?’ is obvious. I would like to propose the following alternative: Nienaber (1953) proves that t, ts and s were more or less interchangeable in Cape Hottentot. This allows for the following interpretation of Was makom?: (18) Wat‑ts makom? What‑you (masc.) do? Was would according to this interpretation be an amalgamation of Du. wat ‘what’ and the Khoekhoe particle ‑ts (also: ‑tse), the enclitic 2nd person singular masculine pronoun, which has to appear immediately after the interrogative constituent (with optional deletion of the lexical subject). If this analysis is correct, we have found a Hott.Du. sentence where the relexification still shines through.

 Roots of Afrikaans

4.3

Willem ten Rhyne (1686): Morphology and vocabulary of Hottentot Dutch

A text like the letter by Theophilus Hahn, who could speak Nama himself, has not been handed down to us from the 17th century. But we can still make some deductions about the structure and genesis of Hottentot Dutch from the last chapter of ten Rhyne’s Schediasma de Promontorio Bonae Spei; ejusive tractus incolis Hottentottis (‘Short Description of the Cape of Good Hope and the Inhabitants of the Area, the Hottentots’, 1686), since ten Rhyne did have some linguistic knowledge, and since this chapter contains a lot of data. Unfortunately B. Farrington, who translated ten Rhyne’s Schediasma from Latin for Schapera (1933), sometimes rendered the last chapter, De Lingua eorundem ‘On the Language of the same’, very freely and sometimes incorrectly. This has misled other researchers, such as Schapera himself and G. S. Nienaber. In den Besten (1987b) I already gave a short discussion on the translational problems of that chapter. I hope to be able to publish a longer, English article on then Rhyne’s De Lingua eorundem in the future. As I would like to comment on various parts of the chapter, I will treat them as ‘linguistic examples’, i.e. number them. Each text excerpt will be followed by a translation.9 Ten Rhyne’s 27th chapter, De Lingua eorundem, starts with a description of the phonological characteristics of Hottentot. Ten Rhyne finds the Khoekhoe clicks very strange, almost objectionable. This phonological characteristic, according to him, has as a result that (Adeo ut) one is not able to communicate with them in their own language: (19) a. nisi illi, qui dudum prope fortalitium vitam transegere, nostratibus se accommodent, plurima Belgica vocabula, sola terminatione diversa callentes. Omnia ferme finiunt in Kom, ut tabaqkom, tabacum, kortom, portiuncula, horom audire, &c. b. if not those, who have already lived near the fort for a long time, would adjust to our compatriots, as they through constant use know very many Dutch words – even if with a different ending.10 Almost all end with Kom, as tabaqkom, tobacco, kortom, morsel [small portion], horom, hear, etc. Kom is a layman’s mistake. It should be ‑om. Tabaqkom and horom do not need any commenting. Kortom is a nominalization of the Du. kort ‘short’. Ten Rhyne’s statement that almost all words end in ‑om does not agree with the morphology of the sentences quoted from ten Rhyne (1686) in (4) above: only verbs have the ‑om ending (‑om or ‑me). Nevertheless, the mention of tabaqkom and kortom cannot be by chance. The word kortom also appears in a report by Henrik Jacob Wikar (1779), where it seems to mean ‘(small) portion, (small) share’ (Godée Molsbergen 1916: I), 9. I am grateful to my colleagues in Amsterdam, M. Bolkestein (Classical Studies) and P. Tuynman (Neo-Latin Studies), for their help. Any mistakes are my sole responsibility. The Latin text is quoted from the edition in Schapera (1933). 10. Calleo means, among other things, ‘know through experience’. I once found the expression ‘know through constant use’ in another source on Cape Hottentot. It seems to me to be fitting here.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

and Du. tabak and the obsolete toebak/tobak appears in Hottentot Dutch clothing as Tobackum (1666), Tubaccum or Tubackum (1670; Nienaber does not always copy reliably) and Tabacqrom (1680; intended is: Tabacqom) (see Nienaber 1959, and 1963: sub goed I). We also have at our disposal a small conversation in Hottentot Dutch, which maybe tells us a bit more about this word. The German David Tappens, who was at the Cape in 1666 (Nienaber 1959), writes in his travel account from 1704, how he says to (asks) a female Hottentot: Kutkykum ‘cunt-look’. She holds out her hand and answers: Tabackum. Once he has given her a piece of tobacco, she asks again: Kutkykum? and, after he has said yes, lifts up her sheep skin (Godée Molsbergen 1916: II, 6f.). I do not here wish to discuss this peculiar episode itself, which was ‘quite normal’ at the Cape during those times. That the Du. kijken ‘look’ appears as ‑kykum is hardly surprising. It is, however, noteworthy that, alongside Tabackum, the noun Kut‑ does not have any ‑um suffix. Perhaps these data allow us to conclude that suffixation of ‑um/‑om on nouns was an exception. This is probably connected to the fact that tabaqkom and kortom belonged to the core vocabulary of the Dutch-Khoekhoe trade, and therefore must have belonged to the oldest strata of Hottentot Dutch. The above passage is followed by this sentence: (20) a. Quae vero ipsis vernaculae sunt in redicibus non permultae, in epithetis locupletiores sunt voces: b. (The) words, which really are native to them, is in the domain of root word not very numerous, richer in the domain of additions: The translation, which has attempted to be as literal as possible, can be interpreted in two ways: the sentence is either about Khoekhoe words in the Dutch of the Hottentots, or it is about the Khoekhoes as such (in which case one could ask oneself why ten Rhyne had to express himself so curiously). Farrington’s translation chooses the latter interpretation: (20) c. Their vernacular does not contain many roots, but the words are enriched with affixes. Even if Khoekhoe is a language rich in affixes, it is wrong to render the grammatical term “epitheta” with “affixes”, which can also be deduced from the next passage: (21) a. ita omnes quotquot sunt aves Courcour appelant; addendo V.G. Camma Courcour, avis aquatica, sive sit anas, sive mergus, sive gavia, &c. Sickom (corruptus Belgicismus, qui ipsis familiarissimus) courcour, avis foetus; Grotom (eadem corruptio) courcour, magna avis, qua tamen ordinario struthiocamelum indigitant. b. thus they call all birds, no matter how many [different] there are, Courcour; with the addition e.g. Camma Courcour, water bird, may it be a duck, or a diver, or a seagull, etc. Sickom (a corrupt Dutch word, which are very familiar to them) courcour, young of a bird [that is: a young bird]; Grotom (a similar corruption) courcour, big bird, with which they usually refer to the ostrich.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Schapera has added a frustrated footnote to this passage: “Both Wreede (ca. 1663) and Kolbe (1719), in their vocabularies of the Cape Hottentot language, give a variety of different names in use for different species of birds (...), so that Ten Rhyne’s observation is obviously incorrect”. Nienaber also raises doubts, for the general word for ‘bird’ is and was not courcour, but ani‑b (masc.)/ani‑s (fem.), and the collocation Grotom courcour rather looks like pidgin. Schapera and Nienaber have, however, been misled by Farrington’s translation. In my opinion ten Rhyne is here speaking of ‘Hottentot’ words in the pidgin of the Khoekhoe, where, as he shows, new words can be derived through collocation or compounding. Even so, the onomatopoeic courcour is probably not Hottentot, since ‑r is not a Kh. suffix and since roots have to end in either a vowel or a nasal in Khoekhoe (cf. Hagman 1973). It is thus a coined pidgin word, such as boeba ‘beef, cow, ox’, which many Europeans also took as a Hott. word. However, Courcour appears in different variations in Cape Hottentot and Korana as the word for the chicken, which was introduced by the Dutch, e.g. in Korana: kukuru‑b ‘cock’, kukuru‑s ‘hen’. Cf. Nienaber (1963: sub hoenders II). (Unfortunately Nienaber missed this connection.) Camma is Cape Hott.//gam‑ma ‘water’ (Nienaber 1963: sub water), apparently with a fossilized ending ‑ma, because in a correct Khoekhoe compound this gender suffix would not have occurred (but rather be something like// gam‑kukuru‑b). Sickom does not have to mean ‘young’ (cf. Nienaber 1963: sub jong/k I). The statement that this word was very common in Khoekhoe, agrees with what the lawyer and poet Aernout van Overbeke, who was at the Cape in 1672, that is, one year before ten Rhyne, writes about sieckum: id est sieck, quaet, knorrig, lelijck ... al wat niet een deught is al sieckum: slechte Tabacq, sieckum tabacq, etc. ‘id est ill, evil, cross, ugly ... anything that is useless, is nothing but sieckum: bad tobacco, sieckum tabacq, etc.’ (Porteman 1986). A young bird was maybe a sickom courcour, a useless bird, because it was not edible yet. But one can imagine all sorts of anecdotes behind this expression. Ten Rhyne’s last statement in the running prose is short and clear: (22) a. Quaedam etjam ex pristino com populis commercio Anglica suae linguae vocabula miscent; V.G. Canem vocant Doggues. b. They also mix in some English words in their language, from their former trade with [foreign] people; e.g. a dog they call Doggues. A horizontal line cuts off the main text from the three word lists with which the chapter is concluded. A short sentence introduces the first list: (23) a. Mere Hottentottonica, quae obiter occurrunt, sunt: b. Pure Hottentot words, which occasionally present themselves, are: 21 words are listed (without any ‘&c.’), among them the non-Hottentot Boeba. If we can classify (19a)–(22a) as a description of the lexical layers and the morphology of Hottentot Dutch, then this sentence probably introduces a list of pidgin words from Khoekhoe. Such words are, according to ten Rhyne, supposedly not very numerous



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

(which would be in agreement with the wording of (23)), and he can only give us 21, even if there were in all likelihood more. (23) contrasts nicely with the following sentence: (24) a. b.

Corrupta Belgica indefinita sunt Boe maakem goet, pulvis pyrius. Boebasibier, lac. Karos, colobium. Krallen, Casae & c. innumera There are corrupted Dutch words without limits [they are limitless] Boe maakem goet, gun powder. Boebasibier, milk. Karos, wrap (cloth) [better: leather wrap/cover] Krallen, huts and innumerable others.

Immediately after this list a list follows with Khoekhoe numerals, under the heading Numerandi vocabula. These words probably did not belong to Hottentot Dutch, because ten Rhyne describes them as words with a very peculiar pronunciation, that only few Dutch could understand. As for the examples in (24), a short remark: Boe maakem goet is literally ‘boo make stuff ’. We already know that karos is Hottentot and not, as ten Rhyne probably believed, Du. karos ‘coach’. Boebasibier may look like ‘(the) cow “its” beer’, but it is more likely a Khoekhoe possessive construction, with the pidgin word boeba, the possessive article di/ti (with Cape Hottentot t/s alternation) and bi‑, the stem of Cape Hott. bi‑b ‘milk, drink’, which, for phonological reasons that I will not discuss here, could easily be mistaken for Du. bier (cf. Nienaber 1963: sub melk II).

4.4

Further remarks

The above can be summarized in three points: (a) relexification played a role, (b) there was lexical material from three different sources, (c) there was a minimal morphology: compounding (and/or collocations) and the general suffix ‑om (‑um, ‑me) for the non-Khoekhoe words. Through relexification and simplification a kind of foreigner talk with SOV word order was created, which came to have some similarities with the language of the Dutch. In the sentence Was makom? the relexification is still shining through. I would like to add that there seems to be a connection between relexification and pidgin morphology in the compound ‑Teckeman‑ ‘thief ’ and bijteman ‘lion (?), biter’. ‑Teckeman‑ appears in the clan name Taback‑Teckemans ‘tobacco thieves’ (see Section 3.3). Teckeman is probably Teckumaman, since ‑um/‑om was kept also in other V-N compounds (as in Boe maaken goet). The compound Teckumman ‘steal-man’ might appear to be pure pidgin, but it is morphologically also Hottentot. Agentives are in Nama formed by a compound of the verbal stem with a bound nominal stem ‑ao‑ (on which a gender suffix is added). A male thief is called !nari‑ao‑b or/ã‑ao‑b, a female thief !nari‑ao‑s or/ã‑ao‑s. However, the free nominal stem ao‑ means ‘man’: ao‑b as opposed to tara‑s ‘woman’. !Nari‑ao‑b and/ã‑ao‑b could therefore easily also be

 Roots of Afrikaans

interpreted as ‘stealing-man’ (see Rust 1960, Hagman 1973). In my opinion bijteman (1661) is almost a better argument for a Hottentot substrate to Hottentot Dutch. Pieter van Meerhoff (see Chapter 3.2) describes in a travel account how on the 5th of February ‘his’ Hottentots were attacked by a lion, which was why they shouted: Mr. Pieter bijteman ‘Master Pieter, bite-man’ (Godée Molsbergen 1916: I, 48). While ‑Teckeman‑ is immediately identifiable as ‘steal-man’, ‘bite-man’ seems somewhat odd as an expression for a lion. We should thus rather interpret this bijteman (prob. bijtumman) as ‘(a) biter’, that is ‘(a) biting animal’, just as ‑Teckeman‑ actually should be translated as ‘stealer’, because ‑ao‑b is ‘‑er’. As for the lexical layers of Hottentot Dutch, the following should be mentioned, apart from the one English word Doggues ‘dog’ mentioned by ten Rhyne: bras ‘copper’ (1652, 1661; see Nienaber 1963: sub koper I), soon as a future particle (1673; see Section 3.2), tecken, ‑Tecke‑ (= teckum?) ‘steal’ (1672, (after) 1657). Maybe also Sickom ‘ill, bad’ (from Eng. sick, alongside sieckum from Du. ziek ‘ill’). A few English words also appear in de Flacourt’s Khoekhoe wordlist (1655) (see Nienaber 1963). The Hottentot layer is in this paper represented by kros, Karos ‘(wrapping/covering) hide’ (1661, 1673), Camma ‘water’ (1673), and ‑si‑ and bie‑ in Boebasibier ‘[[cow of] milk]’.11 With these words the fossilized Khoekhoe morphology is noticeable: kros/ Karos with ‑s (fem. sg.), Camma with the Cape Hottentot ending ‑ma (masc. sg. after m; see Section 5.3); maybe also ‑b (masc. sg.) and ‑a (acc.) in boeba; and without doubt the plural accusative endings ‑qua and ‑na (masc. pl. ‑gu/‑ku as well as common gender pl. ‑n + ‑a) in ethnonyms such as Namaqua and Korana. Now only one question remains: where does the ‑um/‑om with its allomorph ‑me suffix come from? Does it come from Cape Hottentot? And if not, then from where? It is definitely not from Dutch or English.

5. The origin of the ‑m suffix 5.1

Allomorphy: ‑um/‑om vs. ‑me

In the words discussed in this paper the ‑m suffix for the most part appears in the form ‑um/‑om (once also as ‑em, and once written ‑m). In addition to that there are three verbs that end in ‑me: geme ‘give’ (1673, see (4)), kamme/ka me/kame/kamme‑ ‘can, be able to’ (1705–1713, 1733–1741, see (15)), and hemme ‘have’ (1705–1713, see below). The distribution of these suffixes is not arbitrary, even if that is not evident if one obstinately tries to link Hott.Du. verbs with Dutch verbal stems (e.g. Nienaber 1953: 119): (25) a. ‑um/‑om after a consonant b. ‑me after a vowel 11. See also footnote 3.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

That ‑um/‑om may be affixed to Dutch verbal stems ending in a consonant does not need to be justified. Cf. Callum (1672) and kallom (1673) with Du. kallen (kal‑ + ‑en), makom/maakem/maakum (1673, 1705–1713) with Du. maken (maak‑ + ‑en), beitum (1705–1713) with Du. bijten (bijt‑ + ‑en), horum (1673) with Du. horen (hoor‑ + ‑en). Nor do the nouns tabaqkom (1673) and kortom (1673), from Du. tabak and kort contradict the rule in (25a). The verb zienom (1705–1713), from Du. zien ‘see’ (zie‑ + ‑(e)n) might appear problematic, but it is not, since we are here dealing with a reanalyzed infinitive (which also occurs in Dutch dialects). The three pidgin verbs with ‑me do not seem to be compatible with either (25a) or (25b). Due to Du. geven ‘give’, hebben ‘have’ and kunnen ‘be able to’ or kan (1st, 3rd and optionally also 2nd person sg of kunnen), we would expect gevom, hebbom and kunnom or kannom respectively. Yet instead of gevom we find geme in (4) above (ten Rhyne 1686) and gemme in Kolbe (1727: I, 121). Furthermore we have geme/gemme in de Flacourt’s wordlist (1655): ghemé “donner” (Nienaber 1963: sub gee II). In Kolbe (1727: I, 121) hemme is listed three times instead of the expected hebbom; and here the actual word for ‘be able to’ also appears: kamme/ka me/kame (Kolbe 1727: I, 504 and 528), which can also be found in the sentences given by Mentzel (see (15)). The solution for this problem is, at least for geme/gemme and hemme, easy to figure out. In 1655 de Flacourt did not only record ghemé, but also ghemaré ‘give!’ (or in his translation donnez moy ‘give me’). Ghemaré is composed of, as I already discussed in Section 4.2, Du./Afr. gee(ven) ‘give’, Kh. ma ‘give’ and the Khoekhoe imperative/hortative particle re. This on the one hand means that Afr. gee was already in existance in 1655, three years after the founding of the colony (den Besten 1986 and 1987a), instead of geef or gewe, which would have been expected due to the Du. geven; and on the other hand, that the basis for geme/gemme/ghemé is gee, i.e. a stem that ends on a vowel. If this is the case, then hemme ‘have’ can be linked with Afr. hê ‘have (inf.)’. It is true that hemme is an auxiliary with Kolbe and not a lexical verb as Afr. hê, but that can hardly be an argument, since Afrikaans was not yet established at that time. Only kamme/kame is somewhat problematic, in that I am not aware of any form kâ in Afrikaans. ‘To be able to’ is kan in Afrikaans. However, since the ‘Coloureds’ in West Cape Afrikaans allow the verb kom ‘come’ also as kô, I assume that the hypothetical form kâ would not be impossible.

5.2

Earlier attempts at explanations

There are two attempts at explanations for ‑um/‑om/‑me in the literature: an article by G.S. Nienaber (1959) and a few pages by Marius Valkhoff (1966: 219–220 and 1972: 31–32), which does not say anything about Nienaber’s hypothesis. Valkhoff ’s contribution is curious and even naive. He regards ‑um/‑om a depronominal suffix. The ending ‑om can, according to him, be linked to Afr. hom ‘him’, and ‑um to Du. ’m, i.e [6m], a clitic form. At the same time he compares ‑um/‑om with the

 Roots of Afrikaans

verbal suffix ‑im in Tok Pisin and with the enclitic pronoun ‑am (= him, it) in Cameroon Pidgin. There are major differences between Hott.Du. ‑um/‑om, TP ‑im and CamP ‑am. The Hott.Du. suffix is a general verbal suffix; it marks transitive and intransitive verbs. As Valkhoff points out himself, the Cameroon Pidgin ‑am is a 3rd person singular pronoun clitic. It should therefore not be considered. The Tok Pisin suffix ‑im, which is derived from a 3rd person singular pronoun clitic, only marks transitive verbs, and is also used in order to derive transitives (or causatives) from intransitive verbs. TP ‑im is thus a transitivizer and not a verbalizer. Valkhoff could also have brought up the Chinese Pidgin English suffix ‑im, with which passive participials are formed (Hall 1983). That transitivizing and detransitivizing suffixes may derive from enclitic pronouns is, from a universal grammar point of view, hardly surprising, in fact, it is almost something to be expected. (Cf. the theory on enclitics in Borer 1984.) But on the basis of universal grammar the development of the Hott.Du. verbal suffix ‑um/‑om from the pronoun ’m/(h)om seems very implausible to me.12 Nienaber (1959) tries to explain ‑um/‑om through Hottentot. He takes Farrington’s translation of ten Rhyne (1686) as his starting point and therefore assumes that this suffix was used in Cape Hottentot in order to Hottentotize Dutch words. Nienaber’s hypothesis runs as follows: (a) there was a particle ‑g6n or ‑k6n in the (extinct) language of the /Xam Bushmen of the Cape Province, which appears as a suffix with different word classes and as a particle with the subject. (b) In Nama Hottentot there is an accreditive particle gum, which is placed after the subject (with a clause final ‑o). (c) Khoe and San (i.e. Bushman) languages belong to the same language family. (d) Therefore ‑(k)om/‑(k)um was a linguistic tool in Old Hottentot, which was possible to use with Dutch loanwords in the end phase of Hottentotization. Unfortunately Nienaber drew a rash conclusion. It is true that Khoekhoe and /Xam belong to the same Khoisan language family, but Khoekhoe is a Central Khoisan language and has little in common with the southern Khoisan languages, to which /Xam belongs. It is thus too farfetched to base a hypothesis on Old Hottentot on the state of affairs in /Xam. Added to that is the fact that the Central Khoisan languages employ gender marking, so that we would actually expect gender suffixes on borrowed words, such as tabaqkom/Tabackum, instead of ‑um/‑om or at least a sequence of a gender suffix and this hypothetical ‑(k)om/‑(k)um, something like: tabaka‑b‑om or tabaka‑b‑um (cf. Nama tabaka‑b ‘tobacco’). I would like to bring up another Khoekhoe hypothesis.

5.3

An alternative suggestion

In my opinion there is a less hypothetical suffix which could be behind ‑um/‑om: 12. Another question is whether ‑um/‑om has anything to do with the general verbalizer ‑um/‑om in Russenorsk. A historical connection does not seem impossible to me.



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

(26) ‑um/‑om/‑me is the old nominal ‑m suffix (masc. sg.) of Cape Hottentot and Korana, which has gradually developed from a nominalizing suffix to a verbalizer. This hypothesis is, among other things, based on the fact that, apart from verbs, also some nouns (tabaqkom, Tubackum, kortom) and adjectives (Sickom, sieckum, grotom) carry the ‑um/‑om suffix. The grammaticalization of a nominal suffix from a verbal suffix seems highly unlikely to me, while the development stated in (26) would not be impossible. In Nama, the most well-known of the Khoekhoe languages, there is no masculine ‑m suffix. The PGN (Person/Gender/Number) suffixes for masc. sg. are ‑b and (after sonorant consonants) ‑i, which derive from an older form *‑bi (Honken 1977). However, in Cape Hottentot and in older Korana we find an abundance of PGN suffixes for masc. sg. (even if it looks different in the late Korana of this century). The rules for the respective suffixes are scattered in Nienaber (1963). As far as I am able to judge at the moment, the suffixation rules need a certain order: (27) a. 1. ‑ma after m 2. ‑na after n b. ‑m after any other nasal consonant in the stem (sometimes also in other environments) c. ‑b elsewhere (sometimes also after nasal consonants) A few times ‑bi and a younger ‑i show up in Nienaber’s book, and possibly once ‑mi. In other, non-Hottentot, Central Khoisan languages a masc.sg. suffix with the form ‑mV (attributively also ‑m) often appears. Cf. Köhler (1962). Honken (1977) arrives at the conclusion that the oldest form in Khoekhoe must have been *‑mi. A general apocope rule erased the ‑i in ‑bi (and in ‑mi, we may assume). With that we have found our ‑m suffix. If ‑um/‑om and ‑me are the old ‑m suffix of Khoekhoe, the nouns tabaqkom and kortom hardly need any explanation: they have the regular Hottentot form (stem + PGN suffix). Sickom/sieckum and Grotom are a bit more problematic. Sickom/sieckum could, however, be construed as a verb (which is also not impossible for Grotom). As for Grotom, it is perhaps important to point out that we only know this form as an attributive adjective. The ‑om ending could therefore be an agreement suffix: Grotom courcour(+om). Such an agreement between noun and adjective is only possible in Nama if the adjective is postnominal. In other Central Khoisan languages we also find it in a prenominal position (Köhler 1962). Now the question is, whether it is warranted to assume that the ‑m suffix in Hottentot could also appear as a nominalizer. The rule in Nama is that nominalizations can only be done with ‑s (fem. sg.). But in Nama dictionaries (e.g. Rust 1960) nominalizations with ‑b can also be found. Masculine nominalizations thus presumably represent an older state of affairs. Nienaber (1963) also noticed that masculine nominalizations

 Roots of Afrikaans

sometimes occur in Cape Hottentot and Korana: e.g. mũ‑m ‘eye’ instead of Nama mũ-s (also mũ ‘see’). However, Nienaber has not noticed that many ‘verbs’ in de Flacourt’s (1655) list are masculine nominalizations, with ‑b, ‑m, ‑ma and maybe also once ‑mi. I would like to leave it at these suggestions, as it would be beyond the scope of this article to discuss the philological problems of the Cape Hottentot morphology. Such a morphological study would, however, be welcome, since without it my hypothesis regarding ‑um/‑om is not properly substantiated. I would like to add that ‑um/‑om has to be understood as a linking of an epenthetic vowel with ‑m (cf. Nama tabaka-b from tabak, Korana kukuru‑b from cou(r)cour). The ending ‑me is probably ‑mi. De Flacourt’s spelling ‑mé in ghemé indicates as much. Such an é also appears in his spelling for the feminine suffix ‑si: ‑sché, ‑sé. If my hypothesis holds, the Hott.Du. verbs like kallom and maakum originally had a nominalized form. With that they would on the one hand present evidence for relexification, and on the other hand evidence for (conscious) pidginization and simplification. (Cf. infinitives in foreigner talk sentences such as You come with.) Why the ‑m suffix and not the ‑b was preferred is still needs to be clarified. It is also not clear how and why this suffix developed into a verbalizer.

6. Concluding remarks This paper ends with my hypothesis on the ‑m suffix of Hottentot Dutch. Although it is quite extensive, the description of the Cape Pidgins of the 17th and 18th centuries is not complete: not all data have been analyzed, and I have only occasionally touched on the phonology and possible connections to contemporary Standard Afrikaans. For a complete description the following is needed: a language archive for the Cape Pidgins, an extensive article on the last chapter in ten Rhyne (1686) and a study on the morphology of Cape Hottentot and the oldest Korana.

List of abbreviations acc. adv. Afr. ant. CC CrP Du. Eng.

accusative adverb Afrikaans anterior Cameroon Creole Creole Portuguese Dutch English

Kh. Mal. masc. obs. part. perf. PGN pl.

Khoisan Malay masculine obsolete particle perfect Person/Gender/Number suffix plural



Chapter 7.  The Dutch pidgins of the Old Cape colony 

fem. fut. hort. Hott. imper/imp. inf.

feminine future tense hortative Hottentot imperative infinitive

Port. pres. pret. sg. TP

Portuguese present tense preterite singular Tok Pisin

chapter 8

On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin Morphosyntax, pronunciation and origin*

1. Introduction: Two hypotheses One of the most puzzling features of 17th and 18th century Cape Dutch Pidgin (CDP) as spoken by the Khoekhoen1 is the “verbal suffix” -um/-om/etc. (henceforth: -UM). Since it may also show up in what seem to be V + N compounds (e.g. rackum-Stock (lit.) ‘hitting stick’ i.e. ‘throwing stick or club’), it appears to be a general marker for verbs. Yet, it could also show up on adjectives and on nouns. The picture is further complicated by the existence of the “verbal suffix” -me, which may be an allomorph of -UM, but could be something else as well. Since a discussion of -me would require quite a bit of space, this article is confined to -UM. In den Besten (1987) I suggested that -UM might be an exemplar of the Cape Khoekhoe (CKh) person-gender-number marker (pgn-marker) 3MSg. Since this CKh marker could also be used as a nominalizer, I suggested (for reasons I do not subscribe to any longer) that the V + -um pattern might derive from nominalized CKh VPs, i.e. [VP .... V]-3MSg. However, this idea was ill-advised, considering the following: a. In my CDP data base only one Dutch noun (the word for ‘tobacco’) ends in -UM, while N^pgn is a regular pattern in Khoekhoe. b. The pattern [N V^pgn + N] (cf. rackum-Stock above) is illicit in Khoekhoe. Compounds may not contain word-internal pgn-markers. c. The pattern [NP A^pgn + N] (see below) is illicit in Khoekhoe. d. The CKh pgn-marker 3MSg is a set of allomorphs only two of which contain an [m]: -ma (after stems ending in [m]) and -m (after another nasality factor – except for stems ending in [n], which take the ending -na, cf. Nienaber 1963). There is no such variation in CDP, for which see the Appendix. * This paper was first published in Voor Magda. Artikelen voor Magda Devos bij haar afscheid van de Universiteit Gent, Johan De Caluwe en Jacques van Keymeulen (eds), 177–189. Universiteit Gent: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde/Academia Press Gent, 2010. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 1. Khoekhoen, with 〈oe〉 = [ŏε] is the indigenous, self-referential name for the so-called Hottentots.

 Roots of Afrikaans

In a recent paper (den Besten 2007b) I suggested that a V^-UM + N sequence need not be a compound, since it can also be analyzed as a relexified Khoekhoe sentence with clitic doubling of the subject: VPj- proi – DPi – vpj – due to topicalization of a nonsubject. Similarly for A-UM + N: Grotom courcour ‘big bird’ (ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 154) could also be analyzed as [AP groot]j – proi – [DP-i courcour] – vpj. These structures – if correct – can be ascribed to Khoekhoe substrate, because in Khoekhoe inverted subjects undergo clitic doubling. Furthermore, since in Khoekhoe the inverted subject may drop if it is pronominal itself, subject predicate sequences ending in -UM could be reanalyzed as involving Left Dislocation cum subject clitic doubling. E.g. grot Capitain pissem ‘great Chief piss’ (Langhanß 1715: 119) may be [DP-i grot Capitain] – [CP [VP-j pis]-proi – [DP-i [+pro] e] – vpj.] rather than DP – VP. Similarly for adjectival predicates. In the present article I would like to give an overview of the various uses of -UM and discuss what may seem to be a side-issue: the pronunciation of the four variants of -UM that can be found in the sources: -m, -em, -um and -om. My conclusion will be that one of the pronunciations has been [ŭm] and that this element may very well be the oblique form of the Dutch-Afrikaans pronoun 3MSg.

2. -UM in the sources 2.1

The sources

Although we have pidgin data since 1608, we do not encounter -UM until 1668. This ending can be found in eleven primary sources, which are listed in Table 1. That is to say I will not discuss the English compound Rackum-stick ‘throwing stick’ mentioned in J. Ransham’s The world in miniature (2nd ed., 1741; see Nienaber 1959: 4), because Ransham may have borrowed it from the English translation of Kolb (1719), in which the Pidgin-German hybrid compound Rackum-Stock/Rakum-Stock occurs many times (see below). Similarly, I will not discuss the remark about -UM in Hesse (1688) since it is a rehash of a passage in ten Rhyne (1686).2 The sources in Table 1 are ordered on the basis of their periods of recording, cf. the first two columns. The next two columns indicate the year(s) of publication or filing (of books and manuscripts respectively) and the languages these documents are written

2. “[...] und enden sich ihre Wörter meistentheils auf ein kom und rom aus/als Tabaqkom Taback/Horom hören” i.e. `and their words end for the most part in kom and rom/as in Tabaqkom ‘tobacco’/Horom ‘to hear’. (Hesse 1688: 44). Cf. ten Rhyne (1686; 1933: 152) “Omnia ferme finiunt in Kom, ut tabaqkom, tabacum, kortom, portiuncula, horom, audire, &c.” i.e. ‘Nearly all [their borrowed/acquired words] end in Kom such as tabaqkom, tobacco, kortom, small portion, horom, to hear, &c.’



Chapter 8.  On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin 

Table 1.  Primary sources for -UM Period of recording 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

1668 1670 1672 1673 1682 1688 1694 1705–’13 1709/’12 1733–’41 1778–’79

Publ./Ms. 1678 1678 [1672] 1686 1704 1692 1715 1719 1714 1785–’87 [1779]

Author’s name Du. Da. Du. Lat. Grm. Grm. Grm. Grm. Grm. Grm. Du.

van Overbeke Bolling Cape Arch. ten Rhyne Tappe Meister Langhanß Kolb Bövingh Mentzel Wikar

in (Dutch, Danish, Latin and German). Note that the dates of the manuscripts are surrounded by square brackets. Our main sources are ten Rhyne and Kolb.3 Note that Bövingh (1714) is a revision of Bövingh (1712), which was based upon letters written during Bövingh’s outbound voyage in 1709. However, the pidgin datum that is relevant for this paper only occurs in the 1714 edition. Without further information we cannot decide whether Bövingh had picked this up in 1709 or on his home bound voyage in 1712. Therefore “1709/’12”.

2.2

The data in our sources

I will group the sources in five subsections: before ten Rhyne (2.2.1), ten Rhyne (2.2.2), between ten Rhyne and Kolb (2.2.3), Kolb and Bövingh (2.2.4), and after Kolb (2.2.5). 2.2.1 Before ten rhyne I start with van Overbeke (1678), and I quote the following text concerning the deposed Cape Commander, van Quaelbergen: De Hottentots selfs, die een vrywillige gift alle jaren aen den Commandeur geven; hebben de bruy van hem, wat Capiteyn (seggen sy) is dat! altijdt Sieckum (id est sieck, quaet, knorrig, lelijck, en al wat niet en deught, is al sieckum, slechte Tabacq, sieckum Tabacq, &c.) en dat maeckt onsen vrient dol, [...] (1668; van Overbeke 1678; 1998: 81–82) 3. I quote from the 1719 German edition, because that is the original, while the Dutch edition (Kolb 1727) does more than only removing graphemic Germanisms in the pidgin data.

 Roots of Afrikaans

[transl.:] The Hottentots even, who each year give a voluntary present to the Commander, are fed up with him, wat Capiteyn (they say) is dat! [What a Captain (they say) is that!] altydt Sieckum [always Sieckum] (i.e. ill, angry, grumpy, ugly, and all that is no good is all sieckum, bad tobacco, sieckum Tabacq, etc.) and that is driving our friend crazy [...].

The second source, Bolling (1678) states: “de kalte god Tuback Tubaccum tzicum” i.e. ‘they [i.e. the Khoekhoen] called good tobacco Tubaccum tzicum’ (Bolling 1678: 20). Nienaber (1963: 285) interprets Tubaccum tzicum as ‘good tobacco’. However, ‘bad tobacco’ or ‘the tobacco is bad’4 is more likely. Also note that Bolling introduces something new: a Dutch noun with the suffix -UM: Tubaccum (< Du. toebak ‘tobacco’ (obs.)).This feature is confirmed by ten Rhyne (1686) and Tappe (1704). The next source provides the first examples of -UM as a verbal marker: (1) ´t Za lustigh, duijtsman een woordt Calm, ons V Kelum Tza quiet, Dutchman one word say, 1pl 2 cut-throat  (1672; Attest, 1671/1673: 257; Franken 1953: 113) 2.2.2 Ten Rhyne This usage is confirmed by ten Rhyne (and after him by the sources 05–08): (2)

Was makom? Duytsman altyt kallom: Icke What-2sgm do? Dutchman always say: 1sg Hottentots doot makom. Hottentots dead make [= kill] (1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 140)

Furthermore ten Rhyne provides us with two examples of V + N sequences with a verb ending in -UM: Etom schaep ‘eating sheep, food sheep, a sheep to eat’ (or rather ‘eat iti, the sheepi’- p. 136) and “Boe maakem goet, pulvis pyrius” i.e. ‘Boe maakem goet [= boo(m) make stuff] ‘gun powder’’ (or maybe:[VP boo(m) make] – proi – [DPi stuff] – vp – p. 154). This feature is confirmed by Kolb (1719) and Bövingh (1714), see Section 2.2.4. And ten Rhyne twice mentions what seems to be a deverbal nominalization ending in -UM: kortom, which is explained as portiuncula ‘little piece, little share’, more specifically ‘the chief ’s bartering tax’ (pp. 136 – 152; < Du. korten ‘to cut back – This feature is confirmed by Mentzel and Wikar. See Section 2.2.5.) Furthermore, ten Rhyne provides us with new examples of adjectives ending in -UM and with another example of a Dutch noun ending in -UM: “Sickom [...] courcour, avis foetens”5 i.e. ‘stinking/smelling bird’ and “Grotom [...] courcour, magna avis, qua

4. Involving Left Dislocation:DP-i Tubaccum] – [CP [AP-j tzic]–3MSgi – [DP-I [+ pro] e] – apj] 5. Ten Rhyne (1686; 1933: 154) reads avis foetus ‘a bird’s young, young bird’, while the manuscript reads avis foetens ‘stinking/smelling bird’. See den Besten (2007a: 39)



Chapter 8.  On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin 

tamen ordinario struthiocamelum indigitant” i.e. ‘big bird, with which they usually indicate the ostrich’, and tabaqkom ‘tobacco’. However, A^-UM seems to be the exception rather than the rule. In ten Rhyne’s own pidgin sentences we only find adjectives without -UM: onse groote Kapiteyn ‘our great Chief ’ [a deity] and witte boeba ‘white oxen’ (p. 140 (twice)). Similarly for grot Capitain ‘great Chief ’ [a deity] (Langhanß 1715: 119) and die oud Volk ‘the old people’ [= our forebears] (Kolb 1719: 432). If Grotom courcour and Sickom courcour are sentences with topicalization and clitic doubling the discrepancies disappear. 2.2.3 Between Ten Rhyne and Kolb The next three sources do not offer anything new. They all have one or two verbs ending in -UM: Kutkykum ‘cunt-looking’ (Tappe 1704: 132), suugum ‘to suck’ (Meister 1692: 253), and pissem ‘to piss’, arbeitem ‘to work’ and sterbem ‘to die’ (Langhanß 1715: 119). 6 Only Tappe offers more: two Dutch nouns ending in -um: Tobackum (p. 131) and Tabackum (p. 132), which confirms Bolling’s Tubaccum and ten Rhyne’s tabaqkom. Since Tubaccum (< Du. toebak (obs.)), Tobackum (< Du. tobak (obs.)) and tabaqkom/Tabackum (< Du. tabak) are in a sense just one and the same (variable) word, we may wonder whether this N-UM pattern was productive at all. 2.2.4 Kolb and Bövingh In the eighth source, Kolb (1719), we find only three of the six uses established in the previous sections. In Kolb’s pidgin sentences verbs often end in -UM and he has two cases of predicative adjectives ending in -UM: Sikum and Sickum (pp. 442, 448) – in either case explained with Grm. ungesund ‘unhealthy’, and 15 cases of V^um + N compounds, which however reduce to just two patterns: Pu makum guts/Pumackum guts [‘boo(m) make stuff ’] ‘fire arms’ (pp. 51, 587) and Rackum-Stock/Rakum-Stock ‘hitting stick, throwing stick’, a hybrid compound of CDP rackum/rakum (< Du. raken ‘hit’) and Grm. Stock ‘stick’.7 A similar hybrid compound can be found in Bövingh (1714: 11): Rackums-Stecken ‘Rackum’s-stick’. However, V^-UM + N is not the rule for V + N compounds. Compare tover Mann/etc. ‘magic man’ (Kolb 1719: 437, 439), Tover Goeds/etc. ‘magic stuff, medicin’ (Kolb 1719: 439 (twice), 574, 575) and Tover Vrouw/etc. ‘magic woman’(Kolb 1719: 439; Bövingh 1712: 7 & 1714: 19). Therefore, reinterpreting A^-um + N as sentences with topicalization and subject doubling may solve a couple of problems, such as the optionality of -UM inside V + N compounds and the absence of a Khoekhoe basis for it,

6. Sterbem need not be a Germanism (see den Besten 1999); arbeitem almost certainly is. 7. In fact there is one case of “Rackum-Stöcklein” with the diminutive of Stock (p. 502), while there are five cases of “Rackum-Stock” (pp. 477, 478 (twice), 504, 533) and seven instances of “Rakum-Stock” (pp. 477, 478 (3 times), 526 (3 times)). There may be more.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Presumably, the European settlers did not understand the Khoekhoe structure underlying N^-UM^+ N senteces and so produced petrified sentences as Noun Phrases (or as DPs), which must have been utterly funny for the Khoekhoen. Finally, there is the disturbing fact that at least in one case Kolb has been tampering with the data by adding -um to something which he apparently regarded as a verb: I mean the “word” Hottentot in the well-known early Cape Colonial touristic dancing ditty, as in: Hottentot brokwa, Hottentot brokwa (sometimes interpreted as ‘Give (the Hottentot) a piece of bread’; Hondius 1652 [1952]: 29 and Dapper 1668; 1933: 70). Kolb – quoting the German translation of Dapper (1668) via Arnold (1672: 1099, n.*) – tacitly changes Hottentot Brockvva! Hottentot Brockvva! into Hottentottum Brockqua! Hottentottum Brokqua (p. 348), which is followed by three more cases of Hottentottum Broqua on p. 349. So Kolb and other authors may have more often added -UM. And that may be the reason why we cannot detect a system behind the use of -UM. 2.2.5 After kolb The last two sources are Mentzel (1785–1787) and Wikar (1779). Just like Kolb and Bövingh, Mentzel discusses a throwing stick but he does not call it a Rackum-Stock but rather a Rackum: [...] und ein kurzer Knüppel den sie Rackum nennen, [...] ‘and a short club, which they call Rackum [...]’ (vol. II: 486). So Mentzel uses a nominalization. Other instances of Rackum can be found on the pages 487, 488 and 489 – in the latter case he uses the plural form Rackums. This seems to confirm ten Rhyne, because we now have two examples of nominalized verbs ending in -UM: kortom and rackum. Also Wikar (1739) plays a minor role here, because he doubles ten Rhyne’s nominalization kortom (Wikar 1779; 1935: 26). Note, however, that Rackum may be another sentence misinterpreted as a Noun (Phrase): [VP-i rack]-proi – [DP-j [+ pro] e] – vpi. And maybe the same applies to kortom.

2.3

The -UM data in figures

It is clear that there are four “allomophs” for -UM: -m, -em, um and -om. Table 2 specifies per allomorph how many patterns are used by the respective sources. The “raw” data can be found in the Appendix. Although we may not deduce anything from the figures collected in Table 2, it seems safe to conclude that the variant -um was very much in vogue among the authors quoted in this article. We now have to establish how -um was pronounced.



Chapter 8.  On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin 

Table 2.  The number of patterns per allomorph per source

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Author

-m

-em

-um

-om

1668 van Overbeke 1670 Bolling 1672 Cape Archives 1673 ten Rhyne 1682 Tappe 1688 Meister 1694 Langhanß 1705–1713 Kolb 1709/1712 Bövingh 1733–1741 Mentzel 1778–1779 Wikar Total number of patterns Total number of authors

– – 1 – – – – – – – – 1 (1)

– – – 1 – – 3 – – – – 4 (2)

 1  2  1 –  2  1 – 14 1  1 – 23 (8)

– – –  9 – – –  2 – –  1 12 (3)

 1  2  2 10  2  1  3 16  1  1  1 40

3. The pronunciation of the allomorphs 3.1

-m, -em and -om

For the majority of the variants of -UM establishing the pronunciation is unproblematic: (1) Both in Dutch and in German orthography, posttonic, unstressed 〈Cem〉 represents [C6m] (or as [Cœm]). (2) In view of the svarabhakti vowel breaking up word-final liquid + m sequences in Dutch the -m in Calm (Cape Archives) implies a schwa as well. (3) The variant -om is also unambiguous: 〈Com〉 represents [Cfm].

3.2

-um: Dutch vs.Danish vs.German

However, the variant -um is problematic. In Dutch 〈Cum〉 in Latin loans such as stadium ‘stage’ and in toponyms like Bussum, Gorcum and Bedum must be pronounced as [C6m] or – with spelling pronunciation – as [Cœm]. 〈Cum〉 in similar words in German must be pronounced as [Cŭm]. And 〈Cum〉 in Danish Latinisms like centrum ‘center’ and stadium ‘stage’ is pronounced with an [ŏ]. Since Bolling’s Tubaccum tzicum indicates that he did not (yet) know Dutch when he heard this, we may assume that he had heard (following Dutch orthography) *Toebakkom sikom. But we still have five Germans with the variant -um: Tappe, Meister, Kolb, Bövingh and Mentzel. In the case of Tappe and Bövingh there is not enough material to decide which vowel they had in mind: [6/œ] according to the Dutch, or [ŭ] according to the German system. However in the case of O.F. Mentzel it is reasonable to assume that he

 Roots of Afrikaans

meant Rack[ŭ]m, since he also writes Kumi ‘to eat, food’ (Creole Portuguese), Kuli ‘work’ (Malay?) and Kunte ‘cunt’ (< Du. kont ‘cunt’ (obs.)) with a German 〈u〉 instead of a Dutch 〈oe〉. Also in the case of Kolb (1719) we can be certain that by writing -um he intended to indicate a back vowel and not a schwa: he was inclined to write a German 〈u〉 whenever he considered (part of) a word un-Dutch. E.g. musku slim ’very smart’ (p. 408), Buchu ‘buchu’ (p. 416). And he sometimes even wrote a German 〈u〉 instead of a Dutch 〈oe〉. One of those cases is the pidgin ‘word’ for fire arms, Pu makum guts (p. 51)/ Pumackum guts (p. 587). Why he wrote guts and not his usual Goeds/goeds (pp. 437, 439 (3 times), 495 (twice), 574) is unclear. But with his spelling of Dutch goeds as guts and of poe/boe, (which he may or may not have recognized as Dutch) as Pu he almost forces the reader to read mak[ŭ]m, and not mak[6]m. Finally, Meister (1692), who is writing the following: wenn man sie fraget warum sie solches thun/sagen sie auf grum Holländisch i.e. if one asks them why they do such [i.e. eating lice] they answer in broken Dutch: (3)

dat Schindhund u. beidden wier, weder beidden, unser that blood sucker(s?) 1placc bite 1plnom back bite, 1plposs Blut Suugum, wier weder suugen unser Blut. blood suck 1plnom back suck 1plposs blood (Meister 1692: 253)

This seems to be a mixture of German and CPD. But only one of these words is real German: Schindhund. The rest is CDP. Apparently the [o] sound of ons ‘us’ and onse/ ons se ‘our’ could be pronounced as an [ŭ] (as in Khoekhoe Afrikaans), so that Meister could interpret them as Grm. u[ns] and unser respectively. He could not have heard an r in oense/oens se or wie (as yet undiphthongized wij ‘we’), but he may have been acquainted with CDP r-apocope. And finally, he wrote Dutch bloed ‘blood’ as its (almost) homophonous German cognate Blut, for reasons of graphemic consistency: the single 〈u〉 represented an [u] sound (Schindhund, (u[ns], unser (twice), Blut (twice)). Du. zuigen ‘suck’, with an as yet undiphthongized [y:], he wrote with the Dutch grapheme 〈uu〉 (cf. Suugum, suugrn). Therefore, it is most likely that with Suugum he meant to represent s[y:]g[”]m and not s[y:]g[6]m.

4. A Dutch etymology So the four written variants of -um lead to three spoken variants: [6m], [ŏm] and [ŭm], while [ŭ] may be nothing but a phonetic variant of [ŏm]: [ŭm] (Cf. ons(e) ~ oens(e).) Now if it is correct that -UM is (or at least: may be) an enclitic pronoun 3MSg, we do not have to return to Cape Khoekhoe to find an etymological forebear of -UM: the enclitic subject pronouns and the pgn-markers – although belonging to different syntactic environments – are formally equivalent. And since the Khoekhoe pgn-markers cannot supply an etymology, the Khoekhoe subject clitics are equally unsuitable.



Chapter 8.  On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin 

But if we turn to Dutch and Afrikaans, we find Dutch ’m ([6m]) ‘him’ and Afr. hom ‘hm’. These forms are useful, or to put it in Afrikaans with the sole Afrikaans word that looks like a CDP word: Hettom! (lit.) ‘have him’ i.e. ‘Gotcha!’

Appendix In this Appendix I have collected the patterns per source per allomorph. A pattern consists of a stem plus an allomorph of -UM. For lexicographic reasons I have split maakum up into four patterns: (1) maakum ‘to do’, (2) maakum + A ‘make + A’, (3) maakum + NP ‘make/create + NP’, and as a special case: Boe maakem goet. -M Cape Archives (1672; 1953) Calm ‘to say’ (p 113) -EM 04 ten Rhyne (1686; 1933) Boe maakem goet ‘boo(m) making stuff, gun powder’ (p. 154) 07 Langhanß (1715) arbeitem ‘to work’ (p. 119) pissem ‘to piss’ (p. 119) sterbem ‘to die’ (p. 119) -UM 01 van Overbeke (1678; 1998) Sieckum ‘bad’ (p. 82 (3 times)) 02 Bolling (1678) Tubaccum ‘tobacco’ (p. 20) tzicum ‘bad’ (p. 20). 03 Cape Archives (1672; 1953) Kelum ‘to cut someone’s throat’ (p. 113) 05 Tappe (1704): kykum ‘to look’ (132) Tobackum/Tabackum ‘tobacco’ (pp. 131, 132) 06 Meister (1692) Suugum ‘to suck’ (p. 253)

 Roots of Afrikaans

08 Kolb (1719) bytum/beitum/bytium (sic) ‘to bite’ (pp. 439 (twice), 495 (twice), 575), denkum/denckum ‘to think’ (pp. 397, 464, 481) deugum ‘to be right/good’ (p. 464) fangum ‘to catch’ (p. 417) Hottentottum ‘?’ (fake; pp. 348 (twice), 349 (3 times)) loopum ‘to walk/run’ + daar van/voort ‘away’ (pp. 103, 417) maakum ‘to do’ (pp. 417, 432 (twice), 464, 575) maakum + A ‘to make + A’ (anders ‘different’ (p. 416), dood ‘dead’ (pp. 417, 437), gezond ‘healthy’ (439)) maakum ‘to make/create’+ NP (pp. 437, 574) op vretum ‘to eat up’ (p. 495 (twice)) Pu makum guts/Pumackum guts ‘boo(m) making stuff, fire arms’ (pp. 51, 587) Rackum/Rakum-Stock (once: -Stöcklein) ‘throwing stick’ (pp. 477 (twice), 478 (5 times), 502, 504, 526 (3 times), 533) Sickum/Sikum ‘unhealthy’ (pp. 442, 448) wagtum ‘to wait’ (pp. 417, 574) 09 Bövingh (1714) Rakums-Stecken ‘throwing stick’ (p. 11) 10 Mentzel (1787) Rackum ‘throwing stick’ (pp. 486, 487, 488, 489) -OM 04 ten Rhyne (1686; 1933) Etom schaep ‘sheep to eat’ (p. 136) Grotom ‘big’ (p. 154) horom, ‘to hear’ (p. 152) kallom ‘to say’ (p. 140) kortom ‘[the chief ’s] small share’ (pp. 136, 152) makom ‘to do’ (p. 140) makom ‘to make’ + A (doot ‘dead’) (p. 140) Sickom ‘stinking’ (p. 154) tabaqkom ‘tobacco’ (p. 154) 08 Kolb (1719) vvagtom ´to wait’ (p. 103) zienom ‘to see’ (p. 397) 11 Wikar (1779; 1935) kortom ‘[the chief ’s] small share’ (p. 26)

chapter 9

Relexification and pidgin development The case of Cape Dutch Pidgin*

1. Preliminaries Cape Dutch Pidgin (henceforth CDP) may constitute one of the few instances of a documented pidgin preceding a natively spoken contact variety of a European language, in this case Khoekhoe Afrikaans.1 However, Khoekhoe Afrikaans shares with Standard and Cape Afrikaans the V2 rule of Dutch, which means that CDP has been (further) adapted to Dutch syntax because CDP was an SOV language without V2. Therefore, Khoekhoe Afrikaans – which is sometimes referred to as a Creole variety of Afrikaans – cannot serve as evidence for the Pidgin-to-Creole cycle that is sometimes invoked as a model for Creole genesis. A superficial comparison of CDP with the Khoekhoe languages Nama (Khoekhoegowab) and Korana makes clear that both CDP and Khoekhoe are SOV. Since CDP data are mainly attributed to Khoekhoen it does not seem unreasonable to assume that CDP has come about through relexification of Khoekhoe, as was suggested in den Besten (1978: 44, 1987: 25–27). Nevertheless, the following cautious question should be asked: To what extent does relexification explain the structure of CDP? As will be shown in this paper, relexification does not suffice to explain all of the syntactic facts of CDP. Furthermore, it should be noted that – in so far as word order and functional categories are concerned – the data discussed in this paper argue for a type of relexification that has more in common with the kind of relexification that created Media Lengua (Muysken 1981, 1988) than with relexification as advocated for creole genesis by Lefebvre (1998).2

* This paper was first published in Deconstructing Creole, Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim (eds), 141–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 1. Also known as Orange River Afrikaans and Northwest Afrikaans. Older names such as Hottentot Afrikaans or Kleurling (‘Coloured’) Afrikaans are shunned nowadays. 2. For a discussion of Lefebvre (1998) see DeGraff (2002).

 Roots of Afrikaans

2. The CDP sentence: relexification and stripping (and more) 2.1

SOV word order and the history of CDP

Consider the following CDP sentences:3 (1) ’tZa lustigh, duijtsman een woordt Calm, ons V kelum4 tza quiet, Dutchman-[pl] one word say, 1pl 2 cut-throat  (1672; Franken 1953: 113) (2) gy dit Beest fangum zoo, en nu dood maakum zoo,5 2 this animal catch fut, and now kill fut, is dat braa, wagtum ons altemaal daar van loopum zoo is that good, wait 1pl all away run fut  (1705–1713; Kolbe 1727: 1.502) Example (1) is one of the earliest CDP examples with SOV word order. However, an even earlier case of SOV word order (albeit with directional complements in preverbal position) has been recorded for Cape English Pidgin:6 3. In principle each pidgin example will be provided with an indication of the period, year or even date of recording followed by an indication of the manuscript or publication in which the example can be found, which is sometimes followed by a reference to a modern edition. – Grammatical abbreviations used in this article are: Acc: accusative case – Adv: adverbial – Comm: common gender – Cop: Copula – Decl: declarative – Dep: dependent case – F: feminine – Fut: future – Imp: imperative – M: masculine – Neg: Negation – Nom: nominative case – Pl: plural – Pass: Passive – Poss: possessive – Refl: reflexive pronoun – RemPst: remote past – Sg: singular – T: tense – 1/2/3: first/second/third person. – Lower case abbreviations set in bold case indicate traces (e.g. vp, adv). 4. V ‘2’ [= u] is the object form of gij ‘2’ and belongs to the written register of 17th century Dutch. Most probably the Khoekhoen who uttered this threat said jou ‘2’ or julle ‘2PL’. 5. Gy ‘2’ belongs to the written register of 17th c. Dutch and should be jij ‘2(SG)’. For similar reasons, nu ‘now’ (= [ny]) should rather be nou. However, it cannot be excluded that Kolb meant [nu] with the German grapheme since noe ‘now’ (= [nu]) is attested for Khoekhoe Afrikaans (van Zyl 1947: 4, 5, 22, 33, etc.), while it is known that Kolb (1719, 1727) used (= [u]) for (parts of) words that he considered un-Dutch. – Daarvan is a germanism (davon) and should be weg. It is unclear why Kolb did not use the latter expression, which is also German after all. This may throw some doubt upon the trustworthiness of this example, which nevertheless contains genuine material (dood makum ‘to kill [lit. ‘dead make’]’; braa < du. braaf; ons ‘us’ as a nominative). Dit ‘this’ in dit Beest, which looks like the Dutch neuter DP dit beest, may in fact be attributive dat ‘that, those’ (cf. afr. dit ‘it, that’ < du. dat ‘that’), since there is evidence from CDP and early Khoekhoe Afrikaans for the use of dat as a variant for die. Cf. den Besten (2004: 92–95), von Wielligh (1925: 109, 141, 163) and Jacobs (1942: 27, 47). 6. Like CDP CEP started somewhere between the 1590s (first Dutch and English callers at the Cape) and 1652 (founding of the Cape Colony). The last two sentences date from 1715: You Englishman, you no Hottentot (1715; Beeckman 1718; 1924: 117). CEP contributed to the lexicon of CDP. Cf. den Besten (1987).



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 



(3) Coree home go, Souldania go, home go7

(1613/14; Terry 1622; 1967: 83)

Before the 1670s CDP sentences either are too short to prove SOV or they involve empty have or be or finite be in second position.8 Note that the latter may be due to attempts by Europeans to “improve” verb-less pidgin sentences, although that cannot be proven. However, a clear case of a pidgin sentence that has been tampered with is the following one: (4) grote Capitain is boven quaad Great Captain is above angry

(1712–1717; Büttner 1716?;1970: 41)

By inserting is to the left of boven Büttner has broken up the NP/DP grote Capitain boven ‘[The] great Captain above’, a deity who is sometimes mentioned in opposition to the “Great Captain below” (Raven-Hart 1971: 21, 118, 147, 234, 269, 321). This having been said, let us return to the examples in (1) and (2). As I stated above, (1) is one of the oldest CDP sentences with SOV word-order. Furthermore it is the oldest CDP sentence with the notorious verbal suffix –(e)m/om/-um or -me. It should be noted, however, that this suffix never was obligatory: the Dutch infinitival ending -en was also possible and there are a few cases of what seem to be deflected verbs, as in the following example, which I interpret as indicated under (5b): (5) a. Bravas com Kapiteyn, ... ← b. Brav- as com Kapiteyn, ... Good [it] [be] when come [the] Captain, ...  (1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140)  [Cf. den Besten 2003.]

7. Saldanha or Souldania Bay was the original European name for Table Bay. Coree, whom this sentence is attributed to, was a Cape Khoekhoe who had been abducted to London in order to be educated as an interpreter. 8. Only one example is long enough but it involves “wrong” word order: (i) Hette Hie Have [= be] here

(13 September 1655; Muller 1655; 1952: 417)

[Cf. afr. het, the present tense of hê ‘have’.] This may either be Dutch V2 (“(He) is here”) or Khoekhoe topicalization of a remnant VP plus pro-drop: [VP advk have/be]j – [3MSg] – herek – vp. [Cf. den Besten 2003.] Similarly, a short Cape English Pidgin sentence from the same source, Nosie ‘Neg see’ [= ‘Don’t know’] (14 Sept. 1655; Muller 1655; 1952: 417), is no evidence for SOV word order. – Note that I have excluded the “sentence” eerst houthalen dan eeten ‘first wood-fetch then eat’ (1647–1648; Janssen and Proot 1649; 1963: 29) because this was a fixed way of speaking among a group of Khoekhoen who hardly knew any Dutch words – if at all. The originators of this expression, which is perfect Dutch, must have been the Dutch sailors for whom the pertinent Khoekhoen were willing to fetch wood. (Cf. Nienaber 1963: 29.)

 Roots of Afrikaans

From the early 1670s until 1720, we can find a reasonable number of SOV sentences, mainly in travelogues and/or early modern anthropological writings, among which Kolb(e) (1719, 1727), from whom Example (2) has been taken.9 After 1720 there is only a trickle of pidgin data and we have to wait until 1825 before we meet an SOV sentence again: (6) och Seuer ! [...] waarom gij mij dan koop? Ah Master ! [...] why 2 1sg then buy? (1825; Teenstra 1830; 1943: 218) This is the last SOV sine V2 sentence I am aware of. It is a sentence without the msuffix: Kolb(e) (1719, 1727) was the last one to use that suffix in a sentence – unless Rackum ‘javelin’ (1733–1741; Mentzel 1787; 1944: 288–289) is not a nominalization (< raken ‘hit’) but a sentence (raak-um ‘hit-it’ – cf. Section 3.2). However, the old pidgin was not completely extinct: it left traces in a new SVOlike pidgin that was due to the heavy influx of slaves from Mozambique (since 1775; cf. den Besten 2001) and in early Khoekhoe Afrikaans. The former variety is represented by the fictitious letter by “een ingesete van Stellebos” or ‘a resident of Stellenbosch’ (1831) and by the pidgin spoken by the Frenchman Isaac Albach as reported in Trigardt (1836–1838) and by ex-slaves as reported by von Wielligh (1925) whereas the latter variety is indirectly represented by the letters written by Carolus Bastert (1801) and Jan Bastert (1801) and by C.E. Boniface’s interview with the “Hottentot” Hendrik Kok (1830).10

2.2

Relexification and stripping

The preponderance of SOV structures in CDP is not really surprising given the fact that the Khoekhoe languages are SOV.11 Consider Example (7), which has been taken from Rust (1965): (7) Tita ge ti naoba goro gurin ei-!â ge mû 1sgNom decl 1sgposs uncleDep five years ago rempst see ‘I have seen my uncle five years ago.’ In order to derive a CDP sentence with SOV word order out of (7) by means of relexification, the following seems to be necessary: (1) substitute Dutch words for the 9. The author called himself Kolb (cf. the Dedication in Kolb 1719) but is called Kolbe in the Dutch edition (1727), which may be due to the oblique form Kolben on the title page of the German edition (1719). 10. Cf. den Besten (2001) and (2006b). 11. Cf. Rust (1965), Hagman (1973), Olpp (1977), Haacke (1976) and den Besten (2002) for Nama (Khoekhoegowab) and Meinhof (1930) and Maingard (1962) for Korana. – The connection between SOV in CDP and CEP and SOV in Khoekhoe was first pointed out in den Besten (1978: 42–44).



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

Khoekhoe content words and pronouns, and (2) leave out all functional elements. The former process I will refer to as relexification (proper), the latter as stripping.12 Example (7) contains five elements that the sentence has to be stripped of: (a) the so-called pgn (or: person-gender-number) markers -b ‘3MSg’ and -n ‘3CommPl’ (and actually also -ta ‘1Sg’ in tita, but I will ignore that), (b) the dependent case marker -a, (c) the declarative marker ge, and (d) the remote past marker ge. (Declarative ge and temporal ge are differentiated by tone.) Note that relexification (proper) as I am using it here – with retention of substrate word order, that is – has more in common with the kind of relexification discussed for Media Lengua by Muysken (1981, 1988) than with the kind of relexification of major category elements in creole genesis assumed by Lefebvre (1998), which targets superstrate word order – which would (incorrectly) favor SVO for CEP and CDP, since English is SVO and simple mono-verbal Dutch declaratives and imperatives usually are (S)VO as well (due to the V1/V2 phenomenon).13 So, when I speak about ‘relexification (proper)’ I mean relexification of linguistic units in some language L (in this case Cape Khoekhoe) through replacement of the major category lexical items these units are made up of by lexical elements from another language (or other languages). Such a kind of relexification targets substrate word order. Whether in such a case substrate semantics is preserved (cf. Lefebvre’s ideas about relexification) is irrelevant. (And it may differ from word to word.) As for stripping, note that it is not a necessary concomitant of relexification proper. One could try to relexify the functional elements as well (extended relexification) or one could decide to keep them in place. Potential cases of extended relexification will be discussed elsewhere in this paper. 14 As for relexification proper without stripping (the Media Lengua option, so to speak) a completely hypothetical example would be the following variant of (7):15 (8)

(Ik ge [DP mijn oom -b -a ] [DP vijf jaar -n] 1sg decl 1sgposs uncle -3msg -dep five years -3commpl geleden ge zien) ago rempst see

12. These notions can already be found in den Besten (1978: 44). In a sense den Besten (1987: 25–27) was nothing but a rehash. 13. However, the SOV status of CDP may have a more complex background than substrate word-order retention only. Dutch infinitival speech, which is a native speaker’s way of pidginizing one’s own language, is also SOV. So native speakers of Dutch (and German) may have passively supported SOV word-order post genesin. Coree’s lament in (3), though, shows that such a kind of support was not even necessary during the creation phase. 14. I agree with Lefebvre (1998) (cf. her specific use of reanalysis to account for relexification of functional elements) that relexification of functional elements may be more complex than relexification of content words, because some (many? All?) of the words chosen from the donor language’s lexicon may have to get assigned a new category. 15. For relexification in Media Lengua see Muysken (1981, 1988).

 Roots of Afrikaans

[Or, more probably: oom-i-a > oom-a (Nama/Khoekhoegowab) or oom-ma-a > oomma (Cape Khoekhoe).] A somewhat problematic example of relexification without stripping in Khoekhoe is reported upon by Theophilus Hahn in a letter to Hugo Schuchardt:16 “Heeltemalse (adv) Natuura-χu bedorven-he (χu von) (he Suffix des Passiv)” [i.e. “Heeltemalse (adv[erb]) Natuura-χu bedorven-he (χu of/from) (he passiv suffix)”]. This was supposed to be the translation (during a sermon) of Du. “Van Natuur geheelenall bedorven” (litt.) ‘by nature completely depraved’ (spelling Hahn’s), which according to Hahn should have been: “Hoaragase (gänzlich) ũba χu gau-gau-he” [gänzlich ‘completely’]. Although I have my doubts about the quality of the translation this is a good example of relexification proper without stripping: (9) a. Hoaraga -se ũ -b -a χu gau-gau -he All?? -Adv nature -3msg -dep from deprave -pass b. Heeltemal -se Natuur -a χu bedorven -he Completely -adv nature -dep from depraved -pass Unfortunately, the pgn marker -b has not been retained, but that may be due to the morpho-phonology of the pgn-markers in Nama (Khoekhoegowab), which requires the allomorph -i when 3MSg follows an r, while this allomorph has to contract with the dependent case marker -a (-i + -a > -a). Furthermore, note that the postposition has not been relexified (for which cf. Section 4). Less problematic but also less spectacular are Hahn’s examples of relexified imperatives: (10) a. b.

!gun -tse – hā -tse Run -2msg come -2msg Loop -tse – Kom -tse Run -2msg Come -2msg

[Khoekhoe] [Relexified Kh.]

This is reminiscent of the isolated case of the imperative Atré ‘eat!’, which de Flacourt (1658: 58)17 had elicited in response to a gesture for eating: “manger Atré” [fr. manger ‘to eat’]. Atré consists of the stem of the Dutch verb eten ‘eat’ and the imperative/hortative particle -re. A(a)t- instead of Eet- is due to 〈a〉 ~ 〈e〉 allophony in Cape Khoekhoe.18 In view of the above, we may tentatively conclude that the Cape Khoekhoen had at least two models at their disposal: relexification proper with, and relexification proper without stripping. And we may wonder whether they always kept these models apart. As we will see in Sections 3 and 5, they did not. Furthermore, it is not clear what stripping actually meant for a native speaker of Khoekhoe when speaking CDP. In my view it can be either of three things: (a) [weak version] Only the functional heads are 16. Letter of February 21, 1882 (04346 in Wolf 1993). For a partial edition see den Besten (1986: 226). 17. The second “page 58” is meant. 18. Cf. Nienaber (1963: 186 and sub eet II).



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

removed. (b) [strong version] The functional projections are removed as well. (c) [mixed version] Both options are available to the speaker.

2.3

Relexification and pro-drop

Before going into murkier aspects of the relationship between Khoekhoe and CDP I would like to discuss some predictions that can be made on the basis of the relexification cum stripping model. Consider the following variant of Example (6): (11) Ti naoba -tai ge (titai) goro gurin ei-!â ge mû 1sgposs uncleDep -1sg decl (1sgDep) five years ago rempst see Whenever a non-subject is topicalized, the “inverted” subject must be assigned dependent case and has to undergo clitic doubling. In this specific case dependent case cannot be seen (-taj ... tita-aj > -taj ... titaj) but with other pronouns such as îb ‘3MSg’ and with referential expressions the case marker is visible: -bi ... îb-ai/Johaneb-ai. Now note that under such circumstances the pronominal subject may be left out. We may call this semi-pro-drop because the clitic is still signaling the subject. However, if the clitic may count as a functional element relexification cum stripping predicts full pro-drop for the pidgin. And this prediction is correct. Compare: (12) ..., wat maakum zoo? ..., what [3msg/2fsg] do fut?  (1705 – 1713; Kolbe 1727: I, 520, II, 162) Interestingly, this pattern has survived into the 19th century. It shows up as a pidginism in the Afrikaans letters by Carolus and Jan Bastert, in Boniface’s rendering of Hendrik Kok’s Afrikaans and in the pidgin letter by the fictitious “resident of Stellenbosch”: (13) waar komt zegt hij de Mens ... Where [3msg] come, says 3msg the human-being-[pl] ...  (C. Bastert 1801: 98) (14) ... om nouw mijn ook te zegge, dat19 verlooren zal gaan, as ... ... for now me also to say, that [1sg] lost will go, if ... ‘..., in order to also tell me now that I shall perish if ...’ (J. Bastert 1801: 101) (15) Maar – wat zal nou doen, sjeur? But – what shall [1sg] now do, master?  (Hendrik Kok in Boniface 1830; Nienaber 1971: 38) 19. Clause-initial subordinators in Khoekhoe also cause subject doubling and semi-pro-drop. Note that Khoekhoe renders the complementizer that by means of a clause-final embedding noun plus a pgn-marker (or even by means of the pgn-marker only). Therefore clause-initial dat plus pro-drop is a combination of Dutch and Khoekhoe syntax plus stripping.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(16) ik vrag wat wil hef I ask what [3msg] want have  (een ingesete van Stellebos 1831; Nienaber 1971: 54) Pro-drop can also help elucidating the structure of a construction that was used both by the Khoekhoen and by the slaves, in the early as well as in the late corpus: the maskie + Predicate construction. This is in fact maskie ‘even though’ (a loan from Creole Portuguese as spoken by the slaves) + empty pronoun (a pidginism due to the Khoekhoen) + Predicate. Compare the following examples, which are attributed to Khoekhoen:20 (17) a. Mashy [= Masky] doot,21 Icke strack nae onse grote Even-though [1sg] die, 1sg fut to our great Kapiteyn toe, die man my soon witte Boeba geme. Chief [i.e. a deity] to (he will give me white oxen.)  (1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140) b.

Ik zeg maskie gehoor, sjeur, dan het hulle voor 1sg say even-though [2sg] heard, master, (then they have lied sjeur een leuge wys gemaak, ... to you, master, ...) (Hendrik Kok in Boniface 1830; Nienaber 1971: 37)

[For similar cases among the slaves see Franken (1953)]. So much for pro-drop of non-initial subject pronouns. Now note that in the late text corpus we also find the counterpart of pro-drop, namely a pronominal subject in the object form, albeit with only one stray example:22 (18)

overal waar hem komt leer hij die volk Everywhere where 3msgAcc come teach 3msgNom the people zo moij, ... so beautifully, ... (C Bastert 1801: 98)

Also in CDP this is a scarce phenomenon, with – at best – two examples, one of which is given in (19):23 (19) ... tot jou Husing de dubbeltjes betaalt hemme, ... ... until 2sgACC (to)-Husing the dimes paid have, ...  (1705–1713; Kolb 1727: I, 122) 20. In Early Modern Afrikaans maskie could be used as a substitute for du. al ‘even though’. Cf. WAT 10: 165. A variant is almaskie (WAT 1: 161). For subordinators and pro-drop cf. n. 19. 21. Dood ‘die’ (< dood ‘dead’) is also non-standard Afrikaans. Cf. WAT 2: 245. 22. Note that this ‘rule’ could have been applied twice. Similarly for Pro-drop in Example (13). 23. The use of the object form ons ‘1PL’ as a nominative subject is not restricted to the inversion context.



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

Note that example (19) may look like a German or older Dutch subordinate with an Indirect Object pronoun in the Wackernagel position. Yet, the context makes it crystalclear that jou is the Subject. Pro-drop and accusative subject pronouns under inversion seem to support the idea of relexification plus stripping. I would now like to discuss some aspects of sentential structure in CDP that do not seem to lead to such clear conclusions.

2.4

Negation, temporal anchoring and ‘have’ and ‘be’

Consider the following example, which needs a slight revision:: (20) Namaqua boeba kros mos coqua ← Namaqua boeba kros mosco qua24 [the] Namaqua-[pl] ox hide-[pl] [have] very angry [be]  (18 February 1661; van Meerhoff 1661; 1957: 484) Example (20) illustrates both have-drop and be-drop. The absence of be (for which we have several examples) is not really surprising. Yet, it could be made to follow from relexification plus stripping – at least if now extinct Cape Khoekhoe was like presentday Nama (Khoekhoegowab), which puts a Tense particle to the left of the nominal predicate and a copula after it except for the present tense, which requires a specialized Tense particle and an empty copula. Empty be may be due to raising of be to T: (21) ... [T a]j– AP – [Cop e]j ... If we apply relexification plus stripping to such a structure only AP will be audible. Now if we may assume that Cape Khoekhoe – unlike Nama (Khoekhoegowab) – did not lexically distinguish have and be we can – everything else being equal – predict empty have as well. Note that this is not mere speculation in view of the evident use of have in the sense of be in the following sentence: (22) Hette Hie Have [= be] here

(13 September 1655; Muller 1655; 1952: 417)

The Khoekhoe women who were saying this – while pointing to the sky – most probably wanted to convey that the numen of the deity they had been venerating just a minute ago was present right there where they were standing.25 24. The Namas this sentence is referring to were armed and were carrying shields made of dried ox hides. In view of other data I am inclined to interpret qua (< du. kwaad ‘angry’) as ‘dangerous’ or ‘aggressive’. 25. Cf. den Besten (2003). Also compare n. 7. – Note that Example (20) is the sole extant CDP sentence with a possessive predicate. For a parallel example we have to turn to Cape English Pidgin: England God, great God, Souldania no God, i.e. “England has God, great God, Saldanha does not have God” (1616; Terry 1622; 1967: 84). Cf. den Besten (2004: Appendix).

 Roots of Afrikaans

It goes without saying that the above is speculative. But if it is correct the relexification hypothesis still holds. However, things are less clear if we take a look at tense/aspect marking and negation in CDP. These functions are expressed by words in Khoekhoe, but these words, being functional elements, had to undergo stripping and so alternative means had to be looked for to recover these functions. For tense/aspect marking use was made of ‘tense adverbials’ such as (al) gedaan ‘(already) done’ and al ‘already’ for perfect and strack/strakjes ‘soon, later’ and engl. soon for future.26 Unlike the tense/aspect particles of Khoekhoe, these adverbs did not have to immediately precede (or sometimes follow) the verb.27 Compare: (23) Mashy [= Masky] doot, Icke strack nae onse grote Even-though [1sg] die, 1sg fut to 1plposs great Kapiteyn toe, die man my soon witte boeba geme. Capain to, that man [= 3msg] 1sg fut white ox-[pl] give  (1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140) [= (17a)] For negation a Dutch pattern was borrowed to compensate for the loss of expressive power caused by non-relexification and stripping of Neg in the Khoekhoe pattern ... – V – [Neg tama/tite] – ... (with tama ‘not’, tite ‘negative future’). The corresponding Dutch pattern is (and was) ... – [Neg niet] – ... – V – ... (assuming an SOV cum V2 analysis for Dutch). This pattern was taken over into CDP, maybe partly on analogy with the CDP pattern resulting from relexification and stripping of the following Khoekhoe pattern for negative quantifiers: ... – [XP +Neg] – ... – V – [Neg tama/tite] – ...28 Compare the following example: (24) waarom ons die goeds niet weder beitum en opvretum29 why 1pl the bugs neg in-our-turn bite and up-eat  (1705–1713; Kolb 1727: II, 66)

26. For (al) gedaan, strack/strakjes and soon see den Besten (1987). For al see den Besten (2004). Also cf. postverbal zoo ‘FUT’(< du. zo ‘presently’) in (2). This tense adverb can only be found in Kolb (1719, 1727). Note that gedaan also occurs in the letter by “een ingesete van Stellebos” (1831). 27. Possibly a later development is the use of the Dutch/Afrikaans participial prefix ge – to indicate anterior events. This phenomenon can be found in Isaac Albach’s pidgin as reported by Trigardt (1836–1838). Cf. Roberge (2006a). And compare gehoor in (17b). 28. Cf. den Besten (1986) or Roberge (2000). In the mean time I have found a few more negative clauses in CDP and CEP. 29. Grote Capiteyn ‘great captain / chief ’ can be found in various sources (i.a. 1655; van Riebeeck 1655; 1952: 375 and 1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140). Groot volcq ‘great people’ (1658; van Riebeeck 1658; 1955: 406) means ‘aristocracy’.



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

So we may conclude that relexification and stripping do not suffice as means for creating CDP. Linguistic creativity (tense adverbials) and adaptation towards Dutch syntax played a role as well.

2.5

Looking ahead

However, we also need an explanation for the CDP verbal ending -um/-om/-m/-em/me, for which cf. (1), (2), (12), etc. In den Besten (1987) I suggested that this suffix may derive from C.Kh. -m and -mi, two of the many allomorphs of the (nominal) pgn-marker 3MSg of Cape Khoekhoe, which also served as a nominalization marker. This is an exception to stripping. However it can be argued that -um/-om etc. actually has various functions and that the evidence may be partly artificial. This will be briefly discussed in Sections 3 and 5 – briefly because this is a topic for another paper. Furthermore, discussing all the relevant details in the present paper would unnecessarily inflate it.

3. CDP DPs: Relexification, stripping and adaptation 3.1

DP-internal word order

The Khoekhoe DP has the following form: (25) [KP [DP ... N – D] – K] where D is an enclitic personal pronoun, the so-called person-gender-number marker (pgn-marker). N can be preceded by a demonstrative, a possessive (i.e. DP (di)), a numeral and/or an adjective. The Kase marker a is not realized if DP is in SpecAgrP, i.e. clause-initially, in the possessor position and in the Spec of the (extended) projection of a denominal postposition. Prenominal elements may show up postnominally by means of an appositive DP with an empty noun: (26) [KP [DP N – Di]: [DP ... [N e] – Di] – K] where the Ds have to agree in features, not necessarily in form: (27) a1 gei ao-b – gei om-i big man-3msg big house-3msg a2 [DP ao-b] : [DP gei [N e] -b] –[DP om-i] : [DP gei [N e] -b] man-3msg big -3msg house-3msg big -3msg b1 [DP [DP khoe-b] (di) ha-gu] person-3msg (poss) horse-3mpl b2 [DP ha-gu] : [DP [DP khoe-b] di [N e] -gu  ] horse-3mpl : person-3msg poss -3mpl

 Roots of Afrikaans

Relexification plus stripping would yield both Dutch and un-Dutch word orders. However, in CDP we only find expressions of the type A – N. The other order N – A is not attested: (28) a. grote Capiteyn (passim) – groot volcq great Captain great people

(van Riebeeck 1658)

b. *Capiteyn grote  –  *volcq groot Yet, there is one example that seems to be evidence for the N – A order: Tubaccum tzicum (1670; Bolling 1678: 20). Nienaber (1963: 285) interprets this as ‘good tobacco’, due to the context which says “de kalte god Tuback Tubaccum tzicum” i.e. ‘they called good tobacco Tubaccum tzickum’. In view of the meaning of the adjective in other sources this should rather be ‘bad tobacco’. However, given the context the Khoekhoen’s comment Tubaccum tzickum does not have to be an NP. It may very well be a sentence: ‘[The] tobacco bad [be]’, i.e. ‘The tobacco is bad’. (However, cf. Section 5.) As for possessives note that Boebasibier in (29) below – which ten Rhyne translates with lat. lac ‘milk’ and which can be reconstructed as Boeba si bier – does not seem to fit the relexification plus stripping schema. Yet, in spite of Nienaber’s sound laws d ~ t and t ~ ts/s (Nienaber 1963: 178–179, 182), si cannot be Kh. di ‘Poss’, since Nienaber’s sound laws define separate allophonic clusters. Therefore it must be an as yet undiphthongized version of afr. sy ‘his’ (or rather: of its Dutch counterpart and predecessor sy/sij):30 (29) Boebasibier  ← Boeba si bier Cow his beer/drink/milk 

[read: C.Kh. bi ‘drink, milk’] (1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 154)

Therefore, si in (29) signals a case of adaptation to the Dutch possessive construction DPi – pron.i – N, as in die hond z’n neus (litt.) ‘that dog his nose’, i.e. ‘that dog’s nose’. Out of this usage arose the Afrikaans se possessive with the invariable particle se (in Early Modern Afrikaans also sy(n)), as in die brak se neus ‘the dog SE nose’ or die kinders se boeke ‘the children SE books’. Possessives with invariant particles are also attested for pidgin (or creole) speakers in the second half of the 18th century.31

30. There is independent evidence for the use of older [i] instead of younger [εi]/[ïi] by the Khoekhoen of the early colonial period: altit ‘always’ [= altijd/altyd] (1708; Bövingh 1712: 9 and 1714: 30), brito [= brijpot ‘porridge pot’ rather than fr. cloche ‘bell jar’] (1655; de Flacourt 1658: 5[6]) [t–apocope + Nienaber’s sound law p ~ t (Nienaber 1963: 183)]. There were still remnants of undiphthongized [i] in 20th century Khoekhoe Afrikaans. Cf. den Besten (2005: 213). 31. Cf. den Besten (2006a).



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

Yet, the possessive structure that can be predicted on the basis of the Khoekhoe DP – DI – NP-D construction and relexification cum stripping, i.e. DP – NP, is also attested; witness examples (30–31) and a couple of other ones:32 (30) Goaso, Lochhoeve broeder – Loeckhoeve, Goaso broeder Goaso, Lochhoeve brother – Loeckhoeve, Goaso brother  (1658; van Riebeeck 1658; 1955: 325) (31) Schacher (sijnde Caepman ’s capiteyn zoon) Schacher (being [the] Caepman-[pl] ’s chief son) ‘Schacher (being the son of the chief of the Caepmans [= ‘Cape-men’])’  (1658; van Riebeeck 1658; 1955: 319–320) Now (31) also shows that CDP occasionally made use of the Dutch s genitive as well, which would again be a case of syntactic adaptation. Note that this does not necessarily imply that ’s – and si – should be seen as cases of relexification of the Khoekhoe particle di. The evidence available is too limited to make such a claim: we don’t know whether these elements followed the syntax of their Dutch counterparts or the syntax of di, except maybe for s, which seems to follow the rules of Dutch.33 Something similar holds of the following isolated case, however for different reasons: (32) en was de grootste om dat hy van voorouders kauwaup waren and was the greatest because he of forbears chief were ‘and he was the greatest [of the two chiefs of the Ogoquas] because his forebears had been chiefs too’ (1779–1780; Gordon 1779–1780; 1992: 39) The DP hij van voorouders as such could count as a case of full relexification of a Khoekhoe DP – DI – NP structure: the DP in such a structure must be in the nominative: îb ‘he’, not îba ‘him’. However, the semi-postpositional use of the Dutch preposition van ‘of ’ is unlikely to be a case of relexification since there is no evidence for relexified postpositions in CDP (see Section 4). So the possessive structure in (32) may be due to an early acquirer’s misunderstanding of the structure of Dutch, not unlike the following example of Masbieker Afrikaans Pidgin: in (33a), which is supposed to be equivalent to the Afrikaans sentence in (33b):

32. The last one being die Volk tolk ‘those people interpreter’ [= their interpreter] (1801; C. Bastert 1801: 99). 33. Dutch s can only be combined with names, except for river names, which are definite DPs, while in CDP s combines with personal names and with ethnic names that are unmarked for number and definiteness. Khoekhoe di on the other hand can be combined with ‘any’ DP, just like se in Afrikaans. With only one example of si being available for the period up to 1720 we are not in a position to judge what was going on in that period.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(33) a.

Die kar van die os hy hette gedaan34 The cart of the ox he has/is done/weak ‘The cart-ox is exhausted’ [afr. gedaan ‘exhausted’, (litt.) ‘done’]

b. Die kar-os het flou geword The cart-ox has weak become ‘The cart-ox has become weak’

[Masbieker Afr.]

[Afrikaans] (1860s; von Wielligh 1925: 96)

In conclusion: the evidence for relexification at the level of the DP is very weak.

3.2

Petrified endings? Nominalizations?35

There is however evidence for some cases of Khoekhoe pgn-markers in CDP. A few appellatives and quite a few clan and tribal names in CDP end in a Khoekhoe pgnmarker. These are partly Khoekhoe loans such as karo-s ‘caross’ or Nama-qu-a ‘(a) Nama’ with -s ‘3FSg’ and -gu ‘3MPl’ (and the case marker -a), and partly Dutch loans into Khoekhoe borrowed back into CDP: e.g. Toback-um/Taback-um ‘tabacco’ (1682; Tappe 1704: 131–132) with –(u)m ‘3MSg’ and boe-b-a ‘ox, cow’ with -b ‘3MSg’ (and the case marker -a), which derives from du. boe ‘moo’. (For karos, Namaqua and boeba see Examples (20), (17a)/(23) and (29) above.) However, petrified endings in loanwords are irrelevant for the issue at hand: they don’t prove anything about relexification. The same applies to what seems to be a case of a Khoekhoe nominalization of a Dutch verb: kortom ‘little bit/portion; the chief ’s bartering tax’ (1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 136, 152 and 1778; Wikar 1779; 1935: 26 – < du. korten ‘cut back’).36 Similarly for Rackum ‘javelin’ (1733–1741; Mentzel 1787; 1944: 288–289) – < du. raken ‘hit’.37 Now there happen to be a couple of V + N compounds in CDP whose verbal parts do but whose nominal parts do not end in a pgn-marker -um, e.g. Rackum-stok ‘hitting stick, javelin’ (1705–1713; Kolbe 1727: II, 47).38 However, these compounds cannot be taken as evidence for relexification. First of all, V – pgn – N is not a possible morphological structure in Khoekhoe as against V – N – pgn (or N – N – pgn). Secondly, there are only two such ill-formed compounds, while Etom schaep (litt.) ‘eat-om sheep’ 34. Note the use of hette (< afr. het ‘(finite) have’) as a copula. Compare (22). 35. The topic of this subsection as well as Section 5 will be more extensively dealt with in another paper, which should also reconsider the etymology of the pidgin endings -um/-om/-em and -me. These pgn-like endings may well be Khoekhoe reinterpretations of Dutch (and English?) enclitic pronouns, which reminded the Cape Khoekhoen of their 3MSg pgn-markers -m, -ma and -mi. 36. Wikar’s kortom represents the last instance of -om/-um, be it a suffix or a clitic. 37. Unless Rackum is a sentence: [VP raak]j – itk – [3Sg]k – vp. Cf. Example (34) and Section 5. 38. Also germ. Rakums-Stecken ‘hitting stick, javelin’ (accusative) (1708; Bövingh 1714: 11).



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

(1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 136) may be a sentence with an object clitic and a rightdislocated object: ‘eat-it/himi [the] sheepi’. The remaining V + N compounds lack the suffix -um. Therefore it may very well be the case that Rackum-stok should also be analyzed as a sentence with a topicalized VP: (34) a. Rackum stok ← b. Raack -umi stoki Hit -it [the] stick – which would be a case of relexification with partial stripping. Note that sentences with (remnant) VP topicalization are a normal phenomenon in Khoekhoe.39

3.3

Conclusion

If we disregard the frozen pgn – markers the phrase-internal syntax of DPs in Cape Dutch Pidgin can only be explained if besides relexification plus stripping adaptation to Dutch syntax is taken into account. On the other hand, if the sentential analysis for V-um-N constructions is correct, there is new evidence for relexification – albeit with partial (or even without) stripping.

4. CDP PPs Khoekhoe is an SOV language with post-nominal adpositions only. However, in CDP we find Dutch prepositions and circumpositions and unmarked locatives, while there is late evidence for a postposition saam ‘with’, whose etymology excludes the possibility of deriving it via relexification. A few examples of Dutch prepositions and circumpositions in CDP are: (35) ... nae onse grote Kapiteyn toe ... ... to our great Chief to ...

(1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140)

(36) a. ... by u blyven ... ... with 2 stay ... b. ... in de buik zuypen ... into the stomach drink

(1705–1713; Kolbe 1727: I, 121 & II, 526)

39. In den Besten (1987: 32) it is argued that bijteman ‘bite-man’ and Taback-Teckemans ‘tabacco-steal-men [= tobacco thieves]’ may contain the ending -um. This may be true for bijteman (which should then be analyzed as a sentence), while Teckemans must be a V + N compound without -um witness the following variant: Toback Tackmans (Dagregister 1 April 1669, quoted by Godée Molsbergen 1916: 121).

 Roots of Afrikaans

As for unmarked locatives, I will restrict myself to one late example, since the two examples from the pre-1720 period require extra discussion: (37) ons loop weer ander strat 1Pl walk again/yet other street (een ingesete van Stellebos 1831; 1971: 54)) Unmarked locatives may derive – through relexification and stripping – from locative expressions with the locative suffix -ba (although I am having doubts about this hypothesis), while the examples in (35) and (36) are evidence for adaptation to Dutch syntax rather than evidence for relexification. Therefore, the postposition saam, as exemplified in (38a–b), is a curious exception, which has to be explained:40 (38) a. ... nie bemoei ander mense sam [1sgNom] not interfere other people with  (een ingesete van Stellebos 1831; 1971: 54) b. ... aldaa zij had mooij kapraat, mijn zaam ... there 3fsgNom has/d nicely spoken, 1sgacc with  (Isaac Albach (a Frenchman) in Trigardt 1836–1838; 1977: 61) It is clear that post-nominal sa(a)m is evidence for Khoekhoe substrate, but it cannot be evidence for relexification for the following reasons. First of all, Du. saam, a dialectal variant of samen, is not an adposition but an adverb that can co-occur with the preposition met ‘with’ in its comitative usage: samen met DP ‘together with DP’ or met DP samen ‘with DP together’. Apparently, a structure like (39a) has been reanalyzed as (39b), after which the new postposition saam has been ‘cut out’ of its original environment: (39) a. [P met ] – DP – [Adv saam ] → b. [P met ] – DP – [P saam ] → c. DP – [P saam ] Calling this relexification would be inappropriate. Real relexification would involve the insertion of Dutch prepositions into Khoekhoe postpositional frames, yielding e.g. *DP – [P met] (with met ‘with’), just like the verb go, which is used in VO frames in English, shows up in an OV frame in Example (3) above: ... home go, Souldania go. Note furthermore that sa(a)m in (38a–b) is used in environments where Dutch cannot use samen: 40. Late attestations of this postposition can be found in Benjamin Kats’s glossings of his own texts in Korana in Engelbrecht (1936: 207, 209). Furthermore, the WAT IV: 77 mentions a regional word handsaam ‘with the hand’, which is a petrified pidgin PP (hand saam ‘[the] hand([Pl]) with’). Van Jaarsveld, Jenkinson and de Wet (2001: 152) mention for Griqua Afrikaans of the 1980s (a Khoekhoe Afrikaans variety) voetsam and handsam ‘with the feet or hands respectively’.



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

(40) a. ... zich (*samen) met anderen (*samen) bemoeien ... Refl (*together) with others (*together) interfere

[cf. (38a)]

b. ... (*samen) met iemand (*samen) spreken41 ... (*together) with somebody (*(together) talk

[cf. (38b)]

This means that met – DP – samen has also been semantically reanalyzed, which is confirmed by nonstandard Afrikaans in which saam can be combined with met ‘with’ irrespective of its function (met Jan saam ‘with John with’, met die hamer saam ‘with the hammer with’, etc.). Cf. the following case from the letter by the resident of Stellenbosch: (41) hy seg moet dood slan mit die hand sam he say [1sg] must dead beat with the hand with  (een ingesete van Stellebos 1831; 1971: 54) Most probably the change from met DP saam to DP saam is due to Khoekhoe substrate (although the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages of the slaves from India-Sri Lanka may have played a role as well), but the change as such is not a case of relexification.

5. CDP clauses again The discussion of V + N compounds in Section 3.2 may have made clear that stripping does not have to be complete. Two additional examples of incomplete stripping (which were already discussed in den Besten (1987)) are (42) and (43): (42) a. Goo, goo reght [reght = [rεx]] ← Go, go straight b. Goo, goo -re Go, go –imp

(1655; Muller 1655; 1952: 416)

(43) a. Was makom? ← What (?) do? b. Wat -ts makom? What –2msgj [2msg]j do?

(1673; ten Rhyne 1686; 1933: 140)

I would like to suggest that the pre-nominal attributive adjectives grotom ‘big’ and sickom ‘bad’, which can be found in ten Rhyne (1686 [1933: 154]) (and which are problematic from the point of view of Khoekhoe grammar) can be analyzed as cases of incomplete stripping too. Let us first discuss the traditional analysis of Grotom courcour ‘big bird, ostrich’: (44) Grotom courcour Big bird 41. (40b) is grammatical if spreken is interpreted as ‘give a talk’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Pre-nominal attributive adjectives do not carry agreeing pgn-markers in Khoekhoe – for which see Section 3.1. Furthermore the CDP adjective groot – when used as an attributive element – never carries the suffix -om/-um. The same applies to other adjectives – with the remarkable exception of sickom/sieckum ‘bad’ (< eng. Sick and/or du. ziek ‘sick, ill’) as in ten Rhyne’s Sickom courcour.42 However, if we take into account that the pgn-markers are enclitic pronouns and cannot really be distinguished from enclitic subject pronouns, (44) can be reanalyzed as a case of predicate topicalization plus subject doubling: courcouri (45) [AP Groot- ] -omi [AP Big- ] -3msg [the] bird ap [be] Sickum courcour can be analyzed the same way. A parallel example would be “slechte Tabacq, sieckum Tabacq”, i.e. ‘bad tobacco, sieckum Tabacq’ (1668; van Overbeke 1678; 1998: 82). This suggests another (and more complex) sentential analysis of Bolling’s Tubaccum tzickum (cf. Section 3.1): (46) Tubaccumi – tzick -umi [The] tobaccoi bad –3msgj [3msg]j [be] According to this analysis Tubaccum has been left-dislocated so that the actual sentence is nothing but the ‘word’ tzickum, which consists of a topicalized adjective and a subject clitic.43 If this analysis can be upheld, new analyses for verbs ending in -um become available. Contrary to what I suggested in den Besten (1987), such verbs do not all have to be nominalizations. At least some of them may be verbs followed by enclitic subject (or object) pronouns. Cf. the following analysis of a short monologue in Germanized CDP: (47) Hollaender arbeitem [The] Dutchmanj – [VP vwork]-emj [3msg]j vp sterbem dem Hottentot [VP die]-emj [3msg]j then(?) vp – [the] Hottentotk – sterbem is [read: as] storben44 [VP die]-emk [3msg]k vp – when [3msg]k died [has] 42. According to ten Rhyne’s Latin text Sickom courcour means ‘young of a bird, a bird’s young’ (avis foetus), and so ‘young bird’. Given its etymology Sickom should mean something like ‘bad’. On consulting the manuscript underlying ten Rhyne (1686) I found that ten Rhyne had originally written avis foetens ‘stinking bird’. 43. There are more cases of sieckum (in van Overbeke (1678 [1998: 82]) and Kolb (1719: 448, 1727: II, 4)). These too are amenable to a sentential analysis. 44. Storben, which looks like the Dutch past participle gestorven (germ. gestorben) may be a misinterpretation of sterben ‘die’.



Chapter 9.  Relexification and pidgin development 

krup der ard als ock Hollaender mann crawl [3msg]k the? earth like [the] Dutchman man  (1694, Langhanß 1715: 119)45 We could even go one step further and claim that part of the (written) evidence may be artificial in that colonists and European visitors – not understanding the underlying grammatical system – affixed -um to just any verb – at least in writing, and not consistently – and there is minimal but incontrovertible evidence supporting this hypothesis.46 Further research will have to show whether we may go to such extremes in the grammatical interpretation of our CDP data. For the time being, I do not see any negative consequences for the question with which I opened this article: To what extent does relexification explain the structure of CDP? – where relexification should be understood as relexification of linguistic units (in Cape Khoekhoe) through replacement of the content words these units are made up of by similar words from another language (or other languages).

6. Conclusions The answer to the above question concerning the forces that shaped CDP can be relatively short: (a) Relexification [of content words] is not enough. We also need (partial) stripping [of functional elements]. But (b) relexification plus stripping does not suffice either, because there are two additional factors: adaptation to Dutch syntax and linguistic creativity. This holds for sentential negation, temporal anchoring, word order within the DP, the s-genitive and the choice for pre-nominal and circum-nominal adpositions. Therefore, we should not overestimate CDP’s SOV word order, pro-drop under inversion and Khoekhoe-like enclitic pronouns. Relexification (plus (partial) stripping) is not the whole answer.

45. This monologue is rendered in a slightly corrupt form in Raven-Hart (1971): storben is quoted as storbem and ard has been left out. 46. Kolb (1719: 348) – quoting from Arnold (1672) – tacitly changed Hottentot Brockvva ! (Arnold 1672: 1099) into Hottentottum Brockqua! – on the mistaken assumption that hottento(t) originally was a verb meaning ‘give’ (+ Broqua ‘bread’). However, most probably hottento(t) (or rather *hotanto) was a sentence (a dancing ditty – cf. Raven-Hart (1971) and Nienaber (1963, 1989)). Furthermore, in none of the sources where Hot(t)ento(t) brokwa can be found – among which at least two eye-witness reports – do we find the ending -um. – Note that the final [t] in hottentot – which most of us only know as an ethnic name – must have been added to give hotanto/hottento a more Dutch appearance. Van Riebeeck (1652–1662) usually writes Hottento although the variant Hottentot was already around. In the course of the second half of the 17th century the latter variant became dominant.

chapter 10

Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 1. Introduction In an earlier study on cases of possible syntactic interference in the development of Afrikaans (den Besten 1978) I claimed that speakers of Khoekhoe would not have been able to change the basic word order of Cape Dutch since – being SOV speakers themselves – they could easily learn the underlying SOV order of Dutch. Only the acquisition of the Verb Second (V2) phenomenon of Cape Dutch, which is absent in Khoekhoe, may have posed problems for them. But in the pertinent paper I suggested that this acquisition problem may have been less dramatic than it seems in that Khoekhoe makes use of a clearly defined second position comparable to the V2 position of Dutch.1 Khoekhoe-speaking L2 learners of Cape Dutch therefore only had to learn how to fill this position with a finite verb. Since there are no finite verbs in Khoekhoe, it follows that Khoekhoe speakers learning Dutch also had to learn how to amalgamate a verb with what in Khoekhoe happens to be a separate tense morpheme. Whatever the merits of the latter considerations, it is clear that in a sense the Khoekhoen – as speakers of an SOV + Second Position language – seem to be wellequipped for learning an SOV + V2 language, namely (Cape) Dutch (and later Afrikaans). It is no wonder that in spite of all the syntactic differences that obtain between Dutch and Afrikaans, their basic word orders still are identical: SOV + V2. We may note in passing that the Khoekhoen, who constituted about one third of the Cape Colonial population by the end of the eighteenth century, were not the sole SOV-speakers at the Cape who had to learn Dutch. The same applies to the slaves from India and Sri Lanka – who constituted about a quarter of all the slaves imported between 1652 and 1808 (cf. Shell 1994: 41) – since the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages of the Indian subcontinent can all be classified as being SOV (however in so far as I can see without having a second position; cf. Masica 1993 and Steever 1998). We may therefore conclude that SOV was a feature shared by various languages in the

1. This paper was first published in Focus on Afrikaans Sociohistorical Linguistics, Part II, Rajend Mesthrie and Paul T. Roberge (eds), 2002, 3–56 (Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14). It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Dutch Cape Colony.2 Interesting though this observation may be, it is of no further importance for the topic of this paper: the syntax of Khoekhoe and its implications for the acquisition of Dutch or Afrikaans as a second language. Let us therefore return to the discussion of the hypothesis put forward in den Besten 1978. This hypothesis hardly changed over the years. In a sense it was tacitly assumed in later publications (such as den Besten 1986, 1987, 1989) since these studies rather stress the importance of the Khoekhoe Dutch pidgin of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, whose syntax (inter alia SOV without V2) is partly modeled after the structure of Khoekhoe, the implicit suggestion being that syntactic properties of Khoekhoe could have reached Afrikaans only through the filter of this pidgin or subsequent creole varieties. The main reason for this auxiliary hypothesis (which never was made explicit) was the observation that Khoekhoe does not seem to have a verb phrase (VP). It was furthermore assumed that the pidgin – by getting rid of certain Khoekhoe functional elements and their projections – had to project a VP in order to accommodate elements which in Khoekhoe are part of a higher functional projection. (Cf. den Besten 1986: 119–221, 1987: 36–37, and 1989: 230–233.) This pidgin VP, which left the general OV order of Khoekhoe intact, gave the Khoekhoen easy access to the Cape Dutch VP. Now note that the combination of the original hypothesis of den Besten 1978 and the (implicit) auxiliary hypothesis of den Besten 1986, 1987, and 1989 seems to leave the original idea of there being similarities between V2 in (Cape) Dutch and the second position in Khoekhoe untouched, although it is not clear whether that is justified. However, I will not go into this matter here because there are other, more basic problems to discuss. First of all, contrary to what I thought in 1986, there is evidence for a VP in Khoekhoe (den Besten 1989: 232–233), which weakens the auxiliary hypothesis in its present form. Secondly, despite the evident similarities between a second position with, and one without V2, Khoekhoe and Dutch differ as regards the use of this position, both in declarative and in interrogative contexts. Consequently, the original hypothesis about the Khoekhoen’s acquisition of Cape Dutch V2 must also be revised. Therefore, a new discussion of the typological distance between Dutch and Khoekhoe in terms of the syntax of verbs and the possible implications of such considerations for L2 acquisition of Dutch or Afrikaans by speakers of Khoekhoe is called for, which will be the main topic of this paper. We start with a Section on a couple of primary and secondary typological properties of the syntax of Dutch, Afrikaans, Orange River Afrikaans and Khoekhoe (Section 2) excluding the second position of Khoekhoe, which will be dealt with in Section 4. It is 2. It goes without saying that the Low and High German speaking immigrants from the fragmented German empire also had to learn (Cape) Dutch. Yet the pertinent languages resemble Dutch so closely – albeit in different ways, depending on the dialect – that the very fact that they are SOV + V2 is of no significance at all. In the pertinent context they may be regarded as dialects (or rather groups of dialects) of Dutch. We may therefore assume that immigrants from the German empire could easily acquire the local dialect, Cape Dutch.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

concluded that these languages diverge from one another mostly in terms of secondary properties, one such property being V2. Section 3 gives an overview of what we know about relexified Khoekhoe and Khoekhoe Dutch pidgin and about the relationship between the pertinent pidgin and Orange River Afrikaans, which is mainly spoken by people of (partially) Khoekhoe descent. One of the conclusions is that in terms of word order the pidgin can be characterized as a compromise between Khoekhoe and Dutch, which was facilitated by the many typological similarities between the two languages, although there was a tendency to follow Dutch patterns in cases of conflict – the exception being V2. After these diachronic considerations, Section 4 presents a discussion of the syntax of the second position (P2) and the VP in Khoekhoe. Consequences of these considerations for the processes of pidginization and L2 acquisition of Dutch in the mouths of native speakers of Khoekhoe are discussed in Section 5, together with possible consequences for the syntax of Afrikaans.

2. Typological and other linguistic considerations Consider the typological statements in 1. They concern Dutch and Afrikaans (and in principle all of their regional or social varieties) (1a–b),3 Orange River Afrikaans, the variety of Afrikaans that is supposed to have undergone the strongest Khoekhoe substrate influences and which therefore occasionally has been referred to as “Hottentot Afrikaans”, that is, Khoekhoe Afrikaans (1c), and Khoekhoe in all of its varieties (1d). As regards the latter, note that Khoekhoe is usually treated as a subfamily of Central Khoesan consisting of Nama (Namibia and small parts of South Africa), Korana and Griqua (South Africa, most probably extinct), and the extinct variety of Cape Khoekhoe, although Nienaber (1963) would also like to distinguish an East Cape variety for morphonological reasons that do not concern us here.4 3. Obvious exceptions to this general statement are Black Afrikaans and Flytaal, which in principle are SVO and without V2. Furthermore, most probably due to contact with SVO languages such as Malay, Asian Creole Portuguese, and English, some varieties of Afrikaans allow optional extraposition of an NP (DP) across a verb, which creates VO patterns, sometimes as subpatterns of more complicated sequences such as V – AUX – O or IO – V – O; compare, for example, Kotzé (1984), who treats this phenomenon under the heading of eindrelevering (‘extraposition’, literally ‘drawing attention to (something) at the end’). NP (DP)-extraposition yields a further complication for the basic word order statement, however without canceling the SOV property. Note that also so-called rigorous (and non-V2) SOV languages such as Nama can make use of NP Extraposition (cf. Hagman 1973: 212–213). NP-extraposition can also be observed for Middle Dutch and Middle High German, but there is no reason for assuming that NP-extraposition in nonstandard Afrikaans derives from Dutch. After all, there is no evidence for NP-extraposition in seventeenth-century Dutch. 4. Korana and Griqua (in so far as the latter has been described at all) demonstrate certain lexical and morphonological connections with Cape Khoekhoe, which is not surprising given

 Roots of Afrikaans

(1)

a. b. c. d.

Dutch: Afrikaans: Orange River Afrikaans: Khoekhoe (all varieties):

SOV + asymmetric V2 SOV + asymmetric V2 SOV + asymmetric V2 SOV + no V2 (to be revised below)

Regarding the statements in 1, the following remarks are in order: First, the statements in 1a–c are in accordance with the classical approach to Dutch and German word order defended in Koster 1975, which can be easily extended to the analysis of Afrikaans as is shown in Waher 1982 (similarly for Orange River Afrikaans). From a typological point of view, “SOV + asymmetric V2” is the simplest way to describe the basic word orders of the three linguistic varieties mentioned.5 The pertinent statements abstract away from the obvious differences between Dutch on the one hand and Afrikaans and Orange River Afrikaans on the other insofar as the optional use of embedded V2 is concerned (cf. Waher 1982 and Ponelis 1979, and see below).6 Second, the typological statements in 1 are valid whether we analyze SOV as an underlying or as a derived property (for the latter approach see Kayne 1994 and Zwart 1993, 1997). Third, the statement “SOV + no V2” for Khoekhoe is mainly based upon grammatical descriptions of Nama and Korana. There are no grammars for Cape Khoekhoe or the East Cape variety, but the sentential and phrasal material from these dialects that is occasionally quoted by Nienaber (1963) demonstrates clear Khoekhoe characteristics, although one has to consult his sources to find evidence for “SOV + no V2”.7 the history of the pertinent groups. However, Engelbrecht (1936) has shown that there is also a variety of Korana whose lexis and morphonology demonstrate clear ties with Nama. It seems reasonable to assume that Cape-like Korana belongs to those groups that emigrated from the south to the Orange River area, whereas Nama-like Korana must be a continuation of indigenous Khoekhoe dialects of the same region. 5. Also compare Hawkins (1983), a study in the Greenbergian tradition, which reclassifies German (in Greenberg’s original classification SVO) as SOV + V2. It is perhaps ironic that Hawkins’ expanded list still classifies Dutch, which in all relevant respects is similar to German, as an SVO language. But that is due to the fact that this is a direct quote from Greenberg’s Appendix II (Greenberg 1966). 6. In a recent paper Feinauer (1998) claims that from a typological point of view Afrikaans is a typical SVX language. This claim is based upon a rather unorthodox use of implicational universals and is not in accordance with normal practice in linguistic typology: ever since Greenberg 1966 the basic word order type of a given language is established through careful examination of the position of the verb with respect to its arguments. The syntax of other parts of speech (including so-called auxiliaries) is irrelevant, unless (and only in so far as) they share a syntactic property with the verb, as is the case with the Afrikaans auxiliary, which shares V2 with the verb. 7. For Nama (nowadays also called Khoekhoe or Khoekhoegowab, literally ‘Khoekhoe language’) see Rust 1965, Hagman 1973, and Olpp 1977. For Korana, see Engelbrecht 1928, 1936 and Maingard 1962 and especially Meinhof 1930, which also contains a sketchy appendix on Griqua. As for Cape and East Cape Khoekhoe, Nienaber 1963, a dictionary of older Khoekhoe on an Afrikaans – Khoekhoe basis, is our sole source for the latter two varieties, although – with

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

The typological statements in 1 concern sentential syntax. As can be deduced from these statements, the pertinent languages differ only in terms of the secondary V2 feature. Note that these languages also have much in common in terms of basic word order properties of phrasal syntax: attributive APs and nonadpositional possessive phrases have to appear in prenominal position in all of the four languages, while Khoekhoe differs from the other languages only in that it lacks the subclass of adpositionally marked possessives, which have to be postnominal in Dutch and both types of Afrikaans.8 Note that my typological claim seems to be at odds with the observation that there are also postnominal APs and possessive phrases in Khoekhoe. However, in view of the fact that such postnominal phrases are marked as DPs, it is more likely that they are appositive DPs containing empty nominal constituents, which means (among other things) that postnominal possessive phrases in Khoekhoe are appositive free possessives.9 Therefore the four languages discussed seem to differ only in terms of minor features. Nevertheless, there are two basic features of phrasal syntax with respect to which a real difference can be found: i. tensed relative clauses are postnominal in Dutch/Afrikaans but prenominal in Khoekhoe (disregarding the use of appositive free relatives, which are postnominal, of course), ii. generally speaking, adpositions in Dutch and (Orange River) Afrikaans are prepositions, while Khoekhoe has postpositions. Further complications such as the Dutch/Afrikaans particles – postpositions and the so called circumpositions (collocations of pre- and postpositions) will not be discussed here, very few exceptions – information is provided only on lexis, morphology and phonology. Yet syntactic information on Cape and East Cape Khoekhoe can be gleaned from some travelogues, where, unfortunately, only very small native utterances can be found, as well as from a couple of translations by non-native speakers, i.e. J.W. Grevenbroeck’s translations of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles’ Creed into Cape Khoekhoe published in that order in Leibniz 1717: 365–384 and “The Lord’s Prayer in the Hottentot Language” in Campbell 1815 [1974: 388–389]. In this small but precious corpus we can find evidence for quite a few syntactic characteristics that are also typical for Nama and Korana: subject clitics following preposed elements, postverbal object clitics, SOV word order but no V2, postpositions, postverbal negation, and a sentence-initial negative imperative marker. However, note that the texts in Leibniz 1717 are in need of further analysis, both lexical and syntactic. Due to the absence of several words from these texts in Nienaber 1963 – and/or due to the absence of an index of the Khoekhoe words treated in that book – I have not always been able to decipher individual sentences. 8. The possessive-final marker di of Khoekhoe is not a postposition, for which see den Besten 1978. 9. Two examples illustrating the point are: om-i gei-b ‘house-3SG.M big-3SG.M’, i.e. ‘the house, the big one’, and xū -n khoi-s di-n ‘thing-3PL.C person-3SG.F POSS-3PL.C’, i.e. ‘the things, the woman’s’ vs. gei om-i ‘big house-3SG.M.’, i.e. ‘the big house’ and khoi-s (di) xū-n ‘person-3SG.F (POSS) thing-3PL.C’, i.e. ‘the woman’s things’, respectively. (Examples are based on Rust 1965: 27, 33. For the grammatical glosses see note 37 and Example 17g.) Compare the grammars of Nama and Korana mentioned in note 6 or the overview in den Besten 1978. For a discussion of the DP (NP) in Nama see Hagman 1973: ch. 2) and Haacke 1976.

 Roots of Afrikaans

although Afrikaans circumpositional phrases are briefly touched on in Section 3 below.10 So much for phrasal syntax. However, there are some more fine-grained details of sentential and verbal syntax that have not been discussed yet. First of all, the SOV property of a language L may have to be qualified in that there may be so-called wrapping structures, that is, structures in which the constituents of a VP seem to wrap themselves around a constituent that is supposed to be outside that VP, more specifically around an auxiliary (wrapping structure A) or around a TMA marker (wrapping structure B). It so happens that the SOV property of each of the four languages under discussion has to be qualified this way, although they differ as to which type of wrapping structure they choose. Wrapping structure A shows up in Dutch (2a) and in both varieties of Afrikaans: it is the well-known verb (projection) raising phenomenon. (2) a. ... dat hij het boek wou/kon lezen ... that he the book wanted/could read

(Dutch)

Note in this context that the pertinent auxiliaries do not have to be finite and can also be stacked, as in wou kunnen lezen ‘wanted be-able read’. Also note that there are a few auxiliaries that may or must follow the verb.11 There are various proposals in the literature on how to analyze Dutch-Afrikaans verb (projection) raising. I adopt here – without further discussion – the scrambling analysis indicated in 2b: (2) b. ... dat hij [DP het boek] wou/kon [XP dp lezen] ... that he the book wanted/could dp read  [dp = the trace of DP; XP = VP or an extended projection thereof] This is also – following various other assumptions – the analysis for Afrikaans verb (projection) raising defended by Robbers (1997).

10. For the Khoekhoe data see the grammars of Nama and Korana mentioned in note 6, Haacke 1976 or the overview in den Besten 1978. For adpositions in Dutch and Afrikaans see van Riemsdijk 1978 and Oosthuizen 2000 respectively. 11. Although the West Germanic verb (projection) raising phenomenon is a hotly debated topic among formal syntacticians of various theoretical convictions, wrapping structures have not received much attention among typologists yet, maybe because it is not a wide-spread phenomenon. By way of a curiosity, I mention the occurrence of a Verb Raising-like phenomenon in Batticaloa Portuguese, a Portuguese Creole with SOV base order. Smith (1979: 202–203) points out that some of the Batticaloa Portuguese auxiliaries, namely, poy ‘can’ and ker6 ‘want, intend’, immediately precede the verb. Similarly, Batticaloa TMA markers immediately precede the verb (often as clitics), unlike the TMA markers of Batticaloa Tamil, which are suffixal or enclitic (Smith 1979: 198–201). This means that both wrapping structure A and wrapping structure B are present in Batticaloa Portuguese.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

While wrapping structure A is a typical feature of Dutch and both varieties of Afrikaans, wrapping structure B is attested for Khoekhoe, as is indicated in the general word order formula for Khoekhoe in 3, with T indicating a tense particle:

(3) XP1 ... XPn – T – V

(n ≥ 1)

It goes without saying that a structure as indicated in 3 may be another candidate for the scrambling analysis, as was already suggested in passing in den Besten 1989: 232–233. This will be discussed in Section 4.2 below. Now it so happens that not only the SOV property has to be qualified but also the V2 property of Afrikaans and Orange River Afrikaans, while Dutch can still be represented as a “classical” asymmetric V2 language. The same may still be true for very normative (stilted) Standard Afrikaans.12 In nonstandard and colloquial Afrikaans, and partly also in modern written Afrikaans, the following deviations from the asymmetric V2 norm can be found, although they are by no means obligatory and differ in acceptability: (4) a. embedded V2 in that-clauses with and without initial dat ‘that’, e.g.: Ek dink (dat) hy sal dit môre lees I think (that) he will it tomorrow read  (Ponelis 1979: 440–441, 446, 531; Donaldson 1993: 368; Waher 1982) b. embedded V2 in subordinate clauses headed by wh-phrases, e.g.: Ek weet nie hoekom het hy dit gedoen nie I know not why has he it done not  (Ponelis 1979: 530; Donaldson 1993: 327, 371) c. embedded V1 in clauses headed by of ‘whether, e.g.: Ons weet nie of het hy dit gedoen nie We know not whether has he it done not  (Ponelis 1979: 531) Although embedded declarative V2 is not completely unheard of in the Germanic V2 languages, the specific combination of phenomena described in 4 is; on the other hand, phenomena similar to 4b–c can be found in Irish English, which is a contact variety of a (residual) V2 language. Furthermore note that in spite of traditional assumptions about V1 (which is supposed to be a special variant of V2), the finite verb does not oust the complementizer in of-clauses. Therefore, we may wonder whether the finite verb in embedded V2 interrogatives occupies the same position as the finite verb in V2 main clauses headed by a wh-phrase. More specifically: it cannot be excluded that wh-clauses as in 4b have to be analyzed as follows:

(5) [CP [XP +WH] C [FP SPEC Vf [...]]]

12. I therefore disregard the use of V2 or V1 in certain adverbial clauses in Dutch and (Standard) Afrikaans. This property, which occurs in all Germanic V2 languages is marginal compared to the deviations from asymmetric V2 in colloquial and nonstandard Afrikaans.

 Roots of Afrikaans

where C and SPEC are empty, although the wh-phrase may have moved through Spec,FP (FP being some functional projection).13 Finally, note that V2 in Afrikaans also differs from V2 in Dutch in that it may interact with V-to-V incorporation, yielding so-called complex initials, that is, sequences of more than one verb in finite position:14 (6) a. Daar bly staan hy There keeps stand he b. Toe laat val hy dit Then let fall he it Complex initials stick to the canonical AUX-V order of Dutch and Afrikaans verbal clusters, but older Orange River Afrikaans also made use of the order V-AUX, which yielded “inverted” complex initials such as hardloop kom ‘running come(s)’ or siet wil ‘see want(s)’. These should be distinguished from cases like 7, which can still be heard in Orange River Afrikaans (cf. Rademeyer 1938: 72–73, 81–84): (7) Stammak die ding daar Stand-make the thing there ‘Put the thing over there’ In colloquial Afrikaans staanmaak (lit.) ‘stand-make’ is a separable compound, or: particle verb; that is, staan ‘stand’ serves as verbal particle of maak ‘make’.15 The canonical order for Afrikaans particle verbs is Prt-V, except when V2 is applied, which yields V ... Prt in the pertinent main and subordinate clauses. Therefore stammak in 7 should be analyzed as a particle verb with an incorporated particle, which is in accordance with the fact that Orange River Afrikaans particle verbs with adpositional and other types of particles also undergo incorporation, as in the following example:16

13. In V final wh-clauses in colloquial and nonstandard Afrikaans the wh-phrase may be followed by the complementizer dat ‘that’. Therefore, we may wonder whether something similar is possible in embedded interrogative V2 clauses. Although the literature does not mention examples of this kind, I have come across one case of the required type (... hoekom dat het ... ‘... why that has ...’), while some informants recognized similar examples as a phenomenon that can be heard. For the time being I regard this as insufficient evidence. Furthermore note that the structure in 5 does not imply that C has to be lexical. 14. We owe the term ‘complex initials’ to Ponelis 1993. For V-to-V incorporation see Ponelis 1979: 244–245, Donaldson 1993: 364, and Robbers 1997. 15. Compare Robbers’ construction 1 for causative maak (Robbers 1997: 97–99, 223–224). For some speculative thoughts on a Khoekhoe Afrikaans origin for the V-maak construction see den Besten, Luijks and Roberge (fortcoming). 16. Cf. Rademeyer 1938: 63 and du Plessis 1984: 162–163.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

(8) Maar naderhand toe om-draai hy sommer hier halfpad But afterwards then around-turn he just here halfway  (Rademeyer 1938: 86) This is ungrammatical in other types of Afrikaans and it goes without saying that particle incorporation is not grammatical in Dutch either. In sum, the four languages under consideration share SOV and certain DP-internal ordering patterns, while the Dutch-Afrikaans group makes use of prepositions as against postpositions in Khoekhoe. Dutch, Afrikaans and Orange River Afrikaans share such secondary features as V2 and the adpositional possessive, which are absent in Khoekhoe. As regards “wrapping”, another secondary feature, the Dutch-Afrikaans group and Khoekhoe make use of different strategies. Furthermore, the Afrikaans group differs from Dutch in allowing three (or maybe rather two) types of embedded V2 as well as V-to-V incorporation (albeit optionally), while Orange River Afrikaans differs from other types of Afrikaans in that it allows particle incorporation. It is clear that the language contact situation in and around the Cape Colony never led to changes in a couple of basic syntactic properties of Cape Dutch. On the other hand the languages of the Afrikaans group have developed new (secondary) properties, which may very well be due to language contact, for instance with Khoekhoe.

3. Some considerations concerning the interaction between Dutch/Afrikaans and Khoekhoe in the early period17 3.1

Khoekhoe in contact with Dutch/Afrikaans: relexification and Pidgin formation

We know precious little about what was going on in the language contact situation that involved Khoekhoe and Dutch/Afrikaans, but some things are known. First of all, although some colonists were willing to learn (a bit of) Khoekhoe, they usually conversed with the Khoekhoen in (Cape) Dutch or in Pidgin Dutch. This pidgin, Cape Dutch Pidgin, of which we have a limited but useful corpus, started with the Khoekhoen and was taken over by the slaves. Furthermore, over time a new linguistic variety arose: relexified Khoekhoe, which probably has to be interpreted as one aspect of the overall process of language shift from Khoekhoe to Cape Dutch/Afrikaans. However, two pidgin sentences from the earliest period indicate that relexification may have been a factor in the construction of the pidgin too. Therefore, I first discuss relexification. We are informed about relexified Khoekhoe through a letter by Theophilus Hahn to Hugo Schuchardt (dated February 21, 1882, quoted in den Besten 1986: 216, 226). Hahn 17. This section is based on den Besten 1978, 1986, 1987, and 2001.

 Roots of Afrikaans

first mentions relexified imperatives such as Loop-tse ‘go-you’ (< !gun-tse) with afr. loop ‘go’. Then follows a discussion of the ‘Khoekhoe’ translation, produced during a sermon, of the phrase Von Natur gänzlich verdorben, that is, ‘completely depraved by nature’ (in Dutch, according to Hahn: Van Natuur geheelenall bedorven), which – without Hahn’s interpolated annotations – runs as follows: Heeltemalse Natuura-xu bedorven-he. As Hahn himself indicates, 9, is a relexified version of the Khoekhoe phrase in 10: (9) Heeltemal-se Natuur-a-xu bedorven-he completely-adv. nature-obj-from depraved-pass  [adv: adverbial marker; obj: case; pass: passive marker] (10) Hoaraga-se  ũb-a  xu  gau-gau-he We may therefore conclude that relexification of Khoekhoe did not affect grammatical particles, postpositions or even pronominal clitics (see above). Now there are two early pidgin utterances that show relexification effects of this type. First of all, the “English Hottentot” Herry (= Harry) is quoted as saying Goo Goo reght (lit.) ‘Go go straight’ (1655; Godée Molsbergen 1916 (I): 18), while ‘Go (away)’ seems to be what he actually meant. However it could be argued that Goo reght should be interpreted as eng. go plus the Khoekhoe imperative/hortative marker -re, which was misunderstood as [r7x], the local pronunciation of Dutch recht ‘straight’ (see den Besten 1989: 232.) Less contaminated data are provided by ten Rhyne (1686; cited in Schapera and Farrington 1933: 140), who quotes the sentence Was makom? (lit.) ‘what (?) do?’, which he translates into Latin as quid facitis? ‘What are you (pl) doing?’ However, was, which looks like German was ‘what?’, should be analyzed as Dutch wat ‘what?’ plus the Khoekhoe clitic -ts ‘2SG.M’.18 In spite of this enclitic pronoun, Was makom? must be a pidgin sentence since the verb is ending in the pidgin suffix -om while the sentence does not contain any Khoekhoe TMA particle. As is pointed out in den Besten 1986, 1987, and 1989, Cape Dutch Pidgin may have developed out of pidginized relexified Khoekhoe (a kind of foreigner talk) which was partly adapted to Dutch syntax. Apparently, speakers sometimes forgot the difference between relexified Khoekhoe and pidginized (and adapted) relexified Khoekhoe, producing grammatically mixed sentences, which under circumstances could pass for relexified Khoekhoe proper.19 18. See den Besten 1986: 217 and 1987: 27. Ten Rhyne visited the Cape in 1673. His use of the second person plural form facitis in his Latin rendering of Was makom? is most probably due to his Dutch Vorlage, since spoken Hollandic Dutch jij ‘you (2sg)’ had to be rendered in normative seventeenth-century written Dutch as gij, a southern Dutch pronoun that could be either second person singular or plural but whose original meaning is second person plural only (cf. formal vous in French). 19. Both Was makom and Goo reght are grammatically mixed, while *Goo-re(ght) could pass for relexified Khoekhoe. It cannot be excluded that there are more grammatically mixed sentences in my pidgin data base. Thus, in Kolbe (1727: 1.121) we can find two instances of a particle ’k,

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

Examples of pidgin sentences without any Khoekhoe grammatical particle can be found in 11:20 (11) a. ’tZa lustigh, duijtsman een woordt Calm, ons V kelum tza quiet, Dutch-man/men one word say, we you cut-throat  (1672; Franken 1953: 113) b. 

gy dit Beest fangum zoo, en nu dood maakum zoo, you this animal catch so, and now kill so, is dat braa, wagtum ons altemaal daar van loopum zoo is that good, wait we all away run so (1705–1713; Kolbe 1727 (1): 502)

Except for is dat braa in 11b, all clauses in 11a–b are (S)OV, which is in accordance with Khoekhoe basic word order and which is one of the reasons for regarding Cape Dutch Pidgin as the product of pidginization and relexification of Khoekhoe, a kind of relexified Khoekhoe foreigner talk.21 The co-occurrence of V2 and SOV sentences in one sequence of pidgin sentences may be genuine though, because there are more attestations of such mixed sequences.22 Most or all of the pertinent V2 sentences may be fixed expressions the Khoekhoen learned from the Dutch. The following (incomplete) overview of syntactic and morphological properties of the pidgin (gleaned from den Besten 1986, 1987, and 2001) demonstrates, however, that Cape Dutch Pidgin was not fully Khoekhoe in nature and had some exclusively Dutch properties: (12) a. 1. SOV; 2. no V2; 3. no Khoekhoe particles (with a few exceptions); b. tense adverbials, such as (al) gedaen (lit.) ‘(already) done/ready’ for the perfect; c. preverbal negation, that is, negation in the inner field, as in Dutch;

which shows up in combination with an auxiliary hemme ‘have’ (’k hemme), although there are two more instances of hemme without ’k in the same context (cf. Examples 46a and 51a). This particle may be the Khoekhoe declarative marker ge and/or the remote past marker ge, but unfortunately such interpretations yield problems which I have not been able to solve yet. 20. Although Example 11b contains genuine material, daar van ‘away’ (lit. ‘there from’) is a Germanism (< germ. davon). The southern Dutch second person object pronoun V (i.e. u) in 11a is also dubious since it belongs to the written register of seventeenth-century Dutch. Therefore, the Khoekhoen who pronounced this threat most probably said jou (2sg) or jull(i)e (2pl). nNote that in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a new (invariant) formal pronoun u developed in colloquial middle class Dutch. Because of the latter feature, the early period and the aggressive nature of the confrontation described, we can exclude the possibility that the pertinent Khoekhoen were using invariant formal u. 21. See den Besten 1986, 1987, and 1989. 22. See den Besten 1987.

 Roots of Afrikaans

d. a marker -um/-om/-me on the verb and on a few nouns and adjectives (possibly deriving from two allomorphs of the Cape Khoekhoe persongender-number marker 3sg.masc);23 e. a prenominal demonstrative pronoun die ‘that, those’; f. 1. no articles in the early period; 2. with demonstrative die developing into a definite article; g. die man ‘that man’ as an anaphoric and deictic pronominal expressions (also a property of Cape Khoekhoe); h. 1. prenominal possessives; 2. which are optionally marked: DP-(POSS)-N. i. attributive adjectives in prenominal position; j. if any adpositions, prepositions (no postpositions have been attested). Note that the properties 12a1–2; 12d; 12e; 12f1; 12g; 12h1–2; and 12i can all be related to Khoekhoe or Cape Khoekhoe, which seems sufficient to relate the pidgin as a whole to Khoekhoe, while the tense adverbials (12b) are a pidgin solution for the problem caused by the omission of all Khoekhoe particles. If we now restrict the set of Khoekhoe properties to the proper subset of Khoekhoe ordering properties, that is, 12a1 and 2, 12e, 12h1, and 12i, we can see that all of these properties except for the absence of V2 (12a2) are in accordance with Dutch syntax. The Khoekhoen apparently refrained from using postnominal attributive phrases (in fact appositive DPs with empty NPs in Khoekhoe – see above), while the Dutch had to think in terms of infinitival verbs to get “SOV without V2” right, which must have been hardly problematic for them: this was their own contribution to the formation of the Cape Dutch Pidgin. Furthermore, the use of preverbal negation and prepositions (i.e., 12c and 12j) indicates that even word order patterns that were obligatory in Khoekhoe but foreign to the Dutch, namely postverbal negation (SOV-NEG) and postpositions, were shunned, which means that the pidgin may be seen as a Dutch – Khoekhoe compromise, as is also indicated by the gradual development of a definite article (cf. 12f2).24 Note in this context that the switch from postverbal to preverbal negation may have been fairly unproblematic for speakers of Khoekhoe. Their postverbal negative markers tama ‘NEG’ and tite ‘NEG.FUT’ may have been unavailable for relexification anyway since they could count as grammatical particles. However, in Khoekhoe, negative quantifiers – including negative adverbs – precede the verb (in conjunction with postverbal tama or tite) and Khoekhoe-speakers could therefore easily interpret Dutch nie(t) ‘not’ as a negative adverb. 23. See den Besten 1987 for the hypothesis that -um/-om/-me may originally have been a Cape Khoekhoe VP-nominalizer. 24. See den Besten 1986 for an overview of negative sentences in Cape Dutch Pidgin and den Besten 2001 for one extra datum. Weet niet ‘know not’ in the quote from Bövingh 1714, in note 31 below, is a set expression with V2 and therefore does not count as a pidgin sentence in the proper sense. For negation in Khoekhoe see den Besten 1986 or the grammars mentioned in note 6.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

As far as I can see, there was no comparable way to get used to prepositions, and it may therefore be interesting to know that there is also indirect evidence for postpositions in Cape Dutch Pidgin. This evidence can be found in the nineteenth century SVO pidgin that developed under the influence of the massive influx of slaves and “prize Negroes” from Mozambique.25 The new pidgin borrowed some features of the original pidgin, unless it was a restructured version of the older SOV pidgin.26 One feature that may have been borrowed from the older pidgin is the postposition saam ‘with’ (< Dutch saam/samen ‘together’), since it is unlikely for Bantu-speakers to have developed postpositions: (13) a. nie bemoei ander mense sam [I] not interfere other people with (letter by the “ingesete van Stellebos” or ‘resident of Stellenbosch’  (1831; Nienaber 1971: 54)) b. aldaa zij had mooij kapraat, mijn zaam there (?) she have nicely spoken, me with (Isaac Albach (a Frenchman) in the diary of Louis Trigardt  (1836–1838) in le Roux 1977: 61) These observations may shed new light upon the occurrence of “un-Dutch” circumpositions in nonstandard Afrikaans, that is, circumpositions whose constitutive parts connote an apparent redundancy. Compare the following examples:27 (14) a. in hierdie straat in in this street in b. met die mes saam with the knife with Circumpositions such as those in 14 may very well be compromises between Dutch prepositions and Khoekhoe/pidgin postpositions on analogy with Dutch circumpositional structures such as met DP/NP samen ‘with DP/NP together (= together with DP/NP)’. Note that the above considerations do not tell us anything about the accessibility of Dutch phenomena such as V2 for speakers of Khoekhoe. However, they do tell us that there was a considerable amount of Khoekhoe substrate features in Cape Dutch Pidgin, while the grammatically mixed sentences seem to show that (relexified) Khoekhoe and Cape Dutch Pidgin were not completely separate systems for native speakers of Khoekhoe. This implies that the hypothesis according to which syntactic 25. For the influx of the Mozambican slaves and “prize Negroes” see Shell 1994: 41–42, 45–46. 26. Cf. den Besten 2001. 27. Compare Rademeyer 1938: 80; Ponelis 1979: 177, 327, Donaldson 1993: 357–359; Oosthuizen 2000.

 Roots of Afrikaans

properties of Khoekhoe could have reached Afrikaans only through the filter of the pidgin or subsequent Creole varieties (cf. Section 1) is too strong in its present form. Nevertheless it seems reasonable to assume that there are connections between Cape Dutch Pidgin and Afrikaans and that the pidgin has been a factor in the genesis of Orange River Afrikaans, which is spoken by people of mainly Khoekhoe descent and which might as well be called Khoekhoe Afrikaans. Furthermore, it is equally reasonable to assume that this Khoekhoe Afrikaans had a wider geographical distribution in the past than it does now and that early varieties of Khoekhoe Afrikaans must have influenced East Cape Afrikaans and its offshoot, Voortrekker Afrikaans.

3.2

Evidence for a diachronic relationship between Cape Dutch Pidgin and Orange River Afrikaans

Given the assumption that Cape Dutch Pidgin has been a factor in the genesis of Orange River Afrikaans a natural question to ask is what may count as a Cape Dutch Pidgin residue in twentieth-century Orange River Afrikaans. Unfortunately, the properties of Cape Dutch Pidgin summed up in 12 cannot be used as a checklist here since Orange River Afrikaans shares a couple of features with Dutch/Afrikaans that were absent – or not fully present – in the early pidgin, such as V2, a definite article, an obligatory prenominal possessive marker (se), and prepositions and circumpositions. Furthermore, other features such as SOV, preverbal negation, prenominal demonstratives and adjectives, and prepositions are shared by Dutch, Afrikaans and Orange River Afrikaans. And finally, due to the introduction of finite verbs (a prerequisite for V2), Orange River Afrikaans does not need tense adverbials, while the verbal ending -um/-om/-me seems to have been given up before the nineteenth century.28 In spite of all this, there is some evidence that Orange River Afrikaans may be related to the old pidgin as we know it, that is, to the limited corpus of pidgin data we possess.29 Thus Cape Dutch Pidgin and Orange River Afrikaans (as well as other nonstandard varieties of Afrikaans) share the verb dood ‘to die’, which derives from Dutch/ Afrikaans dood ‘dead’, while Standard Afrikaans uses sterf/sterwe ‘to die’(< Dutch sterven), as is pointed out in Roberge 1994b: 74–75.30 Furthermore Roberge 1994b: 73–75 28. Compare the nineteenth century pidgin data in den Besten 2001. As for the tense adverbials, note that (al) gedaen (lit.) ‘(already) done/ready’ has survived in a new guise with new functions in afr. (al) klaar ‘already’ ‘lit. (already) ready’ and in the Afrikaans completive marker klaar. See also den Besten 1987: 19–20, 21–22 and 1989: 238; Roberge 1994b: 77–78. 29. However, see Roberge 1994b for an attempt to reconstruct features of the pidgin on the basis of Orange River Afrikaans data. 30. Also see den Besten 1987: 17–19. Note that all varieties of Afrikaans have given up Dutch doden ‘to kill’ in favor of the particle verb doodmaak (lit.) ‘dead-make’, which can be traced back to the pidgin and ultimately derives from Dutch doodmaken (cf. den Besten 1987: 17–18). In Dutch

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

refers to the early nineteenth-century traveler Lichtenstein, who claimed that the Khoekhoen often suspended temporal auxiliaries when speaking Dutch. Roberge reasons that this may very well mean that the Khoekhoen made use of the participial prefix ge- to express past tense or perfect, which is a phenomenon that (still) sporadically occurs in our twentieth-century Orange River Afrikaans corpora, as in the following example: (15) Baas hulle hom geroep die galsbôom Master they it callpart. the gall-tree (?) (van Rensburg (ed.) 1984a: 2.213) Although this may seem circular there is evidence for the use of this tense-marking prefix ge- in nineteenth century pidgin: Roberge (1994a: 66–68, forthcoming) points at the pidgin Afrikaans of the Frenchman Isaac Albach, as reported by Trigardt (1836–1838, in le Roux 1977), while data from other sources is provided by den Besten (2001).Therefore, Example 15 represents a residue of (a late variety of) Cape Dutch Pidgin in Orange River Afrikaans.31 Besides the cases discussed by Roberge (1994a, 1994b), there is also phonological evidence for a diachronic relationship between Cape Dutch Pidgin and Orange River Afrikaans. In Orange River Afrikaans the Dutch/Afrikaans diphthong 〈ui〉 is sometimes realized as an [y], which is the Middle Dutch predecessor of 〈ui〉 so to speak (e.g. uut instead of uit ‘out’). The same is reported for Cape Dutch Pidgin.32 Given the above considerations, it is a pleasant coincidence that Wikar (1779) provides us with linguistic material that connects the type of Dutch of the Orange River area of the late 1770s both with the early pidgin of the seventeenth century and with twentieth-century Orange River Afrikaans. Wikar (1779, in Godée Molsbergen 1916(II): 82) mentions a kind of tax called kortom which is also talked about by Ten and Standard Afrikaans the particle dood can only be an adjective. In Orange River Afrikaans, however, this particle can also be a verb. Compare the case of staanmaak ‘put’, lit. ‘stand-make’. 31. See Luijks 2000 for similar cases in the letters of the nineteenth century Nama leader Jan Jonker Afrikaner. 32. See den Besten 2001. For [y] instead of 〈ui〉 in Orange River Afrikaans, see Rademeyer 1938: 49, Links 1989: 19–20 and van Rensburg 1984: 346. Links (1989: 19–20) notes for the Namaqualand variety that [y] also substitutes for the ui-2, an original diphthong. This must be the hypercorrect result of a counterrule against ongoing diphthongization. Evidence for the comparable use of [i] instead of the more recent Dutch/Afrikaans diphthong 〈ij/y〉 is nearly nonexistent. Rademeyer (1938: 50–51 and Links (1989: 21) could not find anything of the kind in Orange River Afrikaans (except for Links’ datum [klim":] for kleinma, which involves an original diphthong). But in the Griqua Afrikaans texts in van Zyl (1947: 4, 9) I found nabie instead of naby ‘near’ (as an adverb and a preposition resp.), while van Rensburg (1984b: 345) mentions altit instead of altyd ‘always’. This corresponds nicely to the pidgin form altit instead of altijd in Joh. Georg Bövingh’s Kurze Nachricht von den Hottentotten (1714: 20), quoted by Schoeman (1997: 121): Weet niet, Hottentotten manier, Hottentott altit so ‘Know not, Hottentots way, Hottentot(s) always so’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Rhyne (1686, in Schapera and Farrington 1933: 136, 152). The word itself is a nominalization (by means of the pidgin suffix -um/-om/-me) either of Dutch kort ‘short’ or of Dutch korten ‘to cut back’.33 Furthermore, Wikar quotes the following possessive construction (in reference to baboons): (16) de oude tyden zijn mens the old times his/poss human  Wikar (1779, in Godée Molsbergen, 1916(II): 94) This is a typical example of an Orange River Afrikaans possessive construction. Remarkably similar cases from the twentieth century are discussed by Spruijt (1993: 67, 93, 124).34

3.3

Concluding remarks concerning Cape Dutch Pidgin

As we have seen in Section 3.1 (relexified) Khoekhoe and Cape Dutch Pidgin were not completely separate systems for native speakers of Khoekhoe, while we may derive from Section 3.2 that Cape Dutch Pidgin has been a factor in the genesis of Orange River Afrikaans. The latter probably means that we should view Cape Dutch Pidgin as a (protracted) stage in the acquisition and/or construction of Cape Dutch and (Orange River) Afrikaans, while the former implies that Cape Dutch Pidgin may have been a temporary vehicle – but not necessarily a filter – for Khoekhoe substrate influences. In fact, after the disappearance of the pidgin, the substrate still was able exert its influence due to a stage of Khoekhoe – Orange River Afrikaans bilingualism at least among certain speakers. However, as regards the first stage in the acquisition of Cape Dutch/Afrikaans by speakers of Khoekhoe the following can be said: As we have seen in Section 3.1, in terms of word order Cape Dutch Pidgin may be thought of as a compromise between Khoekhoe and Dutch, which was facilitated by the fact that there are several word order similarities between these two languages. However, there are three areas of word order where compromises were not possible: negation, V2 and adpositions. Apparently, in the case of negation, Dutch word order was easy to access for the Khoekhoen (for which see Section 3.1. and note 24), while postpositions (which did not have to relexify in relexified Khoekhoe) had to compete with prepositions. Both issues are topics for future research.

33. In fact Wikar provides more lexical material that is reminiscent of the early pidgin, but kortom, with its pidgin suffix, is the most striking example. 34. See Roberge 1994b: 67–72 for a discussion of invariant se and the possessive construction in Orange River Afrikaans.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

In the case of V2, though, Khoekhoe rather than Dutch “won out,” albeit temporarily, because eventually Orange River Afrikaans, the successor of Cape Dutch Pidgin, would develop a V2 rule. In order to establish whether the late appearance of V2 is accidental or not, we will have to discuss the sentential syntax of Khoekhoe in more detail.

4. Sentential structure in Khoekhoe 4.1

Introductory remarks

Since we do not possess a grammar of Cape Khoekhoe, and even the few Cape Khoekhoe texts (translations) produced by non-native speakers have not been (fully) analyzed yet, we are forced to make claims about older, seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury Khoekhoe on the basis of what we know about modern Nama and (now extinct) Korana, for which grammars are available. This is potentially dangerous, but there is no other way to circumvent the problem. In the remainder of this paper, which will deal with the sentential syntax of Khoekhoe, I will restrict myself to what is known about Nama. Nama is the best-described Khoekhoe language to date, although it is my impression that also in terms of sentential syntax Korana has many things in common with this language, as I will briefly elaborate upon in Section 4.4. The following incomplete list of syntactic properties of Nama will serves as a reference for Sections 4.2 and 4.3; although some of the properties will be revised, most of them are illustrated in one way or another: (17) a. basic word order is SOV; b. 1. the tense particle and the imperfective aspect particle (if present) immediately precede the verb: S – O – T – (ASP) – V; 2. the perfective aspect particle (if present) follows the verb: S – O – T – V – (ASP); c. in certain constructions T may follow the verb; d. 1. in declaratives and interrogatives the negative marker tama follows the verb; however, 2. negation + future is expressed by means of one postverbal marker, tite;35 e. topicalization and wh-movement target a clause-initial position; f. the first position of a clause is marked off by the declarative particle ge or by kha in questions; g. an NP (DP) takes a pgn-marker: an enclitic personal pronoun which marks the NP for person-gender-number (hence “pgn”) and can be seen as the phrase-final head of the DP: (XP*) – N – D; 35. Negation in imperative-hortative sentences is expressed by means of the (nearly) sentenceinitial marker tā ‘don’t’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

h. subject doubling (for which see below) can be defined in terms of the pgn-marker: ... cli ..... [DP [NP ... N] Di] ... In the following two subsections I will first deal with the sentential syntax of Nama at the CP level (Section 4.2) and then with the syntax of the Nama VP (Section 4.3). The conclusions are: first, that there is a VP in Nama (contra den Besten 1986, 1987, 1989); and second, that despite evident similarities the syntax of the Second Position in Nama differs in various respects from the syntax of V2 in Dutch. Consequences for L2 acquisition of Dutch/Afrikaans by speakers of Khoekhoe will be discussed in Section 5.

4.2

CP and AgrP in Khoekhoe36

Since there are various differences between the syntax of declarative clauses and the syntax of questions in Nama I treat them separately. 4.2.1 Declarative clauses Consider the following two formulae for word order in declarative main clauses in Nama. Such declarative structures have the P2 (= Position 2) property, which means that they have a well-defined second position that may be filled with the declarative particle ge (also known as the “ge subjectivum”):37 (18) a. DPi [+nom] [SUBJ]

– ge – ..................... – T – (ASP) – V – (ASP)38

b. XP =cli – ge – (YPi) – ...... – T – (ASP) – V – (ASP) [–nom] [+nom] [+dep] [SUBJ]

36. Although this section deals with Nama material only, I stick to the name “Khoekhoe” in the titles of the subsections since Nama is supposed to be exemplary for the Khoekhoe subfamily as a whole. As soon as the new Namibian name for Nama, i.e. Khoekhoegowab or Khoekhoe, has gained international recognition it may be possible to redefine the other Khoekhoe languages as dialects of “Khoekhoe” (= Nama). For the time being we will have to live with the potential ambiguity of the name “Khoekhoe”. 37. See Hagman 1973: 202–211, 215–216; Rust (1965: 56–58, 100–104); and the scattered remarks in Olpp 1977: 18–33. According to Rust (1965: 57) ge in 18b is optional, while Hagman (1973: 216) claims that this only holds of short sentences with a fronted verb. (See also Olpp 1977: 103.) 38. In my discussion of Nama syntax the following abbreviations will be used: ASP ‘aspect’, C ‘common (‘neuter’, indefinite) gender’, cl ‘enclitic pronoun’, DECL ‘declarative marker’, dep ‘dependent case’, du ‘dual’, EmbN ‘embedding noun’, EXCL ‘exclusive, F ‘feminine’, FUT ‘future tense’, Imp ‘imperfective’, M ‘masculine’, NEG ‘negation’, nom ‘nominative’, OBJ ‘object’, Perf ‘perfective’, pl ‘plural’, prt ‘particle’, POSS ‘possessive’, PRES ‘present tense’, Q ‘question marker’, RC. PST ‘recent past’, RM.PST ‘remote past’, sg ‘singular’, SUBJ ‘subject’, Persons will be indicated by numbers: 1, 2, 3.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

According to 18b, the subject undergoes clitic doubling if another phrase is moved into first position (cf. 17h). The clitic will be from the nominative paradigm, while the doubled subject must be in the dependent case. The latter usually deletes if it is a pronoun. Compare the following examples from Rust 1965: 121:39 (19) a.

Tita ge ti naoba goro gurin ei-!â ge mû40 1sg decl 1sg.poss uncle five years ago rm.pst see [+nom] [+dep] ‘I have seen my uncle five years ago.’

b. Ti naoba-tai ge (titai) goro gurin ei-!â ge mû 1sg.poss uncle=1sg decl (1sg) five years ago rm.pst see [+dep] [+dep] These examples clearly illustrate the formulae 18a and 18b: a nominative subject in first position in 19a and clitic doubling plus optional deletion under “inversion” in 19b. They also illustrate the similarity between P2 and V2 structures: if we disregard clitic doubling, use Dutch lexical items and put the finite auxiliary heb ‘have’ in the position of declarative ge, we get Dutch V2 sentences: Ik heb mijn oom vijf jaar geleden gezien ‘I have my uncle five years ago seen’ vs. Vijf jaar geleden heb ik mijn oom gezien. For the sake of completeness, I add the following variants of 19a–b with a name substituted for tita:41 (20) a. Johanneb ge ti naoba goro gurin ei-!â ge mû John decl 1sg.poss uncle five years ago rm.pst see [+nom] [+dep] b. Ti naoba-bi ge Johannebai goro gurin ei-!â ge mû 1sg.poss uncle=3sg.m decl John five years ago rm.pst see [+dep] [+dep] Compare also the following example from Rust 1965: 124: (21) Hoaraga ti ûi-hâb !na-ta ge na !āsa mû tama hâ All 1sg.poss life in=1sg decl that town see not asp [+dep] “Never did I see that town before.”

39. All of the examples are quoted in accordance with the spelling of my sources, with minor adjustments for technical reasons in the case of Hagman’s diacritics. Syntactic annotations (brackets, subscripts, etc.) are mine. Furthermore, only full DP arguments of verbs are annotated for case. (Note that most postpositions assign nominative case.) 40. In 19b I have added the optional pronoun tita to faciliate the comparison. 41. Johanneb ‘John’ derives from the German/Afrikaans (and ultimately biblical) name Johannes. It ends in the pgn-marker -b for 3SG.M since -s counts as 3SG.F. Compare Nama Jesub ‘Jesus’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Example 20 illustrates the formulae of 18 for sentences with non-pronominal subjects. In this instance dependent case marking on the “inverted” subject (-a) is visible. Example 21 shows that XP in 18b can also be an non-argument. Now note that the P2 syntax of Nama declaratives is complemented by a pattern that seems to be derived from pattern 18a. This third pattern involves the fronting of a constituent that may not be used as a fronted element in pattern 18b or in questions (see below). Consequently, “inversion” is excluded, while the pattern seems to encompass a P2 subpattern consisting of the Subject DP and ge:42 (22) (XP*)  –  [V – T – (ASP)]  –  DPi  –  ge  – ......... [+nom] [SUBJ] Note, furthermore, that inside the special constituent, V and T + (ASP) invert in order for the sentence not to start with a tense particle; note also that the special constituent may attract other phrases (XP*) whose presence at the beginning of the clause make such an inversion unnecessary. Compare the following examples (taken from Rust 1965: 104 and Hagman 1973: 209 respectively): (23) a. [!gû go] khoin gé go rc.pst people decl [+nom] ‘The people have gone’ b. 1.

tarásà [kò aí] ’áop ke neetse woman rc.pst call man decl today [+dep] [+nom] ‘The man just called the woman today’

2. neetse [kò aí] ’áop ke tarásà today rc.pst call man decl woman (These extra preposings may in fact be part of the XP dominating T(+ASP) – V.) So much for this deviating pattern. Although P2 in Khoekhoe and Germanic V2 look quite similar, clitic doubling does not seem to make sense in this comparison. However, it does make sense if we follow an hypothesis put forward by Huybregts (1997). According to Huybregts, the CPs of Khoekhoe and Dutch are quite similar – in both languages Agr is realized on C: (24) [CP Spec C/Agr FP] In Dutch Agr on C is visible through asymmetric V2 in main clauses (which permits Agr to be realized on the amalgamated head of V and T) and through agreement phenomena on subordinators in dialects. For Khoekhoe, things are slightly different. 42. See Rust 1965: 104; Hagman 1973: 208–209, 211, 216.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

Apparently, Agr in second position can be realized without attraction of V + T. Furthermore, we have to assume that nominative case can only be assigned through Spec Head Agreement (SHAgr) with the Agr head and that there is spell-out of Agr if and only if there is no SHAgr between Agr and its Spec, while dependent case must be a default-elsewhere case (elsewhere = not in Spec,AgrP). When spelled out Agr is enclitic and will “lean to the left”. Yet, there is a slight problem with Huybregts’ hypothesis: in subordinate clauses we can find the same word order phenomena as in 18, however without ge.43 Compare the following example from Rust 1965: 96: (25) [[ǀAi-gams ei-ta an hâ] !keisa] -ts ge nî an [[Windhoek in=1sg live asp] EmbN] =2sg.m decl fut know ‘You must/should know that I am living in Windhoek’ Note that the subordinator !kei- is not a complementizer but a semantically empty noun with an appropriate pgn-marker, in this case -s ‘3SG.F’, which is also used for nominalization. Whenever necessary, the pertinent “embedding” DP, the !kei-s DP, is marked for dependent case (-a).44 Therefore !kei-s-a does not cause any problem for Huybregts’ hypothesis. However, in light of examples like 25 we have to conclude that unlike V2 in Dutch, P2 (Agr2) in Khoekhoe is symmetric.45 Furthermore we have to assume that Khoekhoe main clauses involve an extra functional projection whose head is ge. Therefore symmetric P2 (Agr2) must apply at the level of AgrP. The projection of ge, which may be CP or something else, dominates AgrP and by attracting Agr to its head inherits the properties of AgrP. 4.2.2 Yes/no questions and wh-interrogatives Since the syntax of questions in Nama involves various unexpected details I, subdivide the present section into three subsections. Section 4.2.2.1. discusses the word order of questions in main clauses and Section 4.2.2.2. word order in subordinate questions. Section 4.2.2.3. wraps up the discussion. 43. Cf. Rust 1965: 94–98; Hagman 1973: 224–226, 256–258. 44. Subordination can also be achieved by marking the clause with the clause-final pgnmarker -s ‘3SG.F’ or the singular indefinite/neuter pgn-marker -ì (for ‘whether’); see, for example, Hagman 1973: 233–234. Whether this implies the presence of an empty noun I do not know. 45. In fact things are slightly more complicated, since we are talking about three P2 phenomena: V2, Agr2 and the ge-phenomenon. V2 in Dutch and the ge-phenomenon in Nama are asymmetric. Agr2 in Nama clearly is symmetric. But what about Agr2 in Dutch? Even if we claim that all dialects of Dutch – whether they have agreeing complementizers or not – are endowed with the complex category C/AGR, we cannot claim that Agr2 in Dutch is symmetric, unless any C-initial subordinate is redefined as containing an abstract operator in its specifier.

 Roots of Afrikaans

4.2.2.1 Main-clause yes/no-questions and wh-Interrogatives A. Main-Clause yes/no-Questions46 Consider the following incomplete set of formulae for yes/no-questions in Nama. Unlike yes/no-questions in Germanic, which seem to be V1/P1 (unless we define them as V2 with an abstract wh-operator in [Spec,CP]), their Nama counterparts are P2, where the second position is filled with kha or zero, which can be supported by a subject clitic provided there is ‘inversion’. Furthermore, unlike the Germanic V1 questions, whose [Spec,CP] is either unfilled or occupied by an abstract operator, [Spec,CP] in Nama yes/no-questions can be filled with any eligible XP as in declaratives. However, note that an argument DP in first position in yes/no-questions has to bear dependent case, also if it is a subject. This observation is problematic for the theory of AgrP and case-assignment in Nama; see Section 4.2.2.3. below. And finally, note that the semantic focus of a yes/no-question is on the (initialized) element in first position, that is, on DP in 26a and on XP in 26b: (26) a. DP [+dep] [SUBJ]

– (kha) – .................... – T – (ASP) – V – (ASP)

b. XP =cli [+nom]

– (kha) – (DPi) ........... – T – (ASP) – V – (ASP) [+dep] [SUBJ]

However, there is a further complication in that the subject of (26b) may go to a leftperipheral position, without canceling the clitic on XP. This is Hagman’s analysis (“reinitialization”) but it seems to me that we cannot exclude the possibility of a left dislocation analysis. However, whatever is the right analysis, in yes/no-questions conforming to the 26c variant the semantic focus is on both DP and XP. (26) c. DPi – [+dep]

XP =cli – (kha) – ........... – T – (ASP) – V – (ASP) [+nom] [SUBJ]

The following sentences taken from Hagman 1973: 267–268 can illustrate the formulae in 24a–c. Since Hagman does not often use the question particle (which is optional after all), I mark the abstract second position assumed by him (Int) with Q: (27) a.

’ĩĩpa Q ań’e kè ’ũũ? 3sg.m Q meat rm.pst eat [+dep] [+dep] ‘Did he eat the meat?’

b. ań’e= pi Q ’ĩĩpai kè ’ũũ? meat=3sg.m Q 3sg.m rm.pst eat [+dep] [+dep]

46. See Rust 1965: 104–105; and Hagman 1973: 259–260, 266–269.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

c. ’ĩĩpai ’ũũ =pi (Q) kè ań’e 3sg.m eat=3sg.m (Q) rm.pst meat [+dep] [+dep] Note that the tense particle in 27c has moved to a “third position”, that is, to a position between the second position (cl + (kha/kxa)) and the “inverted” subject. T-movement serves here as a repair strategy to undo the unwelcome result of V-fronting, in other words, a sentence ending in a tense particle. Whether the subject in 27c is left-dislocated or fronted, the direct object of the same sentence may front to the position between the subject and the fronted verb (Hagman 1973: 269); compare the following case from Rust 1965: 105: (28)

Tarasai mariba !kho-!oa=si go? Woman money get=3sg.f rc.pst [+dep] [+dep] ‘Did the woman get the money?’

Therefore, Nama yes/no-questions may be P2 sentences, but the pertinent P2 structures only constitute a proper subpart of the syntax of such sentences. In most cases, however, P2 seems to suffice as a descriptive statement: sentences of the type 26a–b are P2. If we may analyze the subjects in 26c, 27c and 28 as left-dislocated elements, we could claim the same for sentences of the type 26c, in which case we only have to analyze sentences like 28 (which constitute an infrequent type of yes/no questions) as being partly P2, since mariba !kho-!oa ‘money get’ cannot be a fronted VP (cf. Section 4.3). However, note that left dislocation (or reinitialization) of the subject seems to be a prerequisite for object fronting in 28. If that is correct, the sentence-initial subject is part of the core structure of such sentences, which implies that sentences of the type 26c cannot be strictly P2 either. Finally, note that it may be wise to keep kha (which is a modal question particle comparable to Dutch dan/German denn) and the second position apart; compare the following example from Rust 1965: 105: (29) Gunisai kha [mû=sii tama]=du Q hâ? wagon Q-prt [see=3sg.f neg]=2pl.c Q Perfasp ‘Didn’t youpl see the wagon then?’ In 29 the P2 core is the sequence [mû=sii tama]=du Q hâ, since -du, which happens to be ambiguous in terms of case, must be the subject clitic for semantic as well as for syntactic reasons: subject clitics may cliticize onto the constituent V + NEG (cf. Section 4.3) while object clitics have to cliticize onto a verb. We know that the abstract position Q following the subject clitic may be but does not have to be filled by kha. Since kha occupies another position in this sentence (after what seems to be a leftdislocated object) we have to conclude that kha cannot be exclusively linked to the Q position.

 Roots of Afrikaans

B. Main clause interrogatives47 Nama main clause interrogatives are plainly P2 in structure, which may, however, be due to the fact that I don’t have cases of multiple wh-questions. However, here, too, the subject must bear dependent case under all circumstances. (For a discussion of this problem see Section 4.2.2.3 below.) (30) a.

DP [+wh] [+dep] [SUBJ]

– (kha) – ............ ...

– T – (ASP) – V – (ASP)

b. XP =cli – (kha) – (DPi) – ... – T – (ASP) – V – (ASP) [+wh]  [+nom] [+dep] [SUBJ] Compare the following examples from Rust 1965: 45, 47: (31) a. Mâ khoiba nati go mî? Which personsg.m so rc.pst say [+dep] ‘Who said that?’ b. Matigose ta kha khâb !na nî ho? How much 1sg Q-prt month in fut get ‘How much shall I get per month?’ There is only one complication: left dislocation of the subject (reinitialization in Hagman’s terminology) is possible (Hagman 1973: 265): (32)

saákxoi taré’e =kxòi neepá ra hĩĩ? 2du.m what =2du.m here Impasp do? [+dep] [+dep] [+nom] ‘What are (the two of) you doing?’

Since main clause interrogatives in Nama seem to be well-behaved P2 structures, I am inclined to analyze 32 as a true case of left dislocation unlike – possibly – the “leftdislocated” or “reinitialized” subjects in yes/no questions.

4.2.2.2 Subordinate yes/no questions and interrogatives Embedded questions can be created by means of the embedding noun !kei- (see above), which Hagman (1973) renders as !xai- and Olpp (1977) as !khae- with indefinite/common -i as the preferred pgn-marker, although feminine singular -s is also possible according to Rust (1965: 45, 95) and Olpp (1977: 82–83, 135). However !kei-/!xái/!kae- may be left out so that the pgn-marker -s (according to Hagman (1973: 234) 47. See Rust 1965: 44–47, 105–106, 118–119; Hagman 1973: 262–265; Olpp 1977: 82, 84–8.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

also -ì) is the sole sign of subordination. Addition of the dependent case marker -a yields the endings -sa and -e (< -i + -a). A. Subordinate yes/no questions48 Word order in embedded yes/no-questions in Nama seems to be P2, which means that the complicated patterns of 24c and 26 above probably are main clause phenomena. Just like declarative ge, the question marker kha is not used in subordinates: (33) a. ... [[DP – ............. – T–(ASP)–V–(ASP)] !xái’ì/!xái’è] .... [+nom] [SUBJ] b. ... [[XP=cli – (DPi) .... – T–(ASP)–V–(ASP)] !xái’ì/!xái’è] ... [+nom] [+dep] [SUBJ] Note that I am claiming that the subject in 32a is in the nominative although this topic is not discussed in the grammars I have consulted for this study. Furthermore, note that according to Rust (1965: 45) and Olpp (1977: 135), a yes/no-question embedded under !kei-/!khae- should start with the word ise. This is contradicted by one of his own examples (see 34b below) and by Rust (1960: sub ob), who calls ise optional, while Hagman (1973) does not even mention it. Ise may be a wh-phrase (comparable to English whether). Its presence triggers clitic doubling plus or minus subject drop, as in 34c. Compare the following examples: (34) a. [[Ise=ts nî khawa mû te] !khae-e]=ts [[Whether=2sg.m fut again see 1sg] EmbN]=2sg.m ge a ǀū decl pres not-know ‘Whether you will see me again you don’t know.’ (Olpp 1977: 136) b. [[Êigu nî sîsẹn] !keië]=ta ge a ǀu [[3pl.m fut work] EmbN]=1sg decl pres not-know [+nom] [+nom] ‘I don’t know whether they will work (or: would be working).’  (Rust 1965: 97, ex. 20)49 c. tiíta ke kè ǀ’úú ‘ií [[!ũ=ts ta] !xái’è] 1sg decl rm.pst not-know asp [[go=2sg.m. Impasp] EmbN] ‘I did not know whether you were going.’ (Hagman 1973: 258)

48. See Rust 1965: 45, 95–97, 130; Hagman 1973: 256, 258; Olpp 1977: 135–136. 49. Rust’s own translation is “Dass sie arbeiten würden, weiss ich nicht,” probably because indefinite !keië also marks embedded declaratives whose truth value is in some doubt. However, in this case the difference between ‘that’ and ‘whether’ seems to be very small.

 Roots of Afrikaans

B. Subordinate Interrogatives50 Embedded wh-clauses are P2, like their main clause counterparts. However, there is one important difference – embedded [+wh] subjects are nominatives: (35) a. ... [[DP – .................. [+wh] [+nom] [SUBJ]

–T–(ASP)–V–(ASP)] !xái’ì/!xái’è] ....

b. ... [[XP =cli – (DPi) – .... –T–(ASP)–V–(ASP)] !xái’ì/!xái’è] .... [+wh] [+nom] [+dep] [SUBJ] Compare the following examples from Olpp 1977: 82, with which I conclude this overview of word order patterns in Nama: (36) a.

îb go dî [[tarib go mî] !khae-e] 3sg.m rc.pst ask [[who rc.pst say] EmbN] [+nom] [+nom] ‘He asked who said that.’

b. Mîba te, [[matikō gomana =bi Tell 1sg [[how-many cows =3sg.m [+dep] [+nom] go saobai ama] !khaesa] rc.pst 2sg-fathher buy] EmbN] [+dep] ‘Tell me how many cows your father bought.’ Note the movement of the tense particle go towards the third position of the embedded clause in 35b.

4.2.2.3 Wrapping up: The syntax of questions in Khoekhoe Due to the complexity of word order phenomena in main clause questions and the differences between yes/no- and wh-questions it was necessary to devote a considerable amount of space to a presentation of the facts, apart from some speculations on the underlying syntax. Therefore it is time for more definitive conclusions. Let us start with the observation that both embedded yes/no-questions and subordinate interrogatives are P2 while main clause questions demonstrate at least partial P2 behavior. This suggests symmetric P2 for questions. And since P2 is also symmetric in declaratives, we had better try to get rid of the deviations from the P2 pattern we found in main clauses. As I have already suggested, above nearly all of the deviations can be explained away by assuming left dislocation of the subject instead of a special subject 50. See Rust 1965: 95, 97, 119, 45–47, Hagman 1973: 265–266 and Olpp 1977: 82–83, 85–86.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

fronting rule (such as Hagman’s reinitialization).51 I assume without further discussion that left-dislocated DPs (which probably occupy the specifier of some higher functional projection) get dependent case. (Compare examples 25c, 26 and 27.) The sole problem left is then the matter of double fronting constructions as in 26, which I will leave for future research.52 In accordance with the analysis for declaratives, we could claim that questions embedded in a !kei-clause are AgrPs and that main clauses project an extra CP-like level. However, we also need a functional projection to accommodate wh-phrases. Therefore, a subordinate clause will involve the following sequence of syntactic heads: (37) ... [N !kei-] ... (WH) ... Agr ... T ... (Asp) ... V ... where each head Hx selects Hx+1 on its right (x < 6) Apparently, Agr can raise to WH and hand over its properties to WH so that a wh-subject will be nominative. On the other hand, we may have to assume that Agr or WH/Agr cannot raise to the head of the kha-CP in main clauses, while what is in [Spec,AgrP] or [Spec,WHP] has to move to the specifier of the kha-CP, in order to explain the use of dependent case for subjects in first position in main clause questions. However, this is all very speculative and requires further research. Finally note that we have observed instances of tense movement in the examples 27c, 34a, and 36b. Tense movement (in fact T + (ASP) movement) targets a position to the left of the “inverted” subject and in main clauses to the right of declarative ge, as can be derived from Hagman 1973: 207–208. (See example 40a in Section 4.3.) In light of Example 36b, we have to conclude that this P2-like phenomenon is also symmetric. This having been established, we can now address the problem of whether there is a VP in Khoekhoe.

4.3

The VP in Khoekhoe

The problem of whether there is a VP in Khoekhoe can be defined as follows: in Nama the tense particle, which is supposed to be outside the VP, immediately precedes the verb. Furthermore, VP topicalization does not seem to exist, while Vtopicalization does exist. Therefore I concluded in den Besten 1986 that Nama does not have a VP. 51. Note that Hagman’s description in terms of subject demotion and reinitialization hardly makes sense in modern minimalist and/or asymmetric approaches to generative syntax, which is due to the concept of demotion (cf. Kayne 1994 and Chomsky 1995). Long-distance subject fronting may be a way out, but it is doubtful whether we will be able to find a syntactically insightful analysis for such a concept. On the other hand, left dislocation is independently available and is also needed for Example 29. (Also compare Rust 1965: 97, ex. 17.) 52. One of the questions to be answered is whether such structures constitute the exception to the rule that there is no VP fronting in Nama.

 Roots of Afrikaans

However, if topicalization only moves phrases, then the topicalized V must be a phrase and thus a remnant VP, that is, a VP depleted of its XPs, which must have moved to the left across T and (ASP). (38) Spec C/Agr .... T [VP ... V ...] This implies that the S – O – T – V order of Khoekhoe is a derived one: elements from inside the VP must scramble up into the domain of the TP (IP). Note that the VP itself may be OV or VO underlyingly. That is open to debate, unless we follow Kayne’s Antisymmmetry Hypothesis (Kayne 1994), which dictates VO as an underlying order. Now there happens to be evidence for a VP in the form of nominalized VPs. Such VPs do not contain T particles and are OV (my rephrasing of what Hagman (1973: 234–235) says) with the pgn marker -s ‘3SG.F’ as the nominalizer. Compare the following example from Hagman 1973: 234:53 (39) [nãã`n hòá`nà nãũ]=s [that all hear]=3sg.f Furthermore, there is evidence that in the case of V-opicalization something phraselike is being moved. First of all, in negative sentences V + tama ‘NEG’ is fronted. Tama is a word, not an affix. So what is topicalized is a phrase of some kind. Secondly, if there is an auxiliary (e.g. gei ‘make, let’, kha ‘can, be able’) V + AUX will be topicalized, which is again evidence for phrasal movement. Finally, note that the fronted V may end in: i. an object clitic (e.g. -bi ‘him’), ii. a reflexive suffix (-sen ‘X’s self ’), or iii. a reciprocal suffix (-gu ‘each other’) – which makes sense if objects are VP-internal arguments that have to move out, unless they can cliticize onto the verb. Therefore, we may assume that finite clauses in Nama contain remnant VPs, which apparently is an obligatory phenomenon in that environment, unlike VPs in German and Dutch, which may – but do not have to – be remnant constituents. Compare the following annotated examples taken from Hagman 1973.54 (40) a. [VP t t Màa]I=pj ke kè-rèk ‘áopàj ’ĩĩpà hàípà  tk ti [ Give]=3sg.m decl rm.pst-Impasp man 3sg.m stick [+nom] [+dep] [+dep] [+dep] ‘The man was giving the stick to him’ (Hagman 1973: 208) 53. See also Rust 1965: 64–65 and Olpp 1977: 111–112 for more considerations and data. 54. For Dutch and German see den Besten & Webelhuth (1990) and Müller (1998). Compare the following Dutch examples: (i) a. [VP [Dat boek]i gelezen]j heeft hij niet tj [ [That book] read] has he not b. [VP ti Gelezen]j heeft hij [dat boek]i niet tj [ Read] has he [that book] not

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

b. [VP t Nũũ tama]i=sj ke ǀõãsàj neepà [ Sit not]=3sg.f decl daughter here [+nom] [+dep] ‘The daughter is not sitting here’ (Hagman 1973: 209) Why remnant VP formation is obligatory in Nama is something for future research.

4.4. Sentential structure in Khoekhoe: Some concluding remarks55 Although the remnant VPs of Khoekhoe make those languages somewhat similar to Dutch, the other findings make Khoekhoe less similar than I claimed in earlier publications (den Besten 1978, 1986, 1987, and 1989), and consequently the typological statements of Section 2 can finally be revised: (41)

a. b. c. d.

Dutch: Afrikaans: Orange River Afrikaans: Khoekhoe (all varieties):

SOV + asymmetric V2 + asymmetric V1 SOV + asymmetric V2 + asymmetric V1 SOV + asymmetric V2 + asymmetric V1 SOV + symmetric P2 only

That is to say, despite the similarities between P2 in Khoekhoe and V2 in the Dutch/ Afrikaans group, P2 in Khoekhoe is symmetric, whereas V2/V1 is asymmetric. Furthermore, whereas Dutch – Afrikaans yes/no-questions are V1, yes/no-questions in Khoekhoe are P2 (both in main and in subordinate clauses), and a redefinition of V1 as V2 with an empty operator in [Spec,CP] does not really help to reduce the differences, since structures of the type [OP – Vf ...] and [XP – Agr ...] only superficially share the P2 property but nothing else.56 Note that 41d is supposed to hold of Korana, too, although no evidence has been provided. However, in view of what is said in Meinhof 1930: 59–62 and, more cautiously, in Maingard 1962, and in view of the sentential material that can be found in these publications as well as in Engelbrecht 1928 it seems to me that Korana declaratives, yes/no-questions and interrogatives are P2 and that P2 in Korana is symmetric (although the evidence for the latter is slight).57 I have to add, though, that these statements hold modulo the following provisos. First, case marking in Korana cannot be compared with case marking in Nama, neither in terms of patterns nor in terms of 55. For another attempt to come to grips with Nama syntax, in the framework of Chomsky’s Minimalism, see Luijks 2001. 56. Khoekhoe and Dutch – Afrikaans imperatives have not been dealt with in this paper, among other things, in order to keep the load of information on Khoekhoe within manageable limits. However, here, too, the bottom line is: in Dutch/Afrikaans V1, in Nama P2 (including the phenomenon of Subject drop). See Rust 1965: 8, 60–62, 122; Hagman 1973: 272–275; and Olpp 1977: 103–104, 108–109. 57. I found P2 in relative clauses (as in Nama) and in wh-interrogatives embedded under the semantically empty noun !χae-b. which makes it probable that other embedded clauses are P2 too.

 Roots of Afrikaans

morphemes.58 Second, unlike declarative ge in Nama, the Korana declarative marker tje is infrequent. Third, clitic doubling with “inverted” Subjects is not obligatory – partly because third person pronominal subjects (clitics included) may be dropped.59 Fourth, the incidence of tense movement and DP-extraposition seems to be higher than in Nama. In view of the differences in case assignment between Nama and Korana, it seems appropriate to put case aside as a potential factor in the acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans by the Cape Khoekhoen as long as we do not know more about Cape Khoekhoe. On the other hand it seems reasonable to assume the following sentential properties for Cape Khoekhoe: (42)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

SOV word order; remnant VPs in finite clauses, besides nominalized VPs; P2 in all clause types, which involves: Topicalization and wh-movement, (optional or obligatory) clitic doubling with “inverted” subjects, and optional T(+ASP) movement to a position to the right of the P2 position

Given this set of properties, we can now return to questions concerning pidgin formation and L2 acquisition of Dutch by native speakers of Khoekhoe – and especially to the question of why V2/V1 was acquired so late.

5. Consequences for pidginization and L2 acquisition 5.1

SOV and the VP in Cape Dutch Pidgin

Let us start with the first two properties of Koekhoe mentioned under 41 – namely, SOV and (remnant and nominalized) VPs – and put them aside quickly. First of all, the importance of the SOV order of Khoekhoe for the creation of the Cape Dutch Pidgin has been discussed in Sections 1 and 3 of this study, and our new insights do not add anything new in that respect. Second, the conclusion that there is a VP in Khoekhoe considerably simplifies the way we have to think about the process of pidgin formation that created Cape Dutch Pidgin. We no longer have to assume that dropping the tense and aspect particles, and consequently their maximal projection(s), forced the Khoekhoen to create VPs ex nihilo, albeit with the help of UG, as I did in den Besten 1986, a publication that denied the existence of a VP in Khoekhoe while assuming base-generation of objects and adverbials under TP (IP). If there is a VP in Khoekhoe, which surfaces as a remnant

58. Cf. Meinhof 1930: 37–38, Maingard 1962: 14–15. 59. Cf. Meinhof 1930: 44, 60, Maingard 1962: 18.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

VP, unless it is nominalized, in other words, is part of a DP, then no creation ex nihilo is necessary. Furthermore, it cannot be excluded (contra den Besten 1986) that some Khoekhoe speakers stuck to the full functional structure of Khoekhoe, albeit with empty functional heads, while others created pidgin sentences by putting subject DPs and nominalized VPs together. Either procedure is good enough to yield SOV pidgin sentences. This having been said, let us now turn to other aspects of sentential syntax involving phenomena such as XP-movement, head movement, and P2.

5.2

P2 phenomena and Cape Dutch Pidgin

It seems to me that adult Khoekhoe speakers may have had easy access to the following aspects of Dutch and (at later stages) of incipient Afrikaans: (43) a. topicalization and wh-movement; b. remnant VPs (or extended projections thereof) in verb (projection) raising contexts I will set 43b aside and concentrate on 43a. Notice that 42 does not mention V2, even though it is an instance of P2. The reason is that Germanic V2 and Khoekhoe P2 differ considerably in their respective realizations of the general P2 word order phenomenon. For Dutch/Afrikaans V2, we have to assume attraction of V by T and Agr and attraction of Agr by C in main clauses. Schematically this can be represented as 44a or 44b for subordinate clauses and 44c or 44d for main clauses, the choice in each case depending on one’s theoretical convictions:60 (44) in subordinate clauses a. ... C ... v ... t ... Agr/T/V ... b. ... C ... Agr/T/V ... t ... v ... in main clauses c. ... C/Agr/T/V ... v ... t ... agr ... d. ... C/Agr/T/V ... agr ... t ... v ... where x represents the trace of x, x being a head For Khoekhoe, however, we have to assume optional movement of T(+ASP) to a position to the right of Agr and movement of Agr to C in main clauses, while there is no C in subordinate clauses. Schematically (and with some simplifications) this can be represented as 45a–b for subordinate clauses and 45c–d for main clauses: 60. Under the Minimalist approach of Chomsky (1995), more sophisticated assumptions can be made, allowing syntactic features of subordinate Agr to move up to C while leaving the corresponding lexical features in situ (for which see Zwart 1993, 1997; compare also Huybregt’s ideas (1997) about Dutch and Nama syntax.)

 Roots of Afrikaans

(45) in subordinate clauses a. ... Agr ... F/T ... t ... V ... b. ... Agr ... F ... T ... V ... in main clauses

and

c. ... C/Agr ... agr ... F/T ... t ... V ... and d. ... C/Agr ... agr ... F ... T ... V ... where i. x represents the trace of x, x being a head and ii. F represents the functional head position to which T(+ASP) optionally moves A comparison of 44 and 45 must lead to the conclusion that Khoekhoe-speaking L2 learners of Dutch and incipient Afrikaans may have recognized the P2 characteristics of the Dutch/Afrikaans main clause – partly because they could recognize topicalization and wh-movement – but that attraction of V by T and Agr and C must have been problematic for them because in Khoekhoe T, Agr and C were independent, nonaffixal heads. Not pronouncing these heads did not immediately lead to movement of V to T, Agr and C. Equally problematic for the Khoekhoen must have been the following aspects of Dutch/Afrikaans sentential syntax: (46) a. the absence of clear cases of topicalization in subordinate declaratives; b. the absence of topicalization in embedded and unembedded yes/no questions; c. the asymmetric behavior of V2 and V1. That is to say, only Dutch/Afrikaans wh-movement was unproblematic for them, because it is symmetric (i.e. cyclic), while topicalization and V2/V1 – though being (partly) recognizable – were problematic because of their asymmetric, that is, main clause, behavior. Furthermore, Dutch/Afrikaans topicalization had an extra quirk (at least from the point of view of Khoekhoe) in that it could not be used in main clause yes/no-questions. Given these considerations, the implications for the formation of Cape Dutch Pidgin are not immediately clear. However, here, too, we may expect to find compromises between Khoekhoe and Dutch syntax comparable to the syntactic compromises discussed in Sections 3.1. and 3.3. It goes without saying that wh-movement could be introduced into the pidgin, because Dutch and Khoekhoe share this property. Topicalization, however, had to be dealt with carefully. The Khoekhoen may have found a temporary solution by restricting the relevant P2 structures to sequences with a subject in first position. Note that such a solution would imply the absence of topicalization of non-subjects in main clause declaratives, which is unnecessary but harmless from the point of view of Dutch. Unfortunately, the set of known pidgin sentences is too small for us to reject or confirm this hypothesis, even though it seems to be more or less confirmed by it in that

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

nearly all clauses start with a subject phrase. The sole exceptions are a few sentences starting with an adverbial: (47) a.

wagt om als gy de dubbeltjes betaalt hemme, ik ja strakjes wait if 2 the dimes paid have, 1sg yeah later voort lopum zoo.61 away run so. (Kolbe 1727(1): 121)

b. en daarom ons ook zoo makum. and therefore 1pl also so do.

(Kolbe 1727(1): 520)

Furthermore, the first clause in Example 11a, duijtsman een woordt Calm ‘Dutchman/ men one word say’, could be interpreted as a preposed unmarked conditional.62 Now whether or not the Khoekhoen shunned the use of topicalization in Cape Dutch Pidgin, they certainly made use of wh-movement and here we can find an interesting side-effect of the way Cape Dutch Pidgin came about.

5.3

Pro-drop as a side effect

As I argued in Section 3.1, Cape Dutch Pidgin probably began as a relexified and pidginized variant of Khoekhoe, which implies (among other things) that grammatical particles – including pronominal clitics – had to be suppressed. This has immediate consequences for the syntax of clauses with preposed material, more specifically in this case: wh-phrases. 61. Note that the subject pronoun gy ‘2’ should be jy/jij ‘2sg’, the Hollandic variant. Gy/gij, a southern Dutch pronoun, belongs to the written register of the period. (In his pidgin sentences Kolbe never uses jij/jy:) Furthermore, ja seems to be the German sentence adverbial ja (lit. ‘yes’). Kolbe uses it 12 times in his pidgin sentences. Finally, voort ‘away’ is a germanism (German fort). 62. Another candidate is Mashy doot (with Portuguese Creole maski ‘in spite of, although, etc.’, misspelled as Mashy) in Mashy doot, Icke strack nae onse grote Kapiteyn toe, ... ‘maski death/ dead/die, 1SG later/presently to our great chief to’, which is reported by ten Rhyne (1686; Schapera 1933: 140). Ten Rhyne renders this phrase in Latin as Eja occidite! ‘Well, kill-2PL!’, which definitely mistranslates Mashy (i.e. masky) and which possibly also mistranslates doot, since ‘to kill’ should rather be doden or, with the pidgin suffix -um/-om, dodom (< Dutch doden), apart from the fact that the preferred expression was doodmakum ‘dead-make’ as in present-day Afrikaans (doodmaak). Furthermore, note that maski plus content word was a syntactic pattern in the pidgin (den Besten 1987: 18). It is evident that ten Rhyne mistook doot for the Dutch imperative dood ‘kill’, which is not in accordance with the maski pattern. Nevertheless, the person from which he obtained this example may have known better, since ten Rhyne’s Latin translation of Icke strack ... is as follows: Ego si moriar, statim ad summum nostrum Capitaneum proficiscar, which either means ‘If I will die, I will immediately travel to our highest Chief ’ (moriar, proficiscar 1SG future indicative) or ‘If I were to die, I would immediately travel to our highest Chief ’(moriar, proficiscar 1SG present subjunctive).

 Roots of Afrikaans

As we have seen, whenever in Nama (and Korana) a nonsubject is fronted, the following pattern obtains: (48) ... XP =cli – (ge/kha) – (DPi) – ... [+nom] [+dep] [SUBJ] ge/kha only in main clauses Therefore, in order to derive correct wh-interrogatives in the pidgin, Khoekhoe speakers had to leave out the particle kha and the enclitic pronoun. Since, however, the Subject phrase in 48 is optional if it is a pronoun, it is possible to hypothesize that relexification and pidginization of this Khoekhoe pattern may have caused optional pro-drop effects in Cape Dutch Pidgin. There is some evidence in Kolbe 1727 supporting this hypothesis. On the one hand, we find the sequence waar om ons ... ‘why we ...’ without pro-drop (Kolbe 1727: 2, 66 – also cf. 47a–b)); on the other hand there is a sentence (used in two different contexts) that seems to involve pro-drop: (49) wat maakum zoo?63 what [3sg] do so?

(Kolbe 1727(I): 502; (II): 163)

Independent evidence can be found in the letter by the “Ingesete van Stellebos” or (Resident of Stellenbosch, 1831, in Nienaber 1971: 54), which also contains other remnants of the old pidgin (cf. Section 3.1):64 (50) a. ik vrag wat wil hef 1sg ask what [3sg.m] want have b. ikke vrag, ..., wat moet mak 1sg ask, ..., what [1sg] must do c. ik vrag warme, zal dood slaan 1sg ask wherewith [1sg] shall dead beat

63. In both instances the interpretation ‘3SG’ is fully acceptable and is supported by Kolbe’s own translation for the first occurrence of this sentence. Unfortunately, we cannot exclude the possibility that wat in 49 actually was recorded as was, i.e. as a combination of Dutch. wat ‘what’ plus Khoekhoe -ts ‘2SG.M’ and Khoekhoe -s ‘2SG.F’ respectively, (because such interpretations are permitted by the respective contexts) and that Kolbe or somebody else changed this element, which looks like germ. was ‘what?’, into Dutch wat ‘what?’. Compare Was makom? ‘what = 2SG.M do? (ten Rhyne 1686, in Schapera 1933: 140) discussed in Section 3.1. However, the examples in 50a–b show that wat may be genuine. 64. Note that the language used in this letter is SVO with the order Prt V for particle verbs. With a few exceptions, V2 is not applied. See den Besten 2001.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

Therefore, we may safely assume that Cape Dutch Pidgin, which was SOV with whmovement and little or no topicalization, made use of pro-drop under inversion.65 As far as I can see, the latter feature, which lacked the support of a licenser of the right type and which was not part of the syntax of Cape Dutch, did not survive as a feature of Orange River Afrikaans. Small wonder, then, that it did not make it into Standard Afrikaans and related dialects either.66 This having been said, we can now turn to the problem of the acquisition of Dutch asymmetric P2 word order by speakers of Khoekhoe, because alongside and after Cape Dutch Pidgin, a post-pidgin developed which evidences asymmetric V2 and V1, as in Cape Dutch and Afrikaans.

5.4

Acquiring V2/V1 and possible consequences

Let us summarize the aspects of Dutch syntax that must have been problematic for Khoekhoe speakers: (51) a. the amalgamation of V, T and Agr and the attraction of Agr/T/V by C; b. the absence of clear cases of topicalization in subordinate declaratives; c. the absence of topicalization in embedded and unembedded yes/no questions; d. the asymmetric behavior of V2 and V1. It goes without saying that “problematic” does not mean “insurmountable”. Already in the early period, we have examples of Khoekhoen using correct Dutch word order (cf. Raidt 1991: 126), and Orange River Afrikaans sides with Dutch and Standard Afrikaans against Khoekhoe, despite a long period of bilingualism. The acquisition of 51a–d was the final step in the linguistic assimilation of the Khoekhoen. However, due to the presence of the pidgin, this probably was not a simple case of L2 acquisition. I assume that over time the pidgin developed finite verbs. This most probably happened in tandem with the disappearance of the verbal ending -um/-om/-me. Now, for the (re)production of Dutch SOV subordinates, embedded right-branching CPs 65. Clitic doubling of the Subject with optional deletion of a subject pronoun can be found in more syntactic environments in Nama; see Rust 1965, Hagman 1973, and Olpp 1977. Therefore, the maski construction of Cape Dutch Pidgin, touched upon in note 61, may also involve prodrop; that is, the pertinent example Mashy doot could be glossed as ‘maski [1SG] dead/die’, that is, ’although/even though I will die’. Since the other examples of the maski construction involve transitive infinitival verbs without overt arguments (cf. Franken 1953: 204, n. 32), my hypothesis requires a passive interpretation of the pertinent verbs. E.g. Masqui ophangen, ik ben niet bangh ‘maski [1SG] hang [= be hanged], 1SG am not afraid’ (1687). 66. Note that there also was pro-drop under inversion and in subordinates in the bureaucratic Dutch of the period. Most probably this was a latinism (perhaps supported by knowledge of Italian and/or Portuguese). I doubt that it ever was part of spoken Dutch.

 Roots of Afrikaans

with dat ‘that’ and of ‘if, whether’ were needed. However, it is unclear whether such CPs were already available in the early pidgin. Embedded yes/no-questions are absent in my data base, and the few embedded declaratives that are available indicate that unmarked subordinate declaratives were normal; compare the following two examples:67 (52) a. Kobes ik jou ja ’k hemme versproken, ik zoo lang zal by u Kobes 1sg 2sg yeah ?? have promised, 1sg so long will with 2 blyven, tot jou Husing de dubbeltjes betaalt hemme, stay, until 2sg to-Husing the dimes paid have  (Kolbe 1727(I): 121) b. Die Volk, ja denkum ons beesten; ha! The/Those people, yeah think 1pl animals: ha!(Kolbe 1727(II): 30) Parataxis may have been in use as well; consider the following example: (53) Vrouw, jou Tovergoeds bra bytum, dat is waar, maar Woman, your magic-stuff [=medicine] really bite, that is true, but jou Tovergoeds ook weer gezond makum, dit is ook waar. your magic-stuff also again healthy make, this is also true.  (Kolbe 1727(II): 528) Therefore, the introduction of a dat-CP may have been part of the transition from Cape Dutch Pidgin to some sort of Dutch/Afrikaans, while subordinate SOV order was in a sense an old feature of the pidgin. For speakers of Khoekhoe, both embedded AgrPs as in (52a–b) and AgrPs preceded by dat must have been potential domains for P2, while the new version of P2 they were learning – with V2 – was restricted to main clause AgrPs or CPs. But they probably soon found out that embedded declaratives without dat – in so far as they are possible in colloquial Dutch at all – require V2. By applying V2 to the embedded AgrPs of the pidgin, the Khoekhoen may have ultimately triggered the high frequency in Afrikaans of a construction that is marginally present in Colloquial Dutch. However, this was only possible because the Cape Dutch speakers recognized something in the speech of the Khoekhoen and assimilated it. Compare 54 (=4a): (54) Ek dink (dat) hy sal dit môre lees I think (that) he will it tomorrow read  (Cf. Ponelis 1979: 440–441, 446, 531; Waher 1982; Donaldson 1993: 368) Note that the Khoekhoen may also have applied V2 to AgrPs with a preceding complementizer, in accordance with symmetric P2 in Khoekhoe. The resulting structure is

67. For the object forms jou ‘2SG’ and u ‘2’ see note 19. Note that jou in the subordinate clause is a subject. For ja see note 61. The participle versproken is a germanism (German versprochen).

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

marginal in Afrikaans, which may be due to the fact that it is even less than marginal in Colloquial Dutch. Similar developments may be assumed for the high frequency of V2 in embedded wh-interrogatives as against the marginal status of V1 in embedded yes/no-questions. Compare the Examples 55a–b (4b–c): (55) a. Ek weet nie hoekom het hy dit gedoen nie I know not why has he it done not  (Cf. Ponelis 1979: 530 and Donaldson 1993: 327, 371) b. Ons weet nie of het hy dit gedoen nie We know not whether has he it done not  (Cf. Ponelis 1979: 531) Recall that both types of questions are P2 in Khoekhoe, while Dutch distinguishes between V2 in main clause wh-interrogatives and V1 in main clause yes/no-questions. However, assuming an empty operator in yes/no-questions can reduce the syntactic differences between V2 and V1 a bit: (56) a. [XP+WH]i Vj [... ti ... tj ...] b. [OP e]i

Vj [... ti ... tj ...]

Applying these structures to embedded AgrPs, in accordance with P2 in Khoekhoe, would have yielded: (57) a. ... C [AgrP [XP+WH]i Vj [... ti ... tj ...] b. ... C [AgrP [OP e]i

Vj [... ti ... tj ...]

However, in Dutch a wh-phrase may not be preceded by a complementizer. Furthermore, in non-standard Dutch and Afrikaans – and so probably also in Cape Dutch – a wh-phrase can be followed by a complementizer dat, e.g. hoe (dat) ‘how (that)’. Therefore, the following compromise is necessary: (58) a. ... [XP+WH]i C [AgrP ti Vj [... ti ... tj ...] b. ... [OP e]i

of [AgrP ti Vj [... ti ... tj ...]

Since 55a/58a is marginally possible in Colloquial Dutch, its high frequency in Afrikaans may be due to the Khoekhoen, whose innovation was recognized and picked up by the speakers of Cape Dutch. On the other hand 55b/58b is nonexistant in Dutch, which may explain its low frequency in Afrikaans. To conclude, the acquisition of finite verbs and asymmetric V2 and V1 by the Khoekhoen may have led to certain V2- and V1-like innovations in the syntax of Afrikaans subordinates, due to interference from Khoekhoe, which is a symmetric P2 language. However, these innovations could only come to fruition in so far as they were recognized and assimilated by the speakers of Cape Dutch.

 Roots of Afrikaans

5.5

Some remarks on complex initials

The preceding subsection in essence claimed that the acquisition of Cape Dutch V2/ V1 by the Khoekhoen triggered interference from Khoekhoe in that the P2 phenomenon of Khoekhoe, which had been nearly invisible in Cape Dutch Pidgin now was tried out in Pidgin or Creole Dutch subordinates in the guise of V2/V1. One of the side-effects of the acquisition of V2/V1 was the rise of complex initials as in 59a–b (=6a–b): (59) a. Daar bly staan hy There keeps stand he b. Toe laat val hy dit Then let fall he it As I have claimed elsewhere (den Besten 1988), V-to-AUX incorporation is more likely to arise in an SOV language without V2 than in an SOV plus V2 language, since V2, which can easily separate a verb and an auxiliary in an SOV language, rather provides evidence against incorporation. Once an SOV language without V2 – in this case Cape Dutch Pidgin – develops such a rule, incorporation will become visible. Note that this implies that complex initials in other types of Afrikaans must be a borrowing from Khoekhoe Afrikaans. I furthermore claimed that originally Cape Dutch Pidgin (and early Orange River Afrikaans) must have been SOV-AUX (just like Khoekhoe) on account of the occasional occurrence of V-AUX order in verbal clusters and complex initials in Orange River Afrikaans. Some examples from Rademeyer (1938) illustrating this point are:68 (60) a. dan [hardloop kom] hy daar vandaan (p. 86) then [run comes] he there from b. ... en julle [siet wil] nie ... and you-pl [see want] not

(p. 126)

(61) a. hy had geseet bly or: hy had he has satPart. keep he has

ge-[seet bly] (p. 72) ge-[sit keep]

b. ons had kôp gegaan (p. 72) we have buy gone Note, however, that the Dutch/Afrikaans AUX-V order (wil sien, gaan koop, etc.) does not have to be a more recent development in Orange River Afrikaans. It is also possible that there was a mixture of V-AUX and AUX-V right from the start, which was

68. Compare also du Plessis 1984: 149 for some last remnants of this V-AUX word order.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

gradually narrowed down to AUX-V, except where Cape Dutch/Afrikaans requires V-AUX order.69 As far as incentives for verbal fusion are concerned, we might, of course, appeal to universal tendencies, but in my 1988 article I also tried to find an answer in the structure of Khoekhoe: I referred to a small set of verbs in Nama that can also serve as auxiliaries, including an ‘to know’, ǀu ‘not to know’, kha ‘be able’, oa ‘no to be able’, gao ‘to want’ (cf. Rust 1965: 52–53, 120). The two verbs topicalize together, which is reminiscent of the phenomenon of complex initials in Afrikaans: (62) a. [VP !Gû gao]=ta ra [ Go want]=1sg pres

(Rust 1965: 52)

b. [vp Mîba =te kha]=ts a? [ Tell =1sg can]=2 sg.m pres?

(Rust 1965: 53)

Unfortunately, the similarities I suggested are rather weak: complex initials are (finite) verbs and – as we now know – the topicalized constituents in 62 are VPs while there is no evidence for incorporation. In fact the clitic pronoun on the main verb in 62b can be seen as counter-evidence. Therefore, it may well be that verbal incorporation came about without Khoekhoe substrate influences. Yet, a word of caution is in order. In den Besten 1988 I claimed that due to its erratic character, Khoekhoe V + V compounding could not have been a direct trigger for Afrikaans incorporation. This claim was due to Hagman’s cautious approach of V + V compounding in Nama (Hagman 1973: 133–136); compare similar remarks in Rust 1965: 75–76 and the overview in Olpp 1977: 123–124. Yet, Nama V + V compounding is not that erratic at all. All sorts of semantic patterns can be found, while the general format seems to be that the second verb has to serve as the “derivational affix”, to put it vaguely. But I have to admit that most of these patterns do not correspond to Dutch/Afrikaans AUX + V collocations, in that the “derivational affix” seems to correspond to a Dutch/Afrikaans verbal prefix or a particle. The exceptions seem to be V + tsâ and V + !gû (with tsâ ‘to try’ and !gû ‘to go’ respectively; cf. Olpp 1977: 123–124). Therefore, it is unclear whether we may attribute the rise of complex initials to interference from Khoekhoe, although we cannot exclude the possibility that the Khoekhoen recognized the rich system of AUX + V patterns as being akin to their own V + V compounds. Yet, for the time being this is mere speculation.70 The upshot of all this is 69. V-AUX holds for auxiliaries that govern a participle when they are construed with just one verb: het ‘have’, word ‘be’, etc. Superficially, particle verbs like staanmaak (lit.) ‘standmake’(= ‘to put’) also are V-AUX. 70. The same applies to the idea that ǀXam speakers may have been responsible for the incorporation phenomenon in (Orange River) Afrikaans. This idea is based upon two observations. First, during the eignteenth and nineteenth centuries, many ǀXam speakers were absorbed by Orange River Afrikaans or pidgin speaking Khoekhoe communities (Traill 1996). Second,

 Roots of Afrikaans

that we may still assign the origins of Afrikaans verbal incorporation to Cape Dutch Pidgin but have to be careful about positing a Khoekhoe substrate feature in this case. Note that something similar may apply to fused particle verbs in Orange River Afrikaans as in Example 63 (=8):71 (62) Maar naderhand toe om-draai hy sommer hier halfpad But afterwards then around-turn he just here halfway  (Rademeyer 1938: 86) Incorporation of the particle is unlikely in an SOV plus V2 language, and in fact it was never borrowed into other varieties of Afrikaans. Apparently, the speakers of Cape Dutch Pidgin learned Dutch particle + V collocations in their underlying order.72 This order surfaces in Dutch subordinates and in main-clause-final infinitives and past participles, but the Khoekhoen may have learned the particle + V order from the Dutch version of their pidgin, which must have been based upon Dutch infinitival speech. The pattern as such is purely Dutch. We may even wonder whether there is such a thing as a particle verb in Khoekhoe. What comes closest are the many compound verbs of the type V + P in Nama and Korana.73 But there is no evidence for a V + Prt pattern in older Orange River Afrikaans. It is therefore not impossible that the Khoekhoen learned Dutch particle verbs as whole lexical items, which would immediately explain the incorporation facts. On the other hand, if Prt-V-incorporation is a younger phenomenon, Khoekhoe V + P verbs may have provided an indirect model. But this, too, is mere speculation.

6. Concluding remarks The conclusion that can be drawn from Section 5 is the following: Khoekhoe sentential syntax provided the necessary means to construct an SOV language with a VP through relexification and pidginization of Khoekhoe. Since the Dutch P2 construction, that is, V2, was not immediately acquired, and since there was a tendency to find a compromise between Dutch and Khoekhoe syntax, the Khoekhoen may have refrained from according to Potyka (1990: 34–35), the composite verbal of ǀXam, which is rather frequent (about 40% of the sentences in the Bleek corpus), consists of maximally three adjacent verbal elements expressing [type of event] – ([where it happens]) – [how it ends] in that order (basic order SVO.) Since the similarities of such verbals with Afrikaans and Orange River Afrikaans complex initials are of a very general, nonspecific kind we better refrain from positing Southern Khoesan influences here. 71. Cf. Rademeyer 1938: 63 and du Plessis 1984: 162–163. 72. Compare dood maakum ‘dead-make (= kill)’ in 11b. 73. See Rust 1965: 75, Hagman 1973: 136–137, and Olpp 1977: 125 for Nama, and Meinhof 1930: 48 for Korana.

Chapter 10.  Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans 

(often) applying topicalization, which is symmetric (cyclic) in their own language. Once they acquired V2/V1, however, the symmetric P2 syntax of Khoekhoe was tried out with full force in Cape Dutch, which created a couple of embedded V2/V1 phenomena whose present-day acceptability and frequency of occurrence ultimately go back to the still fairly “Dutch” intuitions of the native speakers of Cape Dutch who had to assimilate these new patterns. Although the Khoekhoen could have tried to acquire Cape Dutch/Afrikaans as a new language alongside Cape Dutch Pidgin, incorporation phenomena in Afrikaans and Orange River Afrikaans indicate that V2/ V1 was added to, or grafted upon, an earlier SOV grammar, i.e. the grammar of Cape Dutch Pidgin. But in so doing, the Khoekhoen pushed the pidgin, which already was a compromise between Dutch and Khoekhoe syntax, further into the direction of Cape Dutch, while influencing the latter at the same time.

chapter 11

Reduplication in Afrikaans Hans den Besten with Carla Luijks and Paul T. Roberge

In Afrikaans (AFR),1 reduplication2 is a highly productive means of word formation, common in everyday, spoken language but relatively infrequent in writing.3 It has been extensively described in the literature, albeit to varying degrees of adequacy and theoretical sophistication.4 AFR manifests a measure of iconicity: form and meaning resemble one another in “a quantitative respect, which is to say that the form of reduplication is in a sense nonarbitrary or motivated” (Botha 1988: 3). It applies to words of all open lexical categories (N, V, Adj, Adv, Num)5 – and to words of open lexical categories only (the Open 1. This paper was first published in Twice as meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and other contact languages, Silvia Kouwenberg (ed.), 2003, 271–287. London: Battlebridge (Westminster Creolistics series 8). It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. We are grateful to Silvia Kouwenberg for her thoughtful comments on parts of this essay, and to Wilfrid Haacke and Hester Waher, who lent us their expertise on a number of cruxes. Our synchronic data are drawn from both published sources and from in situ consultation with eight native speakers of Afrikaans, representing the western Cape, the eastern Cape, and the North West Province of South Africa, whom we thank as well. Responsibility for shortcomings and omissions remains solely our own. 3. We distinguish between reduplication and iteration, the latter being the simple repetition of words with no change in intonation pattern, such as Dis baie, baie lekker ‘It’s very, very nice’. AFR also has a fair number of reduplicated loanwords without a corresponding simplex base, e.g. tjakkie-tjakkie ‘ostensibly’ (obsolete, probably from Malay icak-icak, ‘swindle, fake; act as if ’), noem-noem ‘numnum’ (any of several spiny green shrubs of the genus Carissa, family Apocynaceae, < Khoekhoe *!num-!num; Nienaber 1963: 403), tjou-tjou ‘hodgepodge’ (< Pidgin English chow-chow?), etc. Such lexicalized reduplications are excluded from the discussion. 4. Bouman, 1939; Combrink, 1978: 77f; Raidt, 1980: 494ff, 1981 [1994: 149–154], 1983: 169ff, 1991: 225; Ponelis, 1993: 567–572; Donaldson 1993: 447–450. More detailed treatments are Scholtz 1963: 141–161, Kempen, 1969, and especially Botha 1988. Van Huyssteen, 2000, an unpublished dissertation, was unavailable to us. 5. We use the term Num[eral] for expository purposes, without implying that it is a lexical category on a par with V, N, Adv, and Adj.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Category Constraint; see Botha 1988: 23–25).5 Productive reduplication involves full copies of the base and co-occurring affixal elements, e.g., trop ‘herd, flock’, plural troppe, reduplicated troppe-troppe beeste ‘herds and herds of cattle, lots of cattle’; klomp ‘clump’ diminutive klompie ‘little clump’, plural klompies, reduplicated klompies-klompies mense ‘small groups of people’; hoog ‘high’, inflected hoë (< hoog + e), reduplicated hoë-hoë berge ‘a series of high mountains’. Only in the formation of past participles does a reduplicated form supply the input for an inflectional rule. With reduplication, the past participle gelek < verb lek ‘lick’, for example, appears as Hy het gelek-lek ‘He (has) licked repeatedly’ (WAT, 9.193). Reduplicated word forms may constitute bases for other (derivational) word formation rules and may occur as constituents of compounds. Below, we describe first (§1) reduplication in which this relationship is transparently endocentric in the familiar sense of the term, that is, the category of the reduplicated form is nondistinct from the lexical category of the base. In §2, we depart from tradition insofar as we adopt the position that there is no exocentric reduplication in AFR, save for in a handful of special cases. In §3, we survey the chronology of attestations of reduplication in AFR, and we address the potential superstrate and substrate sources of this phenomenon.

1. Synchronic description 1.1

Verbs

Reduplication of a verb indicating a temporally unbounded act or event indicates continuation/durative (1). Verbs indicating temporarily bounded acts and events are iterative/repetitive when reduplicated (2). If the aspectual meaning of the verb is both temporally bounded and nonpunctual (i.e. performed in a relatively shorter time span), its reduplicated form will involve not only iteration but also attenuation (3). See Botha (1988: 109–15) for a full discussion.7 (1) Die donder rammel-rammel in die verte the thunder rumble-rumble in the distance ‘The thunder rumbles continuously in the distance.’

(Botha 1988: 24).

(2) Hy lek-lek oor sy droë lippe 3s.m. lick-lick over his dry lips ‘He licks and relicks his dry lips.’

(Botha 1988: 93).

6. Kempen (1969: 249–253) regards interjections as potential bases for reduplication, e.g., Die osse word hooi-hooi aangejaag ‘The oxen are being driven “hooi-hooi”’, hooi a call to animals. 7. Examples are provided in AFR orthography. Where no source is indicated, data are drawn from fieldwork by the second author.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

(3) Hy skop-skop teen die deur 3s.m kick-kick against the door ‘He gives the door a few exploratory kicks.’

(Botha 1988: 94).

If the act or event signified by the verb is punctual (as for sluit ‘to lock’, wen ‘to win’, arriveer ‘to arrive’), reduplication cannot occur. Punctual acts such as these have the property of finality: they cannot be performed more than once in a relatively short time, without the intervention of some other event (Botha 1988: 114). AFR also systematically excludes from reduplication experiential verbs (e.g. kyk ‘to look) and stative verbs (e.g ken ‘to know’), as also verbs the activities of which can be interpreted as habitual (4). (4) *Oom Sarel huur-huur hierdie stuk grond. Uncle Sarel rent-rent this piece ground In practice, the relation between reduplication and the aspectual character of individual verbs (Aktionsart) is complicated by the fact that semantic properties of predicate phrases and pragmatics are also involved. Experiential verbs become better candidates for endocentric reduplication if the activity can be conceptualized as occurring in quanta (5) or as dynamic gestures proceeding from a starting point to a finishing point (6): (5) Hy lees-lees so hier en daar in die koerante. 3s.m read-read so here and there in the newspapers ‘He reads a bit here and there in the newspapers.’ (6) Sy voel-voel met haar voet hoe warm die water is 3s.f feel-feel with 3s.f.poss foot how warm the water cop ‘She hesitantly/carefully puts her foot into the water to feel how warm it is.’  (Combrink 1978: 78). Note, too, how reduplication of soek ‘search’ gives a more acceptable reading in (7), where the action is distributed over several individuals and may be carried out at different moments, with varying degrees of intensity, than in (8): (7) Hulle soek-soek al die hele oggend na mekaar 3p search-search already the entire morning for one another ‘They have been looking already the entire morning for each other.’  (Botha 1988: 51). (8)

??Hulle soek-soek

3p

al weke vir die sleutels. search-search already weeks for the keys

Endocentric verb reduplication is sensitive to the degree of involvement between arguments of the predicate. This is not surprising in view of the fact that a deeply involved patient is incompatible with the sense of attenuated iteration. Verbs that can take prepositional phrases with lexically determined prepositions to expand on their minimally

 Roots of Afrikaans

affected object NPs can be reduplicated; the adverbial so ‘so’ has the effect of “distancing” the arguments (9). Similarly, reduplication is at least marginally acceptable in 10b and 11 if it is understood that the workers are doing their jobs in a less-than-workmanlike manner. (9) Hy drink-drink so (van) sy melk/ *Hy drink-drink sy melk. 3s.m drink-drink so (from) 3s.poss milk/ 3s.m drink-drink 3s.poss milk ‘He drinks of his milk (playfully, a couple of sips at a time).’ (10) Hulle bou-bou die huis vir ewig lyk dit. they build-build the house for ever appear it ‘It seems as though they have been building that house forever.’

1.2

The modal auxiliary verb wil

The modal auxiliary wil ‘want’ reduplicates in its epistemic sense of ‘on the verge of, about to’ but not in its deontic meaning. Wil is the only modal auxiliary that should undergo reduplication in AFR (Ponelis 1993: 569), though see (41). (11) Die vaas wil-wil omval. / *Ek wil-wil ’n nuwe rok. the vase want-want over-fall / I want-want a new dress ‘The vase is just about to tip over.’/‘I really want a new dress.’

1.3

Adverbs

Reduplicated adverbs normally express intensity: (12) Plant die boompie hier-hier. plant the tree-dim here-here ‘Plant the little tree right here.’ (13) Die hond was amper-amper dood. the dog was nearly-nearly dead ‘The dog was very nearly dead.’ In two cases lexicalization is apparent. Reduplication of the adverb kort ‘shortly, for a short while’ produces the meaning ‘frequently, repeatedly’, rather than ‘for a very short time’.8 Reduplication of nou ‘now’ yields an attenuated meaning ‘in a moment, a moment ago, at any moment’. (14) Hulle kuier kort-kort hier. 3p visit shortly-shortly here ‘They visit here frequently (i.e., with short intervals between visits)’. 8. The reduplicated adjective kort-kort (< kort ‘short’) has the expected intensifying meaning ‘very short’.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

(15) Maar jy het nou-nou iets anders gesê but 2s have now-now something different said ‘But you said something different just a moment ago.’  (Van Rensburg, ed., 1984: 2.304). Du Toit (1905: 99) glosses nou-nou as Dutch dadelijk ‘immediately, right at this very moment’, from which we infer that the intensified meaning has been lost in the course of the 20th century. We examine the diachronic issues surrounding kort-kort and nounou in Section §3.4.

1.4

Adjectives

Attributive adjectives are occasionally reduplicated, while predicate adjectives are not reduplicated. With singular nouns, reduplication of an adjective intensifies the quality that it denotes. Although our informants tend to reject reduplicated adjectives in this environment, examples can be found in the literature (16). Our informants readily accept adjectival reduplication before plural nouns (17), which gives the NP an “iterative” (i.e., distributive) reading (cf. Scholtz, 1963: 154f). (16) Dis die ou-ou storie it-is the old-old story ‘It’s the very old story.’

(Scholtz 1963: 154).

(17) Die oom bly ’n rukkie stil en rook dik-dik skuiwe the uncle remain a short-while still and smoke thick-thick puffs ‘The uncle remained quiet for a while and exhaled thick puffs of smoke, one after the other.’ (Scholtz 1963: 154). Though not unknown (18), reduplication of comparative adjectives is unusual for obvious semantic reasons. Reduplicated superlatives are more usual and are intensifying (19). As noted earlier, adjectives that take inflection show reduplication of the entire word form: (18) sagter-sagter tou softer-softer cord ‘a rather softer cord’ (19) die mooiste-mooiste maand the prettiest-prettiest month ‘the prettiest month of all’

1.5

(Kempen 1969: 138)

(Ponelis 1993: 569)

Nouns

AFR sporadically attests noun reduplication that intensifies attributes associated with the lexical meaning of the base:

 Roots of Afrikaans

(20) Minnie was te veel van ’n mens-mens om haar te laat versteur Minnie was too much of a person-person comp 3s.f to let upset ‘Minnie was too much of a human being to let her be upset.’ (WAT, 10.289). (21) Soos die oupa praat, so praat die kind-kind ook as the grandfather speaks so speaks the child-child also ‘As the grandfather speaks, so speaks the most innocent child, too.’  (Van Rensburg, ed., 1984: 2.1065). Boonzaier (1989) reports, for Boland AFR (western Cape), huis-huis [house-house] ‘a house that has everything, but no unnecessary frills’ and kos-kos [food-food] ‘basic foodstuffs, such as potatoes, rice, meat’. Our northern informants give similar interpretations, as in huis-huis ‘a place where one feels comfortable, a home’ and kar-kar [car-car] ‘your basic automobile, basic transportation’. Intensification of the meaning of the referent may bestow a nuance of diminution and/or endearment (as in 21). Furthermore, plural nouns may be reduplicated to indicate serial (22) or scattered (23) distribution of some entity, depending on whether the action is ordered temporally or spatially (see Botha 1988: 107f for more detail). Group and measure nouns are especially good candidates for this kind of reduplication (23). Speakers are at best ambivalent in their judgments about the felicity of reduplicated singular nouns in this distributive meaning, e.g. klomp-klomp. Note that inflected forms are reduplicated: (22) Hy hardloop dat daar wolke-wolke agter hom staan he run that there clouds-clouds behind him stand ‘He ran (so hard) that puffs of smoke stood behind him.’(Kempen 1969: 236) (23) klompe-klompe mense (WAT, 6.357) / *klomp-klomp mense9 bunches-bunches people / bunch-bunch people ‘groups and groups of people’ (dispersed, separate from one another) However, Botha (1988: 44–47) reports that other group/measure bases – lap ‘patch’, ent ‘stretch’, plek ‘place’, and stuk ‘piece’ – reduplicated singular and plural forms can signal different densities of distribution if the N´-complement of the partitive NP is empty. Compare, for example, plural lappe-lappe with singular lap-lap. (24)

Lappe-lappe staan onder water / Lap-lap aartappels staan onder patches-patches stand under water / patch-patch potatoes stand under wat water ‘Quite a few patches of potatoes are under water.’ /‘A couple of patches of potatoes stand under water.’ (Botha 1988: 46).

9. According to the WAT (6.357), reduplication of singular klomp ‘bunch, crowd’ occurs only with emphatic stress on both elements (’n klómp-klómp mense ‘a crowd-crowd of people’), which violates the stipulated prosodic criterion of our definition of reduplication. The diminutive plural is very commonly reduplicated (klompies-klompies) in this environment while the singular klompie-klompie is at best marginal.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

Botha (1988: 47) observes that native-speaker judgments about the felicity of reduplicated group/measure nouns vary in many cases. With respect to partitive NPs, our northern informants accept without hesitation singular reduplications in partitive constructions while rejecting plural forms. We cannot at present offer a satisfactory explanation for the variation. It may be that for these individuals, lap-lap, ent-ent, plekplek, and stuk-stuk designate indeterminate segments along a line or units on a plane without differentiation of relative density.

1.6

Numerals

The reduplication of numerals is highly productive, though prosodically circumscribed to the lower cardinal numbers (cf. Kempen 1969: 289, Botha 1988: 155f, Donaldson 1993: 449). The reduplicated numeral indicates an accumulation or collectivity. We interpret (26) as containing an empty head position in the subject NP (but see Botha 1988: 67ff). (25) Hy gooi twee-twee klippe weg he throw two-two stones away ‘He is throwing pairs of stones.’ (26) Drie-drie storm deur die hek three-three storm through the gate ‘Groups of three storm through the gate.’

1.7

(Kempen 1969: 289).

(Botha 1988: 67).

Adverbial functions

Reduplicated verbs, adjectives, group/measurement nouns, and numerals commonly have adverbial functions in AFR. The meanings correlate in the main with those which we have already surveyed: for reduplicated verbs, continuous (durative) activity (27) or iteration (27c); for reduplicated adjectives, intensification of a quality (28); for reduplicated nouns and numerals, distribution, accumulations or collectivity (29–30). (27) Hy het so lees-lees van die pos af gekom 3s.m has so read-read from the post office away come ‘He came out from the post office reading [through his mail].’ (WAT, 9.168). (28) Hoor net hoe fyn-fyn tintinkie kan sing hear just how fine-fine the grass warbler can sing ‘Just listen how very exquisitely the grass warbler [species of bird] can sing.’  (Kempen 1969: 139). (29) Gedurende die reis het hy ent-ent gerus10 during the trip has he stretch-stretch rested ‘During the trip he rested in some (scattered) places.’

(WAT, 2.562).

10. Note that singular ent-ent and plural ente-ente are both attested in the adverbial function.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(30) Hulle kom drie-drie by die deur in they come three-three by the door in ‘3p come in through the door three-by-three.’

(WAT, 2.315).

In conventional analyses these reduplications would be described as exocentric, that is, as adverbs derived from verbs, adjectives, nouns, and numerals. As we shall see in the following section, these forms can be accounted for by other, independently motivated rules of AFR grammar.

2. Rules and special cases 2.1

Reduplication formation rule

According to Botha (1988: 10), AFR reduplications are words formed by the copying of words. He formulates the reduplication formation rule as follows: (31) αi → [αi αi] Botha applies this word formation rule in conjunction with certain rule-independent conditions. The Open Category Constraint (see Introduction) eliminates the need for the rule to specify the lexical category of input words. The Endocentricity Constraint (Kiparsky, 1982: 6) states that the category of a derived word is always nondistinct from the category of its head, hence word formation rules need not stipulate the lexical category of their output. If one takes the expression “head” to denote the base in reduplication, there is no basis on which to claim that AFR has exocentric reduplication, save for in a few special or lexicalized cases.11 Botha (1988: 33–72) gives a systematic survey of what are conventionally described as exocentric reduplications with the goal of demonstrating that they can be brought within the scope of endocentric word formation. With regard to so-called noun-based verb reduplications, for example, he observes that nominal bases may be used as unreduplicated verbs as well as reduplicated ones. Given the availability of 11. The meanings of adverbial lag-lag ‘laugh-laugh’ (< lag ‘to laugh’), speel-speel ‘play-play’ (< speel ‘play’), and fluit-fluit ‘whistle-whistle’ (< fluit ‘to whistle, play the flute (v), whistle, flute(n)’) have been extended by metaphor to that of ‘doing something easily, hands down.’ The iconic meanings that we should expect from productive reduplication exist alongside the lexicalized meanings, ... en kyk haar lag-lag aan [and look 3s.f laugh-laugh at] ‘ ... and looks at her while laughing’ (WAT, 9. 38) beside Hy is lag-lag die beste atleet op die baan [3S.M COP laughlaugh the best athlete on the track] ‘He is easily/without doubt the best athlete on the track.’ (WAT, 9.38). Ponelis (1993: 571) leaves one with the impression that the lexicalized meanings have eclipsed the iconic ones in contemporary usage, though the WAT still lists both meanings for each item. On lexicalized blou-blou [blue-blue] in expressions such as iets blou-blou laat ‘let a matter rest, leave things as they are’(WAT, 1.449), see §3.4.5.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

verbs such as kruk ‘to move along with difficulty, as if on crutches’, there are no grounds on which to posit the corresponding nouns (in this case, kruk ‘crutch’) as the input: (32) ... en stadig kruk(-kruk) sy oor die woelige straat ... and slowly crutch-crutch she over the busy street ‘... and slowly she moved over the busy street as if on crutches (a couple of movements at a time)’ (WAT, 8.330) As for putative verb-based adverb reduplications, he observes that corresponding to every adverbial of the form lees-lees (as in 27), there is a verb reduplication of the form lees-lees (as in 5). It is therefore feasible to derive the adverbial not from lees ‘read’ but rather from the reduplicated verb lees-lees by means of zero derivation.

2.2

Semantic interpretation rule

Botha (1988: 91) proposes that all AFR reduplications undergo one and the same semantic interpretation rule (33). In the case of lek-lek (2), to take but one representative example, the lexical entry for the base lek ‘lick’ contains the units of meaning [temporal act/event] and [bounded]. The interpretation rule (33) contributes the unit of meaning [increased] to the total information content of the reduplicated verb. Two conceptualization rules (34, from Botha 1988: 110) specify how [increased] is to be conceptualized in conjunction with the meaning of lek. In this manner, the diversity of the meanings and the specificity of these meanings are a function of the interaction between the interpretation rule (3) and of semantic and/or general conceptual principles that are independent of it (Botha 1988: 100ff). The central role assigned to universal principles of conceptualization thus makes possible the unified explanation of superficially diverse meanings. (33) Interpret [αi αi] as [a increased] (where A represents the sense or meaning of α and increased represents an abstract semantic unit). (34) Conceptualize [increased] as [increased in time] if it occurs in conjunction with the semantic unit [temporal act/event]. Conceptualize the unit of content [increased in time] as [iterated] if it occurs in combination with the unit of aspectual meaning [bounded].

2.3

Special cases

The names of many children’s games and imitations of adult or adult-supervised activity are rendered by reduplicated nouns and occur chiefly with the verb speel ‘play’: bal-bal speel [ball-ball play] ‘to play ball’, gat-gat speel [hole-hole play] ‘to play marbles’, knoop-knoop speel [button-button play] ‘to play buttons’, klip-klip speel [pebble-pebble play] ‘to play pebbles’, aan-aan speel [on-on play] ‘to play touches, tag’ (for which the

 Roots of Afrikaans

WAT, 1.6, 6, 198 also lists simplex aan and reduplicated ane-ane, with nominal plural suffix, as variants), skool-skool speel [school-school play] ‘to play school’, huis(ie)huis(ie) speel [house-house play] ‘to play house’, dokter-dokter speel [doctor-doctor play] ‘to play doctor, hospital’. Reduplicated game names have properties that point to lexicalization: the absence of nonreduplicated counterparts of most (but not all) game names (Hulle speel gatgat/*gat ‘They are playing marbles’); the fact that some game names show affixation of the diminutive suffix to the reduplicated form rather than to the base [huis-huisie speel house-house-DIM play] ‘to play house’. At first blush, at least, it would appear that game names entail a semantic change that is not fully motivated. Kempen (1969: 236) could discern no difference in referential meaning between the reduplicated tol-tol and its unreduplicated base, although Botha (1988: 98–99, 122–128) challenges this assertion, making an interesting case that at least in some cases there is an opposition between “nonconventionalized” and “conventionalized playful activity,” the latter requiring two or more agents (hence, *Hy speel tol-tol [3S play top-top] with only one agent; Botha 1988: 123): (35) Kom ons speel tol/tol-tol Come1p we play top/top-top ‘Come let’s play with our tops’ (nonconventionalized playful activity)/‘Come let’s play tops’ (conventionalized, playful activity). Be that as it may, it is clear that game name reduplications are iconic to the extent that they refer to an iterated activity. It is also worth noting that neologism is possible within this class. For example, bril-bril/bril speel [glasses-glasses play] ‘to play glasses’ and stoel-stoel/*stoel speel [chair-chair play] ‘to play chair’ would be interpretable as names for novel but nonetheless joint, playful, and goal-directed activities having to do with, respectively, glasses and chairs. With respect to the creation in (36), the game interpretation of plaas-plaas speel has little to do with conventionalization but rather seriousness of purpose and real-world expectations of what farmers do. We suspect that in (36) the connotation of pretense is a case of attenuation similar to that of “distanced” (minimally affected) arguments in Section §1.1. (36) Hulle is stadsjapies wat in die vakansie wil kom plaas-plaas speel 3p are city slickers who in the vacation want come farm-farm play ‘They are city slickers who want to come and play farm during the holidays (i.e., pretend to be farmers).’ (Donaldson 1993: 450) This brings us to a final point concerning some “exocentric” verbal (37), adjectival (38), and nominal (41) reduplications that are isolated and seemingly unproductive: (37) Hy bleek-bleek 3s pale-pale ‘He is turning pale.’

(Kempen 1969: 139).



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

(38)

Elke kort-kort kerm en kreun hy hard genoeg om in die hemel each short-short groan and moan 3s hard enough comp in the heaven gehoor to word heard to become ‘At each short interval he groaned and moaned hard enough to be heard in heaven.’ (WAT, 7.489).

(39) Die pad is vreselik gat-gat the road is dreadfully hole-hole ‘The road is dreadfully pockmarked with (scattered) holes.’  (Kempen 1969: 228). (40) Die wêreld is gate-gate soos die delwers daar gegrawe het the area is holes-holes as the diggers there dug have ‘The area is full of holes where the diggers have excavated.’ (WAT, 3.43). To the extent that native speakers judge them acceptable, one could reasonably conclude that bleek-bleek, kort-kort, and gat(e)-gat(e) are lexically specified and are not accounted for by rules (cf. Botha 1988: 165, n. 18). Inchoative bleek-bleek ‘to pale’ is noniconic insofar as the activity involves the instantiation of a state as opposed to its increase. The connection with semantic interpretation rule 33 seems to us an indirect one; further to bleek-bleek in §3.4.5 below. With respect to the other cases, however, we submit that lexical specification would be unwarranted. Given that word formation and semantic interpretation rules as simple as 31 and 33 will also be very general and that conceptualization rules such as 34 are independently motivated, these devices provide a ready means for the creation of ad hoc, context-dependent coinages. Although wil ‘want’ is supposed to be the only modal auxiliary that undergoes reduplication (§1.2), an AFR-speaking colleague produced the nonce form in 42 in a personal communication to the last-named author; what is “increased” conceptually is the immediacy of the speaker’s ability to provide a promised copy of his book: (41) Ek sal ’n kopie vir jou probeer kry en aanstuur sodra ek kan-kan. I shall a copy for you try get and sent as soon as I can-can ‘I shall try to get a copy for you and send [it] as soon as I possibly can.’ Multifunctionality – the capacity for word forms to have multiple syntactic functions without corresponding changes in surface morphology – is very productive in AFR and can extend reduplicated word forms to different grammatical classes and functions. Multifunctionality is present in nonstandard varieties to a greater extent than in the standard language. It comes as no surprise that in Boland AFR, for example, reduplication is rather more general in the attributive function and equative predication, even though the type illustrated here is now recessive (examples from Boonzaier 1989: ch. 5).

 Roots of Afrikaans

(42)

Die ou is nou weer ewe lag-lag noudat hy hoor hy the fellow cop now again quite laugh-laugh now that 3s.m hears 3s.m kan saamgaan. can go along ‘The fellow is now again quite happy now that he has heard that he can go along.’

(43)

Die ou bul is maar altyd so nekgee-nekgee, maar hy sal the old bull cop but all the time so neck give-neck give but he will nooit iemand regtig bevlie nie.12 never anyone really charge neg ‘The old bull is all the time lowering his head, but he will never really charge at anyone’.

(44) ‘N Saam-saam boerdery wat nie beskrywe is nie, werk nooit uit nie. a together-together farm that NEG described is NEG works never out NEG ‘A jointly owned farm for which there is no written agreement never works out.’

3. Diachrony 3.1

Previous scholarship

When reading the older literature on AFR, one is struck by how many writers perceived reduplication as decidedly “un-Dutch.” It did not escape Schuchardt’s notice, though he did not deal with it beyond a single cryptic remark: “Daran halte ich jedenfalls fest, dass solche Dinge wie hi [sic] eet lê-lê (er isst liegend) durch Leute von weit verschiedener Sprache aufgebracht worden sind” (1885: 470) [I nevertheless adhere to the view that such things as hi eet lê-lê (‘he eats lying down’) were produced by people of widely heterogeneous languages].

Jan te Winkel (1896), a Dutch philologist, considered reduplication a “childlike” property of AFR, possibly imparted to settler children by the indigenous Khoekhoe and/or Malay nursemaids and not fully divested in adulthood. Alternatively, he speculated that reduplication could have been introduced to South Africa by French-speaking Huguenot refugees, who arrived there from 1685; cf. French joujou ‘toy’, bonbon ‘candy’, etc. Hesseling (1899: 114, 1923: 97) and, following him, Du Toit (1905: 99) attributed AFR reduplication to influence from the Malayo-Portuguese imported to the Cape by enslaved peoples. Bosman (1916: 79) assumed that constructions such as staan-staan eet ‘eat while standing’ and sing-sing loop ‘walk while singing’ are in fact 12. Nekgee is a particle verb of the type [N + V]V, in which nek, a reduced NP-like complement, forms a lexical expression with the verb.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

Malayisms (see also Bosman 1923: 82), a position with which Van Oordt (1916: 148) was in agreement. Boshoff (1921: 329–331) arrived at the conclusion that AFR reduplication could well be the product of spontaneous developments or analogical extensions from Dutch dialectisms. Analogies and parallels with French, Malay, and Khoekhoe could also have played some role, but the explanation must rest primarily on “psychological grounds,” because, he claims, the seeds of this development were already present in the language of the Dutch settlers. Perhaps ironically, this seems to have been a minority view in its day. Le Roux (1923: 175–179) again stressed the importance of Malay and Malayo-Portuguese. Some older ideas – Schuchardt’s and especially Hesseling’s – would later be revived by Valkhoff (1966: 25–26, 120f), who initially opined that AFR reduplication reflects the interplay between superstrate foreigner talk and substrate broken language. Later on in his monograph, he seems to have settled on transfer from Creole Portuguese and Malay as the principal mechanism (1966: 229–230; 1972: 26). Scholtz (1963: 146–161) held that reduplication is a Cape Dutch/AFR innovation that came about through spontaneous development. In principle this is a perfectly respectable position as long as one is clear what one means by “spontaneous development,” which for Scholtz means autochthonous change based on multiple inputs – a significant portion of which are Dutch and with the European superstratum as the locus of change. In a similar “superstratist” vein, Kempen (1969) averred that AFR reduplication could be explained in terms of the generalization of a linguistic tendency already present in dialectal and vernacular Early Modern Dutch and confined mainly to spoken language. However, Combrink (1978: 78) conceded that Dutch antecedents do not cover the full AFR spectrum and that AFR received at least part of the domain of reduplication from Malay. It was Raidt (1980, 1981) who established Malay as the most plausible source language for AFR reduplication. This view is now accepted in AFR historical linguistics (Ponelis 1993: 572–574) and in creolistics generally (Holm 1989: 347), which is not to say that Raidt’s views are the final word on the subject.13 To carry the point, one must show that AFR reduplication corresponds to that in Malay, that is, these AFR and Malay – but no other languages – share in common a reduplication formation rule and semantic interpretation rule, or at the very least that AFR reduplication is properly included within the Malay system. Alternatively, one might suppose a cross‑language compromise, including numerous features shared by the original native languages, to the extent that they are typologically similar. However, such conclusions can only be reached after careful comparison of reduplication in AFR with reduplication in languages other than Malay. In so far as we know, nobody has carried out this research program yet, although Nienaber (1991) could be seen as the 13. The question of the genesis of Afrikaans reduplication is not a concern in Botha's study, although he feels it has implications for the diachronic study of this process: “It is ... not unreasonable to expect that, on further investigation, the diachronic complexity of AFR reduplication too will turn out to be illusory” (1988: 6).

 Roots of Afrikaans

beginning of such an endeavor, since it makes some comparative remarks on reduplication in Khoekhoe.

3.2

The Dutch background

According to Scholtz (1963: 150–151), only two reduplicated adverbs are attested for seventeenth-century Dutch, both of which are loans and only one of which appears in our Cape Dutch corpora: Sietosieto [quickly-quickly] (< Lat. cito ‘quickly’; cf. AFR. sito, sito-sito). The other form, piano-piano, is from Italian (cf. Raidt 1981 [1994: 154]). There are, to be sure, reduplications that occur in Modern colloquial or dialectal Dutch; the relevant evidence has been marshaled by Scholtz (1963: 150f, 159ff), to which Kempen (1969) has added a few other.14 However, on the basis of what can be found in the literature – combined with observations of our own – the following picture of full (non-rhyming) reduplication in Modern Dutch can be sketched: Sito-sito is representative of a minor reduplicative pattern which occurs in 17th century ánd Modern Dutch: any adverb of speed, be it gauw, snel, vlug or (obsolete) cito (all meaning ‘quickly’), can be reduplicated, e.g. gauw-gauw [quickly-quickly]. Apart from the productive, but necessarily limited pattern involving adverbs of speed, only a few other adverbs can reduplicate: vaag-vaag ‘vaguely’, half-half ‘half way, partly’. These forms are too sporadic and diffuse to have served as the basis or impetus for AFR adverbial reduplication. More promising seems to be the observation that Dutch makes use of a productive pattern of deverbal reduplicative adverbs such as klok-klok ‘gurgle-gurgle’, sluip-sluip ‘sneak-sneak, stalk-stalk’, stap-stap ‘step-step’ and trek-trek ‘pull-pull’, the meanings of which could be described as ‘in a V-ing manner’. The pertinent pattern goes back to the seventeenth century (cf. Scholtz 1963: 159ff and Kempen 1969: 342). Such deverbal adverbials are also attested for AFR (§1.7), which can be seen as a legacy from Dutch. However, it should be noted that many, if not most, of these Afrikaans reduplications – among which staan-staan and speel-speel – are ungrammatical in Dutch: the Dutch examples are mainly onomatopoeic in nature (cf. De Haas & Trommelen, 1993: 452), pertaining to certain types of sounds or actions accompanied by sounds (as already noted by Scholtz, 1963: 159f). Furthermore, in the case of the latter type of verbs an “imitative” feature seems to be at play as well in that the speaker may feel inclined to accompany the pertinent reduplications with certain hand or body movements, while trek-trek (mentioned by Kempen) seems to be purely imitative and nononomatopoeic. Overall, the Dutch and AFR patterns are so different in nature that we fail to see (contra Scholtz 1963: 159) how the AFR pattern might have grown out of the Dutch 14. Cf. Kempen 1969: 138, 184f, 228, 237–244, 285, 342, 346f). Kempen’s as well as Scholtz’s data deserve extensive comments, which would go far beyond the purpose of our paper. Much to our regret, De Haas & Trommelen’s (1993) handbook of Dutch morphology highlights mainly (semi-)rhyming patterns of reduplication, which do not interest us here.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

one – let alone how the restricted system of reduplication of Dutch might have given rise to the rich and elaborate system of reduplicative patterns attested for Afrikaans.15

3.3

The relative chronology of reduplication at the Cape of good hope

Reduplication attributed to Europeans is attested twice in our Cape corpora before 1800, specifically, in a criminal case of 1751 in which two witnesses give slightly different reports of the same quoted speech. The relevant parts, sagt sagt hermanus ‘soft(ly)soft(ly), Hermanus’ and Soet Soet Hermanus ‘sweet-sweet, Hermanus’, both mean ‘hush-hush, Hermanus’ and contain perfect examples of Dutch reduplicated interjections. A potentially ambiguous case is ’t is Speelen! Speelen! (1767). This may mean ‘It is play-play’(i.e., ‘It’s a joke!’), although we are inclined to read Speelen! Speelen! as a repetition: ‘It is playing! Playing!’ (again: ‘It’s a joke!’) (Raidt 1981 [1994: 154f]). The first unambiguous attestation of reduplication in the Afrikaans pattern occurs in the quoted speech of person of color (45).16 Compare modern AFR (46): (45)

Ha! wat maaktje dronken dronken ha! what do-you drunk-drunk [Khoekhoe to slave:] ‘Ha! What are you doing so drunk?’ (Possibly: ‘Why are you behaving so drunk?’) (1769)

(46) Hy het dronk-dronk tuis gekom he has drunk-drunk home come ‘He came home very drunk.’

(WAT, 2.336).

15. In this context, note that Dutch onomatopoeic (and other) interjections often appear in the form of a reduplication. For the sake of completeness, we mention that there are a small number of other reduplications in Dutch, which, however, constitute a disparate set, in which no pattern(s) can be detected. Furthermore, there are quite a few lexical reduplications, most (if not all) of them being borrowings. Dutch zo-zo ‘so-so’ mentioned by Scholtz (1963: 150), which seems to derive from zo ‘so, such’, may in fact be a loan word from the Creole-speaking Caribbean or from English. Compare the data in Kempen 1969 and De Haas and Trommelen, 1993. 16. Raidt (1981 [1994: 154]) mentions the interjection tsa! tsa! ‘catch him, tally-ho’ (1763 and 1766; Afr. sa-sa) and the imperative tano! tano! explained in the (unspecified) source as vat aan ‘attack’ (1768), both of which she identifies as Creole Portuguese reduplications. However, tsatsa/sa-sa is a (now obsolete) Dutch reduplication derived from (t)sa, a borrowing from Old French, while tano is Malay tanduk ‘to butt’ (also ‘horn’). The sequence tano! tano! need not be a reduplication, though; see den Besten 1997: 338. Two probable reduplications attributed to slaves are slightly compromised by the interpolation of punctuation: Baas komt gauw, gauw! (1776) ‘Master comes quickly, quickly’; similarly, die aap al te danig listig, rech! rech! ‘That ape [is] too cunning, really, really’ (c1825). Clear instances of reduplication are attributed to “Hottentot” speakers of Cape Dutch in the vernacular literature of the mid 19th century, e.g., reg-reg ‘really, seriously’ (1830), amper-amper ‘almost’ (1846).

 Roots of Afrikaans

Reduplication did not escape the notice of Changuion, who listed zaam or zaamzaam ‘together’, toltol spelen [top-top play] ‘play tops’, kaartkaart spelen [card-card play] ‘play cards’, reg reg ‘seriously’ alongside its antonym tjakki tjakki ‘ostensibly’ (1848:xivff). The haplologized form rêrig ‘really, seriously’ < reg-reg ‘right-right’ (Afrikaans), first attested as rerrig in The Friend (2/12/1861), suggests that reduplication is much older than the mid 19th century, by which time it begins to leak into Euro-Cape Dutch. The “ahistorical” loss of final -g (/-x/) in vroe-vroe for vroeg-vroeg ‘early-early’ (cf. Negerhollands fru ‘early’) and rê-rê for reg-reg (Du Toit 1905: 100) are also suggestive of language contact. We can be sure that reduplication was very widespread by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, for on 15 August 1876, Die Afrikaanse Patriot extolled (natuurlikheid) ‘naturalness’ as a trait of the Afrikaans language: “Through the simplicity of our language, it becomes natural in itself. This naturalness comes out clearly in such expressions as: ... gou-gou ‘quick-quick’, [which] must convey some kind of urgency, while troppe-troppe ‘flocks-flocks’ conveys ‘a great number’ and kom zal hy kom (lit. ‘come will he come’, i.e., ‘he’ll definitely come’) expresses certainty.”17

3.4

The substrate factor

Given the composition of the population of the Dutch Cape Colony, various (groups of) substrate languages may have been involved in the development of the un-Dutch reduplication patterns in Afrikaans: Khoekhoe (Hottentot) as spoken by the indigenous Khoekhoen, Asian Creole Portuguese (i.e., Indo- and Malayo-Portuguese) as spoken by the slaves from India/Ceylon and Indonesia/Malacca, nonstandard Malay as spoken by the slaves from Indonesia/Malacca, Malagasy as spoken by the slaves from Madagascar; Southeastern Bantu languages as spoken by the slaves from Mozambique/Natal; the various native languages spoken by the slaves from India/Ceylon and Indonesia/Malacca.18 It may be clear that this is enough for a book-length publication, and we have to admit that there is still a lot we do not know. Thus, we have not considered any Southeastern Bantu languages, or native languages of India/Ceylon and Indonesia/Malacca. In the following, we discuss Malay first (§3.4.1) because this is the language we know most about. This is followed by Malagasy (§3.4.2), and Asian Creole Portuguese (§3.4.3), which has partial ties with Malay. Our information on reduplication in both languages is fragmentary. Khoekhoe is the topic of Section §3.4.4.

17. Our translation; original text: “Deur die eenvoudigheid van ons taal wort dit van self natuurlik. Die natuurlikheid kom dan oek duidelik uit in uitdrukkings as: ... ‘gou-gou’ moet elkeen snelheid opmerk; terwyl ‘troppe-troppe,’ – die menigte – en “kom zal hy kom” die sekerheid uitdruk” (Die Afrikaanse Patriot, 15/04/1876, rpt. 1974: 114). 18. See Shell 1994: 41 for quantified data on slave imports between 1652 and 1808.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

3.4.1 Reduplication in Malay The core studies on reduplication in Malay and Afrikaans are Raidt (1980, 1981).19 Insofar as practicable, we have checked Raidt’s claims concerning Malay against some grammars (Fokker 1950 – Raidt’s basic source of information; Lombard 1977) and dictionaries (especially Teeuw, 1996). It should be noted that Raidt’s predecessors in this field of inquiry hardly offer any substantial information at all, let alone independent information – the sole exception being Scholtz (1963), who makes a seemingly insignificant remark on the subject of the AFR lexicalized reduplication kort-kort ‘repeatedly’ (< kort ‘short, for a short while’) which has some relevance for what will follow below. According to Scholtz (1963: 153), kort-kort should not be equated with Malay tiap-tiap ‘time and again’ or berulang-ulang ‘repeatedly’, however without giving his reasons. He probably meant the following: being a reduplication with (more or less) the same meaning is not enough for counting as an equivalent of a reduplication in another language. The pertinent roots should also mean (more or less) the same, and they do not in this case: kort means ‘short, for a short while’ as against Malay tiap ‘each, every’ and ulang ‘to repeat’. Therefore, kort-kort cannot be equated with Malay tiap-tiap or berulang-ulang. It seems to us that Scholtz is right, but below we show that Afr. kort-kort may in fact be a calque of another Malay word. We would immediately present the major findings of Raidt 1981 were it not that there are some problems with them. First of all, following Kempen (1969) and Scholtz (1963), Raidt sketches a far too optimistic picture of reduplication in Dutch. And secondly, she misrepresents the function of nominal reduplication in Malay by claiming that reduplication can create plural nouns out of simplex, singular nouns. There is no such thing as a singular noun in Malay. Any simplex noun in Malay can be singular or plural in meaning, e.g., buku ‘book, books’ (although it is doubtful whether for the Malay speaker simplex nouns are ambiguous at all). Reduplications like buku-buku, however, denote distributive plurals and can be glossed either as ‘book-book’ or as ‘books-books’. This is quite important for the comparison of Malay and AFR, since AFR nonadverbial reduplicated nouns (be they singular or plural) have a distributive reading as well (§1.5).20 19. These are two versions of the same paper, published in German and Afrikaans respectively. We base our discussion on the more definitive Afrikaans version, which is reprinted in her volume of collected essays (Raidt 1994). 20. We gather that Raidt is aware of this analytical problem, because her table also makes the rather empty claim that reduplication of plural nouns (?) in Malay yields substantives. (Compare the “solution” in our Table 1.) It should be noted that there are also some mistakes in Raidt’s presentation of reduplication in Malay (pp. 156–158), due to imprecise comparisons of Afrikaans and Malay (Indonesian) items: (a) In spite of Scholtz’s misgivings about such an equation, Afr. kort-kort ‘repeatedly’ is equated with Mal. berulang-ulang ‘id.’, although Afr. kort means ‘short, a short while’ and Mal. ulang ‘to repeat’. (b) Afr. nou-nou ‘in a moment/minute, presently; a moment ago’ is equated with Mal. baru-baru ‘recently, a short while ago’, although Afr. nou means ‘now’ and Mal. baru ‘recent, new; a short while ago’. (c) Mal. sayup-sayup ‘unclear, vague, nearly

 Roots of Afrikaans

Table 1.  Reduplication patterns in Afrikaans, Dutch, and Malay21 Parts of speech

Function of reduplication

Adverb Adjective Noun, sg/unmarked

adverbial adjectival distributive plural adverbial distributive plural adverbial adverbial quantifier verbal adverbial

Noun, pl Numeral Verb

Afrikaans

Dutch

Malay

xxx x x xx x xx x x xxx xxx

((x)) – – – – – – – – x*

xxx x xxx xx NA NA xx x? xxx xxx

Given these (and some other) considerations we propose Table 1 for reduplication in AFR, Dutch, and Malay, revised from Raidt’s (1981 [1994: 158]). It is clear that AFR demonstrates a great amount of correspondence with Malay. Although we may safely compare the few reduplicated adverbials of Dutch with those in Malay and AFR, Dutch deverbal reduplicated adverbials cannot really be compared with those in AFR (or in Malay), as we have shown above. In this sense our table is purely formal. Als., Malay reduplications sometimes also involve affixes, which is not the case in AFR, e.g. Mal. berulang-ulang ‘repeatedly’ (< ulang ‘repeat’) vs. AFR springspring ‘in a jumping manner’ (< spring ‘to jump’). Additionally, we have not been able yet to identify a Malay counterpart for Afrikaans game name reduplication (see §2.3), and there are several Malay reduplication patterns that do not show up in Afrikaans, such as reduplication of wh-words, e.g., siapa-siapa ‘whoever’ (< siapa ‘who?’), or the reciprocal V-meng-V pattern, e.g., tolong-menolong ‘to help eachother’(< tolong ‘help’).22 Nevertheless, the influence of Malay upon Afrikaans seems to be considerable. Some cases exemplifying this Malay input are: inaudible/invisible’ (also used adverbially) and ‘hardly’ is incorrectly aligned with Afr. saggiessaggies ‘softly’ and could better have been aligned with Afr. vaag-vaag ‘vaguely’, together with Mal. kabur-kabur ‘rather vague’. However, note the categorial differences between sayup-sayup and kabur-kabur, on the one hand, and vaag-vaag (and saggies-saggies), on the other. 21. – = does not exist; ((x)) = hardly exists; x = does occur; xx = frequent; xxx = very frequent; * = must be qualified; NA = not applicable. 22. Note that our (and Raidt’s) comparison is based upon descriptions of Standard Malay, while the slaves from Indonesia most probably (nearly) all spoke nonstandard Malay. Furthermore, most of these slaves came from eastern Indonesia (R. Shell, p.c.). However, judging from what we could find in Steinhauer, 1983, Taylor, 1983, and Van Minde, 1997, reduplication in Eastern Malay seems to be quite similar to reduplication in (western) Standard Malay, with one notable exception: Eastern Malay deverbal instrumental reduplication, e.g. North Moluccan Malay



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

(47)

hampir-hampir ‘almost’ (< hampir ‘near; nearly’) baru-baru ‘recently’ (< baru ‘new, recent; recently’) besar-besar ‘enormous’ (< besar ‘big’) buku-buku ‘books [distributively]’ (< buku ‘book(s)’) tempo-tempo ‘every now and then’ (< tempo ‘time, period’) satu-satu ‘one by one’ (< satu ‘one’) lihat-lihat ‘look around’ (< lihat ‘see, look at’) berulang-ulang ‘repeatedly’ (< ulang ‘repeat’)

Furthermore, note that the AFR reduplications amper-amper ‘almost’ and saam-saam ‘(all) together’ (< amper ‘nearly’, saam ‘together’) may be nothing but Malay reduplications in a Dutch garb: Malay hampir-hampir ‘almost’ (< hampir ‘near; nearly’) and sama-sama ‘together, etc.’ (< sama ‘together, etc.’). This means that there may also be AFR calques of Malay reduplications. Thus, in Van Minde (1997: 135) we hit upon Ambon Malay skarang-skarang ‘right now, immediately’, an expression that is also known in Jakarta (Hadewych van Rheeden, p.c.) but is not mentioned in the dictionaries we consulted. Skarang-skarang, which derives from s(e)karang ‘now’, is reminiscent of AFR nou-nou, which, inter alia, means (and certainly once meant) ‘in a moment, immediately’ (< nou ‘now’). Another candidate for calque-hood may be AFR kort-kort ‘frequently, every now and again’ (< kort ‘short, a short while’). Cf. Malay sebentar ‘briefly, a short while; immediately’, reduplicated to sebentar-sebentar ‘frequently, each moment’. 3.4.2 Reduplication in Malagasy Malagasy is an Austronesian language related to Malay. Therefore, one might expect to find similar reduplication phenomena in this language, which might have supported the Malay substrate factor in Afrikaans reduplication. However, on the basis of the literature we consulted, we have come to a more cautious conclusion (cf. Dez 1980; Rajaonarimanana 1995a, Rajaonarimanana 1995b; Rajaonarimanana & Vérin 1997: 10–11, 34. First of all, there are no exocentric reduplications in Malagasy. This means that there are no denominal or deverbal reduplicated adverbials in Malagasy. Furthermore, there do not seem to be distributive plurals in Malagasy, even though the simplex noun, which is as “ambiguous” as the simplex noun in Malay (cf. Rajaonarimanana 1995a: 61), may reduplicate. The readings of Malagasy endocentric reduplications can be characterized as nuances of the readings of the roots from which they are derived, these nuances being attenuative, pejorative-depreciative, frequentative, and augmentative:

timba-timba (air) ‘(water) bucket’ (< timba ‘to draw (water)’) (Taylor 1983: 19). This pattern, which is also attested for the local languages of eastern Indonesia, does not confirm to Botha’s rules (§2.2) and did not make it into Afrikaans, most probably due to its noniconic character.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(48) tsaratsara ‘rather good’ (< tsara ‘good’) menamena ‘reddish’ (< mena ‘red’) vovobovoka ‘something that looks like dust’ (< vovoka ‘dust’) miteniteny ‘to talk incomprehensibly’ (< miteny ‘to talk’) mandehandeha ‘to roam’ (< mandeha ‘to go, to walk’) kabaribary ‘repeated speech’ (< kabary ‘public speech’) rovidrovitra ‘completely torn up’ (< rovitra ‘torn’)  (Dez 1980: 33ff; Rajaonarimanana & Vérin 1997: 10f) It seems to us that this system is only vaguely reminiscent of the semantics of endocentric reduplications in AFR. In fact the best fit we could find is the Malagasy pattern of tsi- prefixed reduplications of numerals, which corresponds nicely to the AFR pattern of reduplicated numerals, e.g., tsiroaroa ‘two by two’ (< roa ‘two’; Rajaonarimanana & Vérin 1997: 34); cf. AFR twee-twee ‘two-(by)-two’). Although we do not want to exclude some influence of Malagasy upon AFR, that influence seems to be secondary. This may be somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the Malagasy slaves constitute about one quarter of the total import of slaves between 1652 and 1808. However, the main influx of Malagasy slaves took place in the second half of the 18th century, while there was a steady influx of Asian slaves during most of the 18th century. Furthermore, in the 1760s the number of locally born slaves rose above the 50% level with only a slight dip in the 1790s. So, maybe most of the Malagasy slaves simply came too late (cf. Shell 1994b: 41–48). 3.4.3 Reduplication in Asian Creole Portuguese According to Raidt (1981 [1994: 157–158f]) there is practically no reduplication in Asian Creole Portuguese, since there does not seem to be any instance of reduplication in Dalgado’s work on Sri Lankan Creole Portuguese, while Rêgo’s (1942) book on Papia Kristang only mentions reduplication of nouns as a means to construct “plurals” (1942: 13). 23 On this basis, Raidt concludes that the primary influences triggering reduplication in Afrikaans came from Malay and not from Creole Portuguese. However, had Raidt consulted Schuchardt (1890: 245ff), she would have found a whole list of reduplication patterns once in use in the Malayo-Portuguese dialect of Batavia and Tugu. Therefore, Raidt’s conclusion concerning Asian Creole Portuguese cannot be upheld. Given Schuchardt’s data, both Malay and at least Malayo-Portuguese must have been important for the (further) development of reduplication in AFR. Since Schuchardt’s study is somewhat difficult to handle,24 we prefer to start with 23. Note in passing that Rêgo’s grammatical sketch of Papia Kristang (1942: 9–21) actually also mentions the superlative marker tanto tanto (p. 15), reduplication of verbs to express continuative aspect (p. 19), and the adverb miora miora (p. 20), and there may be more cases in the linguistic material that constitutes the bulk of Rêgo’s book. 24. Schuchardt quotes his examples of reduplication out of context, albeit with exact references to the Creole Portuguese texts, which, however, are only accompanied by translations into Malay, apart from Schuchardt’s linguistic annotations in the footnotes.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

Baxter’s (1988) description of Papia Kristang, which is full of reduplication patterns that are reminiscent of Malay (and AFR). Baxter (1988) mentions endocentric reduplications of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs as well as reduplication of wh-words, a pattern that did not make it into AFR. Baxter calls reduplication of nouns a “means of signaling plurality on nouns” (p. 102). However, his own data show that the pertinent reduplicated elements are distributive plurals, which yields a nice parallelism with Malay, and with AFR. Some data illustrating these patterns: (49)

pastu pastu ‘all kinds of birds’ (< pastu ‘bird(s)’) remá remá ‘row continuously’ (< remá ‘row’) kanikaninu ‘very small’ (< kaninu ‘small’)25 presta presta/prepresta ‘very quickly’ (< presta ‘quickly’) nióra nióra ‘often’ (< nióra ‘briefly’) ki ki ‘anything, whatever’ (< ki ‘what?’)

Baxter also mentions a pattern of denominal reduplicated adverbials (p. 117). If we leave out the case of pampamiáng ‘early in the morning’, which derives from the temporal adverb pamiáng ‘(in the) morning’ (p. 72), rather than from a noun, we are left with fila fila ‘being a girl, when [Subject] was a girl’ (< fila ‘girl’), which seems to us to be a reduplication of a predicate nominal rather than a reduplication of a mere noun. This is confirmed by an example where the reduplicated adjective belu belu means ‘being old, when [Subject] was old’ (< belu ‘old’).26 All in all, this looks very much like Malay, and it is a pity that two patterns are missing: reduplicated numerals and deverbal reduplicated adverbials, although the cases of fila fila and belu belu seem to indicate that predicates may yield reduplicated adverbials. However, we suspect that the missing patterns are accidental gaps in Baxter’s data base, since they show up in Schuchardt’s overview of reduplication in the Malayo-Portuguese dialect of Batavia and Tugu (Schuchardt 1890: 245–247), e.g., dos dos ‘two-two’ and lembra lembra ‘more or less’ (< lembra ‘think’).27 Given the above data, it is reasonable to assume that Malayo-Portuguese was one of the substrate forces behind the rich system of reduplication in Afrikaans. But what about Indo-Portuguese? Raidt (1981) could not find any reduplication in Indo-Portuguese. Yet, the papers by De Silva Jayasuriya and Clements in this volume show that various types of reduplication can be found in the Indo-Portuguese dialects. This 25. We could not find anything concerning reduplicated adjectives and distributivity for Papia Kristang. 26. We shall not discuss the isolated case of bong bong/bomong ‘very’, derived from bong ‘good’ (Baxter 1988: 79). 27. Unfortunately, lembra lembra ‘more or less’ is the sole example of its kind amidst of a couple of regular reduplicated verbs. In this respect the references to Schuchardt (1890) by Hesseling and Le Roux are misleadingly optimistic.

 Roots of Afrikaans

hardly comes as a surprise, since reduplication is an areal feature of the Indian subcontinent; witness Masica (1993: 78f) and Steever (1998). Since the patterns found for Indo-Portuguese look similar to those found for Malayo-Portuguese, we may hypothesize that Indo-Portuguese also played a role in the genesis of the AFR system of reduplication, although more research is needed to establish the finer details of this influence. 3.4.4 Reduplication in Khoekhoe The diachronic literature on Afrikaans has been surprisingly silent on the subject of reduplication in Khoekhoe (“Hottentot”) up until the appearance of Nienaber (1991), the sole exception being Le Roux (1923: 177), where two brief remarks can be found concerning reduplicated verbs in Nama, one of the Khoekhoe languages (also known as Nama-Damara and nowadays – somewhat confusingly – as Khoekhoe or Khoekhoegowab, i.e., ‘Khoekhoe language’). Nienaber (1991) attempts to find a Khoekhoe source (rather than a Creole Portuguese and/or Malay source) for AFR reg-reg ‘really, seriously’ (now rêrig). More important for our purposes is that it also contains information on reduplication in Nama as such. We shall take Haacke 1999 as our point of departure, to which we shall add some extra information from other sources, among which Nienaber 1991.28 Because reduplication in Nama is a fairly complicated affair, some preliminary remarks are in order. First, we do not discuss interactions with processes such as compounding, nominalization, etc. We have also kept information on matters of tonology to a minimum.29 In principle each reduplication pattern in Nama has its own distinctive tonal pattern. This way, segmentally homophonous reduplications can be disambiguated (cf. Nienaber 1994: 201; Haacke 1999: 114). The same is true for Korana, the last remnant (now probably extinct) of Cape Khoekhoe (cf. Meinhof 1930: 47).30 Since AFR is not a tonal language, any reduplication pattern borrowed from Khoekhoe must necessarily lose its tonal characteristics.

28. The main problems with Nienaber, 1991 are: There is insufficient discussion of each of the major patterns of reduplication, insofar as they are mentioned. Nienaber is insufficiently aware of the fact that reduplications can constitute the input for other morphological rules, which implies that the categories of reduplicated adjectives and reduplicated adverbs are nearly nonexistent. 29. Where necessary, the four tonemes of Nama are represented as LL (double-low), L (low), H (high) and HH (double-high). Furthermore, for the sake of convenience, we represent long vowels with double vowel graphemes. 30. Witness Engelbrecht 1936: 197–202. There are two varieties of Korana: a Nama‑like variety and another, better known variety that in view of the data in Nienaber 1963, may be categorized as Cape Khoekhoe‑like. Comparison with Engelbrecht’s data shows that Meinhof (1930) describes the Cape Khoekhoe‑like variety.



Chapter 11.  Reduplication in Afrikaans 

Nama is particularly rich in reduplicated verbs. Haacke (1999) distinguishes causatives, progressives, and verbs of pretense, while Hagman (1973) mentions causatives and repetitives. (50)

!hoa!hoa !nare!nare taratarasen //naeka//nae

‘to bend, to curve’ ( 1)

 Roots of Afrikaans

d. infl’ → infl vp e. vp → v (neg) Interestingly enough, the verb may end in an object clitic and yet, no object NP may appear inside the VP. I furthermore assume that the subject is part of the INFL-projection and therefore receives the dependent case ending -a, of the direct and indirect objects, unless it moves to the XP position under S”. The subject and the objects are ordered as expected: SU – IO – DO, so they may be distributed over the various INFL levels. Although the above rules do not capture all the facts about the tense and aspect particles of Khoekhoe, this will do. The topicalization facts of Nama that have brought me to the above hypothesis are the following: Firstly, unlike VP Preposing in Dutch or English, a topicalized V in Nama may not be accompanied by an object or an adverbial. Compare the following example from Hagman (1973: 208): (43) a. Màa -pi ke kè -rè [’áo-p-à]I //’ũp-à hàíp-à Give-hei decl rem:past-imp [the man]i him the stick Yet, the negative word tama always is adjacent to the V – so, also if the V is topicalized. Compare the following example from Hagman (1973: 209): (43) b. ‘=/’Nũú tama-si ke [/õá-s-à]i neepá Sit not -shei decl [the daughter]i here [Note that INFL may be moved to a position adjacent to COMP (here: ke) in such sentences.] Since tama is a word, V + tama must be a constituent. Therefore, what looks like Topicalization of a V is in fact VP Preposing, albeit preposing of a VP without any object. Secondly, if the subject is put into the XP position, a second type of Topicalization may put INFL ‘ + VP in front of the XP position. In that case any other sentence constituent may accompany the preposed INFL. Thus on the basis of (44) four Secundary Topicalization sentences can be constructed, as is indicated in (45) (cf. Hagman 1973: 208/9): (44) ’Áop ke neetse tarásà kò ‘≠aí The man decl today the woman rec.past call (45)

a. b. c. d.

[‘=/‘ Aí kò] ‘áop ke neetse tarásà [Neetse kò ‘=/‘aí] ‘áop ke tarásà] [Tarásà kò ‘=/‘aí] ‘áop ke neetse [Neetse tarásà kò ‘=/‘aí] ‘áop ke

[Note that INFL and VP in (45a). must invert in order to prevent the sentence from starting with INFL.] These facts justify the somewhat unusual INFL-projection I assume for Khoekhoe. If (42) represents the general underlying structure of a Khoekhoe sentence, it also represents the general underlying structure of a relexified Khoekhoe sentence. In



Chapter 12.  Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans 

relexified Khoekhoe all grammatical particles are preserved (compare Section 4.1.). Therefore also the INFL particles are preserved. In order to get from relexified Khoekhoe to Hottentot Dutch, the grammatical particles must be deleted, which implies deletion of the INFL particles. Now, deletion of INFL entails destruction of the INFL-projection. This would lead to a gap in the hierarchical structure of the Hottentot Dutch sentence, which is an anomaly. In order to solve this problem, the speakers of Hottentot Dutch had to create a new hierarchical structure by expanding the projection of V. In so doing the speakers of Hottentot Dutch had to draw upon Universal Grammar. However they could model their new VP upon the structure of the Khoekhoe INFL-projection, which is left-branching from INFL on. Therefore, the ensuing syntax indirectly reflects the syntax of Khoekhoe. In other parts of the grammar equally radical decisions had to be taken. Hottentot Dutch may look like an attempt to stubbornly stick to the structure of Khoekhoe. Yet, it is clear that the Hottentots made definite attempts to make their pidgin more palatable for the Dutch. Thus, they switched from postpositions to prepositions. Something similar happened in the case of negation. Apart from ta in negative imperatives (see above 32), the locus of negation in Khoekhoe is postverbal. In Dutch and Afrikaans, however, the locus of negation is in the middlefield. This can be represented as follows: (46) a. Khoekhoe: ... (negsp) ...V neg b. Du.+ Afr.: ... neg ...V ... (nie) Therefore, if we want to analyze nie-2 in Afrikaans as a case of interference from Khoekhoe, we have to assume two things. Firstly, the Hottentots were able to shift the locus of negation. Secondly, by normal processes of interference the Hottentots once in a while added a postverbal negative element. Since the locus of negation had been shifted, this ‘superfluous’ negation element required a new function. Given the limited choices of Universal Grammar, nie-2 had to be a scope-marker, which in fact it is (cf. Raidt 1983: 188). This necessarily led to a change in the syntax of negative imperatives. The preverbal negative imperative marker tā, which cannot combine with a postverbal negative element, must be a locus of negation and so is in complementary distribution with the postverbal tama and tite of nonimperatives. However, since all loci of negation had been moved to the left in Hottentot Dutch, it was possible to also assign the postverbal scope marker nie-2 to negative imperatives. Finally, note that – using Hagman’s terminology – tā must precede the PredP, i.e. INFL’’’ according to my analysis. This implies that tā can easily head a sentence, since subjects can be left out in imperatives. Yet it would be nonsensical to claim that sentence-initial tā underlies Afr. moenie ‘don’t’. Moenie derives from the use of na misti in Port. Cr. negative imperatives. Thus (47a) is a literal translation of the Port. Cr. sentence (47b) from 1765 (Franken 1953: 73/4): (47) a. Moenie (jy) vir my slaan nie Must-not (you) ObjM me beat not

 Roots of Afrikaans

b. Na misti dali pro mi Not must beat ObjM me The optional postverbal subject in (47a) – shows that moenie imperatives follow the VI pattern of Dutch and Afrikaans imperatives (cf. Ponelis 1979: 388). Neither Afrikaans nor Creole Portuguese makes (made) use of deontic modals in positive imperatives. Thus the Port. Cr. example pége, pége ‘catch (him), catch (him)’ from 1726 (Franken 1953: 51, 52) corresponds to Afr. vat horn, vathom ‘id.’. Returning to Kh. tā now, note that sentence-initial tā may have furthered the genesis of moenie. But that is about all we can say about tā.

4.3

Conclusion

In this section three hypotheses have been refined and remodeled. Firstly, my hypothesis about the historical precedence of the Khoekhoen has been refined and specified. Secondly, the hypothesis about the relationship between Khoekhoe and Hottentot Dutch (den Besten 1978) has been thoroughly revised. Similarly for Nienaber’s hypothesis about the Khoekhoe background of nie-2. One final question remains: Does the evidence on negation in the Cape Dutch Pidgins confirm Nienaber’s hypothesis?

5. Negation in the Cape Dutch Pidgins Raidt (1983: 190) notes that there are no attested examples of Negative Doubling in the speech of the slaves and the Khoekhoen before 1800. Although this cannot be an argument, because the slaves and the Khoekhoen hardly wrote themselves (if at all), it is somewhat inconvenient. Be that as it may, closer examination of Hottentot Dutch reveals a more complicated picture. The pertinent negative sentences can only be found in Kolbe (1727). There are none in ten Rhyne (1686). Kolbe’s examples can be divided into three groups. The first group consists of three sentences with the sentence-internal negation of Dutch: (48) a. ons niet zoo (...) (vol. II: 30) we not like-that (...) b. waarom ons die goeds niet weder beitum en op vretum (II: 66) why we the bugs not in-our-turn bite and up eat c. Wagtum, die Tovergoeds niet sterk genoeg (II: 162) Wait, the medicine not strong enough Properly speaking, the following example with topicalized hier also belongs in this class:



Chapter 12.  Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans 

(49) Maar hier dan niets (I: 523) But here then nothing Note that Kh. tama must follow the AP it negates. Therefore, all three examples in (48) illustrate my assumption that the Khoekhoen deliberately shifted the locus of negation in Hottentot Dutch. The second group contains one sentence with V NEG order: (50) want het deugum niet (II: 30) for it be-good not This looks like V2 in Dutch: Het deugt niet (underl. order: het niet deugt). Yet it may well be that the use of the set expression Het deugt niet by the white colonists reminded the Khoekhoen of their own V NEG order. If so, (50) may also represent Khoekhoe word order. Finally, there are three sentences with kamme niet ‘cannot’: (51) a. Kamme niet verstaan (I: 504) Can not understand b. ons ik ka me niet verdragen (I: 528) We (click?) can not bear c. Ons Tovermanns (...) kame niet helpen (I: 528) Our medicine-men (...) can not help There is no example with niet preceding kamme, unlike what one would expect given the underlying order of Dutch (e.g. for (51c): Onze Tovermannen niet kunnen helpen). This may be V2 again. However, that cannot be checked, because there are no objects. Now Kh. 3rd p. object pronouns can be dropped, and there may be another reason why kamme precedes niet. In Khoekhoe the negative of//kha ‘be able to’ is not//kha tama but//oa (cf. Rust 1965: 52, 62, and Hagman 1973: 163, 179). Now the following scenario is possible: The Khoekhoen had to change their own V//oa and V//kha orders into the Dutch Vaux order. However, at the same time they had to look for two morphemes to translate//oa: niet ‘not’ and kamme ‘can, be able to’. This combination of processes may have been too much, so that in their translation of//oa the Khoekhoen stuck to the V(aux) NEG order they were used to: kamme niet. The Dutch V2 order kan ...niet.... may have been of some help here. Therefore, there seems to be some (inconclusive) evidence for the interferential influence of the V NEG order of Khoekhoe. Yet, there are no attested cases of double negation in Hottentot Dutch. For one possible case of nie .. nie we have to examine one of-the sentences Mentzel jotted down, somewhere between 1733 and 1741: kammene kas, kammene kunte (compare (39)). The last word of the sentence poses two phonological problems: Why u, and why e?, because the Dutch word is kont. It is possible that Mentzel used the related Middle High German and dialectal German form Kunte. However, Mentzel is not known as somebody who would mix up Dutch and German.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Another explanation might be the following: Both tense and lax o can become u in Afrikaans (Du. Bosjesman ‘Bushman’, Afr. Boesman ‘id.’; oe = [u]). Now, if kamme-nie may be rendered as kammene, it is possible that kunte is kuntie. In that case kammene kas, kammene kunte can be analyzed as kamme-nie kas, kamme-nie kunt-ie, i.e. as a sentence with Afr. nie-2 in its enclitic form -ie. Therefore, we may have one case of nie2, in a sentence with Hottentot Dutch morphology, uttered by slave girls – about 70 years before the first two uncontroversial nie-2 sentences uttered by a Hottentot (cf. (27) above).

6. Concluding remarks This paper has presented a general idea about the genesis or growth of Afrikaans. Hesseling’s exclusion of the Khoekhoen as a primary factor in language change in South Africa has been rejected, as well as Raidt’s claim to the effect that there had been no pidgin phase in South Africa. There was a pidgin phase among the slaves and the Khoekhoen but not among the whites, and the Khoekhoen may have been the primary force in the development of an SOV pidgin which could have helped to preserve the underlying SOV order of Dutch. Furthermore the dialectal hypothesis for the rise of nie-2 has been rejected and hypotheses about Khoekhoe substrate in Hottentot Dutch and Afrikaans have been thoroughly revised by giving Universal Grammar due credit. Nienaber’s proposal to derive nie-2 from Kh. postverbal tama and tite has been shown to be acceptable, modulo the said revisions. An analysis of negation in Hottentot Dutch and in one sentence uttered by slave girls has shown that nie-2 may indeed derive from the Cape Dutch Pidgins, although the evidence is not conclusive.

chapter 13

From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans The creation of a novel grammar

Prolegomena The title of this paper is a provocative one.1 It does certainly not represent the whole truth, since at least two more strands can be distinguished in the complicated ancestry of Afrikaans: from the slaves’ pidgin to Afrikaans, and from dialectal Dutch via Cape Dutch to Afrikaans. Yet, though From Khoekhoe Foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans (...) does not represent the whole truth, it is certainly true and points to a much neglected aspect of the genesis of Afrikaans. The growth of this language cannot be understood unless attention is paid to the linguistic behavior in the 17th and early 18th centuries of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Cape Province, the Khoekhoen or Hottentots.2 In my view, the structure of the pidgin spoken by the Khoekhoen and transmitted to the slaves can explain why Afrikaans unlike (other) creole languages that have arisen under similar circumstances still looks so much like its metropolitan sister, Dutch. On the other hand, the assumption of a pidgin stage among part of the ancestors of the present-day speakers of Afrikaans can also explain certain deviations from the structure of Dutch which look like anomalies if one sticks to the view that Afrikaans is the direct descendant of dialectal. Dutch, a view commonly held among South African philologists (cf. Raidt 1983). It cannot be denied, though, that there is a lot of Dutch or dialectal Dutch in Afrikaans. Therefore, Section 1 will give an impression of the Dutch features of Afrikaans. This will be a natural introduction to the ideas of the South African philological school as represented by Raidt (1983), which will be discussed in Section 2. It can be shown that a couple of the philologists’ claims do not hold water and that certain aspects of the structure of Afrikaans cannot be satisfactorily explained under their point 1. This paper was first published in Wheels within Wheels. Papers of the Duisburg Symposium on Pidgin and Creole Languages, Martin Pütz & René Dirven (eds), 207–249. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989. It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. I will use both names indiscriminately. Similarly for the name of the language of the Hottentots: Hottentot or Khoekhoe. The grapheme OE represents a diphtong, which in the older spelling of Nama Hottentot was rendered with OI.

 Roots of Afrikaans

of view. An alternative point of view will be presented in Section 3. Under this point of view Afrikaans is the partial product of creolization of one or two pidgins once spoken in the early Cape Colony. These pidgins and the subsequent hypothetical Creole strongly influenced, and were strongly influenced by the Dutch dialect spoken by the white settlers. Since the Cape Khoekhoen have been instrumental in the creation of a new type of Dutch, even before the tiny colony at Table Bay was turned into a slave holders’ colony (1658), special attention will be paid to the structure of their Hottentot Dutch and the genesis thereof (Section 4). Section 5, finally, will discuss some linguistic data and the possible origins of the various cases.

1. The Dutch side of Afrikaans One of the reasons why many regard Afrikaans as a somewhat simplified (i.e. deflected) daughter of European Dutch is the fact that all variants of Afrikaans, i.e. standard Afrikaans, West Cape Afrikaans, East Cape Afrikaans, and Orange River Afrikaans, share with Dutch its basic syntactic features: an underlying SOV order combined with V1 in yes/no- questions and imperatives and V2 in wh-questions and declaratives. That is to say, even Orange River Afrikaans (also called Hottentot Afrikaans), which is sometimes considered to be ‘creolized Afrikaans’ (cf. Rademeyer 1938), has the general structure of Continental West Germanic (Yiddish excluded).3 Some examples demonstrating the overall correspondence between Dutch and Afrikaans are the following: (1) Du. –, dat ze zijn boek niet gelezen hebben Afr. –, dat hulle sy boek nog nie gelees het nie –, that they his book yet not read have (not) (2) Du. Ze hebben zijn boek nog niet gelezen Afr. Hulle het sy boek nog nie gelees nie They have his book yet not read (not) (3) Du. Waarom weet je dat niet? Afr. Hoekom weet jy dit nie? Why know you that not? (you sing.) Also more finegrained aspects of the syntax of Dutch can be detected in Afrikaans. Thus Dutch – unlike the other West Germanic SOV languages – orders its verbs in the VP-final verbal cluster in a VO fashion: governing verb before governed verb (cf. Evers 1975). Afrikaans does likewise: (4) Du. –, dat wij jullie kunnen horen praten Afr. –, dat ons (vir) jullie kan hoor praat that we (Ob). Marker) youpl. can hear talk 3.

However see the remarks on ‘double’ V2/V1 below.



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

Yet, Afrikaans does not always have to be compared with Modern Standard Dutch only. The Cape Colony was founded in 1652, and so it should not come as a surprise that certain features of Afrikaans grammar can be related to 17th century (Hollandic) Dutch. Thus, Afrikaans plurals such as mans “men” and beddens “beds” (MSDu. mannen and bedden resp.) may be related to the language once spoken in Patria (cf. Raidt 1983). Similarly the use of Afr. sit...en kyk vs. MSDu. zitten...te kijken may very well be a 17th century retention. Compare the examples in (5) and (6): (5) Du. Zij zitten ademloos naar de verbouwereerde Maria te kijken They sit breathless to the confused Mary to look (6) Afr. Hulle sit asemloos na die verbouereerde Maria en kyk They sit breathless to the confused Mary ‘and’ look (cf. Raidt 1983, and Ponelis 1979, one of whose examples I have adapted here.) Furthermore, Kloeke (1950) has shown that the dialect underlying Afrikaans is not standard Dutch or any closely related Hollandic Dialect, but a dialect (or a group of dialects) spoken in the southern parts of the province of South Holland. According to Kloeke, apocope of t after obstruents as in Afr. kuns “art” (pl. kunste) vs. Du. kunst “id.”, the use of [Ø] in Afr. words like meul “mill” and seun “son, boy” vs. Du. molen “mill” and zoon “son”, a form like Afr. nuut “new” (attr. form nuwe) vs. Du. nieuw “id.”, and the use of Afr. vat “catch, fetch” vs. Du. pakken “id.” all point to the same South Hollandic dialect area. This is corroborated by a comparison of the systems of diminutive forms in standard Dutch, nonstandard (and occasionally Colloquial Standard) Dutch, and Afrikaans respectively: (7)

St. Dutch maan → tje bom→ etje paard→ je huis → je kop → je boom → pje koning → kje

Nonst. Dutch maan → tje bom → etje paard → je huis → ie kop → ie boom → pie koning → kie

Afrikaans maan → tjie “moon-DIM” bom → etjie “bomb-DIM” perd → jie “horse-DIM” huis → ie “house-DIM” kop → ie “head-DIM” boom → pie “tree-DIM” koning → kie “king-DIM”

The universal usage of ie in the Afrikaans diminutive allomorphs is a South Hollandic dialect feature. One may wonder whether similar dialect features can be detected in Afrikaans; syntax. It seems to me that this question can be answered positively. Consider the following examples: (8) Du. –, dat hij haar gezien heeft/heeft gezien Afr. –, dat hy (vir) haar gezien het/* het gezien –, that he (OM) her seen has/(*)has seen

 Roots of Afrikaans

Here we find one of the few cases where Dutch and Afrikaans deviate from the general VO pattern for their verbal clusters. In Dutch a past participle may, and in Afrikaans a past participle must, precede the auxiliary which determines its participial form. Now, it is a well-known fact that Colloquial Standard Dutch has a preference for the OV pattern (gezien heeft), which seems to be the sole pattern possible in Hollandic dialects (cf. Stroop 1970). We may therefore conclude that the Afrikaans OV pattern (gesien het) continues a feature of spoken Hollandic Dutch. A more interesting case of Hollandic dialectal syntax in Afrikaans concerns sentences where a temporal auxiliary is combined with two verbs in the so-called double infinitive construction. Here Dutch and Afrikaans differ sharply: (9) Du. –, dat hij haar heeft zien vallen –, that he her has see fall (10) Afr. –, dat hy (vir) haar zien val het –, that he (OM) her see fall has In this case Dutch adheres to a strict VO order. The Afrikaans pattern [[V2 V3] have1] also occurs in southern dialects of Dutch spoken in Belgium, as was pointed out by Pauwels (1965). Since South Hollandic dialects, and not Brabantine or Flemish ones, have provided the dialect base for Afrikaans, Pauwels’ observation is about as interesting as a remark to the effect that a certain syntactic pattern in Afrikaans also occurs in Swiss German. Or, to put it a bit more mildly: Pauwels’ observation only shows that verbal clusters of the type V2-V3-have1 do not have to be in conflict with the overall structure of Dutch syntax. However, since we are all human beings with a well-structured common Language Faculty, and since Belgium, or historically speaking: the Spanish (later: the Austrian) Netherlands, cannot have played a role here, the pertinent pattern may have originated either in South Holland or in South Africa. Although I do not want to exclude certain favoring factors in early colonial South Africa (such as overgeneralizations in L2-acquisition and the indirect influence of the fairly rigid SOV structure of Hottentot), I think this pattern may have its origin in the Netherlands. Scholtz (1963) points out that the pertinent pattern is also attested for the speech of a couple of 17th century Dutch authors, among whom can be found van Riebeeck, the founder of the Cape Colony. This observation is quite interesting, because van Riebeeck belonged to that group of people whose speech, according to Kloeke, laid the foundation for the South Hollandic dialect base of Afrikaans during the first ten years of the Cape Colony. Since this mixed pattern (V2 – V3 – V1) never made it into Standard Dutch, and since Standard Dutch is related to other Hollandic dialects than the metropolitan ancestor of Afrikaans identified by Kloeke, it may well be that the use of this mixed pattern in the official diary, or Daghregister, kept by van Riebeeck is a feature of those dialects that underlie Afrikaans. Indirect evidence to this effect can be found in Stroop (1970). Stroop’s dialect map 6 treats of triverbal clusters in main and subordinate clauses in Dutch dialects spoken in the Netherlands (in fact triverbal dusters in subordinates and the remnants of quadruverbal clusters left behind by V2/V1 in



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

main clauses). Unfortunately the map is based upon no more than 51 occurrences. Yet there are a couple of attestations for the 2–3–1 pattern in the Hollandic dialect area: three in the province of Utrecht, one near the South Hollandic town of Delft, and one in the eastern part of Goeree-Overflakkee (the southernmost island of the province of South Holland, which actually is Zealandic-speaking). These spots on the map more or less surround Kloeke’s favorite dialect area.4 Before I continue with a presentation of the South African philologists’ view on the genesis of Afrikaans, I would like to point out that remonstrations like the one above usually are somewhat unbalanced, in that they conveniently leave out those parts of Afrikaans syntax which are definitely un-Dutch. Thus (Standard) Afrikaans has developed what might be called past tense modal infinitives (cf. Ponelis 1979: ch. 11). Compare: (11) Hy zal jou kan help He will you (s.) be-able-to help (12) Sou jy kon help? Would you (s.) ‘was’-able-to help This phenomenon belongs to a wider set of cases of preterital assimilation (cf. Ponelis 1979: ch.12). Even more spectacular is the optional reanalysis of certain verbal clusters as lexical verbs (cf. Ponelis 1979: 11.1.3.). Compare: (13) Môre kom haal my man die beeste Tomorrow come fetch my husband the cattle (14) Daarom laat val hy die piesang. Therefore let fall he the banana In more formal Afrikaans the main verbs haal and val appear at the end of their respective sentences, as is the case in Dutch. Examples like (11) – (14) demonstrate that there is something fishy about the contention that Afrikaans looks so much like Dutch. It does up to a certain extent, because of its underlying SOV order, V2/V1 in main clauses, and a lot of other things. However, preterital assimilation, ‘double V2’, and a lot of other things are not Dutch. Furthermore, below I will show that even the underlying SOV order of Afrikaans is not fully Dutch in origin. Yet, before I do so, let us first consider the claims of those who regard Afrikaans as a fairly natural outgrowth of 17th century dialectal Dutch.

4. There are also two cases of a 3–1–2 pattern in that area, but these must involve nominalized infinitives as ‘V3’, as we may deduce from the pertinent remarks by Stroop. Furthermore, the four cases of the 1–2–3 pattern in the pertinent dialect area may all involve a modal auxiliary as V1. Unfortunately, Stroop does not subclassify the 1–2–3 cases.

 Roots of Afrikaans

2. The philologists’ view On page 7 of Raidt (1983) a time chart is given for the development of Afrikaans out of Dutch. If we restrict ourselves to the essentials of this time chart, the following picture arises: (15) 1652 Dutch dialects + town dialects spoken by the Dutch officials 1690 Dutch and non-native (broken) Dutch spoken by the ‘foreigners (Indigenous Khoekhoen (Hottentots), slaves, French, Germans, Danes) [quotation marks Raidt’s] 1740 Cape Dutch (general colloquial language) 1775 Afrikaans (general colloquial language) 1875 Afrikaans as a written language 1925 Afrikaans as an official language of South Africa According to the South African philologists, whose findings are reported upon in Raidt’s book, the genesis of Afrikaans has been a gradual process with the various features of Afrikaans slowly creeping into the language one after the other. These findings are based upon careful research of the records in the Cape archives. In fact, chart (15) could even be refined in the following way: (15)′

(...) 1775 Early Afrikaans (general colloquial language) 1850 Afrikaans (general colloquial language) (...)

Since Early Afrikaans still had a preterite and ablaut (cf. Raidt 1983: ch.5). Preterite tense was more or less dead around 1810 (although Raidt also mentions 1830 as a final date), whereas the definitive eclipse of ablaut can be dated around 1850.5 Raidt (1983) is quite definite about the question of whether Afrikaans should be called a (nonradical) creole language or not. Her answer to this question is in the negative, although she agrees that the results of deflexion in Afrikaans are reminiscent of what can be found in creole languages. Throughout her book she gives several reasons why Afrikaans should not be regarded as a creole language. On the one hand she refers to the continuity in the syntax and in the lexicon between Dutch and Afrikaans (compare Section 1 above). On the other hand she gives a couple of historical arguments: (a) There has been no pidgin stage in the development of Afrikaans; (b) Linguistic 5. According to Christo van Rensburg probably all final dates in Raidt (1983) are too late (p.c). This is quite possible, also in view of some cautious remarks made by Raidt herself. However, the sequence of deflectional changes as sketched in Raidt (1983) is most probably correct – in so far as white speech is concerned.



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

change from Dutch to Afrikaans has been slow and gradual, on the basis of the inherent tendency of the Germanic languages to further simplify their morphologies – which has been accelerated by the presence of non-native Dutch. Although there are many details in Raidt’s argumentation I would like to comment upon, I will restrict myself to some general remarks. First of all, there has been a pidgin among the Khoekhoen (Hottentots) and the slaves, so Raidt’s claim about the absence of a pidgin stage in the development of Afrikaans can only be true for the white speakers of that language. Secondly, it is doubtful whether the change from Dutch to Afrikaans in white speech has been as gradual and natural as Raidt wants us to believe (cf. den Besten 1987a). This should be hardly surprising given the fact that Dutch, and later Cape Dutch, must have coexisted for a long time with Pidgin Dutch and creolized and decreolized variants thereof. The oldest pidgin sentences we know of date from 1671 and 1672 (leaving aside one utterance from 1661 that is difficult to analyze). Nearly fifty years later, in 1720, we still find Pidgin sentences with a similar (SOV) structure. These are followed by two nonverbal ‘sentences’ from the period between 1733 and 1741 which are dearly related to the Khoekhoe variant of the Cape Dutch Pidgin.6 Furthermore, many questions can be asked about the end result of the many changes that have yielded Afrikaans: a. Why is the system of Afrikaans verbal stems such a chaos? On the basis of the many deflectional processes mentioned by Raidt (1983) one would expect a simple system of verbal stems continuing the verbal stems of Dutch (leaving aside the irregular verbs of Dutch). In actual fact, however, Afrikaans verbal stems may continue Dutch verbal stems or Dutch infinitives or Dutch 3rd person singular forms. b. Why did it take so long for ablaut to disappear? And why did it have to disappear at all? c. As for the disappearance of the preterite, why did present tense substitute for past tense in the presence of temporal adverbs and subordinators such as toe “then, when”? Even more important seems to me to be the question of why Afrikaans did not develop a substitute for the past perfect. It may be interesting for those linguists who always compare Afrikaans with West Germanic dialects in the widest sense of the word that those southern German dialects that lost their preterite and therefore their past perfect can make use of double perfects, e.g. gegangen gewesen ist “(lit) gone been is”, which means “had gone”. Similar facts can be observed for Yiddish. d. Why has the number of diminutiva tantum increased so much? And why is it possible to get double diminutives? Two examples of the latter phenomenon are boontjietjia “little bean” (boon-tjie-tjie) and huisietjie “little house” (huis-ie-tjie). Compare Kempen (1969: 488–489) and Odendal (1963). 6. For a description see den Besten (1987b).

 Roots of Afrikaans

In addition to these general questions about the grammatical system of Afrikaans questions can be asked about individual lexical items: (e1) How come the diminutive adjective netjies “1. neat, tidy, clean, 2. neatly, nicely” may be used attributively, in spite of the fact that diminutive adjectives in Dutch and Afrikaans may only be used as adverbs or predicate nominate? (e2) Why would a language that has preserved the syntax of the Dutch separable compound verbs (or particle verbs) ever develop a verb like pasop “mind, take care, be careful” (past participle: gepasop)? The origin of this verb must be the imperative pas op “be careful, look out”, which is a V1 sentence with the Dutch separable compound oppassen (Afr. oppas). Separable compounds always preserve the order P – V, except when they are finite verbs and occur in main clauses. In the latter case the V2/V1 rule yields the order V...P. Afrikaans still possesses a separable compound oppas “be careful, guard, herd” (past part. opgepas: imperative pas op! “be careful, look out”). But even if this word would not exist it is still true that Afrikaans separable compounds obey the same rules as Dutch separable compounds. Therefore pasop is a corpus alienum in the structure of Afrikaans. (e3) What is the origin of the nonstandard verb stammaak “put, put down” (lit. “stand-make”), which looks like a lexicalized verbal cluster with the un-Dutch and un-Afrikaans internal OV order (compare Section 1 above). (e4) Why has the Dutch word klaar “ready” acquired the extra meaning of “already” in Afrikaans, while that language can still make use of the Dutch word al “already”? And is there any relationship between this adverbial use of klaar and the use of klaar as a completive marker? (e5) etc., etc. In my view the questions (a) – (e) can be related to the observations made above about the existence in the Dutch Cape Colony of a Dutch Pidgin (or maybe two Dutch pidgins) which lasted until at least the early 1730s. The linguistic phenomena mentioned in the questions (a) – (e) as well as the end of Section 1 cannot be easily reconciled with the theory propounded by the South African philologists, according to whom Afrikaans gradually developed out of dialectal Dutch under the accelerating influence of nonnative Dutch. There is some truth in this scenario in that it tells us something about historical changes in the speech of the white settlers. However, it does not tell us anything about what happened with Dutch in the mouths of the Khoekhoen and the slaves, and so it tells us little about the real influence exerted by this pidgin or creole or ‘non-native’ Dutch upon the speech of the whites.



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

3. An alternative view7 If we want to get a complete overview of the roots of Afrikaans, we have to include the history of the black speakers of Afrikaans, which means that we have to go back in history to the period before 1652, the year of the foundation of the Cape Colony. I will make use of Nienaber (1963) and Elphick (1977) to sketch what I think has been decisive for the early beginnings of Afrikaans. The southern parts of the African continent were originally inhabited by click language-speaking hunter-gatherers. Although many of their (Khoesan) languages must have disappeared owing to the gradual intrusion of Bantu-speaking groups from the north and the northeast, we know of a wide diversity of Khoesan languages spoken in historical times, which points to a very early spread over the southern subcontinent. The original inhabitants of the Cape Province spoke Southern Khoesan (also: Southern Bush) languages. At a certain point in time speakers of a Central Khoesan dialect in or near northern Botswana, the later Khoekhoen or Hottentots, acquired livestock (probably from Central Sudanic-speakers) and started to trek to the south. They eventually occupied parts of the later Cape Province and Namibia. Since Khoekhoe and Southern Khoesan are not interintelligible, it may well be that a Hottentot-Bushman contact language came into existence, maybe on the basis of Khoekhoe foreigner talk, since there were various types of regular contact between both groups. In what way this contact language has played a role in the genesis of the wellknown Hottentot Dutch Pidgin is a question which for the moment goes far beyond our present knowledge. The Portuguese were the first Europeans the Khoekhoen made contact with (1488: Bartolomeu Dias), but these contacts stopped abruptly after a skirmish in 1510 which went out disastrously for the Portuguese. In the 1590s the British and the Dutch started to regularly call at the Cape. Trade relations were established and some Cape Khoekhoen were trained as interpreters in English and Dutch respectively. It is known that also the other Khoekhoen once in a while picked up some words. It is reasonable to assume that English and Dutch trade jargons developed, long before 1652. The structure of these jargons can only be guessed at. Most probably the Hottentots made use of (S)OV structures, whenever they had to construct something like a verbal sentence or a VP. This can be deduced from the fact that both post-1652 Hottentot Dutch and the one pre-1652 ‘English’ sentence have an SOV order. The English sentence dates from 1613 and was uttered by Coeree, a Hottentot abducted to London to be educated as an interpreter (Nienaber 1963 and 1964): (16) Coeree home go. Souldania go, home go!

7. The historical part of this section is based upon den Besten (1986). Part of the philological data dealt with in this section can also be found in den Besten (1986), (1987a), and (1987b).

 Roots of Afrikaans

[Souldania Bay was the original name of Table Bay.] This word order is hardly surprising if we consider that the Khoekhoe languages were and are SOV. Evidence for the knowledge of English and Dutch words among Hottentots in precolonial South Africa is abundant, although in most cases indirect. Ten Rhyne, who visited the Cape in 1673, mentions in his 1686 essay that the Cape Hottentots used some English words in their contacts with the Dutch, his sole example being Doggues “dog”. Other examples of English words in Hottentot Dutch are bras “copper” (1652, 1661) and tecke- (probably teckum) “steal” from Eng. take or dialectal English tek, which appears in Taback-Teckemans “tobacco thieves”, a pidgin translation of Du. Tabackdieven, a nickname bestowed upon the Gorachouquas by the Dutch after an incident in 1657. English words can also be found in a Khoekhoe wordlist composed by the Frenchman de Flacourt in 1655, when he visited the Khoekhoen at Saldanha Bay, e.g. pras “cuiure” (copper), sips “navire” (ship; with depalatalization, which is normal for loans in Khoekhoe, cf. Hagman (1973)). It seems reasonable to assume that these English etymons were acquired in the period before 1652, and we know that at least the word bras (as a word for “iron, copper”) was known in 1623. Furthermore, if it is true that the Khoekhoe word bere-b “bread” (-b masc. sing.) derives from English bread, then the earliest attestation of this word dates back to 1626 (bara: stem only). However, it is not completely certain whether bere(b) is an English loan.8 The presence of so many English words in our sources is hardly surprising given what we know about the pre-1652 trade relations between the English and the Khoekhoen. In the case of Dutch it is less easy to show that specific words from that language were known among the Hottentots in precolonial South Africa, since it is difficult to use post-1652 sources as evidence to that effect. Yet, it is interesting to see that de Flacourt’s wordlist from 1655 contains so many Dutch loans (besides etymons that could be either English or Dutch loans), since his informants, the Saldanha Bay Khoekhoen lived far outside the tiny Dutch colony at Table Bay. Therefore, some of these loans may derive from pre-1652 trade contacts. Two examples are: baquery “bouttaille” (bottle), in other sources explained as kan(ne) “jug, pitcher, can”, from Du. beker “mug, beaker” with Cape Khoekhoe e-a interchange (-v = -i masc. sing.), and mouscap “mouton” (sheep), which contains the Dutch word schaap “sheep” and may in fact be moerschaap “ewe”. Dutch loans from the early period are várucka “bread” (1623) and boos “beeves” with English: plural -s (1615). Várucka, with Danish v for a labiodental approximant, is the same word as brokwa or bruqua “bread, ship-biscuit”, maybe also “piece”, which is attested in later, especially post-1652, sources (with -gu/-ku masc. pl. and -a accusative; contracted form: -ka). The Dutch basis for várucka/brokwa/bruqua is either brood “bread” or brok “piece”. The onomatopoeic boo(s) (also Bou “ox” in 1608), which later expanded into the Hottentot Dutch word boeba [buba] “cow, ox” (with the Kh. endings -b masc. sing, and -a acc.), probably derives from Du. boe “moo”. Although we do not 8. Cf. Nienaber (1964) and (1963: sub koper I, leeu I, skip II, brood II), and den Besten (1986) and (1987a).



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

(yet) know of any source reporting about a Dutch crew introducing Dutch boe, it is very likely that such a thing has happened, since we do have a report about an Englishspeaking crew using English onomatopes for ox/cow and sheep in order to make themselves understood. Why Dutch boe beat English moo is unclear.9 On the basis of all evidence available we may conclude that English and Dutch were known among the Khoekhoen (Hottentots) in precolonial South Africa, albeit in the form of rather primitive English-Hottentot and Dutch-Hottentot trade jargons. Furthermore, we know that after the shipwreck of the Haerlem in 1647 a Dutch crew stayed about a year at the Cape and were in regular contact with the local Khoekhoen, who according to the Journael kept by Leendert Janssen and according to Janssen and Proot’s Remonstrantie to the Lords Seventeen of the Dutch East India Company could speak and understand some Dutch (apart from one person who goedt duydes spraecq (Journael June 1 and Sept. 14, 1647), i.e. who “spoke Dutch well” or “spoke good Dutch”).10 Therefore, when the Dutch established a victualling station at the Cape in 1652, they found a local population that knew some Dutch and English. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Hottentot Dutch Pidgin, which arose after 1652 and which according to our sources had a lexicon that besides many Dutch words contained some English ones, grew out of the two crude trade jargons which I assume existed before 1652. Now note that between 1652 and 1658 there were no slaves at the Cape, but for a small number of domestic slaves. Therefore, the Khoekhoen could develop a pidgin of their own without interference of other groups of non-native speakers of Dutch. The resulting pidgin was called Hottentots-Hollands or Hottentot-Dutch. As I already pointed out above, its structure was SOV, which is in accordance with the basic word order in Khoekhoe. If we disregard the difficult first sentence-like structure from 1661 (cf. the discussion in den Besten (1987b)), then we may say that the oldest Hottentot Dutch sentence dates from 1672 (Franken 1953: 113): (17) ’t Za lustigh, duijtsman een woordt Calm ons v kelum tza quiet, Dutchman/men one word say we you cut-throat Example (17) has a clear SOV structure, and the same applies to the Hottentot Dutch examples in ten Rhyne (1686: 140), which were collected by the author in 1673, e.g.: (18) Duytsman altyt kallom: Icke Hottentots doot makom Dutchman always say I Hottentots dead make Besides the SOV order, the use of a verbal marker -um/-om is a salient feature of the pidgin under consideration. In the two sentences quoted we find doot makom “(lit) dead make”, which prefigures Afrikaans doodmaak “kill” instead of Du. doden “id.”, and the Early Modern Dutch word Duytsman “Dutchman” (now obsolete), which has 9. Cf. Nienaber (1963: sub beker, skaap II, brood I, os II, os III; pp. 38,63, 71), and den Besten (1986) and (1987b). 10. Cf. Nienaber (1963: 27–29).

 Roots of Afrikaans

become Afr. duusman/diesman “white man”, a word of the so-called Coloureds. The occurrence of lustigh instead of Du. rustig “quiet” is a case of Cape Khoekhoe r-l interchange, which has not survived in (nonstandard) Afrikaans. As for the phonology (or phonetics if you would) of Hottentot Dutch, little can be deduced from the sentences, phrases and words that have come to us. Lustigh instead of rustig in (17) is one of the few cases where a deviant pronunciation is indicated, and only in the case of the graphemes uij, uy and ui which in (Early) Modern Dutch and Afrikaans represent a diphthong [^ y] (in present-day orthography: ui), can we be sure that they stand for something else, i.e. the older (Middle Dutch) and therefore nonstandard monophthong [y], (now written uu) – since some stray data from the 17th and the early 18th centuries as well as evidence from Orange River Afrikaans (a type of Afrikaans mainly spoken by people of Khoekhoe descent) indicate that originally the Hottentots used the monophthong [y], before they slowly adapted to the diphthongizing trend of Early Modern Dutch.11 Yet, we have some independent evidence on pronunciation habits and the like through de Flacourt’s wordlist from 1655 (see above). First of all, the entries ouatar “Eau de vie” (brandy) and ouata “eav” (water) (Nienaber 1963: sub brandewvn and water II), which are related to Du./Eng. water, and the entry conanh “ris” (rice), with Cape Hottentot r-n interchange and a final h to prevent French readers from reading an as a nasal vowel (cf. Nienaber 1963: sub rys I), which is related to Dutch koren “corn”, show that the tendency in nonstandard Afrikaans to substitute an a-like vowel for schwa may have a long history. Ouata “eav” (water) furthermore shows that the Cape Afrikaans rule of syllable final r-drop may be very old as well. Support for the latter hypothesis may be derived from de Flacourt’s entry mouscap “mouton” (sheep). Nienaber (1963: sub skaap II) interprets this word as a compound of Du. schaap “sheep” and an onomatopoeic mou-. Since the vowel in this alledged onomatope seems to me to be completely wrong, I venture to suggest that mouscap is moerschaap “(lit) mother-sheep, she-sheep”, i.e. “ewe”, with r-drop. The inverse rule can be found in boebasibier “milk” (1673), which Nienaber (1963: sub melk II) quotes from ten Rhyne (1686). Nienaber interprets boebasibier as Hott.Du. boeba “cow” plus the Khoekhoe possessive marker di (or ti or si) plus an ill-perceived Cape Kh. bi-, the stem of bi-b “milk”. It cannot be excluded, though, that the inverse of r-drop is at work here, or that Dutch speakers who were used to r-drop in the Hottentot’s pidgin misinterpreted -bi in a phrase like boeba si bi as a semantically deviant use of Du. bier “beer”. Finally, two early Afrikaans forms are attested in de Flacourt’s list Du. morgen “morning, tomorrow” appears as marai “matin” (morning), with Cape Kh. o – a interchange. Nienaber (1963: sub oggend I) has already identified marai as Afr. môre “morning, tomorrow”, although the South African philologists seem to have never taken notice of this very early case of g-drop. Furthermore, Du. geven “give” appears 11. Cf. Rademeyer (1938), Kloeke (1950) and van Rensburg (1984b).



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

as ghe- in ghemé “donner” (give) and ghemaré “donnez-moi” (give me). Nienaber (1963: sub gee II) does not explicitly identify ghe- as Afr. gee “give” (which should rather be geef (stem of Du. geven) or gewe (Du. infinitive)), but the conclusion seems to be inescapable. In ghemaré Afr. gee is combined with Kh. ma “give” and the Khoekhoe Imperative/Hortative particle -re. Ghemé is attested as Hott Du. geme/gemme in other sources, and consists of Afr. gee and -me, an allomorph of -um/-om (cf. (17) – (18)), which is added to a stem ending in a vowel (cf. den Besten 1987b). Also this datum has escaped the attention of Nienaber’s philological compatriots (cf. den Besten 1987a). This data demonstrates how important Dutch in the mouth of Hottentots may have been for the genesis of Afrikaans – from the earliest colonial days on. In fact, the typically Khoekhoe SOV order (without V2/V1) of Hottentot Dutch may have been instrumental in the preservation of the underlying SOV order of Dutch in Afrikaans (see below). With this conclusion in mind, let us return to the history of the early Cape Colony. In 1658 the first cargoes of slaves arrived at the Cape. These slaves hailed from the African West coast. Later slaves were brought in from Mozambique, Madagascar, India, Ceylon, and the Indonesian Archipelago. Due to their complicated geographical provenance two Asian contact languages were in use among the slaves: Creole Portuguese and Pasar Malay. These languages were also used in their contacts with the whites and probably sometimes also in their contacts with the Khoekhoen. However, since the slaves arrived in a Dutch-speaking colony with a relatively large white population and with a native population that had already developed its own type of Dutch, and since there once in a while were special schools to teach them Dutch, the slaves also used some kind of Dutch as their third contact language.12 And rather than saying that they spoke ‘broken Dutch’ we should say that their Dutch was a pidgin with its own syntactic characteristics. Given the sociolinguistic priority of the Khoekhoen and given the fact that the Khoekhoen constituted the other force of cheap black labor (cf. Elphick 1977), it should not really come as a surprise that the slaves’ Dutch Pidgin was SOV. In fact the first Pidgin sentence uttered by a slave that we know of provides independent evidence that the slaves may have modeled their pidgin after Hottentot Dutch. This sentence dates from 1671, and is quoted in Franken (1953: 47): (19) eij ghij Caetjoor, jouw siecken hont ghij die brood tecken o you dog/churl, you sick dog you the bread/loaves steal Besides being SOV (19) contains the English loan tecken (take), which the slaves must have learned from the Khoekhoen (cf. Hott.Du. Taback-Teckemans “tobacco thieves” above). In later verbal pidgin sentences no distinctive Hottentot Dutch influence can be detected, except for the SOV order of course, but in two nonverbal expressions recorded by the German O.F. Mentzel (at the Cape from 1733 to 1741), which Hesseling 12. Cf. Franken (1953) and Nienaber (1953).

 Roots of Afrikaans

(1923: 56) mistakenly classifies as Creole Portuguese, we find a Hottentot Dutch ‘word’: (20) a. kammene kumi, kammene kuli cannot/no(t) eat/food, cannot/no(t) work (a noun) b. kammene kas, kammene kunte cannot/no(t) cash/money, cannot/no(t) cunt-not (?) Kammene is Hott. Du. kamme nie(t) “cannot” with the -me allomorph of the um/om ending. It may have become a frozen negative expression by the time Mentzel recorded these sentences, because three out of four of the other words in (20a) and b. are nouns: Du. kas “cash, funds”, Du. kont “behind, cunt” (the latter meaning obsolete; -e may be -ie, the enclitic version of Afr. sentence-final nie “not”), and Cape Du. koelie “coolie; work, labor (n.)” – which implies that the Creole Portuguese loan kumi may mean “food” or “eating” rather than “to eat”, (cf. den Besten 1987b). Given the presence of the morpheme -me in (20a) and b. it cannot be excluded that the -en ending in (19) and in other examples from the slaves’ pidgin renders a spoken -um/-om, which would mean that siecken in (19) is Hott. Du. sieckum “ill, bad, etc.”, one of the few nonverbs in Hottentot Dutch that took this verbal ending. In absence of any positive evidence for the use of -um/-om in the slaves’ pidgin, however, this must remain a speculation. At any rate, the spelling of (19) cannot be fully trusted, because it is highly improbable that any slave in the Cape Colony would have used the written, southern, and therefore non-Hollandic form ghij “you” instead of jij “you (sing.)”. The SOV word order of the slaves’ pidgin seems to me to be a good argument for the Hottentot Dutch background of this language. Usually, in unmonitored L2-acquisition of Dutch and German the V2 phenomenon is misconstrued as an indication for SVO word order, which is succeeded by a S-Vf 0(V) pattern (which is not a V2 pattern!) at a later stage. Therefore, the slaves must have learned their SOV pidgin from the Khoekhoen, who already spoke such a pidgin. In later stages the SOV structure of the Cape Dutch Pidgin(s) may have been reinforced by the presence of slaves from India and Ceylon, where SOV languages are spoken. This leaves us with the question of why Hottentots did not develop an SVO pidgin. This will be discussed in the next section. From 1658 onward the Cape Colony, which was slowly expanding into the direction of the mountains, had a highly complicated linguistic composition. On the one hand there were the Dutch and the Germans who spoke European Dutch (and some Dutch Pidgin, Creole Portuguese or Pasar Malay when necessary); on the other hand there were the Khoekhoen who spoke Cape Khoekhoe and Hottentot Dutch, and the slaves, who – besides their many native languages – spoke Pasar Malay, Creole Portuguese, and Pidgin Dutch. We have to wait until the late 17th century before the first clans of Cape Hottentots started to withdraw from the Colony. But it was the smallpox epidemic of 1713, which wrought a big slaughter among the Hottentots, that ended their presence at the Cape, i.e. the area of Cape Town and Stellenbosch. Yet, detribalized Hottentots and the mixed offspring of slaves and Khoekhoen most probably



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

stayed behind. And, what is more: the Khoekhoen left their linguistic imprint at the Cape in the form of a pidgin which by then may have become a native language for at least some of its speakers. The Khoekhoen that withdrew from the Cape, however, took their pidgin (creole?) with them, and probably influenced the other Hottentots in the north and in the east, so that those Cape farmers who – from about 1700 onward – started to colonize the future eastern districts of the Cape Colony could again meet with Khoekhoen who spoke some kind of Dutch. Things were different in the north, in the Orange River area, since whites appeared there relatively recently, i.e. in the 19th century. Furthermore, from the beginning of the 19th century onward Orange River Afrikaans (also called Hottentot Afrikaans) was introduced into Namibia by retreating groups of Khoekhoen, i.e. long before the German colonization of the 1880s. Despite its special characteristics Orange River Afrikaans shares the V2/V1 rule with the other types of Afrikaans. This could be a late, 19th century feature of Orange River Afrikaans, introduced through closer contact with the whites, but it may be at least one century older. Around 1700 we find quite some V2 sentences attributed to Khoekhoen and slaves. Thus, around that time V2/V1 may have been introduced into the pidgins, which by then had become expanded pidgins or creoles – at least for some speakers. We should not forget, however, that most of our pidgin examples date from after 1700, and that our sources sometimes give us pidgin SOV sentences combined with ‘Afrikaans’ SOV plus V2/V1 sentences, as in the following sample from 1720 (Franken 1953: 50): (21)

jij mijn Cameraat gedaan vast maken ik salje betalen, ik jouw you (s.) my comerade perf./ant. fast-make I will-you pay I you nouw ook vastmaken now also fast-make

[In other samples of this mixed type we also find main verbs in second position.] Therefore, it cannot be excluded that for a while V2 was optional in this ‘Proto-Afrikaans’ pidgin/creole. A late sample with optional V2 (1825) can be found in a book by the Dutchman Teenstra. The pertinent SOV sentence is an interrogative starting with the wh-word waarom “why” (cf. den Besten 1987b).13 The nonapplication of V2/V1 does not seem to be governed by any syntactic property of the pertinent sentences, and so what looks like V2/V1 in the other sentences may be something else. However, whether this V2/V1-like phenomenon was V2/V1 or something else, it is clear that it must have arisen under the influence of the Cape Dutch dialect of the whites. This decreolizing influence exerted upon the Dutch Creole spoken at the Cape was of course counterbalanced by ‘creolizing’ influences exerted upon Cape Dutch by the Dutch Creole (or Creoles). 13. An even later example of an SOV sentence (from the 1870s) occurs in an excerpt of a story by C.F. van Rees that can be found in the Schuchardt Archives in Graz. The speech of the person quoted evidences some other pidgin characteristics as well, such as a nominal subordinate clause (introduced by maskie “although”).

 Roots of Afrikaans Dutch

Hott. Dutch (Pidgin)

c.1660

Dutch Pidgin ? of the slaves

c.1700

Creole Dutch (Proto-Afrikaans I)

Cape Dutch

c.1740

Proto-Afrikaans II

c.1775

c.1850

Afrikaans Koine (with dialectal differentiation) Dutch

Standard Afrikaans + nonstandard dialects

c.1930

If we combine the ideas discussed in this section with the considerations put forward by Raidt (1983), then Raidt’s linear model for the genesis of Afrikaans can be replaced by a more complicated chart. In this chart the top-to-bottom arrows indicate historical developments, whereas the horizontal arrows indicate the directions of linguistic influences. This chart could of course be expanded by adding the pre-1652 situation, e.g. “c.1640” as an arbitrary date for “Engl. trade jargon” and “Dutch trade jargon” with two arrows pointing down to “Hottentot Dutch”. The occurence of an arrow with “Dutch” at the bottom of the chart indicates the vernederlandsing or Dutchification of Afrikaans in its standardisation phase (cf. van Rensburg 1983). As the arrows indicate, (Cape) Dutch has been continually influenced by the hypothetical Dutch Creole (or Creoles), and vice versa. If we now try to classify the resultant language, Afrikaans, in terms of the classificatory terminology used in Bickerton (this volume), it seems that ‘fort’ creole is the appropriate name. From 1652 through 1658 we find a classical ‘fort’ situation. From 1658 up to say 1800 we find what might be called an extended ‘fort’ situation combined with – at least, so it seems – a ‘plantation’ situation in the western districts of the Cape Colony. However, the ‘plantation’



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

situation was of little importance for the development of Afrikaans. Many slaves used Creole Portuguese or Pasar Malay, and the kind of Dutch they used was the Pidgin developed by the Khoekhoen in the ‘fort’ situation. A ‘fort’ creole will usually differ less radically from the superstrata than a ‘plantation’ creole. This is certainly the case if we compare Afrikaans with Negerhollands, the Dutch Creole of the Virgin Islands, which arose in a typical ‘plantation’ situation. Negerhollands is a normal Caribbean creole with TMA particles and all that; Afrikaans lacks TMA particles and looks to the naive observer like morphologically simplified Dutch. As I have argued above, such a view of Afrikaans is hopelessly inadequate. Yet, it cannot be denied that the structure of Afrikaans has much in common with the structure of Dutch, or – to coin a new term – that Afrikaans is a nonradical ‘fort’ Creole. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the Cape Dutch Pidgins were SOV. However, there have been more factors that have kept Afrikaans ‘close’ to Dutch. First of all, a pretty high percentage of the Cape Colony’s population was of European (more specifically: Dutch-German) descent. Secondly, even though the non-white parts of the population constituted a majority, large parts of that majority were not ‘available’ for the creolization of Dutch: the data collected in Franken (1953) proves that many slaves spoke Creole Portuguese and/or Malay so that (Pidgin/Creole) Dutch could only serve as their second or third language. Therefore, the majority of speakers of Pidgin/Creole Dutch was of Khoekhoe descent. Since the latter had a monolingual background they were in a better position to attain the standards of Cape Dutch than were the slaves. These two sociolinguistic factors, combined with the syntactic characteristics of the Cape Dutch Pidgins, may explain why Afrikaans still looks so much like Dutch.14 The many differences between standard or dialectal Dutch and Afrikaans, however, will partly also be due to the structure of the pidgins and the Dutch Creole that historically preceded Afrikaans. Furthermore, we have to reckon with the effects of protracted bilingualism. It is clear from all the evidence available that the Khoekhoe groups that became Afrikaans-speaking went through long phases of bilingualism (cf. Nienaber 1953, 1963, 1964). Similarly, the Malay-speaking and Creole Portuguesespeaking slaves, many of whom knew at least some Pidgin or Creole Dutch in the 17th and early 18th centuries, must have gone through a stage of bilingualism before they switched to Afrikaans in the 18th or the 19th century (cf. Nienaber 1953). Protracted bilingualism gives ample opportunity for languages to influence one another. One could of course argue that Afrikaans – though being a new language that has sprung from a complicated contact situation – should not be called a creole but rather – in view of the above considerations – a semi-creole or creoloid. I would not object against such a decision, although I consider it nonsensical to occupy oneself with such nitpicking discussions in the absence of a theoretically sound typology of ‘new languages’. It should be clear, though, that the above considerations as well as the 14. This is a partial revision of ideas expressed in den Besten (1987a: Section 3).

 Roots of Afrikaans

linguistic considerations presented in Sections 1 and 2 make it practically impossible for me to simply recognize Afrikaans as a far-off member of the group of West-Germanic languages – whereas I have no hesitation at all to classify Yiddish as a Continental West-Germanic language, in spite of its SVO structure and in spite of its lošn koideš idioms (cf. Travis 1984 and den Besten & Moed-van Walraven 1986). The discussion of the origins of Afrikaans cannot be concluded without some remarks about the various dialects of Afrikaans. Besides Standard Afrikaans three dialects can be distinguished: (West) Cape Afrikaans, East Cape Afrikaans, and Orange River Afrikaans. The Great Trek of the East Cape Afrikaners and their Coloured servants in the 1830s has been responsible for the expansion of East Cape Afrikaans into the interior (Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal). The resulting northern branch of East Cape Afrikaans has provided the dialect base for Standard Afrikaans (cf. van Rensburg 1983). The three nonstandard dialects of Afrikaans should not be regarded as just three regional variants of one language, even though in a sense they all started in the West Cape area. As I have explained above there were two major types of Dutch spoken at the (West) Cape between 1652 and 1713: European Dutch and Hottentot-Dutch, besides a Hottentot Dutch-like pidgin spoken by the slaves. After 1713, however, the West Cape was the exclusive area of whites and slaves. Since the slaves constituted a multilingual lot speaking Asian Creole Portuguese, Pasar Malay, and Pidgin or Creole Dutch, besides many native languages such as Malagasy, Mozambican Bantu languages, southern Indian languages (incl. Singhalese), and Indonesian languages other than Malay (such as Buginese) (cf. Franken 1953 and Nienaber 1953), it cannot really come as a surprise that West Cape Afrikaans demonstrates a high amount of lectal diversification. The eastern districts of the Cape Colony, however, were the practically exclusive area of whites and Khoekhoen, with only a small number of slaves. Retreating bands of Hottentots and white colonists venturing into the interior brought Hottentot Dutch and Early Cape Dutch into this area which was inhabited by Hottentots who spoke their own variety of Khoekhoe (cf. Nienaber 1963). The resulting Afrikaans dialect, East Cape Afrikaans, seems to demonstrate little lectal variation, although things must have been different in the 18th and early 19th centuries, while a continuing stream of white colonists coming from the West Cape as well as the presence of a small number of slaves must have helped to introduce structures based upon interference from Malay or Creole Portuguese into East Cape Afrikaans. The Orange River area, finally, witnessed the creation of a third type of Afrikaans: Orange River Afrikaans (older names: Hottentot Afrikaans, Griqua Afrikaans or Griqua-and-Baster Afrikaans, and even Coloured Afrikaans, a name usually applied to the lower lects of West Cape Afrikaans). Since the Orange River area was practically exclusively inhabited by Khoekhoen, apart from some maroons and some runaway whites, Orange River Afrikaans occupies a special position in the whole spectrum of Afrikaans and is sometimes referred to as ‘Creole Afrikaans’. Yet, its structure is definitely Afrikaans, with SOV and V2/V1 and the like, although data in Rademeyer (1938) makes clear that the syntax of



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

this dialect must have been much more divergent than it was in the 1930s, which must be due to closer contacts with speakers of the other dialects of Afrikaans from the 1830s or 1840s onward. Orange River Afrikaans must be a late descendant of Hottentot Dutch and the related hypothetical creole which I have posited around 1700. In the next section special attention will be paid to the linguistic status of Hottentot Dutch: its genesis and its importance for the early creolizing situation at the Cape. The final section, Section 5, will serve as sort of linguistic appendix showing how many diachronic and synchronic facts about Afrikaans, among which those mentioned in the questions of Section 2 above, can be easily accommodated under the Convergence Model outlined in this section.

4. The structure of Hottentot Dutch and its genesis15 Had the Khoekhoen acquired Dutch the way the average adult L2 learner picks up Dutch or German in unmonitored situations, they would have come up with an SVO structure (based upon a misunderstanding of the V2 phenomenon), and maybe with an S-Vf-O(V) structure (sine V2) in later years. Hottentot Dutch, however, was strictly SOV. The SOV word order was a substratal feature based upon the syntax of (Cape) Khoekhoe. We might therefore say that the Cape Khoekhoen made use of a kind of relexified Hottentot Foreigner talk in their contacts with the whites (and later with the slaves). The Cape Khoekhoen were an independent nation and they so to speak kept the Dutch at a distance by using a type of Dutch that was vaguely reminiscent of their native language. This, however, is mere speculation, and I am willing to consider other hypotheses. Although Hottentot Dutch was SOV, it would be wrong to regard it as relexified Khoekhoe. Khoekhoe makes use of various grammatical particles. If Hottentot Dutch were relexified Khoekhoe, one would expect these particles to be interspersed among the Dutch words. However, that is not the structure of Hottentot Dutch. We cannot find a declarative or a question particle, nor do we find any of the tense/aspect particles of Khoekhoe. Therefore we have to assume that Hottentot Dutch has arisen through relexification and simplification of Cape Khoekhoe. Yet, this is not enough to explain the SOV-ness of Hottentot Dutch, because the assumption that Hottentot Dutch is the joint result of relexification and simplification of Khoekhoe creates a new problem in view of what we know about the syntax of Khoekhoe. A superficial description of the sentence in Hottentot may look as follows:16 15. This section draws upon den Besten (1986) and (1987b). 16. This is a slight formal revision of the rules given in den Besten (1986: 42). ISC is “INFLal Small Clause”. A ‘X indicates a loose compound.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(22)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

CP C’ ISC IP I’ ‘I VP

→ → → → → → →

Spec C C NP (NP) (NP) I V(cl)

C’ ISC IP I’ ‘I VP (NEG)

These rewriting rules embody the claim that the Objects are part of the I(NFL) projection and that the VP is a particle of I(NFL) instead of being its complement. For data and discussion, see den Besten (1986). It may well be, though, that the above view of Khoekhoe syntax is too simplistic in that the Objects may start under the VP and – by an obligatory application of scrambling – end up under I’ and IP. Furthermore the postverbal particles have not been accommodated yet (except for NEG). Be that as it may, simplification of relexified structures that obey the rules in (22) may be a dangerous thing to do: taking away the tense/aspect particles that fill the I position will lead to the destruction of the projection of I as well as to the destruction of the INFLal Small Clause dominating IP, and so to the destruction of the whole sentence – unless there are counterbalancing forces. If we assume that pidgin languages lack an IP and construct their sentences by base-adjoining NPs to predicates, the problem reduces to the question of how the Cape Khoekhoen could build ‘normal’ VPs in Hottentot Dutch. The answer is simple: the Cape Hottentots could take recourse to Universal Grammar and so construct a new verbal projection. Given the O-I-V order in (22) it was only natural to give this new VP an OV structure. Therefore, this ‘substratal’ feature of Hottentot Dutch is nothing but a residue of the original Khoekhoe syntax, what is more: an indirect reflection of it. However, there are other features of Hottentot Dutch that cannot be explained upon the basis of relexification and simplification plus Universal Grammar. Besides being SOV, Hottentot Dutch was prepositional and had prenominal adjectives and a prenominal article die “the”. Furthermore there were tense adverbs and nominal predicates. The latter two properties can be put aside as being typical pidgin phenomena. As for the prenominal adjectives and the prenominal article die, it should be noted that Khoekhoe can order its attributive adjectives and demonstratives both in pronominal and in postnominal (appositive) position (cf. Hagman 1973). It is clear that Hottentot Dutch avoided the freedom of word order of the Khoekhoe NP in view of the fixed DET-AP-N order of the superstrate, Dutch. So, besides relexification and simplification there was also syntactic adaptation. This conclusion is confirmed by the occurrence of prepositions in Hottentot Dutch. Khoekhoe is postpositional. So the acquisition of Dutch adpositions must have involved the acquisition of their syntactic properties. In conclusion, the following factors must have shaped Hottentot Dutch: (a) relexification and simplification plus Universal Grammar, (b) syntactic adaptation through lexical learning.



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

Now there is independent evidence that relexification must have played a role in the genesis of Hottentot Dutch. First of all, we know of (partially) relexified Khoekhoe from the year 1655 and from the 19th and 20th centuries (cf. den Besten 1986 and 1987b). In one case a Hottentot leader Herry (i.e. Harry), who is supposed to speak some sort of Dutch or English, is reported to say: Goo Goo reght (1655; Godée Molsbergen 1916: I,18). Now Du. reght (recht) means “straight”, which does not make sense in the pertinent text. However, if we read reght as [r7x], in accordance with the phonology of South Hollandic dialects and Afrikaans (Du. recht vs. Afr. reg), we may interpret reght as a misunderstanding of the Khoekhoe Imperative/Hortative particle re. Thus, Herry must have said: Go, go-re. Another case of the occasional use of a Khoekhoe particle in the pidgin can be found in the pidgin sentence Was makom? “What are you doing” (1673; ten Rhyne 1686). This is in fact Wat-ts makom? with the Khoekhoe enclitic pronoun -ts. “you (masc. sing.)”. Similar cases with Wat instead of Was can be found in Kolb (1727). The phonological variation is due to Cape Khoekhoe t-ts-s interchange. Furthermore, as I have hypothesized in den Besten (1987b), it may well be the case that the Hottentot Dutch verbal endings -um/om and -me (the latter one after stems ending in a vowel) may derive from the use of the masculine singular suffix as a nominalizer in Cape Khoekhoe. There are several such suffixes, the use of which is partly determined by the phonological context: -ma, -na, -m, -b, furthermore the archaic forms -bi and -mi, and a younger form -i. They all derive from Proto-Khoekhoe *-mi. The -um/-om suffix then may consist of a thematic vowel plus -m and -me may very well be -mi given data in de Racourt’s wordlist. If this hypothesis can be upheld we have an interesting case of relexification plus simplification in that H.Du. verbs like makom “do, make”, which represent a Kh. morphological pattern while making use of Dutch verbal stems, may have been a means to simplify the structure of the Hottentot sentence. So far for den Besten (1987b). It now seems to me that this hypothesis can be refined. Note that a Kh. nominal singular suffix need not always nominalize a single verb. It may also nominalize a fullfledged sentence (with Subject NP and INFL and all that) or a ‘VP’. The second option (nominalized sentences) does not have to be considered here since (a) it would be nonsensical to nominalize main clauses, and (b) there are no traces of Kh. tense/aspect particles in H.Du. anyway. The third option however (nominalized ‘VPs’) gives us an extra clue as to how the Cape Khoekhoen could simplify the structure of the Khoekhoe sentence. As is clear from Rust (1965: 64–65) and Hagman (1973: 233–235) Nama Hottentot can construct nominalized VP-like constituents – with an OV order for sure. These constituents do not contain INFL. The nominalizing suffix appears on the verb, as usual.17 Therefore, in simplifying their clauses the Cape Khoekhoen could 17. For this reason as well as on theory internal grounds I am now inclined to believe that the VP in 22) may contain the Objects (in underlying OV order), but that these Objects must be scrambled out of the VP and adjoined to a projection of I for Independent reasons.

 Roots of Afrikaans

partly draw upon the grammar of their own language so that Hottentot Dutch sentences may be seen as consisting of an NP and a nominalized VP. Once this decision had been made, the nominalizing suffix -um/-om/-me could assume a new function as a verbal marker. Note that this pidginizing scenario does not reduce the role of Universal Grammar at all. It only tells us more about how – by making use of the resources of their own language and their innate capacities – the Cape Khoekhoen could create a new language. Given the above considerations it should not really come as a surprise if we find other constructions in Hottentot Dutch which are reminiscent of Khoekhoe and may have arisen through relexification plus simplification. Thus the agentive nouns teckeman- “steal-man, thief ” and bijteman “bite-man, biter” (referring to a lion), besides being pidgin formations of an almost universal character, can also be related to agentives in Khoekhoe, since Nama Inari-ao-b can also be translated as “steal-man”, because the free morpheme ao- means “man” (ao-b “(the) man” vs. tara-s “(the) woman”). However, note that -ao- in agentives is a bound morpheme and can take all pgnsuffixes (e.g. Inari-ao-s “female thief ”) (cf. den Besten 1987b). As I mentioned in Section 3, the Cape Khoekhoen must have taught the slaves of the Cape Colony Pidgin Dutch, since the V2 phenomenon of Dutch should have given rise to an SVO pidgin among the slaves. Furthermore, data in Franken (1953) demonstrates that Cape Creole Portuguese and Cape Malay were SVO. Slaves from India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) however may have been instrumental in reinforcing the SOV structure of Hottentot Dutch because they were SOV speakers themselves. Yet, there was still another group at the Cape that could contribute to Hottentot Dutch and to its eventual creolization as Proto-Afrikaans I: the whites. To the Dutch and their German co-colonists Hottentot Dutch must have sounded like Dutch foreigner talk, which makes use of infinitival (SOV) sentences with lexical Subjects (e.g. Jij nu de hamer pakken “you now the hammer take”). Dutch foreigner talk can in fact be defined as Dutch without finite verbs, and so without V2/V1. The white colonists could therefore stick to their own language, maybe once in a while speaking Dutch foreigner talk or Hottentot Dutch, because there was no need to create a new type of Dutch with an SVO structure. On the other hand, by speaking Dutch foreigner talk or normal Dutch the colonists could influence the two Dutch pidgins. Prepositions and sentence-internal negation were taken over from Dutch (cf. den Besten 1986), and in the long run also V2/V1 (or a rule mimicking the effects of the Dutch V-to-COMP rule). At the same time, however, (Cape) Dutch was considerably influenced by the two pidgins, with almost complete deflection in the verbal paradigm as the most notable result. This gradual convergence of two (or three) languages that at the outset started out as clearly separate systems: dialectal Dutch and Dutch pidgin, may be expected to have left more traces in present-day Standard Afrikaans and its dialects, though, than merely deflection in the verbal paradigm. On the one hand we may expect to find pidgin retentions, or indirect descendants of structural phenomena of the Cape Dutch Pid-



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

gins. On the other hand, the Khoekhoe basis of both pidgins as well as prolonged bilingualisms in Pidgin/Creole Dutch and Khoekhoe, Creole Portuguese or Pasar Malay may also have left structures based upon interference in present-day Afrikaans. This will be the topic for the next section.

5. The Convergence model for Afrikaans again: Some linguistic facts In Sections 3 and 4 I have defended what might be called a Convergence Model for the genesis of Afrikaans: two types of Dutch, European and Pidgin Dutch, gradually coalesced to yield Afrikaans and its dialects. According to this model the underlying SOV order of Afrikaans is due to Dutch as well as to the Cape Dutch Pidgins, in spite of the presence of SVO languages such as Pasar Malay and Creole Portuguese. On the other hand, the occurrence of V2/V1 in Afrikaans must be credited to European Dutch. At least, so it seems. Elsewhere I have suggested that a rule in Khoekhoe optionally fronting the tense/aspect particle to what I then believed to be the second position may have played a role here as well (den Besten 1978). According to this view, once the Khoekhoen had acquired the Dutch V-to-INFL rule creating finite verbs out of V and INFL, they may have been able to automatically apply their own Tense/Aspect Movement rule to finite verbs. This hypothesis must be revised in that the Khoekhoe rule puts INFL in third position, i.e. in a position immediately adjacent to COMP, which may be zero (cf. Hagman 1973). Yet this optional movement rule may be at the basis of optional V2 in the Dutch pidgins or creoles mentioned in Section 3. In any event it may have taken a long time before V2/V1 became the rule in Proto-Afrikaans I. The Convergence Model may also provide an answer to the question of why it took so long for Dutch ablaut to disappear in Afrikaans and why it had to disappear at all (question (b) of Section 2). According to Raidt (1983) the definitive eclipse of ablaut can be dated around 1850. It was the last part of (predicative) verbal flection that had to give way to simpler forms. The disappearance of ablaut can hardly be blamed upon dialectal tendencies in Dutch. Ablaut leads a tenacious life in Dutch and its dialects. Since Dutch and the Low and High German dialects of the immigrants from Germany are very similar in this respect, it would be strange to only hold the minority of the French Huguenots responsible for the regularization of the verbal stems in Afrikaans. Therefore, Pidgin or Creole Dutch must have played an important role here. On the other hand the slow pace of the death of ablaut in white speech must be due to the above-mentioned tenacity of apophony in native Dutch (whether it be European or Cape Dutch), which is partly based upon the special nature of ablaut (which provides a speaker with variant roots for one verb) and partly upon the fact that strong verbs belong to the core of the Dutch lexicon.

 Roots of Afrikaans

If we now go through the list of questions of Section 2 it will become clear that the phenomena mentioned in those questions can be classified as either direct or indirect cases of pidgin retentions: a. The system of Afrikaans verbal stems is a chaos from a Dutch point of view. Given the deflectional changes mentioned in Raidt (1983) one would expect to find verbs (verbal stems) in Afrikaans that continue the verbal stems of Dutch. In many cases that is correct, e.g. Afr. loop “walk”, leer “learn, teach” (Du. lopen, leren). However, we also find Afr. verbs that continue Dutch infinitives, e.g. sterwe “die” (also sterf; Du. sterven) suie “suck” (also suig; Du. suigen) or klae “complain” (also kla: Du. klagen). Other verbs in Afrikaans derive from syncopated Dutch infinitives, e.g. kla “complain”, krye “get” (from klae, krye which derive from Du. klagen, krijgen). Finally, some verbs continue Dutch third person singular forms, such as behoort “ought, be proper” (also behoor Du. behoren), reent “rain” (also reën; Du. regenen), begint “begin” (also begin, beginne: Du. beginnen). As can be seen, some of these verbs have two or even three stem variants. It seems reasonable to relate all this to the original Cape Pidgins and/or to the competition between forms from Pidgin or Creole Dutch and Cape Dutch. b. As for ablaut, see above. c. The substitution of present tense for past tense in the context of temporal adverbs and subordinators such as toe “then, when” is one of those changes that make Afrikaans differ markedly from Dutch. In Dutch the adverb toen “then” requires past, perfect, or past perfect, whereas the subordinator toen “when” requires past tense or past perfect in the subordinate clause. In Afrikaans both toes can be combined with present tense (more or less in those cases where Dutch would use past tense) and the perfect (more correctly called the preterit; the sole successor of Dutch past, perfect, and past perfect) is not required. Now this is hardly surprising if we consider that in the Cape Dutch Pidgins temporal reference was marked by adverbial expressions, if at all (cf. den Besten 1987b). This pidgin/creole usage must have been the decisive factor that helped to oust the use of the Dutch preterite in favor of the (optional) nonstandard Dutch use of an historic present in similar contexts, thereby creating a new system of tenses. It seems to me that the absence of a (new) past perfect (or a past ‘preterit’, to keep in style) must also be due to the Dutch Pidgins. The past perfect performs certain functions in Dutch, in fact in all of West Germanic, that make it practically impossible to collapse this form with the perfect/preterit, even if there is no preterit morphology any longer to distinguish a perfect from a past perfect. This must have been the reason why southern Germanic dialects and Yiddish developed a ‘double perfect’ as a substitute for the original past perfect after they had given up past tense in favor of the perfect. In Afrikaans nothing of the kind has happened. Suggestions to the effect that this may have something to do with a clash between a European Dutch and a Pidgin/Creole Dutch tense system can hardly be called adventurous.



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

d. Afrikaans has developed quite a number of diminutiva tantum, such as bessie “berry”, mandjie “basket” or boontjie “bean”, where Dutch, which also knows diminutiva tantum, can use both forms: the diminutive and the base form (bes/besje, mand/mandje. boon/boontje). Descriptions of Afrikaans diminutive formation in Kempen (1969) and Odendal (1963) show that diminutiva tantum and near-diminutiva tantum are the most likely candidates for double diminutivization: bessietjie, mandjietjie, boontjietjie: puisietjie “small pimple”, boompietjie “small tree”. In Dutch double diminutives are ungrammatical. This innovation can be best explained if we assume that the original Dutch Pidgin/Creole did not have a rule of diminutivization. Dutch words, however, could be learned either in their base form, or in their diminutive form. This has also been the case in Negerhollands and in Papiamento, where many Dutch words have been acquired in their diminutive form. Once the Dutch Creole took over the diminutivization rule, all Dutch ‘diminutives’ in the creole could be diminutivized, while unanalyzed forms like bessie (in the creole) could now be reanalyzed as diminutives. Thus double diminutivization was born, so that nowadays even simplex words such as stoel “chair” may undergo that rule: stoeltjie “small chair”, stoeltjietjie “excessively small chair”, etc. (e1) The anomalous use of the diminutive adjective netjies “1. neat, tidy, dean; 2. neatly, nicely” in attributive position (netjiese) must date back to the period of the Dutch Pidgin or the subsequent creole when this everyday word could be acquired without there already being an awareness of the rule that restricts such adjectives to adverbial and predicative usage. The latter rule was introduced into Afrikaans via Cape Dutch, of course. (e2) The anomalous verb pasop “mind, take care, be careful”, which must derive from the imperative of the Dutch separable compound verb oppassen: pas op “be careful, look out”, and which is used side by side with the separable compounds such as oppas “id.” etc., must be due to the original pidginizing situation at the Cape, where such everyday imperatives as pas op could easily be misunderstood as unanalyzed wholes. Similarly for houvas “hold fast, keep hold of ” (past participle gehouvas), which exists side by side with the original separable compound vashou (past participle vasgehou). (e3) The nonstandard verb stammaak “put, put down” (lit. “stand-make”) looks like a lexicalized verbal cluster. Such fused verbal cluster are not unusual in Afrikaans (cf. Section 1 and below). However the internal order of this cluster is not in accordance with the rules for Afrikaans, which require a VO order: *maak-staan. In the original pidgin or Creole, however, things may have been different The pidgin was SOV and so we expect an OV cluster staan-maak in the unmarked case. This prediction is borne out by (other) data from Orange

 Roots of Afrikaans

River Afrikaans in Rademeyer (1938): verbal clusters undergoing V2/V1 may have an internal OV order. (e4) Du. klaar “ready” means “ready” and “already” in Afrikaans, while Du. al “already” is also available in Afrikaans. Furthermore, klaar can also be used as a completive marker in Afrikaans, sometimes in combination with al: alklaar.18 This development should not surprise us, if we consider that also in other languages words meaning “already” or “finished” can be used as completive markers. This has been the case with at least two other languages once spoken at the Cape. In Cape Creole Portuguese ja “already” could indicate completion of an action.19 Similarly for Malay sudah “finished”. In the Cape Dutch Pidgins gedaan and al gedaan performed that function. Du. gedaan means “done, finished, ready”. In Orange River Afrikaans gedaan was used side by side with alklaar at least as late as the 1930s (cf. Rademeyer 1938: 76,95,130). For a case of (al)gedaan in-Pidgin Dutch see (21). The use of the completive marker algedaan in Pidgin Dutch must underlie the use of the completive marker (al) klaar in (probably all lects of) Afrikaans and the use of gedaan in Orange River Afrikaans. Given the basic ambiguity of such markers (compare ja in Portuguese Creole) the development of a new adverbial reading “already” for klaar “ready” can hardly be called surprising. So much for pidgin retentions in Afrikaans (whether they be direct or indirect ones). The Convergence Model for the genesis of Afrikaans as sketched in Sections 3 and 4 does not only predict that we may find pidgin retentions in present-day Afrikaans but also that we may encounter cases of interference from Khoekhoe, Creole Portuguese and Pasar Malay, given the Khoekhoe basis for both Cape Dutch Pidgins and given protracted bilingualism in Pidgin or Creole Dutch and Khoekhoe, Creole Portuguese or Pasar Malay. This is indeed the case. Below follows a nonexhaustive list of cases of interference most of which can be found in the literature while some are introduced here as new suggestions. Linguistic discussion will be kept short.20 a. Objective ‘vir’. In Asian Creole Portuguese per is a case marker for human or animate Direct Object NPs and a Preposition for indirect Object PPs. This per must be at the basis of Afr. vir (from Du. voor for”), which is an optional, and sometimes obligatory, case marker for human or animate Object NPs. Vir is also an optional substitute for Du. aan “to” in indirect Object PPs. Due to the existence of Indirect Object NPs vir in Afrikaans has a wider range of applications than per in Creole Portuguese: 18. Cf. WAT 1 and 6, and Gilbert and Makhudu (1984). 19. Cf. Franken (1953: 58). 20. For the cases (a), (b) and (f) see den Besten (1978) and the literature mentioned there. For (c) see Raidt (1983). For the cases (e) and (g) see den Besten (1985) and (1986) and the literature mentioned there. The cases (d) and (h) are new; (f) and (g) are partly new.



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

(23) a. Ons het nie vir Piet gesien nie We have not om Pete seen not b. Hulle het (vir) Jan ’n boek gegee They have (OM/to) John a book given c. Hulle het dit aan/vir Kowie gegee They have it to Jimmy given b. ‘Se’ possessives. Afrikaans builds possessive constructions by means of a marker se which is absent in Dutch: (24) Jan se boek – Marie se huis – die kinders se ouers John ’s book – Mary ’s house – those children ’s parents Given various considerations se must derive from the weak possessive pronoun z’n ‘his’ in Dutch, as it is used in the Dutch pronominal possessive construction. Compare: (25) Jan z’n boek – Marie d’r huis – die kinderen hun/d’r ouers John his book – Mary her house – those children their parents Note that in the Afrikaans construction (24) se, which is “his” so to speak, has been substituted for d’r (haar) “her” and hun/d’r “their”. There are more, and very important, differences between the Dutch and the Afrikaans construction, but these indications have to suffice. Most probably, the Afrikaans se possessive construction is based upon a misinterpretation of the Dutch pronominal possessive construction by speakers of Khoekhoe, Pasar Malay and Creole Portuguese, who were used to [NP poss. N] constructions with an invariant possessive marker. The vague analogy between Du. z’n/s’n/se and Kh. dj/ti/si and Cr. P. sua/suo/su may have played a role here as well. c. Morphological reduplication. The frequent use of reduplicated words is an eyecatching feature of Afrikaans, e.g. kort-kort “(lit.) short-short, often”, stuk-stuk “(lit) piece-piece, piece by piece”, een-een “(lit) one-one, one by one”. This phenomenon is attributed to interference from Malay, although Asian Creole Portuguese (maybe only in so far as the variant spoken by slaves from the Indonesian archipelago is concerned) may have played a role here as well. d. Circumpositional PPs. Especially in the lower lects of Afrikaans circumpositional locational constructions can be found. In so far as these ‘PPs’ are directional adverbials, this is not something to be surprised at. A sentence like (26) may sound strange in present-day Dutch, but it certainly has a basis in West-Germanic: (26) Hy gaan in die huis in He goes into the house into Example (26) can be compared with German Er geht in das Haus hinein and with Dutch directional expressions such as onder de brug door “(lit) under the bridge

 Roots of Afrikaans

through”. Simple syntactic tests show that hinein and door in German and Dutch and in-2 in Afrikaans are particles (parts of separable compound verbs) rather than true postpositions. Thus, (26) continues a West Germanic construction. This is not true, though, for the following somewhat substandard locative expression: (27) Ons woon in hierdie straat in We live in this street in I would like to suggest that the postpositional mothertongues of the Khoekhoen and the slaves from India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) may have played a role here. These people were certainly able to learn the prepositional structure of Dutch as is clear from our pidgin data (cf. den Besten 1987a). However, in learning the ‘circumpositional’ structure of Dutch directionals as in (26) and drawing upon the resources of their own languages, they could easily extend this circumpositional usage to locative constructions as in (27). It should be clear, though, that such circumpositional locatives are neither Dutch nor Khoekhoe or Indic. e. Double negation. A well-known feature of Afrikaans is its double negation as in (28): (28) a. Sy wil nie eet nie She wants not eat not b. Ons het niemand beschuldig nie We have nobody accused not This does not seem to stem from Dutch, since double negation as we know it from Dutch dialects and Cape Dutch is sentence-internal (no sentence-internal reduplication in the case of sentence negation; ... niemand niet ... in the case of (28b)), although some non-Hollandic dialects can triple negation by adding niet in sentence-final position. Nie-2 in Afrikaans may be due to sentence-final negation and double negation in Khoekhoe and in some of the Indic languages spoken as a mothertongue by slaves from Asia, such as Tamil and Sinhala. In these languages sentence negation is formed by putting a negator at the end of the clause, whereas universal negation requires that the negated phrase is complemented by the sentence negator at the end of the clause. In Khoekhoe, Tamil and Sinhala the focus of negation seems to reside in the sentence-final negator, whereas in Afrikaans the focus of negation is in the ‘middle field’, as it is in Dutch and its dialects. The structure resulting from interference is therefore neither dialectal Dutch nor Khoekhoe, Tamil or Sinhala. f. Reanalysis of V + V clusters. As was mentioned in Section I, Dutch verbal clusters, which get separated under V2/V1, may be reanalyzed as compound verbs in Afrikaans. Compare the following examples: (29) a. –, dat hy die piesang laat val –, that he the banana lets fall



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

b. Hy laat die piesang val He lets the banana fall c. Daarom laat val hy die piesang (=(14)) Therefore let fall he the banana It may well be that this reanalysis is due to Khoekhoe input into Pidgin Dutch or its successor Proto-Afrikaans I. Khoekhoe makes use of an impressive array of compound verbs (among which for instance//ama-xu “(fit) buy-let, sell”). Furthermore, certain so-called auxiliaries such as causative gei and gao “want” seem to form a syntactic unit (in OV order) with main verbs in that both verbs topicalize together under V-Topicalization (cf. Rust 1965 and Hagman 1973). Data from Orange River Afrikaans shows that this supposition may very well be correct (cf. the remarks on stammaak above). g. Negative imperatives. Afrikaans negative imperatives are introduced by moenie “don’t”, a near-compound of moet “must” and nie “not”. Compare the following example: (30) Moenie (jy) vir my slaan nie Must-not (you) om me beat me “Don’t beat me” Imperatives like Moenie vir my slaan nie may look like Dutch indirect imperatives of the type exemplified in 31) (also available in Afrikaans): (31) Je moet me niet slaan You must me not beat “You should not beat me” However, there are clear differences between both constructions. The indirect imperative (31) is a V2 sentence. Applying V1 to (31) would result in ungrammatically. The Afrikaans moenie imperative, however, is a V1 construction, as can be deduced from the position of the optional subject in (30). Therefore, (30) follows the general V1 pattern for (direct) imperatives in Dutch and Afrikaans, which is in accordance with the fact that (30) is a direct rather than an indirect imperative. A comparison of Afrikaans with Creole Portuguese, though, reveals that the addition of a modal to negative imperatives is something which these two languages have in common. Consider the following Creole Portuguese sentence, which has been found in the South African archives (Franken 1953: 73,74): (32) ne miste dali pro mi (1765) na misti dali pro mi not must beat OM me The result of grafting this Creole Portuguese usage upon the syntax of Dutch (maybe through a misunderstanding of the Dutch indirect Je moet niet-imperative) is something

 Roots of Afrikaans

new that is neither Dutch nor Creole Portuguese, although one might say that disregarding word order differences the construction is Creole Portuguese rather than Dutch. h. Nominal pronouns and reflexives. ‘Nominal pronouns and reflexives’ may sound like a contradictio in terminis, certainly if one knows that by ‘nominal reflexives’ I do not mean body-reflexives. Ponelis (1979) uses the term ‘vocatives’, which is not completely correct because a vocative cannot be part of a predication. ‘Vocative pronouns and reflexives’ might be a better term – or simply ‘specialized pronouns and reflexives’. Consider the following example: (33) Oom moet Oom gedra Uncle must Uncle behave “You should behave yourself, Uncle” The use of Oom “Uncle” and other words as second person pronouns is reminiscent of the oldfashioned and nearly obsolete indirect way of address in Dutch, as in (34): (34) Wil Dominee nog een kopje thee? Wants Vicar yet a cup of tea? Do you want another cup of tea, Vicar?” Yet, NPs like Dominee in the Dutch indirect way of address count as 3rd person NPs, since the reflexive and the possessive pronouns that are anaphorically related to such NPs will be zich “himself/herself ” and zijn/haar “his/her”. Thus, the Dutch variant of (33) will be Oom moet zich gedragen. Since the inherent reflexive in (33) is not hom “him, himself ” but Oom, we have to conclude that the first occurrence of Oom in (33) is a second person pronoun “you, Uncle” and that the second occurrence of Oom is a second person reflexive pronoun – which is in accordance with the fact that reflexive pronouns in Afrikaans are equal to the corresponding personal pronouns (which are expanded with self “self ” in case the reflexive is an argument). The nominal pronouns and reflexives of Afrikaans have a clear counterpart in the specialized pronouns of Malay. In Malay a noun like ibu “mother” can also mean “I (your mother), you (my mother)” and can also be used as a honorific pronoun in situations where the woman referred to is not the mother of the other interlocutor. The corresponding reflexive is diri-lbu “(lit.) self (of) you/me”. Since the use of nominal pronouns and reflexives in



Chapter 13.  From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans 

Afrikaans is restricted to the 2nd person, it can best be seen as a Malay reinterpretation of the Dutch indirect way of address.21

6. Concluding remarks The preceding section may have shown how widely the grammars of Afrikaans and Dutch (or Afrikaans and Continental West Germanic for that matter) can differ. That Afrikaans still looks so much like Dutch, is partly due to its lexicon and partly to its basic SOV + V2/V1 sentence structure. As I have argued in this paper, the underlying SOV order of Afrikaans is the result of the fact that not only the Cape Dutch dialect of the Dutch and German immigrants but also the Dutch Pidgin of the Hottentots and the slaves was SOV (whereas Cape Malay and Cape Creole Portuguese were SVO). The SOV word order of the Dutch Pidgin(s) is certainly due to the Cape Khoekhoen who originally must have spoken a kind of relexified Khoekhoe foreigner talk, out of which grew Hottentot Dutch, which together with the pidgin of the slaves must have yielded a Dutch Creole. Out of this Dutch Creole and Cape Dutch must have grown presentday Afrikaans with its dialects. The retention of V2/V1 is certainly partly due to Cape Dutch, but an INFL-Movement rule in Khoekhoe may have played a role as well. This growing together of Cape Dutch and Dutch Creole as well as prolonged bilingualism in Creole Dutch and Khoekhoe, Pasar Malay or Creole Portuguese has created a new language, which we may doubt whether we may call West-Germanic.

21. I thank Sie Ing Djlang (University of Amsterdam) for his help with the Malay (Indonesian) data. Christo van Rensburg has pointed out to me that Bruce Donaldson has said similar things on the reverential nominal pronouns of Afrikaans (p.c.). However, Donaldson’s paper on the 2nd person pronouns in Germanic languages, with special references to Dutch and Afrikaans (Donaldson 1986) only compares this indirect form of address in Afrikaans with the indirect way of address in Frisian (which I am sure is the same as the indirect form of address in Dutch) – without even pointing out the differences. Donaldson may have made a remark about Malay in the course of the oral presentation of his paper, though. Or there is another paper which I do not have access to.

chapter 14

Creole Portuguese in South Africa Malayo- or Indo-Portuguese?

Introduction In the Dutch Cape Colony at least three languages other than Dutch played a role in the emergence of the different varieties of Afrikaans:1 the Khoekhoe2 (Hottentot) of the indigenous Khoekhoe or Hottentot people, and the two languages that, apart from their varieties of Dutch, were used by the slaves: Creole Portuguese and (Pasar) Malay. In fact we know that for certain slaves at least one other non-European language, Buginese, played a role in spoken and written form, but for the present article, which is concerned with the South African Creole Portuguese, the three traditional languages Khoekhoe, Creole Portuguese and (Pasar) Malay will suffice for the discussion.3 If we limit ourselves to the languages of the slaves, we are forced to observe that we know very little about the South African Creole Portuguese, the topic of this article. While quite a lot is known about the use of Creole Portuguese in the Cape Colony,4 the amount of linguistic data available can only be labelled as sketchy. We only have 20 utterances and a few words and expressions, with the average length of these utterances (if appellatives and repetitions are subtracted) being only 3.05 words, and this is if I include a questionable example, which could also be Malay. Texts are thus not

1. This paper was first published as Kreolportugiesisch in Südafrika: Malaio- oder Indoportugiesisch? in Afrolusitanistik – eine vergessene Disziplin in Deutschland? Dokumentation des 2. Bremer Afro-Romania Kolloquiums vom 27.–29. Juni 1996, Ruth Degenhardt, Thomas Stolz & Hella Ulferts (eds), 317–351. Bremen: Universität Bremen, 1997. It was translated into English by Viveka Velupillai, and reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. The grapheme 〈oe〉 in Khoekhoe represents a diphthong [OE]. 3. For more on the use of Buginese in the 18th century, see Franken (1953: Ch. 4) and the section The archival data in Franken below. For more on the representation of the language in Buginese and Arab orthographies (well into the 19th century), see Franken (1953: 67–69) and Davids (1990: 9, 18). 4. See, among others, Hesseling (1899, 1923), Bosman (1916, 1928), Franken (1953), Valkhoff (1966, 1972) and Raidt (1983, 1991).

 Roots of Afrikaans

available to us – apart from the dubious case of a derisive piece with Dutch and Creole Portuguese sentences.5 The situation is entirely different with respect to the linguistic data of Cape Malay. While we only have 5 isolated phrases from the 17th and 18th centuries with an average length of 1,8 words, a figure that, due to the Malay data from the 20th century made available in Franken (1953), can be increased to an average of 3.0 words,6 we also have texts. The most important is probably the translation of a Buginese letter from 1760 into flawed Malay (Franken 1953: 67, 69). Added to that we have the memorandum in Arabic orthography of Jan van Boegis, with a transcript that varies in details, from 1836 (Davids 1990: 9). Even if this memorandum adheres more to the norms of the written language, the phonology shows the kind of variation that can also be found in the Malay translation of the Buginese letter as well as in the Malay data from the 20th century. From Davids (1990: 17) I conclude that there might be even more such texts to be found in Cape Town.7 But apart from these shorter texts there are also a few religiously oriented Malay manuscripts. First and foremost we have the more than 600 page long manuscript Marifatul Islami wal Imani (1781) of the Tuan Guru (‘Master Teacher’) or Abdullah ibn Kadi Abdus Salaam (Davids 1990: 6–7). But there are also two manuscripts from 1797 and 1798 with Tuan Guru’s Malay interlinear translations of two Arabic pieces (Davids 1987: 44, 1990: 15) and manuscripts with Arabic texts with Malay translations by Imam Jan Berdien or Jabarudien from the 19th century (Davids 1990: 18). And lastly Davids (1987: 44) mentions two more koplesboeke (i.e. notebooks for Islamic religious teaching) from the early 19th century which contain Arabic and Malay interlinear translations. The Malay in these religious works has never been analyzed. It may be oriented towards written Malay, but variation cannot be excluded, especially since Tuan guru was from Northeast Indonesia, while Jan Berdien was born at the Cape.8 5. The Creole Portuguese sentences in this satire are available in two copied versions (Franken 1953: 81–82). 6. With the exception of one utterance from the 17th century in Hesseling (1923: 46), all sentences from the 18th century can be found in Franken (1953: Ch. 4). When calculating the average length I have left out two possible Creole Portuguese utterances as well as all repetitions of earlier utterances. With respect to the sentences from the 20th century (Franken 1953: Ch. 9) only one case of code-mixing had to be excluded. 7. The transcript of Joan van Boegis‘ memorandum was probably done by a Dutch or Afrikaans speaker to whom the text was dictated by someone knowledgeable in Malay. This version constitutes independent proof of the Cape Malay phonology of the early 19th century. Based on the transcript of my colleague Sie Ing Djiang, now sadly passed away, I noticed that the person who knew Malay in fact altered the text somewhat. Incidentally, the English translation (from the 19th century?) given in Davids (1990: 9) differs from this transcript. 8. It should be kept in mind that Cape Malay in any case shows East Malay characteristics, such as a instead of schwa or -ang instead of -an or -am. Incidentally Jan van Boegis’ memorandum has repressed the latter feature, even if the dictated transcript (cf. n.6) did not fully manage to obscure it.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

Whatever the case may be, even if we disregard all religious documents, Cape Malay seems to be better represented with data than Creole Portuguese. Undeniably, both the written tradition of Islam and chance has played a role in what data we have access to, but that does not change the facts. And until more Creole Portuguese data appears, we have to work with the material known to us today. In the South African literature on Afrikaans (cf. also the relevant pages in Holm (1989)) Malay and Creole Portuguese are consistently mentioned together. Sometimes, especially in the older literature, this South African Creole Portuguese is referred to as ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ and it happens that this language (also referred to as ‘Creole Portuguese’) is presented as the only language of the slaves in the Cape Colony. The latter hypothesis as well as the name ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ are due to Hesseling (1899, 1923). Despite the fact that his hypothesis was dismissed early on by the South African scholars Bosman (1916, 1928) and Boshoff (1921) in favour of the theory that there were two languages spoken by the slaves at the same time, the name ‘MalayoPortuguese’ has remained. Unfortunately Hesseling’s use of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ has a different meaning from what it usually signifies, which makes ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ ambiguous when it is used in connection with Afrikaans. For the average linguist ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ signifies roughly what Schuchardt (1890) meant when he used this term: a Portuguese creole spoken in the area of and partially influenced by ‘Malay’ languages. Let us term this the standard interpretation of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. For Hesseling (1899, 1923), however, ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ denoted a language that emerged though a heavy mixing of Malay and Creole Portuguese. Let us term this the Interpretatio Hesselingiana of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. Part of this interpretation lies in the assumption that there actually no longer existed any independent Malay along with this mixed language, this ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. Thus, when the literature discusses ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ (or ‘Creole Portuguese’) in the Cape Coast, especially when Hesseling is referred to in the context, the reader has to ask him or herself which ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ is meant: the Malayo-Portuguese according to the standard interpretation or the Malayo-Portuguese according to the Interpretatio Hesselingiana. This problem was partly caused by Hesseling’s critic Bosman. Because despite his rejection of the existence of a Malayo-Portuguese in Hesseling’s sense in favour of two languages, Malay and Creole Portuguese (Bosman 1916, 1928), he and other early South African scholars often termed this Creole Portuguese ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. The question is if this was wise. For with what right do we call Creole Portuguese, which was also spoken by slaves from India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka), MalayoPortuguese? It is maybe also due to the above mentioned circumstance that we in the more recent literature encounter less precise terms such as ‘Creole Portuguese’ more often.9 9. As in e.g. Valkhoff (1966, 1972), Raidt (1983, 1991) and Ponelis (1993), with Franken (1953) as a transition. Only Valkhoff rejects the term ‘Malayo-Portuguese’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Since the term ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ is ambiguous when it comes to South Africa, I will discuss and critically assess Hesseling’s definition from a historical perspective. It will be shown that there is neither justification nor proof for a ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ in Hesseling’s sense. Moreover, the linguistic data will show that the South African Creole Portuguese was Indo- rather than Malayo-Portuguese. To that end I will start in Section 1 with a short overview of my own view of how Afrikaans emerged, which differs from that of Hesseling’s in many aspects. Hesseling’s hypothesis regarding the emergence of Afrikaans and above all his ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ will be discussed in Section 2. It will be shown that the Interpretatio Hesselingiana of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ is based on weak arguments. In Section 3 I will put forth what data is available on Creole Portuguese. Based on these data I will try to show that the Creole Portuguese of the Cape Colony was an Indo-Portuguse rather than a Malayo-Portuguese. Let us start with a short introduction on the origin of Afrikaans.

1. The emergence of Afrikaans10 In the last decade of the 16th century the Brits and the Dutch frequented the Cape and other coastal regions of South Africa. There was language contact with the indigenous Khoekhoe (or Hottentots) and some Khoekhoe were educated as interpreters. Already early on this led to the development of two trade jargons. Furthermore, French ships also frequented the coast. The Dutch Cape Colony was founded in 1652. This formation marks the beginning of the Hottentot-Dutch, the Pidgin Dutch of the Khoekhoe, that probably has its roots in the earlier trade jargon. Originally the population of the Cape Colony consisted of only Dutch, Germans, Khoekhoe (Hottentots) and a few domestic slaves. This situation changed radically in 1658, when the first major groups of slaves were imported. With the introduction of the slave trade a colony with three population groups emerged. There were Europeans (Dutch, Germans and others, later also French Hugenots), who used Netherlands Dutch11, indigenous Africans (Khoekhoe), who spoke Khoekhoe and Hottentot-Dutch, and slaves (Asians, Mozambiquans and Malagasies), who spoke different languages, especially Creole Portuguese, (Pasar) Malay and Pidgin/Creole Dutch. The Khoekhoe and the slaves constituted the non-White labour in the Cape Colony and it is therefore understandable that the slaves as newcomers would have

10. This chapter is almost exclusively based on den Besten (1986) and (1989). 11. It should be noted that at the time many Germans spoke Low and not High German, or at least were bilingual.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

learnt their ‘Dutch’ from the Khoekhoe, while the Dutch also occasionally used Hottentot-Dutch in their dealings with the Khoekhoe. In 1700 the first colonists travelled over ‘the African Mountains’, while some Khoekhoe groups also moved away from the Cape (and took their Pidgin/Creole Dutch with them to the interior). The latter development was reinforced by the small pox epidemic of 1713. After this outbreak probably only detribalized Khoekhoes lived in the West Cape, apart from Europeans and slaves. These two population movements (the conquest of Khoekhoe territories by colonists and the emigration of parts of the indigenous population) were repeated up until the 19th century. Thus ‘Dutch’ (Afrikaans) continuously spread beyond the borders of the Cape (well into the later Namibia). Other developments in the 19th century, namely the liberation of slaves and the Great Trek, which brought Afrikaans deep into the Bantu speaking regions, will not be discussed further here. In 1796, the year when the Brits took over the Cape, the ratio of Europeans, slaves and Khoekhoe was about 1:1:1. But these groups were unevenly distributed between the different areas, since in the 18th and early 19th centuries there were Europeans and slaves in West Cape, with only a few Khoekhoe; Europeans and Khoekhoe in East Cape, with only a few slaves; and Khoekhoe in the Orange River area in the north, with only a few Europeans and escaped slaves. This distribution between the population groups also determined the distribution of the various languages over the Cape Colony. In West Cape, Creole Portuguese and Pasar Malay were mainly spoken alongside Dutch and Pidgin/Creole Dutch, since most of the slaves lived there, while in the eastern regions the Khoekhoe of the Hottentots was predominantly used alongside the different varieties of Dutch. In addition to that yet other languages were probably used by the slaves, such as Buginese and Sinhala. Khoekhoe, Pasar Malay and Creole Portuguese have all contributed to the formation of Afrikaans via Creole Dutch, for it is reasonable to assume that Afrikaans has two mothers: the Netherlands Dutch of the colonists and the Pidgin/Creole Dutch of the slaves and the Khoekhoe. However, it should be kept in mind that these influences in Afrikaans are not possible to keep fully areally separated. Even if the influence of Khoekhoe must have been strongest in the East Cape area and in the interior, we must remember that the Khoekhoe were in the West Cape until 1713, and that their Hottentot-Dutch pidgin was taken over by slaves. On the other hand, the Malay and Creole Portuguese influences must have been brought to the east from West Cape by the emigrating colonists and slaves. After this short introduction on the formation of Afrikaans, let us turn to Hesseling’s hypotheses.

 Roots of Afrikaans

2. The Hesseling myth of a South African Malayo-Portuguese 2.1

Hesseling’s hypothesis on the emergence of Afrikaans (18991, 19232)

Hesseling’s understanding of the South African Creole Portuguese must be viewed in the light of his hypothesis of the formation of Afrikaans. According to Hesseling the Khoekhoe were insignificant for the genesis of Afrikaans. Instead, Afrikaans emerged within approximately 30 years, between 1658 and 1685, through the encounter of Dutch and ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. This would then have been the time of the major ‘racial mixing’. The Afrikaans that was emerging could then have spread over all of South Africa as a more or less homogenous language, but was, however, due to the Church and ‘racial pride’, spared (real) creolization. By the end of the 17th century, according to this hypothesis, other languages, even Creole Portuguese, had influenced Afrikaans only superficially. Even if much about this hypothesis can be criticized, I will limit myself to this summary and turn directly to Hesseling’s ideas about the South African Creole Portuguese. As I already mentioned above, according to Hesseling ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ emerged through an amalgamation, i.e. a strong mixing, of Malay and Creole Portuguese. To the extent that it is possible to interpret Hesseling in this matter, it seems that he means more than just a Creole Portuguese with strong transfer of Malayisms, even if this in itself would be enough for a hypothesis, since he apart from Creole Portuguese mentions possible syntactic influences also of Malay in Afrikaans. Malay and (Creole) Portuguese loanwords in Afrikaans are presented as loanwords from ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. Hesseling’s opponent Bosman (1916, 1923/19282) tried to argue against him in two points. First: Bosman denied the importance of Creole Portuguese for the Cape Colony, in which he was definitely mistaken. Second: Bosman doubted that Hesseling’s Malayo-Portuguese had really existed. He found it more likely that there had been two languages spoken by the slaves: Malay and Creole Portuguese. And even if he believed that several varieties of Creole Portuguese had been spoken in the Cape, he kept the term ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ almost as an act of deference towards Hesseling. Boshoff (1921) more or less joined Bosman. He also uses the term ‘Malayo­Portuguese’, but only because it had already become established in the literature on Afrikaans. Malayisms and Lusitanisms are treated separately by him, which in turn forms the basis of his later etymological research (Boshoff 1936 and Boshoff and Nienaber 1967). Since then Malay and Creole Portuguese have been kept apart in the South African literature, as in e.g. Raidt (1983, 1991) and Ponelis (1993). Even if the Interpretatio Hesselingiana of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ has been generally rejected, one wonders how Hesseling arrived at this definition.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

2.2

How did Hesseling arrive at his interpretation?

It is for me almost impossible to explain how Hesseling arrived at his definition of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’, but a few points can be made. We should take into account that Hugo Schuchardt had already published his studies on the Malayo-Portuguese of Batavia and Tugu in 1890, where he had already presented this language as a Creole Portuguese influenced from Malay, partly also lexically. Now, at the time, Cape Town and the Cape Coast belonged to Dutch East India and it is known that Afrikaans has many Malay and (Creole) Portuguese loanwords. Somehow that must have led Hesseling to conclude that ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ consequently was the major contact language at the Cape. This is not entirely logical and we also know that at the time Malay and Creole Portuguese were spoken alongside each other in Batavia. One therefore wonders, how Hesseling arrived at his hypothesis. All I can say here is that it seems to me that Hesseling misinterpreted old travel accounts and so on and in addition to that misread some linguistic data. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the archival data also contradict Hesseling. 2.2.1 Misinterpreted old travel accounts and so on Anyone who reads Hesseling’s justification for his idea of a South African ‘MalayoPortuguese’ contact language (Hesseling 1923) is surprised at his unorthodox treatments of some texts. For instance on p. 23 he quotes the German E. Hesse, who in his Ost-indische[n] Reise-Beschreibung (East Indian Travel Account; Dresden 16851: 170) writes: “Die Portugiesische Sprache wird durchgehends auf allen Orten in Ost-Indien sowohl von denen Europaeischen Nationen als den Indianern selbst, in Handel und Wandel gebraucht” (“The Portuguese language is consistently used for the business life in all locations in East India, both by the European people as by the Indians themselves”). In the second edition of this travel account (Dresden 17132: 217) “wie nicht minder die Malleyische” (“to the same degree as the Malay”) has been added after “Portugiesische Sprache”. From this I can only deduce that two different languages are meant. But then Hesseling (also on p. 23) gives a quote from a letter from the church of the city of Batavia sent to the North-Holland church council (15 November 1697) where it is written “(dat) het niet selden is dat in een reden van 5 à 6 woorden Maleyts, Portugees en Duyts onder een gemengt wert” (“(that) it is not seldom the case that in an utterance of 5 to 6 words Malay, Portuguese and Dutch get mixed together”). A long quote from Alewijns’ preface in his Wordenschat der twee taalen, Portugeesch en Nederduitsch (Vocabulary of Two Languages, Portuguese and Dutch; Amsterdam 1714) is added (p. 23). This quote begins as follows: “binnen de gantsche uitgestrektheid van Haar Edele Groot Achtbaarhedens ontzaglijk gebied bloeyen twee hoofdtaalen,

 Roots of Afrikaans

namelijk Maleitsch en Portugeesch” (“within the immense area belonging to Your Noble Reverences two languages blossom, namely Malay and Portuguese”). Alewijn adds that many Malay and Dutch words are mixed into Creole Portuguese. Unfortunately I am not very impressed by this quote, since it simply assumes that there were two contact languages in East India at the time, Malay and (Creole) Portuguese, and that (Creole) Portuguese contained many loanwords. From that it cannot be concluded that there was just one contact language, the ‘Malayo-Portuguese’, in Batavia and in the Cape Colony. As further proof Hesseling (p. 23–24) also quotes the Nieuwe Woordenschat uit ‘t Nederduitsch in ’t gemeene Maleidsch en Portugeesch (New Vocabulary from Dutch to Malay and Portuguese; Batavia 1780), where the Portuguese column contains Dutch loanwords. But this can hardly be taken as evidence of for a Malayo-Portuguese mixed language. And another quote on p. 24 from Valentijns Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien (Old and New East India; Dordrecht, Amsterdam 1724–1726), where again two contact languages, Portuguese and Malay, are mentioned, does not further the case. Hesseling’s second footnote on p. 24 is interesting: “Wijlen mijn kollega Verdam en Dr. R. van der Meulen maakten mij er opmerkzaam op dat een woordverbinding als Maleis-Portugees modern is; vandaar dat men in de 17e en 18e eeuw gewoonlijk de twee woorden aantreft. Mentzel spreekt van de lingua franca” (“My late colleague Verdam and dr. R. van der Meulen drew my attention to the fact that a compound like Malayo-Portuguese [in Dutch actually: Malay-Portuguese, HdB] is modern; therefore one usually encounters two words in the 17th and 18th centuries. Mentzel speaks about the lingua franca.”) Even if this also seems unlikely to me, I wish to point out that in the quotes from Hesse, Alewijn and Valentijn not only two words appear, but that these words are used to denote two separate languages. The reference is not to a Malay and Portuguese language, but to one Malay language and one Portuguese one. It seems to me that Hesseling (1923) is here stubbornly trying to hold on to an untenable hypothesis from Hesseling (1899). It becomes even more perplexing when we read on p. 24–26 what Hesseling has to say about the Creole Portuguese from Batavia. He mentions Schuchardt’s studies on the Malayo-Portuguese of Tugu and Batavia (Schuchardt 1890) and he gives examples of Creole Portuguese from the Batavia of the 17th and/or 18th centuries. Now, we are not able to deduce from Schuchardt (1890) that there ever was a strongly mixed Malayo-Portuguese language in Tugu and Batavia (even if the later Tugu-Portuguese shows strong Malay influences), and the independent data that Hesselings quotes from the historical literature only shows a Portuguese creole language with a few Dutch loanwords. But somehow Hesseling was able to accept these contradictions and on the following pages he gives a lot of data on the use of (Creole) Portuguese in the Dutch colonial empire, and connects these data with his interpretation of ‘MalayoPortuguese’. Even a short quote from the well-known account of the Cape Colony by



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

Peter Kolbe, where “de Portugeesche taal nevens de Maleische taal” (“the Portuguese language along with the Malay language”; p. 32) is mentioned, didn’t make him change his interpretation.12 He himself goes so far as to presume on p. 32 that this Malayo-Portuguese must have been so varied that one couldn’t always identify the commonality between the different personal idioms and “eerder in de taal van de ene zeeman een zeer verbasterd Maleis en in dat van de andere verminkt Portugees hoorde”, i.e. “rather in the language of the one sailor heard a very bastardized Malay and of the other a very bastardized Portuguese”. This statement is very revealing, since it shows how Hesseling was able to manage to reconcile the contradictions between the travel accounts and his own interpretation of a ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ mixed language. But it is also evident that only few will be able to accept these reasonings. 2.2.2 Misread linguistic data Now if Hesselings secondary evidence for his Malayo-Portuguese mixed language is that weak, one wonders how strong his primary evidence is. In other words: what can we conclude from the linguistic data? As I mentioned above, Hesselings linguistic Creole Portuguese example from the old Batavia (today Jakarta) contain no Malayisms, but loanwords from Dutch. It is also noticeable that not even the few Creole Portuguese phrases and expressions which Hesseling (1923: 47–54) is able to bring up and which he has from the Cape Colony archives in the Hague and Peter Kolbe’s travel account, contain any Malayisms. Only on p. 46 and p. 56 does he refer to phrases from a total of three travel accounts that could be genuine examples of his ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. But here Hesseling in my opinion is very much mistaken. The following examples from Hesseling (1923: 47–54), which I have ordered chronologically, without doubt represent Creole Portuguese:

12. Hesseling quotes only a small number of lines from the Dutch translation of Kolbes Caput Bonae Spei hodiernum. His opponent Bosman (1928: 44–46) gives a longer quote from the German original (1719), from which I am repeating the following: “Doch kann jeder Europäer mit seiner eigenen Sprache genugsam zurech kommen; und wenn es ja fehlen sollte, so wird man leicht die eine oder die andere, sonderlich aber die Holländische, oder, welches fast noch besser, die Portuguiesische, nebst der Maleyschen erlernen können: als welche beyde Sprachen nicht nur hier, sondern fast in gantz Ost-Indien gemeiniglich, wenigstens wie etwa gegenwärtig in Teutschland die Französische geredet werden.” (However, any European can manage satisfactorily with his own language; and if it should be lacking, then one can easily learn the one or the other, but especially the Dutch, or, which is maybe even better, the Portuguese, alongside the Malay: as both languages not only here, but in almost all East India, are commonly spoken, at least to the extent of French in contemporary Germany.”; Bosman 1928: 45).

 Roots of Afrikaans

(1) a. Masque (1693)13 but-and b. Catsidoor bös loge möre (1706) dog you.sg fut die c. Tyn bon, tyn bon Augustijn (1707)14 is good is good Augustin d. ago por bebe water for drinking

(Kolbe 1705–1713)

e. o Deos mio pay oh God my father

(Kolbe 1705–1713)

f. Jacob ja morree, Jacob ja morree (1747) Jacob prf die Jacob prf die In this the following sentence forms a special case (Hesseling 1923: 54): (2) Welkje, trie acqui sal com pimenta (1699)15 Welkje bring here salt and pepper While this sentence is Creole Portuguese, Franken (1953: 9–14) has shown that it was not uttered in South Africa (or Mozambique), but in Mauritius. Whatever the case might be, the data in (1) and (2) do not give evidence of any ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ mixed language spoken at the time in the Cape Colony. It is thus interesting what kinds of ‘mixed’ sentences Hesseling is at all able to produce. He has his oldest example (Hesseling 1923: 46) from a travel account by C. Frikius, who was at the Cape in 1685 or 1686 (in Drie seer aenmercklijcke Reysen nae ... en in Oost-Indiën, gedaen van C. Frikius, Elias Hesse, C. Schweitzer, (Three Very Remarkable Journeys to ... and in East India written by C. Frikius, Elias Hesse, C. Schweitzer) translated by S. de Vries. Utrecht 1694 p. 161).

13. A footnote refers to the following sentence from 1688: masqui ophangen, ick ben niet bange (‘Masqui hang up, I am not afraid’), which is Dutch with a Creole Portuguese loanword. Franken (1953: 204: fn.32) gives this sentence in the version Masqui ophangen, ik ben niet bangh alongside other Dutch sentences, where maski/masqui/maske, etc. appears as interjections or as halfway prepositions. 14. Hesseling translates houd-je goed ‘hold yourself well’. Valkhoff (1966: 182) gives Hold on, hold on. Both seem to me to be unfounded. 15. The version that Franken (1953: 13) recorded from the Cape Town archives is not without its value: (i) Welckje trie acqui acquel sal, com pimente Welckje bring here that/the salt and pepper The Cape Town source, however, translates this to krijgt hier wat sout, en peeper ‘bring over some salt and pepper’.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

Frikius describes how he once went from The Löwenkopf to the fort and there “quam mij een dienstmaeghd in ‘t oogh, uytgesonden om aen den oever sand te haelen ... so haestse mij vernam, riepse mij in de Maleise tael seer ernstigh toe: Maridi sini, Senior!, kom doch tot mij mijn Heer” (“a maid came before my eye, who had been sent to fetch sand from the beach ... as soon as she noticed me, she called to me very solemnly in the Malay language: Maridi sini, Senior, Come to me, Sir”). Even if Hesseling believes that this is an instance of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’, the phrase is nevertheless, as Frikius already states, Malay, with one Portuguese loanword. (3) Mari di sini, Senhor come here Sir It is amusing to read what Hesseling argues in a footnote on p. 46 with respect to this phrase: “Dr. Bosman zal na lezing van deze passage niet langer willen beweren: ‘geen een [van de staaltjes gebroken Portugees] bevat ’n enkele Maleise woord nie’ ...” – that is: “Dr. Bosman will after reading this passage no longer want to claim: ‘not one [of the examples of broken Portuguese] contain a single Malay word’...”. According to this reasoning a phrase like “Hände hoch, Sir” (“Hands up, Sir”) would be an example of a ‘Germano-English’ mixed language. I am not prepared to accept this line of reasoning. In view of that, two phrases from the Vollständige[n] und zuverlässige[n] Beschreibung des Vorgebirges der guten Hoffnung (1785–1787: II, 148) (Complete and Reliable Account of the Cape of Good Hope) by O.F. Mentzel, who lived at the Cape from 1733 to 1741 are more interesting. Hesseling (1923: 56) quotes them as examples of “Lingua franca” (i.e. Creole Portuguese), even if Mentzel does not explicitly say that: (a) kammene kumi, kammene kuli, which according to Mentzel would mean something like: ‘if I don’t have anything to eat, I am not able to work’, an utterance made by hungry slaves, and (b) kammene kas, kammene kunte, an utterance by which, as Hesseling phrased it, “loose” female slaves used to reject “enamoured” sailors. As I have shown in den Besten (1986), these phrases do not represent Creole Portuguese, but Pidgin or Creole Dutch. They can be glossed as follows, although I am leaving it open whether the content words are verbs or nouns. I have arranged the sequence of the glossing variables according to the etymology: (4) a. kammene kumi, kammene kuli can.not/no eat/food, can.not/no work b. kammene kas, kammene kunte can.not/no cash/pay can.not/no cunt/fuck The sentences in (4) have an alliterating structure, and it may be that alliteration and impure rhyming brought about the combination of kumi and kuli. But precisely this combination was for Hesseling a great argument that this was an instance of a ‘MalayoPortuguese’ phrase. Because kumi is (Creole) Portuguese, while kuli is (at least also) Malay.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Hesseling could also add to that, that kas is a Dutch loanword in Malay. On the other hand, he wasn’t able to identify the compound kammene, but the fact that he had already classified (4a), where kammene also occurs, as ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ made it easy for him to also classify (4b), where he had already identified a ‘Malay’ word, as ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. About kunte he simply states that it is Dutch and that he therefore, fortunately, does not need to transcribe.16 But the data allow an alternative explanation. The word kuli (koelie) in fact, apart from ‘coolie,’ also meant ‘(coolie) work’, as is evident in Franken (1953: 105–106), and kammene is a Hottentot-Dutch compound: kamme nie(t) ‘cannot’. Since kas in (4b) can also be Dutch, we should consider (4b) a Pidgin or Creole Dutch phrase, which means that we now can classify kumi in (4a) as a Creole Portuguese loanword in a ‘Dutch’ context.17 This means that Hesseling does not have any linguistic data that confirm his hypothesis of a ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ mixed language at the Cape. 2.2.3 The archival data from Franken (1953) In 1930 J.L.M. Franken published an article in Die Huigenoot about interpreters at the Cape, which was later included as Chapter 4 in Franken (1953). This article corroborates what we think we know already from old travel accounts: Apart from Dutch, Portuguese and Malay and some other languages were used at the Cape. For Franken had studied the Cape Colony court proceedings up until 1772, and from the many that he quotes or summarizes, it is possible to draw a great deal of conclusions about language competence at the Cape, through readily quantifiable information. The table below gives the preliminary result of my calculations. It shows how many mentioned slaves (or freed slaves) from a territory X are attested to have competence in (or knowledge of) a language Y. Since one and the same person could have known more than one language, my numbers should not be added horizontally. The stated languages are: Dutch, (Creole) Portuguese, (Pasar) Malay, Malagasy, Buginese (an East Indonesian language), the language of the Malabar Coast (most likely Malayalam, if it is not meant to be Malayalam-Tamil) and the language of the Rio de la Goa area in South Mozambique (probably Tsonga): 16. Kunte is either the German dialectal kunte or kont = ie, a fusion of Dutch kont (with [u] instead of [O]) and -ie, the enclitic allomorph of the clause final Afrikaans negator nie-2. I am not sure whether Hesseling’s audience at the time still knew that Dutch kont (today ‘bottom, backside’) also could or did mean ‘cunt’. 17. The word kamme- is actually Afrikaans/Dutch ka(n) ‘can’ with the Hottentot-Dutch verbal marker -me. Ponelis (1993: 34) opposes this interpretation and argues that -me is a 1SG pronoun. That, however, does not make sense for the interpretation of (4b). And problems also arise for other Pidgin phrases with -me that Ponelis (1993: 31–33) refers to if we interpret -me as a 1SG.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

Madagascar Mozambique Terra do Natal Indonesia (excl Bugis) Bugis Malacca Chinese Malabar Coast Coromandel C. Bengal India NW Coast Sri Lanka Cape Mardijkers (freed slaves)

Ndl.

Prt.

Mal.

12  2

   6    1    1   65

   1

 8  1  1 18  4 11  1  3  3

  28

  44    1   21    1

91

163

25

   3   30    3   21    2    2    1

Mal-gas. Bu-gin. Ma-lab. Rio dGoa 10 5

  77 7

1 1

   5

   3    2 155

10

7

2

5

Hesseling may have read Franken’s article, but this need not have caused him to revise his hypothesis on ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. For us, however, these figures are revealing, as they show that the slaves from India-Sri Lanka apart from Dutch (37) precisely also knew Creole Portuguese (58), while the slaves from Indonesia-Malacca besides Dutch (37) spoke Creole Portuguese (96) and especially (Pasar) Malay – with the exception of the Chinese, who almost without exception knew Malay. This was of course to be expected, as was the fact that Franken found pure Malay and Creole Portuguese. Hence Hesseling’s hypothesis about a ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ mixed language at the Cape is unsupported also with respect to the archival data of Franken.

3. Linguistic data on Creole Portuguese at the Cape Now to the question of what kind of a Creole Portuguese was used at the Cape. Even if we have few data (albeit more than Hesseling found) to turn to in order to answer this question, a few points can be made. In that respect I am particularly interested in the syntax of the language. Our main source for the South African Creole Portuguese is Franken (1953). Hesseling (1916, 1923) and Valkhoff (1966, 1972) hardly present any independent material – and if so only in a non-phrasal form – since Valkhoff (1966, 1972) has all his examples from Franken (1953) (or has learned about them through Franken 1953),

 Roots of Afrikaans

while the few phrases quoted by Hesseling were also found by Franken in the archives of Cape Town. Added to that is the fact that the best data come from the 18th century. The material cited from memory from the 19th and 20th centuries is scanty, although it contains a useful example of sentential negation. I will now in the sections Creole Portuguese data from the old Cape Colony and Von Wielligh’s and Franken’s Creole Portuguese data from the 19th and 20th centuries first discuss the data from the 18th as well as the 19th and 20th centuries and indentify a few syntactic characteristics. The intermediate section Problematic cases in Franken (1953) and Raidt (1980, 1981) will, referring back to the previous section, deal with a few problematic cases from the 18th century. Finally I will evaluate the data in the section What type of Creole Portuguese? and will come to the conclusion that the Cape Portuguese was rather an Indo-Portuguese (or more generally: an Asian Creole Portuguese) than a Malayo-Portuguese, and that it is not possible to establish any influence from the Portuguese creole from the Gulf of Guinea.

3.1

Creole Portuguese data in the old Cape Colony

Below are a few Creole Portuguese sentences from Franken (1953), partly with variation. In each case the reference (page number in Franken) is given, and the name of whoever made the utterance. The sentences are chronologically ordered, with the exception of one which it is not possible to establish the date for. Those sentences that also occur in Hesseling (1923) are marked. The differences in dating between Franken and Hesseling are due to the fact that Franken used the Cape Town archive while Hesseling used the one in the Hague.18 (5) a. toma na mas, garda na mas a miane loge atja torne take only keep only tomorrow fut get back (p. 45)19  (Isack van Bengaalen, 1704) b. Catsidoor bos loge more (p. 47)20 dog you.sg fut die (Pieter van de Cust, 1705 [Hess.: 1706])

18. The other examples of Creole Portuguese phrases, interjections, etc. from the 18th century in Franken are from the years 1723 (two more sentences from the satire by Jan van de Capelle, p. 81–82), 1744 (p. 44, 57), 1744–1749 (p. 112), 1756–1760 (p. 66), 1765 (p. 72), 1765 (p. 73) and 1765 (p. 74, 114). For more on two doubtful cases from 1720 and 1757 (p. 50 and 64), see section Problematic cases in Franken and Raidt. 19. The construction a miane (= amiane) could be amiang ‘tomorrow’ + eu ‘1SG’. But this is not certain. 20. In the source translated to hond gij sult sterven ‘dog, you will die’.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

c. tijn bon, tijn bon Augussirie (p. 48)21 tijn bon, tijn bon Augussirij (p. 48) is good is good Augustin (?)  (Kleine Marie van Madagascar, 1707 [Hess.: 1707]) d. Eu nunqua falo por vosse, mas por vos Cammarade (p. 81) ego nouke falla parbosse, mee par vos Cammarada (p. 82) I not speak with you.sg but with your.sg companion  (Jan van de Capelle, 1723) e. pége, pége (p. 52)22 take take (slaves, almost all of them from Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka, 1726) f. Jacob ja Morè (p. 58) Jacob prf die

(Februarij van Macassar, 1746, [Hess.: 1747])

g. Maij foedies foedi bos maaij (p. 65)23 mother fucker fuck your.pl mother (Coridon van Malbaar, 1758) h. Basta Paaij! (p. 112, 114) stop father! (1761, followed by two Dutch sentences which could be translations) i. Ne miste dali pro mi! (p. 73) Na misti dali pro mi (p. 74) not must hit ObjM me

(Absolon van Maleija, 1765)

j. Ki kirri a quil Hollandi maifoedie (p. 44) what want the/that Dutch mother.fucker (name and year not given, C. J. 325, p. 516) Apart from such sentences, interjections, and the like, Franken found a few Creole Portuguese words in a Dutch context, which I will give here only as curios: Ponyaadoe ‘punch’ (Michael Basson, 1738, p. 78), Poeta ‘whore’ (Andries van Bengalen, 1741, p. 57), Culpa ‘blame, fault’ (September, 1770, p. 77) and movinyoe ‘misfortune’ (Samson van Madagascar, 1795, p. 78). More interesting is the use of two Creole Portuguese function words as Dutch syntactic constituents: basta ‘stop, no more’ and moutou ‘much, a lot’. Basta occurs three times in the following quote:

21. The source also adds beteekenende bij haar, Augustyn, dat haar man is, tijn bon ‘what she means by Augustin, who is her husband, tijn bon’. It is not clear if beteekenende ‘signifying’ refers to only Augussirie or to the whole sentence. 22. The source translates this phrase with vat hem, vat hem ‘hold him, hold him’. 23. On p. 44 the word foedies is quoted as foedis.

 Roots of Afrikaans



(6) ... heeft gem. slavejongen alsdoen geroepen: Basta slaan Baas! als wanneer voorm. Keete seijde: Nu Basta slaan, maar ‘t moet ook Basta uijtloopen weesen. (1758, p. 112) ‘whereupon said slave lad called: Basta hit, Baas/Master! upon which the abovementioned Keete said: Now Basta hit, but there must also be a Basta with the running away.’ This use of basta can still be found in contemporary Afrikaans (cf. Ponelis 1972: 242). Moutou (mutu), on the other hand, is not used in Standard Afrikaans. It appears in the following example:24 (7) moutou sleg (p. 172) very bad

(slave, Duminy diary, 1797)

This occurrence shows that the Lusitanism moutou could also be used in the (Proto-) Afrikaans of the time alongside the still common Malayisms baie ‘much, very’ (as in Afr. baie sleg ‘very bad’). According to Franken (1953: 204, fn 45) moetoe (mutu) was still used at the time (1953) by old Blacks. We are able to draw some conclusions on the syntax of Cape Portuguese from the phrases above. It was probably an SVO language, as can be deduced from foedi bos maaij and dali pro mi in (5g) and (5i) respectively. The order of copula-predicate in (5c) (tijn bon) and V-PP in (5d) (falo por vosse/falla parbosse) is in accordance with that. In (5j) we, as it happens, have a case of inversion: Ki kirri a quil Hollandi maifoedie.25 Cape Portuguese also made use of preverbal TMA markers, such as loge ‘FUT’ in (5a) and b and ja ‘PRF’ in (5f). Added to that is also the serial torne ‘return’ in (5a), which here means ‘back’.26 Human direct objects were optionally marked with pro, as can be concluded from foedi bos maaij and dali pro mi in (5g) and (5i) respectively. We can in fact only arrive at this conclusion through comparison with Asian Creole Portuguese (and with Afrikaans, see below), as we otherwise lack the necessary phrases with non-human objects.27 We may assume that there would have been allomorphs like por, par and maybe also per for pro, as the use of prepositions in (5d) suggests.

24. A further example of this kind is Basta waschen ‘basta wash’ (Kees van Mallebaar or Satur van Boegies 1755–1760, p. 112). 25. The VO word order and the order copula-predicate also occur in two other phrases in the satire by Jan van de Capelle (1973): Intende vosso/Intento vosse and tem dodo de sobervia/ten dodo desupervie (p. 81, 82). This satire was written in a temporary exclave of the Cape Colony in the Delagoa area in Mozambique. 26. We also find the PRF marker ja/ya in one of the derisive pieces of Jan van de Capelle (1723, p. 81, 82). 27. In Intende vosso/Intento vosse (Jan de Capelle, 1723; p. 81, 82) the human direct object is also not marked (cf. fn 24).



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

There were preverbal negation markers such as nunqua/nouke in (5d) and ne/na in (5i). Negative imperatives were formed with ne miste/na misti, as in (5i). It is not clear whether there existed a definite article in this language. The word a quil ‘this, that’ is more likely a demonstrative than an article. But according to Hesseling there was a prenominal article akel at the Cape (see Hesseling 1916: 287 and Hesseling 1923: 56, fn 2 and 118). His only evidence for that is the above mentioned Beschreibung by O. F. Mentzel (1785–1787: II, 542). For, after a comment about a genderless “art.prep.” [i.e. articulus praepositus, HdB] in Hottentot, he argues the following: “In the Lingua franca they call everything asiel, and if I am to explain it in German, it means: Ackel man, Ackel woman, Ackel thing. Just as with the Hottentots” (Hesseling 1916: 287). This quote, however, proves nothing, particularly since there neither was nor is any definite article in Khoekhoe (Hottentot). Mentzel probably meant the Khoekhoe attributive demonstrative. Added to that is the fact that the confusing asiel of this quote is probably the Creole Portuguese demonstrative adjective asilai ‘such’. Mentzel’s Ackel is therefore more likely a demonstrative (‘this, that’, etc.) than an article. Despite that, Hesseling wanted to interpret Ackel as an article. His reference to the word akel in a Malayo-Portuguese text in Schuchardt (1890: 92ff) does not further the case, since akel in this text is consistently translated with Mal. iote ‘that’, which also seems the most appropriate to me.28

3.2

Problematic cases in Franken (1953) and Raidt (1980, 1981)

The material cited in Franken (1953) is without doubt Creole Portuguese. But Franken (1953) and Raidt (1980, 1981) also mention a few questionable cases. As our corpus is inadequate and not systematically organized, these potentially negative cases must also be discussed.29 Franken gives two phrases that could be either Creole Portuguese or Malay: (8) a. Marre, Marre (p. 50) marre, marre (p. 50)

(Augustus van Bengalen, 1720)

b. Bappa Sarima Tjava Faka (p. 64, twice)  (Leander Coridon, Mardijker, 1757) Franken (1953: 50) derives marre in (8a) from Port. marrar ‘to butt, to knock, to strike’. But this does not conform with the statement of the defendant in the relevant 28. It cannot be excluded that acquel sal in the Cape Town version of the famous Welckje phrase contains the definite article acquel. (Cf. fn 14 above.) But this is not certain, since the word is not translated and is missing from the version from the Hague. 29. Franken (1953: 76) also mentions two additional utterances that until now have not been possible to classify: toe ha waar! vang! ‘toe ha waar! catch’ (Michiel van Wijk zu October van de Kust, when tossing up a bottle, 1768) and ha waar! Grijp an! ‘ha waar! take hold!’ (NN, 1769).

 Roots of Afrikaans

proceeding, according to which Augustus van Bengalen, after he together with some friends had attacked a certain de Clercq, had, with Marre, Marre, called over his other accomplices, three slaves from Indonesia, who were waiting outside. This would hence more likely be Mal. mari ‘come’.30 The utterance in (8b), which is from the proceedings of a sodomy case, is more difficult to analyze. The addressed person, the Javanese Bappa Sarima or ‘Father/Mr Sarima’, spoke Malay, and had uttered abuse to the defendant in Malay at least once. The defendant, Leander Coridon, a Mardijker (a freed slave), may therefore have spoken Malay to him. At the time (1757) the utterance was not clear to the Cape Town court and Franken was also not able to analyze Tjava Faka. His publisher, G. S. Nienaber, listed tjafa faka as Malay with a question mark in the index of the book. Given the non-Malay [f] sound the word Faka could be Cr.Port. faka ‘knife’, but in my opinion this is a case of broken Malay, namely jawa(t) zaka(r) ‘grab penis’ with jawat/jabat, the imperative form of menjawat/menjabat ‘grab, hold’ (older spelling (men)djawat/(men)djabat), and zakar ‘penis’. This interpretation would fit the context, for the accompanying gestures of Leander Coridon, as they are described in the case files (Franken 1953: 64), did not leave room for any misunderstandings. However, a few phonetic-phonological matters need to be explained. The confusion between [dj] and [tj] is in itself not a major issue and the spelling with 〈v〉 for [w] is known to us from the imperative form Lavang for lawan ‘resist’ (Tallone van Boegies 1751; Franken 1953: 60). But the substitution of [f] for [z] in zaka(r) is problematic. Whether this can be explained phonetically or graphologically is a matter for future research. With this I have (tentatively) excluded two 18 century phrases from the Creole Portuguese corpus. Likewise two utterances which Raidt (1980) has categorized as Creole Portuguese should be dismissed, since they in my opinion represent Dutch and Malay. In her article on reduplication in Afrikaans, Raidt, among other things, states the following “The Portuguese call tsa tsa! (Afr. sa-sa!) repeatedly appears (1763 and 1766), furthermore the Portuguese demand tano! tano! occurs once with the Dutch translation ‘ofte vat aan!’ (1768)” (Raidt 1980: 497).31 Here the separable construction aanvatten is more likely ‘lay a hand on someone’ than ‘grab, take hold of ’. However, neither tsa nor tano are (Creole) Portuguese. Tsa or sa is a now obsolete (Old) French loanword in Dutch, known since at least the 16th century and which is often used in a reduplicated form also in Dutch. For the use in Dutch, compare the WNT, Volume 14 (1936: 3, sub sa) and Volume 17 (1979: 3595–3596, sub tsa), and for 30. According to one defendant Augusts said Kom vast maken ‘Come (and) fasten’, which would correspond with Port. amarrar ‘anchor, fasten’. But this defendant seems to have had a telescope view of the event, since another statement lets one infer that Augustus first called Marre, Marre, then threatened to bind de Clercq, after which de Clercq was bound. 31. Or in the Afrikaans version: Raidt (1981/1994: 154).



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

sa in Afrikaans (‘catch him, tally-ho’), compare Franken (1953: 113–114) and Boshoff & Nienaber (1967: 558). It is not possible to find any Portuguese etymon for the verb tano, especially since the final vowel does not conform with the usual final vowels of Creole Portuguese verbs. The closest would be Mal. tanduk (with final glottalization), also since Cap Malay intervocalic [nd] could already at that time be reduced to [n] (as in Afr. kinders ‘Children’ > kinners).32 Mal. tanduk means ‘horn’ and as a verbal stem ‘thrust, strike (with head)’.

3.3

Von Wielligh’s and Franken’s Creole Portuguese data from the 19th and 20th centuries

Only very little Creole Portuguese data remains from the 19th and 20th centuries. I am only aware of the data in Wielligh (1922) and Franken (1953: Ch. 9). Most of it is of a lexical nature and therefore not very interesting for the present article. G. R. von Wielligh (1922: §55) recounts how he, between 1865 and 1867, learned something about Creole Portuguese from his grandfather. In that connection he mentions the following words: caval ‘horse’, aqua ‘water’, tarntal ‘guinea-fowl’ and limoen ‘orange’. Von Wielligh does not give any phrases.33 Franken (1953: Ch.9) discusses Malay and Portuguese relics at the Cape around 1930.While we drown in Malay data, as it were, the Portuguese crop is quite scanty. But in it there is information on syntax. On p. 122 Franken gives and account about Imam Rejaldin Sali (80), who could tell him stories from the slave days, among others a fairy tale with the magic words tokka and larga, used to get hold of or capture something or let something loose. He also knew parts of a different story about “die cawallo di pau, die houtperd, wat koemie agoewa en bibi erroewa, water geëet en gras gedrink het”, that is “the cawallo di pau, the wooden horse, which koemie agoewa and bibi erroewa, ate water and drank grass”. Apart from that he also knew the phrase nonti platoe, translated with “Ek het geen geld nie” (“I don’t have any money”), even if “There is no money” would maybe have been better.34 32. This assimilation is evidenced for the 20th century in manni(e) from Mal. mandi ‘bathe (oneself), take a ritual bath’ (Franken 1953: 118 and Davids 1990: 3, 12). Compare also slenning (Ponelis 1987: 7), which Ponelis renders as a stuk vroueklere ‘piece of women’s garment’. This is probably an orthographic interpretation of slennang from Mal. selendang ‘shawl, (baby) sling’. Moreover, Ponelis (1987: 7) spells mannie as mandie. 33. The title of the section was Laaste Snikke van Maleis-Portugees (Last Breath of MalayoPortuguese). The original version from Die Brandung, October 1917, is reproduced in Valkhoff (1966: 261–264). In that edition the words agua and lemoen are given. 34. I will here leave out what Franken reports on Creole Portuguese loanwords in the West Cape toponymy and in the language of the fishermen (cf. Valkhoff 1966: 10–11).

 Roots of Afrikaans

These syntactic data confirm a few characteristics that were already established in the previous section. We have new examples of the SVO word order in koemie agoewa and bibi erroewa, and preverbal negation, with non-, in nonti platoe. Apart from that it is noteworthy that the non-human objects agoewa and erroewa are not marked with pro/por etc., which was to be expected.

3.4

What variety of Creole Portuguese?

The syntactic characteristics of Cape Portuguese that I identified in the previous section indicate a Creole Portuguese of the Asian variety (if we disregard new developments, such as Batticaloa Portuguese, an SOV language): Cape Portuguese was an SVO language with TMA particles such as loge ‘FUT’ and ja ‘PRF’, which are known from Asia. Negation was marked preverbally with nunqua/ nouke or ne/na/non. Negative imperatives were formed with ne miste/na misti and there was an object marker pro, and probably also por/par/per, for human direct objects. The demonstrative a quil/aquel/Ackel conforms with the Asian usage. This implies, among other things, that we are not able to connect Cape Portuguese with the Portuguese creole from the Gulf of Guinea. Such a connection is suggested by Valkhoff (1966: 13–17, 1972: 81–83) and Waher (1988), in their attempts to link the double negation of Afrikaans with similar phenomena in these creole languages. But no clause final negator can be shown in the Cap Portuguese negative clauses: Eu nunqua falo por vosse, mas por vos Cammarade/ego nouke falla parbosse mee par vos Cammarada (1723), ne miste dali pro mi/Na misti dali pro mi (1765) and nonti platoe (1930). What is more, we find in these utterances typical ‘Asianisms’ such as object marking with pro, forming negative imperatives with ne miste/Na misti and the verb -ti ‘be’.35 This is not surprising, since historians have not been able to establish any West African presence among the slaves of the Cape Colony. See, for example, Elphick & Giliomee (1989) and Shell (1994). Undeniably there must have been a few West African slaves, particularly in the oldest period around 1658, and Peter Kolbe reports the existence of West African slaves for the period 1705–1713, but the numbers for the 18th and 19th centuries show that the great majority of slaves came from Asia and Madagascar, while the most (even if not all) African slaves were from East Africa. If Cape Portuguese, then, can be connected with the Asian Creole Portuguese, it is still not clear whether this language was Indo- or Malayo-Portuguese. It seems to me that with the little data we have available, only the object marking can serve as an indicator. 35. Cf. also Ponelis (1993: 473–474). For negative clauses of the Asian type in Sri Lanka and Malayo-Portuguese, see Jackson (1990) and Schuchardt (1890), where negative imperatives with Nimista/Nemiste/Noemisti etc. can also be found (e.g. Jackson 1990: 144, 161, 201 and Schuchardt 1890: 75, 76). In Afrikaans the Cr. Port. na misti was grafted on the V1 structure of the Dutch finite imperative into moenie/moet ... nie ‘mustn’t, shouldn’t’. Cf. den Besten (1986: 222) and Ponelis (1993: 473–474).



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

As we have seen, the human direct objects could in Cape Portuguese be marked with pro (and probably also with par/por/per). Unfortunately we only have one example of that (dali pro mi), but the fact that Afrikaans, as opposed to Dutch, may mark human direct objects with vir ‘for’ indicates that pro etc. was highly present in Cape Portuguese. Now, human direct objects are marked with per (or par/pur/por) in IndoPortuguese, while Malayo-Portuguese makes use of the marker ku(n) or ka. Incidentally, isolated cases of per can be found in Schuchardt’s Malayo-Portuguese texts, even in the oldest text (1692) Schuchardt cites. This could be an indication that MalayoPortuguese had an Indo-Portuguese origin.36 The markers per and ku(n) can be considered dative markers, since they may also mark indirect objects. This is shown in the following example with per from Sri Lanka: (9) a. elle ja olha per elle 3sg prf see ObM 3sg b. eu já dá acquel per elle 1sg prf give that to/for 3sg

(Schuchardt 1890: 227) (Raidt 1976: 88)

Comparable Malayo-Portuguese examples with ku(n) are: (10) a. tjoma kun kusir call ObM coachman

(Schuchardt 1890: 233)

b. da akel ondra kun eo give that honour to/for 1sg

(Schuchardt 1890: 234)

Likewise, ku appears with direct and indirect objects in Papia Kristang (Baxter 1988).37 As Schuchardt (1890) and Baxter (1988) point out, this use of ku(n) emerged under influence of Pasar Malay sama ‘1. together, 2. mit’, which is also used as an object marker. An example would be: (11) adjar sama dija teach ObM 3sg

(Schuchardt p. 229)

This use can also be found in South Africa, as we know from a flawed Malay translation of a Buginese letter: 36. See Schuchardt (1890: 225–235), Raidt (1976), Holm (1988–1989) and Baxter (1988: 150–160). The Indo-Port. use of per etc, with which also indirect objects are marked, probably emerged partly due to the influence of Indian languages (Baxter 1988: 169). Due to the influence of Indo-Portuguese, human and non-human indirect objects can in Afrikaans be marked with vir ‘for’. Cf. Donaldson (1993: 342–344, 387–388). See further Raidt (1976), den Besten (1978: 13–18, 27–28) and Ponelis (1993: 473–474). 37. The allomorph ka, which Schuchardt mentions in the same context, will not be discussed here.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(12) saijâ minta minta sama loe tagal ... (p. 67) 1sg ask ask ObM 2sg because ... With respect to the above, we may conclude that it was more likely Indo-Portuguese rather than Malayo-Portuguese that was spoken in the Cape Colony (and also that Pasar Malay did not trigger any Afrikaans object marking with met ‘with’). With this conclusion I go a bit further than Raidt (1976), who – because per occurs only sparsely in Schuchardt’s Malayo-Portuguese texts – was forced to draw on IndoPortuguese data in order to be able to illustrate the traditionally assumed MalayoPortuguese influence on Afrikaans, even if Raidt did not mean to dispute the fact that Indo-Portuguese also played a role at the Cape. Now the question is which factors could explain this, since the historical literature (see the references above) shows that approximately half of the Asian slaves in the Cape Colony were native to India-Sri Lanka and the other half came from Indonesia-Malakka. On that the following points can be made: First: we should take into account that Schuchardt’s Tugu Portuguese texts as well as Baxter’s Papia Kristang data are rather late occurrences, and that it cannot be excluded that per etc. was originally more widely used in Malayo-Portuguese. In that case we should maybe replace ‘Indo-Portuguese’ with ‘Older Asian Portuguese’ (even if this older Asio-Portuguese had an Indian origin). Second: the slaves from Indonesia-Malakka may predominantly have spoken Malay with each other, even if they knew Creole Portuguese, while Malay was hardly known among the slaves from India-Sri Lanka. See the table in section “The archival data from Franken”. For the slaves from Indonesia-Malakka, including the Chinese, we find: Portuguese 96 vs. Malay 143, and for the slaves from India-Sri Lanka: Portuguese 58 vs. Malay 6. That means that for the slaves from India-Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese was the language predominantly used. Third: Cape Malay was not necessarily a uniform language. Although Schuchardt (1890: 228–231) refers to the object marker sama for Pasar Malay from Java, Sumatra, Malakka and Singapore (also in the west), Baxter (1988: 170) points out that in the Malay from Minahasa and Manado, as well as in the Malay of the northern Maluku islands (also in the east), direct and indirect objects are marked with the dative marker pada (= kepada in the written language), which matches the use of per etc. in IndoPortuguese. Since many slaves were native to eastern India (among other places from Bugis), and since Cape Malay phonologically anyway shows east Malay traits, pada may have been used alongside sama, which might have reinforced the use of per etc. in Cape Portuguese. This would also explain why Pasar Malay, which undoubtedly influenced Afrikaan structurally (cf. den Besten 1989), did not trigger any Afrikaans object marking with met ‘with’.



Chapter 14.  Creole Portuguese in South Africa 

The data on Cape Malay known to us at the moment do not contradict this hypothesis, but can also not yet confirm it, since more research of the available material is necessary.

4. Concluding remarks Whatever further research on Cape Malay will lead to, it seems clear that the Cape Portuguese was more likely Indo-Portuguese than Malayo-Portuguese, even if we might replace ‘Indo-Portuguese’ with ‘older Asio-Portuguese’. Since we in this article have again shown that Hesseling’s ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ never existed, the above findings implies that not even a reinterpretation of that hypothesis, according to which the slaves in the Cape Colony would have used Malay and the Malayo-Portuguese of the common interpretation, can hold. The slaves in the Cape Colony spoke (Pasar) Malay and Indo-Portuguese alongside varieties of Dutch.

chapter 15

The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir Introduction The Afrikaans preposition vir, which derives from Dutch voor ‘for’, has a couple of functions that distinguish it from its Dutch counterpart: besides marking beneficiaries and certain prepositional objects, more or less as in Dutch, vir can also mark recipients and animate Direct Objects, which is an “un-Dutch” feature of Afrikaans.1 This expansion of the use of vir for (animate) Direct and Indirect Objects is usually explained as being due to influences from Asian Creole Portuguese, while the evidence seems to point at Indo-Portuguese in particular. However, more languages were spoken by the slaves of the Dutch Cape Colony and in this paper I would like to defend the thesis that some of these languages may also have been instrumental in shaping the use of Afr. vir. I will restrict myself to Eastern Malay as spoken by the slaves from eastern Indonesia and to their hypothetical version of Creole Portuguese, although it cannot be excluded that some of the mother tongues of the slaves from India-Sri Lanka may have played a role as well, as will be suggested in Section 2 below. This paper will start with a discussion of the syntax of Afr. vir and its Creole Portuguese origin (Section 1). Section 2 will discuss evidence to the effect that South African Creole Portuguese may have been Indo- rather than Malayo-Portuguese. However, since Malay was one of the contact languages among the Cape slaves besides Creole Portuguese and (some variety of) Dutch and since nonstandard (Pasar) Malay would have triggered a different object marker in Afrikaans (Section 3), it becomes necessary to scrutinize the scarce data on South African Malay. As Section 4 will demonstrate, phonological and lexical properties of South African Malay point in the direction of Eastern Malay, which is in accordance with the provenance of many of the Indonesian slaves in the Cape Colony. Therefore, Section 5 will discuss some syntactic properties of the Eastern Malay dialects. It so happens that quite frequently object marking in these dialects is in accordance with object marking in Indo-Portuguese and Afrikaans.

1. This paper was first published in Linguistics 38–5 (2000), 949–971 and reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged.

 Roots of Afrikaans

1. Afrikaans vir2 Animate, and especially human, Direct Objects in Afrikaans can, and sometimes must, be marked with a preposition-like element vir, as can be derived from the following examples:3 (1) a. Hulle het (vir) Piet geslaan They have (for) Pete beaten b. Ek het nie vir Piet gesien nie I have not for Pete seen not In these examples I have glossed vir with FOR, because vir in some of its other uses (i.e. certain Prepositional Objects as well as Beneficiary Objects) corresponds to Dutch voor ‘for’. Now note that the Direct Object marker vir hardly behaves as a true preposition, if at all. If it were a preposition vir-marked Direct Objects should be PPs and the relative ‘Direct Object’ PPs vir wie and waarvoor as well as their split variant wat ... voor should be grammatical. However, they are not, as the following examples show:4 (2) a.

??die man vir wie

ek gesien het the man for whom I seen have

b. *die man waarvoor ek gesien het the man where-for I seen have c. *die man wat ek voor gesien het the man what I for seen have Only example (2a), which I consider an instance of anglicized Afrikaans, seems to be marginally acceptable. The other variants are completely out. This distributional 2. For vir, the conditions under which it is optional or obligatory and the variables that govern its usage as a Direct Object marker, such as nominal category, animacy, position of the Direct Object, emotivity and style, see Ponelis (1993: 265–272), Raidt (1976) and Donaldson (1993: 341–346, 387–388). 3.

Compare the corresponding Dutch examples:

(i) a. Ze hebben (*voor) Piet geslagen b. ?Ik heb niet (*voor) Piet gezien 4. Cf. den Besten (1981), upon which most of the argumentation in Section 1 is based. For the data, also compare Donaldson (1993: 341–346, 387–388, 145–148). Similar diagnostic tests concerning the categorial status of vir, however with a different conclusion, can be found in Ponelis (1993: 269–271). In so far as I can see Ponelis is able to argue for a prepositional status for the Direct Object marker vir by not discussing examples like (2b) vs. (4b) and (6b), while not attributing any value to examples like (2c), which he does mention.



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

pattern can only be explained if the DO marker vir is not the head of a prepositional phrase but an NP-internal preposition-like case marker. Furthermore note that DO relatives can best be expressed by means of wat ‘(lit.) what’ and that this element may not be preceded by vir, which can be easily explained if we assume that the relative marker wat in (2d) is not a pronoun but a specialized complementizer: ek gesien het (2) d. die man (*vir) wat the man (*for) what I seen have This also explains why in split relativized PPs (as used in the ungrammatical example (2c)) the expected relative pronoun waar ‘(lit.) where’ is excluded (cf. (4c) and (6c) below). Apparently, non-dependent relative pronouns preferably delete in order to give way to the specialized complementizer wat. Things are somewhat different with recipient indirect objects (IOs). First consider the following examples:5 (3) a. Hy het (vir) ons ‘n boek gegee He has (for) us a book given b. Hy het ‘n boek vir ons gegee He has a book for us given Since (3b) corresponds to the NP PP pattern of Dutch double object constructions, it is likely that vir in (3b) is the counterpart of the Dutch preposition aan ‘to’ (which occasionally shows up in Afrikaans too), while vir in (3a) may be a case marker. Yet, vir ons in (3a) could, under certain circumstances, also be a PP, since in Dutch an indirect object PP may also pr3ecede the DO, instead of following it. Therefore it cannot be excluded that vir in Afrikaans recipient IOs always signals the presence of a PP, although that seems somewhat unlikely. Evidence from relative clauses shows that vir in recipient IOs can indeed be a preposition: (4) a. die man vir wie hy ’n boek gegee het the man for whom he a book given has b. die man waarvoor hy een boek gegee het the man where-for he a book given has c. die man wat hy ’n boek voor gegee het the man what he a book for given has d. 5.

??die man wat

hy ’n boek gegee het the man what he a book given has

Compare the corresponding Dutch examples:

(i) a. Hij heeft (aan/*voor) ons een boek gegeven b. Hij heeft een boek aan/*voor ons gegeven

 Roots of Afrikaans

The near-ungrammaticality of (4d), which is problematic on all accounts, does not provide any new insights as to the syntactic status of vir in recipient IOs. Apparently dative wh-pronouns may not delete (although they have to). As regards beneficiary IOs the facts are simpler: these IOs are always marked with vir, which here corresponds to Dutch voor ‘for’. Compare:6 (5) a. Hy het vir ons ’n boek gekoop He has for us a book bought b. Hy het ‘n boek vir ons gekoop He has a book for us bought Therefore, most probably beneficiary IOs are PPs. This is confirmed by the following relativization facts: (6) a. b. c. d.

die man vir wie hy ’n boek gekoop het the man for whom he a book bought has die man waarvoor hy ’n boek gekoop het die man wat hy ’n boek voor gekoop het *die man wat hy ’n boek gekoop het

In conclusion: (1) The DO marker vir is not a preposition, (2) The recipient marker vir usually (and maybe always) is a preposition, (3) The beneficiary marker vir is a preposition, (4) Despite functional and syntactic differences there is no variation in phonological shape, quite unlike the situation in Dutch, which lacks the DO marker and which distinguishes aan ‘to’ and voor ‘for’. Now received wisdom has it that the expansion of the functions of the Dutch preposition voor (> vir) in Afrikaans derives from influences from (Asian) Creole Portuguese as spoken by the slaves. This hypothesis was first put forward by Schuchardt (1885: 470, 1890: 227), then repeated by Hesseling (1899, 1923) and later confirmed by Raidt (1976). However, in spite of the fact that Schuchardt is referring to a grammatical property of Indo-Portuguese, both Hesseling and Raidt call this creole MalayoPortuguese, although Raidt is using Indo-Portuguese examples. Because of this ambiguity it is necessary to establish what kind of Asian Creole was in use in the Dutch Cape Colony. Note that in the literature we also find the simple name ‘Creole Portuguese’.7

6. Compare the corresponding Dutch examples: (i) a. Hij heeft voor ons een boek gekocht b. Hij heeft een boek voor ons gekocht 7. Also see den Besten (1989, 1997), Holm (1988–1989), Ponelis (1993), Raidt (1983, 1991 [1971]).



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

2. Creole Portuguese in SA: Malayo- and/or Indo-Portuguese8 When Hesseling (1899, 1923) proposed his Malayo-Portuguese theory for the genesis of Afrikaans he meant by ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ a language that was a mixture of Malay and Creole Portuguese, which is not what Hugo Schuchardt and probably any other linguist would mean when using the name ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ (Cf. Holm (1988–1989) for Malayo-Portuguese). Hesseling’s opponent Bosman (1916, 1923) correctly pointed out that there is no evidence for Hesseling’s hotchpotch language and that the historical record shows that there had been two languages in the Cape Colony (besides Dutch and Khoekhoe (Hottentot)): (Pasar) Malay and Creole Portuguese. He furthermore pointed out that this Creole Portuguese must have been variable, since many slaves hailed from India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) rather than from Indonesia. Yet, for some unclear reason Bosman stuck to the name ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. This infelicitous decision ultimately explains why Raidt (1976) still attributes the object marker vir to Malayo-Portuguese, although she has to resort to examples from Indo-Portuguese. (See below why.)

The Cape Colonial slave population In view of what follows it is necessary to briefly dwell upon the composition of the Cape Colonial slave population. This overview will be based upon Shell (1994b).9 For the greater part of the 18th century the total set of newly imported slaves in the Cape Colony can be divided into five subsets: two major groups from India-Ceylon and Indonesia-Malacca, two minor groups from Mozambique-Natal and Madagascar, and a trickle of slaves from West Africa and Angola, imported through smuggling, shipwrecks or as naval “prizes” (Shell 1994b: 41). It should be noted, though, that after about 1750 there is a considerable rise in the import of slaves from Madagascar, while in the fourth quarter of the 18th century African and Malagasy slaves constituted the overall majority among the newly imported slaves. In terms of languages this means that besides nonstandard Malay both Indo-Portuguese and Malayo-Portuguese may have been in use among the Cape Colonial slaves, as Bosman (1916, 1928 [1923]) rightly pointed out. Now, it is quite difficult to distinguish Indo-Portuguese from Malayo-Portuguese, since these varieties (except for SOV varieties such as Batticaloa Portugese) are mainly identical in their major syntactic properties and it is quite possible that MalayoPortuguese started out as a variant of Indo-Portuguese. Therefore it will not come as a surprise that the scarce data we have on South African Creole Portuguese as collected by Franken (1953) for the most part agrees both with Indo- and with Malayo-Portuguese. 8. This Section mainly derives from den Besten (1997). 9. Also see Shell (1994a) and the relevant papers in Elphick and Giliomee (1989).

 Roots of Afrikaans

First of all, the TMA markers logo for future and ja for perfect in (7) are reminiscent of Indo-Portugese as well as of Malayo-Portuguese: (7) a. Catsioor bos loge more Dog you fut die b. Jacob ja Morè Jacob prf die

(Pieter van de Cust, 1705; 1953: 47) (Februarij van Macassar, 1746; 1953: 58)

Furthermore, South African Creole Portuguese made use of the typically Asian Creole Portuguese verb ti(n) ‘be’: (8) a. tijn bon, tijn bon Augussirie tijn bon, tijn bon, Augussirij is good, is good(,) August (?)  (Kleine Marie van Madagascar, 1707; 1953: 48) b. nonti platoe not-is money ‘There is no money, I don’t have money’  (Imam Rejaldin Sali (80), ca. 1923; 1953: 122) Finally, negative imperatives were marked with na/nu misti ‘not must’, as is and was the case in Asian Creole Portuguese:10 (9)

ne miste dali pro mi! Na misti dali pro mi Not must beat obm me(!) ‘Don’t beat me’

(Absolon van Maleija, 1765; 1953: 73–74)

Note that this feature of Asian Creole Portuguese has given rise to the use of negative imperatives marked with moenie ‘must not’ in Afrikaans.11 As regards object marking, however, Indo-Portuguese and Malayo-Portuguese use different prepositions (Holm 1988–1989). In Indo-Portuguese we find a marker per/par/pur ‘for, to’, as in the following examples from Ceylon: (10) a. elle ja olha per elle 3sg prf see obm 3sg b. Eu já dá acquel per elle 1sg perf give that obm 3sg

(Schuchardt 1890: 227) (Raidt 1976: 88)

10. For examples of na/nu misti in Ceylon Portuguese and Malayo-Portuguese see Jackson (1990: 144, 161, 201) and Schuchardt (1890: 75, 76) respectively. 11. Cf. den Besten (1989, 1997) and Ponelis (1993: 460).



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

whereas in the Malayo-Portuguese varieties ku(n) ‘with’ can be found, as in the following Tugu Portuguese examples taken from Schuchardt (1890):12 (11) a. tjoma kun kusir call obm coachman

(Schuchardt 1890: 234)

b. da akel ondra kun eo give that honor obm 1sg

(Schuchardt 1890: 233)

(I am inclined to interpret per and kun in (10a) and (11a) respectively as case markers, on a par with vir in Afrikaans DOs, while the same elements in (10b) and (11b) can be analyzed as true prepositions.) Now the evidence collected by Franken (1953) seems to indicate that South African Creole Portuguese sided with Indo-Portuguese: (12) a. ne miste dali pro mi! Na misti dali pro mi Not must beat obm me (!)

(Absolon van Maleija, 1765; 1953: 73–74)

b. Maij foedies foedi bos maaij Mother fuckers fuck your mother  (Coridon van Malbaar, 1758; 1953: 65) c. “die cawallo di pau [...] wat koemie agoewa en bibi erroewa [...]” “the horse of wood [...] that eats water and drinks grass [...]”  (Imam Rejaldin Sali (80), ca. 1923 – quote from Franken p. 122) Apparently animate DOs could be marked with pro (= per/par/pur), which accords with the use of vir (< Du. voor ‘for’) in present-day Afrikaans. Furthermore, this element could also be used as the head of a PP, as in the following example: (12) d. Eu nunqua falo por vosse, mas por vos Cammarade. ego nouke falla par bosse mee par vos Cammarada. I not speak to you(,) but to your comrades  (Jan van de Capelle, 1723 – pp. 81–82) By way of conclusion: South African Creole Portuguese seems to have been IndoPortuguese, and not Malayo-Portuguese. Now, if it is true that Malayo-Portuguese started out as an offshoot of Indo-Portugese (see above), that might explain why in none of the varieties of Afrikaans objects can be marked with met ‘with’. That is to say: the early slaves from Indonesia may have spoken a variety of Indo-Portuguese, which 12. Also compare Baxter (1988: 149–162) for ku in Papia Kristang. Note that there are some stray examples of per, etc. in Schuchardt’s Malayo-Portuguese material (Schuchardt 1890). It is due to the near-absence of per vs. the overall presence of ku(n) in the Malayo-Portuguese data that Raidt (1976) has to resort to Indo-Portuguese examples, while still clinging to the idea of ‘Malayo-Portuguese’ influences – although ‘Indo-Portuguese’ or ‘Older Asian Creole Portuguese’ would have been a better term in my view.

 Roots of Afrikaans

only later underwent the changes that transformed it into what we now call MalayoPortuguese. Note in passing that this “dative” marking of animate DOs in Indo-Portuguese may have been supported by grammatical properties of (some of) the native languages of the slaves from India and Ceylon, as is suggested by Holm (1988–1989: 608), and it seems to be true for Singalese, witness Gair (1970: 60–62), although I could not detect similar phenomena in Tamil or Malayalam. However, note that my unsystematic findings are representative of a typological pattern, since “dative” marking of animate DOs is a typical feature of the Indo-Aryan languages, which is lacking in the Dravidian languages, as K.V. Subbarao (p.c.) informs me. (Also cf. Masica (1993: 365–368) on the “dative-accusative” in the Indo-Aryan languages.) Furthermore note that animate Direct Objects in Sri Lankan Creole Malay can also be dative marked.13 Yet this cannot be the whole story, as will be shown in the next section.

3. The origins of the object markers per/par/pur and ku(n) and the other languages at the Cape As soon as the origins of the object markers per/par/pur and ku(n) are taken into account, it will become clear that object marking in the Cape Colony must have been more complicated than the previous section may suggest. There cannot be any problem in so far as the slaves from India-Ceylon are concerned (see the end of the previous section). However, as Schuchardt (1890) and Baxter 13. Cf. Hussainmiya (1987: ch. 6) and Adelaar (1991). Hussainmiya (p. 163) gives the following examples of case marking in Sri Lankan Creole Malay: (i) a. Dey Amat-na pukul 3sg Amat-obm beat b. Dey Amat-na kasi 3sg Amat-obm give Although Hussainmiya defines -na in (ia) as an accusative marker and -na in (ib) as a dative marker, it seems more likely that -na in (ia) is a dative marker affixed to a human DO. Note that in the early 20th century speakers of this Creole Malay with SOV word order, when attempting to write Standard Malay, produced sentences like the following (Hussainmiya 1987: 155): (ii) a. Jangan benci kepada orang Don’t hate obm people b. Anjing itu sudah gigit pada dia orang Dog that prf bite obm 3 people/pl ‘That/the dog bit them’ In Standard Malay kepada ‘to, towards’ is used as the head of a recipient indirect object PP. It consists of a directional particle ke and a locative preposition pada, and should not be reduced to pada – at least in Standard Malay. In (ii) the dative marker (ke)pada clearly serves as a marker of human DOs.



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

(1988) point out, the use of the Malayo-Portuguese object marker ku(n) ‘with’ must be related to the use of the object marker sama (< Mal. sama ‘1. together, 2. with, etc.’) in Pasar Malay (also called: Bazaar Malay). Compare the following examples from Schuchardt (1890: 229): (13) a. memukul sama orang beat obm somebody b. adjar sama dija teach obm 3sg c. berilah sama dija give-emp to 3sg d. kasih makan sama andjing itu give food to dog that/the This usage was also known in South Africa witness a bad Malay translation (by a Dutchman) of a letter written in Buginese (Franken 1953: 67–69). This letter contains four instances of the object marker sama, among which the following one: (14) saijâ minta minta sama loe tagal ... (1760) 1sg ask ask obm 2sg because ... The historical record provides us with no further cases of sama in South Africa, which is due to the fact that the sporadic Malay sentences in Franken (1953) do not contain objects of the right (animate) type, while the 19th century Malay memorandum by Jan van Boughies uses zero marking or pada (a nonstandard variant of Mal. kepada ‘to’), where pada is marking indirect objects.14 Since Pasar Malay marks human direct and indirect Objects with sama ‘with’, a phenomenon that is also attested for the Cape Colony (at least in the abovementioned translation into some sort of Malay written down by a Dutch interpreter), and since it is likely that nonstandard rather than Standard Malay was spoken among Indonesian slaves at the Cape, we have a problem: How is it possible that Pasar Malay and maybe also (an early form of) Malayo-Portuguese have not equally influenced Afrikaans? And why is object marking with met ‘with’ absent even in the dialect of the Cape Muslims (also known as the Cape Malays)? Furthermore note that Malay was an important language at the Cape, on a par with Dutch and Creole Portuguese (apart from Khoekhoe in the outer districts). 14. Jan van Boughies’ memorandum in Arabic script (1836), published in Davids (1990) together with a 19th century transcription in Roman script as well as a translation into English, is fraught with difficulties. First of all, Jan van Boughies was not a native speaker of Malay, and a transcription of the Arabic-Malay original made by my late colleague Sie Ing Djiang shows that the 19th century transcription was probably dictated to a Dutch or Afrikaans speaking secretary by somebody who could read Arabic script and who made some changes in the text. Finally, the (19th century?) English translation does not completely accord with the original transcription.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Table 1.  Knowledge of languages among slaves and freedmen at the Cape up to 1772

Madagascar Moçambique Terra do Natal Indonesia-without-Bugis Bugis Malacca Chinese Malabar Coast Coromandel C. Bengal NW Coast Ind. Ceylon Cape Mardijkers

Du.

Prt.

Mal.

12  2

   6    1    1   65   28

   1

27  8  1  1 18  4 11  1  3  3

   3   30    3   21    2    2    1

91

163

Mal-gas. Bu-gin. Ma-lab. Rio dGoa 10 5

  77   44    1   21    1

7

1 1

   5

   3    2 155

10

7

2

5

Confirming evidence can be found in the court cases up to the year 1772 collected by Franken (1953), upon which the following provisional table taken from den Besten (1997) is based (Table 1). This table indicates how many slaves (or freedmen) from some area X could speak or understand some language Y. The languages mentioned are: Dutch, (Creole) Portuguese, Malay, Malagasy, Buginese, the language of the Coast of Malabar (most probably Malayalam, otherwise Malayalam-Tamil) and the language of the area of the Rio de la Goa in southern Mozambique (probably Tsonga). These figures clearly show that Malay was an important language at the Cape during the greater part of the 18th century. (And it still was in the early 19th century, according to Davids [1990].) One could of course try to construct an argument to the effect that interethnic communication had to be in Creole Portuguese since those from India-Ceylon hardly knew any Malay (as the above figures seem to show), while Creole Portuguese was only secondary for those from Indonesia-Malacca, which should have favored Indo-Portuguese. Yet, this does not explain away the presence of nonstandard Malay, and so maybe Pasar Malay, in early colonial South Africa. Now note that Pasar Malay belongs to the western varieties of Malay, while most Cape Colonial Indonesian slaves seem to have come from the eastern part of the Indonesian archipelago, as can be deduced from their names of origin (Robert Shell, p.c.). Furthermore it is known that the Eastern Malay dialects constitute a variety distinct from the Western (standard and nonstandard) dialects.



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

The following section will demonstrate that there are also linguistic reasons for assuming that Cape Malay – some western Malay influences notwithstanding – belonged to the Eastern Malay dialects.

4. South African Malay, some data15 There are two phonological properties that give South African Malay a distinctly Eastern Malay flavor: the use of a full vowel, more specifically an [a], instead of a shwa and velarization of syllable-final nasals.16 The use of an [a] instead of a shwa can be exemplified with data from the 18th and 19th centuries. First of all, in the Malay translation of the Buginese letter mentioned above (1760; Franken 1953: 67–69) we find forms such as tagal ‘because’ (= tegal), sadiekiet ‘a little’ (= sedikit), panjakiet ‘illness’ (= penyakit). Secondly, in the (dictated) transcription of Jan van Boughies’ memorandum mentioned above (1836; Davids 1990) we find manjoeroe ‘to order’ (= menyuruh) and other verbs with a prefix ma- instead of me-. And more forms with 〈a〉, such as paristir ‘priest’ (= Du. priester) and pargi ‘to go’ (= pergi), popped up in a new transcription made by my late colleague Sie Ing Djiang. Strangely enough no such [a] forms can be found in the remnants of 20th century South African Malay collected by Franken (1953: 117–120, 125, 140), but that may be due to the fact that [a] is a substitute for shwa in nonstandard Afrikaans, so that Franken may have heard unstressed [a] while jotting down 〈e〉 – although I have to admit that this is mere speculation. As for velarization of syllable-final nasals, in the above-mentioned Malay translation of a Buginese letter we find boelang ‘month’ (= bulan) and kasiang ‘pity’ (= kasian), and elsewhere there is the case of Lavang ‘defend yourself ’ (= lawan; Tallone van Boegies, 15. I owe my interest in Eastern Malay to Sander Adelaar, who – after a talk on Khoekhoe and Afrikaans syntax in Leiden – questioned me about South African Malay and who told me that the phonological properties I could mention are Eastern Malay. In this context I would like to point out that there is also work in progress on South African Malay by Cor de Ruyter (George, South Africa), which I hope will appear in a not too distant future. 16. For these Eastern Malay deviations from the Standard Malay norm, see Voorhoeve (1983), Taylor (1983), Steinhauer (1983), Adelaar (1991) and van Minde (1997), as well as Holm (1988– 1989: 582–583). In so far as Manado Malay is concerned, only the use of [a] instead of shwa is discussed in the introduction of Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton (1981: 327), but several cases of velarized nasals can be found in the Manado Malay text published by them, such as tamaang ‘friend’ (= teman; 1981: 328 sub [3]) and ajang ‘chicken’ (= ayam; 1981: 328 sub [4]). The same phenomena can be observed for Melaju Sini ((lit.) ‘Malay [of] Here’), a recent Malay variety with a strong Eastern Malay input, spoken by younger generations of (South) Moluccan expatriates living in the Netherlands, although it should be noted that the relevant sounds are in variation with the corresponding Standard Malay sounds, partly according to phonological position. Cf. Tahitu (1989).

 Roots of Afrikaans

1751; Franken 1953: 60). Furthermore, in the dictated transcription of Jan van Boughies’ memorandum we find da ang ‘with’ (= dengan), whereas the Arabic-Malay original seems to have dangan (according to Sie’s transcription). As for the 20th century, here we find cases like toewang ‘sir’ (= tuan; Franken 1953: 117–118), djallang ‘path, go’ (= jalan; Franken 1953: 119 and malang ‘evening’ (= malam; Franken 1953: 118). By way of a note I mention that there are also functional lexical items in South African Malay that can be related to Eastern Malay. Thus sappe ‘who’ in Sappe itou ‘who there/that?’ (NN, 1733; Franken 1953: 53) is reminiscent of Eastern Malay sapa ‘who’ (= siapa), while tra ‘not’ in tramasoe(k) ‘not enter’ (20th century; Franken 1953: 140) is also an Eastern Malay negation marker (vs. tidak in Standard Malay).17 In view of the above considerations it seems to be justified to start consulting grammatical descriptions of Eastern Malay dialects. And in the next section we will see that Eastern Malay dialects often differ from (western) Pasar Malay in that human Direct and/or Indirect Objects are marked with prepositional elements like pa rather than with sama, as has in fact already been noticed for Manado and North Moluccan Malay by Baxter (1988: 170, n. 4).

5. The syntax of Eastern Malay dialects with special reference to object marking Before we start with object marking in Eastern Malay two remarks are in order: First, in so far as I can see, by redirecting our attention from Pasar Malay to Eastern Malay we do not loose any of the possible influences on Afrikaans that up to now have been attributed to Malay or Pasar Malay (cf. den Besten (1989), Ponelis (1993: 272–273), Raidt (1983: 184–186, 1991: 226–227)). Reduplication in Eastern Malay seems to be quite similar to what we know about Western Malay, and the Pasar Malay prenominal possessive construction with punya (e.g. Ali punya rumah ‘Ali POSS house’ instead of Standard Malay rumah Ali ‘house Ali’) can also be found in Eastern Malay, although punya usually shows up in a reduced form (pun, pung, pu, pe). These observations are relevant because Malay reduplication is supposed to be the triggering force behind the 17. For sapa ‘who’ see Voorhoeve (1983: 7), Steinhauer (1983: 49) and van Minde (1997: 72). – For tra ‘not’ compare tara ‘not’ in North Moluccan Malay (Voorhoeve 1983: 8, 11; Taylor 1983: 20, 23, 25–26), the negative prefix tar- in Kupang Malay (Steinhauer 1983: 46) and tar/tra ‘not’ in Ambon Malay (van Minde 1997: 273, 276–277, 281). In the Manado Malay text published by Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton (1981) tra ‘not’ shows up as a minor negation marker, and always in the collocation tra sala ‘not to be mistaken’, apart from one case of (ka) trada ‘(or) not’, which is also North Moluccan Malay. (Cf. Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton 1981: 328, sub [1], 330, sub [5], etc.) Note however that tar and t(a)ra ‘not’, which show up as t∂r and t(a)ra in Sri Lankan Creole Malay, are also negators in Pasar Malay (Adelaar 1991: 31). In Melaju Sini (cf. n. 15) both sapa ‘who’ and a negative prefix tër-/tar- can be found, although the latter is restricted to a couple of lexicalized expressions (Tahitu 1989: 11, 105–106).



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

various reduplication patterns in Afrikaans, while the punya-construction is thought to have been one of the forces that reshaped the Dutch pronominal possessive construction (e.g. Jani/Mariej z’ni/d’rj huis ‘Johni/Maryj hisi/herj house’) into the Afrikaans se possessive construction (e.g. Jan/Marie se huis ‘John/Mary POSS house’).18 Second, while Khoekhoe provides us with a reasonable source for the Afrikaans associative construction (e.g. Jan-hulle ‘John-3PL’), as is discussed in Nienaber (1994), we finally have an acceptable additional source in Eastern Malay: e.g. mama dong ‘Mother 3PL’ in Ambon Malay and S∂s Lis dong ‘Sis Liz 3PL’ in Kupang Malay (vs. dong Om ‘3PL Uncle’ in North Moluccan Malay).19 This having been said, we can now turn to object marking in the Eastern Malay dialects. The literature on these dialects confronts us with what seems to be a bewildering variation in object-marking structures, although most of it is tending in the same direction, the exception being the dialect of Kupang (Timor). This dialect has to be left out of consideration, since it marks its human DOs and Recipient IOs with sang (= sama; cf. Steinhauer 1983: 52–53), as in the following examples: (15) a. Knapa Mia nika sonde undang sang beta? Why Mia marry without (=not?) invite obm 1sg? b.’ Dong kirim itu baju sang beta 3pl send that shirt to 1sg b.” Dong kirim sang beta itu baju

18. For reduplication in Eastern Malay see Taylor (1983), Steinhauer (1983) and van Minde (1997). For Eastern Malay possessive constructions see Collins (1983b) as well as Voorhoeve (1983), Taylor (1983), Steinhauer (1983), Adelaar (1991) and van Minde (1997). The same construction shows up in Manado Malay, e.g. ta pé papa pé horas kantor ‘1SG POSS father POSS time office’ (i.e. ‘my father’s office hours’; Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton 1981: 330 sub [9]). Also compare Hussainmiya (1987) and Adelaar (1991) on the same type of possessive construction in Sri Lankan Malay Creole. As for (changes in) reduplication and the punya construction in Melaju Sini (cf. n. 15), see Tahitu (1989). 19. Cf. van Minde (1997), Steinhauer (1983) and Taylor (1983) respectively. Also see Holm (1988–1989: 583), who is quoting from Collins’s dissertation on Ambon Malay. As usual, Manado Malay agrees with North Moluccan Malay, which it is an offshoot of. There are a couple of cases in Section 16 of the story in Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton (1981: 334), e.g. dong Éto’ ‘3PL Éto’’. Cases of X-dong in Melaju Sini (cf. n. 15), with X being a 1SG or 2SG expression, can be found in Tahitu (1989: 134, 139, 142).

 Roots of Afrikaans

Although Steinhauer mentions kasi as a substitute for sang in (15b), no mention is made of an object marker pa(da).20 In North Moluccan Malay, Manado Malay and Ambon Malay, however, we find object-marking phenomena that remind us of Indo-Portuguese and Afrikaans.

5.1

North Moluccan Malay

In the North Moluccan Malay texts collected by Taylor (1983) we find several instances of pa marking both human DOs and Recipient IOs, although his paper does not mention the phenomenon as such. First consider the following examples of DO marking (Taylor 1983: 22–23): tumbu pa kita (16) a. Kita pegang pa dia kong dia turus 1sg grab obm 3sg then 3sg immediately punch obm 1sg b. Dorang pigi di Fayaul, ambel pa itu Pongo pe bini 3pl go to Fayaul, get obm that Pongo poss wife ‘They went to Fayal to get Pongo’s wife’ (Unlike kita ‘1PL (inclusive)’ in Standard Malay North Moluccan (and Manado) Malay kita is ‘1SG’, ‘1PL’ being kitorang and variants thereof.) It should be noticed that marking human DOs with pa is not obligatory, witness panggel itu ana-ana muda samua ... ‘call those children adolescent all ...’ (1983: 24) vs. panggel pa torang ‘call OBM 1PL’ (1983: 27). The following are cases of IOs marked with pa (Taylor 1983: 25–26): (17) a.

Skarang di kampong hampir so kurang orang Now in village almost already few people jual kopra pa (A) d∂ng (B) sell copra to (A) and (B) ‘There are now only a few people left in the village who sell copra to (A) and (B)’

b. ... dia mulai bikin rekening, kirim pa torang, ... ... 3sg start make bill, send to 1pl, ...

20. Kupang Malay marks Beneficiaries with untuk ‘for’ as in Standard Malay. Since the recipient IO marker kasi is also a verb (‘to give’), it cannot be excluded that Steinhauer is actually speaking about a serial construction. An argument to that effect could be derived from the fact that the “IO marker” kasi may be followed by sang. Compare the following examples from Steinhauer (1983: 52): (i) a. Dong kirim itu baju kasi (sang) beta 3pl send that shirt give (obm) 1sg

b. Dong kirim kasi (sang) beta itu baju



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

Unfortunately, I could not find any beneficiary IO in Taylor’s texts. But it goes without saying that the use of a universal marker pa for human DOs and recipient IOs resembles the use of vir in Afrikaans. Note that according to Voorhoeve (1983: 6) North Moluccan Malay objects can be marked either with pa (which he derives from (ke)pada; cf. Voorhoeve 1983: 3) or with sama, depending upon the verb, while there is no instance of such an element sama in Taylor’s texts. To give an example: where Voorhoeve (1983) has bilang sama ‘to say to’ (p. 6, 9), Taylor (1983) gives bilang pa (p. 25).21 This may be due to the existence of different regional dialects or to the intrusion of western (Standard and nonstandard) Malay features into some sociolects of North Moluccan Malay. In fact, Taylor is keen on marking such intrusions in his texts.

5.2

Manado Malay

Now, whatever the solution to the above problem, Manado Malay, an offshoot of North Moluccan Malay, agrees with Taylor’s North Moluccan Malay in that both animate DOs and recipient IOs are marked with pa. Consider the following cases of animate DOs marked with pa:22 (18) a. ...., kalu néanda’ dong bunung pa dia ..., if not 3pl kill obm 3sg (i.e. a dog) b. No tu Kapala Pulisi orang Blanda kanaal pa kita And that Chief Police person Dutch know obm 1sg (Cf. Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton 1981: 328 sub [4] and 332 sub [13] respectively.) The following are cases of Recipient IOs marked with pa: (19) a. Abis mo kasé nama apa pa dia? And fut give name which to 3sg? b. “Bagini!” kita bilang pa kita pé papa: ... “This-way!” 1sg say to 1sg poss father: ... 21. In this respect the reference to Voorhoeve (1983) in Baxter (1988: 170, n. 4) is somewhat unfortunate. 22. There is only one case of sama marking a human direct object, and it shows up exactly when the Dutch Kapala Pulisi Chief of Police) is quoted (Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton 1981: 332 sub [13]): (i) Barangkali nona kanaal sama Résidén, Résidén Morrison di Tomohon Maybe (you)-Miss know OBM Resident, Resident Morrison in Tomohon (A resident was a chief administrator of a district in the Dutch East Indies.) Now the Malay speech used by this Dutchman has some other western characteristics, such as atoran instead of atorang ‘instruction’, while in the immediately preceding context the narrator uses kanaal pa in her own speech (cf. (18b)). Therefore I take it that sama in (i) is Pasar Malay rather than Manado Malay.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(Cf. Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton 1981: 328 sub [2] and 330 sub [9] respectively.) And due to the length of the text in Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton (1981) and sheer statistical luck we also have one case of a beneficiary IO marked with pe, which is a variant of pa and can also be used to mark animate DOs and recipient IOs:23 (20) Ta rasa tu Résidén néanda’ mo béking katjuali pe satu orang 1sg think that Resident neg fut make exception for one person (Cf. Watuseke and Watuseke-Politton 1981: 332 sub [14].) This use of pa/pe ‘for’ is not an accident however, as Ruben Stoel (p.c.) informs me: beneficiaries in Manado Malay are marked with pa, or with for (< Du. voor, for which also compare for/vur/voor in Karisoh Najoan et al. (1981: 31, 35, 78), a grammar that is otherwise worthless for our purposes). Therefore, we may conclude that Manado Malay is making use of a general prepositional element pa/pe to mark animate Direct Objects as well as Recipient and Beneficiary IOs. (Also compare what is said about IO marking in Ambon Malay below.) So we have found an Eastern Malay dialect that resembles Afrikaans even more closely, in so far as object marking is concerned, than does North Moluccan Malay. Furthermore it should be noted that animate DOs do not have to be marked with pa/pe, which is also in agreement with Afrikaans.24 Nevertheless, there are also differences with Afrikaans: Ruben Stoel (p.c.) informs me that pa/pe can also mark inanimate DOs, provided they contain an animate possessor, as in the following example: (21) Kita da lia (pa) Kiki pé ruma 1sg real see (obm) Kiki poss house Such a structure cannot be found in Afrikaans. However note that this type of DO marking can be seen as a somewhat quirky extension of the use of pa with animate DOs. Finally, before we turn to the last dialect to be discussed in this paper, one remark is in order: in Manado Malay there are more variants for pa than just pe. Occasionally we also find par or per, which is in accordance with one of the object markers of Ambon Malay (see below). Therefore, it is unlikely that pa derives from Mal. (ke)pada. Pa/ pe/par/per rather looks like a Portuguese Creole loan. And this is not unlikely in view

23. E.g. ambé pe dia ‘take OBM 3SG’ (1981: 334 sub [20]) and bilang pe Éto’ ‘say to Éto’’ (1981: 338 sub [29]). Note that pa/pe(r) can also be used as a locative marker. 24. E.g. lia orang jang ... ‘see person who ...’ (1981: 328 sub [3]) or bawa tu andjing ‘bring that dog’ (1981: 332 sub [10]).



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

of the fact that there is supposed to be some (Creole) Portuguese input in the Eastern Malay dialects, as we can read in the literature.25

5.3

Ambon Malay

Ambon Malay, as described by van Minde (1997), may be somewhat disappointing from our point of view because there is no object marking for animate DOs. Yet, Ambon Malay evidences a rich inventory of prepositions for marking recipient and beneficiary IOs as well as what van Minde calls locative-goal NPs, most of which I would like to subsume under a somewhat wider definition of recipient IOs. The prepositions used are par, fur/for and buat/bot (van Minde 1997: 183–186, 223, 245–247). As for the etymology of these elements, which seem to be interchangeable but for some sociolinguistic factors: par, the most frequent form, seems to be a Creole Portuguese loan, for/fur, which is a more formal, urban and older form, is a borrowing from Dutch (Du. voor ‘for’), while buat/bot is a more recent loan from Standard Malay, i.e. Indonesian (Mal. buat ‘for’). Because of the origin of these elements, all three of them will be glossed with ‘FOR’.26 Furthermore note that Ambon Malay, like Dutch and Afrikaans, also has double NP constructions as in (22a): (22) a. Kasi dong bir sadiki Give 3pl beer little

(1997: 224)

b. Kasi bir sadiki par dong Give beer little for 3pl

(1997: 224)

In (22b) we find a recipient IO marked with par. For cases of recipient IOs with the other prepositions consider the examples in (23): 25. In kasé persén ... per dorang ‘give (as a) present ... to 3PL’ (1981: 338 sub [29]) we have a clear case of an IO with per. The collocation déngar par kita ‘hear/listen-to OBM 1SG’ (p. 334 sub [19]) is less certain, because par kita might as well be a prepositional object. Note that the corresponding section of the glossary states: “par, pa, pe = aan, bij” (p. 344). The translation provided is the same as the translation given for pa elsewhere in the glossary: Du. aan ‘to’ (for recipient IOs) and bij ‘with, at’, a locative preposition. 26. Van Minde (1997: 223–225) also discusses the use of pung (= punya) in double object sequences of the type: IO pung DO, as in (i): (i) Kasi dong (pung) bir sadiki Give 3pl (pung) beer little ‘Give them some beer’ Van Minde correctly notes that such sequences cannot represent possessive punya-constructions but he is at a loss how to analyze them. In my view pung in (i) is a serial verb and may be equated with pung ‘have, possess’ (for which see van Minde (1997: 161)). This serial verb may in fact be the filler of the functional head of a small clause containing both objects, but this is mere speculation.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(23) a. Lalu burung Pombo kasi tongka satu for Kes Then bird Dove give stick one for Monkey

(1997: 184)

b. Jang kasi kepeng buat dia Don’t give money for 3sg

(1997: 186)

c.

Waktu dong makang papa tu tanya for ana yang tua When 3pl eat dad that ask for child rel old kata ... (1997: 246) conj ... ‘When they were eating, the father asked the oldest child ...’

Finally, for cases of par, for and buat marking beneficiary IOs, consider the following examples: (24) a. Ade kumpul jambu par katong, ... 2sg collect rose-apple for 1pl, ... b.

Dong 3pl om uncle

su kas tinggal alamat di kas tu for prf cause stay address at closet that for Ka K.

(1997: 184)

(1997: 247)

c. ..., tinggal mata kael perak itu buat..e..par dong dua (1997: 185) ..., stay fishhook silver that for...e..for 3pl two So far for the data.27 Now, if we look at this data somewhat more closely, two conclusions can be drawn. First of all, the use of the beneficiary prepositions voor ‘for’ (Dutch > for/fur) and buat ‘for’ (Malay > buat/bot) (and probably also Creole Portuguese par) to mark recipient IOs, as in (22b) and (23a–c) above, gives such examples a definitely ‘Afrikaans’ flavor – especially when for/fur is used, which reminds one of Afr. vir ‘to, for’ (< Du. voor ‘for’).28 However, such a conclusion is nothing but an impression. More important is the conclusion that at some point in the past the speakers of Ambon Malay were able to integrate a foreign beneficiary marker into their language while extending its usage to recipient IOs. This has immediate consequences for the diachronic analysis of the replacement of Du. aan ‘to’ by vir (< Du. voor ‘for’) in Afrikaans.

27. In Tahitu’s study on Melaju Sini (cf. n. 15) I only found the Beneficiary markers buat/bot and voor (Tahitu 1989: 123, 130, 147–148, 150), so that no comparison can be made with Ambon Malay, Melaju Sini’s closest relative. 28. Compare Afr. gee ’n stok vir Adoons ‘gives a stick FOR (= to) Adonis/Baboon’ with (23a) and Afr. toe vra die vader vir die oudste kind ‘then asks the father FOR (= zero) the oldest child’ with (23c).



Chapter 15.  The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape colony and Afrikaans vir 

Finally, I would like to point out that there may be indirect evidence for the use of par as an animate DO marker in older stages of Ambon Malay, although the evidence is slight and consists of only one example (van Minde 1997: 185): (25) Niri tikang par Kes pung panta-panta, ... Bee sting par Monkey poss buttock-buttock, ... Van Minde analyzes the par phrase in (25) as a locative goal – although tikang happens to be a solidly transitive verb (van Minde p.c.). However, this sentence is reminiscent of the use of pa/pe with inanimate DOs containing animate possessors in Manado Malay, and Aone van Engelenhoven (p.c.) informs me that he recognizes such a use of par from his personal experience with Ambon Malay. So, if my analysis is correct, it is not impossible that par once was used to mark animate direct objects too.

6. Conclusions The evidence we have collected concerning object marking in some Eastern Malay dialects demonstrates clear correspondences with Afrikaans, except for the quirky marking of inanimate DOs with animate possessors in Manado Malay (and possibly also in Ambon Malay). In Afrikaans the use of the prepositional element vir ranges over the full spectrum of Direct and Indirect Objects: it is used as an (usually) optional case marker in human/animate DOs, as a preposition (and possibly also as an optional case marker) in Recipient IOs and as a preposition in beneficiary IOs. Afr. vir derives from Dutch voor ‘for’ (for Dutch Beneficiary IOs). In Manado Malay there is an object marker pa/pe/par/per which covers the same range of objects as in Afrikaans, if we discount the quirky extension of animate DO marking. Pa/pe/par/per probably derives from Creole Portugese per/par. Since Manado Malay is an offshoot of North Moluccan Malay the same range of facts may be expected to exist in the latter dialect, but for the time being we have to content ourselves with the conclusion that pa in North Moluccan Malay may mark human DOs and recipient IOs, which is a proper subset of the applications of vir in Afrikaans. In Ambon Malay human or animate DOs are not prepositionally marked (although that may be a modern development) but recipient and beneficiary IOs are marked with the same prepositions, which again corresponds to a proper subset of the applications of vir in Afrikaans. At least two of these prepositions, for/fur and buat/ bot, derive from languages in which they are used as beneficiary markers. Therefore, it is probable that the syntax of Afrikaans vir (< Du. voor ‘for’) has come about through various linguistic influences upon Dutch as spoken in the Cape Colony: on the one hand there was Indo-Portuguese (in cooperation with some of the native languages of the slaves from India-Sri Lanka), on the other hand there were the Eastern

 Roots of Afrikaans

Malay dialects as spoken by the majority of the slaves from Indonesia.29 However, since the Eastern Malay object marker pa(r)/pe(r) seems to be a loan from Creole Portuguese, it is not improbable to assume that the type of Creole Portuguese spoken by these Indonesian slaves must have been a variety of Indo-Portuguese, which is possible since Indonesian Creole Portuguese is supposed to be an offshoot of Indo-Portuguese anyway. In western Indonesia and Malacca, the area of Pasar Malay with its object marker sama, Indo-Portuguese developed into a new distinct variety marking objects with ku(n), which we are used to call Malayo-Portuguese. Since only a minority of the Indonesian slaves came from western Indonesia-Malacca Pasar Malay and (incipient) Malayo-Portuguese were not strong enough to influence Cape Colonial Dutch.

28. It cannot be excluded that the native (Austronesian and non-Austronesian) languages of these slaves from eastern Indonesia may have played a role as well. Since something, though not much, is known about grammatical correspondences between the Eastern Malay dialects (contact varieties of Malay, after all) and some of the local languages, this is a topic for future research.

chapter 16

A badly harvested field The growth of linguistic knowledge and the Dutch Cape colony until 1796

1. Introduction The rapidly expanding Dutch Cape Colony founded in 16521 brought Europeans into closer contact with Khoesan languages (popularly also known as “the click languages’)2 and – from the 1770s onward – also with Bantu languages, more specifically with Isi-Xhosa and Se-Tswana. Since the Cape settlement was founded in, and for over a century was expanding into, Khoesan territory it is not surprising that Cape colonial linguistics of the VOC period was almost exclusively Khoesan linguistics – in fact almost exclusively Khoekhoe linguistics. After all, Khoekhoe (‘Hottentot’) was the language of the indigenous people the colony and its settlers had to deal with it on a day to day basis: the Khoekhoen (‘Hottentots’), while for many decades the San (or ‘Bushmen’) were successful in trying to stay out of the reach of the colony. It should be noted, though, that the VOC was not really interested in ‘Cape colonial linguistics’. Furthermore – as the Lords XVII (the VOC Directorate) expressed on at least one occasion – they felt that the Khoekhoen should learn Dutch rather than the Dutch learning Khoekhoe. And so no money was spent on linguistics, while botanical studies were actively promoted. Consequently, Cape colonial linguistics was work done by linguistic laymen, who followed their own agendas and who sometimes made use of the postal services of the 1. This paper was first published in The Dutch Trading Companies as Knowledge Networks, Siegfried Huigen, Jan L. de Jong & Elmer Kolfin (eds), 267–294. Leiden: Brill 2010. (Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture.) It is reprinted here with permission from the original publisher, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. The grapheme 〈oe〉 in Khoesan represents a diphthong [fε]. Since Europeans usually perceive this as [fi] Khoesan is often written Khoisan. Similarly for Khoe(khoe) (‘Hottentot’, the language) and Khoe(khoe) (n) (‘Hottentots’, the people). [I have a preference for the reduplicated stem and the common plural marker -n.] Also note that the name Khoesan is a hybrid ‘compound’ invented by outsiders. This juxtaposition of Khoekhoen and San (a Khoekhoe word for Bushmen) may make sense from an anthropological point of view, it does not from a linguistic point of view, since Khoekhoe is just one of the Central Khoesan languages.

 Roots of Afrikaans

VOC to get their data to Europe. One of those men was Johannes Wilhelmus de or van Grevenbroek (henceforth Grevenbroek), who is supposed to have sent two vocabularies and three texts translated into Khoekhoe to the gentleman-scholar Nicolaas Witsen in Amsterdam. The latter forwarded these fruits of Grevenbroek’s research to the German scholars Job Ludolf and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. This may sound exciting for an historian of ideas or an historian of linguistics but here the story more or less ends: we owe Leibniz and Ludolf ’s biographer Christian Juncker the publication of Grevenbroek’s Khoekhoe materials but that is about it. We don’t know of any publication by Ludolf or Leibniz (or a contemporary) on the linguistic properties of Khoekhoe. Therefore – and because more people were involved – the present paper will deal on the one hand with the descriptive properties of the various documents that have come down to us and on the other hand with certain mysteries surrounding some of these documents. As will become clear in the course of this paper Grevenbroek’s authorship of the documents published by Juncker and Leibniz is an interpretation of the facts. The actual documents are anonymous. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that a language is more than lexis: words may have a morphological structure and words may combine into phrases and sentences – even though there are also one word sentences such as Go! and one word phrases such as elephants. Therefore, we need morphological and/or grammatical remarks (level 3); and if these are absent at least a couple of sentences and/or phrases (level 2), and if these are absent at least some words that consist of more than one morpheme (level 1). And if even such data are absent we are at level 0 in so far as grammar is concerned. As we will see below, level 3 data are restricted to exactly one remark, while level 1 data are presented in an unsystematic way and level 2 data can hardly be found in the various glossaries that have come down to us, which changed a bit in the course of the 18th century. Fortunately, there are the anonymous 1697 texts (which we will attribute to J.W. Grevenbroek3) as well as the sentences in Kolb’s 1719 ethnographic description of the Khoekhoen.4 But unfortunately, these level 2 data are of a doubtful quality. For practical and socio-historical reasons the VOC period, which runs from 1652 until 1796, can best be divided into two sub-periods of linguistic activity separated by an intermezzo of linguistic silence. The first sub-period runs from 1652 until ca. 1730 and the second one from ca. 1770 until 1796. The ‘silent’ intermezzo most probably reflects the rapid decline of Khoekhoe in the Western Cape area and in neighboring areas colonized by the trekboere. During the second half of the 18th century, however, the rate of expansion was so high that many Khoesan-speaking groups were incorporated (or sometimes only surrounded) that did not immediately give up their languages. This more or less explains why linguistic activities were resumed after 1770.

3.

Leibniz 1717: 375–384.

4. Kolb 1719: 348, 363, 411, 417, 427, 579.



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

As I already pointed out above, the quality of Cape colonial linguistics during the VOC period is weak in the field of grammar. Unfortunately, the representation of clicks (which belongs to the field of phonology) is also weak, although there is some progress in the second period. Progress in the field of grammar had to wait until the period of the Batavian Republic as I will show in a Postscript. The two sub-periods of the Dutch VOC period will be treated consecutively with most attention for the first sub-period, due to a number of mysteries that have to be solved. The order of discussion will be more or less chronological, since there was not yet an academic discipline studying the properties of the Khoesan languages that might have yielded issues around which an article could be construed. The two historical sections will be preceded by a short section on two linguistic issues we will encounter in the course of this paper (Section 2). Finally, I would like to point out that the present paper owes much to G.S. Nienaber’s (1963) work on Cape Khoekhoe and early Nama (Khoekhoegowab) and Korana. It was Nienaber who dismissed the myth that Juncker (1710) had (re)published Wreede’s compendium. Nienaber analyzed the ways in which the 17th and 18th century documents represent the Khoesan click sounds and he discovered that Grevenbroek may have been the author of the documents published by Juncker and Leibniz. My own contribution mainly pertains to issues having to do with Cape Dutch Pidgin, Khoekhoe syntax, the Ludolf documents of 1691 and 1695, and Kolb’s Caput Bonae Spei Hodiernum (1719).

2. Two additional issues In his book entitled Caput bonae spei hodiernum (The present Cape of Good Hope) Peter Kolb spends a full chapter on the question of whether Khoekhoe can be learned and can be written (Kolb 1719: 347–364). 5 After many detours he finally reaches the conclusion that – yes, indeed – Khoekhoe can be learned – witness the presence of settlers who can speak that language natively (and in spite of his own inability to learn the clicks). He is more cautious as regards the second question, since the Roman alphabet does not seem to have enough symbols to represent the click sounds. So, new letters or characters are needed (Kolb 1719: 357). However, inventing new characters is only one option. It is also possible to borrow characters from other alphabets or to give superfluous symbols (e.g. 〈c〉, 〈q〉 and 〈x〉) a new function or to define combinations of characters as graphemes for clicks. Furthermore, there is the option of marking existing characters with diacritics, while mixed solutions are also possible of course. And the Swedish naturalist Thunberg invented yet another way to represent clicks, as we will see in Section 4 below. Anyway, this very basic issue will be a recurring feature in about all of the subsections that will follow. 5.

This is the first ‘letter’ of the second part of the book.

 Roots of Afrikaans

What Kolb probably was not aware of is that some of the words he and others considered to be Khoekhoe actually are Cape Dutch Pidgin. My impression is that the Khoekhoen when serving as consultants used simplified Khoekhoe, a kind of Khoekhoe foreigner talk, into which pidgin words could be freely inserted. It goes without saying that I will also pay attention to the three levels of grammatical information mentioned in Section 1.

3. The first sub-period This section will deal with Wreede and his Compendium, ten Rhyne’s remarks on Cape Dutch Pidgin and Khoekhoe, two anonymous authors, Grevenbroek, Valentyn, Kolb, and Büttner. This number of eight authors can be reduced to four, since the two anonymous authors may be one and the same person, i.e. Grevenbroek, while Kolb and Valentyn can be argued to have copied a handwritten vocabulary composed by Grevenbroek. In order to further structure this section I will distinguish the forerunners (Wreede and ten Rhyne), the texts of the 1690s and the production of the first quarter of the 18th century. Furthermore, the part on the early 18th century will provide arguments for the assumption that Grevenbroek may be the author of the anonymous documents of the 1690s.

3.1

The forerunners: Wreede (1663/1664) and ten Rhyne (1673)

3.1.1 Wreede (1663/1664) Although Jan van Riebeeck interspersed his voluminous writings with a few Khoekhoe words he never produced a Khoekhoe vocabulary. Shortly after van Riebeeck’s period, however, the new commander of the Cape settlement, Zacharias Wagenaar, sent a manuscript with a vocabulary composed by the soldier Georg Friedrich Wreede, to the Lords XVII in the Netherlands. In the accompanying letter, of 21 November 1663, Wagenaar states that Wreede, a former student and a native of the land of Brunswick, had arrived as a midshipman in 1659. He had developed an interest in Khoekhoe and he had progressed so much in his knowledge of that language that not only had he been able to serve as an interpreter every now and then but he also has now endeavored to put to paper a vocabulary or compendium as he calls it, comprising the Dutch, and the Hottentoic language (which he for the time being is expressing with Greek letters), which work he is now respectfully dedicating to your honours, trusting that – if your honours consider this good and useful – you will then have the same printed and published and will send some copies over.6 6. ‘maer heeft hem oock nu onderwonden een vocabulaer off compendium soo hy a’t noemt behelsende de Nederduytse & Hottentoose taele (die hy voor eerst met Griexe letters exprimeert



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

In their letter of 29 April 1664 the Directors of the Chamber of Middelburg: state: We have received the compendium or vocabulary of the Hottentot language, made by Georgius Fredericus Wreden and at your suggestion we have consented to have it printed and to send you some copies thereof with these or the next ships.7

Wreede was to receive a bonus of 100 rixdollars and should be promoted to the rank of assistant or sergeant,8 in spite of the fact that they preferred for the local inhabitants to learn Dutch rather than the Dutch learning their language.9 This is slightly at variance with a note concerning a Compendium off vocabulaer in de Hottentose taele (‘Compendium or vocabulary in the Hottentoic language’) in Landwehr’s bibliography of publications relating to the VOC: according to the Resolutien of the Heeren XVII the board decided on 1 May 1664, to have the Compendium printed.10 Unfortunately, Wreede’s Compendium is lost. Some believe it never was printed but in that case there should be a resolution to that effect. Maybe somewhere something went wrong: the book was forgotten and stayed in Holland, or there was a shipwreck, or the ship carrying the booklet was made prize of by privateers, or the book accidentally was not delivered at the Cape and disappeared in Colombo or Batavia, etc. etc. Further archival research may shed light on this issue. Most probably the printed Compendium never reached South Africa, since there is not the slightest trace of a writing system for Khoekhoe words involving the use of Greek characters. Had there been such a tradition among the learned at the Cape Willem ten Rhyne, who called at the Cape in 1673, would most probably have come across it. But his list of Hottentottonica and his list of Khoekhoe numerals (see below)

op ’t Pampier te brengen,) welck werck hy als nu UEEd. hier nevens Reverentie comt dediceren met vertrouwen dat soo wanneer UEEd. sulcx voor goet en dienstich achten tselve alsdan door den druck wel sullen laten gemeen maecken en eenige Exemplaren daer van herwaerts aensenden.’ For the full quote see Godée Molsbergen 1916: 215. Note that the right bracket should follow exprimeert. The adjective Hottentoos (Hottentoic in the translation) derives from the noun Hottento, the original form of the word Hottentot. 7. ‘Het compendium off vocabulaer van de Hottentotsche taele by Georgius Fredericus Wreden gemaeckt, hebben wij ontfangen en op Ul. voorstel goedgevonden te laten drucken en eenige exemplaren daervan met dese off volgende schepen Ul. toe te senden.’ (Boeseken 1973: 186n47). Moodie’s translation and Godée Molsbergen’s paraphrase are incorrect. Moodie translates: ‘[...] we have had it printed’ (Moodie 1838: 279) and according to Godée Molsbergen Wreede’s compendium had been received and printed (‘[...] dat Wreede’s compendium ontvangen was en gedrukt [...]’) Cf. Godée Molsbergen 1916: 215ff. 8. More on Wreede’s VOC career can be found in the pertinent biographical sketch in Schoeman 2006: 114–124. Also see Godée Molsbergen 1916: 215–216. 9. Godée Molsbergen 1916: 215, Moodie 1838: 279. 10. Landwehr 1991: 455.

 Roots of Afrikaans

contain not a single Greek character,11 while ten Rhyne was not averse of using Greek script in his Latin treatise.12 In spite of the above a quick search on the Internet demonstrates that it is widely believed that Wreede’s vocabulary is available in print. This is due to the fact that in 1916 Godée Molsbergen republished the Khoekhoe materials of Juncker (1710) (for which see Section 3.2.1. below) under the heading G.F. Wreede’s Hottentotse Woordelijst (‘G.F. Wreede’s Khoekhoe vocabulary’).13 Isaac Schapera’s influential publication on the Cape Khoekhoen underscored this misunderstanding by stating: The manuscripts of the [= Wreede’s] vocabulary are no longer preserved in the Archives of either Holland or the Cape. It is generally believed that they were lent to the historian Ludolf and never recovered, for in a biography written of him by Christian Junker and published in 1710 there is a long Dutch-HottentotLatin vocabulary whose source is not mentioned, but which is now universally attributed to Wreede. 14

However, Godée Molsbergen and Schapera got it wrong: in Juncker’s book we find two vocabularies, neither of which mentions vocabulaer or compendium in its title.15 Furthermore, not a single Greek letter can be detected. In view of the absence of such graphemes combined with the absence of the word compendium it is highly unlikely that these vocabularies can be attributed to Wreede. Furthermore, we expect one list, not two. Be that as it may, even though Wreede’s Compendium seems to be lost forever, we should at least try to learn more about its fate. And maybe an unorthodox search in archives other than those in Cape Town and The Hague will yield more than that. 3.1.2 Ten Rhyne (1673) In 1673, Willem ten Rhyne – a medical doctor on his way to the East Indies – called at the Cape. More than ten years later he sent a Latin extract of his diary, which dealt with the Cape Colony and the Khoekhoen, to Gasper Sibelius of Goor, a physician in his home town Deventer. On 24 February1685 the latter forwarded it to a colleague in Schaffhausen (Switzerland), where it was published in 1686.16 11. Most probably Wreede used Greek characters to represent the clicks. 12. Schapera (ed.) 1933: 84, 94, 98, 136, 148. 13. Godée Molsbergen 1916: 215–224. 14. Schapera 1933: 3. There was an American reprint of this book in 1970 (Newport, CT.: 1970). As far as I know, Ludolf is better known an orientalist. 15. The respective titles are: Eenige Hottentotse Woorden (Some Hottentot words) and Hottentotsche Taal, gebruyckelick by de Natien, op en omtrent de Caab de goude Hoop (The Hottentot language in use among the nations which live at and near the Cape of Good Hope). Cf. Juncker 1710: 229, 232 and the modern edition: Godée Molsbergen 1916: 215, 218. 16. Ten Rhyne 1933 [1686]. For more details see Schapera 1933: 84 and den Besten 2007a. Ten Rhyne (1686) was republished in Schapera I. 1933: 78–157, with a translation by B. Farrington.



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

Important for the present article is ten Rhyne’s chapter XXVII, De lingua eorundem (‘About their language’).17 As I have shown elsewhere18 this chapter does not really concern Khoekhoe but rather Cape Dutch Pidgin, which is described in terms of the components of its lexicon: many words from Dutch, to which the Khoekhoen very often add the suffix Kom [sic: om],19 not many roots from Khoekhoe, which the Khoekhoen enrich with epithets, and a few words from English. Unfortunately, the ‘Khoekhoe’ root that is given as an example, Courcour ‘bird’, is not a Khoekhoe appellative but a Dutch onomatope. Yet, the principle of differentiation by means of epithets is clear, e.g. Grotom Courcour ‘big bird, ostrich’.20 This short linguistic introduction is followed by a list of Mere Hottentottonica, quae obiter occurrunt [...], i.e. ‘Purely Hottentot words which sometimes show up [...]’, a very short list of Corrupta Belgica ‘Broken Dutch words’ and a list of Khoekhoe numerals. The list of (six) numerals is precious evidence for an archaic pentadic counting system, which at the time was in the process of being replaced by a decimal system, as Nienaber has shown.21 The two other lists evidence some ‘inaccuracies’. Thus, at least three of the Hottentottonica are pidginisms: Aqua ‘horse’,22 Boeba ‘ox or cow’ and Debitja ‘young bulls’,23 while two words in the list of Corrupta Belgica are khoekhoeisms: Karos ‘cloak’ and bi ‘drink, milk’ (written as bier ‘beer’).24 The remaining Hottentottonica 17. Schapera 1933: 152–157. 18. Den Besten 1987b. 19. Ten Rhyne is confusing suffixes with word-final syllables. Thus only his first example, tabaqkom ‘tobacco’, ends in -kom, which is a syllable, while tabaqkom, kortom ‘small share’ and horom ‘to hear’, share the suffix (or clitic) -om. The claim that almost all (lat. omnia ferme) words taken from Dutch end in -kom, i.e. -om, is blatantly false. In the pidgin text fragments in Chapter XX of ten Rhyne’s Schediasma (Schapera 1933: 140) only 5 out of a total of 53 (mainly Dutch) words end in -om (or its variant -me). 20. Recently I have argued that a pidgin adjective + -om may be indicative of a sentence: e.g. grotom Courcour may be ‘big-hei [the] birdi’, i.e. ‘the bird is big’ (den Besten 2007b). 21. See Nienaber 1963: 166–178. 22. Aqua (elsewhere haqua, hacqua, etc.) is the frozen masculine plural of the Khoekhoe name for a specific kind of zebra or quagga, which the Dutch in vain hoped they could domesticate. An alternative name was du. wild paard ‘wild horse’ (> afr. wildeperd), or just paard ‘horse’. Such ‘horses’ were first made mention of in March 1658. The Khoekhoe name appears in December 1660: Haqua (Bosman & Thom 1952 –1957 vol. 2: 267, 460 and vol. 3: 308). Whether van Riebeeck knew that Haqua was a plural is not clear. However, in the pidgin the plural ha + gu + a has been reanalyzed as a nominal stem: hakwa. 23. Boeba is an extended form of du. boe ‘moo’, and Debitja probably is a transcription error for *Debiesa (elsewhere Dwiessa, tibesa < du. de/die ‘the/that’ + du./afr. bees(t) ‘(bovine) animal’). 24. Kh. Karos ‘cloack’ is mistaken for a semantic corruption of du. karos ‘carriage’, and bi/bier is part of a pun that ten Rhyne couldn’t not grasp.

 Roots of Afrikaans

as well as the numerals though being part of the pidgin, are also evidence for Khoekhoe but the clicks are weakly represented, if at all.25 These two properties – the listing of pidgin words in Khoekhoe vocabularies and the weak representation of clicks – will constitute recurring themes for the remainder of this paper. Finally note that the number of lexical elements presented by ten Rhyne is too small to provide us with morphological (or: level 1) information.

3.2 Contact with the Republic of letters in the 1690s While European colonists were struggling with ‘exotic’ languages, linguists in Europe started to develop an interest in such languages, partly for their own sake and partly for comparative linguistic purposes.26 Two of such linguists, to wit the orientalist Job Ludolf and the polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, contacted the Amsterdam gentlemanscholar Nicolaas Witsen, who was willing to help. In the same period the Cape intellectual J.W. Grevenbroek made use of the postal services offered by the VOC to dispatch a Latin treatise on the Khoekhoen and the Ama-Xhosa to a friend in Amsterdam. This treatise was ethnographic, of course, but it contained some linguistic information. 3.2.1 Witsen, Ludolf and an anonymous author (1691 and 1695) In 1691, five years after the publication of ten Rhyne’s booklet, the Amsterdam burgomaster and future VOC director Nicolaas Witsen sent a Khoekhoe vocabulary to the German orientalist and father of western Ge’ez studies, Job Ludolf. In 1695 this happened again. The two vocabularies – together with two Latin letters by Nicolaas Witsen, a Dutch document-cum-Latin-translation on religious beliefs among the Khoekhoen, and a Praefatio (Preface) – were published in Appendix II to Ludolf ’s biography written by Christian Juncker (1710). For ease of reference I will call these vocabularies the Ludolf documents,27 and their author(s) – who in view of the very similar orthographies 25. E.g. Ouka ‘wolf [= hyena]’ should start with a dental click ([ǀ]). The same click is written with a 〈t〉 in Tem ‘two’, which in the absence of a diacritic will be incorrectly understood as the dental stop [t]. 26. Cf. Aarsleff (1975), Haarmann (2000) and (3) Groenewald (2004). 27. Nienaber (1963) mistakenly attributes both vocabularies to 1691. However, there are two letters by Nicolaas Witsen referring to Khoekhoe materials: (a) In a letter dated The Hague, 16 December 1691 Witsen says: ‘Nil mihi ultimae naues Indicae adportarunt [read: adportaverunt], praeter vocabula aliquot Hottentottica, quae heic habes.’ That is: ‘The last ships from India have brought me nothing but some Hottentot words, which you receive herewith.” (b) In a letter dated Amsterdam, 4 January 1696 Witsen says: ‘Gaudeo, te valere, & grata fuisse, quae de lingua Hottentottica misi; […].’ That is: ‘I am glad that you are well and that what I sent you of/about the Hottentot language has been welcome; […]’. The latter letter sounds like a reply to a letter of thanks by Ludolf. So Witsen must have sent another Khoekhoe vocabulary to Ludolf in 1695,



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

must be one and the same person – will be indicated as L. A juicy little detail in this respect may be that apparently Ludolf had been ‘sitting on his data’, because – according to Juncker – the existence of these documents had not been known to anybody.28 Originally these anonymous vocabularies must have been bilingual (Dutch – Khoekhoe) but Juncker has added a Latin column.29 However, there are several flaws in the Latin column. Thus Harte beesten ‘hartebeests’ (lit. ‘hart animals’) was translated as Dura animalia ‘hard animals’ and een Snaphaan ‘a flintlock’ was interpreted as lat. latro ‘robber’.30 A few entries such as de pramme ‘the breasts’ and Yser ‘iron’ were left open because they were not amenable to guesswork. Juncker couldn’t help it that the author made use of typical Cape Dutch (Afrikaans) terminology such as Wolf ‘wolf ’ for ‘hyena’ and een Zeekoey ‘a sea cow [= a walrus]’ for ‘a hippopotamus’.31 So the Latin translations – quite understandably – were Lupus ‘wolf ’ and Vacca marina ‘sea cow, walrus’ respectively. This having been said a few words are in order about the pertinent Dutch – Khoekhoe vocabularies as such. First of all, they are thematically organized but there are no which explains why there are two vocabularies in Juncker´s Commentarius instead of one. Cf. Juncker (1710: 227). 28. At the end of the Praefatio Juncker states: ‘Igitur persuasi fuimus, operae pretium nos facturos, siquidem hae scriptiones ad eruditorum notitiam ex chartis LVDOLFIANIS perferantur, praesertim cum nemini hactenus, quantum quidem nobis constat, quidquam de iis fuerit cognitum.’ (p. 226) [bold mine] That is: ‘So we are convinced that we will be doing something worthwhile when these [handwritten] documents are brought from Ludolf ’s papers to the attention of the learned, especially because until now – in so far as we know – nobody knew anything about them.’ 29. That it was Juncker and not Ludolf to whom we owe the Latin column can be derived from the last paragraph of the Praefatio: ‘[..] in gratiam eorum, qui linguam Batauam non callent, interpretationem vocum latinam adiecimus’, that is ‘[...] on behalf of those who do not know Dutch we have added a Latin translation of the words’ (Juncker 1710: 226). The subject of this quote (‘we’) cannot be Ludolf because the Praefatio is referring to Ludolf in the third person: on p. 225 (ad Nobilissimum IOBVM LVDOLFVM ‘to the very famous Job Ludolf ’; Amicum illum LVDOLFI ‘that friend of Ludolf ’s’) and again on p. 226 (ex chartis LVDOLFIANIS ‘from the Ludolfian [=Ludolf ’s] papers’). Therefore, the ‘we’ of the Praefatio must be the author of the book, Christian Juncker. 30. Dura animalia on account of germ. harte ‘hard (inflected)’ (vs. du. harde ‘id.’) and latro ‘robber’ on account of germ. Schnapphahn ‘id.’ 31. Boshoff &Nienaber (1967) point at related words of the sea-cow type in English, French, Neolatin and German. Most probably the Latin expression vacca marina is much older, since it can be found in Der Naturen Bloeme (1270), a rhyming encyclopedia of natural history by the Middle Dutch author Jacob van Maerlant, as a quick search on the internet taught me. Godée Molsbergen – who has the annoying tendency to ridicule Juncker’s Latin (as well as his limited knowledge of Dutch) while not criticizing the same ‘mistakes’ in Kolb’s Latin – does not seem to be aware of the status of neolat. vacca marina. He simply calls it a ‘literal translation’. Cf. Godée Molsbergen (1916: 216, 222).

 Roots of Afrikaans

headings such as ‘Animals’, ‘Nature’, etc. Furthermore, the thematic blocks are sometimes broken up through associative flashes. As in the case of ten Rhyne a few pidginisms have been incorporated into these Khoekhoe vocabularies: Dwiessaa ‘ox’ and Hackwaa/hacquab ‘horse’.32 Furthermore the lexical information is such that we seem to be able to extract some morphological (level 1) information from that.33 But the information provided is unsystematic: a bit of natural gender but no number oppositions, so that the rich system of person-gender-number markers for nouns cannot be detected.34 Furthermore, it is rather difficult to establish whether a ‘long’ noun is a compound or not. As regards the clicks the composer of these two vocabularies is applying a couple of graphemic tricks: 〈t〉 plus interspacing as in t houquaa ‘wolf [= hyena]’, 〈k’〉 plus interspacing as in k’ auwb ‘fish’, 〈qu’〉 as in qu’einb ‘the liver’, etc.35 However, Nienaber could not detect any system in the use of these graphemes – at least in comparison with the clicks of Nama (Khoekhoegowab).36 Now notice that these two vocabularies have been preserved in yet another version, a manuscript with again three columns, but this time with a third column in German. It is kept in the Moravian archives in Herrnhut, Germany, as part of a portfolio with the title Acta die Reise des Georg Schmidts nach Cabo de Goede Hoop betreffende: Anno 1736, i.e. ‘Documents concerning Georg Schmidt’s voyage to Cabo de Goede Hoop [= the Cape of Good Hope]: Anno 1736’.37 Georg Schmidt was the first Moravian missionary to be sent to South Africa to start a mission among the Khoekhoen.38 32. Godée Molsbergen 1916: 216 and 216, 220 respectively. A subscript a/b indicates that the word is quoted from the first, or the second vocabulary respectively. – Note that the Dutch column of the first vocabulary usually – and also in these two cases – quotes animal names in the plural, while the corresponding word in the Khoekhoe column is in the singular. Therefore, the plural translation of Dwiessa and Hackwa in the first vocabulary is irrelevant for the discussion: the second vocabulary translates hacqua with an indefinite singular in spite of its ‘evident’ plural morphology. Furthermore, Dwiessa is a variant of pidg. du. de bees(t) ‘the bovine animal’ (du. beest, afrikaans bees) – and one may wonder whether Goudiea/hoedieb ‘sheep (plural)’ and ‘a sheep’ respectively isn’t a frozen feminine plural comparable to the frozen masculine plural Hackwa/hacqua. 33. E.g. on the basis of Zohee ‘a man’ and Zohees ‘woman’ (Juncker C., Comentarius 230) we might conclude that -s is a feminine (singular) marker – which is correct. 34. See e.g. Rust (1965) for these so-called pgn-markers and see Nienaber Hottentots for the same in Cape Khoekhoe. 35. Godée Molsbergen 1916: 216, 220, 219. – Note that in Godée Molsbergen’s edition the word-internal spaces have been removed. Nienaber (1963) which is quoting directly from Juncker C., Commentarius retains such spaces. 36. Nienaber 1963: 120, 122. 37. Letter of 14 January 1994 by Ms. I. Baldauf, curator. 38. He soon had to give up (1744), due to strong opposition from the local white inhabitants.



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

Given the description of yet another manuscript version of these vocabularies, also kept in the archives in Herrnhut,39 we know that the translator was the Dutch merchant Isaac le Long, which explains certain peculiarities of the German translation.40 Most probably le Long made his translation on the basis of the edition in Juncker’s Commentarius. 3.2.2 Grevenbroek’s letter of 1695 In 1695 Grevenbroek, who had resigned as the secretary of the Cape Council of Policy in 1694, sent a long letter on the Khoekhoen written in laborious Latin to a friend in Amsterdam, a clergyman apparently, whose name is not known. This ‘letter’, which – witness its edition in Schapera’s Early Cape Hottentots – is longer than ten Rhyne’s treatise,41 deals not only with the Khoekhoen but also with the Magosi, i.e. the Ama-Xhosa. A lot of his information on the Ama-Xhosa he must have obtained from a young Frenchman, called Guillaume Chenut, who – after a shipwreck – had lived for a couple of years among the Ama-Xhosa and who claimed to have learned their language pretty well. Grevenbroek mentions that he had – most probably with Chenut’s help – drafted a Xhosa vocabulary, which is lost, unfortunately. What is left is a collocation that is supposed to express the concept of ship: Caye Mansine,42 names like Magosi,43 and a list of numerals (1–10, 20, 30) with a list of corresponding numerals from Khoekhoe. Since the Xhosa and Khoekhoe forms do not show any similarity, Grevenbroek wonders what their origins might be. Whether he would have understood and maybe even liked the present day answers in terms of separate macro-phyla and two migrations that brought Xhosa and Khoekhoe together in the East Cape is something one can only speculate about. As for the linguistic data as such, one thing is clear (and not surprising): Grevenbroek’s treatment of the clicks (Khoekhoe) is somewhat shaky.44 On the other hand, 39. Shelf number NB.VII R.3 209b: “Hottentottische Wörtersammlung” (Collection of Hottentot words) – and between bracket: Abschrift von Alexander Glitsch nach der Abschrift von Isaac Le Long, […] (Transcript by Alexander Glitsch after the transcript by Isaac Le Long, […]). – This version consists of a German column in alphabetical order followed by two columns for the respective vocabularies. I owe a copy of this manuscript to Jerzy Koch. 40. Le Long often uses an -en plural instead of an -e plural. E.g. Schiffen ‘ships’. He hypercorrectly translates du. Zee ‘sea’ in Zee-Leeuw ‘sea lion’ and Zee-Koeij ‘sea cow’ with germ. Meer instead of germ. See. And a few nouns have the wrong gender. E.g. Ein Kugel ‘a bullet’ (masculine or neuter) instead of Eine Kugel (feminine). 41. Schapera 1933: 158 – 299. 42. Schapera 1933: 280, 282. 43. Schapera 1933: 220, 222, 280. 44. Chiu ‘1’ [read: chui] and kham ‘2’ both start with the dental click. This does not seem to be reflected in the spelling of these two words. Secondly, nhona ‘3’ and nanni ‘6’ both start with a nasalized alveolar click. This may be indicated by 〈nh〉 in nhona, while nanni does not seem to indicate a click.

 Roots of Afrikaans

a comparison of Grevenbroek’s Xhosa with modern Xhosa shows that young Chenut may have learned a dialect that dropped word-initial vowels, which may very well be genuine.45 3.2.3 Witsen, Leibniz and an anonymous author (1697) In 1697 Nicolaas Witsen sent new Khoekhoe materials to the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – this time translations of three basic texts of Christianity: the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments (long version), and the Nicene Creed. In 1717 they were published (together with texts in other languages provided by Witsen and together with some of Witsen’s letters to Leibniz46) as chapter VII of part II of Leibniz’s posthumous Collectanea etymologica.47 In this context one should take notice of the first half of an excerpt from a letter by Nicolaas Witsen that accompanied the Khoekhoe texts: Since I see that you wish to have the Pater Noster in the languages of distant countries I am taking te liberty to send you a handwritten document in Hottentot together with the Credo ad the Decem Praecepta, as well as the Pater Noster in Mongolian, which I have – with great difficulty – pulled out of a Mongolian slave who is with the mission of Moscovia. If there are other foreign nations among them, I´ll try to learn their Pater Noster as well.48

In order to be able to do comparative linguistics and etymology (in search of remnants of the aboriginal ‘Adamic’ human language) Leibniz wanted to collect the Lord´s Prayer in as many different languages as possible. Apparently his consultant in the

45. E.g. Caye mansine, which derives from i-kaya emanzine ‘house on the water [= ship]’. Similarly for Seine vel [= ‘or’] Mane ‘4’, which could derive from ezi-ne and ama-ne respectively. Cf. Schapera´s footnotes 93 and 95 and Fischer e.a (1985) and Louw & Jubase (1978). 46. Witsen corresponded with Leibniz in French, and with Ludolf in Latin. 47. Leibniz (1717). – Leibniz died in 1716. For his Collectanea etymologica see Groenewald (2004). – The Khoekhoe texts can be found on pp. 375–384. Unfortunately, the original has disappeared in WW II (e-mail of 12 December 2006 by Prof. Herbert Breger, curator of the Leibniz-Archiv). 48. ‘Comme je vois, que vous desirez d’avoir le Pater Noster en des Langsues de Pais éloignez, je prens la liberté de vous envoyer un Ecrit en Langue Hotentote avec le Credo & Decem Præcepta, de même que le Pater Noster en Langue Mogale, le quel j’ay tiré avec beaucoup de peine d’un Mogal Esclave, qui est avec l’Ambassade de Moscovie. S’il y a d’autres Nations Etrangeres parmi eux, je tâcheray d’aprendre aussi leur Pater Noster. [...]’ (Leibniz 1717: 361.) – Lat. Pater Noster ‘the Lord’s Prayer’ (lit. ‘Our Father’), lat. Decem Praecepta ‘the Ten Commandments’. Leibniz himself has a preference for the more distanced Latin expression Oratio Dominica (lit.) ‘Lordly Prayer’, i.e. ‘the Lord´s Prayer’ (e.g. on p. 63 of his book).



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

Cape Colony (henceforth T) didn’t think that was enough and added the Ten Commandments and the Nicene Creed.49 The three texts are presented as interlinear translations from Dutch into Khoekhoe, with an optional third line for notes concerning problems of translation. Note markers in front of the problematic Dutch words refer to these notes. Following the Lord’s Prayer there is a short postscript of 18.5 lines in Dutch in which T spends ca. 5.5 lines on the problems dealt with in the notes, 11 lines on the clicks and ca. 2 lines on the absence of words for Maar ‘but’ and Want ‘for, because’ in Khoekhoe (which has to be qualified, see below). Furthermore, a Nota after the Ten Commandments discusses two Khoekhoe animal names and a Nota after the Nicene Creed returns to the problems of translation. The 11 lines about the clicks indicate that 〈k?〉 and 〈t?〉 represent clicks.50 The phonetic description of the clicks is not very helpful, though, since the clicks are not differentiated. Furthermore, the distribution of the click signs seems to be unsystematic, as Nienaber has established.51 Now note that the graphemes 〈k?〉 and 〈t?〉 are reminiscent of the click graphemes employed in the Ludolf documents (also without much systematicity) and that both in the Ludolf and in the 1697 documents there may be a word-internal interspace immediately after the click grapheme. Furthermore, the overall orthography of the new texts is reminiscent of the orthography of the Ludolf documents.52 So, the two anonymous authors, L and T, may be one and the same person. From a linguistic point of view these translations are a big step forward because they may tell us something about word order in Cape Khoekhoe (so level 2 data). Yet, we have to be on our guard: T is often translating phrase by phrase, also within phrases, which does not necessarily lead to acceptable Khoekhoe sentences. In fact, T’s remark about the absence of words for maar ‘but’ and want ‘for [= because]’53 demonstrates that T did not know much about complex sentences in Khoekhoe. 49. If T is indeed Grevenbroek this detail fits. Grevenbroek was known for his somewhat ostentatious devout Christianity. 50. T does not say anything about 〈t’〉, 〈k’〉 and the single case of 〈g’〉, but we may safely assume that these graphemes represent clicks as well. 51. Nienaber 1963: 122–123. 52. E.g. the grapheme 〈ou〉 for the [u] sound, the syllable-initial grapheme 〈ch〉 for [x] and the abundant use of 〈qu〉. These are loan graphemes in Dutch orthography. They derive from French, Greco-Latin and Latin borrowings respectively. French 〈ou〉 had a strong position in 17th century Dutch spelling, especially for representing non-European words, and it could even be used in native Dutch words. Greco-Latin 〈ch〉, however, had to compete with Dutch 〈g〉, even though the latter was also necessary to express the voiced velar stop [g]. 53. The sole instance of level 3 data during the whole VOC period (at least in so far as the indigenous languages of South Africa are concerned): ‘Ook zyn de vvoorden Maar en Want by haar in geen gebruyk, en sulx onbekend.’ I.e. ‘Furthermore the words But and For are not in use among them, and unknown [as] such’ (p. 377).

 Roots of Afrikaans

Generally speaking, if a language is lacking coordinators such as but and for adverbs can be used instead or otherwise subordinators (although, because). Subordinators in Khoekhoe, however, have to be put at the end of the subordinate clause. So want uwe is dat Koningryk ‘for yours is the kingdom’ (p. 376), which T ‘translates’ as – t? aats kouqueetsa54 could have been something like t? aats kouqueetsa chuige, with chuige ‘because’.55 Yet, there are a couple of things in these texts that are good Khoekhoe, such as the use of postpositions as in t? homme ingá ‘heaven in [= in heaven]’ or the use of pre-nominal unmarked possessive phrases as in haque hacqua ‘that man donkey [= his donkey]’.56 But T’s consultant may have fooled him a little in that he made use of simplified or adapted Khoekhoe. Evidence for this assumption may be the use of hacqua ‘horse, donkey’ and haque ‘that man [= he]’. T knew that hacqua was a new word but apparently he did not know that it was a pidginism.57 Nor did he recognize haque ‘that man’ as a pidginism.58 Note that 19th century Korana (an offshoot of Cape Khoekhoe) called a (male) horse hāb, which is genuine Khoehoe, and used the pronominal stem êi- for the third person pronouns (as in Nama).59 Therefore, the idea of a simplified – or at least adapted – Khoekhoe may be on the right track.60

54. Note that – t? aats kouqueetsa actually means: ‘– you the king are’ rather than ‘– you the kingdom have’. 55. Cf. Rust (1965). 56. Leibniz 1717: 375, 381. 57. The Nota after the Ten Commandments states: ‘Hacqua beduÿd een tam paard by de Hottentots onbekend, en “twoord d’au betekend een wilden Esel of paard in een en deselve naam; zynde een rast [= vast? HdB] bewÿs, dat sÿ voor d’Europeanen geen paarden gesien hebben.” (p. 382) That is: ‘Hacqua means a domesticated horse – which is unknown among the Hottentots – and the word d’au means a wild donkey or horse in one and the same noun; [this] being firm proof that they have not seen any horses before the Europeans. 58. Other examples: (a) ha queena ‘those people [= them]’ referring to other beings (than God) that may not be venerated (Second Commandment, p. 377), (b) hà que ‘that man’s [= his]’ referring to Thoró Bo etc. ‘God [the] Father etc.’ in the Nicene Creed (p. 382). – Que(e) is the Khoekhoe noun stem khoe- ‘person’ and -na is -n, the common plural marker, + -a, the dependent case marker. Cape kh. que(e) as an unmarked noun is masculine singular in the nominative. Nominative phrases are used as subjects (‘that man’> ‘he’) and as possessors (‘that man’s’ > ‘his’). For the latter see Rust (1965). 59. Cf. Wuras (1920). It is actually î- in modern Nama (Khoekhoegowab) but before the 1977 spelling reform this element was also written êi-. 60. Groenewald (2004) surmises that T’s consultant may have been the Chainouqua chieftain Captain Dorha, also known as Captain Claas (‘Captain Nick’ so to speak). For a biographical sketch of Dorha see Schoeman (2006: 317–346).



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

3.3

Collectors and copiers: Grevenbroek and Büttner, Valentyn and Kolb (early 18th century)

In a relatively short period at the beginning of the 18th century three men collected data on Cape Khoekhoe: the Dutch protestant minister François Valentyn, the German astronomer, later: VOC employee, Peter Kolb, and the German surgeon and VOC employee, Johann Daniel Büttner. For two of them collecting data meant copying somebody else’s information: in 1705, during a stopover at the Cape, Valentyn copied data from a manuscript he had borrowed from J.W. Grevenbroek, and Peter Kolb, who was at the Cape from 1705 until 1713, is supposed to have done the same. Büttner collected some data between 1712 (his year of arrival) and 1716 (year of his manuscript).61 Valentyn published the transcribed data in the fifth, ‘South African’ part of his 1726 book on the East Indies.62 Kolb incorporated the Khoekhoe data into his wellknown Caput Bonae Spei Hodiernum.63 Büttner’s data was not published until the 20th century.64 Since Büttner (ms., 1716?) was only limitedly available until 1970, I will not discuss it or its primitive system of diacritics.65 But it should be noted that Büttner’s list contains ten sentences as well as six two- or three-word Noun Phrases (so level 2 data). As for the two other authors, Valentyn’s vocabulary is preceded by two lists of numerals, one for the people Landwaart in ‘in the interior’ (Xhosa) and one for the people Aan ‘t Kasteel ‘near the castle’ (Khoekhoe). Despite some transcription mistakes these two lists look very much like the lists of numerals in Grevenbroek (ms., 1695), which is hardly surprising. Valentyn’s vocabulary is thematically organized: animals, birds, water animals (‘fishes’), body parts, human beings, other things, and verbs – in sum 199 entries. The entries are bilingual: Khoekhoe – Dutch, although the entry ‘Söu, een Kom of Kop; olla’ with latin olla ‘pot’ at the end66 suggests a trilingual (Khoekhoe – Dutch – Latin) original. Kolb’s vocabulary is differently organized. It is trilingual: Latin – Khoekhoe – German, and its 203 entries are alphabetically ordered on the basis of the Latin entries (with a considerable number of ordering mistakes). The vocabulary is followed by a discussion of the numerals in Khoekhoe. 61. 1716 is a reconstruction. Cf. Büttner (1716? [1970]: 6–8). 62. Valentyn 1726 (1973): 76–94. 63. Kolb (1719: 360–364). For the Dutch translation of Kolb P. Caput see Kolb[e] (1727). 64. Cf. Büttner (1716? [1970]: 40–41). The manuscript as we have it is an extract made by Joachim N. von Dessin after Büttner’s death in 1730. Nowadays it is part of the Dessinian collection in the National Library of South Africa, Cape Town. 65. I.e. (1) ^: indicates the presence of a click. (2) ^^: indicates the presence of a nasalized click. (3) o: indicates nasalization of the vowel. Cf. Büttner (1716? [1970]: 40) 40 and Nienaber (1063: 138, 163). 66. Valentyn 1973 [1726]: 88.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Kolb and Valentyn’s vocabularies look as if they are completely different documents – due to a couple of formal differences such as the application of different ordering principles, Valentyn’s substitution of Dutch 〈oe〉 for ‘French’ 〈ou〉, and Kolb’s ubiquitous use of the tilde as a click marker – sometimes in positions where it should not appear at all.67 Now note that Kolb is insinuating that he is producing an improved version of the Ludolf documents as published by Juncker in his Commentarius (1710),68 which in a sense is true, because 178 entries of Kolb’s vocabulary share information with entries in the documents published by Juncker. However, 170 out of those 178 entries can also be found in Valentyn’s vocabulary. Since Valentyn states that he made use of a manuscript by Grevenbroek we have to conclude that the anonymous author of the Ludolf (and 1697) documents is the same person as J.W. Grevenbroek.69 Given internal evidence Grevenbroek must have collapsed, corrected and expanded his 1691 and 1695 vocabularies. It is this new manuscript that Valentyn borrowed and copied. However, it can be proven beyond any doubt that also Kolb based his vocabulary upon Grevenbroek’s manuscript. First of all, there are 21 entries shared by Kolb and Valentyn that can not be found in Juncker’s Commentarius (1710). Secondly, wherever Valentyn innovates with respect to Juncker, Kolb sides with Valentyn.70 Furthermore, in case of variation between the two Ludolf documents Valentyn and Kolb choose the same variant.71 And finally, in most cases where Valentyn systematizes the somewhat erratic use of nominal number in the Dutch (and Latin) translations in Juncker (1710), Kolb sides with Valentyn – even in the case of a ‘mistake’, such as ghoedie/g~houdie ( over 〈h〉) ‘sheep (feminine plural)’, which is translated as ‘a sheep’.72 Therefore, Kolb’s claim that he had made use of Juncker’s Commentarius, had corrected the mistakes in the Latin translations, had added what else he could find in 67. Thus Nombha ‘beard’ (elsewhere nomma; lat. barba), with the masculine singular marker -ma/-bha, gets a tilde over -ha, although gender-number markers don’t contain clicks. Also the click in de Dutch loan bak~kerie ‘pitcher’ (< du. beker ‘mug’; 〈~〉 straddling 〈kk〉) is curious to say the least. 68. Kolb 1719: 360. 69. This is basically Nienaber’s argument (Nienaber 1963: 126 –131) although I have reorganized the argumentation. The counts are mine. 70. Thus they both correct drief ‘wine’ (< du. druif ‘grape’) as driefbi, i.e. ‘grape drink’ (with du. druif and kh. bi ‘drink’). Cf. Godée Molsbergen (1916: 217), Valentyn (1973 [1726]: 88), Kolb (1719: 363). And they copy the same scribal error for the pidginism dwiessa ‘oxen’: durie-sa ‘an ox’ (Valentyn) and durié-sá ‘id.’ (Kolb). Cf. Godée Molsbergen (1916: 216), Valentyn (1973 [1726]: 80), Kolb (1719: 360). 71. E.g. TGammaA ~ ChammaB ‘lion’, becomes Chamma. Cf. Godée Molsbergen (1916: 216 – 220, Valentyn (1973 [1726]: 78), Kolb (1719: 362). 72. Kolb (1719: 448) quotes ‘Hacqua ... ein Pferd [= a horse]’ and ‘Ghoudie, oder Schaaf [= or sheep (singular)]’ (with over the 〈h〉) as names of Khoekhoe men. So for him ghoudie was a singular.



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

his notes, had inserted his click marker (the tilde), and had added German translations,73 seems to be three quarters of untruth and one quarter of truth: he has indeed added a German column to the vocabulary, has corrected (and expanded) the Latin column, and has inserted the tilde, which gives his vocabulary an (undeserved) scholarly appearance. But the rest seems to be plainly besides the truth. I agree with Nienaber that this is quite annoying but I would like to argue that there is also a grain of truth inside the untruth, since Kolb’s Latin column definitely follows the Latin of Juncker (1710), but for the mistakes, which have been corrected.74 Thus Kolb sticks to the Cape Dutch (Afrikaans) animal names such as Lupus ‘wolf ’ (hyena) or Vacca marina ‘sea cow, walrus’ (hippopotamus); and he keeps the expression Bos gestans onus ‘ox carrying a burden’ (pack-ox), although Bos gestatorius would have been better.75 Therefore, even though Kolb used Juncker’s Commentarius as a smokescreen, he did work on and with it. Yet, it is strange that he believed he could freely quote from (his personal copy of) Grevenbroek’s manuscript and get away with it. But there is yet another point that needs clarification: Kolb’s (undifferentiated) click sign, the tilde. His argument for the need of such a sign runs as follows. Talking about Juncker’s Commentarius he claims i.a.: [...] yet, nowhere does one see a sign about the question of whether and what kind of click with the tongue should be made with them [= the words sent to Ludolf] 76

One may wonder whether he really believed that. If so that would imply that Kolb did not recognize Grevenbroek’s graphemes for clicks, and that therefore he must have had the same negative opinion of Grevenbroek’s manuscript, which he had copied in South Africa. Furthermore, Kolb is slightly inconsistent in that he does not specify which clicks should be produced either. Most probably however this is part of Kolb’s ‘bragging’. And it was certainly also part of his scheme to cover up his plagiarism.77 Finally it should be noted that we also owe Kolb a couple of Khoekhoe sentences (level 2 data), whether they are his own data or Grevenbroek’s. These are standard greetings, mainly.78 However, the quality of these sentences – especially the sentences used in rituals (Kolb 1719: 411, 427) – is doubtful. 73. Kolb (1719: 360). 74. E.g. latro ‘robber’ > bombarda ‘flint lock’ – dura animaliaA/durum animalB ‘hard animal(s)’ > cervus ‘hart’. Cf. Godée Molsbergen (1916: 221, 216, 221) vs. Kolb (1719: 360, 361), respectively. Cf. Section 3.2.1. 75. Similarly for Natio Hottentottica and Natio Germanica, where Hottentotti ‘ the Khoekhoen’ and Germani/Belgae ‘the Dutch’ would have been enough. 76. [...] allein man siehet nirgend ein Zeichen darüber, ob und was vor ein Schlag mit der Zunge dabey müsse gemachet werden. (Kolb 1719: 360.) 77. For a recent study on Kolb see Good (2006). 78. Kolb 1719: 348, 363, 411, 417, 427, 579.

 Roots of Afrikaans

3.4

Conclusion

The first sub-period (1652 until ca. 1730) is confusing due to various mysteries. Some of these were unnecessary: Nicolaas Witsen could have mentioned Grevenbroek’s name in his letters to Ludolf and Leibniz (but he never mentioned the names of his consultants, so it seems) and Kolb could have been more open about his sources. (To be fair: also ten Rhyne should have disclosed his sources.) And – finally – Godée Molsbergen should not have created even more confusion by attributing the Ludolf documents to Wreede. Now, if we restrict ourselves to Khoekhoe, we seem to see a large set of names: Wreede, ten Rhyne, Grevenbroek, Witsen, Ludolf, Juncker, Leibniz, Büttner, Kolb and Valentyn. But only four out of these ten count as researchers of Khoekhoe: two minor luminaries, ten Rhyne and Büttner, and two major ones, Wreede, whose work may be forever lost and Grevenbroek, whose work could only survive due to others: his early vocabularies have been preserved thanks to Witsen, Ludolf and Juncker, his translations survived thanks to Witsen and Leibniz and his integrated and expanded vocabulary was more or less saved by Valentyn and Kolb. So around 1720 the following published sources were available: ten Rhyne’s Schediasma (1686), Juncker’s Commentarius (1710), Leibniz’s Collectanea (1717) and Kolb’s Caput Bonae Spei hodiernum (1719), and less than a decade later followed Valentyn’s Beschryvinge (1726) and the Dutch translation of Kolb’s book (1727). Together with the vocabulary published in 1658 by Étienne de Flacourt, who had collected his data at Saldanha Bay, at a time that this natural harbor was still outside the Cape settlement area (1655),79 this could have been a good start for some orientalist to write learned essays on Khoekhoe. Ludolf and Leibniz may have considered this possibility but it never materialized. However, travellers may have used copies of the lists that can be found in the above-mentioned publications. Le Long’s translation of the Ludolf vocabularies, which can be found in the Herrnhut archives may be evidence for this function of the vocabularies.

4. The second sub-period After the intermezzo (ca. 1730 – ca. 1770) two types of language researchers can be distinguished: visiting naturalists, to wit: Carl Peter Thunberg, Anders Sparrman and François le Vaillant, and colonial military officers: Robert Jacob Gordon and Franz Carl Philip Freiherr [‘baron’] von Winkelmann. Thunberg and Sparrman were admitted as physicians, while le Vaillant was sent to the Cape Colony to do research. Since no philological problem has to be solved, I will deal with these scholars in the order mentioned. I will not discuss their work in much detail but rather focus upon the 79. De Flacourt 1658: 55–61.



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

beginning of a scholarly treatment of the clicks and upon the rise of a new Khoekhoe word: hāb ‘horse’. Furthermore, note that the historical and sociological context had changed: around 1770 Khoekhoe was practically dead in the western parts of the Cape Colony. But in the East Cape and further to the north there still were considerable numbers of speakers of Khoekhoe – although there too Cape Dutch/Afrikaans was making inroads, since the frontier zone was rapidly moving north and east. Cape Dutch Pidgin was probably loosing ground to early Afrikaans, which had consequences for the occurrence of pidgin words in the vocabularies. And finally there now was a relatively wealthy frontier elite, which often could speak some Khoekhoe and was willing to help the traveling scholars.

4.1

The naturalists (1773–1783)

In 1773 Carl Thunberg and his party were preparing for a journey into the Sneeuberg Mountains, at the time still ‘Hottentot’ area. So he took some Khoekhoe lessons. The result was that he could distinguish three click sounds (excluding the lateral click), for which he devised an ingenious way to indirectly represent them: vowels were marked for a click in the onsets of their syllables by assuming a ‘deviant’ size – the ‘standard’ size being reserved for capital letters. Thus a small vowel sign (〈a〉, 〈e〉, etc.) marked the presence of the dental click: [ǀ], a non-capital vowel in small cap (〈a〉, 〈e〉, etc.) the ‘palatal’ click, nowadays called the alveolar click: [!], and a small vowel with an acute accent (〈á〉, 〈é〉, etc.) the ‘guttural’ click, nowadays called the palatal click: []. He left us a couple of pages with words and short sentences written this way.80 Nienaber – when comparing these data with their Nama cognates – could not detect any system behind the differences in the use of clicks.81 Thunberg’s vocabulary starts with an independent Eastern Cape system of numerals. His actual vocabulary contains a few loanwords, among which the pidginism HAKVA, about which more below. Thunberg’s compatriot Sparrman undertook a similar trip to the East in 1775. In the 20th century edition of his travelogue we find about five full pages with 80. See the revised English translation of Thunberg’s Resa, vol. 2 (1789): Thunberg (1986): 232–235. – Thunberg’s representation of the clicks may be impracticable from an orthographic point of view, but it works. 81. Nienaber (1963: 43) is confused about Thunberg’s system. Assuming that the palatal click is defined by means of capital vowels he has to conclude that capital vowels are ambiguous and consequently he cannot make sense of the use of small cap. But he is right that there is more to the vowels than has been defined. The solutions are simple, though: 〈è〉 and 〈ò〉 with a grave accent probably are the opposites of 〈E〉 an 〈O〉 in degree of tenseness, and 〈AE〉 is a Swedish grapheme. – Nienaber’s interpretation of Thunberg’s clicks does not retain the articulatory order (dental > palatal > guttural), which in present-day terminology must be dental > alveolar > palatal. Instead of that he equates Thunberg’s dental and palatal with modern dental and palatal, so that Thunberg’s guttural has to be equated with modern alveolar, which is bizarre.

 Roots of Afrikaans

specimens of three different languages: Khoekhoe, the language of the ‘Chinese Hottentots’, most probably a Southern Khoesan language, and Khoekhoe-influenced Xhosa.82 This means that finally there is interest in non-Khoekhoe Khoesan languages. However, in so far as the representation of clicks is concerned, Sparrman’s Khoesan specimens are a great disappointment: Sparrman applies a Grevenbroeklike system: t’ or d’ plus a word-internal space – d’ is occurring only 3 times, t’ about 86 times. There are very few loan words in Sparrman’s Khoekhoe sample and one of them is a nasalized version of the pidgin word haqua: ‘Horse, Hanqua’.83 As I hypothesized above, pidginisms could be borrowed (back) into Khoekhoe, or rather foreigner Khoekhoe.84 Sparrman and Thunberg provide us with (level 2) evidence for this assumption: ‘Thy Horse, Ta Hanqua’,85 ‘Where is the horse?’ – HAKVA DEMMA HA?’ [lit. ‘Horse, where-[he] is?’], ‘Bring the horse hither – HAKVA SEO’.86 However, Thunberg also provides evidence that this pidginism was on the way out: ‘Horse – HAKVA, HAAP’ and ‘Mare – HASS’.87 The old word for a horse-like zebra or quagga (masculine hāb, feminine hās), whose masculine plural had given rise to the pidginism haqua ‘horse’ apparently was taking over the reading ‘(domesticated) horse’. Nienaber provides further evidence for this change.88 Finally a few words about François le Vaillant, who visited the East Cape in 1782. This naturalist was the first person to devise an (incomplete) system of symbols to represent the clicks: a wedge pointing up followed by a dash, i.e. 〈Λ–〉, to represent the dental click, 〈V–〉 to represent the palatal click and 〈Δ– 〉 to represent the alveolar click. Nienaber is fairly positive about le Vaillant but also in this case a comparison with clicks in Nama leads to mixed results.89

4.2

The officers

In a sense the military officers Robert Jacob Gordon and Franz Carl Philip Freiherr von Winkelmann do not ‘deserve’ a mention in this article, since they both did not publish – although we may assume that Gordon was planning to turn his voluminous 82. Sparrman 1977: 263–266, 266, and 267–268 respectively. 83. Sparrman 1977: 264. 84. Sparrman (1977: 265) also has entries like ‘He, Hekoe.’ and ‘They, hekoina’, i.e. ‘that man’ and ‘those people’ respectively, which I interpret as features of Khoekhoe foreigner talk. Cf. Section 3.2.3. 85. Sparrman 1977: 265. 86. Thunberg 1986: 233. 87. Thunberg C1986: 233–234. HASS is a typo for HAAS. 88. Cf. Nienaber (1963) sub perd. 89. See Nienaber 1963: 146–150.



Chapter 16.  A badly harvested field 

traveling notes into a book, but his suicide prevented that from happening. Nevertheless, Gordon and Winkelmann belong to the second sub-period. Gordon undertook large expeditions into the Cape interior, between 1777 and 1786. We know that he recorded words and sentences from Bantu and Khoesan languages. His ‘Vocabularies of languages of indigenous Cape peoples’ are kept at the Brenthurst Library in Johannesburg.90 In so far as I know they have not been edited yet. Gordon is rumored to have been an able speaker of Xhosa and Khoekhoe (whatever his actual level of competence was). But in his notes on the Khoekhoen from 1779–1780 I cannot find the slightest indication of a click in his numerous Khoekhoe examples.91 The German officer Winkelmann on the other hand, whose Xhosa and Khoekhoe vocabularies have been edited by Nienaber,92 visited the East Cape in 1788. Just like le Vaillant before him he developed click symbols, but his solution is reminiscent of Thunberg’s system in that he makes use of three sizes, albeit of only one Roman character, x: x (small) seems to represent the dental click, x (small cap) the alveolar and palatal clicks and X (capital) any click whatsoever. Since X is infrequent it may be a sign of ignorance: ‘I don’t know what I heard.’ If this is the right interpretation, Winkelmann’s system is weaker than le Vaillant’s.

5. Concluding remarks What I have described in this paper is a scholarly enterprise that did not (yet) get off the ground. Nevertheless we can see some progress: Grevenbroek did not really know how to deal with the clicks. Things improved during the second sub-period. However, what really was required, though, was a group of dedicated people that could develop the Khoesan languages (and especially Khoekhoe) for practical purposes. It was due to missionaries like van der Kemp, Tindall and Wuras that Khoekhoe (and Khoesan) studies got off the ground in the 19th century. Therefore, Voßen, in his book on the Khoe (or: Central Khoesan) languages relates the beginnings of Khoekhoe studies to the 19th century, not to the 18th century.93 This may have had several causes. The weak representation of the clicks in the various vocabularies may have made these vocabularies of little importance for the Khoekhoeists of the 19th century. Furthermore Cape and East Cape Khoekhoe were separate dialects, more related to Korana and Griqua than to Nama (Khoekhoegowab). Since the Cape colonial dialects have died out, while Korana and Griqua are also near or beyond extinction, the knowledge accumulated during the VOC period has become practically useless. 90. Shelf number MS 107/10, according to Raper P. – Boucher 1988: 430. 91. See Gordon 1779–1780 (1992): 8–56. 92. Nienaber 1960. 93. See Voßen 1997: 31,

 Roots of Afrikaans

6. Postcript It is ironic that the next substantive steps forward were achieved during the second Dutch period at the Cape (1803–1806), the period of the Batavian Republic. These steps forward were achieved by Hinrich Lichtenstein, a German physician, who accompanied the Dutch colonial authorities on their expeditions into the interior. The results of his linguistic investigations as laid down in two publications in 1808 and 181194 are modest but impressive – despite mistakes, omissions and the like. Four Southern African languages are discussed: Korana (a Khoekhoe dialect related to extinct Cape Khoekhoe), ‘Bosjesmansch’ (a Southern Khoesan language, possibly Xam), and two Bantu languages: Isi-Xhosa and Se-Tswana. Per language some grammatical and phonological remarks are made. Furthermore, the languages are compared in terms of lexis and syntax – the latter by means of translations of about twenty basic sentences, which creates opportunities to discover more about the syntax of each individual language. Lichtenstein distinguishes three clicks: 〈t’1〉 for the dental click, 〈t’2〉 for the lateral click, and 〈t’3〉 for the alveolar and the palatal clicks and he is offering an articulatory characterization of these clicks. And last but not least, he had consulted the learned Reverend missionary J.Th. van der Kemp. This is – at least symbolically – the beginning of African linguistics in South Africa.

94. Lichtenstein 1808 an 18011–12.

chapter 17

Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 1. Introduction If anyone were inclined to return to the old question as to whether Afrikaans is the result of language contact – or perhaps even creolization – or of a natural development, they may be given the answer that the issue no longer exists.1 It is fairly generally accepted nowadays – see Ponelis (1993) for instance – that Cape Dutch, in a situation of contact with multiple languages, has undergone language interference (in short, non-natural change). The final result is called by some a semi-creole language or creoloid; others are more circumspect and speak of a contact variety of Dutch. Next to it, the original Cape Dutch dialect (as the deliverer of non-standard language elements) and ‘normal’ processes of language change remain factors to be taken into account, although someone like Raidt (1991, 1994) proves herself to be a little more optimistic – especially on the deflection issue – than I would take responsibility for.2 Even if “language contact or natural development” is no longer an issue, enough questions remain for Afrikaans historical linguistics. Let me mention three: (1) a. Can a founder dialect be identified? b. Is it justified to assume extremely short stages per phenomenon for the change of Dutch into Afrikaans? c. What languages was Cape Dutch in contact with? For those who know the literature it might seem as if I have arranged these questions in a decreasing order of difficulty. For question (1c) looks like a question that can be answered by turning to the books, and question (1b) looks to be a question of moderate difficulty, which, in view of the literature, could be answered quickly by ‘yes’. However, question (1a) appears to be the most difficult one: it harks back to the discussion concerning the founder dialect posited in Kloeke (1950) of Jan van Riebeeck and his 1. This paper was originally published as Desiderata voor de historische taalkunde van het Afrikaans, in Afrikaans. Een drieluik, Hans den Besten, Frans Hinskens & Jerzy Koch (eds), 234–252. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU, Münster: Nodus Publikationen, 2009. It was translated by Frits Beukema, and it is reprinted here with permission from the original publishers, which is kindly acknowledged. 2. Raidt is inclined to attribute much of the deflection of Afrikaans to dialectal phenomena of Dutch, although supported by incomplete second-language acquisition. See Den Besten (1987a: 78–79, 89–91) for critical discussion.

 Roots of Afrikaans

people. Scholtz’s (1950/1963) very detailed criticism of this makes one suspect that renewed investigation into a potential founder dialect will not be simple. I will not deny the last point, but I do deny that questions (1b) and (1c) are relatively easy to answer. Recent work, including Deumert’s (1999) doctoral dissertation, points to question (1b) having to be answered by ‘no’, and question (1c) being more complex, as will appear below. All three questions thus invite new research, which I will put down in the form of three desiderata.3

(2) Desideratum 1: Investigate archival data, Early Afrikaans and Early-Modern Afrikaans on the topic of ‘mixed’ stages, parallel constructions, etc. (cf 1b). Desideratum 2: Reopen the discussion on a possible founder dialect (cf 1a). Desideratum 3: Determine, on the basis of where the slaves came from, with which languages (apart from Khoekhoe) Cape Dutch has been in contact. These desiderata will be discussed and elaborated further in Sections 2 – 4. Section 2 (dealing with desideratum 1) reports on current research on older grammars of Afrikaans, while the rather short Section 3 (concerning desideratum 2) advocates in particular the necessity of new research into the dialectal background of Afrikaans. Finally, Section 4 (on desideratum 1) treats East-Malay influences in Afrikaans.

2. On-going Dutch 2.1

‘Mixed’ stages and parallel constructions

In the course of – let us say – two centuries, Afrikaans developed from one or the other variety of Dutch or from a mix of such varieties. This thesis is not unproblematic when formulated in this way (since the pidgin-creole undercurrent of Afrikaans is ignored), but it suffices as the background for the issue I am really concerned with.4 The change of Dutch into Afrikaans can be split up in a number of subchanges, such as the disappearance of the neuter gender or the disappearance of the person endings – each with its own date, i.e. an indication of a short period in which the phenomenon in Afrikaans appears to have made its definitive appearance (cf. Scholtz 1963, Raidt 1983 & 1991). These dates are often taken to be absolute, in the sense that Dutch forms attested after the period of breakthrough are dismissed as Dutchisms, i.e. as paper forms arising 3. The order of the desiderata does not reflect that of the questions. Nevertheless, I adopt it as desiderata 2 and 3 have a certain relationship: while desideratum 1 deals with the diachrony of Afrikaans, 2 and 3 are concerned with the language input. 4. See Den Besten (1989) and Buccini (1998) for the importance of the non-Dutch undercurrent in Afrikaans.



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

out of respect for the written language. This will surely have been a contributing factor, but I suppose we also need to take into account sociolinguistic variation: there may have been conservative sociolects or mixed Dutch-Afrikaans varieties. Alternative changes may have been tried out and there may sometimes be a question of remnants of a category that has vanished as such. We still see examples of the latter in present-day Afrikaans. The language does not possess the past tense anymore and yet a few irregular, i.e. strong preterites have persisted: kon ‘could’, moes ‘had to’, sou ‘should’, wou ‘would’, was ‘was/were’, sometimes also dag/dog ‘thoughtsg/pl, meant’sg/pl.’ and wis ‘was/were’, and the archaisms had ‘had’ and mog ‘was/were allowed’. According to Scholtz (1958/1963: 38–39, 45–46) also brag/brog ‘brought’, kog ‘bought’ and begon/begos ‘began’ were used till well into the 20th century, together with a few more in the 19th century. Now this is a set of unsystematic lexical exceptions, but also in the syntax there can be (temporary) remnants of Dutch. In Den Besten (1998a) I have attempted to show that Afrikaans once had two systems of relativization: one using wat in combination with a stranded-or-not preposition (the present-day system) and the other a simplified Dutch system using die and waar ... P.5 Compare the eighteenth-century examples in (3). (3) a. ...een afdack die in syn schaepe krael stondt ...a lean-to die in his sheep pen stood ...’a lean-to which stood in his sheep pen’  (Wynand Louw, 1746; Scholtz 1970: 41) b. dat is immers dinge dat de baas nooijt aan mijn gedaan heeft6 that is surely things dat the boss never to me done has ‘those are things that the boss has never done to me’  (female slave, 1762; Scholtz 1970: 41) These systems were interchangeable but also used side by side until the early 20th century. A very late isolated instance is found in Siener van Rensburg’s dictated visions, who for the rest was a user of wat. (4) ... en toe verander hij in een duif die in die pot loop ... and then change he into a dove die into the pot walk ‘... and then he changed into a dove that walked into the pot.’  (Siener van Rensburg, vision of 5 September 1919; Snyman 1995) 5. Notice that only the basic systems are characterized in this way. It is certain that the two systems of relativization also had [PP P wie] and [PP waar + P] at their disposal, in addition to possessive wie se(n) in the phrase[... P ... [DP wie se (n) ... N...]]. However, the existence of a nonstandard possessive wat se, which is only allowed with subjects, gives rise to thinking that a Creole system must have existed in which every relative clause had to open with wat (for the analysis of wat se see Den Besten 1998b). 6. Following the literature, we may analyze dat as a written disguise of wat, even though a datsystem may have preceded a wat-system.

 Roots of Afrikaans

However, there still were authors in the nineteenth century who fairly regularly used both systems indiscriminately. So, the nineteenth century was, just like the eighteenth century, a ‘mixed’, i.e. variable period as regards relatives. But there must have been more than only variation in relativization. Hence my first desideratum for historical linguistic research in Afrikaans:

(5) Desideratum 1: Investigate archival data, Early Afrikaans and Early-Modern Afrikaans on the topic of ‘mixed’ stages, parallel constructions, etc.

In Section 2.2 I will provide an example of this kind of desirable research with the help of a corpus of early grammars of Afrikaans.

2.2

The possessive construction of Afrikaans7

Those who are familiar with the early linguistic literature on Afrikaans may know in principle that in the early twentieth century some people could still say Ma haar huis ‘Mother her house’ besides the more usual Ma se huis ‘Ma POSS house’. What we see here is the continuation of (an aspect of) the older Cape Dutch possessive system besides the possessive system of Afrikaans.8 In my opinion more can be said about it, provided we look at the system of Afrikaans in greater detail and compare it to the Dutch system, more in particular to the dialectal seventeenth-century possessive system which we may assume by hypothesis for the early Cape colony. This will be the subject matter of Subsection 2.2.1. In Subsection 2.2.2 it will be tested, on the basis of a corpus of early grammars of Afrikaans, what remains of it in the early twentieth century. 2.2.1 Two systems: Particles vs. pronouns Two possessive patterns must be distinguished in the possessive system of Afrikaans: (6) a. pronominal: pron. + NP b. nominal: DP + se + NP The pronominal pattern also occurs in Dutch and the pronouns used clearly date back to seventeenth-century dialectal-Dutch forms, while u stems from standard Dutch. (7) my, jou, sy, haar – ons, julle, hulle – u9 ‘my, your, his, her – our, your, their – your (polite)’ 7. See also Den Besten (2006). In this publication, only a part of the material discussed in this section was included, and since then much more material has come in that is not in this section. 8. One wonders whether this variant is still in existence. Scholtz (1954/1963: 107) reports that in his time constructions like Maria haar hoed en die boere hulle huise (‘Maria her house and the farmers their houses’) “alleen nog by ou mense in die Boland kan gehoor word” (‘only at the old people in the Boland can be heard’) 9. In older Afrikaans we also had the forms haarle/hale ‘3PL’ (< haarlie(den)).



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

Examples of the nominal pattern are given in (8). (8) {Jan/Marie/die kinders} se huis Jan/Marie/the children se house In (8) the possessor is a phrase (a DP), and se – even though it is also a non-varying possessive marker – must therefore not be equated with the Dutch genitival -s, since genitival -s attaches only to names and a few name-like nominal groups (such as m’n opa ‘my granddad’). When we replace NP in the two patterns in (6) by an empty element, [NP e], we get the so-called free (independent) possessives. These are only possible in Afrikaans if the pronoun or, where appropriate, se is modified: (9) a. pronominal:10 1. pron.sg. + -(n)e: myne, joune (joue), syne, hare ‘mine, yours, his, hers’ 2. pron.pl./rev. + { se + -n(e) }: ons s’n/sinne, julle s’n/sinne, hulle s’n/ sinne -u s’n/sinne ‘ours, yours, theirs, yoursrev.’ b. nominal: se + -n(e): Jan s’n/sinne, die kinders s’n/sinne ‘Jan’s (as in The house is Jan’s), the children’s (as in The toys are the children’s)’ Now compare the examples in (10): (10) a. Dis {myne/joune/ons s’n/Jan s’n} ‘This is mine/yours/ours/Jan’s.’ b. {Myne/joune/ons s’n/Jan s’n} staan daar. ‘Mine/yours/ours/Jan’s stand over there.’ What is conspicuous straightaway is that u and the plural personal pronouns when used as free possessives do not likewise take -(n)e as their ending (*onse, *julle(ne), *hulle(ne) -*ue), although attributive onse occurs sporadically, while die uwe ‘lit. the yours’ is not unusual at the end of letters. When we compare the possessive patterns of Afrikaans to those of contemporary Standard Dutch (leaving the s-possessive as in Jans boek ‘Jan’s book’ out of account), a number of differences strike us immediately. Dutch also has two possessive patterns, but the nominal pattern in (11b) requires an agreeing pronoun, as illustrated in (12). (11) a. pronominal: pron. + NP b. nominal: DPi + pron.i + NP 10. The abbreviation rev. represents ‘reverential, polite’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

(12) {Jan z’n/Marie d’r/de kinderen hun} huis11 {Jan his/Marie her/the children their} house ‘ Jan’s/Marie’s/the children’s house’ Furthermore, Dutch does not have free nominal possessives, whereas free pronominal possessives require an article. (13) a. b.

pronominal: 1. de/het + pron. + -e: de/het { mijne, jouwe, zijne, hare, onze, hunne } 2. exception: *de/het jullie nominal (non datur)

The gaps in this “paradigm” are easy to fill, however, with the alternative structure die/ dat van X (and also predicative van X). Given their form, Dutch free pronominal possessives appear to be more like nominalizations than independently used possessives, and for this reason are properly regarded as substitute expressions, much like die/dat van { mij, jou, enz. } ‘that one of mine, yours, etc.’. Apparently, the possessive pronoun jullie ‘youpl., which derives from a nominal element (< je-lie(den)) ‘lit. you-person(s)’, still does not count as a pronominal adjective, so that it resists nominalization. The conclusion must be that, on the topic of free possessives, there is little or no connection between present-day Standard Dutch and Afrikaans. However, this is merely a matter of the variety of Dutch selected. Seventeenth-century Dutch (van Helten (1881:I, 123–124)) had free pronominal possessives, inflected as well as noninflected:12 (14) a. Dat is mijne ‘That is mine’ b. Dat is mijn ‘That is mine’ A restriction must be imposed here at once; we can gather from Van Helten (1881) and the WNT (lit. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal ‘Dictionary of the Dutch Language’) that these free possessives were in principle restricted to predicative positions. In argument positions (cf. 10b) nominalizations were normal, just as in today’s language.13 11. Instead of hun ‘their’ the outmoded and colloquial d’r is used in this construction, but only very rarely. With nouns denoting female persons sometimes se/ze is heard but given its distribution this is a longer varaint of the s-possessive. Compare Moeder se auto ‘Mother her car’ vs. *de vrouw van hiernaast ze auto ‘the woman next door her car’. 12. See Van Helten (1881:I, 124–125) on the diachronic derivation of the inflected pattern, which implies an innovation with respect to Old Dutch that could not have come about without the operation of analogy. Although Van Helten is silent on this point, the non-inflected pattern employed by Vondel must also have originated by analogy. 13. Scholtz (1954/1963: 106) appears to have come to the same conclusion. Vondel’s mijn oude en uwe ‘my age and yours’ is an exception (Van Helten 1881:II, 68). According to Changuion



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

Mijne in argument position might be an Afrikaans-internal development on this line of reasoning. And the same might hold for free nominal possessives in Afrikaans, albeit that Le Roux (1923: 96) and Scholtz (1954/1963: 109) have been able to furnish parallel instances from German, Frisian and the dialects spoken in the provinces Groningen and Drenthe in Holland (with inflected possessives instead of s’n). So, the free nominal possessives in Afrikaans could in principle have come from seventeenthcentury Dutch. But there is no evidence for it. A few statements can be made about Cape Dutch, the eighteenth-century predecessor of Afrikaans, however. First. When we restrict ourselves to those possessive pronouns and variants of possessive pronouns preserved in Afrikaans, Cape Dutch at any rate had at its command the predecessors of the following Afrikaans possessive pronouns (where u as a possibly later loanword is parenthesized); (15) a. sing.: my, jou, sy, haar b. plur.: ons, julle, hulle c. rev.: (u)

‘my, your, his, her’ ‘our, your, their’ ‘you’ (polite)

Second. We may assume that also at that time pronouns ending in -l(i)e (< -lie(den)) were nominal in character and could thus not take part in nominalization (cf. (13a) above) nor could they take part in the inflection of pronominal adjectives. The following incomplete paradigm of free pronominal possessives now complements (15):14 (16) a. sing.: myne, jou(n)e, syne, hare ‘mine, yours, his, hers’ b. plur.: onse, *julle(n)e, *hulle(n)e ‘ours, *yours, *theirs’ c. rev. (ue) ‘(yours)’ Viewed this way, the free pronominal possessives of Afrikaans julle s’n(ne) and hulle s’n(ne) were born from need – to fill gaps in the paradigm. And apparently ons and u linked up with them. Third. Basing ourselves on (16), we may assume that, from the moment it commanded free nominal possessives (i.e. from 1652 already, or later), Cape Dutch also (1848: 78–79) nineteenth-century written language still made a distinction between de(n) mijne(n) as an argument, and mijn as a predicate nominal: [...] den mijnen [d.w.z hoed] vind ik niet vs. Het huis is mijn. ‘I can’t find mine (i.e.my hat) vs. The house is mine’. Brill (1854: 220) assigns predicative mijn to “den gemeenzamen stijl” ‘the common register’ and mentions predicative mijne as representative of “hoogeren stijl” i.e ‘higher register’. Furthermore, it may be inferred from Brill’s grammar that the modern system of free possessives was already firmly established at the time. 14. Even with jullie, hullie, zulle/zullie, haarle/haarlie discarded as pronouns and variants to be going on with, the net result would have been the same: *jullië, hullië, *zulle(n)e/*zullië, *haarle(n) e/*haarlië. Only hun and haar would have yielded a grammatical result: hunne and hare. But according to Scholtz (1954/1963: 106) these pronouns disappeared rather early.

 Roots of Afrikaans

had a defective paradigm here, to the extent that it could not dispose of a free form of hull(i)e to allow a free nominal possessive with a plural possessor. Compare (17):15 (17) nominal possessives a. attr.: Jan sy boeke, Maria haar boeke, die kinders hulle boeke Jan his books, Maria her books, the children their books ‘Jan’s books, Maria’s books, the children’s books’ b. free: Jan syne, Maria hare, *die kinders hulle(n)e ‘Jan his, Maria hers, *the children theirs’ The question is now how we can unearth more data on Cape Dutch nominal possessives – and above all data from the final period of use, let us say between 1875 and about 1950, which period will probably have to be extended to 1960 or 1970 for a very small group of speakers, according to Scholtz (1954/1963: 107). As we are dealing here with a structural feature of Dutch that lives on into the twentieth century, I examined some twenty bulky older grammars on this point. The results are discussed in the next subsection. It only dawned on me later that, as far as this topic is concerned, I could have saved myself the trouble (see below).

2.2.2 Evidence from older grammars of Afrikaans An annotated list of grammars and school books I consulted is provided in (18), including the syntactic thesis of Le Roux (1923). In the list, the grammars by the Belgians Breyne (1936) and Antonissen (1942) have been put aside under b as secondary literature.16 In principle the list contains grammars from before 1940. Van der Merwe & Kempen (1952) has been added as it still recognizes the Cape Dutch possessive structure as a minority variant.17 (18) a.

Du Toit (1897: 12–13) Marais-Hoogenhout (1904: 5–6, 10, 20)18 Van Oordt (19092: 19–20) Oom Piet (circa 1910: 61–62)

[+] [!] [+] [+]

15. (17b) would not have had a gap with hunne or haare, but these pronouns fell into disuse rather soon (Scholtz (1954/1963: 106). 16. The superscript numerals following the dates refer to the edition. 17. On page 91 of this book the question is asked: “Moet ons sê (en skrywe): “moeder se hoed ... of ... moeder haar hoed ...? ‘Should we say (and write) ... mother SE hat ... or ... mother her hat ...?. The answer is printed in bold: “Die eerste vorm is die gewone en die gebruiklikste.” ‘The first form is the common one and the most usual’. 18. Marais-Hoogenhout is a phantom name. The author was called Nicolaas Marais Hoogenhout, with a family name as the last, here the second, Christian name . The German publisher took this to be the first element of a double surname. Hence the hyphen, the German way.



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

b.

Langenhoven (circa 1910: 7, 12–13) De Waal (1910: 11–12, 36–37) Elffers (1914: 12, 16–17) Van Lint & Malan (194611: 82–84) Malherbe (1920: 94–96) (first edition 1917) Die Afrikaanse taaleksamen (circa 1920: 17–18, 52–53)19 Le Roux (1921: 37–38, 45) Botha & Burger (19222: 58–59) Van Oostrum & Kritzinger (1923: 9, 70–71) Le Roux (1923: 88–98) Langenhoven (1926: 62–64) Booysen & Jansen (1930: 63, 89) Potgieter & Geldenhuys (19302: 29, 39) Bouwman & Pienaar (19333: 68–69) Van der Merwe (19455: 48–49) (first edition 1939) Potgieter (19476: 43) (first edition 1930) Van der Merwe & Kempen (1952: 90–91) Breyne (1936: 50, 87) Antonissen (1942: 17–18, 25)

[n] [!] [!] [!] [+] [!] [!] [–] [!] [+] [n] [!] [–] [+] [+] [–] [+] [+] [+]

Of the publications investigated a few – all of them school grammars – turn out not to have anything to contribute on the Dutch possessive structure, which I have indicated by “[–]”. The most relevant grammars for my purpose – all of them from before 1925, among them one school grammar – I have marked with “[!]”. Moreover, it should be noted that only one author, the purist-writer-politician Langenhoven, speaks slightingly and normatively – “[n]” – about the Dutch structure, both in (1910) and (1926).20 The remaining grammars that do say something but offer less relevant material for my purpose I have marked with “[+]”. Some titles from the last category, however, are very informative on the topic of possessive structures, in particular Malherbe (1920) and Le Roux (1923). 19. I think I am entitled to deduce from Nienaber (1933: 175, 219) that my own copy (68 pages, published by De Nationale Pers) comes somewhere between the first edition of 1918 (50 pages, published by De Nationale Pers) and the eighth edition of 1930 (Booysen & Jansen 1930, see below). This would amount to “circa 1924”, about the middle of the period. We can be certain that the author of this anonymous opusculum is the person Nienaber consistently refers to by her husband’s name as Mrs E.G. Jansen, also known elsewhere as Mrs M.M. Jansen (née Pellissier). Since she rewrote the booklet together with C.M. Booysen in 1922 as Afrikaanse Grammatika, “circa 1920” seems a fairly safe approximation. 20. Langenhoven (circa 1910: 7) calls the Cape Dutch system with sy, haar and hulle as linking words “a mere affection. The student is not recommended to imitate it.” Additionally, Langenhoven (1926: 63–64) warns against “Afrikaans writers, rapidly becoming extinct, who use the SE only for masculine singular ... Do not be misled if you come across such abuses: use the SE for all genders and both numbers.”

 Roots of Afrikaans

Now, what do we find in these grammars and language books? For one thing, they seem to offer nothing special for the pronominal possessives, which was only to be expected. For the free possessives we find the present system with –(n)e in the singular and s’n/sinne in the plural and with u.21 So, nothing or virtually nothing remained of the Cape Dutch system here. Only Hoogenhout (1904: 10) mentions the free possessive ònse besides òns syne.22 But what about the Cape Dutch nominal possessives? As I indicated in (18) by marking them with an exclamation mark, there are eight grammars paying reasonably explicit attention to them. As expected, examples containing masculine and feminine singular or plural with attributive nominal possessives are not problematic. Hoogenhout (1904: 5–6) for example – varying between Afrikaans and Cape Dutch – provides the following examples: (19) a. masculine singular: Karel sy (se) boek. ‘Karel’s book’ b. feminine singular: Maria haar (sy) pop ‘Maria’s doll’ c. plural: Di kinners hulle (sy) boeke ‘The children’s books’ Of course, a priority question would be what these grammars have to say on free nominal possessives, in particular if the possessor is plural. It turns out that the path divides here: either we get (a): examples with plurals are not provided, or (b): the Afrikaans variant with (s’n/sinne) is offered without comment. Hoogenhout (1904) belongs to the (a)-category. On p. 6 he presents the following free possessives: (20) a. masculine singular: b. feminine singular: c. plural:

Di boek is Karel syn(e) Di pop is Maria hare (non datur)

‘The book is Karel’s’ ‘The doll is Maria’s’

A similar approach ending in an incomplete paradigm can also be found in Elffers (1914) and van Oostrum & Kritzinger (1923). Of these two, the latter is important on account of the proposed acceptability judgements, which for the most part are lacking in the other grammars. They occur in three places in the book. On page 70 it is stated that “by ‘n vroulike snw. dikwels haar in plaas van se gesê [word] en in die mv. soms

21. Up to and including Van Oostrum & Kritzinger (1923) we also find the variant syn/syne. 22. For the rest, Hoogenhout (1904: 10) is one of the very few school grammars that mentions the hybrid free possessives myne syn, jou-ë syn, syne syn, háre syn, and he is the only one mentioning syne syn. Only Le Roux (1921: 45; 1923: 93) reports these variants, and in both publications he characterizes them as ‘vulgar’, although on pp. 93–94 he let slip a sentence with hare s’n. Discussing possible explanations of these forms would take us too far afield. See also Changuions’s sentence dit is mijn zijn, en dat is jouw zijn ‘.....’ (Changuions 1848: xxvi, sub Zijn).



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

ook hul(le) [...]”.23 (‘with a feminine noun often haar “her” instead of se “SE” is said and in the plural sometimes also hul(le) “their”.’) And about free nominal possessives the following is stated on p. 71: “in die vroulik kan ons in plaats van s’n ook sê haar maar dis ’n bietjie ongewoon [...]” (‘in the feminine we can instead of s’n also say haar “her” but it is a little unusual’). On page 9 the same thing is asserted: “Na ‘n vroulike snw. kan ons dan in die enkelvoud hare sê in plaas van s’n: Dit is Ma s’n of Ma hare; [...]. Dié vorm word darem selde gebruik.” (‘After a feminine noun we can then in the singular say hare “her” instead of s’n: This is Mother s’n or Mother her; [...] Yet, that (i.e. the latter) form is seldom used.’) Notice that the authors have nothing to say here on the subject of plural possessors. Elffers (1914) on the other hand attempts to say something but he goes off the rails: he ends a paragraph on the “Genitive of Nouns” (p. 17) with the following examples of free nominal possessives: Piet syne, Anna hare, hulle s’n (“Piet his, Anna hers, (they,) their”). The last example does not belong here because hulle is not a noun. Elffers probably wanted to make a point about free plural nominal possessives, but strictly speaking he did not. So far for the grammars following path (a), i.e. the method of leaving the gap in the paradigm unlabelled. Path (b), filling the gap with the Afrikaans variant, is found in De Waal (1910), Van Lint & Malan (1946), Die Afrikaanse taaleksamen (circa 1920), Le Roux (1921) and Booysen & Jansen (1930).24 Let me select Die Afrikaanse taaleksamen as an example. This grammar deals with possessive structures on pages 17–18 and 52–53. Although an incomplete paradigm of free nominal possessives is provided on page 17, we find the following data on page 53: (21) a. masculine singular: Dit is Piet sinne b. feminine singular: Dit is die vrou sinne/hare c. plural: [Dit is] die kinders sinne In (21a) the variant syne, which is required for Cape Dutch, is lacking. It is mentioned on page 17, however.25 On the other hand, the lack of a variant of hulle in (21c) is not a coincidence: such a variant does not exist. Only ‘real’ Afrikaans s’n or sinne could be used here.

23. Given the general preference for se, “dikwels” (“often’) will presumably mean ‘vaak genoeg om opgemerkt te worden’ (“often enough to be noticed”). Cf. also De Waal (1910: 12) who asserts: “Syn, haar and hulle, for the formation of the Possessive of Nouns, have almost entirely been usurped by the form se, a contraction of syn.” 24. It is odd that Le Roux (1923), who offers a great deal of interesting material, says nothing about free nominal possessives of the Cape Dutch type. 25. On the other hand, the linking pronoun sy does not occur at all in this grammar, which is an indication of the intrusion of se and sinne to the detriment of sy(n) and syne in the ‘real’ Afrikaans possessive variety.

 Roots of Afrikaans

2.3

Conclusion

As is clear from the above, interesting observations about Dutch-like phenomena in early-modern Afrikaans can be found in older grammars. In conjunction with data from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they may present a sample of the variety which once existed in Cape Dutch, i.e. nascent Afrikaans. We may now answer question (1b) in the following balanced way: the turnaround points or turnaround periods established by Scholtz and others can be taken to be realistic but they apply only to specific groups of Afrikaans speakers. Others were able to preserve a simplified structural variant of Dutch, and some speakers probably walked about with ‘double’ grammars. Apart from all this, it only became clear to me after my investigation of these grammar booklets (which fortunately yielded more than merely the above) that in Ponelis (1993: 235) – jammed between historical observations – it is stated that *Die plaas is my ouers hulle ‘The farm is my parents theirs’ is ungrammatical, i.e. in the kind of Afrikaans in which my ouers hulle plaas ‘my parents their farm’ is grammatical.26

3. A founder dialect?27 The diachronic handbooks of Afrikaans (Ponelis 1990, 1993 and Raidt 1983, 1991) take as their point of departure a supra-regional seventeenth and eighteenth-century Dutch lingua franca as the basis of Afrikaans, and in doing so concur with Scholtz (1950/1963), who rejects the idea of a founder dialect. It seems to me that a number of things still need to be investigated here. Hence the following desideratum: (22) Desideratum 2: Reopen the discussion on a possible founder dialect. The idea of a founder dialect goes back to Kloeke (1950), who thought that in the period of Van Riebeeck (1652–1662) the dialect of the province of (the South-East of) South-Holland laid the foundation for Afrikaans. He appealed to words in Afrikaans like leeg ‘low’, laai ‘drawer’, akker ‘acorn’, botter ‘butter’, etc. and also to the opposition between [ø], [o] and [O], as in seun ‘son’, heuning ‘honey’, meul ‘mill’ vs. somer ‘summer’, voël ‘bird’, woon ‘live’, koning ‘king’ vs. botter ‘butter’, skottel ‘dish’, where Standard Dutch has [o] in all these words. The [o] forms are problematic: they should have been seumer, veuel etc. This must have been the influence of the written language, Kloeke asserts. Moreover, the Afrikaans diminutives with [i] in all variants of the ending (-ie, -pie, -kie, -(e)tjie) as well as b[i]tjie with [i] in the root point to southern South-Holland 26. If I understand correctly, this is quoted from an MA-dissertation by Frank Hendricks. According to Hendricks the Dutch construction was still used in the seventies of the twentieth century by older speakers in the West Cape (Ponelis 1993: 234). 27. See also Den Besten (2005), which is partly concerned with the issue of a founder dialect.



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

influence according to Kloeke. He adopts a more differentiated opinion, however, by establishing that both in Holland and in South-Africa diverging changes have taken place, such as for example the transition of -tjie into -t(s)jie in the dialect of Utrecht, and into -chie (following (semi)vowels) in the dialect of Oud-Beierland. As to Afrikaans, Kloeke only refers to the change of bietjie ‘a little bit, a while’ into biekie. Apparently, he did not know that biekie is merely the tip of the iceberg: the transition of -tjie, t-jie (and d-jie) into kie is a general phenomenon. In all this Kloeke implicitly omits that, as is to be expected, after 1662 other Hollandic varieties will have exerted an influence. This is because he tends to ascribe Afrikaans already to the seventeenth century, which nobody would be prepared to do nowadays. For the rest, the influence of the written language and the language of the Statenbijbel (the Authorised Version of the Bible in Dutch) sufficed for him, it seems. And this, too, is now a somewhat old-fashioned point of view. Kloeke’s work has never been very influential in South Africa as a consequence of Scholtz’s (1950) searching criticism, reprinted in Scholtz (1963). His general position is that Afrikaans is closer to seventeenth and eighteenth-century supraregional or, for that matter, supracommunal Dutch (south of the IJ), but that Afrikaans did not go through the nineteenth-century developments towards Standard Dutch. (There was no getting out of it; the Cape colony belonged to England at the time.) Not everything Kloeke calls South-Hollandic was in fact exclusively South-Hollandic in earlier days. Moreover, specific South-Hollandic words are missing in Afrikaans, like koon ‘cheek’, while a North-Hollandic word such as toon ‘toe’ is typically Afrikaans.28 Still, Scholtz cannot but accept a certain correspondence between southern SouthHollandic dialects and Afrikaans, but he dismisses this by positing that the Cape and southern South-Hollandic are dialectally backward regions. It is to be pitied that he does not adduce arguments in support of why southern South-Hollandic is supposed to be a dialectically backward region. And as far as toon and koon is concerned, Scholtz can be beaten at his own game: toon ‘toe’ once was a Standard Dutch word and the present-day distribution of toon and koon may be a recent development. Although Scholtz has written an article worthy of consideration, which shows that Kloeke is not everywhere on solid ground, criticism can be levelled at Scholtz as well. On one point I find Scholtz’s reasoning below par. He criticizes Kloeke’s ideas on the diminutives by remarking that in the dialect of Oud-Beierland -sjie in huisjie ‘little house’ and in South-Hollandic and the dialect of Utrecht -chie in papierechie ‘bit of paper’ or dinchie (in some dialects) ‘little thing’ are not Afrikaans and deviate too much to allow us to draw any conclusion from them. In addition, he cannot discern any argument in “dialekties Afrikaans” biekie instead of bietjie. This implies that Scholtz has not been able to follow Kloeke’s line of reasoning, which started from a historical form –(e)tjie diverging later into the dialects of South-Holland and Utrecht and into 28. Ponelis (1960) is a valuable supplement to Scholtz (1950) since additional dialect material is offered in support of Scholtz’s position.

 Roots of Afrikaans

specific variants of Afrikaans, although this is no more than normal historical linguistics which is easy to implement (see Den Besten 2000a).29 Both Kloeke and Scholtz have their weak and strong points, which in itself is good reason for reopening – or continuing – the discussion on a possible founder dialect, preferably with much more lexical material than was discussed by these authors. Moreover, there are all kinds of unconnected data pointing to southern South-Holland. For instance, there is Van Rijn (1914: 89) who points out that typically Afrikaans forms like aand ‘evening’, oor ‘about’, glo ‘believe’ are used by elderly people living in the country in Holland. One of these elderly people was his own father, an inhabitant of Bleiswijk, then a village in the vicinity of Rotterdam. In addition, Scholtz (1964: 89, note 3) mentions the infinitives bly ‘remain’, gee ‘give’ and hê ‘have’ and the perfect participle gegee ‘given’ for West-Voorne, Vlaardingen and North-Beveland (where Zeeuws is spoken); furthermore gesê ‘said’ and the finite lê ‘lays/lies’ in the LowerBetuwe area. All of these are Afrikaans forms as well.30 Scholtz (1964: 199) goes on to point out that vatten in the sense of ‘catch’ (Afrikaans vat) not only occurs in Brabant but also in the Lower-Betuwe, Sliedrecht and the eastern part of the Bommelerwaard – which agrees with a note I once read in an untraceable newspaper-article on the Alblasserwaard stating that vatten ‘catch’ is a typical word of that region. Here again we are in the south, or south-east of South-Holland and neighbouring Gelderland.31 The work done by Kloeke and Scholtz should be done over again and extended. While doing so, I think that attention should also be paid to phonological influences from other languages. But until further notice no clear answer can be given to question (1a). The best we can say is that it does not seem impossible to identify a founder 29. What Scholtz called “dialekties” (i.e. Northern) Afrikaans (-kie instad of -tjie) has meanwhile become Standard Afrikaans. They still write -tjie, however. 30. By a lucky chance we know that the form gee was extant in South-Africa at a very early date. The Khoekhoe word-list jotted down by the Frenchman De Flacourt at the bay of Saldanha in 1655, which contains a number of Dutch and English words, gives ghemé ‘give’ and ghemaré ‘give me’. Ghemé is Pidgin-Dutch geme/gemme, i.e. gee plus the Pidgin ending -me used only after vowels (as opposed to -um/-om after consonants). Ghemaré is gee plus Khoekhoe ma-re ‘giveme-IMP’, with the imperative marker -re. Cf. Den Besten (1987b: 33–34). A different analysis of ghemaré would be to consider it a shortening of geef spoken by a Khoekhoe mouth (if Ghe is taken as a subclause here) or an assimilation of [f] to [m] (if ghema- is taken as a compound). 31. Notice that the two articles by Scholtz quoted here (1943, 1947, respectively) both precede Scholtz’s 1950 review of Kloeke’s theory. So, he might have come forward with a less rigid countertheory – for example by leaving the possibility open that, where his supraregional koine cannot handle the facts, southern or south-eastern Dutch could emerge as a significant factor. Apart from that, the complex factor of ‘Non-Dutch’ will also have to be taken into account. We might think here of the substitution of w for v in the onset of a weak syllable following a strong one (probably the influence of Khoekhoe), or of the non-standard substitution of a for [6] (Cape Khoekhoe and (East)-Malay) or of the Cape substitution of dj for j, which has long been connected with Malay.



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

dialect, but that a subtle approach and a carefully balanced appraisal will have to be taken into account.

4. Languages in contact at the Cape It is widely assumed that Cape Dutch has been influenced by Khoekhoe spoken by the Khoekhoen and by Asiatic Creole Portuguese and non-standard Malay spoken by the slaves. A point frequently lost sight of is that the imported slaves hardly ever spoke Creole Portuguese or Malay as their mother tongue – although their presumably multilingual children may have had (one of) these languages as their first language. However, the Creole Portuguese or Malay learned by the children may have been influenced by the mother tongue(s) of their parents. Something similar holds for children who became speakers of Dutch or for that matter, Afrikaans. This makes detailed research into the provenance of the slaves imperative: (23) Desideratum 3: Determine, on the basis of where the slaves came from, with which languages (apart from Khoekhoe) Cape Dutch has been in contact. In Section 4.1 I will take up this desideratum (a practical elaboration of question (1c)), and in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 I will deal with two syntactic properties of Afrikaans that I think can be related to different languages of India/Sri Lanka and Eastern Indonesia.

4.1

Provenance of the slaves

As for their provenance, the slaves who entered the Cape colony between 1652 and 1808 can be divided as follows according to Shell (1994): (24)

India-Sri Lanka Indonesia-Malacca Madagascar Africa

25.9% 22.7% 25.1% 26.4%

‘Africa’ in (24) must be taken as ‘the entirety of black Africa except Madagascar’, even if most of the continental-African slaves came de facto only from Mozambique/Natal. However, most Malgassans (from Madagascar) and Mozambicans arrived late: from the third and fourth quarter of the eighteenth century onwards, whereas the number of Cape natives in the sixties of the eighteenth century rose above 50% of the slave population, with a minor dip in the nineties. The consequence of all this is that potential substrate or adstrate languages must be sought in the first instance in (a) Asiatic Creole Portuguese and non-standard Malay (the two contact languages already referred to), and (b) the regional languages of India-Sri Lanka and Indonesia, and not in (c) Malagasy or the languages of Mozambique/Natal.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Add to this that in all probability the majority of the Indonesian slaves came from the east of the archipelago (Robert Shell, personal communication). The very detailed numbers (not representative of the entire period, however) in Bradlow (1978) confirm this – though I myself did not get any further than 60%. The logical conclusion is that we should look for non-standard Malay especially in the East-Malay dialects and that we should pay close attention to the languages of Eastern Indonesia. I will use the Afrikaans object marker vir and the so-called pa-hulle construction as illustration.

4.2

‘Vir’ and the East-Malay dialects32

The Afrikaans preposition vir (< Dutch voor) ‘for’ can mark animate direct objects (in specific instances it is even obligatory.). It also occurs as a preposition with indirect objects functioning as recipient or benificiary. It is well-known that Creole Portuguese influences play a role here, but the following table shows that the East-Malay dialects have a great deal in common with Afrikaans. Notice that the East-Malay markers pa(r) and pe(r) derive from Creole Portuguese, while for derives from Dutch and buat from Standard Indonesian. As an illustration I provide examples from Manado Malay and Amboina-Malay.33 Manado Malay shows that pa, just like vir, can mark three functions in Afrikaans; to begin with a [+animate] direct object, as in (25a): (25) a1 ... kalu néanda’ dong bunung pa dia ... when not 3pl kill obm 3sg ... ‘otherwise they kill him’ a2 No tu Kapala Pulisi orang Blanda kanaal pa kita And that Chief Police person Dutch know obm 1sg ‘And the chief of police was a Dutchman and he knew me’ Table 1.  Object marking in Afrikaans and some East-Malay dialects

Afrikaans (vir) North-Moluccan Malay (pa) Manado Malay (pa, pe, par, per) Amboina-Malay (par, for, buat)

Animate DO

Recipient IO

Beneficiary IO

+ + + -/?34

+ + + +

+ ? + +

32. Section 4.2 is based on Den Besten (2000b). 33. The data are from Watuseke & Watuseke-Politton (1981) and Van Minde (1997), respectively. 34. It is likely that Amboina-Malay used to mark animate direct objects with a preposition. For information pointing in this direction see Den Besten (2000b).



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

and furthermore a recipient and a benificiary, as in (25b–c): (25) b1 Abis mo kasé nama apa pa dia And fut give name what to 3sg ‘And what name will you give him?’ b2 “Bagini!” kita bilang pa kita pé papa: ... “Quite!” 1sg say to 1sg poss father: ... ‘”Quite!” I said to my father: ...’ c Ta rasa tu Residén néanda mo béking katjuali pe satu orang 1sg think the Resident neg fut make exception for one person Í thought the Resident will not make an exception for one person.’ In all these cases pa can be translated nicely by Afrikaans vir. The examples from Amboina-Malay in (26) show how much like ‘Afrikaans’ EastMalay can look when it uses prepositions that originally meant ‘voor’ (for < Dutch voor; buat < Indonesian buat ‘for’): (26) a. Lalu burung Pombo kasi tongka satu for Kes Then bird Dove give stick a voor monkey ‘Then bird Dove gave Monkey a stick’ b. Jang kasi kepeng buat dia Must-not give money voor 3sg ‘Give him/her no money’ c. Waktu dong makang papa tu tanya for ana yang tua conj ... father the ask voor child rel old kata ... When 3pl eat ‘When they were eating, the father asked the eldest child to ...’ In all three cases Afrikaans would have used vir (< Dutch voor). And because of the close etymological agreement between Afrikaans and Amboina-Malay a sentence such as (26c) strikes one as rather “Afrikaans”. (Cf. Toe hulle eet, vra die vader vir die oudste kind om ... ‘When they were eating, the father asked VOOR the eldest child to ...’)

4.3

‘Pa-hulle’ and the East-Malay dialects35

In constructions of the type “X + 3PL” (Jan-hulle, Pa-hulle) Afrikaans has well-known associatives at its disposal. X + hulle roughly means ‘the X-group, X and one or more others’. If X is plural, no others need be intended outside the ones mentioned.36

35. Section 4.3 is based on Den Besten (2001a). 36. Cf. Den Besten (1996). Note that Dutch X + cum suis ‘X and two or more others’ (irrespective of whether X is singular or plural) can only express a subset of all the meanings of the Afrikaans construction.

 Roots of Afrikaans

Until recently it remained unclear what to do with this construction as a foreign language source could not be identified, apart from West-African languages. But then only very few slaves came from that area. Meanwhile we know that there is an indirect connection with an associative structure in Khoekhoe (Nienaber 1994b) and a direct connection with associatives in East-Malay. I will restrict myself to East-Malay in the following discussion.37 As appears from the examples in (27) and (28), Afrikaans best affiliates itself to Amboina and Kupang Malay as far as the wordorder in associative constructions goes:38 (27)

X + 3pl a. Afrikaans: b. Amboina-Malay: c. Kupang Malay:

Pa-hulle ‘Dad 3pl’ Anis dong ‘Anis 3pl’ s6s Lis dong ‘sister Lies 3pl’

(28) 3pl + X a. North-Moluccan Malay: dong Habel b. Manado Malay: dong Éto

‘3pl Habel’ ‘3PL Éto’

If we leave the matter of wordorder out of consideration for the moment, Afrikaans also shares with East-Malay the possibility of forming expressions for 2PL by means of associatives with an appellative: (29) a. Afrikaans: Oom-hulle ‘you (rev.), Uncle + X’ b. North-Moluccan Malay: dong Om ‘3pl Uncle’=‘you (rev.), Uncle + X’ c. Kupang Malay: Susi Ida dong ‘sister Ida 3pl’=‘you (rev.), sister Ida + X’ This typical property of Afrikaans can also be traced back to Eastern Indonesia. And we can take ‘Eastern Indonesia’ quite literally here, for Grimes (1991) and Taylor (1983) assert that the East-Malay associatives X + 3PL and 3PL + X can also be found in the local Austronesian and non-Austronesian languages of Eastern Indonesia. The 3PL associatives are truly a regional property, in other words a Sprachbund phenomenon.

37. A great many difficulties, or minimally details requiring an explanation, attach to a derivation from Khoekhoe. In brief, it would amount to postulating that a Khoekhoe associative structure X + hãã + 3PL may have been the basis for dialectal Afrikaans X + (e)n + doe(n) and (Dutchified still further) X + (e)n + (h)ulle, as in Paandoe(n) en Paanulle, which may have been the basis for X + hulle. Compare also the equivalence of John-them and John-and-them in Caribbean Creole languages. 38. For Amboina and Kupang Malay see Van Minde (1997) or Steinhauer (1983). For NorthMoluccan Malay and Manado Malay see Taylor (1983) or Watuseke & Watuseke-Politton (1981).



Chapter 17.  Desiderata for Afrikaans historical linguistics 

4.4

Language relationship and areal typology

Having established an areal property in Eastern Indonesia, we are back at our thesis that the first languages of the slaves may also have been relevant for the origin of Afrikaans. This now invokes the question as to whether East-Malay object marking, which is clearly connected with Creole Portuguese, has local roots as well. Until further notice, this is not clear to me. However, one other group of slaves certainly may have played a role here: those slaves from India-Sri Lanka who had Indo-Aryan mother tongues. The Indo-Aryan languages – other than the Dravidian languages – have the socalled dative-accusative, i.e. marking an animate direct object as an indirect object. This property must have been passed from the Indo-Aryan languages onto IndoPortuguese, which is itself the historical basis of Asian Creole Portuguese. Asian Creole Portuguese influenced East-Maly in Eastern Indonesia in its turn. And in conjunction, the East-Malay dialects, Creole Portuguese and the Indo-Aryan languages have contributed to the emergence of the object marker vir in Afrikaans.39

5. Concluding remarks My treatment of the three desiderata may have created the impression that credit can only be gained by addressing number two, i.e. the question of a conceivable founder dialect. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Diachronic variation research (desideratum 1) is only in its infancy. And a great deal is still open in the matter of possible substrate languages (desideratum 3). For example: can a substrate explain the demonstratives hierdie ‘this’ and daardie ‘that’? Or: does the negative imperative marker moenie ‘MUST-NOT’ have a more variegated background than merely Creole Portuguese?

39. For details and references in relation to Asiatic Creole Portuguese see Den Besten (1997). For the languages of India-Sri Lanka see Masica (1993) and Steever (1998).

Appreciations

Giving voice The archive in Afrikaans historical linguistics Ana Deumert

University of Cape Town

1. ‘Archive fever’ in the pursuit of (language) history Historiography, like linguistics, emerged as a discipline in the nineteenth century and emphasized from the outset the critical use of sources. Leopold von Ranke’s (1824) dictum bloβ sagen wie es eigentlich gewesen (‘to tell how it really was’) remains, in its admirable simplicity, a cornerstone of ideal historical argumentation (Iggers 2011). And it is precisely this desire for uncovering truth, for returning to the origin, which gives rise to what Derrida (1995: 57) has termed mal d’archive, ‘archive fever’: Listening to the French idiom ... to be en mal d’archive can mean something else than to suffer from a sickness, from a trouble, or from what the noun mal might name. It is to burn with a passion. It is never to rest, interminably, from searching for the archive right when it slips away.

J.L.M. Franken, to whom we owe early documentation and discussion of substrate varieties of Afrikaans, was certainly a man en mal d’archive. In the preface to Franken’s major work Taalhistoriese Bydraes (1953), G.S. Nienaber introduces the author as follows: Sedert prof. Franken sy standplaas in Stellenbosch het en so binne maklike bereik van die groot staatsargief te Kaapstad is, het hom in sy vrye oomblikke met nog meer ywer as vroeër gaan toelê op die intensiewe studie van onderwerpe wat sy belangstelling gaande gemaak het. Daar is baie sulke sake waaroor hy ’n sterk weetgierigheid aan die dag gelê het.

That is, Since Prof. Franken took up his position in Stellenbosch and is in close vicinity to the large government archive in Cape Town, he worked in his free moments with more energy than previously on the intensive study of topics in which he is interested. There are many such things for which he has shown a strong curiosity.

 Roots of Afrikaans

And indeed, Franken, a historian by training, was among the first who, in the 1920s, delved into the archival record. His editorship of texts – such as the Duminy diaries, the plays of Boniface, Teenstra’s travelogue and, perhaps most importantly, documentary evidence originating outside of the dominant settler community – has established significant points of reference for Afrikaans scholarship. Den Besten’s research has built on Franken’s work and his early insights regarding the existence of pidginized ‘broken’ forms of Dutch in the colony (Cape Dutch Pidgin, henceforth CDP). Den Besten has not only extended our archival record by locating new sources, but also established new standards for its interpretation. His work shows that, although the colonial archive suppresses the voices of the subaltern (or substrate, to use Creolist terminology), we can – through careful linguistic reconstruction – uncover non-dominant patterns of language use in the archival record. Den Besten’s (2009a) paper, In search of a submerged phonology, can be read as a model example of such work; as well as his analysis of the 1655 fragment hette hie (den Besten 2003; see also den Besten 2004, where he describes his approach as ‘colonial philology’). His work reminds us not to ‘overlook hidden pidgin material or to skip the small bits of Portuguese Creole or Malay’ (2004: 2) with which the colonial archive is peppered. ‘Cracking the code’ (den Besten 2004), that is, to reconstruct the meaning of reported substrate speech, is a challenge to the language historian working with such minimal evidence. While comparative and structural analysis might allow us to decode the denotational meaning of isolated sentences or sentence fragments, it tells us little about their wider socio-cultural meaning. The first part of this paper looks at the CDP data from Kolb’s Caput Bonae Spei Hodiernum from a sociolinguistic perspective. I will argue for the need to consider carefully the context(s) in which samples of substrate speech occur if we want to understand fully ‘what was actually said?’ (den Besten 2004). In the second part of the paper I will engage with a concern raised by den Besten in his early, seminal article Die Niederländischen Pidgins der alten Kap Kolonie: [E]s ist auch bedauernswert, daβ es kein Spracharchiv für die kapländischen Pidgins gibt, so daβ jeder Forscher seine eigene Datensammlung anlegen muβ. (1987: 9)

That is, It is also regrettable that there is no language archive for the Cape pidgins, and because of this each researcher needs to establish his own corpus.

Twenty years later, den Besten reiterated the need for archival work and consolidation in Desiderata voor de historische taalkunde van het Afrikaans (2009b). This time focusing on the study of matrilectal varieties: Onderzoek de archivale data. Vroeg Afrikaans en Modern Afrikaans op het punt van ‘gemengde’ periodes, parallelle constructies, enz.



Giving voice 

That is, Study the archival data. Early Afrikaans and Modern Afrikaans at the point of ‘mixed’ periods, parallel constructions, etc.

Following from den Besten’s cue, we need to ask: can we unify the Afrikaans archive, and thus institutionalize it? And what should be inside the archive and what outside of it? What will be its limits and its meaning? Its gaps and secrets?

2. The archive as sliver, data as fragment: Kolb’s Caput Bonae (1719/1727) Critical scholarship of the archive has moved from the archive-as-source to the archive-as-subject (Stoler 2002: 93), from the archive’s ‘truth-effects (the archive as material with ‘real’ consequences)’ to the archive’s ‘fiction-effects (the archive as a system of representation)’ (Arondekar 2005: 12). Thus, archives are complex institutions and in need of careful interpretation. Their collections of texts and other artefacts allow us a window to the past, but in a way that is forever fractured and shifting, ‘foreign, faded, full of ellipses, incoherencies, suspicious emendations, and tendentious commentaries’ (Geertz 1973: 10). As noted by Harris (2002: 64), the archive is ‘but a sliver’ and data are always ‘fragments’. As historians we need not only acknowledge the incompleteness of the record, but also the conditions of its production, that is, the powers and forces that shaped it. In other words, the particular form and context of the texts we study need to be scrutinized: Who were the scribes? What conventions were used and why? What was the purpose of the text? Whom did it serve? And as historical linguists we should ask ourselves, in particular, how language is recorded and presented in the (colonial) archive: Is it central or liminal? Public or private? Which varieties and linguistic interactions are visible and which are marginal, even excluded? Are linguistic differences emphasized or ignored? How is language used to achieve non-linguistic ends, such as the expression of authenticity and legitimacy or, alternatively, the degradation and marginalization of others? Greenblatt (1991), argues in his discussion of early encounters in the New World that European colonists expressed a naive faith in their ability to decode linguistics signs, and were often unable to see the resistant cultural and linguistic otherness of the New World. To believe in the possibility of understanding across language boundaries made it possible to justify the colonial enterprise: if communication, however rudimentary, was possible then the rationale of colonialism – and its institutions (such as courts) – could be explained to those colonized and their understanding ensured. In the remainder of this section I will focus on the question of context. To analyze sentences in isolation is a long accepted practice in linguistics. However, it is also a practice which is deeply problematic for a sociolinguistic or socio-cultural approach to language, that is, an approach which explicitly and consciously moves beyond language structure and considers as integral to any explanation the social, cultural and

 Roots of Afrikaans

ideological dimensions of language use and, therefore, pays detailed attention to the situated meaning of speech events (see Bucholtz & Hall 2008). Peter Kolb’s (1719, 1727)1 Caput Bonae Spei Hodiernum has been an important source for the reconstruction of CDP, and is a central document in the Afrikaans (and also Khoesan) archive. It is an influential ‘authoritative’ text, perhaps best known for its ethnographic descriptions and discussions of Khoekhoe life and customs (Raum 1997; Good 2006). In the preface to both the German (1719) and Dutch edition (1727) Kolb emphasizes that his text is based on personal observation and direct experience (‘eigene[m] Anschauen und persöhnliche[m] Beiwohnen’, 1719: 2): [O]m alles zelf naauwkeurig te onderzoeken, en geen eene zaak te papier te stellen, die ik niet door eigen ondervinding, uit de mond en ommegang met Hottentotten zelf, zoude bevinden in der daad alzoo wezen.

That is, To study everything accurately myself, and not to write anything on paper that I didn’t confirm to be this way through my own experience, from the mouth and interactions with the Khoekhoe. (1727: 3)

How reliable are Kolb’s statements? Are these assurances a reflection of a commitment to scientific standards, or merely a rhetorical move directed at convincing the reader of the text’s truth value? Penn (1997: 42) has argued that Kolb’s text is heavily ambiguous and located in a hybrid zone which combines fact and fiction: Kolb was not only influenced by the scientific practices of his day for literary genres and authors also played their part in shaping his approach to his subject. Indeed, the division between science and literature, between fact and fiction, was not as watertight as later commentators would have liked and it is essential to appreciate that the Kolbian oeuvre is a hybrid of pre- and post-Enlightenment discourses.

Kolb also faced linguistic barriers in his researches. During his eight years of residency (1705 – 1712) and self-reported close contact with the Khoekhoe, Kolb never learnt to speak their language(s). He made a half-hearted and short-lived attempt with one Syncopas2 as teacher to whom he offered money and tobacco in exchange (1727, I: 425). However, since this was unsuccessful he relied throughout on interpreters. Although 1. In the following discussion I will be quoting from the Dutch translation which appeared in 1727 and has been digitized (www.archive.org), as well as from the original German translation (1719) which is available at the African Studies Library of the University of Cape Town. All examples from the Dutch version were checked carefully against the German original. Note that Kolb apologized in the 1719 edition for having lost some of his proficiency in his mother tongue due to being exposed to Dutch for so many years (p. 3). I would therefore argue that both editions should be read together, and that neither should be considered superior to the other. 2. Syncopas appears to have been one of Kolb’s main consultants and his name appears throughout the text.



Giving voice 

Kolb reflects astutely on the problems of translation when narrating his failed attempt of learning the language (ibid.), these complex moments of cross-linguistic interaction (that is, from Khoekhoe → interpreter → Kolb → reader) are obscured in the actual narrative descriptions. As a result, as noted by Greenblatt for the New World, an illusion of full cultural understanding is created. Given Kolb’s strong reliance on interpreters, we need to ask what motivated the use of CDP in his descriptions. Why use pidgin at all and what does its inclusion mean? Can we treat Kolb’s pidgin sentences as reflecting ‘reality’? Or could it be that they are reproducing European perceptions and stylizations of CDP rather than actual linguistic structures? Thus, the fact that the form -UM occurs in representations of Khoekhoe Dutch over a period of one-hundred years (1668 – 1768/9), might indicate the truth-status of this form as a ‘pidgin suffix’ (as argued by den Besten, 2002, and this volume). However, it is also possible that -UM is little more than a linguistic stereotype which is enacted and perpetuated for the entertainment of European audiences; a literary practice which took a salient, but possibly transient or rare feature and elevated it into a stylistic marker of a prototypical Khoekhoe voice (and thus a signal for the authenticity and ‘truth’ of the report). This latter interpretation is supported by the very rhetoric of Kolb’s text which creates a dense web of intertextuality through constant cross-references to the reports of earlier European travellers and observers, including, for example, Bövingh (1714) and Meister (1692) who also provided examples of -UM in their texts. Moreover, in contrast to Kolb’s opening statement in the preface, many of the verbatim CDP examples do not include him as a witness to, and thus direct observer of, the utterance. In several cases, he reports not from first-hand memory and experience, but simply narrates a story he was told (hearsay evidence). Thus, the much cited Ons denkum ons altyd baas, maar ons ja zienom Duitsman meer baas

‘We think we are always the master, but we yes see Europeans are more master’ is part of a narrative which was related to Kolb by one Claas Claaszoon Kranenburg, and the quote is attributed to an (unnamed) Kaptein of the Chamtouers. Its purpose, within the larger context of the text, was to illustrate not only the courageous nature of the Khoekhoe in battle, but also their ultimate acceptance of colonial power relations (1727, I: 477). In Ten Rhyne’s Schediasma de Promontorio Bonae Spei (1686, reprinted in Scharpera 1933; see also Den Besten 2007) CDP occurs in a comparable context of colonial/indigenous conflict, defiance, and cross-cultural communication. Perhaps even more importantly, Ten Rhyne’s well-known CDP sentences represent not the voice of any individual Khoekhoe but are ‘typical phrases’ that could be uttered by any Khoekhoe when overwhelmed by, or interacting with, the colonial forces (chapter XX; p. 140). Ten Rhyne adds an intriguing post-script: ‘But these words they pronounce perhaps only when asked’ (Sed haec fortuito pronunciant rogat). This comment suggests that we might be dealing not with actual, naturally occurring speech samples, but rather with formalized and perhaps ritualized expressions which were related to Europeans through particular stories and narratives.

 Roots of Afrikaans

That CDP might have shown some sort of stylistic sedimentation, if not register formation (or ‘enregisterment’, see Agha 2008), is indicated by a further narrative related by Kolb: Johannes Muller, son of the Vryburger Hendrick Muller, caught and threatened to kill a praying mantis that had come into the kraal. Prior to this narrative Kolb had discussed the Khoekhoe’s veneration of the praying mantis (a behaviour he considered quite bizarre and foolish). The narrated interaction between Muller and the Khoekhoe is best described as poly-phonic (à la Bakthin), reflecting a diversity of styles in the voices of the Khoekhoe actors (direct speech, single underlined; indirect speech, double underlined; italics in the original): Wanneer de Hottentotten zagen dat hy het gevangen had, waren zy bezig om aan hem de behoorlyke eer te bewyzen, en den schuldigen dienst af te leggen, en zy begonden vervaarlyk te roepen; Hachzalze, Muatze, wat maakum zoo? dat is: Hoort eens, kyk eens, wat wil die daar doen? De zoon van den gemelden Vryman, wanneer hy dit hoorde, vraagde hen, schoon hy wel verstont, wat zy in hunne taal tegens elkanderen spraken, wat zy met dit elendig scheeuwen hebben of zeggen wilden? waar op zy aan hem in gebroken Hollandsch te verstaan gaven, dat hy het niet doen moest, en dit beestje, aan hen zoo zeer welkom in hunne kraal, niet moest vangen. Wanneer zy echter zagen, en uit zyne minen bemerkten, dat hy daarom niet gaf, maar het beestje zelfs doden wilde, zeiden zy tot hem, gy dit Beest fangum zoo, en nu dood makum zoo, is dat braa, wagtum ons altemaal daar van loopum zoo. Zou gy het Beestje zoo vangen, en nu zoo doden, is dat wel gedaan, ziet zoo gy het doet, loopen wy allen hene. Vermids hy het Beestje in de hand had, en daar mede speelde, baden zy hem ten laatsten zeer instandig, dat hy het toch weder wilde laten vliegen en niet doden, want zeiden zy indien gy het dood, zoo zyn wy allen ongelukkig. (1727, I: 502)3

This is, When the Khoekhoe saw that he caught it, they showed him [the insect] the required honour and necessary respect, and so they began to shout dangerously: Hachzalze, Muatse, wat maakum zoo? that is: Listen here, see here, what will he do now? When the son of the above mentioned Vryburger heard this, he asked them, although he understood quite well what they spoke in their own language to one another, what they wanted to indicate or say with this miserable shouting? In response they explained to him in broken Dutch that he must not do this, and catch this animal which is very welcome in their kraal. When they saw, and noticed from his facial expression, that he didn’t care, but wanted to kill the insect himself, they said to him gy dit Beest fangum zoo, en nu dood maakum zoo, is dat braa, wagtum ons altemaal daar van loopum zoo. If you catch the animal like this, and now kill it, is that done well, just wait if you do this, then we will all run away. While he had the insect in the hand and played with it, they begged him finally very sincerely that he should let it fly and not kill it, because they said if you kill it, then we will all be unlucky. 3.

In the 1719 German edition: ‘so ihr es tötet/so sind wir alle unglücklich’ (p. 417).



Giving voice 

In this narrative, three different linguistic voices are attached to the Khoekhoe’s repeated interventions to save the praying mantis: ranging from a Khoekhoe-pidgin mix to CDP and finally to standard Dutch (German in the 1719 edition), the latter most likely representing translated Khoekhoe. These three ways of speaking are related to different sequences in the interaction: (a) the initial chant, which is described as loud and intimidating, in ‘their own language’, draws attention to the danger; (b) the threat of running away is expressed in what we might call ‘strong’ pidgin (where every verb is marked, perhaps to express emphasis, by -UM), and (c) the final plea, represented in German (1719) or Dutch (1727), which explains the reason for their unhappiness, i.e. that killing the insect will bring bad luck.

In addition, there is also the voice of the narrator, summarizing through indirect speech the first plea of the Khoekhoe – which followed the chant – and, it is said, was delivered in gebroken Hollandsch (‘broken Dutch’). Are the stylistic shifts represented in the narrative literary artefacts? Or do they tell us something about the sociolinguistic meaning of these varieties? To what extent can -UM be interpreted as a stylistic device which signals ‘deep pidgin’ (and perhaps an emphatic voice), rather than a common structural feature which was part of the grammar of a relatively uniform CDP? And what is the function and meaning of zoo which occurs quite consistently with -UM in Kolb’s text? Is it a discourse or stance marker? And as such embedded in the context and pragmatics of the specific and situated speech event? Heavily pidginized forms of speech occur in Kolb’s text not only in cross-cultural interactions. Another prominent domain is that of tovergoeds/toverkonst, that is, traditional forms of medicine and magic. As in Ten Rhyne’s example (above), CDP can occur as the typical voice of any Khoekhoe, that is, the collective voice of a group which expresses particular beliefs. Helpt het, zeggen zy, Die Tovergoeds ja braaf ... Doet het geen werking, en word de zieke daar van niet beter, zoo zeggen de Artzen zelf tegen hunne Patienten, Wagtum, die Tovergoeds niet sterk genoeg ... (1727, II: 162, also II: 114; emphasis in the original)

That is, When it helps, they say The medicine is good ... When it does not work, and the illness does not get better, then the Doctors themselves say to their Patients, Wait, the medicine is not strong enough ...

The CDP phrase anders maken or anders maakum zoo also describes Khoekhoe beliefs and cultural practices. The expression refers to rituals of transformation and transition, including rites de passage such as initiation. In the first discussion of the term, we see yet again the above noted polyphony of voices: the pidgin-based term, a religiousChristian interpretation (the author’s voice), and an explication in the Khoekhoe’s own words (again in standard German/Dutch, indicating translation):

 Roots of Afrikaans

[E]n noemen deze plegtigheid Anders maakum zoo4, ‘t welk zoo veel betekent, als dat zy nu tot andere menschen gemaakt zyn; zich verbeeldende dat door dit doen hunne zonden vergeven zyn, of om zich hunne worden te bedienen, zy zeggen wy geloven dat wy voortaan altyd goed and geen kwaad meer doen zullen.5 (I: 501)

That is, And [they] call this custom Anders maakum zoo, the meaning of this is that they have been transformed into other people; imagining that through this their sins are forgiven, or to use their words, they say we believe that we will now always be good and won’t do any bad.

Both the practices of anders maken/maakum zoo and those of tovergoeds/toverkonst relate to cultural domains where secrecy, opacity, concealment and respect play an important role. In other words, these are domains where foreign language material is functional and useful, a communicative niche where CDP forms possibly remained prominent, even at a time when – due to intense contact and labour relations – Khoekhoe speakers must have acquired more mesolectal and acrolectal forms of Dutch (on taboo and language creation see Mous 2011). Den Besten’s (1989: 230, also 2004) comment that the Khoekhoe used CDP to keep the Dutch ‘at a distance by using a type of Dutch that was reminiscent of their native language’ is noteworthy in this context. This suggests that the very structures of CDP had socio-symbolic meaning and allowed speakers to disassociate between themselves and that which is dangerous or taboo. By considering Kolb’s CDP sentences in isolation from the narrative and historical context in which they occur, we run the risk of a naive trust in the archive’s truth effects, with little regard for the archive as a system of representation. Our CDP archive needs to be more than a collection of ‘sentences’. Den Besten, astute as always, was aware of these problems: ‘the first (Proto)-Afrikaans speakers (or should I say sentences?) in that region [the Western Cape] are attested for the period around 1700’ (my emphasis; 2001: 207). We need to know who wrote these sentences, what they represent(ed) and what they mean(t) – not in terms of denotational meaning only, but also with respect their sociolinguistic and symbolic meanings.

3. ’N Nuwe Afrikaanse Taalargief Den Besten’s interpretation of linguistic practices in the early colony articulates considerable fluidity with regard to language boundaries (e.g. relexification of Khoekhoe, complex processes of reanalysis, the ‘borrowing back’ of original pidgin words into Khoekhoe). He describes a complex and heterogeneous – perhaps even ‘chaotic’ 4. In the German edition the spelling is Andersmaakum zoo, i.e. as a compositum. 5. In the German edition the verbatim quote is rendered as ‘so sagen sie: Wir glauben/daβ wir inskünftige allezeit gutes und nicht mehr böses thun sollen.’



Giving voice 

(den Besten 2004) – contact scenario at the Cape (the situation was somewhat different in the interior): This leads then to a linguistic scenario for the West Cape area in which we have to assume that Malay and Creole Portuguese (and Khoekhoe in the border regions of the West Cape) co-existed with all sorts of variants of ‘Dutch’ and ‘Afrikaans’ (2001: 207f.)

In addition to the colonial lingua francas (Malay, Portuguese Creole), the slaves brought with them a wide range of languages belonging to different language families (Niger-Congo, Austronesian, Dravidian, Indo-European; den Besten 2000). The co-existence of different Netherlandic varieties – located at various points of the substrate/superstrate feature pool and continuum – shaped the history of Afrikaans up until the early twentieth century. Convergence between substrate and superstrate varieties was an important mechanism in language genesis (see Roberge, this volume, for a discussion of den Besten’s so-called ‘convergence model’). This view has important consequences for how we conceptualize the Afrikaans archive: if Afrikaans has indeed a ‘double origin’ (e.g., Franken 1953; Valkhoff 1966; den Besten 1989; Roberge 1994, 2000), and its history reflects ‘a cycle of incremental innovation, accommodation and integration’ (Roberge 1994: 73), then we will need to ensure that our archive reflects, and continues to reflect, this complexity and heterogeneity as well as the interaction and contact. Ironically, there already exists a collection with the name Die Afrikaanse Taalargief. The use of the definite article is worth noting: it is ‘the’ Afrikaans language archive, not ‘a’ Afrikaans language archive. This collection was published by L.C. Van Oordt in the 1940s and 1950s, first as privately published booklets, later in the Tydskryf vir Westenskap en Kuns. This ‘archive’ contains over 300 letters and reports sent by field cornets (veldwagmeesters) to local magistrates (landdrosten en heemraaden). The time period covered is 1712 – 1831 and all writers were White, relatively well-to-do farmers. Van Oordt’s archive is monolithitic, shuns complexity and articulates through its very organization the story it aims to tell: Afrikaans as ’n witmanstaal (‘a White man’s language’). While certainly not ‘the’ archive, Van Oordt’s collection is part of the archive, as are the diaries of Johanna Duminy and Louis Trigardt. The distinction between primary sources of the type discussed in the previous paragraph (actual records which survived from the past, ‘raw’ data) and secondary sources (published accounts, ‘interpreted knowledge’) is paramount in any archive (Burke 2000). Our CDP data is mainly in the form of secondary sources and, as argued in Section (2), thus requires careful interpretation. The grammars discussed by den Besten in Desiderata (2009b) also fall into the category of secondary sources: they were all written at a time (1897–1952) when Afrikaans was at the centre of nationalist debates and identity politics. As such they are not ‘neutral’ or ‘scientific’ language descriptions, but – more or less overtly – part and parcel of the taalstryd, the ‘language battle’.

 Roots of Afrikaans

For especially the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries we have an additional body of data which appears to be situated somewhere between primary and secondary sources: popular literature deliberately written it what was meant to be ‘the vernacular’. These include numerous texts which appeared in the colonial press, the writings of the Patriot group, humorous columns such as Straatpraatjies, and also religiously motivated translations into an Arabic-Afrikaans ‘vernacular’ (see Deumert, 2004: Chapter 2, for a detailed discussion of this data; also Adhikari 1996, Davids 2011). Although secondary sources are valuable, especially for socio-cultural analysis, primary sources are something of a gold standard in language history. Opening up the archive by collecting further primary documents remains among the Desiderata. Deumert’s Corpus of Cape Dutch Correspondence (2004) was an attempt in this direction. However, it shares with Van Oordt’s data an over-representation of White writers: only 16 out of 136 writers were Coloured or African. While skewed literacy rates help to explain such biases in our data, I believe that we have not yet worked intensively enough with the various mission archives, especially the Moravian Archive in Genadendal and also the Sendingskerk archives of the Dutch Reformed Church. It is in these archives that we may find further evidence regarding varieties spoken by descendants of the slaves and Khoekhoe (as well as documents written by missionaries, describing their experiences, both spiritual and linguistic). The early colonial archive, which was the focus of Franken’s work, should also receive renewed and systematic attention (especially the Criminele Processtukken). Furthermore, the archiving of spoken varieties such as Orange River Afrikaans, Malay Afrikaans, various forms of Coloured Afrikaans, as well as vernaculars such as Kaaps and argots such as Tsotsitaal, is an urgent desideratum as some of these varieties, which are believed to incorporate earlier substrate features, are endangered. And finally, cultural artefacts, such as the Taalmonument (and documents about its origin and history), songs and literature, commemorations and performances, as well as images and oral testimony (language biographies, memories about language use in the past, etc.) would belong to an ‘ideal’ Afrikaans language archive.6 The archive ‘gathers together’ (Derrida 1995: 10) – ‘taking into account every scrap of knowledge, written and oral, available to us’ (Price 1990: xvii) – and its form and scope has consequences for social memory. That is, for our present, for how we understand the past and locate ourselves in the future:

6. We might even go one step further and argue that the heterogeneity of the archive should be mirrored by a heteroglossic or multivocalic approach to historical writing. An excellent example of this is Price’s Akabi’s World (1990), a study of eighteenth century Surinam which is presented as a narrative of four ‘voices’ (symbolized by four different typefaces): the Saramakans, the German Moravians, the Dutch colonial administrators, and the author himself. The typefaces are not arbitrary conventions but are meant to represent these actors iconically, e.g. Moravian voices in bold ‘its heaviness to suggest German print’, Saramakan voices in italics with ‘ragged right margins, to emphasize their spoken nature’ (p. xx).



Giving voice 

[T]he question of the archive is not, we repeat, a question of the past... It is a question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise and of a responsibility for tomorrow. The archive: if we want to know what this will have meant, we will only know in the times to come.’ (Derrida 1995: 27).

These are not idle questions in contemporary South Africa – a country which still feels the burden of the colonial past. At the same time, a unified Afrikaans archive will, most certainly, invite its future deconstruction, its critics and supporters – and it will be through such criticism that new knowledges are created. For whom are we building our archives? Van Oordt’s dedication to the reader of Die Kaapse Taalargief (1947) provides a useful point of reference for thinking about the ‘public’ (and illustrates yet another case of archive fever): Vyftien jaar lank het ek in die Kaapse Argief na voorbeelde van omgangstaal aan die Kaap en buite-distrikte gesoek, en ek beskou dit as my plig teenoor die wetenskap om my vondste en woordstudies aan u, as taalgeleerde, beskikbaar te stel.

That is, For fifteen years I searched in the Cape Archive for examples of the ordinary language at the Cape and outlying regions, and I see it as my duty towards science to make my findings and word studies available to you, as scholars of language.

Van Oordt’s anticipated audience of scholars was very different from the main audiences of Franken’s early archival publications. Although Franken published some pieces in the Tydskryf vir Wetenskap en Kuns, an academic outlet, many of his archival discoveries appeared in Die Huisgenoot, according to G.S. Nienaber (1953) a journal for ‘the broad masses’ (die breë volkslae). This included historical gems such as a letter written in Bugis, a language of Indonesia, by a slave named Upas in 1760. The letter, found in the Criminele Processtukken, appeared in a popular Huisgenoot article in which Franken discussed the role of non-Germanic languages in the formation of Afrikaans (Koolhof & Ross 2005). Franken’s choice of Die Huisgenoot was certainly not accidental: interest in the history of Afrikaans always went beyond linguistic circles, and has been important in the fashioning of, especially White and Coloured, identities in South Africa (see also Roberge 1990). Zackie Achmat’s documentary Die Skerpion onder die Klip: Afrikaans van Kolonialisme tot Demokrasie (‘The Scorpion under the Stone: Afrikaans from Colonialism to Democracy’, 1996), the hip-hop opera Afrikaaps (including the accompanying documentary by Dylan Valley, 2010), and Breyten Breytenbach’s collection of essays Fire in the Fingers (2000) are post-apartheid examples of this. Breytenbach’s poetic voice eloquently evokes the link between history and present: My language speaks of the loss of purity, I mix Europe and the East and Africa in my veins, my cousin is a Malagasy; my tongue speaks about moving away from the known, about overflowing into the unknown, about making; of dispossessing,

 Roots of Afrikaans

plundering, enslavement, mixing; of the transmission under guise of a ‘new’ language of that which refuses to be forgotten, of discovery but of agreement also (because comparison is as well a compromise), of the land and of light, of the art of surviving. I’m a Dutch bastard, my father is French and my mother is Khoi. Each grave in this purple earth is a place of exile ... our specific language, Afrikaans, is the visible history and the ongoing process not only of bastardisation, but also of metamorphosis. (p. 175f.; cited in Kennelly 2005).

The notion of ‘bastardization’ leads us to a final point: the question of an archive’s secrets. In imagining the Afrikaans archive, we need not only consider what can be gathered together, but also what is missing. What are the secrets of the archive, the things we can’t know, which have not been recorded, the things which are hidden and ultimately ‘unspeakable’. Den Besten himself (2004) refers to ‘hidden’ pidgin material, that is, language practices which existed only in the margins. Hidden, I would argue, are also the realities and complexities of cross-cultural interaction at the Cape, what Franken (1953) provocatively referred to as fornikasie met slavinne (‘fornication with slave women’), that is, miscegenation and its sociolinguistic consequences (Valkhoff 1966; Roberge 1990). This is a place where individual (family) secrets and institutional secrecy conspired and created many silences (Harris 2009). Thus, the archive might not be able to tell us much about the realities and intensity of interaction and contact, co-habitation and sexual relations, friendships and camaraderie. However, through careful reading we might find traces of these secrets.

5. Coda: Giving voice Re-reading den Besten’s work certainly inspired a bit of mal d’archive in me: a desire to go back to the sources, to find new texts, to close gaps, to understand wie es eigentlich gewesen. It also inspired a deep respect for the scholarship which has been a hallmark of den Besten’s approach to the sources – the meticulous, careful analysis of minimalist fragments, the synthesis of creolist and historian (den Besten 2004). Den Besten’s work has ‘given voice’ to those without power in colonial society – the subaltern, the substrate. In 1924, Canadian Dominion archivist Arthur Doughty described the archive as a ‘gift from one generation to the next’. Brothman (2010) takes this idea seriously and argues that indeed the archive is perhaps the ‘perfect gift’. Unlike other forms of exchange, which are based on expectations of return and reciprocation, the passing of time between textual production and its reception, as well as the general absence of a feeling of self-satisfied generosity and controlling presence on the side of the giver, contribute to the non-utilitarian, altruistic generousness of the act. (‘The givers of these gifts, in other words, will not see much, if any, substantial return or reciprocation’, p. 170.) Much the same can be said about scholarship and writing more generally: it is about giving, not receiving (p. 174). Hans den Besten has given us many linguistic and intellectual gifts over the years. It is for us to continue.

Afrikaans “Might it be a little more ‘South Africa’?” Paul T. Roberge

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Stellenbosch University

1. Setting I have shamelessly appropriated the title of den Besten’s reply (1987c) to a brief note that appeared in Onze Taal. In the latter piece the distinguished Netherlandicist P. C. Paardekooper (1986) characterized Afrikaans as “a variant of Dutch,” the origin of which remains a matter of debate. Paardekooper opined that the leading historical contribution was Kloeke (1950), who imputed a strong founder effect (though he did not use this term) to the southern South Hollands that was spoken by Jan van Riebeeck, the Dutch settlement’s first commander (1652–1662), and his entourage. North Hollands and Zeeuws appear to have left their imprint, too. Paardekooper did concede that contact with non-European languages may have been responsible for deflective tendencies in the Afrikaans verb system, and he left open the question of whether the source of the so-called double or brace negation in nie ... nie (negative concord in the generative literature) is to be assigned to Dutch or one of the contact languages. From his perspective, the larger point is how the history of Afrikaans might inform Netherlandicists regarding Early Modern forms of Dutch dialects. He went so far as to suggest that nonstandard varieties of Afrikaans spoken by people of color could represent an older phase of Cape Dutch and thereby provide an additional window on dialectal Dutch ex patria. In response, den Besten (1987c: 24) pointed out that were it not for the agentivity of indigenous Khoekhoen and imported African and Asian slave labor during virtually the entire Dutch East India Company era (1652–1795), the periods of British occupation (1795–1803, 1806–1814), and the first two decades of the British colonial era (1814–1910), there would be no “Afrikaans” but rather an extraterritorial variety of Dutch. It is not my intention to dwell on a brief exchange that took place a quarter century ago in a popular monthly aimed at a nonspecialist readership. Paardekooper’s “Netherlando-centric” representations and den Besten’s irritation with them capture the two enduring questions regarding the formation of Afrikaans: (1) To what extent

 Roots of Afrikaans

are the changes that we discern in Afrikaans due to the agentivity of speakers of languages other than Dutch? (2) What is the typological status of Afrikaans as a contact language and what reasons are there for classifying it alongside languages that are conventionally regarded as “creole” languages or for distinguishing it from this group? In regard to the first question, the extreme positions are obvious enough: (i) Afrikaans developed out of Dutch exclusively through a series of endogenous changes, many of which are instantiations of proclivities present in Dutch dialects of Europe and/or even Germanic languages generally. Alternatively, Afrikaans is some kind of creole language, which (depending on how one understands the terms “creole” and “creolization”) presupposes (ii) an ongoing cycle of untutored second-language acquisition on the part of indigenes and newly arrived adult slaves that lasted for several generations, or (iii) the nativization or expansion of a Cape Dutch pidgin. Nowadays, virtually everyone would agree that position (i) is antiquarian and untenable. There is agreement, of sorts, that Afrikaans arose partly through internal change and koineization in the vernacular Early Modern Dutch introduced to the old Cape and partly through the agentivity of nonnative speakers of Dutch. But beyond stipulation to this one very broad principle, mainstream Afrikaans linguistics (i.e., as has been practiced by a majority of white, Afrikaans-speaking linguists in South Africa) and creolistics have diverged massively on how to apportion the transformative processes across this continuum.

2. The “South African philological school” The establishment view in South Africa emerged out of what den Besten (1986: 191– 92, 1987a) dubbed the “South African philological school,” the two most prolific writers being J. du Plessis Scholtz (e.g., 1963, 1965, 1972) and Edith H. Raidt (e.g., 1983, 1991, 1994). It is represented by linguists who “defend the idea that Afrikaans gradually developed out of 17th and 18th century nonstandard Dutch under the accelerating pressure of nonnative and sometimes broken Dutch as spoken by French Huguenots, Germans, Khoekhoen (Hottentots), and slaves,” and who are “mainly interested in the growth of standard Afrikaans” (den Besten 1987a: 67). Accordingly, the deflective tendency in Afrikaans was set in motion in part by L1-interference and imperfect approximation by nonnative speakers of Dutch, and in part by the mixing of similar but nonidentical inflectional systems represented by mutually intelligible Netherlandic and Low German dialects (Raidt 1983: 24–28, 1991: 124–31, 176–77). Raidt fixed the origins of the Afrikaans object particle vir and reduplication in (respectively) Creole Portuguese (1994: 116–47) and Malay (1994: 148–60.). Otherwise, Afrikaans features that Valkhoff (1966, 1972) and others had regarded as creolisms could be shown (to the philologists’ satisfaction, at least) to have Netherlandic antecedents or to obtain from autochthonous internal change.



Afrikaans 

The most significant contributions to the history of Afrikaans from the creolist perspective have been made by den Besten, who attached primary importance to the documentation of the Dutch-Khoekhoe and English-Khoekhoe trade jargons that arose from about 1590 and collectively served as a rudimentary medium of intercultural communication, and of the subsequent Cape Dutch Pidgin (1986: 197–99, 1987b, 1988, 1989, 1998a, 2001b, 2002, 2003a, 2003c, 2004a, 2004b, 2005b, 2007a, 2007b, 2009b, 2012). The languages introduced to the Cape Colony through the slave trade and their impact on the Pidgin also occupied his attention. In an article published a year before his death, den Besten (2009c: 245–48) called for further demographic research, which, he believed, might yield new information about additional substrate languages beyond the traditional triad of Creole Portuguese, Malay, and Khoekhoe (on which see, respectively, den Besten 1997, 2000b, 2010). Unfortunately, that chapter was never written. Den Besten’s plan to bring out a critical edition of the source material was also not realized in his lifetime, though one hopes that the primary data will be made available in digital format at some point in the future.

3. Den Besten’s “convergence model” of the genesis of Afrikaans The “convergence model,” as it has become known (e.g., Groenewald 2002, Deumert 2004: 35), is most closely identified with den Besten’s research program (especially 1989: 217–29, 234–44). The period 1652–1658 saw the emergence of a “fort” situation at the Cape of Good Hope (den Besten 1989: 226–27). With regard to the starting point of the Cape Dutch Pidgin, den Besten (1989: 230) floated this idea: “We might ... say that the Cape Khoekhoen made use of a kind of relexified Hottentot Foreigner talk in their contacts with the whites (and later with the slaves). The Cape Khoekhoen were an independent nation and they so to speak kept the Dutch at a distance by using a type of Dutch that was reminiscent of their native language.”1 Picking up this thread in a later article, den Besten (2002: 13–15) reiterated that over time, a new linguistic variety arose – relexified Khoekhoe – that is probably interpretable as “one aspect of the overall process of language shift from Khoekhoe to Cape Dutch/Afrikaans” (2002: 14). The Khoekhoen could then “develop a pidgin of their own without interference of other groups of non-native speakers of Dutch. The resulting pidgin was called Hottentots-Hollands or Hottentot-Dutch” (den Besten 1989: 219–20). Its syntax was partly modeled after the structure of Khoekhoe but in certain aspects represented compromises between Dutch and Khoekhoe syntax. The pidgin was subsequently taken over by the slaves, who contributed their own modifications (1989: 219–20, 233; 2001b; 2002: 4, 13). While the slaves partly learned their Dutch from the Khoekhoen, 1. Den Besten used the term foreigner talk to designate jargonized or interlanguage forms of Dutch rather than the simplified register that native speakers of a language use with nonnative speakers whose proficiency is perceived as limited.

 Roots of Afrikaans

“it is clear that Hottentot Dutch was also influenced by the novel [sic] Pidgin of the slaves” (den Besten 1986: 198). Creolization occurred in the western Cape around 1700 following the withdrawal of Khoekhoen into the interior to escape European domination and in the aftermath of a smallpox epidemic in 1713. The Cape Dutch Pidgin(s) may have become a native language for at least some speakers among locally-born slaves and the mixed offspring of Khoekhoen who remained in the western Cape. The Khoekhoen who withdrew to the interior, however, “took their pidgin (creole?) with them, and probably influenced the other Hottentots in the north and in the east, so that those Cape farmers who – from about 1700 onward – started to colonize the future eastern districts of the Cape Colony could again meet with Khoekhoen who spoke some kind of Dutch. Things were different in the north, in the Orange River area, since whites appeared there relatively recently, i.e. in the 19th century” (1989: 224). Modern Orange River Afrikaans – sometimes referred to as “Creole Afrikaans” (den Besten 1989: 229) or “Khoekhoe Afrikaans” (den Besten 2009b: 220) – is traceable to the pidgin and creole Dutch formerly spoken widely by people of color in these regions. European Cape Dutch exerted a “decreolizing influence” on the Dutch creole spoken at the Cape, though decreolization was “counterbalanced by ‘creolizing’ influences exerted upon Cape Dutch by the Dutch Creole (or Creoles)” (den Besten 1989: 225). By ca. 1850, one may speak of an Afrikaans koine with dialectal differentiation; that is to say, what we know today as Afrikaans represents a convergence of two linguistic streams, namely, the contract varieties spoken within the Afro-Asian substrate and an exterritorial variety of Dutch (itself a koine representing several Netherlandic and Low German dialects) that had come into existence in the European caste. With regard to the second question (supra), den Besten (1989: 226–27) described Afrikaans as a “(nonradical) fort creole.” In plantation societies large numbers of persons speaking mutually unintelligible languages were (usually involuntarily) relocated from their homelands to work in European colonies. In fort situations Europeans established permanent bases along the coasts of Africa and Asia, developing complex economic and social relationships with indigenes, including intermarriage (Bickerton 1989: 15). From its establishment in 1652 until the formal introduction of slavery in 1658, the Dutch station at the Cape of Good Hope represented a “classic” fort situation. From 1658 up to the turn of the nineteenth century, “we find what might be called an extended ‘fort’ situation combined with – at least, so it seems – a ‘plantation’ situation in the western districts of the Cape Colony. However, the ‘plantation’ situation was of little importance for the development of Afrikaans. Many slaves used Creole Portuguese or Pasar Malay, and the kind of Dutch they used was the Pidgin developed by the Khoekhoen in the ‘fort’ situation” (den Besten 1989: 226–27). A fort creole will usually differ less radically from the superstrate language than a plantation creole (Bickerton 1989: 16), as a superficial comparison of Afrikaans and Virgin Islands Dutch Creole (Negerhollands) would illustrate (cf. Markey 1982, but more cogently Makhudu 1984, Gilbert and Makhudu 1987). That Afrikaans has remained fairly close to Dutch is



Afrikaans 

ascribable to a high percentage of European Dutch speakers in the colonial population and the fact that “large parts of [the non-European] majority [i.e., slaves] were not ‘available’ for the creolization of Dutch” (den Besten 1989: 227). The pidginized and/or creolized Dutch of the Khoekhoen could only serve as a second or third language for many slaves, thanks to their widespread proficiency in other lingue franche.

4. The reception of den Besten’s scholarship in mainstream Afrikaans linguistics Den Besten’s views have met with a decidedly mixed reception in mainstream Afrikaans linguistics in South Africa. In a postscript reaction to den Besten’s (1981) synchronic analysis of wh-movement in Afrikaans, Raidt (1983: 191) complained that the causes of language change at the Cape of Good Hope are not fully apprehended in creolistic circles, and that this has led to “misunderstandings.” Afrikaans features that superficially resemble creole outcomes (e.g. deflection), she insisted, are explainable on the basis of interference factors and inherent tendencies in Netherlandic dialects and/or Germanic languages generally. What Raidt saw as indicia of pidgin and subsequent creole formation – communicative disruption, rapid change, and radical restructuring – were absent at the old Cape. At least two components of her counterargument have been overtaken by subsequent research in creolistics. In many cases creolization is a gradual affair; nativization is not a prerequisite for structural expansion; and in some creole societies substrate languages continued in use for a long time. By contrast, Nienaber (1994: 121–49) gave an appreciative review of den Besten’s refinement and elaboration of his own hypothesis that final nie2 in Afrikaans negation represents a syntactic transfer from Khoekhoe dialects (den Besten 1978: 40–42, 1985: 32–35, 1986: 210–24). Van Reenen and Coetzee (1996) have created a bridge between European and South African scholarship in their collaborative work on the retention of Netherlandic dialectisms in nonstandard varieties of Afrikaans. In the latter undertaking, these authors (1996: 72) recognize two discrete but intersecting lines of descent for Afrikaans – Cape Dutch and Creole Dutch – and in so doing espouse den Besten’s convergence model (1989). Within the establishment, it was Ponelis (e.g., 1993), in particular, who sought to engage the international discourse in contact linguistics generally, even while disagreeing with Den Besten on matters of detail in the overall process of language formation in southern Africa and with regard to the origin of specific features (e.g., negation, 1993: 471–72, 478). For Ponelis, creolization means significant restructuring due to rapid, unmonitored second language acquisition in multilingual contexts where groups of people must learn very quickly to communicate with native speakers of an important foreign language and with one another using that language (1993: 28). His two phases of creolization, viz. “primary pidginization” and “secondary pidginization” correspond, respectively to jargonization and interlanguage, and stabilization. At the

 Roots of Afrikaans

early Cape, “primary pidginisation was checked by a strong presence of matrilectal Dutch, and the likelihood of secondary pidginisation (a stable pidgin) having occurred is very small” (1993: 28). More recently, Groenewald (2002) has evaluated den Besten’s convergence model against the socio-historical record and concludes that the evidence does not support the inference of a stable pidgin among the Khoekhoen and slaves in the period 1658–1713. Yet, in his view this finding does not diminish the important role of the Khoekhoen and slaves in the genesis of Afrikaans. The convergence model still offers a useful framework for the study of the history of this language.

5. Assessment Den Besten’s research program has made a strong case for the existence of a Dutchlexified pidgin at the Cape during the Dutch East India Company era, the objections of Ponelis (1993) and Groenewald (2002) notwithstanding. At the same time, den Besten was quite correct to recognize that there were opportunities for the targeted acquisition of Dutch by the Khoekhoen, which in principle means that the resulting forms of language might not always be directly equated to pidginization (e.g., 2002: 52). His claim that the Khoekhoen maintained two partially overlapping codes for verbal intercourse with the Dutch – relexified Khoekhoe and Khoekhoe Pidgin Dutch, with the latter being partly adapted to Dutch syntax – seems unnecessarily convoluted. Den Besten’s stipulation that a stable Cape Dutch Pidgin (or Creole) came into being between 1658 and 1713 (1986: 199) has not been confirmed empirically. While the Khoekhoen have left their mark on the developing Cape Dutch Pidgin and whereas the Pidgin itself doubtless varied according to the ethnolinguistic background of its users, the sociolinguistic priority of the Khoekhoen in its creation (den Besten 1989: 222) is untenable if, as per Thomason (1997: 76, 2001: 159, 273), the establishment of social norms ordinarily involves three or more groups speaking mutually unintelligible languages. This would be so a fortiori if these languages are genetically unrelated and typologically far removed from one another, if access to the superstrate language is restricted, and/or if there is no motivation to acquire it as a full language, regardless of accessibility. Stabilization of the Cape Dutch Pidgin is not likely to have occurred prior to its becoming a medium for intercultural communication within the highly diverse Afro-Asian labor caste as a whole. In the heterogenous milieu of the Cape Colony, there was need for a medium of intercultural communication that would allow enslaved peoples and the indentured indigenous workforce to interact verbally with one another as well as with the Dutch. I would submit that the Khoekhoen are far more likely to have possessed two Dutchlexified and domain-specific hybrids: nonnative Dutch of varying degrees of proficiency used to address Dutch-speakers in the European caste, and a demonstrably stable pidgin in which to talk to non-Khoekhoe members of the labor caste.



Afrikaans 

Den Besten produced important studies of Afrikaans linguistic features that owe their origin to or were influenced by language contact, most notably relativization (1981, 1996b, 1998b), negative concord (1978: 40–42, 1985, 1986), the possessive construction (1978: 27–38, 2006), the elision of intervocalic [χ] (dag ‘day’, plural dae) (1999), the diminutive suffixes -tjie, -ie (2000a), the objective marker vir (2000b), the associative plural (1996a, 2001a), the demonstrative pronouns dit ‘it, that’, dié ‘this, these’ (2009c), and reduplication (den Besten, Luijks, and Roberge 2003). Limitations of space do not permit a review of individual etymological cruxes. Suffice it to say that his views figure prominently in the chapter on Afrikaans in Holm’s reference survey of the world’s pidgins and creoles (1989: 338–52). Other linguists have fruitfully built on den Besten’s proposals. Bell (2001), for example, has further developed the hypothesis (den Besten, loc. cit.) that Afrikaans nie2 represents Khoekhoe substrate influence. Slomanson (2009), who credits den Besten with having “extensively and convincingly” (p. 134) demonstrated the role of the Khoekhoen in the formation of Afrikaans, attempts to show how speakers of Indonesian varieties of Malay constituted an important substrate component. Although Khoekhoe and Malay are (obviously) genetically unrelated and typologically quite different, their influences on the form of the developing Cape Dutch Pidgin(s) could conspire to produce similar grammatical outcomes (viz. verb incorporation). Conversely, certain properties of Malay grammar that differ from Netherlandic models can nonetheless offer substrate explanations for grammatical proximity to European target models (such as verb-second orders). At the same time, even linguists who share the creolist view of Afrikaans history will disagree with den Besten on matters of substance and interpretation; compare, for example, the competing hypotheses on the origin of the Afrikaans negation (Roberge 2000, 2009) and the origin of the Afrikaans possessive construction with se (Roberge 1996; cf. also Bergerson 2011: 40). Along a separate front, Bergerson (2011: 68–77) disagrees with den Besten’s etymology of Boesman ‘bushman’ (1992: 74–75, 1993: 14–15, 2003b) and account of the Afrikaans determiner die ‘the’ (2009c), preferring instead to see these forms as probable borrowings from German. One could argue, of course, that Afrikaans should not be called a creole at all but rather a semicreole, which can be understood as a contact variety that shows “similarities in structure to known creoles and whose historical circumstances make it likely for something akin to creolization to have occurred” (Mesthrie 2008: 270) but would not necessarily ever have been a “basilectal creole” (Holm 1988: 9–10). Den Besten had no objection to this, but he was not overly concerned with the specific label that one applies to Afrikaans, as it is “nonsensical to occupy oneself with such nitpicking discussions in the absence of a theoretically sound typology of ‘new languages’” (1989: 228). Those creolists – most notably Holm (e.g., 2004) – who have been working toward precisely this goal have articulated a middle-ground position, according to which Afrikaans reflects the partial restructuring of Early Modern Dutch resulting from exogenous agentivity at the Cape of Good Hope during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; further to these points in Holm’s contribution to this volume.

 Roots of Afrikaans

That Afrikaans is a product of convergence between a Cape Dutch creole and a koineized extraterritorial variety of Dutch spoken by Europeans (den Besten 1989: 226) seems to me clearly correct. If, following Mufwene (2000), one regards creole languages as a group of vernaculars that emerged from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries under similar geographic, demographic, and economic conditions, viz. in (usually but not necessarily tropical) colonies settled by Europeans who typically spoke nonstandard varieties of their metropolitan languages and who put in place economies that utilized nonindigenous slave or indentured labor, then the borderline status of Afrikaans as a language of interest to creolists proves illusory. The Cape Colony was a creole society. The enterprise of language construction continued long after the crystallization of the Cape Dutch Pidgin. The Pidgin was itself part of a larger developing system, namely, an elaborated Cape Dutch Vernacular that was devised by the enslaved and the indentured workers of the colony. A desideratum of future research must be a better understanding of this expansion phase, to which many of the hallmark features of Afrikaans trace their origin. A central postulate underlying den Besten’s work since his still valuable 1978 paper has been that exogenous agentivity in the Cape Colony involved untutored and at least partially targeted second language acquisition and “interference” on the part of the Khoekhoen. This hypothesis “has hardly changed” over the years (den Besten 2002: 4). In subsequent work (e.g., den Besten 1986, 1987b, 1989, 2002), the emphasis is mainly on the importance of the pidginized Dutch of the Khoekoen. The mechanisms that shaped this “Hottentot Dutch” are relexification, simplification (stripping of functional elements), adaptation to Dutch syntax through lexical learning, and linguistic “creativity” (1987b: 26–27, 1989: 231–33, 2002: 3, 2007a: 151, 160). Mostly, though, den Besten embraced a heavily substratist approach, and his convergence model is not underpinned by a restrictive general theory of creole genesis. What the history of Afrikaans might tell us about creole formation generally is not a question that he was concerned with.

6. Concluding remarks To end where we started: However posterity judges Hans den Besten’s views on the formation of Afrikaans, it must certainly credit him with having restored “southern Africa” to its diachronic study. Having conducted his historical-syntactic investigations within the framework of generative grammar, he will have moved the overall level of diachronic inquiry in Afrikaans linguistics many steps further in the direction of serious theoretical sophistication. This latter trend has found fortuitous reinforcement along a separate trajectory in Deumert’s multivariate textual analysis of Cape Dutch private documents during the period 1880–1922 (2004) and in her explanation of the selection of basilectal features (e.g., negative concord) as



Afrikaans 

sociolinguistic markers of Afrikaner ethnicity by whites living in close proximity to indigenous and enslaved speakers of the Cape Dutch Vernacular (2005). It is mildly and pleasantly ironic that Den Besten discerned a need to refocus attention to the “tenacity of Dutch variants in the face of new Afrikaans variants” (2009a: 234) and thought it worthwhile to reopen discussion of Kloeke’s (1950) hypothesis of a South Hollandic founder dialect (den Besten 2000a, 2005a, 2009a), which was put forth in the very same study that Paardekooper (loc. cit.) had singled out as exemplary. It is precisely this scientific integrity which, alongside his enviable erudition and standard of rigor, places our late colleague among the doyens of Afrikaans linguistics, which for all its conflicted historiography, can boast some truly distinguished scholarship.

Partial restructuring Dutch on the Cape and Portuguese in Brazil John Holm

Universidade de Coimbra

Introduction In 1937 Reinecke described Afrikaans (AFR) as “semi-creolized” (1937: 559) and suggested that such a category of restructured languages had developed in “...Brazil, Cuba and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries in general, and in the southern United States in general” (1937: 61). Since the 1990s the theoretical model of partial restructuring has been explored as a way of explaining the development of Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese (BVP) (e.g. Baxter and Lucchesi 1997, Holm 1992, Mello 1997) and nonstandard Caribbean Spanish (NSCS) (Lorenzino 1993, Green 1997) and the other varieties that Reinecke mentioned, including African American English (AAE) as well as the vernacular lects of Réunionnais French (VLRF) (Holm 2004). Hans den Besten understood Afrikaans to have resulted from the contact between different varieties of seventeenth-century Dutch and the other languages spoken in the Cape Colony. Hesseling (1897) provided the first extended discussion of the origins of Afrikaans; although he recognized the influence of Hottentot (now called Khoi), he emphasized the influence of the Malayo-Portuguese creole of early Indonesian slaves and claimed that “the Dutch on the Cape was on the way to becoming a sort of creole... [but] this process was not completed” because of the continuing influence of metropolitan Dutch (1979 translation, p. 12). Hesseling’s theory was later developed further by Valkhoff (1966, 1972). The reaction to this approach led to what den Besten (1987) called the “South African philological school”, which came to prevail in that country from the 1960s until majority rule in 1994. South African linguists concerned themselves less with the origins of Afrikaans as such than the history of specific linguistic phenomena. However, their underlying theoretical model was that of ordinary language change within varieties of Dutch accelerated by the influence of non-native speakers in a multilingual setting, whose speech was influenced by their first languages and had interlanguage features, but never underwent outright pidginization and creolization. An “Amsterdam school” of Afrikaans scholars evolved around den Besten

 Roots of Afrikaans

(1985, 1986, 1993) and his colleagues, who focussed on the effects of contact with Khoi and other languages, considering the South African school as antiquatedly Eurocentric in its approach: “If a feature can possibly be European, then it must be European,” provoking the opposite caveat regarding Valkhoff ’s approach: ”If a feature can be a creolism, it must be a creolism” (Roberge 1994: 40). However, both linguistics and South African politics have been evolving since 1994 and creolization is now more generally considered a gradient process (Neumann-Holzschuh and Schneider, eds. 2000; Holm 2004) rather than an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Scholars who see Afrikaans as the product of partial restructuring recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both schools in their contributions to our evolving understanding of the origins of Afrikaans. This study compares some of the most salient features of Afrikaans (AFR) discussed by den Besten and others with the corresponding features of Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese (BVP) to identify syntactic features that are characteristic of partially restructured varieties, also referring to those lexically based on other languages when relevant. These features of partial restructuring are contrasted with those constructions that appear to occur only in fully creolized languages. The results are sometimes surprising, underlining the advantages of establishing a general typology of partially restructured languages by morphosyntactic comparisons across lexical boundaries, as in Holm (2004). Beginning with the verb phrase, section one deals with the partial loss of inflectional morphology, the trait that is probably most often associated with the semi-creolization. The interplay between creole verbal markers and semi-creole auxiliary verbs is taken up in section two. Creole-like syntactic features in the semi-creole verb phrase are treated in section three. The scarcity of noun phrase inflections is discussed in section four, particularly those marking number, gender, possession and case in pronouns. Section five deals with the structure of clauses, especially word order in independent and dependent clauses. Section six, the final section, discusses what conclusions can be drawn about the typology of semi-creoles as opposed to those of both full creoles and lexical source languages.

1. Inflections in the verb phrase 1.1

Afrikaans verbal morphology

Unlike Dutch, Afrikaans verbs have no inflections to indicate person or number, as can be seen in this comparison of present tense forms: (1)

afr. om te help ‘to help’ ek help ons help jy help julle help hy help hulle help

cf. dutch helpen idem ik help wij helpen ‘I/we help’ jij helpt jullie helpen ‘you help’ hij helpt zij helpen ‘he helps/they help’



Partial restructuring 

The relative simplicity of Afrikaans morphology is especially noticeable in its regularization of suppletive forms, such as in the verb meaning ‘to be’: (2)

afr. om te wees ‘to be’ ek is ons is jy is julle is hy is hulle is

cf. dutch zijn idem ik ben wij zijn jij bent jullie zijn hij is zij zijn

‘I am/we are’ ‘you are’ ‘He is/they are’

There has been a tendency towards morphological simplification in such West Germanic languages as English and Dutch for at least the past half millennium and there are regional varieties of both languages in which verbal morphology is even simpler than in the standard. However, the loss of inflections is also characteristic of language contact, and there can be little doubt that this tendency in Dutch was accelerated when the language came into contact with other languages on the Cape. Evidence for this can be found in the fact that while the base form of the Afrikaans verb is usually derived from the ik form of the Dutch verb (e.g. help above), this is not always the case. For example, some Afrikaans verbs are based on the Dutch infinitive, e.g. AFR gaan ‘go’ (cf. D. gaan ‘to go’ vs. D. ik ga ‘I go’). Such a mixture of loss and retention of Dutch inflections in Afrikaans is strongly suggestive of contact with languages lacking such inflection (e.g. Khoi or Creole Portuguese); as in full creoles, the most frequent superstrate forms were taken to be the base forms regardless of the presence or absence of what had been inflections in the source language. The Dutch simple past tense, with its inflections and many irregular forms, is-with very few exceptions-not found in Afrikaans, which uses for the past a construction derived from the Dutch present perfect, i.e. the auxiliary het ‘have’ plus a past participle beginning with the prefix ge- (as in Dutch) but followed by a stem with almost none of the Dutch irregularities, e.g. “Ek het geskryf ” ‘I wrote; I have written’. Lockwood (1965: 210) notes that in Afrikaans The past part[iciple] is formed from the present stem, so that ablaut no longer plays any role. Thus the most typical feature of the Germanic verbal system, the division into strong and weak classes, has vanished from Afrikaans. This has occurred in no other Germanic language-Pidgin English excepted.

1.2

BVP verbal morphology

Verbs in European Portuguese (EP) have distinct inflections for six persons (three singular and three plural) for a number of tenses and moods (not to mention personal infinitives). Verbs in Portuguese-based creoles have no inflections whatsoever for person (although they may be etymologically derived from Portuguese personal forms like vai) or in most cases for tense and aspect. The latter are indicated by free-morpheme verbal markers except for a very small number of inflections in Capeverdean and Indo-Portuguese (Holm 2008).

 Roots of Afrikaans

On the other hand, a partially restructured variety, Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese (BVP), often has only two contrasting personal endings: (eu) parto ‘I leave’ versus (você/ ele; nós; vocês/eles) parte ‘you/he; we, you (plural) or they leave’. Because of the lack of distinctive forms to indicate person, pro-drop is not permitted with the latter verb form. The two-way contrast is also found in the preterit (parti versus partiu), but in the imperfect tense a single form (partia) can be used for all persons. According to Azevedo (1989: 866–867) other inflected tense forms are rarely used in BVP and the subjunctive mood tends to be replaced by the indicative.

2. Creole verbal markers versus semi-creole auxiliary verbs The function of European verbal inflections indicating tense, mood and aspect (TMA) is filled by free-morpheme markers before or after verbs in fully creolized languages. The ability of these markers to cooccur to indicate complex combinations of meaning of TMA is restricted to fully creolized languages and is not found in partially restructured vernaculars, a fact pointed out here for the first time to the best of my knowledge. An illustration of this can be found in the following two sentences: in (3) the Ndjuka Creole English anterior tense marker be cooccurs with the future marker o to indicate a counterfactual condition: (3) Ndjuka Ofu a be pasa mi be o sutu en. If 3s ant pass 1s ant fut shoot 3s ‘If it had passed by, I would have shot it.’

(Huttar 2007: 219)

However, in Jamaican Creole English (JC), which is closer to English than Ndjuka is, an anterior marker cannot cooccur with a future marker to indicate a conditional (Patrick 2007: 133) and a marker derived from English would have must be used instead: (4) JC Ef dem neva bring op dis piis man, plenti piipl wuda ded.  (ibid. 130) if 3p neg bring up this peace man many people mod die ‘If they hadn’t started this peace (movement), lots of people would have died.’ Of course verbal markers in fully creolized languages behave more like their counterparts in their African substrate languages, whereas inflected verbs or auxiliaries in semi-creoles behave more like their counterparts in their European superstrates. The restructuring of languages takes place to differing degrees depending on social factors (Parkvall 2000, Holm 2004), ranging from those showing pervasive substrate influence (called conservative creoles by some and radical creoles by others) to those showing very little (here called semi-creoles or partially restructured vernacular varieties of their lexical source languages).



Partial restructuring 

It was once believed that these varying degrees of substrate influence were caused simply by the amount of a creole’s contact with or isolation from the influence of the superstrate (which could cause decreolization or loss of earlier substrate features), but this process is now understood to be more complex, with the possibility of a variety of creole lects emerging from the very outset. The contrasting use of verbal markers in (3) above versus what is actually an inflected auxiliary in (4) is not confined to Englishbased creoles and semi-creoles. The same can occur in the Barlavento variety of Capeverdean Creole Portuguese spoken on the island of São Vicente, where táva sabê (anterior tense marker + ‘know’) ‘knew’ varies with sabia (the Portuguese verb saber ‘know’ + the imperfect inflection -ia) even in the speech of the variety’s most basilectal speakers (Holm and Swolkien 2006: 211).

2.1

Afrikaans auxiliaries/preverbal markers

A more highly restructured nonstandard variety, Orange River Afrikaans (ORA), which has other non-European features also found in the 18th-century Afrikaans of non-Europeans, sporadically uses ga or ge as a preverbal marker of past tense, comparable in form and meaning to both the substrate Nama marker gye or go and the Dutch past participle prefix ge- (Roberge 1994: 73–74). Another creole-like preverbal markers in Orange River Afrikaans is gedaan, indicating completive aspect: (5) ora Jij mijn Cameraat gedaan vast maken you my comrade perf/ant fast make ‘You (have) tied up my comrade.’  (den Besten 1989: 225, quoting Franken l953: 50) Furthermore, the ORA preverbal marker lê indicates durative aspect (Rademeyer 1938: 78–9); it also occurs in the non-standard Kaaps variety of Afrikaans (KA), e.g. (6) KA

2.2

Hy lê wag daar. ‘He always waits there.’

(Makhudu 1984: 88–80)

BVP auxiliaries/preverbal markers

In partially restructured varieties like Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese there are some auxiliaries not found in European Portuguese, such as foi, literally ‘was’, marking the past in much the same manner as the Miskito Coast Creole English verbal marker waz (Holm 2000: 180): (7) BVP

Eli foi ‘He past

dis... said...’

(McKinney 1982: 6)

 Roots of Afrikaans

The precise origin of this verbal marker remains unclear, but there are striking parallels in African American English:

(8) AAE I got on a cowboy shirt now that I brought from Texas. Been have it all my days. (Holm 1991: 235)

In creoles like Jamaican, the anterior marker ben (from English been) marks the action of a verb as having occurred before the time in focus (Patrick 2007: 129), and in AAE stressed been marks the remote past of an action that happened long ago (Rickford 1999: 6). This creole semantic influence on AAE been can lead to misunderstandings between speakers of AAE and other varieties of English.

3. Creole-like syntactic features in the semi-creole verb phrase 3.1

Verbal negation

3.1.1 Afrikaans verbal negation Afrikaans has a postverbal negator (as does Dutch) as in sentence (9); if any other element follows the verb, as in (10), there is a second negator at the end of the sentence (not found in Dutch): (9) AFR Sy eet nie. ‘She isn’t eating.’ she eat neg (10) AFR Sy eet nie pap nie. she eat neg porridge neg ‘She does not eat porridge.’

(Combrink 1978: 79) (ibid)

Combrink (1978: 84) notes that the second element of the double negation found in Afrikaans seems most likely to have been influenced by the postverbal (and therefore sentence-final) negator in Khoi languages like Nama. A study of written documents from the period 1830–44 (Nienaber 1955) revealed that among Coloured speakers of Afrikaans whose ancestors had spoken Khoi, 40% of all cases of negation had the second element, but among white speakers only 13% did. Later, when Afrikaans was being standardized, its structural differences from Dutch were emphasized to increase its Abstand or distancing from the other standard, and double negation became fully accepted in white Afrikaans. 3.1.2 BVP verbal negation Most Atlantic creoles follow a widespread pattern of verbal negation which is also found in European Portuguese: the negator simply precedes the verb. This pattern is also found in BVP, as in (11a) below, but BVP also has two other negative constructions:



Partial restructuring 

(11) BV (a) negator before the verb: (b) negator before and after the verb: (c) negator after the verb:

Ele não sabe Ele não sabe não Ele sabe não 3s neg know neg ‘He doesn’t know.’

Schwegler (1996) points out that older EP had only pattern (a), while modern EP has both (a) and (b), the latter for emphasis only. He concludes that in BVP there is a change in progress towards pattern (c). The earliest attestation of pattern (b) in EP is not known; if it is after 1500, its source could well have been BVP, which may have acquired it through contact with the Gulf of Guinea varieties of Creole Portuguese like São Tomense (ST): (12) ST Inẽ na ka ‘tlaba na’i fa 3p neg tma work here neg ‘They do not work here.’

(Ferraz 1976: 36)

The closely related creole of nearby Príncipe has pattern (c) with only utterance-final fa. Discontinuous double negation is also found in some African languages such as Ewe (Boretzky 1983: 102).

3.2

Non-verbal predicates (BVP versus Capeverdean and Afrikaans)

A large number of Atlantic creoles and their African substrate languages have predicates consisting of adjectives which behave like a subclass of stative verbs, taking verbal markers but not copulas; copulas in these languages tend to take different forms depending on whether they are followed by noun phrases or locative phrases (Holm 2000: 197–205). These non-verbal predicates are not found in Afrikaans. However, some rural varieties of BVP have non-verbal predicates consisting of noun phrases, adjective phrases and locative phrases, all without copulas: (13) BVP Eu ___ mininu. Ela ____ loka pur eli. I eli ____ali

‘I [was] a child.’ ‘She [is] crazy about him.’ ‘and he [was] there’ (McKinney 1975: 15)

These constructions are parallel to “zero copula” structures in African American English (Holm 2004: 76–77) and the Atlantic creoles, but of course they are not found in European varieties of Portuguese or English. For example, in the Sotavento varieties of Capeverdean (SCV), copulas may be omitted before adjectives in some cases: (14) SCV N ___ kontenti ku bo 1s happy with 2s ‘I´m happy with you.’

(Almada 1961: 154)

 Roots of Afrikaans

However, the Barlavento variety of Capeverdean spoken on the island of São Vicente, which has had much more Portuguese input, does not allow such omissions of the copula (Holm and Swolkien 2006: 213), and is thus a creole that in this respect is less restructured than the semi-creole variety of Brazilian Portuguese cited in (13) above.

3.3

Predicate clefting

In many Atlantic creoles and their African substrate languages, verbs can be fronted and emphasized by a focus marker and then repeated in their original position, as in this sentence from Guinea-Bissau Creole Portuguese (GBC): (15) GBC Kuri ku I na kuri sin ka linpu. run ku 3s prog run so neg clean ‘The way he’s running is not fair.’

(Kihm 1994: 182)

Similar verb fronting, but without any focus marking, is found in not only BVP (16), but also in Afrikaans (17): (16) BVP Falar ele falou. ‘He certainly talked.’  (L. Cagliari, personal communication) (17) AFR Kom sal hij kom. ‘He will certainly come.’ (Stolz 1986: 207) Sentence (16) is acceptable in European Portuguese as well, but there is no way of knowing in which direction the structure was borrowed unless it can be attested in EP before 1500. However, the equivalent of the Afrikaans structure in (17) is clearly unacceptable in European Dutch according to a native speaker (Bart Jacobs, personal communication), so the superstrate is not likely to have been the source of this structure.

4. Inflections in the noun phrase 4.1

Number marking

4.1.1 Afrikaans number marking Afrikaans generally marks plural count nouns with an inflection, usually either -s after certain sounds or -e elsewhere. However, like many earlier Dutch dialects, Afrikaans uses -s to mark the plural on many nouns whose etyma form the plural with -en (often pronounced as a schwa) in standard Dutch, which also uses -s to mark other plurals. Like Dutch and other Germanic languages, Afrikaans also has irregular plurals with a vowel change: (18) AFR stad ‘city’ versus stede ‘cities’

(Donaldson 1993: 69–75)

The final consonant clusters of earlier Dutch nouns often underwent simplification:



Partial restructuring 

(19) D

kast > AFR kas ‘cupboard’

(ibid)

However, the Afrikaans plural ending -e usually preserves the consonant lost in the singular: (20) D

kasten > AFR kaste ‘cupboards’ 

(ibid)

However, this is not always the case: (21) D

kost ‘food’ > AFR kos ‘food’, kosse ‘foods’

(ibid)

This is comparable to African American English des’ ‘desk’, which has also undergone consonant cluster simplification (Rickford 1999: 4), taking the plural form for words ending in a sibilant: desses. In Afrikaans this phenomenon has led to non-historical hypercorrect forms in nonstandard varieties: (22) D

bus, bussen > AFR bus, buste ‘bus, busses’ (Donaldson 1993: 69–75) (cf. D buste ‘bust, bossom’)

Furthermore, a free morpheme unknown in standard Dutch is used in Afrikaans to form an associative plural: hulle ‘they, them’ (from dialectal Dutch hun-lui, literally ‘them-people’, according to Lockwood 1965: 210). In informal standard Afrikaans hulle can be used only after [+human] nouns like pa ‘dad’ and ma ‘mom’, e.g. pa-hulle ‘Dad and the others’ (Makhudu 1984: 64). However, in Kaaps, the nonstandard Afrikaans of Coloureds, there is no such restriction: hulle can also be used with nouns that are [–human] but [+animate], e.g. die bome-hulle ‘the trees’ (ibid). The word goed ‘goods’ can also be used as an associative plural marker in nonstandard and Orange River Afrikaans, e.g. Ma goed ‘Mom and the others.’ Webb (1989) notes that in Khoi the reduced form of the masculine plural pronoun gu ‘they’ can be used after a noun to give it plural meaning, e.g. khoe ‘man’ becomes khoegu ‘the men.’ 4.1.2 BVP number marking Contrary to earlier belief, some Atlantic creoles mark nouns for plural number. The Upper Guinea varieties of Creole Portuguese suffix nouns with -s, but only when plurality is relevant. Their substrate languages from the West Atlantic group, such as Balanta, also mark nouns as plural, but by marking them as belonging to various semantic classes through prefixes, which have different forms for singular and plural (Holm 2008). While standard Portuguese requires plural marking of all determiners, nouns and adjectives in a noun phrase whose head is plural, BVP often indicates plurality by adding -s only to the first element (usually a determiner), leaving the plural inflection optional on following nouns and adjectives: (23) BVP um dos mais velho_ orixás ‘one of the most ancient deities’  (Holm 2004: 101)

 Roots of Afrikaans

4.2

Gender marking

4.2.1 Afrikaans gender marking The Dutch distinction between common gender (e.g. D de man ‘the man’) and neuter (D het huis ‘the house’) was lost in Afrikaans (die man, die huis). Because of this, the rules governing the marking of these distinctions in Dutch became opaque in Afrikaans. In Dutch, for example, attributive adjectives usually take an -e ending: (24) D

de jonge man ‘the young man’

There is an exception to this rule before neuter singular nouns with certain determiners: (25) D

een goed_ boek ‘a good book’.

This morphosyntactic rule became a phonological rule in Afrikaans: polysyllabic adjectives take an -e (aangename weer ‘pleasant weather’) but monosyllabic adjectives (except those ending in d, f, g, s and certain others) do not (AFR ‘n sterk_ man ‘a strong man’). The problem is that the phonological rule in Afrikaans has scores if not hundreds of exceptions. Donaldson admits, “It is impossible to formulate water-tight rules for the inflection of adjectives” (1993: 170). 4.2.2 BVP gender marking Standard Portuguese requires gender agreement as well as number agreement within the noun phrase, so all modifiers (e.g. determiners and adjectives) must match the inflections of the head noun in both respects. This does not appear to be the case in Portuguese-based creoles, but in Capeverdean Creole (CVC) there is a question whether the gender opposition between certain nouns, e.g. in (26,) constitute gender marking that is truly inflectional: (26) CVC sógra ‘mother-in-law’ versus sogru‘father-in-law’  (Lang et al. 2002: 727) The CVC opposition of -a for feminine and -u for masculine may mirror the Portuguese opposition of -a and -o, but represent contrasting derivational morphemes rather than a true inflectional system for marking gender. Some consider the existence of gender agreement a better criterion for the existence of grammatical rather than lexical gender marking. Gender agreement within noun phrases can occur in CVC, particularly the Barlavento varieties, but because such agreement occurs only sporadically, such constructions are often treated as set phrases borrowed from Portuguese that have simply fossilized the grammar of the donor language rather than altering that of the recipient language. On the other hand, gender agreement appears to be categorical in BVP, although it is less categorical in the Helvécia variety (Lucchesi 2000).



Partial restructuring 

4.3

Possession

4.3.1 Afrikaans marking of possession Possession is no longer normally indicated with inflectional morphemes on common nouns in modern Dutch (cf. Vondels werken ‘Vondel’s works’), bur rather with the preposition van ‘of ’ (de werken van Vondel). The latter is a frequent structure in standard Afrikaans as well, which also has another method of indicating possession with the particle se after nouns: (27) AFR pa se hoed ‘father’s hat’. This is apparently an extension of the function of colloquial Dutch z’n (cf. D zijn ‘his’); z’n can be used only after masculine nouns (e.g. vader z’n hoed idem), although there is no such gender restriction on the Afrikaans particle. Kotzé (personal communication) notes that there is a variant of the Afrikaans structure with se which is not restricted to animates: (28) AFR Die stoel wat by die tafel staan se poot. the chair which by the table stands poss leg ‘the leg of the chair standing by the table’ Interestingly, the Afrikaans possessive marker se, like the possessive ’s in (colloquial) English, marks the end of an NP and is not a nominal inflection, as in my aunt who lives in New Jersey’s son, or (possibly more salonfähig) the King of England’s crown. 4.3.2 BVP marking of possession In the Portuguese-based creoles possession is often indicated by the juxtaposition of the nouns indicating the possessor and the thing possessed, as well as by a preposition meaning ‘of ’, as in São Tomé Creole Portuguese: (29) ST

CP donu ____ losa OR donu di losa owner [of] farm ‘the owner of the farm’

(Ferraz 1979: 69)

In standard Portuguese the preposition is required (o dono da roça idem.), but in some rural varieties of BVP it can be omitted: (30) BVP kaza ____ Maria house Maria ‘Maria’s house’

(Jeroslow 1975)

 Roots of Afrikaans

4.4

Case marking in pronouns

4.4.1 Afrikaans pronominal case marking Like the European Portuguese clitic object pronouns that became free morphemes in BVP (Section 4.4.2), the unemphatic personal pronouns of spoken and written Dutch were not preserved in Afrikaans, which has only the forms corresponding to the Dutch emphatic pronouns – with the sole exception of the set phrase “jy weet” ‘you know’, in which the vowel of the pronoun tends to be reduced to a schwa, like that of the corresponding Dutch unemphatic pronoun – and, coincidentally, that of the English filler phrase, “y’ know” (Donaldson 1993: 126). Otherwise, singular personal pronouns in Afrikaans are quite similar to those of Dutch, marking not only case distinctions but also gender distinctions in the third person (rare in fully restructured Atlantic creoles). However, the plural personal pronouns make fewer of the Dutch case distinctions for subjects, objects and possessives: (31) Dutch 1. 2. 3.

SUBJECT wij ‘we’ jullie ‘you’ zij ‘they’

OBJECT ons ‘us’ jullie ‘you’ hen/hun ‘them’

POSSESSIVE ons/onze ‘our’ jullie ‘your’ hun ‘their’

Afrikaans

ons ‘we’ julle ‘you’ hulle ‘they’

ons ‘us’ julle ‘you’ hulle ‘them’

ons ‘our’ julle ‘your’ hulle ‘their’

1. 2. 3.

The Afrikaans plural possessive determiners above can form possessive pronouns when followed by s’n: (32) AFR ons s’n ‘ours’ Afrikaans can also form possessives through the use of se after the relative pronoun wat and the relative and interrogative pronoun wie ‘who’: (33) AFR Wie se boek is dit? ‘Whose book is this?

(Burgers 1963: 101)

When no noun is being modified, this construction also serves as a possessive pronoun: (34) AFR Wie s’n is dit? ‘Whose is this?’ (ibid). Compare standard Dutch “Wiens boek is dit?” or “Van wie is dit boek?” with colloquial Dutch “Wie z’n boek is dit?” (Donaldson 1984: 72). The Afrikaans possessive relative pronoun construction (“Die man wie se boek ek geleen het...” ‘The man whose book I borrowed...’) is also from spoken Dutch (“De man die z’n boek ik geleend heb...”) rather than written Dutch (“De man wiens boek ik geleend heb...”). However, there is also convincing evidence that coloquial Dutch was not the only source of the se possessive construction. The converging influence of parallel particles in Khoi and Creole Portuguese is more clearly seen in the use of se and s’n after



Partial restructuring 

personal pronouns – constructions unknown in Dutch. In standard Afrikaans possessive pronouns are formed with s’n after the pronouns u ‘you’, ons ‘we’, julle ‘you (plural)’, and hulle ‘they’: (35) AFR Die boek is ons s’n. ‘The book is ours.’ Moreover, non-standard varieties Afrikaans use this particle to form possessive adjectives in an equally un-Dutch construction: Makhudu (1984) notes the frequent occurence in Coloured Afrikaans of julle se ‘your (plural)’ (but not jy se ‘your [singular]’), while Griqua or Orange River Afrikaans has parallel forms: (36) ORA hy se huis ‘his house’

(den Besten 1978: 31)

In the Khoi language Nama, the genitive particle di also occurs after pronouns as well as nouns: (37) Nama //êib di ómi [literally ‘he ‘s house’], i.e. ‘his house’ (ibid) (The symbol//represents a voiceless lateral click.) The Malayo-Portuguese genitive marker sa is also used this way: (38) Papia Kristang CP eli-sa mai ‘his mother’

(Hancock l969a: 41, 1975: 229)

Furthermore, a parallel marker is used the same way in Bazaar Malay (ibid). Although the use of se after pronouns to form possessive adjectives in nonstandard Afrikaans could be viewed as an extension of the rule for its use after nouns in standard Afrikaans, (which could then be traced to colloquial Dutch), the case for its survival from the ancestral languages of the Griqua and Cape Malay in their restructured varieties of Afrikaans seems more convincing. Of course these sources are by no means mutually exclusive, and the most likely scenario is that their influence converged in the development of the modern Afrikaans constructions with se (den Besten 1978: 38). 4.4.2 BVP pronominal case marking The system of marking case on pronouns in the European lexifiers of the Atlantic creoles is much reduced in many of the creoles based on English and French, so that in Miskito Coast Creole English the pronoun im can be translated as ‘he, him’ or ‘his’. (Since gender is also unmarked, ‘she, her, it, its’ are also possible). However, the Upper Guinea varieties of Creole Portuguese and some of their West Atlantic substrate languages such as Balanta have a pronominal paradigm rich in distinctions of case and emphasis (Holm and Intumbo 2009: 258–261). Therefore disparities in the case marking of pronouns between standard Portuguese and the partially restructured variety spoken in Brazil may have more to do with factors other than the opaqueness of case marking. One of the most striking features of BVP is the use of personal pronoun forms that can be used only for emphatic subjects in European Portuguese as direct objects in BVP, replacing the clitics of the standard:

 Roots of Afrikaans

(39) BVP Ela chamou eu. EP Ela chamou-me ‘She called me.’

(Azevedo 1989: 863)

The disparity seems to be one of case-marking, but it is also one of word order: free morpheme pronouns and clitic pronouns take different positions in the standard. The Atlantic creoles and their substrate languages always have subject-verb-object word order with object pronouns, unlike Romance languages, in which direct and indirect pronouns usually occur before the verb. BVP usually follows the SVO word order of the creoles (and noun objects in Portuguese): (40) BVP EP

Esses porco aí, nós ganhemos eles. Esses porcos, nós os ganhamos those pigs [there] 1p 3p won 3p ‘Those pigs, we got them as a gift.’

(Azevedo 1989: 864)

Of course eles is a subject pronoun corresponding to English ‘they’, just as eu in (39) corresponds to English ‘I’, so the mismatch between the two varieties of Portuguese can strike English speakers as purely a problem of case marking.

5. The structure of clauses 5.1

Independent clauses

5.1.1 The structure of independent clauses in Afrikaans In Afrikaans subject-verb-object (SVO) word order can be found in independent clauses with a single verb: the verb occupies the second position, which (as in German) usually follows the subject (41), although time adverbials can also occupy the first position, leaving the verb second and the subject third, as in (42): (41) AFR Hy is siek vandag. 3s be sick today ‘He is sick today.’

(Donaldson 1993: 362)

(42) AFR Vandag is hy siek. today be 3s sick ‘Today he’s sick.’ (ibid.) However, the fact that the main verb occurs at the end of the main clause whenever there is an auxiliary verb (which then occupies the second position) is taken as evidence that Afrikaans, like Dutch, has an underlying SOV order: (43) AFR Ek sal dit môre doen. 1s will 3s tomorrow do ‘I will do it tomorrow.’ (ibid. 363)



Partial restructuring 

This word order sets Afrikaans apart from the Atlantic creoles, which all have strict SVO word order–including Negerhollands Creole Dutch. However, it confirms Afrikaans’s status as one of the partially restructured languages, which follow the word order of their superstrates except for some creole-like variation in questions. Note that in yes/no questions, Afrikaans follows the (inflected) verb-subject word order of Dutch (and English in sentences with auxiliaries and the equivalent of be): (44) AFR

V S Voel jy naar? feel 2s nauseous ‘Do you feel nauseous?’ (ibid. 370)

(45) AFR Sal jy dit asseblief vir my doen? will 2s that please for me do ‘Will you please do that for me?’ (ibid.) However, if there is a question word, Afrikaans follows (inflected) verb-second word order (again like Dutch, or English auxiliaries). (46) AFR

QW V S Waar bly jy? Where live 2s ‘Where do you live?’ (ibid. 323)

(47) AFR Waar is die wildtuin? where be the game park ‘Where is the game park?’ (ibid. 327) 5.1.2 The structure of independent clauses in BVP Besides the word-order and case-marking issue of EP clitic pronouns being replaced with emphatic subject pronouns in BVP as discussed in 4.4.2 above, the word order of sentences in the two varieties can also differ because of the EP requirement that the subject and verb be inverted in questions: (48) EP

Onde mora você? Where live 2s ‘Where do you live?’

The SVO word order in Atlantic creoles and their substrate languages noted above extends to questions as well as statements, which is also the case in BVP: (49) BVP Onde você mora? This word order is unacceptable in EP unless the question word is emphasized by é que (cf. French est-ce que):

 Roots of Afrikaans

(50) EP

Onde é que você mora? Where is-it that you live

In BVP the copula é in the above construction is often deleted, even by educated speakers: (51) BVP Onde ___ que você mora? The historical reason for this appears to be that in many substrate African languages fronted words require focus markers, as they do in the African varieties of Creole Portuguese that were taken to Brazil. The form of this focus marker in these creoles is ki or ku, which is also the form of the complementizer, corresponding to que in Portuguese. Therefore sentence (50) was easily understood as such by Portuguese speakers and easily understood as (51) by creole speakers in colonial Brazil while BVP was emerging (Oliveira and Holm 2011, Holm and Vieira Machado 2011).

5.2

Dependent clauses

5.2.1 The structure of dependent clauses in Afrikaans In Afrikaans subordinate clauses, the subordinator dat is omitted as often as the English subordinator that, unlike the equivalent Dutch form, which is never omitted: (52) AFR Ek weet {dat jy dit gedoen het} (53) AFR Ek weet {jy het dit gedoen} 

‘I know that you did it.’ ‘I know you did it.’ (Donaldson 1993: 146)

(Note that without dat, the subordinate clause takes main clause word order.) Regarding the possible omission of the Afrikaans subordinator dat, Brachin (1985: 141) again attributes this to Malay. Relative clauses in Afrikaans differ from those of Dutch, which has various relative pronouns depending on gender and number, in that Afrikaans makes almost exclusive use of a single relative pronoun wat (which can never be omitted) for all antecedents: (54) AFR Ek wil die boek hê {wat jy in in jou hand het}. ‘I want the book which you have in your hand.’(Donaldson 1993: 146) This wat combines with the possessive marker se (Section 4.4.1) to form the relative ‘whose’ or ‘of which’: die tafel wat se poot af is ‘the table, the leg of which is off ’ (den Besten 1996: 12) – although [+human] antecedents can take the relative wie se. The only other exception to the exclusive use of wat is when the relative is the object of a preposition, in which case the Dutch forms are used when there is pied-piping (55); if the presposition is stranded (56), then wat must be used:



Partial restructuring 

(55) AFR die probleem waarvan jy praat the problem whereof you speak (56) AFR die problem wat jy van praat (ibid.)

(den Besten 1996: 12)

The origin of the form of the Afrikaans relative is Dutch wat, which can occur as a relative pronoun after an indefinite (e.g. alles wat je zegt ‘everything you say’). This form (and the parallel Negerhollands CD relativizer wa) may have been selected over competing forms for grammaticalization as the relativizer due to the influence of nonstandard or archaic Dutch usage, or simply because it is more salient. Den Besten analyses it as a “gespecialiseerd voegwoord” [specialized conjunction] (1996: 13) that is a “marker for noninterrogative WH-movement in finite clauses” (1981: 141). In indirect questions Afrikaans has two possible word orders. Following the word order of embedded questions in Dutch, the verb can be final (the order normally found in written Afrikaans): QW S V (57) AFR Hy sal seker weet {waar die wildtuin is}. ‘He’ll know for sure where the game park is.’

(Donaldson 1993: 327)

Or the embedded question can follow the inverted V-S order of the direct question, a syntactic innovation also found in African American English: (58) AFR Hy sal seker weet

QW V S {waar is die wildtuin}. (ibid.)

5.2.2 The structure of dependent clauses in BVP Subordinate clauses can take the zero form of the subordinator ‘that’ in a number of creoles, including Portuguese-based creoles in the Upper Guinea and Gulf of Guinea groups (Holm and Patrick, eds. 2007, item 8.7). While this is not allowed in EP, it can occur in BVP: (59) BVP Eu se ___ eu koj~ẽsu a mãga ‘I know [that] I am familiar with the range.’

(Jeroslow 1974: 199)

Regarding relative clauses, Bickerton (1981: 63) speculates that creoles may have been “born without surface relativizers” and gives examples of zero subject relative pronouns in Guyanese Creole English, Seychellois Creole French and Annobón Creole Portuguese; other examples can be found in Holm and Patrick, eds. 2007 (item 9.6). While zero relative pronouns are not allowed in Portuguese, they can occur in some rural varieties of BVP: (60) BVP I tudus kuienu us pedasu ___ kiría kumé ‘And all choosing the pieces [that] they-wanted to-eat.’  (Jeroslow 1974: 195)

 Roots of Afrikaans

While EP has a number of different relativizers such as quem ‘whom’ (as the object of a preposition), cujo ‘whose’, etc., spoken BVP has only que, pronounced/ki/. To make clear the syntactic function of que within the relative clause, a “resumptive” pronoun can be used: (61) BVP Esse rapaz, que eu conheci ele ‘This guy that I met [him]

(Amaral 1928 [1976]: 78)

Thus the “resumptive” pronoun preserves the direct object in its original position even though it is also represented by the relativizer que – a structure unknown in EP. The “resumptive” pronoun can also be the object of a preposition, which remains in its original position: (62) BVP Esse fulano aí, que eu nunca tive aula com ele. the guy there who 1s never had class with [him] ‘The guy that I never had class with.’ (Holm 2004: 126) In EP, like other Romance languages, relativized objects of prepositions move to the front of the clause, pied-piping their preposition after them: “Esse fulano aí, com quem nunca tive aula...” However, in Capeverdean and other Portuguese-based creoles in Africa, the preposition and its ”resumptive” object remain in situ: (63) CVC kel ome ke n fala k’ el dem man rel 1s spoke with 3s ‘The man with whom I spoke.’ (Baptista, Mello and Suzuki 2007: 66) In considering the forces which shaped the divergences between EP and BVP, Lucchesi asserts “...não consideramos provável a transferência de estructuras das línguas do substrato para o português brasileiro” [‘we consider improbable any transfer of structures from substrate languages to Brazilian Portuguese] (2000: 34). Yet this is precisely the likeliest explanation for the structure of the relative clause in (62) in which the preposition and its pronoun object remain in situ.

6. Conclusion The above study has tried to sort out the structures that distinguish fully restructured languages from those that are only partially restructured – and those that have not been restructured at all. We have seen that there are numerous morphosyntactic constructions in Afrikaans and BVP that match those of creoles and their substrate languages rather than those of their European lexical source languages, and a growing number of linguists see this as pointing squarely to language contact playing a key role in the historical development of .partially restructured languages. Lucchesi (2000: 34) was clearly not right in implying that the only result of language contact on BVP was the loss of some inflectional morphology when he claimed



Partial restructuring 

that the variety had not inherited any distinctive grammatical structures from its substrate languages: a strong case can be made that BVP relative clauses like (62) are in fact such structures, as well as other structures like discontinuous double negation (11b). Since distinctive structures include those that have lost crucial elements, deleted copulas constitute such structures whether they occur in verbless predicates (13) or focus markers (51), as do deleted subordinators (59) and relative pronouns (60). Finally a structure with a new word order is no less distinctive, so we must include questions without subject-verb inversion (49). In fact, the only structure exclusive to full creoles – one that cannot be found in any partially resructured variety – is the cooccurrence of two verbal markers to combine their meaning of tense, mood or aspect (3). Since the transition from full to partial to no restructuring is often gradual (few ... some ... many substrate features, or few ... some ... many superstrate features), the boundaries between what were traditionally considered creoles (e.g. the varieties of Capeverdean Creole Portuguese that disallow copula deletion) and non-creoles (e.g. the varieties of Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese that do allow copula deletion) have become more blurred. But as Sarah Grey Thomason pointed out, it is “Only by understanding the facts that contact languages are the products of historical developments and that historical developments typically involve such fuzzy boundaries [that we can] arrive at a useful classification of contact languages” (1997: 86).

Bibliography of Hans den Besten’s writings on Afrikaans den Besten, H. 1978.Cases of Possible Syntactic Interference in the Development of Afrikaans. In Amsterdam Creole Studies 2, ed. Pieter Muysken, 5–56. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, 20). den Besten, H. 1981. Marking WH-Movement in Afrikaans. Generative Studies in Creole Languages, ed Pieter Muysken, 141–179. Dordrecht: Foris Publications (Studies in Generative Grammar 6). den Besten, H. 1983. On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules. On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the “3rd Groningen Grammar Talks” January 1981, ed. Werner Abraham, 47–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins (Linguistik Aktuell 3). den Besten, H. 1985. Die doppelte Negation im Afrikaans und ihre Herkunft. Akten des 1. Essener Kolloquiums über „Kreolensprachen und Sprachkontakte” vom 26.1.1985 an der Universität Essen, eds. Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz, 9–42. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. den Besten, H. 1986. Double Negation and the Genesis of Afrikaans. Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Papers from the Amsterdam Workshop, April 1985, eds. Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith, 185–230. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. den Besten, H. 1987. Review of Edith Raidt. 1983. Einführung in Geschichte und Struktur des Afrikaans. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2 (1): 67–92. den Besten, H. 1987. Willem ten Rhyne (1686) over het bouwen van een pidgin. ‘You me linguistics fun!’ Nieuwe Inzichten in de Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, ed. René Appel, 83–88. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. den Besten, H. 1987. Die niederländischen Pidgins der alten Kapkolonie. Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren vom 30.9. – 2.10.1987 [1986] an der Universität Essen, eds. Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz, 9–40. Bochum: Brockmeyer (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 4). den Besten, H. 1987. Het Afrikaans: Mag het ietsje meer Zuid-Afrika zijn? Onze Taal 56: 24–25. [with ‘Repliek’ van P.C. Paardekooper (p. 25); in reaction to P.C. Paardekooper (1986). Het Afrikaans. Onze Taal 55: 74–75] den Besten, H. 1988. Universal-Grammatik und/oder Zweitsprachenerwerb: Der Fall Afrikaans. Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über “Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachtod” vom 9.10. – 10.10.1987 an der Universität Essen, eds. Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz, 11–44. Bochum: Brockmeyer. den Besten, H. 1989. From Khoekhoe Foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans: The Creation of a Novel Grammar. Wheels within Wheels. Papers of the Duisburg Symposium on

 Roots of Afrikaans Pidgin and Creole Languages, eds. Martin Pütz & René Dirven, 207–249. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Lang. den Besten, H. 1989. Etnische nomenclatuur in Zuid-Afrika. “Waar komen de juiste ideeën vandaan”: Opstellen over taal, wetenschap en maatschappij. [Festschrift for Gerard Hubers], ed. Jan ten Thije, 11–15. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, Universiteit van Amsterdam (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 59). den Besten, H. 1996. Associative DPs. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, eds. Crit Cremers & Marcel den Dikken, 13–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins. den Besten, H. 1996. Afrikaans relatief ‘wat’ en de West-Germaanse relativisatiesystemen. Afrikaans en variëteiten van het Nederlands, Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, eds. Fritz Ponelis & Piet van Reenen. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. (Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9: 12–34. [actual date of publication: January 1998]) den Besten, H., J. Goossens, P. van Reenen, and F. Ponelis ‘Inleiding.’1996. In Afrikaans en variëteiten van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. (Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9 (1996), ed. Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, Fritz Ponelis & Piet van Reenen, 5–11. [Publication in January 1998]) den Besten, H., J. Goossens, F. Ponelis, and P. van Reenen, ed. 1996. Afrikaans en variëteiten van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. (Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9 (1996). (157 pp.) [Publication in January 1998]) den Besten, H. 1996. Het Afrikaans: Een vreemde eend in de Germaanse bijt. Zuid-Afrika 73: 36–37. den Besten, H. 1997. Kreolportugiesisch in Südafrika: Malaio- oder Indoportugiesisch? Afrolusitanistik – eine vergessene Disziplin in Deutschland? Dokumentation des 2. Bremer Afro-Romania Kolloquiums vom 27.–29. Juni 1996, eds. Ruth Degenhardt, Thomas Stolz & Hella Ulferts, 317–351. Bremen: Universität Bremen. den Besten, H. 1997. Historiese taalkunde. Zuid-Afrika 74: 55, 59. [Review of Edith H. Raidt Historiese taalkunde. Studies oor die geskiedenis van Afrikaans. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Copyright 1994.] den Besten, H. 1998. What a little word can do for you: Wat in Afrikaans possessive relatives. Small words in the big picture. Squibs for Hans Bennis, eds. Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck & Jeroen van de Weijer, 13–21. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics (HIL) (HIL Occasional Papers 2). den Besten, Hans. 1998. “Grote capiteyn moeske slim” of: Waar zijn de Kaapse pidgins gebleven? Voor Pieter C. Muysken bij zijn afscheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Mengelwerk voor Muysken, eds. Adrienne Bruyn & Jacques Arends, 257–261. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 72). den Besten, H. 1999. Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans. Language genesis Rudolf P. Botha (ed.), 45–66 (Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics (SPIL) 32). den Besten, H. 2000. De diminutief in het Afrikaans: Kloeke, Scholtz en Ponelis opnieuw beschouwd. In Overzees Nederlands. Lezingen gehouden op het symposion van de afdeling Dialectologie van het P.J. Meertens-Instituut op vrijdag 26 november 1993, eds. J.B. Berns & J. van Marle, 7–39. Amsterdam: Meertens-Instituut. den Besten, H. 2000. The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape Colony and Afrikaans vir. Creoles, Pidgins, and Sundry Languages: Essays in Honor of Pieter Seuren, ed. Jacques Arends, 949– 971 [Linguistics 38(5)]. den Besten, H. 2000. Een zakwoordenboekje Afrikaans. Zuid-Afrika 77: 98. [review of Kramers woordenboek Zuid-Afrikaans-Nederlands Nederlands-Zuid-Afrikaans. Supervision and



Bibliography of Hans den Besten’s writings on Afrikaans  final editing: Hanny Demeersseman, final editing: Piet Vermeer, editing: Roy Pheiffer, Fred Pheiffer, Anneli Terre Blanche & Sief Veltkamp-Visser. S.l.: Elsevier. 2000.] den Besten, H. 2001. The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions. Taallandskap. Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg, ed. Adelia Carstens & Heinrich Grebe, 49–58. Pretoria: Van Schaik. den Besten, H. 2001. What became of the Cape Dutch pidgin(s)? Was ich noch sagen wollte... Festschrift für Norbert Boretzky zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, eds. Thomas Stolz & Birgit Igla, 205–222. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. den Besten, H. 2001. Review of Hanny Demeersseman (etc.) (ed) Kramers woordenboek ZuidAfrikaans-Nederlands Nederlands-Zuid-Afrikaans. 2000, ISBN 90-6882-378-7. ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lexikos 11, J.C.M.D. du Plessis, 314–321. Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT (Afrilex-reeks/Afrilex series). den Besten, H. 2002. Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans. Focus on Afrikaans Sociohistorical Linguistics, Part II, eds. Rajend Mesthrie and Paul T. Roberge, 3–56 (Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14). den Besten, H. 2003. Deciphering three Pidgin Dutch statements concerning religion recorded by Muller, Ten Rhyne and Bövingh. Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 57: 149–155. den Besten, H., L. Carla, and P. T. Roberge. 2003. Reduplication in Afrikaans. Twice as meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and other contact languages, ed. Silvia Kouwenberg, 271–287. London: Battlebridge (Westminster Creolistics series 8). den Besten, H. 2003. Onverstaanbare woorden in de mond van Hottentotten: Vroege T2 bij zeventiende-eeuwse Khoekhoen. Appel heeft het gedaan. Liber amicorum voor René Appel bij zijn afscheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, ed. Folkert Kuiken, 138–143. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. den Besten, H. 2003. The English (and Pidgin) roots of Afrikaans booi and Boesman. ‘n Man wat beur. Huldigingsbundel vir Dirk van Schalkwyk, ed. Willem Botha, 183–194. Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT. [Anoniem = den Besten, Hans] Wat zeiden ze, die Khoekhoen? Ontcijfering, afscheidsbundel voor Karel van der Toorn als dekaan van de Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen van de UvA, Anonymus [= Casper de Groot] (ed). Amsterdam. Review of Adelia Carstens & H. Grebe, ed. 2003. Taallandskap. Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Nederlandse Taalkunde 8: 71–74. den Besten, H. 2004. Where the Historian and the Creolist Meet: The Linguistic Analysis of “Quotations” and Other Data in the Cape Archives and in Old Travelogues. Interpretations of Colonial Representations. Reflections on Alterity, Social History, and Intercultural Contact, eds. S. Huigen and J. Kommers, 81–111. Saarbrücken: Verlag für Entwicklungspolitik Saarbrücken. den Besten, H. 2004. Jürgen Andersen’s Orientalische Reise-Beschreibung: A forgotten travelogue. Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 58: 57–67. den Besten, H. 2005. Kloeke en het Afrikaans. Speciaal nummer over G.G. Kloeke, eds. Cor van Bree, Frans Hinskens & Marc van Oostendorp, 211–224 (TNTL 121). den Besten, H., B. van G.J. van Wyk (etc.), eds. 2005. Etimologiewoordeboek van Afrikaans. Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT 2003. Nederlandse Taalkunde 10: 82–85. den Besten, H. 2006. The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s). Studies in Contact Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Glenn G. Gilbert, eds. Linda L. Thornburg & Janet M. Fuller, 103–124. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Lang.

 Roots of Afrikaans den Besten, H. 2006. Neerlandismen, pidginismen en Afrikaans in brieven van twee Khoekhoen uit 1800. Tydskrif vir Nederlands en Afrikaans 13. den Besten, H. 2006.‘Hulle weet nie eers hoe om ’n baba te abba nie’. Opmerkingen over het Afrikaans. Wat iedereen van het Nederlands moet weten en waarom, eds. Nicoline van der Sijs, Jan Stroop & Fred Weerman, 237–245. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. den Besten, H. 2007. The manuscript underlying Ten Rhyne’s Schediasma de Promontorio bonae spei: A comparison of two versions. Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 61 (4): 33–45. den Besten, H. 2007. Relexification and pidgin development: The case of Cape Dutch Pidgin. Deconstructing Creole, eds. Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim, 141–164. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. den Besten, H. 2009. Desiderata voor de historische taalkunde van het Afrikaans. Afrikaans. Een drieluik, eds. Hans den Besten, Frans Hinskens & Jerzy Koch, 234–252. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU, Münster: Nodus Publikationen. den Besten, H. 2009. In search of a submerged phonology: The case of early Cape Dutch Pidgin. Gradual Creolization: Studies celebrating Jacques Arends, eds. R. Sellbach, M. van den Berg & H, Cardoso, 219–241. Amsterdam: Benjamins. den Besten, H. 2009. Demonstratives in Afrikaans and Cape Dutch Pidgin: A first attempt. Complex processes in New Languages, eds. Enoch Aboh en Norval Smith, 201–219. Amsterdam: Benjamins (CLL 35). den Besten, H, F. Hinskens, and J. Koch, eds. 2009. Afrikaans: Een drieluik. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. den Besten, H. 2010. A badly harvested field: The growth of linguistic knowledge and the Dutch Cape Colony until 1796. The Dutch Trading Companies as Knowledge Networks, eds. Siegfried Huigen, Jan L. de Jong & Elmer Kolfin, 267–294. Leiden: Brill 2010. (Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture.) den Besten, H. 2010. On the “verbal suffix” -UM of Cape Dutch Pidgin: Morphosyntax, pronunciation and origins. Voor Magda. Artikelen voor Magda Devos bij haar afscheid van de Universiteit Gent, eds. Johan De Caluwe en Jacques van Keymeulen, 177–189. Universiteit Gent: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde/Academia Press Gent. den Besten, H. forthcoming. ‘South African Khoekhoe in contact with Dutch/Afrikaans (a.o.)’ for Tom Güldemann & Rainer Vossen (eds.) The Khoesan Languages, Curzon/Routledge.

References Aarsleff, Hans. 1975. Section 1. Leibniz, section of The eighteenth century, including Leibniz. In Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics, Thomas Albert Sebeok (ed.), 385–410. The Hague: Mouton. Adelaar, Karl Alexander. 1991. Some notes on the origin of Sri Lankan Malay. In Papers in Austronesian Linguistics No. 1 [Pacific Linguistics A-81], Hein Steinhauer (ed.), 23–37. Canberra: The Australian National University. Adhikari, M. (ed). 1996. Straatpraatjies. Language, Politics and Popular Culture in Cape Town, 1909–1922. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Die Afrikaanse Patriot 1876. 1974. [Patriot-Vereniging vir Afrikaanse teksuitgawes, 6]. Cape Town & Johannesburg: Tafelberg. Die Afrikaanse taaleksamen. Grammatika vir die laër en hoër eksamen. c1920. Pietermaritzburg: De Nationale Pers. Agha, A. 2008. Voice, Footing, Enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15: 38–59. Almada, M.D. de Oliveira. 1961. Cabo Verde: Contribuição para o estudo do dialecto falado no seu arquipélago [Estudos de ciências políticas e sociais 55]. Lisbon: Junta de Investigações do Ultramar. Allsopp, Richard. 1996. Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage. With a French and Spanish supplement edited by Jeannette Allsopp. Oxford: OUP. Antonissen, Rob. 1942. Handleiding in het Afrikaans. Een Praktisch Overzicht. Brugge: Wiek op. Arnold, Christoph (ed.). 1672. Wahrhaftige Beschreibungen dreyer mächtigen Königreiche, Japan, Siam, und Corea ... Nuremberg: Michael and Joh. Friedrich Endters. Arondekar, A. 2005. Without a trace: Sexuality and the colonial archive. Journal of the History of Sexuality 14: 10–27. Azevedo, Milton M. 1989. Vernacular features in educated speech in Brazilian Portuguese. Hispania 72: 862–872. Badings, A.H.L. 1915. Maleisch Woordenboek, Vol. II: Maleisch-Hollandsch, 8th edn, exp. Adapted by H.L.J. Badings. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. Baptista, Marlyse, de Mello, Heliana R. & Suzuki, Miki. 2007. Capeverdean and Guiné-Bissau Creole Portuguese. Comparative Creole Syntax, John Holm & Peter Patrick (eds), 53–82. London: Battlebridge Press. Bastert, C. 1801. [letter to the Dutch Missionary Society] Berigten en brieven voorgelezen op de maandelijksche bedestonden van het Nederlandsch Zendeling-Genootschap 1801: 95–102. Rotterdam: N. Cornel [edition in den Besten (2006b)]. Baxter, Alan N. 1988. A Grammar of Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese) [Pacific Linguistics, B95]. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University. Baxter, Alan N. & Lucchesi, Dante. 1997. A relevância dos precessos de pidginização e crioulização na formação da língua portuguesa no Brasil. Estudos lingüísticos e literários 19: 65–84. Beach, Douglas Martyn. 1938. The Phonetics of the Hottentot Language. Cambridge: Heffer & Sons.

 Roots of Afrikaans Beeckman, Daniel. 1924 [1718]. [fragment of] A voyage to Borneo in 1714. In Collectanea, Colin Graham Botha (ed.), 112 – 118. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. Behaghel, Otto. 1924. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Vol. 2: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung. Bell, Arthur J. 2001. Origins of negative concord in Afrikaans. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 154–83. Bennis, Hans & Haegeman, Liliane. 1984. On the status of agreement and relative clauses in West Flemish. In Sentential Complementation. Proceedings of the International Conference held at UFSAL, Brussels June, 1983, Wim de Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds), 33–53. Dordrecht: Foris. van Bergen, H. C. 1938. Het vreemdelingen-Maleisch: de omgangstaal in Nederlandsch-Indië. [s.l.]: [s.n.]. Bergerson, Jeremy. 2011. Apperception and linguistic contact between German and Afrikaans. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. den Besten, Hans. 1978. Cases of possible syntactic interference in the development of Afrikaans. In Amsterdam Creole Studies 2 [Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, 20], Pieter Muysken (ed.), 5–56. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. den Besten, Hans. 1981. Marking WH-Movement in Afrikaans. In Generative Studies in Creole Languages [Studies in Generative Grammar 6], Pieter Muysken (ed.), 141–179. Dordrecht: Foris. den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the “3rd Groningen Grammar Talks” January 1981 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans. 1985. Die doppelte Negation im Afrikaans und ihre Herkunft. In Akten des 1. Essener Kolloquiums über “Kreolensprachen und Sprachkontakte” vom 26.1.1985 an der Universität Essen, Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds), 9–42. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. den Besten, Hans. 1986. Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans. In Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Papers from the Amsterdam Workshop, April 1985 [Creole Language Library 1], Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (eds), 185–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans. 1987a. Review of Edith Raidt. 1983. Einführung in Geschichte und Struktur des Afrikaans. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2(1): 67–92. den Besten, Hans. 1987b. Willem ten Rhyne (1686) over het bouwen van een pidgin. In ‘You me linguistics fun!’ Nieuwe Inzichten in de Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, René Appel (ed.), 83–88. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. den Besten, Hans. 1987b. Die niederländischen Pidgins der alten Kapkolonie. In Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren vom 30.9. – 2.10.1987 [1986] an der Universität Essen [Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 4], Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds), 9–40. Bochum: Brockmeyer. den Besten, Hans. 1987c. Het Afrikaans: Mag het ietsje meer Zuid-Afrika zijn? Onze Taal 56(2/3): 24–25. den Besten, Hans. 1988. Universal-Grammatik und/oder Zweitsprachenerwerb: Der Fall Afrikaans. In Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über “Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachtod” vom 9.10. – 10.10.1987 an der Universität Essen, Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds), 11–44. Bochum: Brockmeyer.



References  den Besten, Hans. 1989. From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans: The creation of a novel grammar. In Wheels within Wheels. Papers of the Duisburg Symposium on Pidgin and Creole Languages, Martin Pütz & René Dirven (ed.), 207–249. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. den Besten, Hans. 1992. De makke van de etymologie van koloniale woorden in het Nederlands. Jaarboek van de Stichting Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie: Overzicht van het jaar 1991, 52–82. Leiden: De Stichting Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. den Besten, Hans. 1993. Etnische nomenclatuur in Zuid-Afrika. Waar komen de juiste ideeën vandaan? Opstellen over taal, wetenschap en maatschappij: Feestboek voor Gerard Hubers [Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 59], Jan ten Theije (ed.), 11– 15. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Algemene Taalweetenschap, Universiteit van Amsterdam. den Besten, Hans. 1993. The Khoikhoi basis for the Afrikaans associative construction. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Amsterdam. den Besten, Hans. 1996. Associative DPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, Crit Cremers & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 13–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans. 1997. Kreolportugiesisch in Südafrika: Malaio- oder Indoportugiesisch? In Afrolusitanistik – eine vergessene Disziplin in Deutschland? Dokumentation des 2. Bremer Afro-Romania Kolloquiums vom 27.–29. Juni 1996, Ruth Degenhardt, Thomas Stolz & Hella Ulferts (eds), 317–351. Bremen: Universität Bremen. den Besten, Hans. 1998a. Afrikaans relatief ‘wat’ en de West-Germaanse relativisatiesystemen. In Afrikaans en Variëteiten van het Nederlands, Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, Fritz Ponelis & Piet van Reenen (eds). Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. 1996. Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9: 12–34 (actual date of publication: January 1998). den Besten, Hans. 1998b. What a little word can do for you: wat in Afrikaans possessive relatives. In Small words in the Big Picture. Squibs for Hans Bennis [HIL Occasional Papers 2], Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 13–21. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics (HIL). den Besten, Hans. 1998c. “Grote Capiteyn moeske slim” of: Waar zijn de Kaapse Pidgins gebleven? Mengelwerk voor Muysken: Voor Pieter C. Muysken bij zijn Afscheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam [Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 72], Adrienne Bruyn & Jacques Arends (eds), 257–61. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, Universiteit van Amsterdam. den Besten, Hans. 1999. Speculations on [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans. In Language Genesis [SPIL (Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics) 32], Rudolf P. Botha (ed.), 45–66. den Besten, Hans. 2000a. De diminutief in het Afrikaans: Kloeke, Scholtz en Ponelis opnieuw beschouwd. In Overzees Nederlands. Lezingen Gehouden op het Symposion van de Afdeling Dialectologie van het P.J. Meertens-Instituut op Vrijdag 26 November 1993, Johannes B. Berns & Jaap van Marle (eds), 7–39. Amsterdam: Meertens-Instituut. den Besten, Hans. 2000b. The slaves’ languages in the Dutch Cape Colony and Afrikaans vir. In Creoles, Pidgins, and Sundry Languages: Essays in Honor of Pieter Seuren [Linguistics 38(5)], Jacques Arends (ed.), 949–971. den Besten, Hans. 2001a. The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions. In Taallandskap. Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg, Adelia Carstens & Heinrich Grebe (ed.), 49–58. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

 Roots of Afrikaans den Besten, Hans. 2001b. What became of the Cape Dutch pidgin(s)? In Was ich noch sagen wollte... Festschrift für Norbert Boretzky zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Thomas Stolz & Birgit Igla (eds), 205–222. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. den Besten, Hans. 2002. Khoekhoe syntax and its implications for L2 acquisition of Dutch and Afrikaans. In Focus on Afrikaans Sociohistorical Linguistics, Part II. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, Rajend Mesthrie and Paul T. Roberge (eds), 3–56. den Besten, Hans. 2003. Deciphering three Pidgin Dutch statements concerning religion recorded by Muller, Ten Rhyne and Bövingh. Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 57: 149–155. den Besten, Hans. 2003b. The pidgin (and English) roots of Afrikaans booi and Boesman. ‘n Man wat beur: Huldigingsbundel vir Dirk van Schalkwyk, Willem Botha (ed.), 183–94. Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT. den Besten, Hans. 2003c. Onverstaanbare woorden in de mond van Hottentotten: Vroege T2 bij zeventiende-eeuwse Khoekhoen. Appel heeft het gedaan: Liber amicorum voor René Appel bij zijn afscheid van de Universität van Amsterdam, Folkert Kuiken (ed.), 138–43. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. den Besten, H. 2004. Where the Historian and the Creolist Meet: the Linguistic Analysis of “Quotations” and Other Data in the Cape Archives and in Old Travelogues. In Interpretations of Colonial Representations. Reflections on Alterity, Social History, and Intercultural Contact, S. Huigen and J. Kommers (eds), 81–111. Saarbrücken: Verlag für Entwicklungspolitik Saarbrücken. den Besten, Hans. 2004a. Jürgen Andersen’s Orientalische Reise-Beschreibung: A forgotten travelogue. Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 58: 57–67. den Besten, Hans. 2005. Kloeke en het Afrikaans. In Speciaal nummer over G.G. Kloeke. TNTL 121, Cor van Bree, Frans Hinskens & Marc van Oostendorp (eds), 211–224. den Besten, Hans. 2006a. The origins of the Afrikaans pre-nominal possessive system(s). In Studies in Contact Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Glenn G. Gilbert. Linda L. Thornburg & Janet M. Fuller (eds), 103–124. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. den Besten, Hans. 2006b. Neerlandismen, pidginismen en Afrikaans in brieven van twee Khoekhoen uit 1800. Tydskrif vir Nederlands en Afrikaans 13. den Besten, Hans. 2007a. The manuscript underlying Ten Rhyne’s Schediasma de Promontorio bonae spei: a comparison of two versions. Quarterly Bulletin of the National Library of South Africa 61(4): 33–45. den Besten, Hans. 2007b. Relexification and pidgin development: The case of Cape Dutch Pidgin. In Deconstructing Creole [Typological Studies in Language 73], Ansaldo, Umberto, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim (eds), 141–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans. 2009a. Desiderata voor de historische taalkunde van het Afrikaans. In Afrikaans. Een drieluik, Hans den Besten, Frans Hinskens & Jerzy Koch (eds), 234–252. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU & Münster: Nodus. den Besten, Hans. 2009b. In search of a sub-merged phonology: The case of Early Dutch Pidgin. In Gradual Creolization. Studies Celebrating Jacques Arends [Creole Language Library 34], Rachel Selbach, Hugo C. Cardoso & Margo van den Berg (eds), 219–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans. 2010. A badly harvested field: The growth of linguistic knowledge and the Dutch Cape colony until 1796. In The Dutch Trading Companies as Knowledge Networks, Siegfried Huigen, Jan L. De Jong & Elmer Kolfin (eds), 267–94. Leiden: E.J. Brill.



References  den Besten, Hans, Hinskens, Frans & Koch, Jerzy (eds). 2009. Afrikaans: Een Drieluik. Münster: Nodus. den Besten, Hans, Luijks, Carla & Roberge, Paul T. 2003. Reduplication in Afrikaans. In Twice as Meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and Other Contact Languages [Westminster Creolistics series 8], Silvia Kouwenberg (ed.), 271–287. London: Battlebridge. den Besten, Hans & Moed-van Walraven, Cornelia. 1986. The syntax of verbs in Yiddish. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 111– 135. Dordrecht: Foris. den Besten, Hans & Webelhuth, Gert. 1990. Stranding. In Scrambling and Barriers [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 5, Günther Grewendorf & Werner Sternefeld (eds.), 77–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bickerton, Derek. 1989. The lexical learning hypothesis and the pidgin-creole cycle. In Wheels within Wheels. Papers of the Duisburg Symposium on Pidgin and Creole Languages, Martin Pütz & René Dirven (eds), 11–31. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Boeseken Anna J. 1973. Dagregister en Briewe van Zacharias Wagenaer 1662–1666. Pretoria: Die Staatsdrukker. Bolling, Frederig A. 1678. Oost-Indiske Reisebog ... Copenhagen. Dutch translation by J. Visscher. In Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 68, The Hague, 1916. Partial English translation in R. Raven-Hart 1971: 143–154. De Bont, Antonius P. 1962. Dialekt van Kempenland, meer in het Bijzonder d’Oerse Taol, Vol. I: Klank- en Vormleer en Enige Syntaktische Bijzonderheden [Taalkundige bijdragen van Noord en Zuid 9]. Assen: Van Gorcum. Boniface, Charles Etienne. 1830. [interview with Hendrik Kok in De Zuid-Afrikaan]. In Nienaber 1971: 36–42. Boonzaier, Willem J.C. 1989. ’n Taalkundige Karakterisering van Bolandse Afrikaans. PhD dissertation, University of the Orange Free State. Booysen, C. Murray & Jansen, Marta Mabel. 1930. Praktiese Afrikaanse Grammatika, stylkursus en klankleer van die Afrikaanse taal. 8e druk. Pietermaritzburg: Die Natalse Pers. Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Boretzky, Norbert. 1983. Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boshoff, Stefanus P. E. 1921. Volk en taal van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: De Bussy & Cape Town: HAUM. Boshoff, Stefanus P.E. 1936. Etimologiese Woordeboek van Afrikaans. Kaapstad: Nasionale Pers. Boshoff, Stefanus P.E., & Nienaber Gabriel S. 1967. Afrikaanse etymologieë Pretoria: Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. Bosman, Daniel Brink. 1916. Afrikaans en Maleis-Portugees. Groningen: Noordhoff (PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Groningen). Bosman, Daniel Brink. 1923. Oor die ontstaan van Afrikaans. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger. Bosman, Daniel Brink. 1928 [1923]. Oor die Ontstaan van Afrikaans, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger. Bosman, Daniel Brink. 1952. Briewe van Johanna Maria van Riebeeck en ander Riebeeckiana. Amsterdam: Drukkerij Holland, uitg. deur die skrywer. Bosman, Daniel Brink & Thom, Hendrik Bernardus (eds). 1952–1957. Daghregister Gehouden by den Oppercoopman Jan Anthonisz van Riebeeck, 3 vols: I (1952), II (1955), III (1957). Cape Town: Balkema.

 Roots of Afrikaans Botha, Marthinus Christoffel & Burger, Johannes François. 1922. Afrikaanse Grammatika, 2nd edn. Kaapstad: Maskew Miller. Botha, Rudolph P. 1988. Form and Meaning in Word Formation: A Study of Afrikaans Reduplication. Cambridge: CUP. Boucher Maurice. 1988. Robert Jacob Gordon: Cape travels, 1777 to 1786, 2 Vols. Houghton: Brenthurst Press. Bouman, Arie Cornelis. 1926. Onderzoekingen over Afrikaanse Syntaxis. Annale van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch IV, B3. Bouman, Arie Cornelis. 1939. Over reduplicatie en de woordsoorten. De Nieuwe Taalgids 33: 337–353. Bouman, Arie Cornelis & Pienaar, Eduard Christiaan. 1933. Afrikaanse spraakkuns. Derde verbeterde druk. Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia-Drukkery. Bövingh, Johann Georg. 1712. Curieuse Beschreibung und Nachricht von den Hottentotten [...] [s.l.] 1712. Bövingh, Johann Georg. 1714. Kurtze Nachricht von den Hottentotten oder denen Heyden welche das äusserste Africanische Vorgebirge Cabo de bona esperança genannt, bewohnen. Bey dieser zweiten Auflage von den bey der ersten eingeschlichenen Fehlern gesaubert und mit eigener Feder ans Licht gebracht Von Johann Georg Bövingh, Missionario. Hamburg: Caspar Jahkel. Bradlow, Frank Rosslyn. 1978a. The origins of the early Cape Muslims. b. Appendixes. In The Early Cape Muslims. A Study of their Mosques, Genealogy and Origins, Frank Rosslyn Bradlow & Margaret Cairns (eds), 80–106, 111–113, 118–132. Kaapstad: Balkema. Breyne, Marcel R. 1936. Afrikaans. Eine Einführung in Laut-, Formen- und Satzlehre mit Literaturproben. Leipzig: Holtze. Brill, Willem Gerard. 1854. Nederlandsche Spraakleer. Klankleer, Woordvorming, Aard en Verbuiging der Woorden, 2nd edn. Leiden: Brill. Brothman, B. 2010. Perfect present, perfect gift: A place for archival consciousness in social theory. Archival Science 10: 141–189. Buccini, Anthony Francis. 1998. New Netherland Dutch, Cape Dutch, Afrikaans. In Afrikaans en Variëteiten van het Nederlands, Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, Fritz Ponelis & Pieter van Reenen (eds). Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. 1996. Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9: 35–51. (actual date of publication: Jan. 1998). Bucholtz, Mary & Hall, Kira. 2008. All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 401–431. Burgers, Marius Philip Oliviera. 1963. Teach Yourself Afrikaans. London: The English Universities Press. Burke, Peter. 2000. A Social History of Knowledge. Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity. Büttner, Johan Daniel. 1716? [1970]. Waare Relation und Beschrijbung von Cabo de Goede Hoop und derselber natuurlicher Inwoonderen Natur- Gebräuchen, Thun, und Wesen, nebst hiesigen Landes Gewächsen, und den zahmen und wilden Gedierten. In Johan Daniel Buttner’s account of the Cape, Brief description of Natal, Journal Extracts on East Indies, Gabriel Stefanus Nienaber and Rowland Raven-Hart (eds), 13–119. Cape Town: Balkema. Campbell, John. 1974 [1815]. Travels in South Africa [Africana Collectanea 47]. Cape Town: Struik. (Reproduction of the 3rd edn. of 1815). Changuion, Antoine Nicolas Ernest. 1848. De Nederduitsche Taal in Zuid-Afrika Hersteld, 2nd edn. Rotterdam: J. van der Vliet. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.



References  Clements, J. Clancy. An amorphous morphological account of the reduplication processes in three Asian-Portuguese Creoles. In Twice as Meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and Other Contact Languages [Westminster Creolistics Series 8], Silvia Kouwenberg (ed.), 193–202. London: Battlebridge. Coetzee, Anna E. 1985. Fonetiek, 3rd, revised edn. Pretoria: Academica. Collins, James T. 1980. Ambonese Malay and Creolization Theory. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. Collins, James T. (ed.). 1983a. Studies in Malay Dialects, Part 2 [NUSA, Linguistic studies of Indonesian and other languages of Indonesia 17]. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA, Universitas Atma Jaya. Collins, James T. 1983b. Syntactic change in Ambonese Malay. The possessive construction. In Collins 1983a: 28–41. Combrink, Johannes Gert Hendrik. 1978. Afrikaans: Its origin and development. In Language and Communication Studies in South Africa, Leonard Walter Lanham & Karel P. Prinsloo (eds), 69–95. Cape Town: OUP. Conradie, Charl. 2001. Hond se gedagte en nog ’n paar ingewings oor se. In Taallandskap. Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg, Adelia Carstens & Heinrich Grebe (eds), 30–40. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Dalgado, Sebastião Rodolfo. 1998a [1900]. Dialecto Indo-Português de Ceilão. Introduction by Ian Smith. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses. Dalgado, Sebastião Rodolfo. 1998b. Estudos sobre os Crioulos Indo-Portugueses. Introduction by Maria Tomás. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses. Dapper, Olfert. 1933 [1668]. Kaffrarie of Lant der Kaffers, Anders Hottentotten Genaemt. Reprinted from Naukeurige Beschrijvinge der Afrikaensche Gewesten [...]. Amsterdam: Jacob van Meurs. In The Early Cape Hottentots [...], Isaac Schapera (ed.), 1–77. Davids, Achmat. 1987. The role of Afrikaans in the history of the Cape Muslim community. In du Plessis & du Plessis 1987: 37–59. Davids, Achmat. 1990. Words the Cape slaves made: A socio-historical-linguistic study. South African Journal of Linguistics/Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde 8(1): 1–24. Davids, Achmat. 2011. The Afrikaans of the Cape Muslims, ed. by Hein Willemse & Suleiman E. Dangor. Pretoria: Protea. DeGraff, Michel. 2002. Relexification: A reevaluation. Anthropological Linguistics 44: 321–414. Derrida, Jacques. 1996. Archive fever: A Freudian impression. Diacritics 25: 9–63. Deumert, Ana. 1999. Variation and Standardisation – The Case of Afrikaans. PhD dissertation, University of Cape Town. Deumert, Ana. 2004. Language Standardization and Language Change. The Dynamics of Cape Dutch [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dez, Jacques. 1980. La syntaxe du malgache, 2 Vols. Lille: Atelier Reproduction des Thèses, Université de Lille III; Paris: Diffusion Librairie Honoré Champion. Dijkhoff, M.B. 1983. The process of pluralization in Papiamentu. In Studies in Caribbean Language, Lawrence D. Carrington, Dennis R. Craig & Ramon Todd-Dandaré (eds), 217–229. St. Augustine, Trinidad: Society for Caribbean Linguistics. Donaldson, Bruce C. 1984. Dutch Reference Grammar. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

 Roots of Afrikaans Donaldson, Bruce. 1986. The second person pronouns in Germanic languages – A comparative diachronic study with special reference to Dutch and Afrikaans. SA Journal of Linguistics/ SA Tydskrif vir Taalkunde 4(3): 1–12. Donaldson, Bruce. 1993. A Grammar of Afrikaans [Mouton Grammar Library 8]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ebert, Karen Heide. 1971. Referenz, Sprechsituationen und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fehring). Bredtstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut. Studien und Materialien veröffentlicht im Nordfriisk Instituut 4. Diss. Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Elffers, Hubertus. 1914. The Englishman’s Guide to the Speedy and Easy Acquirement of Cape Dutch (Grammar, Useful Information, Conversation). For the Use of Travellers, Settlers, and Military Men. Kaapstad: Juta. Elphick, Richard. 1977. Kraal and Castle. Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa [Yale Historical Publications, Miscellany, 116]. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Elphick, Richard. 1985. Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa, 2nd edn. Johannesburg: Raven Press. (1st ed. 1977. New Haven CT: Yale University Press). Elphick, Richard & Giliomee, Hermann (eds). 1989. The Shaping of South African Society, 1652– 1840. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Engelbrecht, Jan Anthonie. 1928. Studies oor Korannataal [Annale van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch VI, B, 2]. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch. Engelbrecht, Jan Anthonie. 1936. The Korana. An Account of Their Customs and Their History. With Texts. Cape Town: Maskew Miller. Evers, Arnold. 1975. The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. PhD dissertation of Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. (Reproduced by IULC). Feinauer, Ilse. 1998. Afrikaans tipologies ‘n tipiese SVX-taal. In Sintaksis op die Voorgrond. Vir die Dertigjarige Herdenking van Fritz Ponelis se Grondtrekke van die Afrikaanse Sintaksis, Rufus Gouws & Ilse Feinauer (eds), 78–88. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Ferraz, Luiz Ivens. 1976. The origin and development of four creoles in the Gulf of Guinea. African Studies 35: 33–38. Ferraz, Luiz Ivens. 1979. The Creole of São Tomé. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press Ferraz, Luis Ivens. 1984. The substrate in Annobonese. African Studies 43: 119–136. Fischer, Arnold, Weiss, Elisabeth, Mdala, Ernest & Tshabe, Somwabo. 1985. English – Xhosa dictionary. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. de Flacourt, Étienne. 1658. Chap. XXV: Langage des Sauvages de la Baye de Saldaigne an [sic: au] Cap de Bonne Esperance. In Dictionnaire de la langue de Madagascar: auec vn petit recueil des noms & dictions propres des choses qui sont d’vne mesme espece: plus quelques mots du langage des sauuages de la Baye de Saldagne au Cap de Bonne Esperance [...]. Paris: Georges Iosse. Fokker, Abraham Anthony. 1950. Beknopte Grammatica van de Bahasa Indonesia, 4th edn. Groningen: Wolters. Franken, Johan Lambertus Machiel. 1953. Taalhistoriese Bydraes. Kaapstad: A.A. Balkema. Gair, James W. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York NY: Basic Books. Gilbert, Glenn & Makhudu, Dennis. 1984. Ian Hancock’s 50 sentences (for comparative Study of the English-Based Atlantic Creoles) Translated into Standard European Afrikaans (SEA), Coloured Afrikaans (CA), and Fly-Taal (FT). Informant: Dennis Makhudu. Transcriber: Glenn Gilbert. Ms.



References  Gilbert, Glenn G. & Makhudu, Dennis. 1987. Le continuum créole en ‘afrikaans’: Une perspective non-eurocentrique. Études Créoles 10(2): 15–24. Godée Molsbergen, Everhardus Cornelis. 1916. Reizen in Zuid-Afrika in de Hollandse tijd. (The two first volumes), Vol. 1: Tochten naar het Noorden: 1652–1686. – Vol. 2: Tochten naar het Noorden: 1686–1806 [Linschoten Vereeniging, 11]. The Hague: Nijhoff. Goemans. L. 1897. Het dialect van Leuven. Eene phonetisch-historische studie. Leuvensche Bijdragen 2: 1–186, 219–324. Good, Anne. 2006. The construction of an authoritative text: Peter Kolb’s description of the Khoikhoi at the Cape of Good Hope in the eighteenth century. Journal of Early Modern History 10: 61–94. Gordon, Robert Jacob. 1779–1780. Particularités relatives à quelques hordes Hottentottes (ms.). [=] Gordon’s notes on the Khoikhoi/Gordons aantekeningen betreffende de Khoikhoi. In Smith & Pheiffer: 1992, 10–45. Green, Katherine. 1997. Non-standard Dominican Spanish: Evidence of Partial Restructuring. PhD dissertation, City University of New York. (Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms International). Greenberg, Joseph Harold. 1966. Some universals of language with particular reference to the order of elements. In Universals of Language: Report of a Conference Held at Dobbs Ferry, NY, 13–15 April, 1961, 2nd edn., Joseph Harold Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Greenblatt, S. 1991. Marvellous Possessions. The Wonder of the New World. Oxford: Clarendon. Grimes, Barbara Dix. 1991. The development and use of Ambonese Malay. In Papers in Austronesian Linguistics 1 [Pacific Linguistics, A81], Hein Steinhauer (ed.), 83–123. Canberra: Australian National University. Groenewald, Gerald. 2002. Slawe, Khoekhoen en Nederlandse Pidgins aan die Kaap, ca. 1590– 1720: ’n Kritiese Ondersoek na die Sosiohistoriese Grondslae van die Konvergensieteorie oor die Ontstaan van Afrikaans. MA thesis, University of Cape Town. Groenewald, Gerald. 2004. To Leibniz, from Dorha: A Khoi prayer in the republic of letters. Itinerario 27(1): 219–248. Grootaers, Ludovic. 1908–1911. Het Dialect van Tongeren. Eene phonetisch-historische studie, Vol I: Leuvensche Bijdragen 8 (1908–1909): 101–257, 267–353, Vol. II: Leuvensche Bijdragen 9 (1910–1911): 1–35, 121–181. Haacke, Wilfrid H. G. 1976. A Nama Grammar: The Noun-Phrase. MA thesis, Dept. of African Languages, University of Cape Town. Haacke, Wilfrid H. G. 1977. The so-called ‘personal pronoun’ in Nama. In Khoisan Linguistic Studies 3, Anthony Traill (ed.), 43–62. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Haacke, Wilfrid H. G. 1999. The Tonology of Khoekhoe (Nama/Damara) [Quellen zur KhoisanForschung 16]. Cologne: Köppe. Haarmann, Harald. 2000. Die großen Sprachensammlungen vom frühen 18. bis frühen 19. Jahrhundert. In History of the Language Sciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, Vol. 1, Sylvain Aroux, E.F. Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds), 1081–1094. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. de Haas, Wim & Trommelen, Mieke. 1993. Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands: Een Overzicht van de Woordvorming. The Hague: SDU. Hagman, Roy S. 1973. Nama-Hottentot Grammar. PhD dissertation, Columbia University (reproduced by University Microfilms International, 1979).

 Roots of Afrikaans Hagman, Roy S. 1977. Nama Hottentot Grammar. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Hall, Robert A. 1983. Review of Ingvild Broch und Ernst Håkon Jahr. Russenorsk: Et pidginspråk i Norge. 1981. Oslo: Novus. Language 59: 668–670. Hancock, Ian F. 1969. The Malacca Creoles and their language. Afrasia 3: 38–45. Hancock, Ian F. 1975. Malacca Creole Portuguese: Asian, African, or European? Anthropological Linguistics 17: 211–236. Harris, V. 2002. The archival sliver: Power, memory, and archives in South Africa. Archival Science 2: 63–86. Harris, V. 2009. Against the grain: Psychologies and politics of secrecy. Archival Science 9: 133–142. Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York NY: Academic Press. van Helten, Willem Lodewijk. 1881. Vondel’s Taal. Een Proeve van Onderzoek naar de Grammatica van het Nederlandsch der Zeventiende Eeuw, Vol. 1: Vormleer; Vol. 2: Syntaxis. Rotterdam: Otto Petri. Hemmy, Gysbert. 1959 [1767]. Oratio Latina de Promontorio Bonae Spei. in Schola Hamburgensi D X Aprilis MDCCLXVII publice reciatta. Hamburg: D. Harmsen. Facs. edn. in De Promontorio Bonae Spei. The Cape of Good Hope. A Latin Oration ... by Gysbert Hemmy, Kenneth White (ed.). Cape Town: South African Library. Hesse, Elias 1688. Ost-Indische Reise-Beschreibung, oder Diarium, was bey der Reise des Churfürstl. Sächs. Raths und Berg-Commissarii D. Benjamin Olitzschens, im Jahr 1680 von Dreßden aus biß in Asiam auff die Insul Sumatra Denckwürdiges vorgegangen. Dresden: Michael Günther. Hesseling, D.C. 1897. Het Hollandsch in Zuid Afrika. De Gids 61: 138–62; reprinted as “Dutch in South Africa” in On the Origin and Formation of Creoles: A Miscellany of Articles, edited and translated by Thomas L. Markey & Paul T. Roberge. Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1979. Hesseling, Dirk Christiaan. 1899. Het Afrikaansch. Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Taal in Zuid-Afrika. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Hesseling, Dirk Christiaan. 1905. Het Negerhollands der Deense Antillen. Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Nederlandse taal in Amerika. Leiden: Sijthoff. Hesseling, Dirk Christiaan. 1916. Africana II: De Taalkundige Opmerkingen van O.F. Mentzel. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal- en Letterkunde 35: 275–288. Hesseling, Dirk Christiaan. 1923. Het Afrikaans. Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Nederlandse Taal in Zuid-Afrika. 2nd revised and expanded edn. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Heusler, Andreas. 1967. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. 7th, unaltered edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Holm, John. 1991. The Atlantic Creoles and the language of the ex-slave recordings. The Emergence of Black English: Text and Commentary [Creole Language Library 8], Guy. Bailey, Natalie Maynor & Patricia Cukor-Avila (eds), 231–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holm, John. 1992. Popular Brazilian Portuguese: A semi-creole. Actas do colóquio sobre crioulos de base lexical portuguesa, Ernesto d’Andrade and A. Kihm (eds), 37–66. Lisbon: Colibrí. Holm, John. 1988–1989. Pidgins and Creoles, 2 Vols. Cambridge: CUP. Holm, John. 2000. An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: CUP. Holm, John. 2004. Languages in Contact: The Partial Restructuring of Vernaculars. Cambridge: CUP. Holm, John. 2008. Creolization and the fate of inflections. In Aspects of Language Contact, Thomas Stolz, Dik Bakker & Rosa Salas Palomo (eds), 299–324. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



References  Holm, John, & Intumbo, Incanha. 2009. Quantifying superstrate and substrate influence. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 24: 218–274. Holm, John, & Vieira Machado, Patrícia. 2011. ‘Copula deletion’ in restructured Portuguese. Revista de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola Holm, John & Swolkien, Dominika. 2006. A expansão do crioulo cabo-verdiano para São Vicente: Factores sócio-históricos na diffusão. In Cabo Verde: Origens da sua sociedade e do seu crioulo, Jürgen Lang, John Holm, Jean-Louis Rougé & Maria João Soares (eds), 199–220. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Hondius, Jodocus. 1652. Klare besgryving van Cabo de Bona Espreranca [sic] [...] Amsterdam: Jodocus Hondius. In Klare Besgryving van Cabo de Bona Esperança, Facsimile of the Text Compiled by Jodocus Hondius [...], 1–33. Cape Town: Book Exhibition Comnmittee Van Riebeeck festival. Honken, Henry. 1977. Submerged Features in Proto-Khoisan. In Khoisan Linguistic Studies 3, Anthony Traill (ed.), 145–169. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Hoogenhout, Nicolaas Marais. 1904. Praktisches Lehrbuch der kapholländischen Sprache (Burensprache): Sprachlehre, Gespräche, Lesestücke und Wörterbuch. Vienna: Hartleben. Hussainmiya, B. A. 1987. Lost Cousins. The Malays of Sri Lanka. Bangi, Selangor: Institut Bahasa, Kesusasteraan dan Kebudayaan Melayu, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Huttar, Mary L. 2007. Ndyuka (Creole English). In Comparative Creole Syntax, John Holm & Peter Patrick (eds), 217–236. London: Battlebridge. Huybregts, Riny. 1997. [Talk on Nama syntax.] TIN-dag [Linguistics in the Netherlands 28] January 18, 1997. University of Utrecht. van Huyssteen, Gerhard B. 2000. Die Reduplikasiekonstruksie in Afrikaans: Enkele Aspekte van +n Kognitiewe Gebruiksgebaseerde Beskrywingsmodel vir Afrikaans. PhD dissertation, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education. Iggers, Georg G. 2011. The Theory and Practice of History. London: Routledge. een ingesete van Stellebos. 1831. [fictitious letter to the editor of De Zuid-Afrikaan] In Nienaber 1971: 54. [IPA] 1949. The Principles of the International Phonetic Association, being a Description of the International Phonetic Alphabet and the Manner of Using it, Illustrated by Texts in 51 Languages. London: International Phometic Association (reprint 1978). Ivens Ferraz, Luiz. 1979. The Creole of São Tomé. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. van Jaarsveld, G.J., Jenkinson, A.G. & de Wet, A.S. 2001. Die intertaalteorie en taalverskeidenheid. In Taallandskap. Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Remsburg, A. Carstens & H. Grebe (eds), 148–156. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Jackson, Kenneth David. 1990. Sing Without Shame: Oral Traditions in Indo-Portuguese Creole Verse. With Transcriptions and Analysis of a Nineteenth-Century Manuscript of Ceylon Portuguese [Creole Language Library 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins & Macau: Instituto Cultural de Macau. Jacobs, J.F. 1942. Die Grikwas en hul bure. Bloemfontein: Nasionale Pers. Janssen, Leendert & Proot, Matthijs. 1649. Remonstrantie (ms.) (quoted via Nienaber 1963). Jensen, Peter. 1925. Die nordfriesische Sprache der Wiedingharde. PhD dissertation, University Hamburg. Halle: Buchdrückerei des Waisenhauses. Jensen, Peter. 1927. Wörterbuch der nordfriesischen Sprache der Wiedingharde. Neumünster: Wachholtz.

 Roots of Afrikaans Jeroslow, Helen [McKinney]. 1974. Rural Cearense Portuguese: A Study of one Variety of Nonstandard Brazilian Portuguese. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Juncker, C. 1710. Commentarius de vita scriptisque ac meritis illustris viri Jobi Ludolfii [...] In appendice adiectaesunt tum epistolae aliquot clarorum virorum, tum etiam specimen linguae Hottentotticae, nunquam alias ad notitiam Germanorum perlatae. Leipzig: Johann Friedrich Braun. Karisoh Najoan, J. A., Liwoso, M. A., Djojosuroto, K. & Kembuan, L. 1981. Morfologi dan Sintaksis Bahasa Melayu Manado. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Karsten, Gert. 1931. Het Dialect van Drechterland, Vol. 1. Purmerend: Muuses. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kempen, W. 1969. Samestelling, Afleiding en Woordsoortelike Meerfunksionaliteit in Afrikaans. Goodwood (Bloemfontein?): Nasou. Kennelly, Brian G. 2005. Beauty in Bastardy? Breytenbach on Afrikaans and the Afrikaners. Portal Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies 2: 1–20. Kihm, Alain. 1994. Kriyol Syntax: The Portuguese-based Creole Language of Guinea-Bissau [Creole Language Library 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL 1981, The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds), 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Kloeke, Gesinus Gerhardus. 1950. Herkomst en Groei van het Afrikaans. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden. Köhler, Oswin. 1962. Studien zum Genussystem und Verbalbau der zentralen Khoisan-Sprachen. Anthropos 57: 529–546. Kolb, Peter. 1719. Caput Bonae Spei Hodiernum, das ist vollständige Beschreibung des Africanischen Vorgebürges der Guten Hofnung [...]. Nürnberg: Peter Conrad Monath. Kolb, Peter. 1727. Naaukeurige en Uitvoerige Beschryving van De Kaap de Goede Hoop [...]waar by nog Komt, een Zeer Nette en uit Eige Ondervinding Opgemaakte Beschryving van den Oorsprong der Hottentotten [...], 2 vols. Amsterdam: Balthasar Lakeman. Koolhoff, Sirtjo & Ross, Robert. 2005. Upas, September and the Bugis at the Cape of Good Hope. The context of a slave’s letter. Archipel 70: 281–308. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs. From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1: 111–136. Kotzé, E. 1984. Afrikaans in die Maleierbuurt: ’n diachroniese perspektief. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 24: 41–73. Krönlein, Johann Georg & Rust, Friedrich. 1969. Nama Wörterbuch (Krönlein redivivus). Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press. ter Laan, Kornelis. 1952. Nieuw Groninger Woordenboek. Groningen: Noordhoff. Lafeber, Anton Pieter Maarten. 1967. Het Dialect van Gouda. Met Medewerking van L.B. Korstanje. Gouda: Oudheidkundige kring ‘Die Goude’. Landwehr John. 1991. VOC: A Bibliography of Publications Relating to the Dutch East India Company, 1602 – 1800, ed. by P. van der Krogt. Utrecht: HES. Lang, Jürgen (ed.). 2002. Dicionário do Crioulo da Ilha de Santiago (Cabo Verde)/Wörterbuch des Kriols der Insel Santiago (Kapverde). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.



References  van Langendonck, Willy. 1995. De funktie van relativa in een Zuidbrabants dialekt. In Lingua Theodisca. Beiträge zur Sprach- und Literatur-wissenschaft. Jan Goossens zum 65. Geburtstag, 2 Vols. [Niederlande-Studien 16], José Cajot, Ludger Kremer & Hermann Niebaum (eds), 433–440. Münster: Lit. Langenhoven, Cornelis Jakobus. c1910. The Royal Road to Cape Dutch, 2 Vols. Oudtshoorn: J. & H. Pocock. Langenhoven, Cornelis Jakobus. 1926. A first guide to Afrikaans. Kaapstad: Nasionale Pers. Langhanß, Christoph. 1715. Neue Ost-Indische Reise ... Leipzig: Michael Rohrlachs seel. Wittib und Erben. Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar. The Case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: CUP. Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen; Theorie seiner Funktionen; Kompendium seiner Grammatik [Language Universals Series 3]. Tübingen: Narr. Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm. 1717. Collectanea etymologica, illustrationi linguarum, veteris Celticae, Germanicae, Gallicae, aliarumque inservientia. Cum praefatione Johannis Georgii Eccardi. Hannover: Nicolaus Foerster. Lichtenstein Hinrich. 1808. Bemerkungen über die Sprachen der südafricanischen wilden Völkerstämme nebst einem kleinen Wörterverzeichnisse aus den gebräuchlichsten Dialecten der Hottentotten und Kaffern. In Allgemeines Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik, vol. 1, Friedrich Justin Bertuch & Johann Severin Vater (eds), 259–331. Weimar: Verlag des Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs. Lichtenstein Hinrich. 1811–12 Reisen im südlichen Afrika in den Jahren 1803, 1804, 1805 und 1806, 2 Vols. Berlin: Salfeld. Links, Tony. 1989. So Praat ons Namakwalanders. Cape Town: Tafelberg. van Lint, J. W. & Malan, A. L. 1946. Juta’s Practical Afrikaans grammar for Teaching and SelfStudy, 11th edn. revised and expanded. Kaapstad: Juta. Lockwood, William Burley. 1965. An Informal History of the German Language, with chapters on Dutch and Afrikaans, Frisian and Yiddish. Cambridge: Heffer. Lockwood, William Burley. 1995. Lehrbuch der modernen jiddischen Sprache. Mit ausgewählten Lesestücken. Hamburg: Buske. van Loey, Adolphe. 1970. Schönfelds Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands. Klankleer, Vormleer, Woordvorming, 8th edn. Zutphen: Thieme. Lombard, Denys. 1977. Introduction à l’indonésien. 2nd, augmented edn. Guéret: S.E.C.M.I. Lorenzino, Gerardo. 1993. Algunos rasgos semicriollos en el español popular dominicano. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 9: 111–26. Louw, Jacobus Abraham & Jubase, J.B. 1978. Handboek van Xhosa. Johannesburg: Educum Uitgewers. Lowenstamm, Jean. 1977. Relative clauses in Yiddish: A case for movement. Linguistic Analysis 3: 197–216. Lucchesi, Dante. 2000. A variação na concordância de gênero em uma comunidade de fala afrobrasileira: Novos elementos sobre a formação do português popular do Brasil. PhD dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Luijks, Carla. 2001. The Realisation of Syntactic Principles in Nonstandard Afrikaans: The Correspondence of Jan Jonker Afrikaner (1820–1899). PhD dissertation, University of Cape Town.

 Roots of Afrikaans Magens, Joachim Melchior. 1770. Grammatica over det Creolske Sprog, som bruges paa de trende Danske Eilande, St. Croix, St. Thomas og St. Jans i America. Sammenskrevet og opsat af en paa St. Thomas Jndföd Mand. Copenhagen: Gerhard Giese Salikath. Maingard, Louis Ferdinand. 1962. Koranna Folktales. Grammar and Texts. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press. Makhudu, Dennis P. 1984. Is Afrikaans a Creole Language? MA thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. (Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms International). Malherbe, Daniel François. 1920. Afrikaanse Taalboek, Praktiese Wegwyser by die Vernaamste Moeilikhede in Verband met die Afrikaanse Grammatika. 3rd, improved edn. Bloemfontein: Nationale Pers. Marais-Hoogenhout 1904: see Hoogenhout 1904. Markey, Thomas L. 1982. Afrikaans: Creole or non-creole? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 49: 169–207. Masica, Colin P. 1993. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: CUP. McKinney, Helen. 1982. Serial verbs in a non-standard Brazilian dialect: possible creolization. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, New Orleans. van Meerhoff, P. 1661. [report of an expedition by land] In Bosman & Thom 1957: 478–491. Meinhof, Carl. 1930. Der Koranadialekt des Hottentottischen [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 12]. Berlin: Reimer & Hamburg: Boysen. Meister, G. 1692. Der orientalisch-indianische Kunst- und Lustgärtner .... Dresden: C. Hekel. Mello, Heliana Ribeiro de. 1997. Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese: Evidence of Partial Restructuring. PhD dissertation, City University of New York. (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International). Mentzel, Otto Friedrich. 1994 [1787]. Beschreibung des Vorgebirges der Guten Hoffnung, Vol. 2. Glogau: Chr.F. Günther. Translated by Marais, G. V. & Hoge, J. 1994. A Geographical and Topographical Description of the Cape of Good Hope, Part 3, H. J. Mandelbrote (ed.). Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. van der Merwe, Carel Petrus. 1945. `n Handleiding vir sekondêre Afrikaans-leerlinge en ander Belangstellendes, 5th edn. Cape Town: Nasionale Pers. van der Merwe, Carel Petrus & Kempen, Willem. 1952. Afrikaans as Eerste Taal vir Sts. VII en VIII, Vorms II en III. 2nd (3rd) edn. Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel. Mesthrie, Rajend. 2008. Pidgins/creoles and contact languages: An overview. In The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies, Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler (eds), 263–86. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. van Minde, Donald. 1997. Malayu Ambong: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax. Leiden: CNWS. MNW: Eelco Verwijs & Jacob Verdam. 1885–1941. Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek. 11 Vols., from Vol. 9 completed by F.A. Stoett... ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Moodie Donald. 1838 [1960]. The Record or, a Series of Official Papers Relative to the Condition and Treatment of the Native Tribes of South Africa. Cape Town (1838); reprinted Amsterdam. Cape Town: A.A. Balkema (1960). Mous, M. 2011. Language Under Control. Lecture given at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, 30 August 2011. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2000. Creolization is a social, not a structural, process. In Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages [Creole Language Library 22], Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh & Edgar W. Schneider (eds), 65–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



References 

Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete Category Fronting. A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Muller, W. 1655. [diary of an expedition by land]. In Bosman & Thom (eds) 1952: 416–421. Muysken, Pieter. Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, Arnold Highfield & Albert Valdman (eds), 52–78. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma. Muysken, Pieter. 1988. Media Lengua and linguistic theory. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33: 409–422. Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid & Schneider, Edgar W. (eds). 2000. Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages [Creole Language Library 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1933. Honderd jaar Hollands in Natal (tot 1928). Pretoria: De Bussy. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1953. Oor Afrikaans, 2nd Vol. Johannesburg: Afrikaanse-PersBoekhandel. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1953. ’N woord vooraf. In Taalhistoriese Bydraes, Johan Lambertus Machiel Franken (ed.). Cape Town: A.A. Balkema. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1955. Iets Naders oor die Ontkenning in Afrikaans. Herzog-Annale. Reprinted in 1965. Taalkundige Opstelle, Petrus Johannes Nienaber (ed.), 22–38. Cape Town: A. A. Balkema. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1959. ’n Taaleienaardigheid uit Hottentots. Tydskrif vir Volkskunde en Volkstaal (Nieuwe Reeks) 15(2): 1–8. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1960. ‘n Ou ongepubliseerde lys van Hottentot- en Xhosawoorde. African Studies 19: 157–169. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1963. Hottentots. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1964. Raakpunte met Hottentots. In Studierigtings in die Taalkunde, Hendrik Johannes Jan Mattays van der Merwe (ed.), 192–207. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus (ed.). 1971. Afrikaans in die Vroeër Jare. Johannesburg: Voortrekkerpers. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1989. Khoekhoense Stamname: ‘n Voorlopige Verkenning. Pretoria: Academica. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1991. Is die modale bywoord rêrig rêrig Afrikaans? Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 31: 128–140. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1994a. Khoekhoe en Afrikaans in gesprek. Met ‘n inleiding deur M. C. J. van Rensburg [Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde/South African Journal of Linguistics. Supplement, 21]. N.p.: Linguistic Society of Southern Africa. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus. 1994b. Pa-hulle is kreools. In Nienaber 1994a: 14–67. Nienaber, Gabriel Stefanus & Raper, Peter Edmund. 1977. Toponymica Hottentotica, 2 Vols [R.G.N. Naamkundereeks 6–7]. Pretoria: S.A. Naamkundesentrum. Odendal, François Frederik. 1963. Limitations of morphological processes. A note. Lingua 12: 220–225. de Oliveira, Márcia Santos Duarte & Holm, John. 2011. Estruturas-QU fronteadas e o ‘foco gramaticalmente controlado’: A participação de línguas africanas em línguas parcialmente e completamente reestrut uradas. Papia 21: 23–38. Olpp, Johannes. 1977. Nama-Grammatika, Soos Verwerk Deur H. J. Krüger. Windhoek: Die Inboorlingtaalburo van die Dept. van Bantoe-Onderwys, S.W.A. Oom Piet. c1910. Prakties Leerboek voor die Afrikaanse taal. Kaapstad: Juta.

 Roots of Afrikaans van Oordt, Johan F. 1909. Manual of Cape Dutch for the Use of English Students, 2nd, revised edn. of Phrases and Dialogues. Kaapstad: HAUM. van Oordt, Johan F. 1916. Afrikaans en Maleis-Portugees [Review of Bosman 1916]. Die Brandwag 1 October 1916: 142–149. van Oordt, Johan F. 1947. Die Kaapse Taalargief 1. Rondebosch: L.C. Van Oordt. Oosthuizen, Johan. 2000. Prepositions left and right in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 33: 67–90. van Oostrum, Omius & Kritzinger, Matthys Stefanus Benjamin. 1923. Afrikaanse spraakkuns. Pretoria: De Bussy & Kaapstad: HAUM. van Overbeke, Aernout. 1998 [1678]. Geestige en Vermaeckelijcke Reys-beschryving naer OostIndien. [seperate quire in van Overbeke’s Rym-wercken, publ. by J.C. ten Hoorn in Amsterdam] In Buyten Gaets. Twee Burleske Reisbrieven van Aernout van Overbeke, Marijke Barend-van Haeften & Arie Jan Gelderblom (eds), 41–88. Hilversum: Verloren. Overdiep, Gerrit Siebe. 1940. De Volkstaal van Katwijk aan Zee. Met medewerking van C. Varkevisser. Antwerpen: Standaard-Boekhandel. Overdiep, Gerrit Siebe. 1949. Stilistische Grammatica van het Moderne Nederlandsch, 2nd edn, Gustaaf Amandus van Es (ed.). Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. Paardekooper, Piet C. 1986. Het Afrikaans. Onze Taal 55(6): 74–75. Parkvall, Mikael. 2000. Reassessing the role of demographics in language restructuring. In Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages [Creole Language Library 22], Ingrid NeumannHolzschuh & Edgar W. Schneider (eds), 185–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Patrick, Peter L. 2007. Jamaican Patwa (Creole English). In Comparative Creole Syntax, John Holm & Peter Patrick, (eds), 127–152. London: Battlebridge. Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik, Vol. 4(4): Syntax (2nd Vol.). Halle a.S.: Verlag von Max Niemeyer. Pauwels, Jan L. 1958a. Het Dialect van Aarschot en Omstreken. Bouwstoffen en Studiën voor de Geschiedenis en de Lexicografie van het Nederlands 5: 1–2. Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek. Pauwels, Jan L. 1958b. De expletieve ontkenning nie(t) aan het einde van de zin in het Zuidnederlands en het Afrikaans. Appendix in Pauwels (1958a): 434–477. Pauwels, Jan. L. 1965. De volgorde van verbogen verbale vormen in het Nederlands. In Dietse Studies. Bundel Aangebied aan Prof. J. du P. Scholtz by Geleenheid van sy Vyf-en-sestigste Verjaardag 14 mei 1965, Ernst Lindenberg, Edith Raidt & J. A. Verhage (eds), 105–110. Cape Town: Academia. Penn, Nigel. 1997. Notes Towards a Re-Reading of Peter Kolb. Kronos 24. 41–45. Pesetsky, David. 1982. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island condition. The Linguistic Review 1: 297–344. Peters, P. 1938. De vormen en de verbuiging der pronomina in de Nederlandsche dialecten. Onze Taaltuin 7: 226–243. Pienaar, Eduard Christiaan. 1919. Taal en poësie van die Tweede Afrikaanse Taalbeweging. Pretoria: De Bussy & Kaapstad: HAUM. Pieters, Peter. 1911. Practische Indische Tolk (Djoeroe-båså Indijå), 6th rev. edn. Amsterdam: Van Holkema en Warendorf. du Plessis, Hans. 1984. Sintaktiese variasie in die Afrikaans van Griekwas. In van Rensburg 1984a (vol. 1, Part 2): 35–195. du Plessis, Hans & du Plessis, Theo. 1987. Afrikaans en Taalpolitiek: 15 Opstelle. Pretoria: HAUM.



References  Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1979. Afrikaanse Sintaksis. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1981. Taalkundekroniek. Tydskrif vir Gees­teswe­tenskappe 21: 246–260. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1984. Aspekte van die taalgebruik van Johanna Maria van Riebeeck. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 24: 237–255. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1985a. Geskeide R-konstruksies in Afrikaans. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde/South African Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 62–84. Ponelis. Friedrich Albert. 1985b. Setselskeiding in Afrikaans. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 25: 106–127. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1987. Die eenheid van die Afrikaanse taalgemeenskap. In du Plessis & du Plessis 1987: 3–15. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1987. Uit die geskiedenis van die Afrikaanse betreklike konstruksie. S.l. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde, Geleentheidsuitgawe 5. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1990. Historiese klankleer van Afrikaans [Annale van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch 1990/1]. Stellenbosch: Dept. Afrikaans en Nederlands, Universiteit van Stellenbosch. Ponelis, Friedrich Albert. 1993. The Development of Afrikaans [Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprachund Kulturwissenschaft/Duisburg Papers on Research in Language and Culture 18]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Porteman, Karel. 1986. Kaap De Goede Hoop. In Dietsche Warande en Belfort 131(1): 62–62. van der Post, Laurens. 1977. First Catch your Eland. A Taste of Africa. London: Hogarth Press. Potgieter, Dirk Jacobus. 1947. Nuwe Afrikaanse Grammatika. 6th rev. edn. Kaapstad: Juta. Potgieter, Dirk Jacobus & Geldenhuys, Albertus. 1930. Afrikaans for English-speaking Students, Vol. 1, 2nd edn. Kaapstad & Johannesburg: Juta. Potyka, F. 1990. Satzeinleitungen und -verbindungen im Xam (Südbuschmann). Probleme der Xam-Syntax. MA thesis, University of Cologne. Price, R. 1990. Alabi’s World. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Ladusaw, William A. 1986. Phonetic Symbol Guide. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Pütz, Martin & Dirven, René (eds.). 1989. Wheels within Wheels: Papers of the Duisburg Symposium on Pidgin and Creole Languages. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Rademeyer, J. 1938. Kleurling-Afrikaans. Die taal van die Griekwas en Rehoboth-Basters. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1976. Die herkoms van objekskonstruksies met vir. In 1875–1975. Studies in die Afrikaanse Taal. Uitgegee in Opdrag van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns by Geleentheid van die Inwyding van die Afrikaanse Taalmonument, F. J. R. Botha & A. D. de V. Cluver et al. (eds), 72–101. Johannesburg: Perskor. Reprinted in Raidt 1994: 116–147. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1980. Die Reduplikation im Afrikaans. In Akten des VI. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses Basel 1980 [Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik, Reihe A8], Vol. 2, Heinz Rupp & Hans-Gert Roloff (eds), 494–501. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1981. Oor die herkoms van die Afrikaanse reduplikasie. In Hulsels van Kristal. Bundel Aangebied aan Ernst van Heerden by Geleentheid van sy Vyf-en-sestigste Verjaardag op 20 Maart 1981, Abel J. Coetzee (ed.), 179–189. Kaapstad: Tafelberg. Reprinted in Raidt 1994: 148–160. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1983. Einführung in Geschichte und Struktur des Afrikaans. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

 Roots of Afrikaans Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1987. Kerkstryd of taalbeweging? Die Afrikaanse geskrifte van Jantje Eenvoudig (1864). Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 27: 328–340. Reprinted in Raidt 1994: 258–274. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1989. Die taal van ‘n ‘liberjale’ predikant. In Op die wyse van die taal. Feesbundel vir Prof. Merwe Scholtz, Rouston Gilfillan & Abraham de Vries (eds), 169–179. Kaapstad: Vlaeberg. Reprinted in Raidt 1994: 275–288. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1991 [1971]. Afrikaans en sy Europese Verlede, 3rd revised and expanded edn. Cape Town: Nasou. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1992. Taalvariasie in negentiende-eeuse Afrikaans. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 32: 240–256. Reprinted in Raidt 1994: 289–310. Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1994. Historiese Taalkunde: Studies oor die Geskiedenis van Afrikaans. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Rajaonarimanana, Narivelo. 1995a. Grammaire moderne de la langue malgache [Méthode de malgache 1]. Paris: L’Asiathèque. Rajaonarimanana, Narivelo. 1995b. Dictionnaire du malgache contemporain: Malgache-français, français-malgache. Paris: Karthala. Rajaonarimanana, Narivelo & Vérin, Pierre. 1997. Dictionnaire français-malgache. Paris: L’Asiathèque. Raven-Hart, Rowland (ed.). 1967. Before Van Riebeeck. Callers at South Africa from 1488 to 1652. Cape Town: Struik. Raven-Hart, Rowland (ed.). 1971. Cape Good Hope 1652 – 1702. The First Fifty Years of Dutch Colonisation as Seen by Callers. Translated with notes. Two vols. Cape Town: A. A. Balkema. Raum, Johannes W. 1997. Reflections on re-reading Peter Kolb with regard to the cultural heritage of the Khoisan. Kronos 24, 30–40. van Reenen, Pieter & Coetzee, Anna. 1996. Afrikaans, a daughter of Dutch. In The Origins and Development of Emigrant Languages: Proceedings from the Second Rasmus Rask Colloquium, Odense University, November 1994 [Rask supplement vol. 6; NOWELE supplement Vol. 17], Hans F. Nielsen & Lene Schøsler (eds), 71–101. Odense: Odense University Press. Rêgo, António da Silva. 1942. Dialecto português de Malaca: Apontamentos para o seu estudo. Lisbon: Agência Geral das Colónias. Reinecke, John. 1937. Marginal Languages: A Sociological Survey of the Creole Languages and Trade Jargons. PhD dissertation, Yale University. (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International). van Rensburg, Marthinus Christoffel Janse. 1983. Nie-standaardvorme, variasiepatrone en Afrikaans uit die vorige eeu. In Taalverskeidenheit. ’n Blik op die Spektrum van Taalvariasie in Afrikaans, G.N. Claassen & Marthinus Christoffel Janse van Rensburg (eds), 134–161. Pretoria: Academis. van Rensburg, Marthinus Christoffel Janse. 1984a. Finale Verslag van ‘n Ondersoek na “Die Afrikaans van die Griekwas van die tagtigerjare” Onderneem met Finansiële Steun van die RGN, Uitgevoer aan die Universiteit van die Oranje-Vrystaat, 2 parts (in 5 Vols). Bloemfontein: University of the Orange Free State. van Rensburg, Marthinus Christoffel Janse. 1984b. Aspekte van die klankleer van die Afrikaans van die Griekwas. In van Rensburg 1984a: 272–362. van Rensburg, Marthinus Christoffel Janse (ed.). 1989. ‘n Verkenning van Afrikaans: Gister. 3rd edn. Bloemfontein: Patmos. van Rensburg, Marthinus Christoffel Janse. 1998. Is Koi-invloed op Afrikaans werklik Koi-invloed? In Afrikaans en variëteiten van het Nederlands, Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, Fritz



References  Ponelis & Pieter van Reenen (eds). Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. 1996. Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9: 128–145. (actual date of publication: January 1998). van Rensburg, Marthinus Christoffel Janse & Combrink, Johannes Gert Hendrik. 1984. Transvaalse Afrikaans. In Inleiding tot die Afrikaanse Taalkunde, Theunis Jacobus Roodt Botha, Johannes Gert Hendrik Combrink & François Frederik Odendal (eds), 107–133. Pretoria: Academica. Rhenius, J. 1947 [1724]. Dagh Register gehouden op de togt naar de Amaquas Hottentots [...] onder directie van den Vaandrijck J. T. Rhenius in den Jaare 1724. In The Journals of Brink and Rhenius, E. Mossop (ed.), 122–153. Cape Town: VRS. ten Rhyne, Willem. 1933 [1686]. Schediasma de Promontorio Bonae Spei; ejusve tractus incolis Hottentottis. Corrected and briefly annotated by Henr. Screta S. a Zavorziz. Schaffhausen: Joh. Mart. Oswald. – with a translation and a foreword by B. Farrington. In Schapera (ed.) 1993: 78–153. Rickford, John R. 1999. African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. Oxford: Blackwell. van Riebeeck, Jan. 1652–1662. Daghregister gehouden by den oppercoopman Jan Anthonisz van Riebeeck. In Bosman & Thom 1952–1957. (Treated as a sequence of eleven manuscripts). van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1975. A case for a trace: Preposition stranding in Züritüütsch. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972–1973, Albert Kraak (red.), 194–200. Assen: Van Gorcum. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. (Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press). van Rijn, Cornelis Johannes. 1914. Het Zeer Nauwe Verband tussen het Afrikaans en het Nederlands. Kaapstad: Van Rijns boeken. Robbers, Karin B.M. 1997. Non-finite Verbal Complements in Afrikaans: A Comparative Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. (HIL dissertations 33. The Hague: HAG). Roberge, Paul T. 1994a. On the origins of the Afrikaans verbal hendiadys. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 28: 45–81. Roberge, Paul T. 1990. The ideological profile of Afrikaans historical linguistics. In Ideologies of Language, John Earl Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor (eds), 131–152. London: Routledge. Roberge, Paul T. 1994b. The Formation of Afrikaans [SPIL PLUS 23, rev. edn. of SPIL 27 (1993)]. Roberge, Paul T. 1994c. On detecting a prior linguistic continuum in Cape Dutch. In Nuwe Perspektiewe op die Geskiedenis van Afrikaans, Opgedra aan Edith H. Raidt, Gerrit Olivier & A. Coetzee (eds), 153–165. Halfweghuis: Southern. van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal, M. C. 1929. Het Maleisch in den dagelijkschen omgang. Een korte handleiding bevattende ..., 2nd edn, expanded. Zutphen: Thieme. le Roux, Jacobus Johannes. 1921. Handleiding in het Afrikaans voor Nederlanders. Amsterdam: Van Looy. le Roux, Jacobus Johannes. 1923. Oor die Afrikaanse Sintaksis, I: Woordgroepe en Volsin. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. (Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger). le Roux, Jacobus Johannes. 1947. Die bou van die Afrikaanse taal. In Kultuurgeskiedenis van die Afrikaner. Die Eerste Beskrywing van die Boere-volkslewe in al sy Vertakkinge, 3 Vols, Vol. II, Christiaan Maurits van den Heever & Pierre de Villiers Pienaar (eds), 40–72. Cape Town: Nasionale Pers Bpk.

 Roots of Afrikaans le Roux, Thomas Hugo (ed.). 1977. Die Dagboek van Louis Trigardt. Uitgegee met Inleiding, Aantekeninge en Glossarium, 3rd edn. Pretoria: Van Schaik. le Roux, Thomas Hugo & Pienaar, Pierre de Villiers. 1927. Afrikaanse fonetiek. Cape Town: Juta. le Roux, Thomas Hugo & Pienaar, Pierre de Villiers. 1976. Uitspraakwoordeboek van Afrikaans, 5th edn. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Russ, Charles V. J. 1990. The Dialects of Modern German. A Linguistic Survey. Londen: Routledge. Rust, Friedrich. 1960. Deutsch-Nama Wörterbuch. Windhoek: Rheinische Mission in Südwestafrika. Rust, Friedrich. 1965. Praktische Namagrammatik. Auf Grund der Namagrammatiken von H. Vedder und J. Olpp [Communications from the School of African Studies, University of Cape Town 31]. Cape Town: A.A. Balkema. de Ruyter, C. 1998. The Malay language at the Cape of Good Hope. (First draft, ms). Schapera, Isaac (ed.). 1933. The Early Cape Hottentots, Described in the Writings of Olfert Dapper (1668), Willem ten Rhyne (1686) and Johannes Gulielmus de Grevenbroek (1695). The Original Texts, with Translations into English by I. Schapera and B. Farrington. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. Schmidt-Petersen, J. 1912. Wörterbuch und Sprachlehre der Nordfriesischen Sprache nach der Mundart vom Föhr und Amrum. Husum: Petersen. Schoeman, Karel. 1997. Dogter van Sion: Machtelt Smit en die 18de-eeuse Samelewing aan die Kaap, 1749–1799. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau. Schoeman, Karel. 2006. Kinders van die Kompanjie: Kaapse Lewens uit die Sewentiende Eeu. Pretoria: Protea Bookhuis. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1950. Oor die herkoms van Afrikaans. Die Huisgenoot juli-aug. 1950. Reprinted in Scholtz 1963: 232–256. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1954. Geskiedenis van die persoonlike en besitlike voornaamwoorde in Afrikaans. Tydskrif vir Wetenskap en Kuns [CHK] April 1954. Reprinted in Scholtz 1963: 91–110. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1958/1963. Die ontstaan van die Afrikaanse werkwoordelike vormstelsel. Tydskrif vir Wetenskap en Kuns (april 1958). Reprinted in Scholtz 1963: 9–51. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1958. Die ondergang van die nominale tweeklassesisteem in Afrikaans. Tydskrif vir Wetenskap en Kuns 18. Reprinted in Scholtz 1963: 122–145. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1963. Taalhistoriese Opstelle. Voorstudies tot ‘n Geskiedenis van Afrikaans. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1965. Afrikaans uit die Vroeë Tyd. Studies oor die Afrikaanse Taal en Literêre Volkskultuur van voor 1875. Kaapstad: Nasou. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1970. Verdwyning van genus-verskil in wordende Afrikaans. In Afrikaans-Hollands in die Agtiende Eeu. Verdere Voorstudies tot ‘n Geskiedenis van Afrikaans, J. du P. Scholtz (ed.), 35–43. Kaapstad: Nasou. Scholtz, J. du Plessis. 1972. Afrikaans-Hollands in die Agtiende Eeu. Cape Town: Nasou. Scholtz, Johannes du Plessis. 1980. Wording en Ontwikkeling van Afrikaans. Kaapstad: Tafelberg. Schönfeld, M. 1970. See van Loey 1970. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Review of N. Mansvelt. 1884. Proeve van een Kaapsch-Hollandsch Idioticon, etc. Stellenbosch: Schröder; Utrecht: van Huffel. Literaturblatt für germanische und romanische Philologie 6: 464–470. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1890. Kreolische Studien IX: Das Malaioportugiesische von Batavia und Tugu [Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 122]. Wien: Tempsky.



References  Schwegler, Armin. 1996. La doble negación dominicana y la génesis del español caribeño. Hispanic Linguistics 8: 247–315. Seidel, August. 1909. Praktische Grammatiken der Hauptsprachen Deutsch- Südwestafrikas. I Nama, II Otyiherero, III Oshindonga [Bibliothek der Sprachkunde 37], 2nd edn. Wien: A. Hartleben’s Verlag. Shell, Robert C.-H. 1994a. The tower of Babel: The slave trade and creolization at the Cape, 1652–1834. In Slavery in South Africa. Captive Labor on the Dutch Frontier, Elizeth A. Eldredge & Fred Morton (eds), 11–39. Boulder: Westview Press & Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press. Shell, Robert. C.-H. 1994b. Children of Bondage: A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape of Good Hope, 1652–1838. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. de Silva Jayasuriya, Shihan. Reduplication in Indo-Portuguese, Malayo-Portuguese and SinoPortuguese. In Twice as Meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and Other Contact Languages [Westminster Creolistics Series 8], Silvia Kouwenberg (ed.), 185–191. London: Battlebridge. Slomanson, Peter A. 2009. Convergent bootstrapping in syntactic reanalysis: A Malayo-Khoesan conspiracy in Afrikaans syntax? In Den Besten et al. (eds), 133–48. Smith, Andrew B. & Pheiffer, Roy H. (eds). 1992. Colonel Robert Jacob Gordon’s Notes on the Khoikhoi 1779–80 [Annals of the South African Cultural History Museum 5(1)]. Cape Town: South African Cultural History Museum. Smith, Ian R. 1979. Convergence in South Asia: A Creole example. Lingua 48: 193–222. Smuts Johannes. s.a. [= 1968?]. Vroeë Afrikaans, Veral na Aanleiding van Trigardt se Dagboek [Afrikaanse Taalmonografieë 4]. Kaapstad: Nasou Beperk. Snyman, Adriaan. 1995. Siener van Rensburg, Boodskapper van God. Mosselbaai: Libanon Uitgewers. (3e druk, 1996). Sparrman Anders. 1977. A Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope towards the Antarctic Circle round the World and to the Country of the Hottentots and the Caffres from the Year 1772–1776, V. S. Forbes (ed.), 2 vols. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. Spat, Claas. 1931. Maleische taal. Overzicht van de Grammatica, 5th compl. rev. edn. Breda: Koninklijke Militaire Academie. Spruijt, Maria Magdalena. 1993. Aspekte van die Naamwoordkonstruksie in Griekwa-Afrikaans. MA thesis, University of Zululand. van Staden, Miriam. 2000. Tidore: A Linguistic Description of a Language of the North Moluccas. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Steever, Sanford. B. 1998. The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge. Steinhauer, Hein. 1983. Notes on the Malay of Kupang (Timor). In Studies in Malay Dialects, Part 2 [NUSA, Linguistic studies of Indonesian and other languages of Indonesia 17], James T. Collins (ed.), 42–64. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA, Universitas Atma Jaya. Steyn, Jaap C. 1989. ‘n Paar aantekeninge oor Afrikaanse koerante se grammatiese probleme in die ‘owergangstydperk’ tot omstreeks 1917. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde/South African Journal of Linguistics 7: 20–29. Stoett, Frederik August. 1923. Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst, 3rd rev edn. ‘s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. Stoler, Ann Laura. 2002. Colonial Archives and the Art of Governance. Archival Science 2: 87–109. Stolz, Thomas. 1986. Gibt es das kreolische Sprachwandelmodell? Vergleichende Grammatik des Negerholländischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

 Roots of Afrikaans Stroop, Jan. 1970. Systeem in gesproken werkwoordsgroepen. Taal en Tongval 22: 128–147. Swanepoel, Petrus Hendrik. 1980. Wh-konstruksies in Afrikaans: ‘n Generatiewe Benadering. PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. Swellengrebel, H. 1935 [1777]. Journaal van een Reisje naar het Heeren-Logement’s gebergte en den mond der Olifantsrivier in ’t Noorden der Colonie. A. Hallema (ed.). Zuid-Afrika 12: 22–25. Taeldeman, Johan 1998. Enkele parallelle consonantische verschijnselen in het Afrikaans en in de Nederlandse dialecten. In Afrikaans en Variëteiten van het Nederlands, Hans den Besten, Jan Goossens, Fritz Ponelis & Pieter van Reenen (eds). Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. 1996. Taal en Tongval, Themanummer 9: 146–157. (actual date of publication: January 1998). Tahitu, Bert. 1989. Melaju Sini: Het Maleis van Molukse Jongeren in Nederland. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Tappe, David. 1704. Funffzehen Jährige Curiöse und denckwürdige auch sehr gefährliche Ost-Indianische Reisebeschreibung [...]. Hannover: Gottfried Freytag. (Partial translation in Raven-Hart 1971: 236–242). Taylor, Paul M. 1983. North Moluccan Malay: Notes on a “substandard” dialect of Indonesian. In Collins 1983a: 14–27. Teenstra, Marten Douwes. 1943 [1830]. De Vruchten Mijner Werkzaamheden, etc. First part [...] 1830. [...] Edited [...] by F.C.L. Bosman. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. Teeuw, Andries. 1996. Indonesisch-Nederlands Woordenboek. Met Medewerking van I. Supriyanto. 4th, revised and expanded edn. Leiden: KITL Uitgeverij. Terry, Edward. 1622. A Voyage to East India ... London. [quoted via Raven-Hart (1967)] Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. A typology of contact languages. The Structure and Status of Pidgins and Creoles [Creole Language Library 19], Arthur K. Spears & Donald Winford (eds), 71– 88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Thunberg, Carl Peter. 1986. Travels at the Cape of Good Hope 1772–1779, Vernon S. Forbes (ed.). Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. du Toit, Peter Jakob. 1905. Afrikaansche Studies. PhD dissertation, University of Ghent. (Ghent: Siffer). du Toit, Stefanus Jacobus. 1897. Fergelijkende Taalkunde fan Afrikaans en Engels/Comparative Grammar of English and Cape Dutch. Paarl: D. F. du Toit en Co. Quoted via the facsimile edition in du Toit (1980) du Toit, Stefanus Jacobus. 1980. Eerste Beginsels van die Afrikaanse Taal [1876] en Fergelijkende Taalkunde fan Afrikaans en Engels [1897] [Instituut vir Vroeë Afrikaans 2], facsimile edn, with an introduction by prof. J. E. Loubser. Cape Town: Tafelberg. Traill, Anthony. 1996. !Khwa-Ka Hhouiten Hhouiten, “The Rush of the Syrom”: The linguistic death of Xam. In Miscast. Negotiating the Presence of the Bushmen, Pippa Skotnes (ed.), 161–183. Cape Town: UCT Press. Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT. Trigardt, Louis. 1836–1838. Die dagboek van Louis Trigardt. In le Roux 1977. Valentyn, François. 1973 [1726]. Beschryvinge van de Kaap der Goede Hoope met de Zaaken daar toe Behoorende. Amsterdam 1726, Edith H. Raidt (ed.), English translation by Rowland Raven-Hart. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.



References  van der Valk, J.W. 1937. Handleiding voor zelfonderricht in de Maleische taal, 4th rev., W. Olthof (ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Valkhoff, Marius F. 1966. Studies in Portuguese and Creole. With Special Reference to South Africa. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Valkhoff, Marius F. 1971. Descriptive bibliography of the linguistics of Afrikaans: A survey of major works and authors. In Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa [Current Trends in Linguistics 7], Thomas Albert Sebeok, Jack Berry & Joseph H. Greenberg (eds), 455–500. The Hague: Mouton. Valkhoff, Marius F. 1972. New Light on Afrikaans and ‘Malayo-Portuguese’. Louvain: Éditions Peeters. van der Veen, Jasper Oene Sietse. 1905. Het Taaleigen van Bredero, eene Bijdrage tot de Syntaxis van het Nederlandsch der Zeventiende Eeuw. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Vedder, Heinrich. 1934. Das alte Südwestafrika. Südwestafrikas Geschichte bis zum Tode Maharero 1890. Berlin: Martin Warneck Verlag. Verdenius, A. A. 1941. Een onveranderlijk relatief DAT. De Nieuwe Taalgids 35: 108–116. de Villiers, Meyer & Ponelis, Fritz. 1987. Afrikaanse Klankleer, 4th edn, revised by F. A. Ponelis. Cape Town: Tafelberg. Voorhoeve, C. L. 1983. Some observations on North-Moluccan Malay. In Studies in Malay Dialects, Part 2 [NUSA, Linguistic studies of Indonesian and other languages of Indonesia 17], James T. Collins (ed.), 1–13. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA, Universitas Atma Jaya. Vos-De Jesus, Magali M. 1989. The multi-functional marker ‘nan’ in Papiamentu. In Homenahe na Raúl Römer [I[nstituto] L[ingwístiko] A[ntiano]], F. Martinus (ed.), 81–86. Willemstad, Nederlandse Antillen: Departement van Onderwijs. Voßen, Rainer. 1997. Die Khoe-Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprachgeschichte Afrikas. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. de Vreese, Willem. 1909. Over de benamingen onzer taal inzonderheid over Nederlandsch. In Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Konklijke Vlaamsche Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde: 417–592. de Waal, Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr. 1910. Africander Grammar. Cape Town: Cape Times. Waher, H. 1982. The position of the finite verb in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 8: 51–78. Waher, H. 1988. Eenders of anders? ‘n Vergelyking tussen die ontkenning in Afrikaans en AfroPortugees. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde/South African Journal of Linguistics 6(1): 109–127. WAT: Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. 1956-. Pretoria: Die Staatsdrukker. WAT: Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. Vol. 1-. 1950-. Pretoria: Die Staatsdrukker & Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT. Watuseke, Frans S. & Watuseke-Politton, W. B. 1981. Het Minahasa- of Manado-Maleis. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 137: 324–346. van Weel, Marinus Anthonij. 1904. Het Dialect van West-Voorne. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Weijnen, Antonius Angelus. 1966. Nederlandse Dialectkunde, 2nd edn. Assen: Van Gorcum. Weise, Oskar. 1917. Die Relativpronomina in den deutschen Mundarten. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 12: 64–71. Westermann, Diedrich. 1907. Grammatik der Ewe-Sprache. Berlin: Reimer. von Wielligh, Gideon Retief. 1922. Eerste Skrywers of Laaste Stem en Naklank uit die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners, 2nd revised edn. Pretoria: Van Schaik. (1st edn. 1918).

 Roots of Afrikaans von Wielligh, Gideon Retief. 1925. Ons Geselstaal. ‘n Oorsig van Gewestelike Spraak soos Afrikaans Gepraat Word. Met ‘n Inleiding van Prof. Johannes J. Smith. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Wikar, Hendrik Jakob. 1779. Berigt aan den Welee­delen Gestren­gen Heer Mr. Joachim van Plettenbergh. etc. In Godée Molsbergen 1916, Vol. 2. Wikar, Hendrik Jakob. 1935 [1779]. Berigt aan den Weleedelen Gestrengen Heer Mr. Joachim van Plettenberg ... In The Journal of Hendrik Jacob Wikar (1779) [...] and The Journals of Jacobus Coetsé Jansz: (1760) and Willem van Reenen (1791) [...]. E. E. Mossop (ed.), 20 – 201. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society. te Winkel, Jan. 1896. Het Nederlandsch in Noord Amerika en Zuid Afrika. Vragen van den Dag 11: 337–362, 418–442, 483–505. Wolf, Michaela. 1993. Hugo Schuchardt Nachlaß. Schlüssel zum Nachlaß des Linguisten und Romanisten Hugo Schuchardt (1842–1927). Graz: Leykam. WNT: de Vries, Matthias et al. (eds). 1882–1998. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. 29 vols. + 3 Vols. supplements. ‘s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff & ‘s-Gravenhage: Sdu. Wuras Carl Friedrich.1920 [1969]. Vokabular der Korana-Sprache, herausg. und mit krit. Anm. versehen von W. Bourquin. (Berlin – Hamburg: 1920; reprint Nendeln, Liechtenstein: 1969). Zwart, Cornelius Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax. A Minimalist Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. Zwart, Cornelius Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. van Zyl, David Hermanus. 1947. ’n Griekwa-“Ietsigeit” (Iets oor die Griekwas). Cape Town: Nasionale Pers.

Language index A African American English  399, 404, 405, 407, 415 Afrikaans passim Afro-Asian  392, 394 Ama-Xhosa see Xhosa Ambon Malay, Amboina Malay  17, 32, 213, 324–326, 328–331, 370–372 Annobonese, Annobón Creole Portuguese  243, 415 Arabic  290, 321, 324, 386 Asio-Portuguese  310, 311 Austronesian  32, 33, 213, 332, 372, 385 B Balanta  407, 411 Bambara  29 Bantu  29, 30, 165, 210, 227, 228, 265, 274, 293, 333, 353, 354 Bavarian  46, 47 Berbice Dutch  222 Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese  5, 399–417 Buginese  228, 274, 289, 290, 293, 300, 309, 321–323 Buru  12, 32 Bushman  96, 118, 265 C Cameroon Pidgin  118, 120 Capeverdean  401, 403, 417, 405, 406, 408, 416 Central Sudanic  229, 265 Chinese  118, 301, 310, 322, 352 D Danish  97, 125, 129, 231, 266 Dravidian  149, 153, 320, 373, 385 Dutch passim E East-Malay  356, 370–373

English  3, 10, 12, 13, 27, 37, 44, 45, 57, 58, 63, 85, 95–97, 103, 104, 106, 108, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 124, 134, 135, 137, 141, 146, 148, 155, 159, 162, 177, 195, 209, 224, 230–232, 234, 247, 249, 252, 265–267, 269, 277, 290, 299, 321, 339, 341, 351, 368, 391, 399, 401–405, 407, 409–415 Ewe  27, 29, 32, 206, 266, 268, 405

Griqua  73, 110, 148, 155, 156, 167, 229, 248, 274, 353, 411, see also Orange River Afrikaans Guyanese Creole English  415

F Flaaitaal, Fly-Taal  23, 103, 107 Flemish  45, 86, 87, 260 Fly-Taal see Flaaitaal Franconian  30, 46, Frisian  9, 12, 25, 27, 30, 43, 46, 52, 237, 286, 361

I Indo-Aryan  149, 153, 320, 373 Indo-European  385 Indo-Portuguese  3, 4, 18, 210, 215, 216, 289–311, 313, 316–320, 322, 326, 331, 332, 373, 401 Isi-Xhosa see Xhosa

G Ge’ez  340 Germanic  4, 11, 12, 30, 36, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 52, 59, 61, 62, 98, 102, 153, 158, 159, 172, 174, 183, 217, 222, 237–242, 251, 258, 263, 274, 280, 283, 286, 287, 387, 390, 393, 401, 406 German  2, 5, 9, 12, 46–48, 52, 70–72, 74, 79, 80, 85, 87, 88, 91–93, 95, 98, 100–102, 107–109, 111, 113, 124, 125, 128–130, 134, 136, 137, 141, 154–156, 162, 171, 175, 180, 185, 188, 211, 223, 227, 228, 232, 237, 238, 240, 248, 249, 255, 260, 263, 269–271, 273, 275, 278, 279, 283, 287, 292, 295, 297, 300, 305, 334, 340–343, 347, 349, 353, 354, 361, 362, 380, 382–384, 386, 390, 392, 395, 412 Greek  336–338

J Jamaican, Jamaican Creole English  402, 404 Javanese  306

H Haitian  29 Hollandic  13, 14, 25, 30, 31, 80, 81, 84, 86–88, 90, 92, 162, 185, 221, 226, 234, 240, 259–261, 270, 277, 284, 367, 397, Hottentot (Khoekhoe) passim

K Kannada  228 Khoekhoe-gowab  18, 31, 133, 136, 138, 141, 156, 170, 216, 335, 342, 346, 353 Khoekhoe, Khoekhoen passim Khoesan, Khoisan  96, 118–120, 155, 192, 229, 265, 333–335, 352–354, 380 Kora, Korana  18, 91, 101, 114, 116, 119, 120, 133, 136, 148, 155–158, 169, 181, 182, 186, 192, 216, 234, 244, 335, 346, 353, 354 Kupang Malay  32, 324–326, 372 M Malagasy  3, 210, 213, 214, 219, 228, 274, 300, 322, 369, 387

 Roots of Afrikaans Papia Kristang  214, 215, 309, 310, 319 Malayalam  300, 320, 322 Malay  2, 3, 7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 28, 31–33, 76, 98, 105, 107, 109, 120, 130, 155, 195, 206, 207, 209–216, 218, 219, 224–229, 232–234, 250, 269, 270, 273, 274, 278, 279, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289–297, 299–301, 304–307, 309–311, 313, 317, 320–332, 356, 368–373, 378, 385, 386, 390–392, 395, 411, 414 Malayo-Portuguese  4, 18, 107, 206, 207, 210, 214–216, 224, 225, 229, 250, 289–311, 313, 316–321, 332, 399, 411 Manado Malay  32, 310, 323–328, 331, 370, 372 Masbieker Afrikaans Pidgin  145, 146 Mongolian  344 N Nama  18, 31, 91, 97, 100, 112, 115, 118–120, 133, 136, 138, 141, 146, 155–158, 167, 169–183, 186, 187, 191, 192, 216–218, 230, 231, 234, 244, 246–249, 251, 252, 257, 277, 278, 327, 335, 342, 346, 351–353, 371, 403, 404, 411 Negerhollands  27–29, 210, 222, 273, 281, 392, 413, 415 Niger-Congo  385

O Orange River Afrikaans  26, 87, 91, 92, 97–99, 133, 154–157, 159–161, 166–169, 181, 187, 190–193, 217, 221, 228, 229, 233, 249, 250, 258, 268, 271, 274, 275, 281, 282, 285, 293, 386, 392, 403, 407, 411 P Papiamento, Papiamentu  27, 29, 281 Pasar Malay  7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 31, 76, 226, 228, 232, 234, 269, 270, 273, 274, 279, 282, 283, 287, 289, 292, 293, 300, 301, 309–311, 313, 317, 321, 322, 324, 327, 332, 392, Portuguese  2–5, 7, 16–18, 20, 22, 97, 98, 103, 105, 107, 109, 120, 121, 130, 140, 155, 158, 185, 187, 206, 207, 209, 210, 214–216, 218, 219, 224–230, 232–234, 237, 243, 245, 250, 254, 265, 269, 270, 273, 274, 278, 279, 282, 283, 285, 287, 289–311, 313, 316–322, 326, 328–332, 369, 370, 373, 378, 385, 390–392, 399–412, 414–417 Proto-Afrikaans  100, 109, 271, 272, 278, 279, 284, 304, Proto-Khoekhoe  277 S San  118, 228, see also Khosian São Tomense  243, 405

Seychellois Creole French  415 Singalese, Sinhala  228, 284, 293, 320 Skepi Dutch  222 Spanish  399 T Tamil  158, 228, 284, 300, 320, 322 Tidore  12 Tsonga  300, 322 Tsotsitaal  386 W West-Flemish  45 West-Germanic  4, 41–59, 237–242, 251, 274, 283, 287 X Xam  118 Xhosa  334, 340, 343, 344, 347, 352, 353, 354 Y Yiddish  2, 43, 46–48, 52, 258, 263, 274, 280 Yoruba  27, 29, 32 Z Zealandic  87, 261

Place index A Aarschot  44, 237, 238, 240–242 Amboina  370–372 Amrum  46 Amsterdam  1, 2, 5, 30, 334, 340, 343, 399 Angola  30, 317 B Barlavento  403, 406, 408 Batavia  17, 18, 214, 215, 295–297, 337, see also Jakarta Batticaloa  158, 308, 317 Bengal  301, 322 Betuwe  240, 368 Bleiswijk  368 Boland  15, 200, 205, 217, 358 Botswana  229, 265 Brabant  46, 240, 260, 368 Brazil  5, 399–417 C Cape Town, Kaapstad  2, 110, 232, 234, 246, 248, 270, 290, 295, 298, 302, 305, 306, 338, 347, 377, 380, 387, 403, 407 Caribbean  27, 29, 209, 222, 229, 273, 372, 399 Ceylon  17, 18, 210, 228, 245, 269, 270, 278, 284, 291, 317, 318, 320, 322, see also Sri Lanka Colmar  46, 48 Colombo  337 Cuba  399 D Delft  261 Deventer  338 Drenthe  9, 361 F Fehring  46 Flanders  46, 87 Friedersdorf  46

G Gelderland  368 Groningen  9, 239, 361 Guinea  30, 243, 302, 308, 405, 407, 411, 415 Guinea-Bissau  406 H Herrnhut  342, 343, 350 Hessen  46, 47 Holland  22, 30, 35, 79, 97, 107, 259–261, 295, 337, 338, 361, 366–368 I India  3, 98, 107, 149, 153, 210, 230, 232, 245, 267, 269, 270, 278, 284, 291, 295–298, 301, 303, 310, 313, 317, 320, 322, 331, 340, 369, 373, 389, 394 Indonesia  31, 33, 210, 212, 213, 218, 290, 301, 303, 306, 310, 313, 317, 319, 322, 332, 369, 370, 372, 373, 387 J Jakarta  213, 297, see also Batavia Java  310 Johannesburg  2, 353 K Kaapstad see Cape Town Kalahari  229 Kaulbach  46 L London  97, 135, 246, 265 M Madagascar  3, 30, 110, 210, 228, 234, 243, 269, 301, 303, 308, 317, 318, 322, 369 Malacca  210, 301, 317, 322, 332, 369

Malmesbury-Piketberg  26 Maluku  310 Manado  32, 310, 323–328, 331, 370, 372 Mangalore  18 Mauritius  298 Minahasa  310 Miskito  403, 411 Mozambique  30, 98, 136, 165, 210, 228, 234, 243, 269, 298, 300 301, 304, 317, 322, 369 N Namibia  110, 155, 221, 228, 230, 248, 265, 271, 293 Natal  30, 99, 210, 221, 274, 301, 317, 322, 369 O Orange River  97, 98, 156, 167, 221, 228–230, 271, 274, 293, 392 Oranje-Vrijstaat  57 S Singapore  310 Sri Lanka  98, 149, 153, 214, 278, 284, 291, 301, 303, 308–310, 313, 317, 320, 324, 325, 331, 369, 373, see also Ceylon Stellenbosch  1–3, 79, 136, 139, 149, 165, 186, 270, 377 T Timor  32, 325 Tongeren  46, 52 Transvaal  51, 57, 99, 221, 274 U Utrecht  81, 261, 367 Z Zürich  46, 48

Author index A Aarsleff  340 Adelaar  320, 323–325 Adhikari  386 Agha  382 Albach  136, 142, 148, 165, 167 Alewijn  295, 296 Almada see de Oliveira d’Almeida  230 Allsopp  27 Amaral  416 Ameka  27 Anthonissen  2 Antonissen  362, 363 Arnold  128, 151 Arondekar  379 Azevedo  402, 412 B Baddu  105 Badings  16, 17 Bakthin  382 Baptista  416 Basson  303 Bastert  136, 139, 140, 145 Baxter  215, 309, 310, 319, 320, 324, 327, 399 Beach  91 Beeckman  134 Behaghel  238 Bell  395 Bennis  5, 45 van Bergen  16 Bergerson  395 den Besten passim Beukema  5, 41, 356, Biberauer  1 Bickerton  272, 392, 415 Boeseken  337 Bolling  125–127, 129, 131, 144, 150 Boniface  56–58, 136, 139, 140, 378 Boonzaier  200, 205, 217 Booysen  363, 365 Borer  118 Boretzky  25, 29, 32, 95, 405

Boshoff  207, 291, 294, 307, 341 Bosman  9, 20, 53, 206, 207, 225, 226, 229, 289, 291, 294, 297, 299, 317, 339 Botha  2, 79, 195–197, 200–205, 207, 213, 363 Boucher  353 Bouman  195, 226, Bövingh  125–129, 132, 144, 146, 164, 167, 381, Bradlow  370 Bredero  10, 238, 239 Breyne  362, 363 Breytenbach  387 Brill  10, 361 Brothman  388 Buccini  356 Bucholtz  380 Burger  363 Burgers  57, 58, 410 Burke  385 Büttner  135, 336, 347, 350 C Campbell  157 van de Capelle  302–304, 319 Changuion  10, 210, 360 Chenut  343, 344 Chomsky  179, 181, 183, Clements  215 Coeree  246, 247, 265 Coetzee  2, 82, 88, 393, Collins  32, 325 Combrink  57, 195, 197, 207, 404 Conradie  9 Cooper  57, 58 Coridon  303, 305, 306, 319 D Dalgado  17, 18, 214 Dapper  128 Davids  289, 290, 307, 321–323, 386 DeGraff  133 Derrida  377, 386, 387

Deumert  5, 356, 377–388, 391, 396 Dez  213, 214 Dias  230, 265 Dijkhoff  27 Donaldson  9, 38, 39, 41, 42, 63, 64, 75, 159, 160, 165, 188, 189, 195, 201, 204, 286, 309, 314, 406–408, 410, 412, 414, 415 Doughty  388 Duminy  304, 378, 385 E Ebert  46, Elffers  363–365 Elphick  96, 106, 225, 229, 234, 249, 265, 269, 308, 317 Engelbrecht  91, 148, 156, 181, 216 van Engelenhoven  331 Evers  258 F Farrington  95, 112–114, 118, 162, 168, 232, 338 Feinauer  156 Ferraz  243, 405, 409 Fischer  344 de Flacourt  110, 111, 116, 117, 120, 138, 144, 246, 249, 266, 268, 350, 368 Fokker  211 Franken  69, 75, 95, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 126, 134, 140, 163, 187, 225, 227, 234, 235, 243, 245, 247, 249, 250, 253, 254, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274, 278, 282, 285, 289–291, 298, 300–307, 310, 317, 319, 321–324, 377, 378, 385–388, 403 G Gair  320 Geertz  379 Geldenhuys  363 Gilbert  23, 107, 110, 248, 281, 392

 Roots of Afrikaans Godée Molsbergen  22, 97, 98, 100, 112, 113, 116, 147, 162, 167, 168, 246, 277, 337, 338, 341, 342, 348–350 Goemans  45 Good  349, 380 Goossens  79, 86 Gordon  22, 145, 350, 352, 353 Grebe  69 Green  399 Greenberg  356 Greenblatt  379, 381 Grevenbroek  334–336, 340, 343–345, 347–350, 352, 353 Grey  110, 248 Grimes  12, 32, 372 Groenewald  340, 344, 346, 391, 394 Grootaers  46 H Haacke  18, 19, 31, 136, 157, 158, 195, 216–218, 221 Haarmann  340 de Haas  208, 209 Haegeman  45 Hagman  18, 31, 91, 114, 116, 136, 155–157, 170–181, 187, 191, 192, 217, 244, 251–253, 255, 266, 276, 277, 279, 285 Hahn  110, 112, 138, 161, 162, 248, 249 Hall  118, 380 Hancock  411 Harris  379, 388 Hawkins  156 van Helten  10, 360 Hemmy  21 Hendricks  15, 366 Hengeveld  5 Hesse  124, 295, 296, 298 Hesseling  25, 29, 30, 95, 103, 107, 108, 111, 206, 207, 215, 224, 225, 227–229, 243, 249, 250, 256, 269, 289–302, 305, 311, 316, 317, 399 Heusler  27 Holm  5, 25, 27, 29, 32, 106, 207, 291, 309, 316–318, 320, 323, 325, 395, 399–416 Hondius  128 Honken  119 Hoogenhout  10, 15, 362, 364 Hussainmiya  320, 325

Huttar  402 Huybregts  172, 173, 183 van Huyssteen  195 I Iggers  377 Intumbo  411 J van Jaarsveld  148 Jackson  308, 318 Jacobs  73, 134, 406 Jansen  363, 365 Janssen  135, 232, 287 Jeroslow  409, 415 Joubert  57 Juncker  334, 335, 338, 340–343, 348–350 K Karisoh Najoan  328 Karsten  238 Kayne  156, 179, 180 Kempen  25–28, 30, 31, 33, 195, 196, 199–201, 204, 205, 207–209, 211, 217, 218, 263, 281, 362, 363 Kennelly  388 Kihm  406 Kiparsky  202 Kloeke  87, 234, 259–261, 268, 355, 366–368, 389, 397 Köhler  119 Kok  136, 139, 140 Kolb, Kolbe  21, 22, 69–71, 74, 100, 104, 106, 107, 111, 114, 117, 124–130, 132, 134, 136, 139, 140, 142, 146, 147, 150, 151, 162, 163, 185, 186, 188, 235, 245–248, 250, 254, 277, 297, 298, 308, 334–336, 341, 347–350, 378–384 Koolhoff 387 Koopman  235 Koster  156 Kotzé  18, 155, 409 Kritzinger  363, 364 Krönlein  217 L ter Laan  238, 239 Ladusaw  80 Lafeber  53 Landwehr  337

Lang  408 van Langendonck  46 Langenhoven  39, 42, 52, 363 Langhanß  22, 71, 72, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 151 Lefebvre  133, 137 Lehmann  37, 43 Leibniz  157, 334, 335, 340, 344, 346, 350 Lichtenstein  167, 354 Links  12, 19, 28, 69, 73, 74, 87, 91, 167 van Lint  363, 365 Lockwood  46, 401, 407 Lombard  211 Lorenzino  399 Louw  56, 344, 357 Lowenstamm  46, 47 Lubbe  2 Lubbert  75, 105 Lucchesi  399, 408, 416 Ludolf  334, 335, 338, 340, 341, 344, 345, 348–350 Luijks  160, 167, 181, 195–219, 395 M Magens  27, 28 Maingard  136, 156, 181, 182 Makhudu  103, 107, 281, 392, 403, 407, 411 Malherbe  363 Markey  392 Masica  153, 320, 373 McKinney  403, 405 van Meerhoff  100, 101, 110, 116, 141, 246, 247 Meinhof  18, 136, 156, 181, 182, 192, 216 Meister  74, 125, 127, 129–131, 242, 381 Mello  399, 416 Mentzel  107, 108, 117, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 136, 146, 249, 255, 269, 270, 296, 299, 305 van der Merwe  362, 363 Mesthrie  153, 395 van der Meulen  296 Meurant  56–58 van Minde  17, 32, 212, 213, 323–325, 329, 331, 370 Moed-van Walraven  274 Moodie  337 Mous  384 Mufwene  396



Author index  Muller  21, 75, 135, 141, 149, 382 Müller  180 Muysken  1, 133, 137 N Neumann-Holzschuh  400 Nienaber  2, 25, 26, 30, 31, 69, 87, 95–97, 100–103, 106, 110–120, 123, 124, 126, 135, 138–140, 144, 151, 155–157, 165, 186, 195, 207, 216–218, 221, 222, 224–226, 228, 229, 231, 234, 237, 242–247, 249–251, 254, 256, 265–269, 273, 274, 294, 306, 307, 325, 335, 339–342, 345, 347–349, 351–353, 363, 372, 377, 387, 393, 404 O Oberholster  57 Odendal  263, 281 de Oliveira  414 Olpp  91, 136, 156, 170, 176–178, 180, 181, 187, 191, 192 van Oordt  207, 362, 385–387 Oosthuizen  1, 2, 158, 165 van Oostrum  363, 364 van Overbeke  69, 114, 125, 129, 131, 150 Overdiep  53, 239 P Paardekooper  389, 397 Parkvall  402 Patrick  402, 415 Paul  238 Pauwels  44, 46, 237, 240, 241, 260 Penn  380 Pesetsky  45 Peters  45, 46 Pienaar  58, 69, 79, 80, 82–84, 86, 88, 363 Pieters  16 du Plessis  2, 160, 190, 192 Ponelis  7, 9–12, 15, 16, 26, 30, 36–39, 41, 43, 49, 50, 53–55, 59, 62–64, 68, 76, 79–88, 90, 156, 159, 160, 165, 188, 189, 195, 198, 199, 202, 207, 254, 259, 261, 285, 291, 294, 300, 304, 307–309, 314, 316, 318, 324, 355, 366, 367, 393, 394 Porteman  106, 114

van der Post  234 Potgieter  363 Potyka  192 Price  386 Proot  135, 232, 267 Pullum  80 Q van Quaelbergen  125 R Rademeyer  19, 26–28, 68, 73, 74, 87, 91, 160, 161, 165, 167, 190, 192, 258, 268, 274, 281, 282, 403 Raidt  55, 57, 58, 79, 86, 87, 89, 90, 95, 98, 99, 187, 195, 207–209, 211, 212, 214, 215, 221, 223–227, 237, 240, 242, 243, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 262, 263, 272, 279, 280, 282, 289, 291, 302, 305, 306, 309, 310, 314, 316–319, 324, 355, 356, 366, 390, 393 Rajaonarimanana  213, 214 Ranke  377 Ransham  124 Raven-Hart  72, 90, 91, 135, 151 Raum  380 van Reenen  393 Rêgo  214 Reinecke  399 van Rensburg  1, 2, 19, 25, 26, 28, 30, 39, 51, 52, 57, 58, 73, 87, 99, 110, 167, 199, 200, 221, 229, 249, 262, 268, 272, 274, 286, 357 Rhenius  21 ten Rhyne  21, 69, 95, 102–104, 111–118, 120, 124–129, 131, 132, 135, 140, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 162, 168, 185, 186, 230–232, 235, 245–247, 249, 250, 254, 266–268, 277, 336–340, 342, 343, 350, 381, 383 Rickford  404, 407 van Riebeeck  3, 9, 20, 21, 53, 54, 75, 142, 144, 145, 151, 260, 336, 339, 355, 366, 389 van Riemsdijk  46, 48, 158 van Rijn  368 Robbers  158, 160, 217 Roberge  2, 5, 19, 58, 59, 62, 142, 153, 160, 166–168, 195–219, 385, 387–397, 400, 403

Ross  387 van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal  16, 17 le Roux  7–9, 15, 16, 19, 25, 26, 29, 30, 69, 79, 80, 82–84, 86, 88, 165, 167, 207, 215, 216, 226, 227, 361–365 Russ  46–48, 88, 92 Rust  18, 116, 119, 136, 156, 157, 170–181, 187, 191, 192, 217, 244, 245, 249, 251, 255, 277, 285, 342, 346 de Ruyter  32, 323 S Schapera  102, 112, 114, 162, 168, 185, 186, 230, 338, 339, 343 Schmidt  342 Schmidt-Petersen  46 Schneider  400 Schoeman  2, 167, 337, 346 Scholtz  8–10, 21, 52, 53, 55, 56, 73, 90, 195, 199, 207–209, 211, 221, 240, 260, 356–358, 360–362, 366–368, 390 Schönfeld  87 Schuchardt  16–18, 110, 138, 161, 206, 207, 214, 215, 248, 271, 291, 295, 296, 305, 308–310, 316–321 Schwegler  405 Seidel  251 Shell  30, 32, 154, 165, 210, 212, 214, 308, 317, 322, 369, 370 Sibelius  338 Siener van Rensburg see Snyman Sigurðsson  27 de Silva Jayasuriya  215 Slomanson  395 Smith  30, 31, 158 Smuts  57 Snyman  39, 51, 58, 357 Sparrman  350–352 Spat  16 Spruijt  168 van Staden  12 Steever  153, 216, 373 Steinhauer  32, 212, 323–326, 372 Steyn  39, 42, 52, 58 Stoett  45, 238 Stoler  379 Stolz  95, 289, 406 Stroop  260, 261 Suzuki  416

 Roots of Afrikaans Swanepoel  36, 38, 43, 50 Swellengrebel  21 Swolkien  403, 406 T Taeldeman  86, 87 Tahitu  323–325, 330 Tappe  125–127, 129, 132, 146 Tappens  113 Taylor  32, 212, 213, 323–327, 372 Teenstra  98, 136, 243, 271, 378 Teeuw  211 Terry  135, 141 Thomason  394, 417 Thunberg  335, 350–353 Tindall  353 du Toit  25, 29, 30, 75, 199, 206, 210, 362 Traill  191 Travis  274, Trigardt  57, 58, 136, 142, 148, 165, 167 Trommelen  208, 209 V Valentijn, Valentyn  296, 336, 347, 348, 350

van der Valk  16 Valkhoff  95, 96, 99, 101, 117, 118, 207, 224–226, 243, 289, 291, 298, 301, 307, 308, 385, 388, 390, 399, 400 Valley  387 Vedder  228 van der Veen  10, 238, 239 Velupillai  5, 95, 289 Verdam  296 Verdenius  52, 53 de Villiers  79, 88 Vieira Machado  414 Vondel  10, 237, 360, 409 Voorhoeve  323–325, 327 Vos-De Jesus  27 Voßen  353 de Vreese  102 de Vries  298 W de Waal  58, 363, 365 Wackernagel  141 Wagenaar  336 Waher  2, 38, 156, 159, 188, 196, 308

Watuseke, Watuseke-Politton  32, 323–325, 327, 328, 370, 372 van Weel  53 Weijnen  8, 46, 53 Weise  46, 48 Westermann  29, 32 von Wielligh  69, 73, 134, 136, 146, 302, 307 Wikar  21, 112, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 146, 167, 168 te Winkel  206 von Winkelmann  350, 352, 353 Wolf  138 Wuras  346, 353 Z Zwaartman  57 Zwart  156, 183, van Zyl  19, 134, 167,

Subject index A accessibility  39, 165, 394 accusative  19, 45, 72, 96, 97, 100, 106, 110, 116, 120, 134, 141, 231, 266, 320, 373 acquire, acquisition  4, 8, 22, 57, 67, 101, 108, 111, 124, 145, 153–155, 168, 170, 182, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 222, 223, 229, 246, 260, 266, 270, 275, 276, 279, 281, 355, 384, 390, 393, 394, 396, 405 adjectival, adjective  10, 14, 21, 22, 80, 81, 84, 100, 102, 109, 119, 123, 124, 126, 127, 143, 144, 149, 150, 164, 166, 167, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 212, 215, 216, 218, 223, 245, 255, 264, 276, 281, 305, 337, 339, 360, 361, 405, 407, 408, 411 adposition  101, 110, 147, 148, 151, 157, 158, 164, 168, 276 adverb, adverbial  27, 37, 49, 72, 100–106, 110, 120, 134, 141- 143, 148, 159, 162–164, 166, 167, 182, 185, 198, 201–203, 208, 212–216, 218, 249, 250, 252, 263, 264, 276, 280–283, 346, 412 affix  13, 113, 117, 151, 180, 191, 196, 204, 212, 320 agentive, agentivity  115, 249, 278, 389, 390, 395, 396 agreement  11, 119, 172, 173, 251, 408 AgrP  11–15, 18, 19, 36–39, 143, 170, 173, 174, 179, 188, 189 allomorph, allomorphy  85, 86, 116, 123, 128, 129, 131, 138, 143, 164, 259, 269, 270, 300, 304, 309 allophone, allophony  69, 92, 138, 144 alternation  45, 102, 103, 108, 111, 115 analogue, analogy  142, 165, 207, 233, 283, 360

antecedent  36–39, 42, 43, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 414 apocope  119, 130, 144, 259 apostrophe  8, 65–67 appellation, appellative  13, 28, 32, 107, 146, 289, 339, 372 apposition, appositive  46, 53, 55, 58, 105, 109, 143, 157, 164, 276 approximant  80, 266 AP see adjectival, adjective  aspect, aspectual  100, 104, 142, 169, 170, 182, 196, 197, 203, 214, 251, 252, 275–277, 279, 401–403, 417 assimilation  88, 187–189, 193, 261, 307, 368 associative  4, 25–33, 61, 325, 372, 395, 407 asyndetic  32, 111 attributive  7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 22, 61, 62, 73–77, 109, 119, 134, 149, 150, 157, 164, 199, 205, 264, 276, 281, 305, 359, 364, 408 auxiliary  69, 72, 105, 108, 117, 156, 158, 163, 167, 171, 180, 190, 191, 198, 205, 236, 244, 260, 261, 285, 400–403, 412, 413 B basilectal  395, 396, 403 bastardize, bastardization  297, 388 beneficiary  313, 314, 316, 326–331, 370 bilabial  80, 91 bilingual, bilingualism  56, 110, 168, 187, 249, 273, 279, 282, 287, 292, 341, 347 C cardinal see number case  12, 14, 18, 72, 105, 134, 137–139, 146, 162, 170–177, 179, 181, 182, 249, 315, 319, 320, 331, 400, 410–413

causative  118, 160, 217, 285 clause  4, 37, 43–47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56–58, 70, 95, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 118, 139, 142, 143, 149, 157, 159, 160, 163, 169, 170, 172–174, 176–179, 180–184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192, 222, 235, 236, 239, 240, 260, 264, 271, 275–277, 280, 284, 300, 308, 315, 329, 346, 357, 368, 400, 412–417 click  112, 229, 255, 265, 333, 335, 338, 340, 342, 343, 345, 347–349, 351–354, 411 clitic, cliticize, enclitic, proclitic  8, 10, 13, 18, 26, 29–31, 46, 64, 108, 110, 111, 117, 118, 124, 127, 130, 139, 143, 146, 147, 150, 151, 162, 169–172, 174, 175, 177, 180, 182, 185–187, 191, 218, 237, 249, 252, 256, 270, 277, 300, 339, 410, 411–413 cognate  74, 130, 351 collocation  19, 20, 55, 114, 115, 157, 191, 192, 324, 329, 343 colloquial  15, 35, 38, 70, 97, 159, 160, 163, 188, 189, 208, 237, 259, 260, 262, 360, 409–411 colonial, colonist, colony  4, 5, 16, 20, 29–31, 56, 95, 96, 98, 110, 117, 128, 134, 144, 151, 153, 154, 161, 210, 218, 221–233, 246, 247, 249, 250, 255, 258–260, 264–267, 269–274, 278, 289, 291–294, 296–298, 300, 302, 304, 308, 310, 311, 313, 316, 317, 320–322, 33–335, 338, 340, 345, 350, 351, 353, 354, 358, 367, 369, 378, 379, 381, 385–389, 391–394, 396, 399, 414 complementizer  35–37, 39, 44, 51, 73, 139, 159, 160, 173, 188, 189, 200, 205, 235–238, 240, 251, 252, 278, 279, 315, 414 COMP see complementizer, conditional  72, 185, 402

 Roots of Afrikaans conjunction  4, 43–49, 52, 104, 164, 202, 203, 330, 366, 371, 373, 415 consonant  82, 88–90, 116, 117, 119, 368, 406, 407 constituent  39, 111, 157, 158, 172, 175, 180, 191, 196, 235, 236, 238, 239, 244, 252, 277, 303 construct, construction  4, 5, 7–13, 15–22, 25–32, 36–38, 42, 51–53, 63, 76, 115, 140, 144, 145, 147, 160, 161, 168, 169, 179, 187, 188, 192, 201, 206, 214, 216, 226, 239, 252, 260, 265, 276–278, 283–285, 302, 306, 315, 324–326, 329, 356, 358, 360, 366, 370–372, 379, 395, 396, 400, 401, 404, 405, 408, 410, 411, 414, 416 context  8, 43, 51, 57, 64, 80, 86–91, 96, 105, 107, 111, 140, 141, 144, 154, 158, 163, 164, 183, 186, 205, 209, 214, 217, 222, 230, 231, 277, 280, 291, 300, 303, 306, 309, 323, 327, 344, 351, 378, 379, 381, 383, 384, 393 coordination, coordinator  26, 32, 54, 111, 346 counter-Pro-drop see Pro-drop copula  12, 100, 134, 141, 146, 245, 248, 304, 405, 406, 414, 417 corpus  39, 55, 140, 157, 161, 166, 167, 192, 208, 209, 245, 264, 305, 306, 358, 378, 386 CP  36–39, 43, 44, 49, 52, 124, 126, 159, 170, 172–174, 179, 181, 188, 276, 409, 411 creativity  143, 151, 396 Creole  2–5, 7, 14–18, 20, 22, 27, 25, 29, 32, 43, 55, 56, 59, 98, 99, 103, 105, 107, 109, 120, 130, 133, 137, 140, 144, 154, 155, 158, 166, 185, 190, 207, 209, 210, 214, 216, 218, 219, 221–229, 232–235, 237, 243, 245, 250, 254, 257, 258, 262, 264, 269–275, 278–283, 285, 287, 289–308, 310, 313, 316–322, 324, 325, 328–332, 355–357, 369, 370, 372, 373, 378, 385, 390–396, 399– 417

creolize, creolization  10, 14, 25, 221, 223, 227, 258, 263, 271, 273, 275, 278, 294, 355, 390, 392, 393, 395, 399, 400, 402 creoloid  273, 355 cross-cultural  381, 383, 388 D dative  12, 72, 309, 310, 316, 320, 373 declarative  37, 45, 49, 134, 137, 154, 159, 163, 169–172, 174, 177–179, 181, 182, 184, 187, 188, 258, 275 decreolize, decreolization  99, 263, 271, 392, 403 definite  72, 95, 101, 104, 107, 109, 145, 164, 166, 248, 305, 385 deflect, deflection  22, 95, 99, 101, 105, 135, 223, 233, 248, 258, 262, 263, 278, 280, 355, 389, 390, 393 demonstrative  4, 61–77, 109, 143, 164, 166, 248, 276, 305, 308, 373, 395 denominal  17, 18, 102, 143, 213, 215 deontic  198, 254 derivation, derivational  81, 85, 191, 196, 203, 240, 241, 360, 372, 408 determiner  395, 407, 408, 410 deverbal  126, 208, 212, 213, 215 devoicing  103 diachronic, diachrony  25, 32, 43, 48, 52, 56, 59, 64, 79–81, 87, 90, 155, 166, 167, 199, 206, 207, 216, 238, 275, 330, 356, 360, 366, 373, 396 diacritics  171, 335, 340, 347 dialect, dialectal  3, 5, 7, 8–10, 13–15, 18, 22, 25, 30–33, 43–48, 52–54, 59, 65, 69, 79–83, 86– 88, 90, 93, 96, 97, 99, 103, 105, 106, 108, 117, 148, 154, 156, 170, 172, 173, 187, 207, 208, 214, 215, 221–224, 226–229, 231, 233, 234, 237, 238, 240–243, 248, 150, 251, 255–266, 271–275, 277–280, 284, 287, 300, 313, 321, 322, 324, 325, 327–329, 331, 332, 344, 353–356, 358, 361, 366–373, 389, 390, 392, 393, 397, 406, 407

diminutive  127, 196, 200, 204, 259, 263, 264, 280, 281, 366, 367, 395 diphthong  87, 95, 97, 130, 144, 167, 268, 289, 333 discourse  380, 383, 393 dislocation  124, 126, 147, 150, 174–176, 178, 179 DP  7–19, 28, 32, 35–39, 52, 75, 124, 126, 128, 134, 135, 137, 143–149, 151, 155, 157, 158, 161, 164, 165, 169–174, 176–179, 182, 183, 186, 357–359 D-structure  236–238, 244 E enclitic see clitic epenthetic  120 epistemic  198 epithet  113, 339 F foreigner talk  4, 8, 96, 98, 109, 115, 120, 162, 163, 207, 230, 257–287, 278, 336, 352, 391 fort Creole  272, 273, 392 I imperative  97, 111, 117, 121, 134, 137, 138, 157, 162, 169, 181, 185, 209, 236, 243–245, 248, 253, 254, 258, 264, 269, 277, 281, 285, 305, 306, 308, 318, 368, 373 indefinite  31, 170, 173, 176, 177, 238, 241, 342, 415 interlanguage  391, 393, 399 interrogative  35, 36, 47, 111, 154, 159, 160, 169, 173, 174, 176, 178, 181, 186, 189, 235, 271, 410, 415 M modal  69, 101, 175, 198, 205, 254, 261, 285 monophthong  21, 268 monosyllabic, monosyllable  65, 66, 408 mood  251, 401, 402, 417 move, movement  43–45, 47, 64, 160, 171, 175, 178–180, 182–185, 187, 208, 235, 236, 239, 246, 252, 253, 279, 287, 393, 415, 416



Subject index  N negation  4, 100, 108, 109, 134, 141, 142, 151, 157, 163, 164, 166, 168–170, 221–256, 278, 284, 302, 305, 308, 324, 389, 393, 395, 404, 405, 417 negative  107, 142, 151, 157, 164, 169, 180, 221–256, 262, 270, 285, 305, 308, 318, 324, 373, 389, 395, 396, 404 neuter, nonneuter  46, 53, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 73–77, 104, 134, 170, 173, 248, 343, 356, 408 nominalization, nominalize  10, 14, 31, 103, 108, 112, 119, 120, 123, 126, 128, 136, 143, 146, 150, 164, 168, 173, 180, 182, 183, 216, 218, 261, 277, 278, 360, 361 NP  7–14, 16, 18, 46, 100, 101, 107, 123, 131, 132, 135, 144, 145, 155, 157, 165, 169, 170, 199–201, 206, 235, 251, 252, 276–278, 283, 315, 329, 358, 359, 409 number  11, 12, 18, 27, 28, 30, 119, 120, 123, 129, 137, 143, 145, 164, 169, 201, 218, 342, 348, 363, 400, 401, 406–408, 414 numeral  81, 83, 115, 143, 201, 202, 212, 214, 215, 218, 337, 339, 340, 343, 347, 351 O object  8, 29, 32, 36, 39, 41, 44, 54, 65, 70, 134, 140, 141, 147, 150, 157, 163, 170, 175, 180, 182, 188, 198, 226, 244, 246, 251, 252, 255, 276, 277, 282, 304, 308–310, 313–315, 317–321, 324–329, 331, 332, 370, 373, 390, 410–412, 414, 416 objective  8, 12, 14, 247, 248, 282, 395 oblique  105, 106, 124, 136 obstruent  86, 223, 259 operator  36, 37, 44, 45, 49, 51, 173, 174, 181, 189 P personal pronoun  8, 12, 14, 16–18, 61, 64–66, 143, 169, 286, 359, 410, 411 pidgin passim

pied-piping  35–38, 45, 55, 56, 414, 416 plantation  229, 272, 273, 392 plural, pluralize  2, 10–12, 14, 15, 17–22, 26, 28–32, 61, 62, 75, 80–83, 91, 96, 100–102, 104, 105, 108, 109, 116, 120, 128, 134, 162, 170, 196, 199–201, 204, 211–215, 218231, 247, 259, 266, 333, 339, 342, 343, 346, 348, 352, 359, 362, 364, 365, 371, 395, 401, 402, 406, 407, 410, 411 possessive  4, 7–23, 35–39, 42, 43, 51, 52, 55, 56, 65, 115, 134, 141, 143–145, 157, 161, 164, 166, 168, 170, 226, 228, 268, 283, 286, 324, 325, 329, 346, 357–365, 395, 409–411, 414 possessor  7, 8, 11, 12, 14–19, 22, 143, 328, 331, 346, 359, 362, 364, 365, 409 postposition, postpositional  18, 101, 109, 110, 138, 143, 145, 147, 148, 157, 161, 162, 164, 165, 168, 171, 253, 276, 283, 284, 346 pp  21, 28, 35–38, 41, 42, 49–51, 54, 76, 110, 126, 127, 130–132, 148, 211, 218, 267, 304, 315, 319, 320, 344, 357, 364 predicate  10, 100–103, 106, 108, 124, 140, 141, 150, 197, 199, 215, 264, 276, 304, 361, 405, 406, 417 predicative  10, 22, 46, 127, 218, 279, 281, 360, 361 preposition, prepositional  36, 39, 42, 50, 51, 54, 57, 72, 102, 145, 148, 167, 226, 282, 313–320, 324, 328–331, 357, 370, 371, 409, 414, 416 pro  12, 14, 19, 49, 72, 124, 126, 128, 135, 139–141, 151, 185–187, 222, 243, 245, 254, 285, 303, 304, 308, 309, 318, 319, 402 proclitic see clitic Pro-drop  12, 14, 19, 72, 135, 139–141, 151, 185–187, 402 pronominal  7–22, 28, 29, 35–39, 41–59, 61–77, 87, 117, 124, 139, 140, 162, 164, 172, 182, 185, 225, 226, 276, 283, 325, 346, 358–361, 364, 410, 411

pronoun  4, 7–22, 26–31, 35–39, 41–59, 61––77, 103, 110, 111, 118, 124, 130, 134, 137, 139–141, 143, 146, 150, 151, 162–164, 169–171, 185–187, 191, 218, 226, 249, 255, 277, 283, 285, 286, 300, 315, 316, 346, 358–362, 365, 395, 400, 407, 410–417 prosodic, prosody  13, 70, 200, 201 R reduplicate, reduplication  4, 32, 195–219, 221, 227, 238, 241, 242, 283, 284, 306, 324, 325, 333, 390, 395 reflexive  134, 180, 285, 286 relative, relativization  4, 11, 35–39, 41–59, 68, 87, 88, 157, 181, 235, 314–316, 357, 358, 395, 410, 414–417 relexification, relexify  4, 31, 109–111, 115, 120, 124, 133–151, 155, 161–165, 168, 185, 186, 192, 248, 249, 251–253, 275–278, 287, 384, 391, 394, 396 resumptive pronoun  29, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48, 52, 416 S semi-Creole  5, 273, 355, 399, 400, 402–404, 406 singular  8, 10, 12–14, 18–20, 29, 30, 32, 62, 65–67, 72, 75, 80, 91, 101, 102, 105, 108, 110, 111, 118, 121, 134, 162, 170, 173, 176, 199–201, 211, 223, 247, 263, 277, 280, 342, 346, 348, 363–365, 371, 401, 407, 408, 410, 411 sonorant  82, 88–90, 119 SOV  95, 97, 98, 100–102, 105, 106, 108–111, 115, 133–137, 142, 147, 151, 153–159, 161, 163–166, 169, 181–183, 187, 188, 190, 192, 193, 222, 223, 232, 234, 235, 244–249, 251, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 265–267, 269–271, 273–276, 278, 279, 281, 287, 308, 317, 320, 412 stripping  134, 136–139, 141–145, 147–149, 151, 396

 Roots of Afrikaans substrate  7, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 57, 70, 76, 97, 116, 124, 137, 148, 149, 155, 165, 168, 191, 192, 196, 207, 210, 213, 215, 222–224, 233, 245, 256, 275, 276, 369, 373, 377, 378, 385, 386, 388, 391–393, 395, 396, 402, 403, 405–407, 411–414, 416, 417 suffix  4, 10, 11, 13–15, 18, 20, 74, 85, 96–102, 110, 113–120, 123–131, 135, 136, 138, 143, 146–148, 150, 158, 162, 168, 180, 185, 204, 218, 244, 248–250, 277, 278, 339, 381, 395, 407 superstrate  25, 30, 31, 58, 76, 109, 137, 196, 207, 223, 224, 233, 273, 276, 385, 392, 394, 401–403, 406, 413, 417 SVO  104, 109, 136, 137, 155, 156, 165, 186, 192, 222, 246, 270, 274, 275, 278, 279, 287, 304, 308, 412, 413 syllable  21, 65, 70, 74, 85, 89, 231, 268, 323, 339, 345, 351, 368

T tense, TP  83, 84, 89, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 109, 121, 134, 135, 141–143, 153, 157, 159, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 175, 178–180, 182, 223, 225, 250–252, 256, 261–263, 275–277, 279, 280, 351, 357, 400–403, 417 topicalization, topicalize  47, 65, 124, 127, 135, 139, 147, 150, 169, 179, 180, 182–185, 187, 191, 193, 235, 244, 251, 252, 254, 285 V V2, verb second  47, 96, 98, 105–109, 133, 135–137, 142, 153–157, 159–161, 163–166, 168–174, 181–184, 186–190, 192, 193, 222, 223, 235, 236, 239, 240, 245, 246, 255, 258, 260, 261, 264, 269–271, 274, 275, 278, 279, 281, 284, 285, 287, 395, 412, 413

VP  123, 124, 126, 128, 134, 135, 146, 147, 150, 154, 155, 158, 164, 170, 175, 179–183, 191, 192, 235, 236, 239, 240, 243, 244, 251–253, 258, 265, 276–278 W wh-movement  43–45, 169, 182–185, 187, 246, 393, 415 wh-phrase  159, 160, 177, 179, 185, 189 wh-pronoun, wh-word  212, 215, 271, 316 wh-question  176, 178, 258 wrapping  158, 159, 161 Y yes/no-question  173–178, 181, 184, 187–189, 236, 258