OSO. Tijdschrift voor Surinaamse Taalkunde, Letterkunde en Geschiedenis. Jaargang 3
(1984)– [tijdschrift] OSO–
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd
[pagina 137]
| |||||||||
Review article: A.A. Kramp, early creole lexicography
| |||||||||
[pagina 138]
| |||||||||
the form of a list of the symbols used to denote vowels, consonants, etc. Paradigms of words to illustrate the use of these symbols are given, but without any indication of their phonetic values. The fact ‘that Schumann's own German pronunciation may have interfered, and that the spelling and accents used in the manuscript are not necessarily an accurate representation of those of his informant(s)’ (p. 21) cannot serve as an excuse for not discussing their phonetic value at all. Also in this section a shift in the distribution of o and u is mentioned, as if it were a mere change of orthographical convention, whereas the same change is later (partly) described in the form of a phonological rule. In the next two sections on phonological and syntactic developments (lexical developments are treated in the Commentary) the author briefly touches on some of the cases of language change that can be inferred from the manuscript, but he falls short of Voorhoeve's goal, mentioned above, of obtaining some insight into the historical development. Kramp formulates phonological rules to capture those sound changes ‘that can be considered predictable’ (p. 25). But some of these ‘rules’, apart from being poorly stated, permit so many exceptions that one may well wonder what their descriptive value might be. To give just a few examples: rule 3 should read C instead of CC. Only orthograpically are there two consonants (e.g. in blumm, ‘flour’), phonologically there is only one. The confusion of phonological and orthograpical notions is also obvious in rules 10 and 11. In connection with rule 2, describing the change from e to i in prefinal syllables in words containing word-final epenthetic i (e.g. fegi<figi, but note exceptions like meki, hebi, leki etc.) Kramp quotes Voorhoeve (1971, p. 54) incorrectly and incompletelyGa naar eind1 and thus attributes to him an opinion that he has never held. Voorhoeve, in fact, continues the passage quoted by Kramp by mentioning the very exceptions (wiki, figi) to his observation that Kramp adduces to illustrate the alleged inaccuracy of it. Most of the views on syntactic change included here were jointly presented by Voorhoeve and Kramp in a conference paper in 1982 (which is lacking in the Bibliography, but see References). Kramp assumes that until 1765 futurity was solely expressed by wil and sa, later future markers being sa, o and e/o go (and not wil). This assumption is based on four occurrences of wil in Herlein's 1718 dialogue and two occurrences of sa in Nepveu's 1765 corrections of itGa naar eind2. However, only one out of these four instances of wil clearly denotes future; the other three denote volition and are translated accordingly with wani by Voorhoeve and Lichtveld in their Modern Surinam Creole version. This, in connection with the unreliability of the Herlein fragment, casts some doubt on the postulation of a future marker wil in Early Sranan. About the expression of past and present time Kramp remarks ‘that syntactically there is no perceptible distinction between present and perfect in Early Sranan’ (p. 34). Here he refers to the possibility of not marking the present tense of non-stative verbs in Early Sranan (which is obligatorily marked e in Modern Sranan). So A gi bobbi na pikin may mean: ‘She is breastfeeding the child’ or ‘She was breast-feeding the child.’ But he fails to mention the use of the past tense particle ben, which for most speakers today only denotes the pluperfect with non-stative verbs, but according to Schumann alternated between a perfect and a pluperfect reading (Compare Schumann s.v. ben, p. 60 e.g.: ju ben komm, du bist od. warst gekommen (emphasis added) and many other examples). This shows that the distinction between present and perfect could be expressed by the absence or presence of ben. So in Early Sranan the unmarked form either denoted present or perfect, and the form marked ben either perfect or pluperfect, which renders Kramp's statement quoted above only half true. Kramp's observations about changes in the argument structure of verbs | |||||||||
[pagina 139]
| |||||||||
are interesting, but not worked out very well. The classifying criteria he employs in his analysis of the development of the zero-article are confusing, and his assignment of the [± animate]-feature is inaccurate. Finally, his remark concerning prepositions that the second locative element in Early Sranan occurs after both noun and pronoun, is incorrect, as can be seen from numerous examples in the dictionary itself, e.g. na sei hosso alongside na hosso sei (s.v. sei, p. 242; see the entries of tappo, fesi, ondro, middri and inni for many other examples). Nor does he mention an interesting third form, where the locative element can precede both noun and pronoun, as in: na inni va wi hatti, ‘at inside of our hearts’, i.e. in our hearts (s.v. inni, p. 141) and in: na ondro va dem, ‘at bottom of them’, i.e. under them (s.v. ondro, p. 211). Summarizing, the introductory chapter is far from satisfactory, especially in its linguistic sections. Moreover, no attempt is made to put Schumann's work into perspective. For instance, the question of how his dictionary relates to other lexicographical work from the same period, such as his own Saramaccanisch-Deutsches Wörter-Buch from 1778 (contained in Schuchardt, 1914) or to other Sranan dictionaries like Focke's from 1855, and the question of what its place is in the Moravian linguistic tradition are not touched upon at all. As noted above, the diplomatic text of the dictionary and Kramp's Commentary, which contains translations of sentences not translated by Schumann and which also treats lexical developments, will be discussed in combination here. Schumann's manuscript is a Sranan-German dictionary, containing almost 1200 entries, many of which are copiously illustrated with sentences in Sranan together with their German equivalents and with information obtained from one or more informants. The Sranan part is written in Roman characters, and the German part in (badly legible) Gothic characters. This Gothic script may account for some of the transcription errors, but it can offer no excuse for the large number of transcription errors in clear cases like Arnznet for Arzney (p. 90), Essen for Eisen (p. 95), ernsig for emsig (p. 98) etc. Also an error like missrathems (for missrathenes: en and m are very much alike in Gothic handwriting) in das ist etwas missrathems (p. 218) could very well have been avoided by simply consulting a German dictionary. Also in some cases Kramp, unable to decipher the original, seems to indulge in mere guesswork, although the collocation in which or the entry under which a German translation occurs should make clear what is intended, thus pushing the respectable philological tradition of conjecturing a little too far. For instance, the German equivalents for warm (‘warm’) are transcribed as warm, friss (p. 297), the latter of which is clearly intended by Schumann as heiss. Errors of this kind abound. To confuse his readers even further, Kramp has, throughout the dictionary, retained the original crossreferences from the MS. so that the reader is referred to the original instead of the present edition. Not only in his transcription, but also in his Commentary Kramp is not always as careful as one would wish. See for instance under abra (p. 306) where it is remarked that ‘“gi abra” in the example (i.e. mi gi mi abra na hem, ich übergebe mich ihm, p. 46) is no longer used for “to vomit”’, implying that the quoted sentence would mean something like: ‘I vomited upon him’. However, gi abra, according to Schumann, means übergeben (‘hand over’), from which Kramp must have inferred that mi gi mi abra meant ich übergebe mich (i.e. ‘I vomit’) whereas the intended meaning is the reflexive of gi abra, that is ‘hand oneself over’. The conclusion must be that the quoted sentence means: ‘I hand myself over to him’ (i.e. God), which is corroborated by the use of the Sranan preposition na (‘to’) (and not na tappo (‘upon’)) and its German | |||||||||
[pagina 140]
| |||||||||
translation ihm (and not auf ihn). The fact that the entry pio (‘vomit’) (p. 224) does not contain a cross-reference to gi abra is just one more argument to conclude that gi abra has never been used for ‘to vomit’. Also the noun komm, as in da komm va wi Masra, die Zukunft unsers Herrn (p. 154) does not mean ‘future’, as Kramp thinks (p. 329) (probably misled by the German translation Zukunft) but ‘advent’ in a Christian sense. This is clear from the quoted sentence and from the alternative German equivalent given by Schumann, namely Ankunft (‘arrival’). And then, Kramp does not always comment where one would expect him to. Schumann's translation of sika (‘sandflea’) (p. 246) as Zicke goes unnoticed, altough this German word normally means ‘goat’. Schuchardt, in his edition of Schumann's Saramaccan dictionary (Schuchardt, 1914; 102), under the entry sîka, Zicke, Erdfloh even goes as far as to cast doubt on the reliability of the copyist's transcription, by inserting 1 Zecke, i.e. ‘read Zecke’ (‘tick’). That Zicke and not Zecke was intended by Schumann, however probable the latter might seem, is evidenced by the fact that Teenstra in a footnote (Teenstra, 1835; 102) mentions Tschike as a variant form of Sieka. Schuchardt (ibidem) posits an English source ‘chigoe’, next to Amerindian sika. So it seems that Zicke, on the basis of its phonetic resemblance to ‘chigoe’ or ‘jigger’, acquired the additional meaning of ‘sandflea’. As a beginner in Sranan I shall not venture to criticize Kramp's English translations of sentences that remained untranslated by Schumann, but I dare propose an alternative translation for one of them. About the word passumà, pánsuma it is said: ma wi kriolo ben tronn hem pikin, wi takki ‘passumá’ (p. 217), which is translated as: ‘But we creoles became their (i.e. the Saltwater Negroes') offspring, we say “passumà”’ (p. 342). Note that hem (third pers. sg. pronoun) is translated here as a plural. This difficulty is avoided in my reading: But we creoles have turned it (i.e. the word pánsuma) small, we say ‘passumà’ (referring to the shift of stress and the deletion of n in contradistinction to the Saltwater Negroes' word ‘pánsuma’). Another criticism is that some very interesting cases of syntactic change, emanating from the material in the dictionary, are not mentioned, let alone discussed. A great variety of comparative constructions is found, some of which, to my knowledge, are not used any more, for instance: a grandi va mi, (litt. ‘he (is) old from me’, p. 113) and ju langa morro na mi, (litt. ‘you (are) long surpass at me’, p. 172). These were used along with still current constructions like: ju tranga morro mi (litt. ‘you (are) strong surpass me’, p. 282); ju morro langa mi (‘you (are) more tall I’, p. 172) and a de morro langa leki mi (‘he is more tall than I’, p. 172). The well-known construction today with psa as in a koni psa mi (‘he (is) smart surpass me’) does not occur in Schumann. These facts are, in my view, remarkable and at least worth mentioning. The same applies to the fairly large number of negated cleft sentences without copula a, mentioned under no no (p. 207-208), which would all require the copula in Present-day Sranan. Compare: no ju ben du datti?, bist du es nicht der das gethan hat? (p. 207) with modern: a no yu (ben) du dati? In his Commentary Kramp only gives the modern form for one of these sentences without further comment. Also a change in the relative position of noun and verb in a compound like 1783 boon-jam (litt. ‘bone-hurt’, i.e. gout), today nyan-bon is not commented upon. We are forced to conclude that this edition and its annotations have not been awarded the care and attention which a work of such importance deserves. It is a pity that, now that the job has been done finally, it has not been done optimally. After this criticism we should not forget that this dissertation has one very strong point in its favour and that is its subject matter. Schumann's manuscript dictionary is, without exaggeration, a monument of early Creole | |||||||||
[pagina 141]
| |||||||||
language description, the result of minute observation and unbiased attention for language, which besides being a treasure of early Creole language offers the present-day reader a great deal of sheer pleasure. Any edition of this pièce de résistance of Moravian linguistics in Surinam, with all its subtle and extensive information on language varieties, grammatical and phonological characteristics and its abundance of well-chosen sentence material, would have been welcomed. And we should be grateful to Kramp for having devoted much time and energy to the honest handwork of deciphering and transcribing the whole work, without which we would have remained deprived of it altogether. But we do hope that, now that it has been saved from oblivion, the commercial edition by Karoma (which was announced in OSO 2/2) will be surrounded with all the care which this work calls for. A thorough revision would not be superfluous. | |||||||||
References
| |||||||||
[pagina 142]
| |||||||||
|
|