The Influence of English on Afrikaans

3.3 Works written after 1940

3.3.1 J.J. le Roux's Anglisismes (1952)

Because of the academic nature of H.J. Rousseau's book, J.J. le Roux's Anglisismes was the most widely consulted work on anglicisms until J. Combrink's Taaltrots appeared in 1968, but even then Le Roux did not lose popularity - there was after all so little of practical use on the topic. This book is in fact a reprint in monograph form of articles which Le Roux wrote for Die Huisgenoot from March - April 1945 and it is undoubtedly only due to their appearance as a monograph seven years later that those articles did not sink into oblivion as all the other articles on anglicisms in magazines such as Die Huisgenoot, Die Brandwag etc. have done.¹³ G.S. Nienaber edited the book and added a selection of exercises (p. 48-77) which were lacking in the original articles. The exercises emphasise the practical intent of the work which perhaps explains why it gained the renown that it did.

Le Roux devotes chapter one to ‘Die Aard van Taalbeïnvloeding’ before proceeding to the issue ‘Wat is suiwer Afrikaans?’ (p. 9) In this chapter he states, correctly, that

‘Anglisismes word nie alleen deur indiwidue oorgeneem nie, maar ons erf ons verengelste taal oor. Ons hoor dit van ons mede-Afrikaners en ons praat hulle na.’ (p. 9)

He too, like his predecessors, is not yet prepared to see many phenomena he is dealing with as language change (in progress) and yet this very statement of his confirms that this is the case. Interference phenomena are by definition individual and are not passed on to later generations. He does not by any means feel that Dutch is in a position to dictate the norms of Afrikaans, as the Twee Oud-onderwysers seemed to believe for example, but is not prepared to turn his back entirely on the past:

13 One example of excellent articles that appeared in Die Huisgenoot (18/11/49, 2/12/49) but which have since been forgotten, are those written by M. de Villiers. But those by S.J. du Toit (Die Huisgenoot 2/3/34, 9/3/34, 16/3/34, 23/3/34) were saved from oblivion by P.J. Nienaber who reproduced them in Taalkundige opstelle (1965).

[p. 104]

‘... die volk [voel] aan dat, hoewel Afrikaans sy eie norm geword het, dit nie beteken dat alle bande met die verlede verbreek moet word nie... Nederlands... [kan] nog belangrike dienste bewys aan ons puristiese strewe mits daar 'n oordeelkundige gebruik gemaak word van die Nederlandse voorbeeld.’ (p. 10)

In the same chapter Le Roux goes on to give examples of how difficult it can be at times to distinguish English influence from ‘erfgoed’, even with a knowledge of Dutch. I agree with his conclusion that in such circumstances ‘By gebrek aan bewyse vir die teendeel moet ons dus aanneem dat die gemelde uitdrukking in Afrikaans 'n Anglisisme is.’ (p. 12)

Le Roux, like Combrink (1984) after him, feels compelled to devote some time to the concept of what an anglicism is not (chapter 111 - ‘Leenwoorde in Nederlands’) because of the common misconceptions in that regard and even includes a chapter entitled ‘Afrikaanse ontleninge aan ander tale’ (chapter IV) before finally proceeding to the issue at hand. He applies the following taxonomy to anglicisms, devoting a chapter to each:

‘Leen- en Basterwoorde uit Engels’ (chapter V), ‘Barbarismes uit Engels’ (chapter VI), ‘Spreekwoordelike Gesegdes, Sinswendinge, Aparte Woorde, Voorsetsels, Voornaamwoorde’ (chapter VII), ‘Funksieverandering, Samestellinge, Woordorde, Uitspraak’ (chapter VIII).

As the title of the book suggests, the word ‘Anglisisme’ is understood to include all forms of English influence although the author explains on page 1 that the term is used ‘lossiesweg’ in this sense and that in fact anglicisms can be divided into ‘leenwoorde’ and ‘barbarismes’. Consequently chapter VI is entitled ‘Barbarismes uit Engels’ followed by a comment to the effect that a barbarism is an ‘Anglisisme in die enger sin van die woord.’ (p. 29)

Le Roux admits that 'n lywige boek (p. 29) would be necessary if one were to list all common anglicisms, his aim is simply the following:

‘Al wat ek hier kan doen, is dus maar om die aandag op 'n aantal van die mees voorkomende tipes te vestig.’ (p. 29)

Although Le Roux never actually refers to language change as such, comments such as the following amount to the same thing:

‘Besigheid in die sin van saak, winkel, kantoor, ens. het ookreeds so diep wortel geskiet dat hierdie betekenisse as Afrikaans aanvaar moet word.’ (p. 32)

[p. 105]

He intersperses his discussion of common anglicisms - much of his corpus is still frequently heard today - with comments on the occurrence of similar constructions in modern or older Dutch, for example: in die loop van die tyd, braaf. (p. 35) It is interesting to note that Le Roux sees some anglicisms as regional, for example the use of roep instead of noem (p. 34) and anders instead of ander or andere. (p. 37)

On page 48 Le Roux concludes with the comment:

‘Dis met 'n mate van teensin dat 'n mens al hierdie Anglisismes op papier stel en dus as 't ware publisiteit daaraan verleen. Dit sou veel beter gewees het om hulle in die vergeetboek te laat raak deur verswyging, as dit moontlik was. Maar die waarheid is dat hulle soveel gebruik word dat daardie metode nie die gewenste gevolge sou hê nie.’

The truth of what he says is borne out by the fact that most of his corpus is still alive and kicking forty years later.

3.3.2 M.A. Basson, J. Kromhout, P.G. Nel and J.H. Senekal's Afrikaans vir die student (1964, 1972, 1982)

In the preface the authors describe this book as ‘'n handleiding en desnoods 'n naslaanwerk waarin hoofsaaklik foutiewe gebruike “remediërend” behandel word.’ This work gives a far fuller, more systematic taxonomy of anglicisms than any other practical handbook of Afrikaans. It is strongly prescriptive, which led to the following comment being added to the preface of the second and later editions:

‘Naas heelwat waardering het hierdie werk vanuit enkele oorde ook kritiek uitgelok, omdat ons benadering - veral wat Anglisismes betref - te dogmaties sou wees. In hoeverre die leser wil afwyk van die erkende, suiwer taalvorme wat ons bepleit, is 'n persoonlike saak. Ons wil die vrye ontwikkeling van Afrikaans allermins strem en verwelkom meningsverskil. Aan die ander kant is dit by elke lewende taal gerade om die “behoudende faktor” steeds in ag te neem.’

The treatment of anglicisms, chapter IV (p. 38-110),¹⁴ constitutes a third of the book; this is an indication of the importance which the authors attach to a better understanding of the concept and of the detail in which they have tackled it. Chapter four is entitled ‘Taalvermenging - Anglisismes’;

14 The page numbers here refer to the 1972 edition.

[p. 106]

clearly the authors regard all the phenomena they discuss as interference phenomena and are not prepared to recognise them as examples of language change (in progress). Their attitude to English inspired structures is often ambivalent and even inconsistent, however: cf.

‘Spoorweg - Die veel voorkomende woord spoorweë staan waarskynlik ook onder die invloed van Engels maar dit het reeds so algemeen geword dat spoorweg seker nie aanvaar sal word nie.’ (p. 52);¹⁵
‘Dryf, Drywer - Daar is nou deur die spoorweg erkenning verleen aan dryf en drywer, omdat, so word beweer, dan onderskei kan word tussen “manager” en “driver”. Vroeër is dit slegs gebruik as die drywer werklik iets gedryf het, soos osse, perde, vee. “Drywer” in die betekenis bestuurder bly egter o.i. 'n Anglisisme, daarom sê ons ook nie 'n “busdrywer” nie, maar wel 'n busbestuurder.’ (p. 77)¹⁶

Although the authors call constructions such as 'n mooi een ‘Anglisisties’, a word which is loaded with negative connotations in the work under discussion, they then state ‘Jy is 'n mooi een is natuurlik korrek.’ (p. 56)

The chapter concludes with a treatment of ‘vermeende Anglisismes’. Not entirely unconnected with English influence, although the authors do not deal with it in that context, is the chapter entitled ‘Taalskepping - neologismes.’ (chapter 2, p. 22-29)

This book has been around for over twenty years now and has undergone numerous reprints, the latest revised edition as recently as 1982. It has reached so many generations of students that it deserves mention here.

15 In the 1982 edition the authors have scrapped spoorweë, presumably because they realised it is not an anglicism.

16 In the 1982 edition the final sentence under the lemma Dryf. Drywer now reads as follows: ‘Drywer in die betekenis bestuurder word aanvaar.’ (p. 78)

3.3.3 J. Combrink's Taaltrots - 'n handleiding vir taalstudente (1968)

Taaltrots, although very modest in length and content, is one of the best known and most widely used works on anglicisms. After a brief treatment of the reasons for ‘taalsuiwerheid’, Combrink looks at the various types of ‘onsuiwerhede’, dividing them into ‘opsigtelike’ and ‘versluierde onsuiwerhede’. Under the former he offers a list of Afrikaans equivalents (chiefly neologisms and loan translations) for English words commonly

[p. 107]

used by Afrikaners; under the latter he deals with 1) ‘Anglisistiese aksent’, 2) ‘Anglisistiese uitspraak’, 3) ‘Anglisistiese skryfwyses’, 4) ‘Anglisistiese betekenis’, and 5) ‘Anglisistiese uitdrukkings en spreekwoorde’, giving numerous examples of each form of interference and offering a ‘correct’ form in each case, for example: 'n passasier oplaai (pure Afrikaans), 'n passasier optel (anglicism), to pick up a passenger (English). (p. 21) He concludes with a few comments on what is often referred to in the literature as ‘vermeende Anglisismes’ and the difficulty of separating true from apparent anglicisms, as well as a few words on attitude towards anglicisms.

In some respects Taaltrots has now been totally superceded by Combrink's latest publication on anglicisms (1984). His theoretical arguments have been greatly streamlined in this recent work, but he ultimately chose to omit a list of common anglicisms which were present in the original draft (cf. p. 60). It is thus not as blatantly corrective and prescriptive as Taaltrots, but more descriptive, reflecting an approach in keeping with the 1980's. Taaltrots is of very limited use - chiefly because of its brevity - but deserves mention as another well-known milestone in the collection of works on anglicisms.

3.3.4 H.J. Terblanche's Regte Afrikaans ( 1972)

Terblanche describes the contents of this book as ‘'n Alfabetiese naslaanboek van problematiese Afrikaanse woorde, uitdrukkings, gesegdes en aktuele taalvraagstukke’ (title page). It was written as a reference work ‘vir die skool, die universiteit en die huis’ (voorwoord). Hennie Terblanche became almost a legendary figure in his own time and was quite a prolific linguist, particularly on the question of anglicisms and purism. Regte Afrikaans is his best known work and was widely referred to for guidance in such issues. Whatever his opponents felt about him personally and about this book in particular, he and it did have a certain influence which cannot be ignored.

The book does not merely consist of dictionary type lemmas such as aangaan, bad and fooi, but also contains entries of general linguistic interest and relevance such as aanhalingstekens, Afrikaanse taal and Taalkommissie. Although the entry ‘Anglisismes’ covers just over nine pages (p. 15-24), many of the lemmas themselves have been included because they occur as anglicisms or are connected in some way with English influence, for example:

‘Deurval - “Die planne het deurgeval” is 'n Anglisisme. Die korrekte Afrikaans is “die planne het misluk, in duie geval

[p. 108]

(gestort), ens.”’ (p. 48); Afsny - Meermale hoor ons die bewering dat afsny in verband met 'n telefoongesprek 'n Anglisisme is. Dit kan egter nie geregverdig word nie, ook nie volgens die voorbeelde onder afsny in WAT nie.’ (p. 12)

The personal nature of many of Terblanche's comments emphasises the degree to which so much of the information in the book is based purely and simply on his own individual opinion of what is or is not correct and/or is ‘better’ Afrikaans, for example:

‘As sodanig - Dit is seker beter om te sê as sodanig en nie sommer as sulks te gebruik nie, maar ek sal nie wil beweer dat as sulks uit die bose is nie. Hier geld gebruiklikheid en die invloed van die woord sulks wat “dit” of “so iets” beteken, baie sterk. Ek glo dat as sulks in Afrikaans gekom het om te bly, maar daarmee word as sodanig geensins op die agtergrond gestoot nie; om die waarheid te sê, ek gebruik dit self...’ (p. 26)

Such personal remarks detract from the authority that Terblanche clearly hopes the book will acquire. Often what he describes is not based on the reality of Afrikaans as perceived by the speech community, but on what Terblanche himself feels should be the case. Even if his recommendations correspond with those of the Taalkommissie, to which he often refers, Terblanche is very prone to adding his own justification for why such a term should be accepted, reasons which in my opinion bear little relevance to the acceptability of a word, for example:

‘Ek weet in alle geval nie hoekom ons van drywer vir motorvoertuie weggeskram het nie, want dit is tog die natuurlikste ding ter wêreld om die drywer van 'n perdekar oor te dra op die drywer van die motorkar, veral nog as eersgenoemde besig was om te verdwyn.’ (p. 52)

Regte Afrikaans has probably now had its day. Nevertheless, it remains an important landmark in the history of literature on anglicisms in Afrikaans, if only because it represents the philosophy of one of the best known taalstryders of the post-war period.

3.3.5 H.J.J.M. van der Merwe and F.A. Ponelis' Die korrekte woord - Afrikaanse taalkwessies (1967, 1981, 1982)

This book originally saw the light of day in the early 1950's when it appeared under the title Afrikaanse Taalkwessies. At that stage it was

[p. 109]

exclusively the work of Van der Merwe and consisted of ‘taalkwessies wat die nie-vakman elke dag teenkom en waaroor hy nie altyd duidelikheid het nie’, among others ‘of hierdie of daardie uitdrukking nie 'n Anglisisme is nie.’ (Preface to the first edition) If the number of editions is anything to go by, the book was a great success and was expanded in each successive edition. In the preface to the third edition the author specifically mentions ‘...veral is die uitbreiding toe te skryf aan die opneem van honderde Anglisismes wat daagliks voorkom.’ In the fifth edition he adds ‘Na verdere navorsing en heroorweging is my bevinding ten opsigte van korrektheid of Anglisismes al dan nie in 'n hele aantal gevalle nou anders as vroeër.’ The latest edition, which appeared some time after Van der Merwe's death, was edited by Ponelis although, he admits, his contribution is a modest one. A book which has undergone as many reprints as this cannot be omitted from a discussion on the main works on anglicisms, although it does not deal exclusively with anglicisms by any means. The fact that it was considered worth-while reprinting in the 1980's must indicate that it has fulfilled a useful function. It is the sixth and most recent edition which is discussed here.

The book takes the form of a dictionary in which a great number of lemmas deal with frequently occurring anglicisms. The attitude of the author is often somewhat ambivalent, as is in fact reflected in the commentary under the lemma ‘Anglisisme’:

‘Om die Afrikaanse taaleie te bevorder, is dit nodig om Anglisismes te weer, maar daar moet onthou word dat Engels ook baie verrykend op Afrikaans ingewerk het: gesonde, ewewigtige oordeel is nodig, want 'n heksejag op Engelse beïnvloeding gaan ons beslis nie ver bring nie.’

In lay-out and approach this book is very reminiscent of Terblanche's (1972) Regte Afrikaans although it does not go as far in its subjectivity as that work. Nevertheless, the criteria on the basis of which the author approves or disapproves of certain anglicisms are somewhat subjective; on other occasions a value judgement is avoided altogether, for example: the increasing frequency of maindjoe in spoken Afrikaans is merely commented on, whereas under betaal in the sense of Dit betaal nie om te steel nie the author comments:

‘... dis beslis 'n anwins vir ons taal, en dit kan gerus toegelaat word vir diegene wat dit wil gebruik, maar vir my bly die suiwer Afrikaans die mooiste [followed by examples].

He concludes the commentary under that lemma with:

[p. 110]

‘'n Lelike Anglisisme is: deur jou neus betaal vir iets - kyk neus.’

Similar subjective disapproval is expressed under the lemma O.K:

‘Oukei is (ongelukkig) in die omgangstaal stewig gevestig naas reg, in die haak, in orde; vgl. ook orraait.’

Why maindjoe and orraait don't arouse the disapproval of the author and an internationalism such as O.K. does, is somewhat curious and typical of the sort of subjectivity that all writers on the topic of anglicisms in Afrikaans seem to be incapable of refraining from. On the other hand, English influenced usage of weg and weet are dealt with under those lemmas with no further comment than that they are ‘(Angl.)’. Presumably this is meant to infer that the alternatives the author gives are preferable, but whether the anglicisms are considered wrong is left in the air.

The author's attitude to obviously ingeburgerde anglicisms is also inconsistent. Under vloer he comments ‘dit het nie veel sin om dit to bly weer nie’ but under As dit nie vir hom was nie, sou ek verongeluk het he says:

‘Dat die konstruksie uit Engels kom, ly geen twyfel nie. Ofskoon prof. T.H. le Roux dit as ingeburger en as onvervangbaar beskou, verkies ek nog die Afrikaanse vorme [followed by examples].’

Before condemning certain uses of sukses Van der Merwe has obviously consulted Dutch usage and concludes:

‘Tog gee Jansonius die volgende voorbeelde [examples]. Iets soortgelyks vind ek in geeneen van die ander toonaangewende Nederlandse woordeboeke nie. Staan Jansonius hier onder Engelse invloed? Ek meen van ja. Ons behoort dit dus nie goed te keur nie.’ (my italics, BCD)

To my mind this is a strange criterion to apply to the acceptability of a structure in Afrikaans because it apparently totally ignores how that structure is perceived and used by native-speakers of Afrikaans, regardless of what its origins may be. Under 'n moet and 'n wit olifant, however, the author is satisfied to simply comment that the expressions in question are a ‘gevestigde Engelse ontlening’. On occasions Van der Merwe employs somewhat more words to say the same thing where the implication seems to be that he accepts the structure concerned with resignation, for example:

[p. 111]

‘moddergooiery: Dit is 'n leenvertaling van Eng. mudslinging, maar dis al so ingeburger, en veral in ons politieke lewe, dat ons dit seker sal moet aanvaar.’

Van der Merwe can also be relied upon to offer his opinion on many traditional bones of contention such as aangaan, bly, bottelstoor, die bus mis, welaf, etc.

Under the lemma Engelse invloed the author comments:

‘Geen bestaande Afrikaanse woordeboek bied by benadering 'n objektiewe en verteenwoordigende beeld van Engelse inwerking nie.’

As long as this is the case, one will have to make do with handbooks such as this, however subjective or out of touch with reality they may be.