The Influence of English on Afrikaans

3.4 Dictionaries

3.4.1 Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse taal (Vol. 1 - 1950, vol. 2 - 1955, vol. 3 - 1957, vol. 4 - 1961, vol. 5 - 1968, vol. 6 - 1976, vol. 7 - 1984: complete to Kor)

Discussion of WAT's treatment of anglicisms is limited by the fact that it is as yet far from complete, as well as the fact that the editorial committee responsible for the most recent and future volumes differs from that which compiled the first volumes. There are a few comments in the introduction to volume one which shed some light on the editors' attitude to anglicisms and as no further comment is offered in the preface to later volumes, one must presume that that attitude has not changed significantly - at least not consciously - since 1950. On the other hand, what has perhaps changed, and what could be reflected in future volumes of the dictionary, is the frequency of certain anglicisms which, although they may not have been sufficiently ingeburger in 1950 - or there was still a lingering stubbornness to accept them - are now undeniably part of the language.

The dictionary was originally to be completed within three years and three months of January 1st, 1926. The idea was to compile ‘'n volledige en gesaghebbende woordeboek (vol. 1, p. 1)... Daar is dus liewer te veel as te min opgeneem... ook 'n ruime plek toegeken aan die geselstaal.’ (p. iii) Geselstaal, as in the case of HAT, is often used as a synonym (euphemism?) for anglicism. In the preface to volume one it is further stated:

[p. 112]

‘Met die opneem van vreemde woorde was die Redaksie vrygewig... Oordrewe purisme pas nie in 'n woordeboek nie, want dit is meestal juis die vreemde woorde wat nageslaan word. Tog kan ons vreemde inkruipsels wat onwenslik is, duidelik aanwys en telkens die suiwer Afrikaanse woord of uitdrukking gee.’ (p. iii)

Such attempts to eradicate anglicisms by offering ‘correct’ alternatives are also common to HAT and yet to my knowledge this is an approach which is unique to Afrikaans dictionaries. It is yet another indication of how unique this entire bilingual situation is that the dictionaries not only give what is correct, but also feel compelled to comment on what they consider is incorrect, which simply goes to show how common these constructions are and that many of them can no longer be regarded as mere interference phenomena. On p. iv of the introduction anglicisms are finally mentioned by name:

‘Engelse woorde en anglisismes - alleen woorde en uitdrukkings wat reeds as heeltemal ingeburger of onvervangbaar beskou kan word, is opgeneem. Hierdie vreemde inkruipsels is egter tot 'n minimum beperk en af en toe is deur middel van 'n opmerking die aandag op foutiewe gebruik gevestig of 'n suiwer Afrikaanse idioom in die plek van 'n gebruiklike anglisisme aanbeveel.’

WAT is as inconsistent as HAT in the way in which it acknowledges English influence, but this is presumably because the latter has modelled itself on the former; after all, the current editor-in-chief of HAT as well as his predecessor, P.C. Schoonees, both worked on WAT for years. What is more, it is only fitting that the two dictionaries should attempt to stay in step with each other to avoid contradiction. Nevertheless, this is not to say that the way in which WAT and HAT acknowledge certain anglicisms is always necessarily the same, as will be illustrated.

As in HAT, words like enjin and gelling, which are derived from English, are accompanied by the symbol (< E.) whereas furlong, an unadapted loanword, is given the symbol (E.). On other occasions WAT uses (angl.), apparently where the editors consider the word concerned to be ingeburger, for example: brekfis, dip, drywer, grein.¹⁷ WAT seems to use (angl.) more often than HAT and incorporates a larger number of common anglicisms than that dictionary; does this imply a greater

17 Neither dictionary offers any formal explanation of symbols such as (< E.), (E.), (angl.) etc. and thus it is not always clear whether they are synonymous or do reflect a different attitude to the phenomenon concerned on the part of the compilers.

[p. 113]

tolerance on the part of WAT towards those anglicisms which HAT either condemns outright or omits?, for example: WAT issues no warnings on the independent use of hierdie and daardie, unlike HAT, and includes afhê, 'n graaf 'n graaf noem and iemand se been trek, which is not even acknowledged as an anglicism; none of these are mentioned in HAT. There are of course many common anglicisms which neither WAT nor HAT include, for example: uit die bloute, diens (as a verb).

HAT considers it necessary to add a warning about the ‘true’ meaning of braaf in Afrikaans, but WAT does not - it merely gives its puristic meaning. HAT offers a tip on the ‘correct’ pronunciation of garage, but WAT does not. On other occasions, presumably because it has more room at its disposal, WAT offers more information on certain anglicisms, for example:

‘agter...OPM. Net soos in ouer Nederlands en ook vandag nog in Nederlandse streektale en i/d [= in die] Afrikaanse agtermiddag, agtereen, agtermekaar, word agter dikwels i.v.m. tydaanduiding i/d bet. “na” gebruik: Ons sal agter Nuwejaar kom kuier. Meester het die kind agter skool gehou. Agter die heerlike reëns het die bossies begin uitloop. Hulle het net agter die middag hier aangekom.
In Afrikaans is dit heel waarskynlik erfgoed, ofskoon invloed van Engels (after), veral in sekere gebruikskringe, nie uitgesluit kan word nie. Uitdr. soos agter die kinders, die plaas kyk, oppas, versorg, is ook in Nederlandse en Afrikaanse spreektaal bekend.
In die Algemeen Beskaafde Afrikaans word hierdie twee gebruike egter nie erken nie.’

On occasions WAT acknowledges English origin, whereas HAT gives the word without further comment, for example: halfhartig and kleim where WAT in the first case adds (ingeburgerde angl.) and in the second case (< claim). Sometimes WAT is cautious (unnecessarily so, in my opinion) and adds (waarsk. angl.) or (waarsk. < Eng. ...), for example: definition 4 under jou - Dan is daar al jou onvoorsiene uitgawes (omitted from HAT) and horssweep (no further comment in HAT). WAT gives examples of anglicisms which are not included in HAT, supposedly because they are no longer common, for example: doos - definition 4 (geselst.) Dosis...; jop: jop, joppe (< geselst.).

WAT has a much longer, more detailed entry under the lemma ‘anglisisme’ (with a small letter) than does HAT. (p. 202) It has a somewhat ambiguous attitude towards the examples cited under the lemma

[p. 114]

‘anglisisme’. If one refers to the individual words and expressions given on p. 202 of WAT as examples of anglicisms, one finds that some are commented on under those lemmas and others are not, for example: definitions 2 and 3 under besigheid are given the symbol (angl.) whereas the transitive use of groei is not mentioned under groei. It is possible that the implication here is that these uses of besigheid are considered acceptable, but the transitive use of groei is not (yet?). Nevertheless this distinction is not actually specified and it may simply be because this use of groei was overlooked when that lemma was being written.

Should WAT ever be revised - at the moment one would be grateful if it were merely completed - it, like HAT, would do well to be more consistent in its acknowledgement and treatment of anglicisms than is presently the case.

3.4.2 Verklarende handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse taal (1965, 1979)¹⁸

HAT, the significance of which was mentioned on p. 27, was first published in 1965 and has been reprinted almost every year since 1970. It was revised and expanded by over 300 pages in 1979 by F.F. Odendal, who had taken over as editor-in-chief in 1971. Odendal (1978: 60) emphasises how important it is for the lexicographer to be objective and that objectivity demands that ‘die leksikograaf nie preskriptief te werk moet gaan nie, dat sy definisie die gevolg moet wees van die sistematisering van werklik waargenome taalbebruik.’ At the moment, what stands in HAT is at times still at odds with what the editor says here he aspires to achieve, for example: HAT gives die aap kom uit die mou, which is what the expression is in Dutch, while in practice everybody in South Africa says die aap uit die mou laat, in as far as they don't use the completely English expression die kat uit die sak laat. Nevertheless, Odendal (1978: 63) explains:

‘Dat WAT intussen [i.e. since P.C. Schoonees] besig is om te beweeg in 'n minder voorskrywende rigting (of ten minste die voorskrif op 'n verfynder wyse aanbied) is 'n interessante ontwikkeling.’

Presumably the same applies to HAT. Later in the same article Odendal quotes from the preface to the Random House Dictionary:

18 All comments on HAT in this section relate to the second impression of the second edition, 1983.

[p. 115]

‘The lexicographer who does not recognise the existence of long-established structures in usage has not discharged his full responsibility. He has not been objective and factual: he has reported selectively, omitting references to a social attitude relevant to many words and expressions.’ (p. 67)

Yet this is exactly what HAT does on many occasions when, for example, it omits iemand se been trek, which Pienaar (1931: 175) attested as long ago as 1931, and seker maak, which Le Roux (1968: 170, but written in 1947) attested in 1947 and expressed the doubt that the expression would ever leave the language.

In the preface to the second edition of HAT Odendal has the following to say:

‘'n Innovasie wat die oorspronklike redaksie reeds ingevoer het, is die aangee van eenvoudige etimologieë by woorde van Franse, Klassieke en ander vreemde herkoms. As daar belangstelling daarvoor blyk te wees, sou by 'n derde uitgawe ook die etimologie van ander woorde aandag kon kry. Ek hoor graag van gebruikers in die verband.’

The numerous lemmas of English origin fall into this category and warrant further attention by the editorial committee in future because of certain inconsistencies in presentation. This criticism applies even more so to the many comments that have been added to definitions where English influence has affected the situation ‘soos dit behoort te wees.’ (cf. p. 78) Some of these I would consider as belonging to the ‘foute en swakhede’ which the editor admits in the preface are still too prevalent in the book. What follows are examples of these inconsistencies.

The entries enjin, ferplie, gelling, sleng, trok and 'n wit olifant are all accompanied by the symbol (< E.), whereas slang and furlong are followed by (E.). No explanation of these symbols - or any other for that matter - is given in the preface, but presumably (< E.) means that the words concerned are derived from English whereas (E.) means that they are unadapted loanwords. Under ghries, however, the compilers have been more explicit, [E. grease], which is placed at the end of the definition rather than straight after the lemma as with the above examples. (cf. giek also) Dip, on the other hand, which has not been adapted in any way - but adaption was not necessary either - is accompanied by the abbreviation (< Eng.), as is vlot (= sierwa). Brekfis, whose origin is obvious, is nevertheless explained as a ‘Vervorming van Eng. breakfast’, whereas rofkas, whose English predecessor, (roughcast), is not immediately obvious, is

[p. 116]

merely given the symbol (< E.).¹⁹ There are other obvious loanwords such as horssweep, kleim, nonsens/nonsies and platform where the English origin is not acknowledged at all. Similarly there are other words and expressions which, although not as obviously English as those just mentioned, are in my opinion anglicisms although they have been incorporated into HAT without further comment. Presumably in such cases the authors either do not realise these expressions are English in origin or, even if they do, now consider them so ingeburger that a label to that effect would serve no useful purpose, for example: aanstuur (to send on a letter), oplui,²⁰ spore maak (= to make tracks, be gone), sypaadjie,²¹ sy eie beuel blaas and trem.

Some words, such as rof and dans (= dansparty), are followed by the abbreviation (angl.). The implication here seems to be that they are recognised anglicisms, but this is not actually explained at all. In other instances, however, the compilers have gone to considerable lengths to put their view of certain anglicisms, but apparently only where they condemn their use, for example:

‘inhandig - Anglisisme vir inlewer, ingee, indien; inluister - 1. Anglisisme vir luister (na die radio); uitvang - Opm. Uitvang in die bet. ‘betrap’ is Anglisisties²²; vloer Opm. Die gebruik van vloer in die betekenis ‘verdieping’ is 'n Anglisisme; agter - Opm. Agter die kinders kyk moet in goeie Afrikaans wees na die kinders kyk, die kinders versorg, oppas; braaf - Opm. Braaf het nie in Afr. die betekenis van ‘dapper’ nie; raar - Opm. Raar beteken nie ‘seldsaam’ in Afrikaans nie; swang - Opm. Die fabriek is in volle gang - nie swang nie.²³

Note that in the last four examples English influence is not mentioned by name. In the first four examples it seems that the label Anglisisme is an indication that that particular structure is not considered correct Afrikaans in the eyes of the authors, unlike the label (angl.) mentioned above or even

19 The English origin of rofstoei, which is given the abbreviation (angl.), is not immediately obvious.

20 J.J. le Roux (1926: 355) calls oplui a barbarism.

21 T.H. le Roux (1968: 162) discusses sypaadjie at length.

22 It is interesting to note that HAT spells Anglisisties here with a capital letter, whereas the abbreviation angl. is given a small letter by the compilers, and the word itself does not occur as a lemma in either HAT or AWS.

23 In swang is in fact a German expression which also occurs in Dutch (in zwang) but it is almost homophonous with the English word ‘swing’ and thus, presumably, confusion has arisen here.

[p. 117]

the designation (na Eng.) which accompanies afsien or (uit Eng.) which accompanies briek. In the case of handig, the correct alternative is given: ‘handig - Opm. Die uitdrukking “dit kom handig in” is 'n Anglisisme vir “dit kom goed te pas”.’ Groei and afwys, on the other hand, are not accompanied by the warning so frequent in other prescriptive works. The opmerking under drywer is completely non-committal: ‘drywer - Opm. Die anglisistiese gebruik van drywer in die bet. masjinis, bestuurder van 'n lokomotief, kom voor.’ (A busdrywer is just as common these days, however.) It is also interesting to compare the different formulation of the following ‘opmerking’: ‘hierdie - Opm. Die selfstandige gebruik van hierdie as onderwerp is meestal onder Engelse invloed’; ‘daardie - Opm. Daardie as onderwerp is nie erkende Afr. nie, bv. Daardie is 'n mooi hoed.’

The fact that the compilers apparently felt compelled to go to such lengths within the enormous constraints of a dictionary to add such comments on certain lemmas is in itself an indication of how common these anglicisms are in Afrikaans; one cannot help feeling that (angl.) or (na Eng.) would have been a more appropriate addition than a comment of condemnation. In my opinion these expressions have all already attained burgerreg as determined by common usage.

Another inconsistency in the way origin is acknowledged in HAT becomes evident when one compares the lemmas tenk and tronk; both are accompanied by the symbol (< Port.), whereas the former, even if it may have been Portuguese originally, has certainly entered Afrikaans via English and its pronunciation in English has been the cause of its current spelling in Afrikaans. Another such example is moestas (< F.) where the actual situation is (< E. <F.), as is done under Sak, Sarel...(< G. - L. < Hebr.)

On occasions I have noticed that some anglicisms are designated (geselst.) without further reference to English, for example: enemmel, vat (in the sense of duur).

There are many common anglicisms which have been omitted from HAT, presumably either because they have been overlooked or because they were considered even less frequent or less acceptable than those which have been incorporated, for example: oplaan diens, diens (as a verb), opmaak (in the sense of versin), uit die bloute as well as iemand se been trek and seker maak which were mentioned on p. 115. On omission Odendal (1978: 69) has the following to say:

‘... net die feit dat bepaalde woorde opgeneem word en ander nie, dat daar reeds bestaan wat Monson (1973: 208) “this silent

[p. 118]

censorship” noem, weerspreek die gedagte van 'n objektiewe, suiwer, deskriptiewe woordeboek.’

Omission can lead to great confusion in the community, particularly on the issue of ‘acceptable’ anglicisms; the editor of Die Huisgenoot (1/11/57) correctly commented:

‘As 'n bepaalde vorm nie in die Woordeboek staan nie weet die gewone man nie of dit misgekyk of doelbewus weggelaat is nie.’

Boshoff (1963: 90) gives particularly appropriate advice in this respect when he maintains that if one is left in doubt by the standard reference works as to the acceptability of a given structure, one must not react as follows:

As 'n woord, 'n uitdrukking of wat ook al nie in 'n Afrikaanse woordeboek of grammatika te vind is nie, dan bestaan dit nie, of as dit tog bestaan, maar nie in Nederlands te vind is nie, dan moet dit as die pes vermy word, want dan is dit gevaarlik.’

It is to be hoped that when WAT is completed, it will not contain the omissions that HAT does. Meanwhile HAT is all we have and such omissions are unfortunately probably to be expected in a handwoordeboek.