The Influence of English on Afrikaans

5.2 The success of puristic endeavours in Afrikaans

Nienaber (1940: 62), in his discussion of the vocabulary used in Klaas Waarzegger se zamenspraak en brieve uit 1861, remarks

‘Ook merk ons hoe woorde uit die parlementêre kringe in Afrikaans net begin inburger, en ander oor die administrasie van die land reeds 'n plek verower het - almal via Engels (Parlement[s], spiets, bill, wharfage, Juts[ie], gofferneur e.m.).’

Loanwords of this kind and vintage are mentioned time and time again in the literature on anglicisms in Afrikaans, and more often than not the very same examples are given. De Villiers (1976: 127) comments:

‘Die oudste Engelse leenwoorde is volkome verafrikaans bv. juts (judge), koort (court), bokkie (buggy), briek (brake), reisies (races), metjies (matches), setlaar (settler), spiets (speech). (Dit is opvallend dat hierdie ou leenwoorde so sterk in status gedaal het, dat sommige van hulle vandag in opgevoede kringe onbekend is.)’

His final comment is an indication that English loanwords, although once considered completely ingeburger and possibly even indispensable, do not necessarily come to stay.³ Le Roux, for example, wrote in Die Taalgenoot (July 1932):

3 This applies of course to any vocabulary in a language; even indigenous words can pass into oblivion, but this is not an aim actively pursued by language conscious members of the speech community as it is in the case of languages concerned about their survival and thus their purity.

[p. 147]

‘Niemand sal daaraan dink om te wil veg teen sulke woorde soos briek en horssweep nie.’

In hindsight we know that it was not only thought of, but in the case of briek has even been quite successful. Such examples illustrate that puristic endeavours, so often and easily scoffed at, can and do attain some degree of success.

The many writings of the 1930's on anglicisms in Afrikaans indicate, when one compares the observations of those writers with today's reality, how much ‘purer’ Afrikaans these days seems to be. Scholtz (1980: 105), taking up this point, remarks:

‘'n Menigte Engelse woorde wat in Afrikaans gekom het in die tydperk van die kwaaiste Anglisering en lank in Afrikaans in gebruik was, is later weer deur die suiwer Hollands-Afrikaanse ekwivalente vervang (soos juts deur regter, en koort deur hof) of is besig om hul houvas te verloor (soos brekfis teenoor ontbyt, briek teenoor rem, bottelstoor teenoor drankwinkel).’

Smith (1962: 42, but written 1936-39) comments on the great interest in, and wealth of, publications on linguistic purity in the late 1930's. Van Rensburg (1983: 136) mentions that words such as brekfis, koort, koers (reisieskoers), juts, rente (i.p.v. huur), antie, toorts were commonly used right into the 1940's. An anonymous subscriber to Die Huisgenoot (20/10/44) was also prompted to comment:

‘Kyk net hoeveel Anglisismes en Engelse woorde is gedurende die afgelope tien of twintig jaar al uit die taal verwyder.’⁴

The explanation for this relatively sudden apparent purity of vocabulary would seem to be the extensive vernederlandsing of the language (cf. Uys 1983) that took place in the all important 1930's when official recognition had been achieved, the Bible translation had finally been completed, the SABC had been created and the way was open for Afrikaans to assert itself in every aspect of South African life. A purification of the vocabulary of

4 W. Kempen, writing for Ons Eie Boek in 1946, was concerned about the common man's difficulty with writing pure Afrikaans. He conducted a survey whereby he took a reputable Afrikaans magazine (unnamed but was it Die Huisgenoot?) over the years 1920-45 and counted the number of anglicisms per 100 pages. His findings were as follows: 1920 - 95, 1925 - 35, 1930 - 29.5, 1935 - 23.5, 1945 - 22.5.

[p. 148]

the language occurred at this time which was somewhat akin to the relexification that pidgin languages undergo when they are elevated by circumstances to creoles. (cf. Todd 1974: 50) It was also a time in South Africa's history when many Afrikaans scholars and future politicians were returning from their studies in Holland and were thus in a good position to lend support to the patriotic feeling prevalent at the time. Odendal (1978: 72), one of South Africa's best known lexicographers, sees the success in ousting the above loanwords from a somewhat different, although not necessarily unrelated, point of view:

‘So ly dit m.i. geen twyfel dat woorde soos juts, koort, slipper, tikket, lift, flat, sandwich, wat nog in die jare dertig deur bekende taalkundiges as ingeburger beskou is, uit die taal van baie verdwyn het mede onder invloed van woordeboeke e.d. nie.’

The success that has been achieved by puristic endeavours so far remains chiefly limited to the realm of vocabulary. De Vooys (1925: 3) made a remark about purism drives in general which is valid for the Afrikaans situation in particular:

‘Voor het streven naar taalzuivering is een groot deel van het publiek gemakkelijk te winnen.’

Even with general public support, however, the common man is usually incapable of recognising any purity other than lexical, and even there he is likely, as a result of ignorance, to go too far and start avoiding either truly indigenous structures that coincidentally resemble English (although they may be cognate) or turn against the international component in the vocabulary of Afrikaans because of its resemblance to English. Many Afrikaners thus support the concern for the purity of their language, but are incapable in practice of contributing anything beyond the lexical, committing excesses even there.

The purity of vocabulary, in as far as it has not been achieved by (re)introducing Dutch terminology, has been aided by loan translation (cf. p. 73) and the coining of neologisms. Scholtz (1980: 105) says of the latter:

‘Die strewe is om vir sake waarmee die Afrikaanssprekende die eerste deur medium van Engels kennis maak, 'n geskikte Afrikaanse woord te vind of te maak as daar geen bruikbare Nederlandse woord bestaan nie. So het die volgende woorde,

[p. 149]

naas baie ander, in Afrikaans in algemene gebruik gekom: duikweg (vir subway), naweek (vir weekend) en toebroodjie (vir sandwich).’

De Vooys, talking of the Dutch experience with attempts to purify the language, says:

‘De geschiedenis leert dat purismen, door toonaangevende geleerden of dichters ingevoerd, tot op onze tijd in gebruik bleven.’

A case in point in South Africa are the two words komper and rekenaar (also now less frequently rekenoutomaat), which competitive press organisations supported to keep the international term ‘computer’ at bay. This has been so successful that both words (even all three) have survived and ‘computer’ did not get a foot in the door.⁵ Televisie versus beeldradio, on the other hand, is a case where the purism has definitely lost the race; beeldradio was quite common in the days prior to television and for some time after its introduction, but is now seldom if ever used.

The plethora of vaktaalwoordeboeke in Afrikaans, most of which have been compiled by the vaktaalburos, are currently the most blatant means of counteracting English influence on the lexis of Afrikaans. To my knowledge no systematic investigation has yet been conducted into how far the theory and the practice of terminological dictionaries diverge from one another. Coetzee (1939: 22-23) does, however, give a substantial list of English loanwords to do with mining, for example, and adds:

‘Sedertdien het 'n nuwe geslag Afrikaanse mynwerkers Afrikaanse name gevind vir hierdie begrippe wat aanvanklik so vreemd was vir hulle voorsate dat hulle taalvermoë daardeur verstom geraak het.’

Nevertheless, whatever the contributions of bodies such as newspapers, authors, vaktaalburos and the Akademie to the purity of Afrikaans may be, ‘Sonder die medewerking van die algemene publiek, ook die oningeligte deel daarvan, kan geen taalstryd gewen word nie.’ (Hiemstra 1963: 7)

5 The fact that universities now have departments of rekenaarwetenskap and libraries etc. are gerekenariseer may well mean that komper's days are numbered. HAT does not recognise komper but does, curiously enough, include the lemma rekenoutomaat in addition to rekenaar; the latest volume of WAT does, on the other hand, include komper. (cf. Eksteen 1978: 111 for a discussion of this word)