The Influence of English on Afrikaans

7.9 Auxiliary verbs

7.9.1 Modal verbs

Modal verbs in Germanic languages are noted for having changed their meanings over time as is evidenced by contrasting the meanings of cognate forms in any two or more Germanic languages or by looking at the meanings they had at earlier stages in the development of the standard languages of today. The modal auxiliaries mag and sal in particular have acquired functions in Afrikaans which they do not have in Dutch but which ‘may’ and ‘will’ also have in English. Presumably this semantic extension is the result of the contact with English, a fact which escaped Hubbard's (1980) attention in his contrastive analysis of the semantics of the modal auxiliary in English and Afrikaans.

[p. 211]

7.9.1.1 Mag

The use of mag in the following two examples should be seen as a continuation of the Dutch subjunctive form moge (cf. Geerts, i.a. 1984: 449), in which function it is thus not an anglicism:

‘Mag dit 'n dag vir jou wees wat jy nooit sal vergeet nie
Hoe mooi dit ook mag wees’

Such uses of mag are subtly different from the following which are anglicisms in origin. These render Dutch zou kunnen. Van der Merwe and Ponelis (1982: 124) refer to mag with the meaning of kan moontlik as probably being an anglicism and add: ‘Hierdie uitbreiding van mag se gebruiksfeer voorsien in 'n behoefte en verdien aanvaarding,’ for example:

Ek mag verkeerd wees
Dit mag wees (altogether an English idiom)
Daar mag dalk oorlog kom
Hy mag dit miskien hê
Jesus red vandag - môre mag te laat wees

7.9.1.2 Sal

There are three uses of sal which would seem to be English influenced:

a)	in polite requests where Dutch requires willen, now a less frequent possibility in Afrikaans, for example: Sal jy asseblief iets vir my doen? (= English ‘will’).
b)	in the formulation of regulations etc., for example: Daar sal 'n Raad wees. Die Raad sal uit tien lede bestaan. Die lede sal 'n kworum vorm. (cf. Van der Merwe, en Ponelis 1982: 168). (= English ‘shall’) This use of ‘shall’ is in fact not unlike the use of zult in the Dutch version of the ten commandments, a case where Afrikaans now uses mag, for example: Gij zult niet stelen.
c)	in contexts where no futurity as such is expressed but where English uses ‘will’ anyway, for example: Sal dit al wees? (shop-assistant to customer), Preen sal feitlik alle vlekke uithaal, Baba-sjampoe sal die oë nie brand nie.

For the formation of the future tense English has three methods at its disposal: will, to go, present tense. Both Dutch and Afrikaans have the same three possibilities but just as ‘will’ is used more frequently in English than zullen in Dutch, I believe there is also a tendency in Afrikaans to use sal where Dutch would prefer the present tense (although zullen is not usually incorrect) but English would use ‘will’, for example:

[p. 212]

Dt.	Dat doe ik morgen
Afr.	Ek sal dit môre doen
Eng.	I'll do it tomorrow

7.9.1.3 Hoef/nodig hê

Because the transitive verb ‘to need’ and the modal verb ‘to need’ (i.e. the negative of ‘to have to’) are one and the same in English, this has led to hoef being substituted by nodig hê in Afrikaans on occasions, for example: Jy het (dit) nie nodig om dit aan mekaar te koppel nie.

7.9.1.4 Moet

Langenhoven (1935: 104) implies that moenie is in imitation of English ‘don't’. It is true that it is unknown in Dutch but as it is not a literal translation from English, I would hesitate to support Langenhoven's claim. It is possible, however.

Because of the partial homophony of Afrikaans moes and English ‘must’, moes is sometimes heard where moet is the sense required, particularly in the compound tense hy moes dit gedoen het which then becomes ambiguous. (cf. Hiemstra 1980: 78) The use of moes in such compound tenses may also simply be a case of preterite assimilation. (cf. Ponelis 1979: 272) Behoort, on the other hand, occurs where moes (= sou moet/moes) is required, for example: As ons net opvolgreën kan kry, behoort die veld mooi aan te kom. Hiemstra (1980: 25) says ‘Behoort druk 'n verpligting uit, nie 'n waarskynlikheid... nie.’

7.9.2

Peculiar to English, and now also to Afrikaans, is the extremely economic, terse custom of repeating the finite verb (usually a modal) in a previous statement (plus a subject pronoun or daar) to either affirm, question or negate that statement, also attested in Australian Dutch. (cf. Nijenhuis 1967: 25) The verbs concerned are: is, het; kan/kon, mag, moet/moes, sal/sou, wil/wou; beter, doen, gaan, for example:

Hy is 'n goeie man. Ja, hy is.
Koos het griep. Het hy?
Het sy dit gedoen? Ja, sy het.
Jy moes dit lank gelede gedoen het. Ja, ek moes.
Onthou dit. Ek sal.
Jy wil nie dieselfde paadjie as hy loop nie, wil jy?

[p. 213]

Jy beter iets doen. Ja, ek beter. (Dit beter wees)¹⁹
Jy gaan dit betreur. Nee, ek gaan nie.²⁰
Jy moet bedank. Ek gaan.²⁰
Dis nie waar nie. Dit is./Is dit?²¹

The alternative structures required in Dutch in such instances would now be considered awkward in Afrikaans, for example: Hij is een goede man. Ja, dat is ie. Koos heeft griep. Is dat zo? etc.

19 This colloquial but nevertheless exceedingly common use of beter was attested by Roux in 1909. It is interesting to note that the Afrikaans is even more colloquial than the English it is modelled on, as one would always write ‘I'd better’ etc., although the elliptic ‘had’ may not always be pronounced.

20 Here an auxiliary is used which does not even occur in the original statement but which is implied. It should be pointed out, however, that many Afrikaners would disapprove of the use of gaan as an auxiliary in such cases.

20 Here an auxiliary is used which does not even occur in the original statement but which is implied. It should be pointed out, however, that many Afrikaners would disapprove of the use of gaan as an auxiliary in such cases.

21 The invariable ‘is it?’ in South African English is presumably a translation of Afrikaans is dit? (cf. Branford 1980: 118), which in its turn may be based on an English precedent where the verb did vary.