|
| |
7.24 Conjunctions
7.24.1
Afrikaans has two conjunctions, as and soos, where English has only one, ‘as’. (Discussion here is limited to those meanings of as which correspond to English ‘as.’) The distinction between als and zoals is clearly defined in Dutch (cf. Geerts i.a. 1984: 664-667), as it is in theory in Afrikaans, but in practice there seems to be some confusion hi Afrikaans as to where to draw the line between the functions of the two. Presumably this occurs because of a subconscious awareness of the two being one concept in English.
| |
7.24.1.1
Dit klink soos 'n grap (als), so hard as/soos klip (als - Van der Merwe and Ponelis 1982: 177 recognise both), vyf keer so groot as/soos Brittanje (als), dis net so 'n deel van die stad as/soos die gewelhuise (als), as/soos volg, as/soos belowe (zoals). The forms given in brackets are those required in Dutch.
| |
7.24.1.2
In the following cases the as/soos is superfluous but as is used in the equivalent English expressions: so gou as moontlik, sodra as/soos, sover soos ek weet, in sover as. In the last case HAT gives [in/vir] sover ek weet where only insertion of voor is possible in Dutch (The anglicism vir al wat ek weet/my betref also occurs.); is this in not
| |
| |
also English (i.e. in as far as) or is it the result of confusion with the semantically and syntactically different in sover/re? In the clause sover as... betref (= wat), not only the as but the whole expression is a literal translation from English, as in the case with so vroeg as 1900 (= al/reeds in 1900).
| |
7.24.1.3
English ‘as’ can also mean namate, and thus soos is commonly heard in such contexts: die aantal huwelike tussen blankes en slavinne het toegeneem soos die bevolking vermeerder het; ek verwag dat soos ons in die winter ingaan...; soos die Bantoe al meer met hierdie dinge te doen gekry het, moes sy taal...
| |
7.24.1.4
Unconnected with the as/soos controversy is the fact that ‘to look like’ is often rendered by lyk soos where HAT gives only op and na. My impression is that soos is the most frequently heard variant but that a subtle semantic distinction is sometimes present, for example: dit lyk soos 'n diamant - dit lyk na 'n diamant. I am not sure whether this use of soos is the result of English influence.
| |
7.24.2
It has often been maintained that beide...en is not an anglicism despite the fact that Dutch uses zowel...als (ook) and (èn)... èn in such contexts. In Afrikaans it stands in free variation with sowel...as(ook) and, I believe, is now more commonly used than the latter. Van der Merwe and Ponelis (1982: 14), leaning on examples found in WNT, do not attribute it to English influence but add: Engels kon dus hierdie gebruik bestendig het, maar hy het dit beslis nie veroorsaak nie. This may be so, but the existence of beide...en and sowel...as(ook) where English has only the former, plus the existence of ‘as well as’ (= asook in Afr.) has given rise to a variety of contaminated forms which are most probably the result of contact with English, for example: beide...sowel as - beide van die studenteraad se kant sowel as van die kant van die kerk, beide...asook - hy het probeer om meer lig te werp op die ontstaansgeskiedenis van beide die latere Afrikaners asook die groepe wat as Kaapse Kleurlinge bekend sou word, sowel as - dit het 'n badkamer sowel as 'n garage/dit het binne sowel as buite die huwelik plaasgevind. Smith (1962: 58) quoting a 1918 Dutch dictionary, provides hij zoowel als zijn broeder as ‘evidence’ that the last example is not an anglicism.
| |
7.24.3
The possibility of hoekom being English inspired is not raised in any of the literature on the topic although an identical idiom exists
| |
| |
in English. WAT sees it simply as a contraction of hoe kom dit, the form it has in Dutch. WAT quotes an example of its use in Die Kaapse Taalargief from 1769, but the syntax in that case is not that of the current expression as it is followed by dat. Might English not have at least played the role of a contributing factor in the adoption of this structure? It is true, however, that hoekom occurs in cases where ‘how come’ cannot be used, i.e. in indirect questions, for example: daar is geen rede hoekom dit nie moontlik is nie.
Van der Merwe and Ponelis (1982: 81) do not mention English influence either but do discuss the alternative vir wat (= waarvoor which they don't give) under the lemma hoekom. They emphasise that vir wat is omgangstaal. Can omgangstaal in this instance be equated with English influence, whether consciously or otherwise?
| |
7.24.4
Siende dat (= aangesien) occurs frequently enough for HAT to consider it worth mentioning as incorrect.
Indien nie (zo niet in Dt.) as in hy is 'n bietjie snaaks indien nie heeltemal gek nie is not mentioned anywhere in the literature as an anglicism although I would contend it probably is. It is perhaps no longer recognised as such because it has completely replaced so nie in such cases but not in ek sal jou om 10 uur kom oplaai, so nie om 11 uur, where one would be more inclined to say ‘otherwise’ rather than ‘if not’ in English anyway.
| |
7.24.5
Nowadays a superfluous wat is heard after as in comparatives (e.g. hy is groter as wat ek gedog het). The phenomenon has attracted attention among linguists but no-one seems to have noticed that ‘what’ occurs frequently in colloquial English in the same position (e.g. he's bigger than what I thought he was). Scholtz (1980: 76), referring to Verhage (1965?), maintains that this wat has replaced dat, another example of the overall preference for wat forms in Afrikaans. I can find no mention of as wat constructions in Verhage's article. Nevertheless, even if the structure did occur in Dutch - it does no longer - the role of English as a contributing factor in its ever-increasing frequency cannot be disregarded.
| |
7.24.6
In dat (= in sover dat) is literally translated from English.
|
|
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd