Herkomst en groei van het Afrikaans

[p. 359]

Summary

In the first chapter (p. 1-40) the author deals with the problem of the relationship between race (tribe) and language. In 1806 the percentages of Dutch, German, French and ‘other nationalities’ in the composition of the ‘Afrikaans’ people were 53:28:15:4. But these data can by no means be realized in linguistic coinage. French influence on Afrikaans has been very small. There are only a few German loan-words in Afrikaans and a great part of them have been adopted by the medium of ‘High’Dutch.

It is shown by the author that the traditional maps of the old Germanic tribes are unreliable for linguistic purposes. Van Ginneken's race-theory is untenable.

The lack of visible German influence on Afrikaans has always caused some astonishment. Some scholars found the explanation in the fact that the greater part of the German immigrants migrated from Low Germany. The Low German dialects, just like Dutch, have not taken part in the ‘Lautverschiebung’ (shifting of consonants) and it is not always possible to discover whether the words are of Dutch or of Low German origin. But there is no evidence that Low German has played an important part in the Cape Colony. In Low Germany itself the Low German language disappeared from all schools in the course of the 17th century. The last Low German Bible is dated 1623.

In chapter II (p. 41-207) it is shown that the mother-country of Afrikaans must lie in the north western part of the continent where the Old Germanic î and û have become diphthongs and outside the Lautverschiebung territory. On the basis of a great number of dialect-maps it is pointed out that only the old province of Holland can be considered as the cradle-land of Afrikaans, particularly, the southern part of the modern province of South Holland.

Especially the maps of ‘beetje’ (a little bit), ‘tafella’ (drawer), ‘moedervarken’ (sow), ‘paars’ (purple), ‘eikels’ (acorns), ‘koe’ (cow), ‘nieuw’ (new) are to be mentioned. Characteristic of the environs of

[p. 360]

Rotterdam are bietjie, laai, zog, pêrs, akers, koei and nuut, just the same words (and almost with the same pronunciation) as in Afrikaans. The Afrikaans diminutives bietjie, boekie, kappie, huisie, boompie agree with the diminutive type of Oud-Beierland as described by Opprel. A general survey of all dialect maps, so far published, confirms that the dialects of the southern part of the province of South Holland are characterized by a maximum of parallels with Afrikaans.

In chapter III (p. 208-228) it is proved by negative demonstration that only South Holland can be considered as the cradle-land of Afrikaans. The arguments for eastern influences vaguely suggested by some scholars do not gain any support in the extensive dialect material of Friesland, Groningen, Drente, eastern Gelderland, Limburg and obviously not from Low Germany.

Dom. Smits' arguments for Flemish influence cannot stand the test of expert criticism.

The vocal system of the Zealand dialects diverges too widely from Afrikaans for the language to have originated there.

The possibility of the existence of nearer relations to the dialects of North Holland has already been disproved by Boekenoogen.

In Afrikaans some Brabant relations may probably be found. They may have their origin in seventeenth century conditions, when the southern (Brabant) influence of the middle ages geographically overlapped that of the province of Holland, to a greater extent than is the case nowadays.

The probability of Brabant (mass-)immigration must be ruled out, since Brabant has always been a purely Catholic country and Catholics were unwelcome within the area of the East Indian Company.

Nevertheless Afrikaans is not purely the result of a regular development of the dialects of South Holland. There are many Afrikaans words and linguistic phenomena that are not dialectal at all but must have been adopted from ‘High’Dutch. Words as waarsku (in stead of waarskou), koning (in the dialects of Holland: keuning), aan (in stead of Dutch colloquial an) must be of dignified origin. Many others, though in Holland belonging to the written language, have become colloquial in Africa. Historically they must be considered as mots savants, schoolbook-words, dignified language. Numerals, for instance, and names of months, days, seasons are pure (High)Dutch. That reminds us of J.J. le Roux's statement, ‘In former times High Dutch was a stilistic form of Afrikaans’.

Although Afrikaans partly takes its origin from the dialects of South Holland, this does not necessarily mean that most of the immigrants come from South Holland, as is described in chapter IV

[p. 361]

(p. 229-288). This statement may appear paradoxical but the lists of ‘free burgher’ ancestors prove that the immigrants of South Holland never exceeded 27 per cent.

The fact that the descendants of the Huguenots also speak Afrikaans tinged with South Holland peculiarities proves that Afrikaans already possessed that shading before 1687. At that time there were at the utmost 63 ‘South Holland’ children and 22 South Holland adults, to a population of 573 white people.

It is not probable however that only the ancestors took an active part in the development of the language. There was also a floating population of Dutchmen (Government officials, civil servants) whose influence should not be left out of account. The earlier their cultural activity, the greater their influence must have been on the linguistic development in Africa.

The muster roll of 1664 (published in extenso p. 240-256) contains a complete register of the population of the Cape that approximately reflects conditions at the end of the Van Riebeeck period. From 264 inhabitants that can be localized 58 are from the old province of Holland, 147 from the Low Countries in general (including prov. of Holland and the Flemish provinces of Belgium) and 82 Germans. So the percentage of Germans exceeds that of the ‘Hollanders’ in the narrower provincial sense of the word. Perhaps half of the latter were from South Holland. Nevertheless Afrikaans possesses an indubitable ‘Holland’ stamp and the South Holland tinge is undeniable. The question arises whether a population from all parts of Western Europe, like that of 1664, ever could come to a ‘Holland’ compromise if not the position of the Holland language had already been firmly established in 1664. Hence, if South Holland ever has had a strong position in Africa it must have been during the Van Riebeeck period (1652-1662).

Remarkable is the fact that from the oldest list of ‘free burghers’ only one was a native of South Holland (he was murdered in 1659). It is quite impossible that this group of old free burghers should have spoken a Holland dialect with South Holland features on their own initiative. In the 17th century the Cape Town was still the only centre of Holland culture and language.

In 1664 there must have been more children than appears from the documents. At the end of the Van Riebeeck period the Holland element among them must have been preponderant in quality, perhaps also in quantity. The centre of social and family life was the circle of Van Riebeeck-Van der Stael.

The muster roll confirms D.B. Bosman's view that during the

[p. 362]

first years of the colony there were neither Portuguese nor Malay elements of any importance at the Cape. Nevertheless Van Riebeeck and his circle use Portuguese and Malay words. Moreover Van Riebeeck and especially the foreigners De Smit and Van Meerhoff show ‘Africanderisms’ in their language before there can be question of Portuguese and Malay infiltration at the Cape. There is some vacillation between de and die. The use of the singular form for the plural of verbs is often found in Van Meerhoff's journal (voormiddachs is daer weder omtrent 30 hottentotts by ons gecomen). The construction deze Capitayn sijn corael is used before there can be any question of Creolo-Portuguese influence (Pedro suo filho). De Smit and Van Meerhoff ‘drop’ their t's in heeff, hooff, nach, naerich etc. (cf. Afr. herfs, vernuf, sug). This is characteristic of the dialects of The Hague, Rotterdam and nearly all the little towns of South Holland. It is not necessary to assume Malay influence as Hesseling does.

Chapter V (p. 289-332) gives an analysis of the language of the Pioneers Jan van Riebeeck, Fr. de Smit and Pieter Meerhoff.

The basis of Van Riebeeck's language must be the spoken language of South Holland. Fr. de Smit (from the city of Konigsberg) apparently tries to write the same language as Van Riebeeck but he does not always succeed. His linguistic slips and derailments are of great interest for the reconstruction of the language he heard in his circle. The Dane (?) Pieter van Meerhoff makes similar ‘mistakes’. The question, whether the language of the pioneers was made of the same stuff as modern Afrikaans, may be answered in the affirmative.

In chapter VI (p. 333) the popular conception that Afrikaans is a ‘mixture’ of all kinds of European dialects is refuted. Yet it is not the pure development of one (South Holland) dialect. Linguistic ‘mixing’ took place in the restricted sense that a postulated archetype of ‘Afrikaans’ reached a compromise with ‘High’ Dutch. In the Dutch population of Africa during at least two centuries ‘High’ Dutch was the permanent companion of Afrikaans. There was a friendly symbiosis of two languages that up to 1860 lacked the distinguishing features of a ‘language struggle’. It is unthinkable that this state of things should have had no consequences for the development of Afrikaans. In fact there are many words in modern Afrikaans that can only have been adopted through the medium of ‘High’ Dutch, particularly a kind of dignified ‘schoolbook’ Dutch. Many Afrikaans words of Dutch origin have never been colloquial in Holland itself.

The two chief sources of Afrikaans, the old dialects of South Holland on the one hand and ‘High’ Dutch on the other, are reflected in the vocal system. In some respect Afrikaans is of a pronounced

[p. 363]

conservative ‘Holland’ dialectal character, still more conservative than the dialects of Holland itself, which are gradually disappearing. In other respects Afrikaans has gone through the same development as Dutch during two centuries. Waarskou has made place for the more dignified waarsku like Dutch waarschouwen for waarschuwen. An has definitively lost its former position against originally dignified aan. It is very interesting that Afrikaans has been more fanatically opposed to an than the colloquial language in Holland itself. In the mother country the substitution of an by aan is still in progress.

In many respects the earlier situation in Africa can be compared with the bi-linguism in Friesland and the other eastern provinces of the Netherlands. The Frisian dialects have been thoroughly influenced by the language of Holland. An earlier generation of linguists hesitated to call that a ‘development’. They preferred terms like ‘corruption’, ‘decay’. In their descriptions they aimed at the ‘genuine’ dialects and suppressed all traces of ‘decadence’. So these descriptions do not give a true picture of living speech. From this point of view the postulated archetype of Afrikaans, Oer-Afrikaans, has suffered considerable ‘corruption’ from the side of ‘High’ Dutch.

In the preceding chapter the author already called attention to some ‘africanizing’ tendencies of De Smit and Van Meerhoff's. It is almost certain that these tendencies must have strongly increased in the period extending from 1662-1685. We can hardly assume that the real Dutch immigrants have used a strongly africanized language but the foreigners so much the more. The younger generation must have ‘murdered’ the language. There were only a minority of real ‘Hollanders’ in Africa. In linguistic respect the children lacked a stereotyped pattern at which to aim. The state of education was unsatisfactory, in many years of this period no classes were held at all. There can be no doubt that Van Rheede's description of the contemporary youth and their language is right. Van Rheede describes the awkward age of Afrikaans, the years of breaking bounds and kicking over the traces. In the following years, the period of the energetic Simon van der Stel, there was an endeavour to fight against the neglect of the rising generation and their language. ‘Back to youth speaking a pure Dutch’ may have been the watch-word. But this ideal could no longer be attained. Attainable was only ‘to get the situation in hand’. This must have been the situation in the 18th and 19th centuries. High Dutch was maintained as the language of church and school and as the official language. Afrikaans, the new-born africanized form of colloquial Dutch was suited for oral intercourse in the ‘veld’.

[p. 364]

The most static element in language process is the habit of using traditional ‘clusters’ of sounds for the expression of ideas. In Africa Van Riebeeck c.s. may have exercised more influence on the linguistic state of affairs than any circles afterwards did, because they created the tradition of speaking a South Holland shade of Dutch. In Bosman's line of thought they are ‘taalbehouers’ (language maintainers). On the other hand foreigners like De Smit and Van Meerhoff and so many others have tried to uphold that Dutch tradition but they could not completely succeed, because they were foreigners. Like D.B. Bosman, the present writer calls them ‘taalkinders’ (children inexperienced in using the Dutch language). So in the matter of language a preponderantly static force and a dynamic one have determined the situation of the first period. With the growing increase of foreign elements the dynamic force could gain a more dominating effect. It is especially the language of the Cape-born generation that has undergone the effect of the predominant foreign population. In fact the antithesis between taalbehouers and taalkinders exactly corresponds to De Saussure's antithesis of ‘esprit de clocher’ and ‘intercourse’.

The ‘draai’ (shifting, bent) in the indigenous Dutch language of the Cape people, especially of the youth, must have become fixed before the arrival of the French. The new-born ‘Cape Dutch’ language must have combined the features of Van Riebeeck's language on the one hand and that of foreigners like De Smit and Van Meerhoff on the other. Hence the combination of South Holland tinge and deflexion in the language of the Cape. The uniformity of Afrikaans all over the vast territory of South Africa proves that the new language must have gained its most characteristic features before 1700.

Since that time the tables were more or less turned, Afrikaans became the language of taalbehouers and ‘High’ Dutch a medium of ‘international’ intercourse. The position of pure Dutch was strengthened by the fact that it was recognized without contradiction as the medium for school, church and government.

The friendly symbiosis of Dutch and Afrikaans was equally ‘normal’ as the bi-linguism in Dutch provinces like Friesland and Groningen. Hence during approximately two centuries there has been no question of a ‘language struggle’ between Dutch and Afrikaans as actually there has been between Dutch and English since 1806.