Talk:Afrikaans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afrikaans is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives

July 2003 to February 2007

Contents 1 Afrikaans links lists and portals 2 Afrikaans.co.za 3 Afrikaners vs Afrikaanses 4 Reorganisation of External Links section 5 Difference between Dutch and Afrikaans - "more regular grammar" 6 Monolingual? 7 Praag is not for Afrikaans as language 8 Afrikaans 9 pronunciation of <ie> 10 Double negative 11 Afrikaans in argentina 12 Kameelperd x Camel horse 13 Name 14 Language of the Oppressor 15 "SOV language"

[edit] Afrikaans links lists and portals

There is a very fine line between sites "about Afrikaans" and sites "for Afrikaans". The former is permitted in terms of the Wikipedia guidelins, whereas the latter may be frowned upon. What I propose is that we create a separate section in the links section called "Afrikaans portals and link lists", in which we list 5 of the biggest or most well-known portals, including Woes.co.za and Dieknoop.co.za. -- leuce 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaans.co.za

The URL afrikaans.co.za redirects to dieknoop.co.za. If anyone wants to add it (and if it is indeed allowed), IMO they should (a) add the real URL and not the redirecting URL and (b) reference it by its real name "Die Knoop" and not something vague and marketingish like "Afrikaans portal". -- leuce 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaners vs Afrikaanses

Before I go on, let's first agree to read what has been said about this topic in the archives of this discussion... so that we don't rehash old arguments endlessly.

My question is basically this: Do a large section of the general public in South Africa regard the term "Afrikaner" as pejorative?

Looking at ten random results for a search for "afrikaners" in iol.co.za (the combined portal for South African English newspapers such as Cape Argus, Cape Times, Daily News, Isolezwe, Post, Pretoria News, Sun. Independent, Sunday Tribune, The Independent on Saturday, The Mercury and The Star), the term "Afrikaners" is used only in a neutral sense, never pejoratively.

A Google search for "afrikaners" in site:.anc.org.za gives similar results. Even in articles where negative things were written about Afrikaners, the term itself is used neutrally, not pejoratively.

Any term can be used pejoratively by anyone, but the question is whether the term "Afrikaner" is usually pejorative. The answer, I think, is no. The fact that some people feel very negative about Afrikaners, doesn't mean that when use the word "Afrikaner", that they've deliberately chosen that word above any other word because it is presumably pejorative. -- leuce 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as my knowledge extends into the topic of the 'politics of Afrikaans' the terms Afrikaner, Afrikaanses and Boers are applied depending upon the Afrikaans- speakers ethnicity (although certain members of the Coloured community prefer to be referred to as Bruin Afrikaners rather than Afrikaanses), political beliefs and location. The White, Afrikaans- speaking descendants of the Voortrekkers are likely to use the term Boer, although it's also used by politically conservative Afrikaners of non- Voortrekker descent, and equally politically/ socially liberal Afrikaans- speaking Whites of Voortrekker descent may prefer the term Afrikaanse. So it's almost unique to every person.

However, after weighing it all up, I would say that Afrikaanses is the most general and appropriate term, considering Boer or Afrikaner limit the usage of the term and are inaccurate, because a considerable portion of the Coloured population, who often don't see themselves as Afrikaners, speak Afrikaans.

86.31.158.242 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether "Afrikaanses" is an appropriate term or not, is not my concern (it has been discussed in the archives of this page). My question was rather whether "Afrikaner" is necessarily a pejorative term or not. -- leuce 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the accent of Boers (using the term in a geographical rather than political context, to denote those of voortrekker descent) differs greatly from that of Cape Afrikaners, which is hardly suprising considering the two groups have been developing seperately since the 1690s- early 1700s.

Perhaps this information should be included in the article?

86.31.158.242 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if the accents of Gautengers vs Capetonians have anything to do with the fact that there were two dialects of Afrikaans (a western and and eastern one, not counting the northern one). With the advent of rail and the automobile, the speakers of these "dialects" have moved around quite a bit and the boundaries of accents based on the dialects may be indistinguishable by now. This is just my opinion. -- leuce 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, it does say in the Boer article that the two ethnic groups have been dispersed around the country in lots of cases, however there is still specifically Boer communities and I'm quite sure that their accent and pronunciation will differ greatly from that of a Cape Afrikaner. In the way that Cape Malay Afrikaans- speakers add -jie to the end of almost every word (or at least according to Leonard Van Os), the Boer and Afrikaner accents will, in those ethnicity defined communities, vary.

82.14.87.191 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we don't need a generic term for Afrikaans speakers, Afrikaner speakers will call themselves Afrikaners, Boer speakers will refer to themselves as Boers and coloured speakers will call themselves coloureds or brown Afrikaners.

I doubt their common language culturally binds them any more than the fact Englanders and Americans both speak English.

82.12.236.241 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation of External Links section

I've cleaned up the links list of irrelevant or superfluous links. Here is my reasons/rationale for removing the links:

• www.afrikaans.nu/pag5.htm - Why not just summarise it into a single sentence and put it in the article?

• www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/lettere/skt/afn.html - We can't list all colleges with Afrikaans departments.

• language-directory.50webs.com/languages/afrikaans.htm - Only a very small links list.

• miejipang.homestead.com/untitled4.html - Very little unique content.

• www.rapport.co.za, www.kyknet.co.za, www.rsg.co.za/, www.liveaudio.co.za/radiopta/frame.aspx - One cannot possibly list all Afrikaans newspapers, radio stations, magazines, television stations, publishers etc.

• www.nwu.ac.za/ctext, translate.org.za/content/view/17/32/, translate.org.za/content/view/1611/54/, translate.org.za/content/view/1612/54/, translate.org.za/content/view/24/41/, translate.org.za/ - One cannot possibly list all Afrikaans software and software organisations here.

I also feel quite strongly that the portals and links lists should also be removed -- they do not belong in an encyclopedia article, IMO. But I've left them there for someone else to delete... -- leuce 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Dutch and Afrikaans - "more regular grammar"

It is unclear to the reader which language posesses a more regular grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.65.40 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Afrikaans is more regular, I'll make that clear in the article.Cameron Nedland 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monolingual?

Hi,

I was wondering, approximately, what percentage of Afrikaans speakers, particularly in the Cape Dutch and Boer communities (as those in the Cape Coloured switch between Afrikaans and English with ease), are only able to speak Afrikaans. As I understood the majority of white schools, under the Apartheid regime, taught English and Afrikaans side- by- side, however, particularly in the former Western Transvaal, there seems to be a population of Boers, primarily in the most rural communtities, who cannot speak English.

Also, if there is a significant population of monolingual Afrikaanses, will this phenomena invariably die out with the conviction of the present government that English should be the future language of all White South Africans. I did here that they are firmly pro- English, with regards to education, however I know for a fact that in some schools Afrikaans is the only language used.

Could anyone with a more advanced knowledge than myself break down this mixed message, concerning the future role of Afrikaans in southern Africa.

86.31.158.242 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Being an english speaker growing up in the former Western Transvaal, now known as the North West Province, I can attest to the lack of spoken English in the region, but do not be mistaken - english is understood by a great deal of people - even in places like Ventersdorp. Children in the former white schools of the region were taught english until matric level. It was a compulsory subject at school for all white children. So, a great deal of people are able to speak english, but there is a great deal of animosity towards the language.

However, the aversion to english dates back to the Second Anglo-Boer War and for that reason, the area has a great dislike for the language. The British forces were not very successful in their endeavours in the area. Danie Theron, a Afrikaans national hero is remember for his death in the hills of the Gatsrand.

[edit] Praag is not for Afrikaans as language

IMO PRAAG is not a language activist organisation, but an ethnic one. The description of PRAAG on their own web site mentions only "Afrikaners" in the political, ethnic sense of the word. Don't be fooled by their name -- they are not "pro Afrikaans", but "pro white Afrikaner". IMO the link should be removed. -- leuce 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know but they've become very intertwined, particularly under the ANC's anti- Afrikaans ethos, with Afrikaans being one of the staples of Afrikaner and Boer culture in a way that it isn't for Coloureds or any other Afrikaans- speakers.

How do you think most Americans would feel if they were told they had to start speaking Spanish and Hispanic and Native American culture were the only ones that influenced their nation? That's the closest parallel you could get, there's a native people, who are now in control, there's another immigrant group (Brits in the case of SA) and suddenly your own language is no longer valued.

82.14.87.191 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaans

You can say that Afrikaans went through creolisation periods, i.e. the fact that it took on a diverse range of vocabulary..it changed grammar structure..it became a lingua franca for the coloureds..why would the white settlers incorporate vocabulary from various sources and change the structure of the language?(this is copied from talk:Creole languages) It says it was influenced by a creole..but it's not a creole...right?Domsta333 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaans developed under the influence of all languages in Southern Africa, including German and French, as well as non- White languages like Malay, there's no politics involved in a languages' developement, I'd imagine they just picked up words from other settlers, and natives, and they became worked into the framework of Afrikaans.

82.12.236.241 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the white settlers take words from Africans/whoever? If you find something and your people have no idea what it is, who would you ask?Cameron Nedland 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point.

Treurnicht 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole host of Afrikaans words that originated from non-Germanic languages. Afrikaans even adopted a few grammatical rules from these languages.[1] [2]. From Low Portugese examples include sambreel ("umbrella"), tamaai ("big") and "tarentaal" (guineafowl), as well as the practice of putting vir ("for") before the object: Ek het vir Jan gebel. ("I called Jan.").

From Malay we have, amongst others, piesang ("banana") and borrie ("turmeric") as well as the practice of repeating words like net-net ("just") and gou-gou ("quickly").

The use of the pronoun ons ("us") where other Germanic forms would use "we", stems from the Khoi-languages, as do words like abba (to transport someone on your back - not quite like a piggyback ride, in that the carrier remains upright) and boegoe ("buchu" - a type of plant).

If one understands "creolisation" to mean a quick and radical language change in context, then Afrikaans would definitely be viewed as a creole. Remember, the settlers arrived only to be confronted with a load of objects (animals, plants, fruits) which they had no vocabulary for, including objects which the traders brought from Malaysia, etc. Words were needed - and fast - to name these things, and this usually meant adopting the existing foreign words. In one disastrous case, a fish, the Johanius hololepidotus, reminded the Dutch settlers of a fish back home and they continued calling it "Kabeljou", even though the Dutch kabeljou refers to the Cod family.

The presence of these foreign languages also had a permanent effect on the language, apart from the voabulary (examples above, also the use of double negatives, which, unless I'm mistaken, the Afrikaners can thank the French Huguenots for). So, just some examples of the way in which Dutch become Afrikaans during its creolisation. Anrie 13:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no common agreement as to the origin of the double negative in Afrikaans and the evidence does not point to a single, identifiable origin. It's discussed in a chapter in The Development of Afrikaans by Fritz Ponelis which looks at the Dutch dialect, Low Portuguese and Khoi origin theories. Lex3000

[edit] pronunciation of <ie>

Hi!

The other day I had an argument with a friend of mine. We (being Dutchmen) are both rather fluent in Afrikaans. The argument was about the pronunciation of a closed syllable when spelt <ie>.

My friend maintained that <siens> from "tot siens" (=goodbye) is pronounced like English "since" whereas my opinion was that - similarly to Dutch - it has to be spoken as in "scenes".

Which is now true, and is there a common rule? Or does it depend on the regional dialect?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

Best regards

Harald

It is pronounced like the Dutch "tot ziens", except for the "z" that becomes "s". Also, it's one word in Afrikaans: "totsiens". It is a common misconception that being able to speak Dutch also enables one to speak Afrikaans. Anrie 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

z becoming s due to English influence in Afrikaans is clear. Spelt in one or two words - who cares? What confuses me much, however, is the German counterpart of your site that I've been recently visiting. There is a table with pronunciation rules for syllables with single vowels. If I interpret this table correctly, the <ie> in a closed syllable is spoken short and only re-prolonged with another vowel following the syllable. "diep" which in Dutch is pronounced just like English "deep" therefore would be spoken "dip" - but then again "dieper" just like "deeper". If this is so, my friend would be right.

Thank you and best regards

Harald

The use of S instead of Z in Afrikaans has nothing to do with English influence, and in fact Afrikaans uses a non-voiced S in many words that have a Z or voiced S in their English equivalents. Compare Afrikaans sink as in the common word "sinkplaat" (corrugated iron) with English "zinc", and plesier with the standard non-voiced S with the English "pleasure", even sebra rather than "zebra". In fact English was of minimal influence on Afrikaans in the language's early development, only becoming a significant influence in more recent years when spelling conventions, pronunciation etc had already become standardised.

/ie/ in diep is pronounced rather like English "deep" but the sound is shorter, mid-way between "deep" and "dip".

Booshank 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friend is incorrect. Afrikaans is my mother-tounge and i cannot think of single instance where <ie> is pronounced as your friend stated it ("i" in "dip"). It is always pronounced like the "i" in "mini" or "in" in English, regardless of dialect. I natively speak with a "Transvaal" or Northeastern Afrikaans accent. (in my opinion) The <ie> in "nie" is pronounced shorter than the <ie> in "kies" because of the surrounding vowels, though this is not uniform and is by no means a rule. -HannesJvV- 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Hannes, but what is the difference in pronunciation between the vowels in the English words "dip" and "in"? Both are clearly short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald4244 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can help with this. In SA English - such as I speak - the vowel sound of "dip" sounds like "a" - the indefinite article - "a book", whereas the vowel sound of "in" is a shortened "e" as in "the letter e". Both are very close to a schwa. Sorry I don't know IPA! Roger (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double negative

One of the comments above mentions the French origin of the double negative. I think more detail on that topic would benefit this article. --StefanVanDerWalt 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion in Dutch can be found at http://taalschrift.org/discussie/000191.html, which includes some statements on the double negative (among others one Johan Nijhof arguing contra on 7/01/04). Classical geographer 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaans in argentina

There is no mention of afrikaans being spoken in argentina? There is quite big and active communities living there and even boere sport events!

Some more info can be found on these pages: http://www.roepstem.net/argentina.html http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=3702&pc=9\ http://www.vandenberg.co.za/southafricansinpategonia1.htm

Think we should work on including them...

sKAApGIF 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kameelperd x Camel horse

Ek noem maar net dat "kameelperd" nie "camel horse" beteken nie, tensy jy volksetimologie in ag neem. Die Nederlandse woord kameelpaard kom uit die Middeleeuse Latyn camelopardus, wat 'n samestelling is van die woord vir kameel (die kameelperd se pote lyk soos 'n kameel s'n) en luiperd (die kameel se kolle lyk soos 'n luiperd s'n). -- leuce (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I double-checked in the HAT, just to be sure, and then removed this "literal" translation. Anrie (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed this again. As Leuce says, kameelperd looks as though it is simply a compound of kameel (camel) and perd (horse) but actually comes from the Middle Ages Latin camelopardus which refers to a camel and leopard. Booshank (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Whats my name in thsi language? --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language of the Oppressor

Replaced the term 'Unfortunately' with 'However' in the line 'Unfortunately, the ruling party in South Africa still see Afrikaans and Afrikaners as the language of a oppressor.'

Regardless of whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with the sentiment, 'unfortunately' does seem POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wight1984 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can have a problem with your edit. I agree that "unfortunately" is POV. Anrie (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Future for Afrikaans" section is POV. It consists entirely of (anonymous) personal opinion and speculation. I would prefer to see cited statements by recognised politicians, academics and other language professionals. Roger (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit this section today in an effort to improve it. Here is the "why" to some of the changes I made:

• Added: "Since the end of apartheid, the Afrikaans language has been continuously downgraded by the ruling ANC in terms of education, social events, media (TV and Radio), and general status in the country, seeing as how it now shares it's place as official language with ten other languages."

So as not to give the impression that Afrikaans is being downgraded just because the government is being "mean", but because of the (im)practicalities of having 11 official languages.

• Changed: "However, the ruling party in South Africa still see Afrikaans and Afrikaners as the language of a oppressor"

Removed "Afrikaners"; they do not constitute a language. Changed "ruling party" to "many" - if you're going to claim that of the ruling party, you definitely need a reference.

• Removed: "But how long the language will remain an official language of South Africa, only time will tell."

Speculative. If there is any doubt or speculation from a verifiable source that Afrikaans is in danger of losing its place as an official language, it should definitely be cited. Otherwise it's just speculation by a user, which isn't acceptable.

Hope this appeases both opposers and the writer of the original piece? (I also improved the language use somewhat). Anrie (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "SOV language"

Why does it say that Afrikaans is a SOV language "like other Germanic languages (except English)." German and Dutch are only SOV in certain types of clauses. It seems they would still classify as SVO. It's probably the same with Afrikaans.

I agree it needs some sort of explanation. To me, it is SVO, e.g Ek het 'n hond (I have a dog), unless there is a conjunction then it is SVO, VSO or SOV depending on the conjunction. Examples: Dit was dinsdag dus was sy daar. (It was Tuesday thus was she there (word for word)) (SVO conj VSO) Ek weet omdat ek daar was - I know because I there was. (SVO conj SOV) Ek weet want ek was daar - I know since I was there. (SVO conj SVO)--198.54.202.102 (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Afrikaans indeed seems to be an SVO language (as German ,Dutch and English are). In fact I always thought that it was. Vis. I kick the bucket. Ek skop die emmer. Ik schop de emmer. Dutch, it is stated is SVO in primary clauses, though SOV in underlying structure. Maybe this would be better included in the article for the sake of clarity. I also believe that Afrikaans is a V2 language just like Dutch. Though I have trouble with explaining the way we form the past tense in the second and last position of a clause.

The previous contributor to this discussion page gave good examples, except for his use of verbs that some might consider special in some sense or another since they need not take an object in the strictest sense.

These might be better:

Ek besit 'n hond (I own a dog)

Ek weet dit omdat ek dit gehoor het - I know it because I it heard. (SVO conj SOV)

Especially "Dit was dinsdag dus was sy daar" and "Ek weet omdat ek daar was" I feel are not accurate because "Ek was daar" might not be parsed as subject-verb-object, but subject-copula-adverb as compare with "Ek was honger" (I was hungry). The sentence could be said to describe a state rather than an action and as such is not an indicative example.--payxystaxna (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist but I wonder about this: Simple present tense declarative sentences are in SVO order "Die hond byt die man." - "The dog bites the man". When one changes it to past tense "Die hond het die man gebyt." it switches to SOV order - "The dog did the man bit." but the past tense verb actually consists of two words "het" and "gebyt" separated by the subject noun, which makes it rather complicated to compare to English - perhaps it is best described as SVOV. I'm actually confusing myself as I write this!. Roger (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why I might want to consider Afrikaans a V2 language - since Afrikaans splits the verb phrase of the past tense (as well as some other constructions ie. "Ek kan boekdele skryf"), and the first part of he verb (an auxiliary verb) always has to be in the second position and the second part (the verb) always at the ending. I am fairly certain that Dutch and German does the same thing. This shows them (as well as Afrikaans) to be V2 languages as well as SOV.

The auxiliary (which is very important to convey the meaning) has to be in second position, and the actual verb has to be at the end. As in "Die hond het die kat gejaag" - The dog did the cat chase.

English on the other hand has: The dog did chase the cat. The auxiliary and the verb are together and the object is in the last position. English seems also to be a V2 language but is SVO instead of SOV.

I noticed this immediately as well and i tried remedying it by calling it a V2 language with verb final subordinate clauses because in main clauses the finite verb is restricted to second position and only non-finite forms are used at the end and in conjunction with a finite verb. Hope I'm not wrong about that, btw. Slamoureux1 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)