Talk:Afrikaans/Archive 1

Etymology of boor

The following (italicized) was removed as POV:

A few words and phrases in standard English are derived from Afrikaans, such as "trek" and "boorish", which originally was a derisive comparison to the supposed ill manners of the Boers.

The etymology of "boor" given above is incorrect and offensive. The OED gives the first known use of the word "boor" meaning "rude and ill-bred" in 1598. This is half a century before the foundation of the first Dutch settlement in South Africa in 1652, and 2 centuries before Afrikaans or Afrikaners came into existence. Etymologically, "boor" and "boer" are utterly unrelated. Other common Afrikaans words that have found their way into English are "veld", "spoor", "braai", and, of course, "apartheid".

Both Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary give the Dutch word boer as etymology of boor. The modern Dutch word boer still has the meaning of a rude, unmannered person (see Van Dale's Woordenboek). The removed text seemed to me to be incorrect; the first in stating that boor derived from Boer (the colonists) and the second in stating that boor is unrelated to boer (Dutch: farmer). For more etymology, see the Online Etymology Dictionary.

From the OED:

A word of involved history in and out of English, though the ultimate etymology is clear enough. The 16th c. bour, boore, may possibly have been native Eng., repr. an earlier *búr, short for OE. ebúr 'dweller, husbandman, farmer, countryman' (Bosw.), a deriv. of búr 'dwelling, house, cottage, BOWER', f. the verb root, b to dwell: cf. the compound neighbour:ME. neebur:OE. néahebúr 'nigh-dweller', also modern East Anglian BOR 'neighbour' as a form of address.

The etymological entry goes on to note that the modern usage may have been derived from the Dutch "boer". The first-usage date given in the original removed text is correct - by no stretch of the imagination can the modern English word "boor" have anything whatsoever to do with either the Afrikaans language or the Afrikaner identity. I am removing "boorish" from the list of words derived from Afrikaans, because I stand by my original assessment that the implied link is both incorrect and offensive.

---

Negerhollands

I have read somewhere about Negerhollands. Was it a synonym of Afrikaans, a pidgin or a creole? -- Error 02:14, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Negerhollands ('Negro Dutch') was a lingua franca spoken on the Danish Virgin Islands by Danish and Dutch plantation farmers and their (liberated) slaves. The language quickly became extinct after the United States acquired the islands. Cwoyte 12:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you -- Error 01:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Well, i am danish and i live in the netherlands currently, so i've been kinda surprised by the similarities of danish and dutch. I already knew some existed, but it's quite alot actually and i saw a pattern in the dutch words that were different from afrikaans in the examples. The article suggested that they were more similar to english, while i seem to see the pattern that they are more similar to english actually:

AFRIKAANS	DUTCH	DANISH	ENGLISH
piesang*	banaan	banan	banana
lemoen	sinaasappel	appelsin	orange
suurlemoen**	citroen	citron	lemon

I'm not a linguistic nor a historian. I just happen to be danish and stumbling upon this article and saw the resemblance. It might have some history there? Here's a translation of the other examples and then you can decide if you want to use them:

AFRIKAANS	DUTCH	DANISH	GERMAN	ENGLISH
aksie	actie	aktion/akt	Aktion	action
asseblief	alstublieft	venligst	bitte	please
bed	bed	seng	Bett	bed
eggenoot	echtgenoot	ægtefælle	Ehegatte	spouse
goeienaand	goedenavond	godaften	guten Abend	good evening
lughawe	luchthaven	lufthavn	Flughafen	airport
my	mijn	min	mein	my
maak	maak	gøre/lave	machen	make
oes	oogst	høste	Ernte	harvest
oop	open	åben	offen	open
oormôre	overmorgen	overmorgen	übermorgen	the day after tomorrow (lit. "overmorrow")
saam	samen	sammen	zusammen	together (compare "same")
skool	school	skole	Schule	school
sleg	slecht	slemt	schlecht	bad (compare "slight")
vir	voor	for	für	for
voël*	vogel*	fugl	Vogel	bird, fowl
vry	vrij	fri	frei	free
vyf	vijf	fem	fünf	five
waarskynlik	waarschijnlijk	måske/sandsynligvis	wahrscheinlich	probably (Latin root)
winter	winter	vinter	Winter	winter
ys	ijs	is	Eis	ice

Creole

Can somebody comment whether Afrikaans is thought to be a creole language? -- Error

There is some interesting stuff available under this Google search. ? McDutchie 12:56, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is curiously no mention of dialects derived from Afrikaans (in particular, Kaaps).

I am not a linguist, so this is not an "expert" opinion. The little I have read on the subject seems to be complicated by the exact meaning of the term "creole". I have recollection of an article on this subject by Prof. Edith Raidt in her book, "Historiese Taalkunde", in which she takes another scholar, one Valkhoff, to task. Raidt shows how several features of Afrikaans, which were thought by Valkhoff to be evidence of "creolisation" which took place subsequent to the arrival of Europeans in southern Africa, to have existed in 17th century (and earlier) Dutch and Low Germanic dialects in Europe.

The book reference is: Raidt, Edith Hildegard. Historiese taalkunde : studies oor die geskiedenis van Afrikaans. Johannesburg : Witwatersrand University Press, 1994. ISBN 1-86814-265-5 203.51.118.211

Redundant title

This article should really be listed under "Afrikaans" and not "Afrikaans language"; the word "language" is redundant because Afrikaans cannot be anything than a language (unlike, for instance, English or Italian). However, the system won't let me move it. ? McDutchie 12:41, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Afrikaans culture? Paul Beardsell 19:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason you can't move it is because there's already a redirect from "Afrikaans" to "Afrikaans language". -- Ortonmc 02:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is named like this for consistence with other languages' articles. Bogdan | Talk 17:02, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"white" vs White and "coloured" vs Coloured

I don't like the recent copyedit which changed "white" to White and "coloured" to Coloured. The apartheid-era SA government used White and Coloured as though they were natural, accepted, distinct, well understood terms describing proper racial groups. Those officially classified Coloureds encompassed people indistinguishable (except on the whim of the official who administered the arbitrary tests) from those categorised Black and others indistinguishable from those qualified White and others who were evidently of far-Eastern heritage. Now, I am not in favour of politcial correctness for its own sake, but what is the PC approach we should be taking here? Certainly I know the term Coloured (especially capitalised) is offensive to many of those so classified. In anti-apartheid circles in the 80's typically the term so-called "coloureds" would often be used. The Coloureds were a SA apartheid-era political construct, nothing more. I believe we should use quotes to show the dubiousness of the categorisation as in: Mr Jones and his "wife" went to a hotel. In my view there are similar issues with the term White, capitalised. That, once again, was the SA apartheid-era legal way of referring to those so categorised.

Paul Beardsell 08:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To PC or not to PC, that is the question. The "post-apartheid" ANC regime seems to be happy to take over the apartheid system of race classification, lock, stock and barrel, in order to promote its own racist polices under the banner of "affirmative action." [1] [2] [3] [4] 203.51.118.211 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans, Belgium, and German

This heading compiles the discussions between Paul Beardsell, Arjan de Weerd and Elf-friend on the influence of Belgium and the German language, respectively, on the Afrikaans language. Most of it was done on De Weerd's talk page, but it seemed better to him to relocate it here.

Hello Paul, I removed the Flemish reference because of these reasons:

1. As I understand it, Afrikaans is linguistically largely derived from the dialect of Zuid-Holland, which is a Netherlandic dialect
2. Flemish as such is either one of two Belgian Dutch dialects (East- and West-Flemish) or generally a umbrella name for the kind of standard Dutch used in Belgium. As far as I can see, the Southern Dutch (= Belgian) dialects had little to do with the development of Afrikaans, as long before Van Riebeecks foundation of Kaapstad the southern Dutch Provinces had split from the United Provinces, remaining under Spanish rule — another contributing factor for the current many small differences between Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch.
3. Except maybe for (geographically) fringe dialects such as Gronings or Limburgs, *all* bits of Dutch and Afrikaans are mutually understanding, and so singling out Flemish seemed random, especially considering points 1. and 2.

I honestly thought the Flemish reference was trivial. But, of course, I should've discussed it first before deleting. Cwoyte 11:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am an English-speaking former South African whose Afrikaans was never particularly fluent. However, having been to Amsterdam and to Bruges it seems to me Flemish (as spoken and written) is closer to Afrikaans than is Dutch. That there might be other variants of Dutch to which Afrikaans is even more similar I do not know. But I think Flemish is closer to Afrikaans than Dutch. You are right, Afrikaans speakers make themselves understood in Amsterdam, but I bet they find it easier in Bruges or Antwerp.

My knowledge of history is poor but remember that the Dutch have been in SA continuously since 1652. In that time there have been many changes in Europe. Belgium has only been an independent state since 1830 and it is only since 1820 that English speakers went to SA in any numbers. So I am not persuaded by your geopolitical argument.

But maybe I am wrong. Judge for yourself: Afrikaans radio online

Paul Beardsell 23:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Believe me, I am Belgian, and I speak Dutch. Flemish is not a language, it is a word that refers to a collection of dialects. Flemish is not written any more than cockney is. And just between you and me, an English-speaking South-African who has visited Bruges is hardly a specialist. It is true that West-Flemish (one of the Flemish dialects) has some similarities to Afrikaans, but that can't be said for Brabants, or East-Flemish (two other Flemish dialects). And in Antwerp, they speak Brabants, in Bruges, they speak West-Flemis. The difference between the two dialects is overwhelming to say the least. If they can easily be understood in Bruges, they in fact SHOULDN'T be understood in Antwerp. --81.245.189.152 00:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where I spoke of Belgium, I meant "the territory that now is called Belgium but before that was called Austrian Netherlands (1713-1793) and Spanish Netherlands (1583-1713)" because it seemed less unwieldy. Belgium-in-that-sense has seen a separate development since the fall of Antwerp (1583), which means that, apart from Protestant refugees going north, there was no Belgian input in the settlement of the Cape. Having said that, the Belgians have clung to many words and idioms that Netherlandic speakers would consider old-fashioned (i.e. closer to the point where Netherlandic Dutch and Cape Dutch/Afrikaans separated), so I can see what you mean. Cwoyte 07:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Also you say you "Removed an alleged similarity to German that is not unique - informal Dutch has the same (meer a[l]s-constructie))". Yes, perhaps, I do not know if that is correct. But why delete the info? If it isn't unique remove the bit that says it is unique. If (on the other hand) the article doesn't say it is a unique similarity what is the problem? If you want to add the info that it is not a unique similarity then maybe you should. But why remove the info? Paul Beardsell 00:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As it appeared to me, the "meer as" construction was roped in to show a similarity with German. Since it is not unique to German, but also common to colloquial Dutch (much to the exasperation of Dutch teachers, who for centuries have vainly tried to impose P.C. Hooft's arbitrary "meer dan" rule), its use (bringing in German as an influence on Afrikaans) had gone. And since it was established earlier that Dutch and Afrikaans share many features, it seemed superfluous to randomly mention one of those. But that's my interpretation. Cwoyte 07:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. Upon reflection I was wrong on the "meer as" point. I am trying to find out from where in Dutch-speaking Europe the settlers who became the Afrikaners came. Unless you have evidence to the contrary I think to say "not Belgium" may be premature. Listen to the Afrikaans radio station, you are in a position to judge as you are a Dutch speaker. Paul Beardsell 09:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Regarding the sentence: "There are also similarities with German, in that 'more than' in Afrikaans is 'meer as', similar to 'mehr als' (literally 'more as') in German, whereas in Dutch this would be 'meer dan' ('more than')." that you erased: How sure are you that the "meer as" construction does not come from the German influence in Afrikaans (which I think that the sentence was actually referring to, not claiming that it was unique to those to two languages, for all we know something similar may exist in say, Danish, as well), rather than the (colloquial) Dutch one? Are you a linguist?

I do know for certain that through the ages, 'meer als' has been the preferred construction for Dutch speakers anywhere but on the written page, where it is 'meer dan'. In fact, the confusion between what's said at home and what's taught in school had led some people to say 'even groot dan' ('as big than') because they cannot tell the difference between equal and comparative anymore. I do think 'vulgar Dutch' should be considered as the basis for comparisons, not (just) standard Dutch, if only because when Afrikaans separated from Dutch, there was no such thing as a standard language, just a dozen or so dialects. I do not doubt the German influence on Afrikaans. I would very much like someone to devote a sentence or two to that influence. I can't do it myself because I know little of the German influence on Afrikaans. I do think, however, an unambiguous example should be used. German and Dutch are rather similar, and so there are lots of examples, the above included, which can't be exclusively attributed to either.

I guess I just also have a problem when somebody completely erases something in an article that is (in your own words) an interpretation - rather than a provable fact. If you have a problem with that specific example, may I suggest that you replace it with another one, and not just erase the whole paragraph, as the German influence on Afrikaans is a known fact and should be mentioned in such an article.

I have pointed out the problems with the current example, and also that German influences must be mentioned. It was in no way my intention to downplay the German influence, and if it appeared so, my apologies. It's just that I, a native Dutch speaker, found that this example wasn't clear-cut. I should, of course have asked if someone knew another, unambiguous example.

As a compromise, we could change the sentence to "in standard Dutch this would be", although in five years of living in The Netherlands I have certainly not heard anything other than "meer dan" used.

I think it's very important in comparative diachronic linguistics to have a clear view of what your sources are. Standard Dutch, especially modern standard Dutch, which from the mid-nineteenth century has seen wide distribution through the educational system, cannot entirely be considered a good comparison source. The Cape was settled by people who didn't much care for some literary person's arbitrary decision to use 'dan' instead of 'als' in unequal comparisons. Indeed, it wasn't until well into the nineteenth century that 'dan' finally won the battle for official use. I must say the circles you move in contain careful speakers of Dutch. Walk into a market, switch on the telly, you'll hear plenty examples of 'hun hebben' (similar to Afrikaans, btw), 'meer als', &c.

Regards, Elf-friend 18:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interwoven italicised replies by Cwoyte 08:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Another point: you mention "no Belgian input in the settlement of the Cape". Stipulated, the VOC was a Dutch company, and I suppose a large number of its employees were actually from the country that we currently call The Netherlands. However, that does not rule out that Belgians (including some of my own ancestors, by the way) actually came to and settled in South Africa under the auspices of the VOC, and may have influenced the language as well.

So, while there was no input by Belgium by a country as such, there was certainly an input by Belgians, So I find your comment to be incorrect.

(I realise that you do mention "refugees going north", but I don't agree that that necessarily follows, they may have just been ordinary employees/emmigrants, looking for a better life, like another of my ancestors - from Switzerland - who came to SA as an employee of the VOC and was certainly no refugee.)

Elf-friend 18:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it would've been hard for Belgians (in the sense as mentioned earlier) to have anything to do with any of the emerging colonies after the fall of Antwerp. It is true that many thousands of Belgians fled north, and influenced the culture and dialects of the cities in Holland. But apart from them, I seriously doubt many Belgians found their way to the Cape. There was a war between Spain and the Republic until 1648, which left relations soured to the point of non-existence. Belgians would've been viewed with suspicion. But I'll say I'm no expert on Belgian history, and leave this bit of the discussion at that. Cwoyte 08:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As speculation is rife may I suggest that protestant Belgians would flee North for the same reason as French Huguenots and that, as you suggest, that they might have been viewed with suspicion and "encouraged" to emigrate to the Cape. But I wish someone who knows (the facts) would get involved and that the editing of the article should NOT be influenced by speculation. Paul Beardsell 13:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. My knowledge of the 'Belgian' question as it arises from these discussions is too small and from that I withdraw hoping someone can shed more light on it. As for the German discussion, I hope someone can bring an unambiguously German influence to the text, as I believe the German language's influence should be credited. Cwoyte 18:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Belgians: the Dutch have been in SA continuously since 1652. Belgium has only been an independent state since 1830. Paul Beardsell 07:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(From a South African of mixed Boer-British ancestry- I use those terms specifically) Surely any consideration of German influence on Afrikaans should consider which form of German is meant? VOIC colonists from what is now North Germany, would have been speakers of Nedersaksisch/Plattdeutsch, NOT Hochdeutsch. The grammar would be very close to Dutch, especially in informal, slangy use; the vocabulary would be similar and the pronunciation also very close (no Second Germanic Sound Shift, etc.). Speakers of this language could have switched from speaking "German" to speaking "Dutch" without many changes in their actual speech. The boundaries between languages and dialects were probably considerably more blurred during the formative years of Afrikaans, and differences in the modern regional speeches in Europe are a very shaky basis for drawing conclusions. As regards the "meer als" versus "meer dan" debate- the standard form in Afrikaans is "meer as". That indicates that it was the most popular usage among the speakers of Afrikaans- the people who worked to formalise the language would not have chosen an obscure construction, especially one considered incorrect. The fact that Dutch was referenced as a standard for Afrikaans, which might have led to the adoption of "meer dan" in the case of conflicting usage, points this up even more strongly. (David Franklin 11:51 South African Standard Time, 29 Sep 2005)

Giving the percentage of German ancestry is anachronistic and not meaningful if it simply refers to people who came from what is today Germany, as Germany did not exist as a country during most of the formative years of Afrikaans. Such statistics are only meaningful if they refer to settlers who were ethnically German (ie German-speaking) because as David said above settlers from much of what is today northern Germany would have spoken a dialect more like modern Dutch than modern German. In fact saying that "N % of settlers were German" is misleading if it is anachronistic as it would suggest German could have had a much larger input into Afrikaans than it actually has. Booshank 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ratios

It would be interesting as well to have some current number of speakers, by race. Now we only have the proportion of af speakers to their race, but not of race to af speakers. -- Error 00:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zuid-Afrika

Afrikaans name Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens

Shouldn't it be Zuid-Afrikaanse as an earlier section says? -- Error 00:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Zuid-Afrikaanse is Dutch, not Afrikaans, which is Suid-Afrikaanse, as the article states. I can't find the section you referred to (maybe you misread)? :-) Elf-friend 01:17, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I misread. But why is the ISO code ZA? The ISO codes are probably later than officialization of Afrikaans. -- Error 01:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that Afrikaans was officialized before ISO codes existed. My own guess has always been that it is to avoid conflicting with Saudi Arabia. For example, their currrency unit is the SAR (Saudi Arabian Riyahl) versus the ZAR (Zuid-Afrikaanse Rand). Elf-friend 06:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Afrikaans has only fairly recently been formalised. Spelling was only standardised in the 1930s. Dutch was the language of government in the Afrikaner republics, Dutch initially was one of two official languages of the Union of SA (1910 onwards) until supplanted in the 1930's. "ZA" is not the only anomaly in the ISO list: Cambodia is KH. And SA is the code for Saudi Adabia. Paul Beardsell 21:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cambodia was officially Kampuchea from 1975 (or probably from Khmer Republic since KHM is the 3-letter code). The Saudi Arabia coincidence however sounds plausible.

From ISO 3166

ISO 3166-1 codes for country and dependent area names, first published in 1974

[...]

ISO 3166-3 defines codes for superseded ISO 3166-1 codes, first published in 1998.

-- Error 23:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whatever, the ISO code does not prove anything about any language's spelling! Paul Beardsell 07:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and the usage predates the ISO's standard. Paul Beardsell 09:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ZA was put into usage to avoind conflict with the Saudi Arabian ISO code. Thats the only relevant fact. The statement concerning Dutch origin is irresponsible speculation.

Afrikaans has replaced the letter 'z' with the letter 's' in most words of Dutch origin. So zuid (south) becomes suid, zee (sea) became see etc. Booshank 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The official language language used to be Dutch up until somewhere in the 20th century if I am not mistaken and as such ZA has stuck around.

"African"

How does one difference "African" from "Afrikaans" or "Afrikaner" in Afrikaans? -- Error 00:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe the (linguistically) correct term is Afrikaan, but I don't think that term is very widely used in everyday language. Elf-friend 01:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Afrikaans "Afrikaans" and "Afrikaner" mean "African". Compare "Suid-Afrikaans(e)" = "South African" (adjective) and "Suid-Afrikaner" = "South African" (somebody from South Africa), or even "Amerikaner" = "American" and "Amerikaans(e)" = "American" (adjective). If the terms "Afrikaner" and "Afrikaans" were not used in their present meanings in Afrikaans it would have meant "African". The term "Afrikaan" is sometimes used in Afrikaans to mean "African" (somebody from Africa), but, indeed, it has a somewhat artificial feel. There is no single Afrikaans word for "African" and usually one elaborates, by for instance saying something like "mense in Afrika" ("people in Africa"). The adjective "Afrikaans(e)" can be used to refer to something from Africa if coupled with an orientation, for example "Wes-Afrikaanse olie" = "West African Oil" but, generally, "Afrikaans(e)" is not used to refer to Africa in general. Usually the noun "Afrika" will be coupled with the noun that needs to be described as "African", e.g. "Afrika-lande" = "African countries".

By the way, the term "Afrikaner" is not used as much in South Africa. Someone would rather be described as "Afrikaans" than as "an Afrikaner".

T-V distinction

Does Afrikaans have a T-V distinction, like Dutch? --Isk s 18:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, its the same: "u" or "U" is formal, and "jy" is informal. --Dewet 20:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussion from WP:RFM for the move

Afrikaans language → Afrikaans

As per the naming conventions, if the language's name is unique, it shouldn't have the "language" suffix. The name Afrikaans refers exclusively to the language. -- Naive cynic 09:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Agree. I don't agree with all the naming conventions, but this is a good one. SECProto 21:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, tentatively (leaning to agree) (changed vote) Afrikaans also refers to the people who speak the langauge. Before I decide a final stance, Naive cynic, I'd like your answer on the question of whether Afrikaans would be best as an comprehensive article on the Afrikaans people, discussing culture, history, etc.? —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that it is also used in this meaning. The article you ask about already exists under Afrikaner. -- Naive cynic 12:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Didn't know that existed. Then, wholeheartedly support —ExplorerCDT 15:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose! Naming conventions say that all languages should have language in them. Neutrality^talk 22:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would encourage you to read the naming conventions before making authoritative comments about them. -- Naive cynic 12:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Afrikaans is not an ethnonym; cf. Ladino, Quechua, Esperanto. Latin had more points in favor, and it's survived several move attempts. ADH (t&m) 04:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Rd232 14:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sociolinguistics -- relation to Dutch?

Would it be interesting to mention something in the sociolinguistics section about Afrikaans-speakers' relation to Dutch and vice versa? I believe that Dutch under the Apartheid regime was appreciated as a part of the Afrikaander cultural heritage, and that consequently Dutch was taught in secondary schools (I read that many Afrikaanders read Dutch children's books in the original version, like Koning van Katoren by Jan Terlouw) and Radio RSA (the South-African external service) prominently broadcast in Dutch. Obviously (or not?) this affection was increasingly refuted by the Dutch during the 60ies and 70ies and declined after the end of apartheid. I also heard that in the apartheid days, some Dutch modern literature was banned, like books by Jan Wolkers. How widely did people have acces to progressive literature, ideas through Dutch, and what was the government's attitude to this?

Perhaps also the changing role of Afrikaans literature (mostly poetry) within the Dutch literary world is worth mentioning (first: an expression of Dutch world influence, now: something that needs translation in order to be read, yet increasingly popular). As you will have gathered, I only have some notions of this, but I would like to encourage anybody who can write about this with some authority :)

yours, Ewout Lamé

Meer als / dan.

Cwoyte states that for Dutch speakers everywhere, 'meer als' would be the preferred phrase, with 'meer dan' only used in written form. I strongly disagree. The phrase 'meer als' is incorrect and sounds uneducated. When I was in primary school, saying 'meer als' resulted in a friendly correction. Saying it twice would result in an angry correction, and after a the third offence you were made to stand in a corner for a while. I still cringe whenever I hear 'meer als'.

Nico

Former capitalisation of common nouns?

I've either read or heard that several Germanic languages besides German used to capitalise all common nouns. In Danish this practice was abolished in a spelling reform in the late 1940s. Can anybody tell me if this was ever practiced in Afrikaans and if so when was it abolished? — Hippietrail 16:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) I don't think common nouns were ever capitalised in Afrikaans.

Oorlams

Is this (creol/Pidgin) close enough to be a part of Afrikaans ? Sarcelles 02:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afrikaans verbs

I have been working on a couple of comparative articles on the Germanic verb. Two of these need examples from Afrikaans Is there anyone here who is conversant in Afrikaans who can add the necessary info to these. One of them is the article Germanic weak verb, where the conjugation of the Afrikaans verb needs to be added to the table. We really want to use the verb cognate with "work/wirken" if possible. The second article is West Germanic strong verb, where Afrikaans needs a short entry at the end of the section on each of the seven classes parallel to that given to Dutch (please keep the format consistent). This will require someone to go through the list of Afrikaans strong verbs at the end of a dictionary and find in each case which class they belong to - it will always be the same class as the Dutch cognate! - and list them. I will add any comparative comments required, and will help you if you get into trouble. (By all means use my talk page for sorting out problems!) --Doric Loon 15:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afrikaans has lost the strong verb, for example "he sang/has sung" is hy het gesing rather than the ancestral Dutch hij heeft gezongen. "We have left" is ons het vertrek rather than wij waren vertrokken. I will add the Afrikaans to the Germanic Weak Verb page. I think this illustrates very well how much more analytic Afrikaans is than Dutch, even more so than English. Booshank 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oosgrensafrikaans

I have written this article, which I have moved to Oosgrens-Afrikaans. The factual accuracy seems doubtful. Furthermore the spelling Oosgrensafrikaans is doubtful. Sarcelles 10:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regions

Surely Near East, Australia etc cannot be listed as regions for Afrikaans? By that criteria almost every language in the world would have hugely long lists. Greenman 13:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A few things

1. Shouldn't the article mention that there is a Bible in Afrikaans?
2. Maybe a list of Afrikaans writers?

Bertus 11:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bertus. I don't think it should list writers - there's already a separate List_of_Afrikaans-language_poets. Will add a link in the article. There's probably also a need for a list of Afrikaans novelists, or other forms of writers - I suggest these be separate articles. I'm not sure of the relevance of mentioning that Afrikaans has a bible - I'm sure almost every language in the world has one. If the translation was particularly noteworthy (and I seem to remember it was, with the move from Dutch), perhaps something can go in the History section. Feel free to add something if you have details, or post suggestions on the talk page. By the way, just a note about formatting - no need for all the HTML - you can create lists quite easily in wiki style - see the Editing Help page for more details. Greenman 12:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Taal Monument

How sure are we Afrikaans is the ONLY language in the whole world which has a statue dedicated to it?? This seems quite unlikely to me... _HMM_ 10:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Very unlikely and very untrue: see Shaheed Minar. --Gareth Hughes 15:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also suspect that there are several other examples of monuments/museums that specifically document and celebrate a particular language and its literature and culture. Nynorsk Norwegian, Modern Hebrew and Irish (the language, not the English dialect) spring to mind. The Paarl Taalmonument is unlikelt to be a one-of-a-kind. --Big Adamsky 15:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference: the Shaheed Minar ("Martyr's Monument") is dedicated to the people who were killed in 1952 by Pakistani police, while protesting for recognition of the Bangla language. Of course, it's intimately associated with Bangla history, language and culture, but it was not dedicated directly to the language itself.

By contrast, the Afrikaans language monument is specifically and primarily dedicated to language itself, and not to some wider culture. This is strongly evident in the monument's symbolism (various parts of it symbolize the various linguistic roots of Afrikaans), and the passionate poetic inscriptions, which concern themselves with the origin, growth, and future of the language, without regard to some wider idea of culture, nationality, ethnicity, or whatever. This, as far as i know, is what makes the monument unique.

Big Adamsky: are any of the monuments you allude to really dedicated the languages themselves? (I could not find any information on Wikipedia or Google.)

--Piet Delport 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is fully possible that those "monuments" that I was referring to back when I posted the statement are not primarily monuments in the true meaning of the word (i.e. a statue or other three-dimensional out-door work of art). What my meaning was back then, was simply to cite other plausible cases of museums or other buildings or constructions devoted solely to the celebration of a language. To me it makes little difference whether the Taalmonument is in a category distinct enough for inclusion in the Guiness book of records... ;) *wink* BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 14:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the question that needs to be asked is: would this statement be misleading? I beleive that it is misleading to say that Taal Monument is the only monument to a language. The Shaheed Minar is seen as being a monument to the language as much as to those who died protesting about language rights. I'm sure the Taal Monument also has comes out of a political context, which it, perhaps, acknowledges in more subtle way. — Gareth Hughes 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's the perception of the Shaheed Minar, then perhaps a less potentially misleading statement is that the Taalmonument is "the only monument dedicated purely to a language". However, i can't think of a compelling reason for it to be restored if it's going to upset people. It's basically just trivia. --Piet Delport 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure but I think the ijzertoren in Flanders is also dedicated to the language speakers, the cultural group in any case...

The Ijzertoren article says that it's a peace monument, inscribed "No more War" (in four different languages, no less). It is also considered a symbol of Flemish autonomy, right of language use, and general nationalism, but i would think that going from that, to calling it a "language monument" instead of a "peace monument", would be seriously misleading.

Contrast this with the Taalmonument, which you cannot call anything but a "language monument" without being misleading. It does not celebrate or dedicate itself to any social group or heritage, any ideals (peace, freedom), any historical events, or anything else of that kind. It's simply (and unambiguously) a monument to, about, and of, the language itself.

Anyway, since there doesn't appear to be consensus, i won't pursue the matter further. --Piet Delport 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds Harsh

I think the bit about Afrikaans being guttural and sounding harsher than Dutch and Flemish should be dropped or re-written in less potentially offensive terms. As an Afrikaans speaker, Dutch sounds much, much harsher to me than Afrikaans. I'm not so sure about guttural either - German sounds guttural to me, but not Afrikaans. So I think the problem is that the article might currently be describing what Afrikaans sounds like to (some) Europeans (or perhaps even just what they think it should sound like given its associations with boorishness, apartheid and so on). Apologies to Dutch and German speakers if this comment gave offence.

--168.210.90.180 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Martin

I agree: this statement is entirely subjective. It would be better to make a purely phonetic comparison between the languages. --Gareth Hughes 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear editors, do comments like those about the esthetics and supposed sounds of a language as perceived by others belong in an encyclopedia article? Those are most likely to be highly subjective impressions, more than likely coloured by prejudices. My first impressions when I came to live in Holland 13 years ago, whas that the Dutch language sounded harsh and broad to my ears (e.g. the loud and flat, open 'a', and the gutteral 'ch' and 'r'. Compare for instance the Afr. 'skraap' or 'sker' with the Dutch 'schraap' and 'schaar'. Add to that the plethora of Dutch swear words using diseases like cancer (kankerkop), cholera(krijg de klere), tuberculosis(krijg te tering), typhoid (krijg de tifus),the pest(pesthekel), the pox (pokkewijf), etc. Added to a habit of speaking extremely directly and openly in a way which comes across to a foreigner as offensively confrontational, even ordinary speach seemed void of the politenesses I was taught as a child in South Africa. In contrast the Flemish dialects had for me the familiar softer tone and musicality I grew up with and a clearer and easier to understand pronounciation of the diphthongs, which sounded like the Afrikaans ones, in contrast to the very complex and 'whiny' sounding Dutch 'ui' 'ij' 'eu'. Also, I often hear people comment that Afrikaans is somehow 'Old Dutch', as if magically preserved in an ancient state. I usually respond that I can understand that impression, because Afrikaans uses many words that have fallen out of use in Dutch. But the reverse is also true, Dutch still uses many words that have fallen out of use in Afrikaans, and which sound endearlingly old fashioned when we hear them used. Afrikaans has not stood still since the 1652. It developed within its own framework of different influences on another continent by speakers of all races and backgrounds. Therefore both Dutch and Afrikaans stem from 17th century Dutch, but neither of them remained there. Interesting stuff. Keep up the good work of a free encyclopedia for all. Greetings from Agie, The Hague, Holland

"Youngest language"

When giving an outside comment regarding a mediation on Dutch language I came across a number of claims that Afrikaans is the "youngest (official) language". Just mentioning this here in case other editors find it notable/interesting enough to mention in the article. See Google search on "youngest language". Some results: [5], [6], [7]. FWIW! Back to my wikibreak. AvB ÷ talk 15:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

sociolinguistics of apartheid

I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but I don't think it's fair to say that the language issue was only a catalyst for the Soweto uprisings. I think it was an issue in itself. Afrikaans was (despite the fact that it is a predominantly Coloured language, that fact was never really celebrated until the 1990's) associated with the Apartheid regime (English was considered more neutral) and the Nat government. There was resentment towards Afrikaans as a symbol of oppression which is only dissipating recently. Joziboy 4 March 2006, 22:28 (UTC)

--- I live in South Africa and am still learning Afrikaans. An Afrikaner is usually a rude term for an Afrikaans-speaking person or Afrikaans looking person (yes it is possible to 'look' Afrikaans, once you've lived here as long as we have you know) and is usually used in a downing way, such is the same with the term 'boer' which is usually used as an offensive slang due to the fact that many farmers (i.e-boers) treated their black or coloured workers very harshly during apartheid times!

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is nothing offensive about the term Afrikaner, in fact, look at the recently published history of Afrikaans-speakers, "The Afrikaners" in English or "Die Afrikaner" in Afrikaans! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know Afrikaans sounds very similar to Dutch with the exception of words and pronounciation, it's quite cool because if we hear Dutch being spoken we can understand a lot of it, it is the same with German although they are less alike!

Second language

Is there a reference for the claim that Afrikaans is the 'most common second language in both Namibia and South Africa'? I have no idea about Namibia, but Zulu is the most commonly understood language in South Africa - while it's true that Afrikaans is predominant in the Western and Northern Cape, the Eastern provinces are much more populous (the Northern Cape has a particularly low population density) Joziboy 11 March 2006, 12:27 (UTC)

Zulu is not the most commonly understood language in South Africa. Zulu is the language with the highest number of mother-tongue speakers in South Africa. Xhosa is second, Afrikaans is third. But that's not the issue, is it? The question is not the number of mother-tongue speakers, but the number of speakers altogether. Unfortunately current South African census figures do not include second and third languages, but I'm under the impression that Afrikaans is most widely spoken (i.e. understood and spoken at conversational level by the largest number of South Africans). -- leuce 10:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ludicrous to me. Zulu is spoken in a relatively small area of the country, as are most tribal/native (whatever you want to call them, I'm not trying to be offensive) languages. What about Xhosa and S/N Sotho? They also have large tribal populations, and there are a myriad of smaller competing languages. Unfortunately, I don't think the SA Census tracks second language (the logical place to look for such data). Afrikaans and English used to be the only official languages. It seems logical to me that more people would speak them as everyone used to have a need to, whereas, for instance, Tshwana sure as hell didn't see a need to learn Zulu. Jsimkins 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

first place Afikaans was taught.

Perhaps in the history section we might mention the Auwal mosque which was the first place in South Africa where Afrikaans, and not Dutch was taught. Afrikaans was used to explain Islamic theology. Ahassan05 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

Sounds noteworthy. I found this reference. Is there anything more definitive? --Piet Delport 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be why the language was initially written in Arabic script? Joziboy 12 April 2006, 9:46 (UTC)

Hmm? That would be news to me. dewet|™ 11:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The mosque or the script? Joziboy 12 April 2006, 22:52 (UTC)

The script, mostly. I can believe the mosque-part, though, being considered a "kombuistaal" and all. dewet|✉ 23:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In this regard see the articles 'Arabiese Afrikaans' and 'Getoelies' in the Afrikaans Wikipedia.

Thanks; the first is a very interesting source indeed. I think I'll translate Arabic Afrikaans soon. dewet|✉ 03:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Warm vs. Hot

In the article I found something quite disturbing:

My hand is in warm water.

The preceding sentence said that the sentence meant the same in Afrikaans and English. I beg to differ. In Afrikaans, "warm" does not mean "warm" in English. It in fact means "hot." The sentence would therefore not be the same in both languages and anyways, what is the point of such a comment anyways?

The point of the comment is purely trivia. It's an interesting side-note. As to it not being the same: sure, its not identical; however, SA English has worsened the situation. Consider "It's warm outside" vs. "Dis warm buite". I don't think the meanings are that far apart for the sentence to be scrapped completely. dewet|✉ 23:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of a case where i wouldn't translate an English "warm" to an Afrikaans "warm". (Not that they're exactly the same (the Afrikaans word roughly encompasses both English's "warm" and "hot"), but it's usually clear from context what kid of temperature is implied; if not, there are always modifiers like "louwarm" (lit. "lowwarm") and "brandwarm" (lit. "burnhot").) --Piet Delport 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I totally agree. Thanks for the comment. --KryptonZone 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lowwarm"? Wouldn't "louwarm" mean "lukewarm"? 惑乱 分からん 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think lukewarm is the correct term. --Adriaan90 13:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I find this bit of trivia to be very interesting... Does anyone know of any opposite examples (exact same spellings, significantly different meanings)? I guess that would actually be less interesting, but oh well. --Xyzzyva 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ehm... Hare... Hare in Afrikaans means "hairs" and in English it means "bunny"... is that ok? --Adriaan90 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for your attempt to satisfy my strange curiosity. It's probably not worth the effort. --Xyzzyva 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol ok... ; ) --Adriaan90 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What about sleep which means (to) drag and beef which means (to) shiver. The Afrikaans words for the English meanings are slaap and beesvleis. Booshank 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Drag itself is Afrikaans for "attire" or "conduct". A few more: pad (road, path), worse (sausages), elf (eleven), slang (snake), wag (to wait, guard, ward), slim (smart, clever), golf (wave), slap (slack, limp), slot (lock), boom (tree), room (cream).

There are also several Afrikaans words close to their English counterparts that nevertheless end up spelled like entirely different meanings: boot (boat), long (lung), peer (pear), sweet (sweat). --Piet Delport 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

International view of Afrikaans

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopaedia? Unfortunately it is rather common for speakers of one language to regard another language with contempt. I don't think that Afrikaans in a unique position; in my experience many English-speakers regard French, German, Arabic, Chinese and a whole list of languages as ugly or contemptible, mainly out of pure ignorance and/or prejudice. This seems rather like a hostile POV being smuggled in under cover of being a 'widespread opinion'.

I was just about to post on this. I think this section is pointless and inflammatory. It needs to be removed, or at least completely rewritten to present only factual data (which will be very difficult). Statements such as "Nevertheless, the language is sometimes regarded with contempt by Anglophone persons from a less-educated background, especially from South Africa." are completely inapproriate. Jsimkins 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that this section requires a rewrite, but in the mean time I added a "citation required" tag to the line which reads "It is however more likely that the withdrawal was done for business reasons and not in support of Afrikaans", which to me seems like original research at best and an untrue statement at worse. If no citation is given to verify this I will remove that sentence. SumDude 08:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of Afrikaans in relation to Dutch

To avoid further conflict on this page with User:Ulritz, notorious for edit and unreferenced claims, allow me to explain the status of Afrikaans linguistically.

Afrikaans developed from the vernacular of Dutchmen and women who settled around the Cape of Good Hope. Over time the Dutch spoken there evolved into a new language: Afrikaans. In Dutch linguistics, as wel as Germanic linguistics, Afrikaans is treated as a semi-creole. With Dutch as the strong parent language. Unlike most creoles, Afrikaans has been thoroughly studied, has a standard form, is acknowledged, is taught in schools and is thé language of one of South Africas dominant ethnic groups but most importantly is very close (for a creole) to the parent language: Dutch. Afrikaans is not a dialect of Dutch, nor is it a full creole but Afrikaans should be classified as it is now. Simply because Afrikaans did develop from 17th century New Dutch. Rex 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, does anyone know of a good citation for this, one way or the other?

I don't have a strong personal opinion on the matter, but the current classification seems to go against other Wikipedia articles (Germanic languages, Low Franconian languages, Template:Germanic languages), which seem to consistently treat Afrikaans besides Dutch and its other dialects, rather than within them. --Piet Delport 01:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is undisputed that Afrikaans derives from Early Modern Dutch. To be on the safe side, we could link to Middle Dutch in the genealogy box. I imagine Ulritz wants to argue that Afrikaans arose by Creolisation rather than 'regular' language change, which would mean that it has several ancestors, not just Dutch. We would need a citation arguing for creole status of Afrikaans. If we did have such a citation, the genealogy box would still progress from Low Franconian to Middle Dutch, but an additional "by creolisation" could be added in a footnote. dab (ᛏ) 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I am sorry, the box doesn't say "genealogy", it says "language family", and of course Middle Dutch is the ancestor of Afrikaans, not its language family. The question is then, "is Afrikaans considered 'a Dutch language' or 'a Dutch dialect'?". Seeing Low Franconian, this is not the case. The "Low Franconian family" consists of Dutch dialects and Afrikaans. If Afrikaans were considered a dialect of Dutch, "modern Low Franconian" would just be equivalent to "Dutch". It is undisputed that Afrikaans is very closely related to Dutch, which however itself implies that Afrikaans is not, itself, Dutch. Thus I am afraid I'll have to agree with Ulritz here. But I do deplore that Ulritz appears to be unable to argue his own case on talkpages like a civilized Wikipedian :( dab (ᛏ) 08:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans derives from New Dutch, not Middle Dutch. The Dutch settled the area around 1650, 150 years after Middle Dutch. Because of its semi-Creole status, the current is the best classification. On wikipedia it is customary to describe the linguistic classification of Creoles as like with Tok Pisin which simply says "English-based Creole" in the current classification we use a kind of hybrid between a regular and a Creole classification.Rex 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What about all the other articles that classify them side-by-side, though? I have a strong feeling Wikipedia should at least be consistent about the classification, and listing Afrikaans as part of the Dutch family seems to make this article the odd one out. --Piet Delport 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When considering the position of Afrikaans it isn't that strange. The evolution of Afrikaans:

                          Common Germanic
                                 |
                                 |
                           West Germanic
                                 |
                             Old Dutch
                                 |
                            Middle Dutch
                                 |
                            New Dutch
                                 |    
                                 |_
                                 | \    
                                 |  \ (+influx other, including non indo european language)
                                 |   \ 
                                 |    \
                      Contemp. Dutch  Afrikaans

Like I said Afrikaans is a semi-creole, it's special, not a "regular" language like Dutch or English. 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, Afrikaans derives from (early) Modern Dutch. If we're going to draw a tree, it will look as above. But the infobox isn't about trees, it is about language families, and Dutch isn't a language family, in the sense that Afrikaans isn't considered "a Dutch language". As I said, I don't think this is a big deal either way, but it is less confusing to not list Afrikaans as "a Dutch language" in the infobox. Of course, people who actually read the article will learn what we agree on here, namely that Afrikaans historically derives from Early Modern Dutch. dab (ᛏ) 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Dbachman, but do note that pigins/creoles are considered sort of "Dutch languages".So there is some truth in the classification.Rex 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am Afrikaans, and I kind of consider our language being derived from Dutch... but whatever. --Adriaan90 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said Afrikaans is a semi-creole, it's special, not a "regular" language like Dutch or English. 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to that. Afrikaans is a "regular" language, influenced primarily by Dutch, but also French, English, German, South East Asian and African (in no particular order). Jsimkins 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jsimkins, what you describe is exactly what classifies Afrikaans as a semi-creole, instead of a regularly-descended language. The term is not supposed to be derogatory or diminishing at all; it's just descriptive linguistic jargon. --Piet Delport 23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have paid attention to this earlier. The reasons for Johan Rupert withdrawing his ad is shrouded in mystery. Just on the face of it, it is at least an attempt to influence editorial policy. Personally I believe that the entire reference to it should be removed. If it stays allowance should be made for a different interpretation of the actions. Just because Johann Rupert says he did for the love of Afrikaans doesn't mean it is the real reason. This should rather be added to his Wikipedia entry

English too is a semi-creole: it was fully Germanic (with a few foreign borrowings) only until 1066 A.D., when French became the official language of government, the courts, and the nobility. Under a couple centuries of that influence, English not only replaced a large percentage of its native words with French words, but shifted its grammar to a more Middle-French word order and semantics. Nonetheless, English is still classified as a West-Germanic language, and so is Afrikaans. (Linguists classify Afrikaans and Dutch as equal members of the Low Franconian sub-branch of West-Germanic, regardless of their origins.) I suggest you take a look at Ethnologue to settle these kinds of arguments, since the folks there have already done the research. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90434 LMP-UCLA 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the term "semi-creole" is not particularly useful. Creole languages by definition arise from pidgins where the normal descent of language from one generation to the next is broken. Few argue that this ever happened in the development of Afrikaans. Instead it is argued that long-extinct Dutch-based creoles influenced the language in its early development. I would argue that either a language is clearly a creole (eg. Tok Pisin) or simply one with a larger degree of influence from other languages (eg English and Afrikaans - Afrikaans in case retains far more of its Germanic content than English, with far fewer French/Latinate influences). To me "semi-creole" is contraditory, either something is a creole or it is not a creole. If we take the opposite view then just about all languages would be "semi-creole" to a greater or lesser extent. Booshank 18:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A question about external links

I think the external links should be trimmed to include only links to pages about the language Afrikaans, and not to web sites that only happen to be in Afrikaans but not specifically about Afrikaans, and not to software that is in Afrikaans but not specifically language related. A link or two to literary sites (eg Litnet) may be in order (unsure about that), but no links to Afrikaans newspapers or Afrikaans magazines (there must be close to a hundred of those anyway) (perhaps someone can write a wikipage on Afrikaans media). Otherwise any Joe and his cat will add his personal web site to the wikipage simply because it is "in Afrikaans". No spell-checkers or word processing programs should be linked either -- the spell-checkers can be mentioned on the wikipage for Afrikaans spelling. Your comments? leuce 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely! - Jason - 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And we are missing one important page "about the language Afrikaans", so let's add that one during the re-organization. http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?LangID=6&menu=004 LMP-UCLA 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans equals Dutch in 1925?

Regarding this comment: (although, curiously, the 1961 constitution still had a sub-clause stipulating that the word "Afrikaans" was also meant to be referring to the Dutch language). It is my understanding that legislation in 1925 made Afrikaans an official language by stating that whenever "Dutch" is mentioned, "Afrikaans" is implied. Can anyone provide citation for the 1961 sub-clause mentioned? Could it be that this clause was only there for backward compatibility with previous legislation where "Dutch" was mentioned? leuce 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaanses?

I noticed that someone had inserted a comment instructing fellow linguists to cease attempts to change "Afrikaanses" to "Afrikaners" or "Afrikaaners". I, however, have been informed that no such word exists in Afrikaans. Is this true?

- Jason - 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am Afrikaans and I have never heard of the word Afrikaanses. Hope this helps you. --Adriaan90 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's grammatically valid, and Google finds significant usage of it. --Piet Delport 05:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Google can find all kinds of nonsense on the internet. I also have to add that I think Afrikaanses itself is an Afrikaans word, and shouldn't be used in the English Wikipedia. It could be possible that it is some sort of colloquialism (or however it is spelled). Uhm, yeah whatever. I don't really care. --Adriaan90 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's most certainly a word that was used historically - Herman Giliomee mentions it in The Afrikaners: Biography of a People. Mikker ^(...) 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Herman Giliome didn't know what he was talking about. --Adriaan90 05:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? Mikker ^(...) 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is in itself that he could use whatever words he wants, even when it is not widely used by other people. I like saying "gmpf". Doesn't mean that is a real word. He's just a human like anyone else and he also has little words he uses. --Adriaan90 05:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually... my bad. Giliomee doesn't mention Afrikaanses, but a similar word. That said, if this word is indeed accurate, it is a technical term in linguistics, so it's hardly surprising you or I haven't heard of it. Can we get some help from a linguist?? Mikker ^(...) 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not limited to a linguistic term, as can be verified by a trivial Google search.

For those not speaking Afrikaans: aside from one or two hits about something in German, all the results appear to be correct uses of the word in general contexts (such as articles, fiction, forums, and random web content). --Piet Delport 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "Afrikaanses" is quite common, even if some people may not have heard it. Search the archives of the Afrikaans newspapers: http://www.koerantargiewe.media24.com/index.html. Beeld gives 488 hits for "Afrikaanses", and the whole Media24 archive gives over 2300 hits for it. The term is often used to be politically correct; it is also used in contexts where "Afrikaner" may cause offence (journos tend to err on the side of caution). -- leuce 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

contempt section

hi, i adjusted the contempt section slightly. It seemed as if the paragraph was stating that english speaking persons in particular have a problem with the Afrikaans language. --Aliwalla 09:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... but they do...!? --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not without a citation, they don't (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). --Piet Delport 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned, as far as I am concerned. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks

Anybody want to help me work on Afrikaans over at Wikibooks. I'm still learning it myself, so I cant really do it all. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

Just cleaned up the external links a bit, but I'd like to see one that goes directly to a tv broadcast. Personally I find myself most interested in a language when I can actually see people speaking it to each other. There's a video here that's a good example, but it's a bit old. Anybody know one better? Just a five-minute video of people talking to each other in clear Afrikaans would be fine, and without the need for Windows Media Player or Real Player or anything else. Mithridates 10:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans alphabet?

The section on Orthography might be clearer on whether the alphabet used in Afrikaans is the same as the Dutch alphabet. One would assume so, but what about the ij digraph? I doubt a whole article would be necessary on the subject, but perhaps a sentence or two with link to the Dutch alphabet article. --A12n 04:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Afrikaans alphabet is exactly the same as the English one. All other "characters" or whatever are actually normal letters with punctuation. It also does not recognise digraphs in the alphabet, but counts the letters contained within them separately. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans in Namibia

The Afrikaans article needs more information about the use / history of the language in Namibia. The following web link and book reference may be appropriate to include in an updated version of the page. Crucially through the work of Stal and Ponelis the history of Afrikaans goes back almost 350 years, not to the mid / late 19th Century that many still assume was the case.

This material was prepared on the closure of the Dutch Embassy in Windhoek in June 2006.

http://www.namibianederland.net/

Book published / downloadable from the web site.

Namibia and the Netherlands - 350 years of relations

Detailed language reference cited in bibliography is

So het Afrikaans na Namibie gekom: Hollands-Afrikaans in Namibie Voor Die Koloniale Tyd

ELP Stals / FA Ponelis - Windhoek January 2001 [Stals is a historian and Ponelis a well known linguistic specialist and contributor on the subject of Afrikaans]

ISBN: 9991602941

William Parker ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rectoryclose2003 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Double negative

Someone has recently added the assertion that the double negative in Afrikaans originates in Middle Dutch. However, I do do not believe that there is any general agreement on where the double negative originates. French and Hottentot origins have also been suggested. This article used to state this, but now presents the theory of a Dutch origin as a generally agreed fact when I do not believe it is. Booshank 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things were said to "come from French" in the earlier days of research into the origins of Afrikaans. The double negative is one of them. I agree that there is no agreement, and perhaps both should be mentioned. -- leuce 10:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

African?

A simple question which maybe difficult to answer: Is Afrikaans an African language? Aaker 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe :) It's generally considered to be, though some disagree, as it formed in Africa, and is only really spoken in Africa.Greenman 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no, depending on what you want to say. Is Indogermanic a European or an Asian language? Is English a European or a North American language? Let's face it... Afrikaans didn't originate in Europe and it has never been spoken in larger numbers in Europe than it was spoken in Africa. But if someone says "African language", they might mean to include Afrikaans, or not, and there's no scientific way to pin it down. When Thabo Mbeki says "African language", he probably excludes Afrikaans; when Kortbroek says it, he probably includes it. So, first define "African language", "European lanuage", "North American language" etc, and wel'll continue this discussion. -- leuce 10:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaans translations of English-language entries

Can someone please advise me on the correct coding for Afrikaans language in the translations at the end of English-language articles? I have used "ak" under Northern Grysbok and Southern Grysbok. Thanks—GRM 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got it "af"...—GRM 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian language

I don't think Norwegian merits a separate section here, as it really isn't any more similar to Afrikaans than Swedish or Danish, and as many of the similar words aren't "genealogically related", but borrowings or calques from Middle Low German during the Hanseatic League trade. 惑乱 分からん 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it deserves mention, or at least some Scandinavian language.Cameron Nedland 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the words are remotely similar, then I'd say keep it, if only for interest sake, even if it aint linguistically "valid" to make the comparison. It does no harm to keep it. If you're concerned that readers may become confused because Norwegian isn't related to Afrikaans, why not indicate that in the headings of the columns (something like "Not West Germanic"). -- leuce 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)