> >
> As I see it, the creation of Afrikaans is analogous to
> that of Gullah and later of AAVE. Gullah is considered
> a creole, while AAVE is often seen as a creolized
> version of English. I've read that AAVE is the result
> of a diglossia where the basolect has gradually
> withered away, yielding a vernacular ever closer to
> the acrolect.
Except, it seems, in Western Cameroon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English
> Given that Dutch was the written
> language in SA until somewhere between 1875-1925, it
> would be plausible that something similar happened in
> SA. There area a lot of questions to be answered that
> seem to be beyond the scope of what's readily
> available to us, especially regarding Afrikaans as
> spoken by non-Whites, earlier forms of Afrikaans and
> the Khoi-San contribution to Afrikaans.
There seems to be some form of diglossia:
http://www.southafrican.za.net/afrikaans.html
'It is important to note that Afrikaans is spoken by all races and
ethnic groups in South Africa and much has been done in recent years
to promote varieties of this language that were suppressed during the
years of Apartheid.'
> Looking at the
> "I be, you be, he be" type of verb morphology,
> Afrikaans does seem to be closer to either Gullah or a
> basilectal form of AAVE.
Actually it's
ek is, jy is, hy is, ons is, julle is, hulle is, vs.
ik ben, jij bent, hij is, wij zijn, jullie zijn, zij zijn,
the general rule is that the Dutch verb stem is used
ek hoor, jy hoor, hy hoor, ons hoor, julle hoor, hulle hoor, vs.
ik hoor, jij hoort, hij hoort, wij horen, jullie horen, zij horen,
except when the stem ends in a vowel, the the Dutch infinitive is used
ek sien, jy sien, hy sien, ons sien, julle sien, hulle sien, vs.
ik zie, jij ziet, hij ziet, wij zien, jullie zien, zij zien,
Noe, that seems natural enough. But:
This is Danish:
jeg er, du er, han er, vi er, I er, de er,
jeg hører, du hører, han hører, vi hører, I hører, de hører,
jeg ser, du ser, han ser, vi ser, I ser, de ser,
Swedish:
jag är, du är, han är, vi är, ni är, de är,
jag hör, du hör, han hör, vi hör, ni hör, de hör,
jag ser, du ser, han ser, vi ser, ni ser, de ser,
WTF?
Until early 20th century, Danish and Swedish had separate forms in the
plural, and Swedish had a special, otherwise unknown form in the 2pl:
Danish:
jeg er, du er, han er, vi ere, I ere, de ere,
jeg hører, du hører, han hører, vi høre, I høre, de høre,
jeg ser, du ser, han ser, vi se, I se, de se,
Swedish:
jag är, du är, han är, vi äro, ni ären, de äro,
jag hör, du hör, han hör, vi höra, I hören, de höra,
jag ser, du ser, han ser, vi se, I sen, de se,
But there was always confusion, documented back to Jyske Lov of 1241;
Oehlenschläger, the initiator of the Romantic Period in Danish
literature started his breakthrough poem 'Gulhornene' with
De higer og søger
i gamle bøger
...
and this rule was one the educators had to 'enforce' as witnessed by
its almost simultaneous official disappearance in Danish and Swedish.
Now what happened to the Scandinavian languages that made them go
through a historical process that led to a result similar to that of
Afrikaans?
Cf verb inflection in Old Norse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse
Torsten