From: Rick McCallister
Message: 57069
Date: 2008-04-09
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English
> > >
> > 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:
>
> > Given that Dutch was the writtenYes, but it follows the pattern of AAVE "I be"
> > 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,
>"hear"?, not the same thing as hoer? ;p
> 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,
>Jag talae igge Dansk.
> 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?
>Yes, good question BUT are you suggesting that every
> 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