LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.15 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 15.APR.2004 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: marco [evenhuiscommunicatie] <marco at evenhuiscommunicatie.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.15 (02) [E]

Ron:

> > Speakers of Afrikaans:
> > 80.000 black
> > 2.730.000 coloured
> > 10.000 Asian
> > 2.920.000 white
>
> Where do the aboriginal "Khoi-San" fit in there, given that many (most?)
> have become Afrikaans speakers?  Are they considered "black" if they are
> deemed "pure" and "coloured" if they are deemed "mixed"?  I would hardly
> call them "black" in any case (but then again, racial categorizations are
> alien to my way of thinking, and I may be taking these labels literally
when
> I shouldn't).

Phew... I just quoted these figures without asking myself that question. I
did ask myself the question why these categorizations still seem to be in
use in the 'new' South Africa... If speakers are categorized by ethnic group
rather than by colour, it would make more sense.
Anyway, one of my coloured friends told me that the word 'coloured' is more
and more shifting from the litteral meaning (of mixed race) towards a name
for the people who have in fact been of mixed origin for hundreds of years
already and thus form a quite homogenous ethnic group.

regards,

Marco [Evenhuis]

----------

From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth at gnu.org>
Subject: LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.15 (02) [E]

AFAIR the Khoisan (dan. busknegere) were dark and the related Khoikhoi
(dan. hottentotter) were a lot lighter. OR maybe it was the other way
around.

Kenneth

> Where do the aboriginal "Khoi-San" fit in there, given that many (most?)
> have become Afrikaans speakers?  Are they considered "black" if they are
> deemed "pure" and "coloured" if they are deemed "mixed"?  I would hardly
> call them "black" in any case (but then again, racial categorizations are
> alien to my way of thinking, and I may be taking these labels literally
when
> I shouldn't).

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Afrikaans

Kenneth:

> AFAIR the Khoisan (dan. busknegere) were dark and the related
> Khoikhoi (dan. hottentotter) were a lot lighter. OR maybe it was the
>  other way around.

Hmm ... I suppose you meant to say "are" instead of "were."

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================