LL-L "Etymology" 2004.04.20 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 20.APR.2004 (07) * 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: Fred van Brederode <f.vanbrederode at home.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.03.08 (02) [E]

From: Fred van Brederode <f.vanbrederode at home.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.03.05 (02) [A/E/German]

From: ezinsser at tiscali.co.za <ezinsser at tiscali.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.03.04 (10) [E]

Hi all,

I'm intrigued that the Afrikaans form _bakvissie_ for an immature giggly
young girl seems
so similar to the Low Saxon _backwaschen_ (bagvaske).

Any connection?

Regards, Elsie Zinsser

----------

........_Bak_ (<back>) in the sense of 'back' (and also 'against the wind')
is apparently specific to the dialects of Hamburg.  Hamburg dialects are
known
for their large number of (older) English loanwords that entered the
language mostly by way of seafarer and merchant jargons.  So, my guess is
that German got it from Hamburg LS (most likely from the dialect of the
fishing community Finkwarder/Finkenwerder), and the German word entered
Afrikaans in the form of a calque (i.e., loan translation) with the
"obligatory" Afrikaans diminutive thrown in for good measure.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

Why not look for the obvious? Most words in Afrikaans have a direct link
with Dutch words. Simple chance would make me look there first.
Elsies Bakvissie is more than close to the Dutch word "Bakvis", meaning the
same thing. The diminutive of which becomes "bakvissie" in many colloquial
pronunciations.
This still does not exclude the possibility the word's origin to be in
Northern Germany, but wouldn't it have travelled through Dutch to Afrikaans?

Groetjes,
Fred

----------

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

>Thanks, Fred.  Great point.  I wasn't aware of _bakvis_ in Dutch.  If it is
>a Lowlands Saxon (Low German) loan (directly or via German _Backfisch_), a
>direct English loan, or not a loan at all, yes, it would be one of the top
>contenders.  However, (Standard) Dutch was only one of the main European
>sources for Afrikaans, mostly through official, bureaucratic and
>ecclesiastic use until Afrikaans officially gained autonomy and respect.
On
>the spoken level, it was, at least in the early days, Zeelandic (Zeeuws) on
>which it seems to have been primarily based.  Besides that there are of
>course English (because of English rule and domination), French (brought in
>by large Huguenot refugee groups) and German (due to large German-speaking
>immigrant groups that came to be absorbed largely into the
>Afrikaans-speaking population).  And, beginning with the early days of
>European settlement in Southern Africa, among the "Dutch"- and
>"German"-speaking populations there were undoubtedly many Lowlands Saxon
>speakers, among which the ones from Germany (and its colonies) must have
>found that their native "dialect" came in handy when dealing with the
>"Dutch" of Southern Africa.
>
>So, yes, _bakvissie_ may well have entered Afrikaans from Dutch, but not
>necessarily so.
>
>Regards,
>Reinhard/Ron


Hi Ron and Elsie,
It took some time to respond to your reaction on my posting Ron, Yours dates
back from March 8.
I am not such a regular poster since I am rather short in time and I feel
pretty comfortable in my lurker's position. So I keep on postponing my
contributions and I usually do not even react at all even when someone else
takes the effort of joining in the discussion.  I hope you guys forgive for
that.
I make it up to you with this- too long- posting.

These days Afrikaans seems to be thé topic in our list, 16 postings in just
a few days. This may be a good reason to add mine for oubaas Ron.

BTW Ron "oubaas" (probably ouwbaas where I live, though I am not sure) was
an official title in the days that I was a Boy Scout, during the 1960's. The
adult leader of our group was the "hopman", the one in charge of him was the
oubaas. I would not be surprised if at least the oubaas reached our Boy
Scout language directly from Afrikaans. I would feel honoured if I were you
being granted that rank.

Whatever, back to my subject, ....

> So, yes, _bakvissie_ may well have entered Afrikaans from Dutch, but not
>necessarily so.

You're right Ron, not necessarily so.
But very likely I would add.
To put it more polemically: You did not answer the question: Why not look
for the obvious?
I referred to chance in my posting you responded to. Dutch influenced
Afrikaans to a large extend, probably close to 80 or 90%. It would be wise
to look at Dutch first when asking the question. Honestly Ron, would you put
your money on LS as to where bakvissie in Afrikaans came from?

How far do you want to go wondering if there may be a direct connection
between the Afrikaans "bakvissie" en de LS "backwaschen", where the Dutch
equivalent is, in the very form and pronunciation, at hand.

In a way Ron, you gave the answer already. At first you seem to agree. Then
after the "However...", you start explaining that the influence of Dutch on
Afrikaans is not so dominant after all. Primarily Zeeuws and secondarily
English, French and German are important (you forgot Khoisan, Xhosa and
other 'black' languages). Standard Dutch is "only" one of the main sources
mostly through government and clergy, you say. You seem to take back your
words of agreement. With all due respect this is not logical and it is
contrary to the facts.

How much do regional languages differ?
The development of Standard Dutch started somewhere with the invention of
book printing and gained importance in the 17th century en during the
European nation building era of the 19th century. Any dialect in the realm
of the Lower Countries contributed to it with a main influence of
Hollandish. Holland being the most dominant region from the 17th century
onward. Zeelandic contributed to the standard language like other regional
languages did. On the other hand, differences between these regional
languages are not as large as you seem to suggest. The regions were no
introvert independent nations with a regional cultural awareness. Nothing of
the kind existed in those days and still the greater part of the population
is not so interested in issues of regional diversity. Local cultural pride
is a more modern phenomenon, perhaps due to the recent process of
globalisation. This does of course not mean that regional cultural awareness
is unimportant or bad. I myself I like it, but I realize it is not such a
big thing.
Zeeland and Holland are adjacent territories with vague boundaries. Still
many people believe that the island of Goeree-Overflakkee is part of the
province of Zeeland, where in fact it is officially a part of Zuid-Holland.
The provinces are both geographically not too large and they are endowed
with good means of transport by water. Zeeuwen and Hollanders had been
communicating with each other for ages and long before SA was discovered or
colonized. The provinces of the Netherlands had been together, more or less
independent, in some stately form from the days of Charlemagne. During the
17th century the republic of the United Netherlands was formed. The
provinces of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht were even more closely knit. So
socially, economically (Zeeland largely participated in the VOC) and through
government the regions worked together.
Merchants and craftsmen from the further away Antwerp moved to Amsterdam in
that century without much language problems.

What was the VOC's language?
Standard Dutch hardly existed in the days of the founding of SA.
Nevertheless many people did not have much trouble understanding each other.
The point is, they needed to understand each other. During time a standard
language developed (and was imposed later on) and regional languages grew
more and more together. Not in the least because of some sort of standard
spelling and by the schooling system.
For the Kaapkolonie, the VOC semi government from the very beginning
strongly enforced the use of a standard Hollandish.

What was the importance of the Huguenots?
Many Huguenots fled from France to the Netherlands before emigrating to
South Africa in service of the VOC. Most of them were recruited after they
got to the Netherlands. The question arises: how French were they? The ones
that got to SA through The Netherlands must in some way have been integrated
in Dutch society and have had no big problem with Dutch as a language. The
VOC in SA introduced the Huguenots, but were keen on integrating them in
their system and imposed the use of the Dutch language. Unlike the situation
in The Netherlands, Walloon Churches were not allowed in SA. Then, there
were not so very many of them (by the end of the century some 200) to have
an extreme influence on the language. Their economic contribution to the new
colony must have been greater than their linguistic. The internet gives
quite a few hits on the subject, e.g.
http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/gesk-hug.htm and
http://www.geocities.com/sa_stamouers/huguenots.htm
Other members of the list may know more about this and may be able to weigh
the Huguenots' importance to this respect.

How close is the connection?
The fact that I can relatively easy read and understand Afrikaans and the
fact that SA-people can understand me, cannot be waved away that easily.
Standard Dutch speakers and Afrikaans speakers can mutually understand each
other. Why than deny the fact? Afrikaans is easier to understand for me than
a Flemish dialect (I get along because of my knowledge of Brabantish, but
not too far), or Limburgish (if at all). As a matter of fact, Afrikaans
speakers will not be able to understand Flemish and Limburgish either. They
will have a lot harder job understanding Lower Saxon, French and German (and
Xhosa) than to understand Dutch.
I visited SA in December 2002. I had the opportunity to talk with Afrikaans
speakers. One of them said "maar ons is familie", while we were chatting
away (far better than I expected) and I wondered how on earth it was
possible that 10.000 kms away we could communicate in our own languages. I
even could make myself pretty understandable in Graaff Reinet's black
township (though, I admit, I did my best to speak some Afrikaans then, Dutch
being grammatically more complicated). The mere fact that we could speak
without changing to English made me feel more close to the people.
Until 1925 Dutch was one of two official government languages in SA. Until
recently Dutch was widely taught in schools and Dutch books are still read
in SA (though this interest seems to be disappearing among young people, so
I was told). Surprisingly the British, when SA came under their rule, kept
Dutch as an official language. This may indicate that the language was of
certain importance.
The fact that standard Dutch was the language of government and church not
just contributed to the connection, the fact was very likely to be of an
importance not to be underestimated. This official status made it a language
with an army and a navy. The connection did not simply stop in the 17th
century. The development of Afrikaans took place in a more complicated
process than a language simply taking its own course.
(For the cause of this posting I hit an interesting discussion on the
internet on: http://taalschrift.org/discussie/000191.html. Paardekooper's
start of the discussion is not so very interesting in my opinion. The
reactions are).
For a conclusion: I believe the relationship between Afrikaans and Dutch is
a lot closer than suggested.
Then what are these suggestions good for? Why is a strong relationship
between Afrikaans and Dutch denied?

Choice or science
Quebec French is as close to (or as far away from) French as Afrikaans from
Dutch. Still on both sides of the ocean Francophone unity is declared.
Afrikaners and Dutch do not.
This seems to be more a matter of choice, than a matter of science. Perhaps
good Afrikaans speakers simply don't want it to be close. In that case it
would be politically correct to deny the connection with standard Dutch and
go look for other (less obvious ones).

An explanation for this attitude might be that a large number of Afrikaners
turned away from the government at Cape Town. They called their language
Afrikaans as to express their connection to their (new) country. No
connection with Europe is necessary anymore. The English speakers on the
other hand stayed within the British realm. A separate language was not
developed. The Afrikaners call their English-speaking countrymen
"soutpiele". With one foot in Africa and the other in Britain, their sex
organ lies in the ocean. Never willing to make a choice.
The Afrikaners cut their language officially loose in 1925 from Nederlands.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, 10.000 kilometres up north, the process
of standardizing the Dutch language in The Netherlands and Flanders gained
even more momentum. In about the same period the Flemish specifically
decided to hook on to standard Dutch, instead of developing a Flemish
language. In 1864 governments in both countries adopted a standard spelling
(De Vries en Te Winkel). Around the 1930's standard Nederlands was generally
accepted in Flanders. The Flemish did exactly the opposite of what the
Afrikaans speakers did, they hooked on instead of hooking off. If not, they
would probably have lost the language battle with the French speaking part
of the nation. No doubt strategic reasons dominated the decision of the
Flemish.

So how non-strategic were the Afrikaners? I guess they were not at all. The
very word "Afrikaans" ("Afrikaans-Nederlands" was not chosen) and the
perception on the development of Afrikaans made the language indigenous
instead of imported from Europe. The denial of a strong relationship with
Dutch then makes sense.

Today I read Elsie Zinners' contribution. It surprised me, because she (I
assume Elsie is a girls name) seems to underline my point of view in a
reaction to Stephen's posting:
>>The fact that it arrived at the southern tip of the continent a century
>earlier than the others does not then accord it native status to the
exclusion of other European languages.
>whilst excluding this status from being applied to other equally key
immigrant-settler groups (the British and English).

>That is just the dilemma about the language and its people. It did not
arrive like English arrived elsewhere; it evolved from bits of Europe and
parts of Africa and if there is any exclusion (people or language), it is
self-emposed. English became native in England yet it evolved from Saxon and
Norman French.

>One part of my forebearers arrived in South Africa in 1670 and I cannot
claim to be a native of Africa?
Please Elsie let me know your opinion.

The Afrikaans language may officially be hooked off of Dutch, many Afrikaans
speakers believe that, through language and origin, the connection still
exists. Not very many Flemish would feel the same with the Dutch. One
Afrikaner told me in 2002 that he came from Ermelo (NL). So I asked him when
he emigrated. He named the exact year in the 18th century, so indicating his
ancestral ties. He read Dutch newspapers on the internet and all. Clearly I
have no idea of how exemplary the man was for his fellow countrymen, but I
came across other people more or less like him, more than once.

The Flemish strategic reasons (joining in a larger language community to
omit a minority role) may gain importance for the Afrikaners in the (near)
future.

More reasons
Could there be more reasons to do away with Dutch as a standard language? I
think so.
During the 19th and 20th centuries the Dutch government was neither able nor
willing to help their "brothers" in SA politically or materially. With the
exception of sending a war ship to rescue Paul Krüger and the presence of
some anti-British feelings during WW1 and the Boer-war. So there was little
to gain for the "stamverwandten" (kin of tribe?) in the relationship. During
the post WW2 period, the Dutch took a lead in convicting apartheid. Whatever
the good reason, this probably created distance.
Where white Afrikaans speakers may feel a certain kinship, even beyond
language, the many non-white Afrikaans speakers probably don't.
So why would Afrikaans speakers feel connected.
Also Dutch speakers regularly find Afrikaans childish because of its
relative simple grammar ("leuk taaltje" is often said). This is not very
respectful to say the least. Why would an Afrikaans speaker feel connected
with non-respectful people?

Miscellaneous observations
Afrikaners seem not to be very proud or exclusive about their language. Many
Afrikaans speakers may not have a clue about the Dutch-Afrikaans connection,
and they may not even think of denying that connection, but they seem to
deny the existence of Afrikaans itself, find Afrikaans less important or
simply lock out others.
Some examples I picked up during my stay in South Africa in 2002..

1.
I quite a few times found it hard to speak Dutch or Afrikaans with
SA-people. English seems to be the lingua franca for anyone not close
enough. People switch to English as soon as they can. Asking for the hotel
room key in Dutch (numbers are identical with Afrikaans) usually resulted in
a response in English, like "here you go sir". They obviously had understood
my request. At the same time staff was speaking Afrikaans among each other.
They seemed to be ashamed of speaking Afrikaans, or wanted to keep it to
themselves.
2.
Our black bus driver could speak some 10 different languages, which came in
pretty handy sometimes. But he could only speak only a little Afrikaans he
said. He came from Bloemfontein, he travelled all over the country, he
seemed rather educated, and so I could hardly believe that. Later on he
turned to be an excellent Afrikaans speaker. So he was at least reluctant to
speak Afrikaans .
3.
Television: The programs I could see in hotels were usually English (I took
no random sample of all programs, it is just the programs that were on), no
subtitles in whatever other language.
4.
The very popular program "Noot vir Noot" refers to Afrikaans and English
music just the same. It seems to me that one has to be at least bilingual in
SA to get along even in an Afrikaans language TV-program.

Hearing Noot vir Noot's quizmaster did give me the idea that Afrikaans is a
far different language. But I sometimes get the idea that some Dutch show
masters and stand up comedians share a different language with their
audience as well.

Epilogue
I am just observing and making educated (I hope) guesses. Maybe Elsie or
other LL-members from SA could shine a light on the subject.

Please understand that my sole object is to do away with myths and find out
the truth about phenomena around me.

Gr. Fred

----------

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

Hi, Fred!

Good to hear from you again.

I did not make any categorical statements in that regard, was merely
"discussing with myself."  I realize that Dutch has _bakvisje_,
corresponding to Afrikaans _bakvissie_.  What I was thinking of was the
actual, ultimate origin of this term (irrespective of the relationship
between Dutch and Afrikaans), given that Dutch and Afrikaans do not have
_bak_ in the sense of "back" (= "retour") while LS has and also has the
attested use of _bakvisch_ to denote under-age, undersized fish to be
returned to the water, in both LS and German extended to mean 'teenage
girl'.  What I was saying was that there must be a connection (i.e., that
this cannot be seen as a Dutch/Afrikaans item in isolation).

I realize that Dutch should be seen as the most obvious source for Afrikaans
words.  I do not think anyone would doubt that.  However, apart from this
specific item, I caution against jumping to conclusions in all cases,
against excluding the possibility of other sources, given Southern Africa's
multiethnic and multilingual history.

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.
=======================================================================