Talk:Afrikaans language/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Afrikaans links lists and portals

There is a very fine line between sites "about Afrikaans" and sites "for Afrikaans". The former is permitted in terms of the Wikipedia guidelins, whereas the latter may be frowned upon. What I propose is that we create a separate section in the links section called "Afrikaans portals and link lists", in which we list 5 of the biggest or most well-known portals, including and -- leuce 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The URL redirects to If anyone wants to add it (and if it is indeed allowed), IMO they should (a) add the real URL and not the redirecting URL and (b) reference it by its real name "Die Knoop" and not something vague and marketingish like "Afrikaans portal". -- leuce 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaners vs Afrikaanses

Before I go on, let's first agree to read what has been said about this topic in the archives of this discussion... so that we don't rehash old arguments endlessly.

My question is basically this: Do a large section of the general public in South Africa regard the term "Afrikaner" as pejorative?

Looking at ten random results for a search for "afrikaners" in (the combined portal for South African English newspapers such as Cape Argus, Cape Times, Daily News, Isolezwe, Post, Pretoria News, Sun. Independent, Sunday Tribune, The Independent on Saturday, The Mercury and The Star), the term "Afrikaners" is used only in a neutral sense, never pejoratively.

A Google search for "afrikaners" in gives similar results. Even in articles where negative things were written about Afrikaners, the term itself is used neutrally, not pejoratively.

Any term can be used pejoratively by anyone, but the question is whether the term "Afrikaner" is usually pejorative. The answer, I think, is no. The fact that some people feel very negative about Afrikaners, doesn't mean that when use the word "Afrikaner", that they've deliberately chosen that word above any other word because it is presumably pejorative. -- leuce 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as my knowledge extends into the topic of the 'politics of Afrikaans' the terms Afrikaner, Afrikaanses and Boers are applied depending upon the Afrikaans- speakers ethnicity (although certain members of the Coloured community prefer to be referred to as Bruin Afrikaners rather than Afrikaanses), political beliefs and location. The White, Afrikaans- speaking descendants of the Voortrekkers are likely to use the term Boer, although it's also used by politically conservative Afrikaners of non- Voortrekker descent, and equally politically/ socially liberal Afrikaans- speaking Whites of Voortrekker descent may prefer the term Afrikaanse. So it's almost unique to every person.
However, after weighing it all up, I would say that Afrikaanses is the most general and appropriate term, considering Boer or Afrikaner limit the usage of the term and are inaccurate, because a considerable portion of the Coloured population, who often don't see themselves as Afrikaners, speak Afrikaans. 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether "Afrikaanses" is an appropriate term or not, is not my concern (it has been discussed in the archives of this page). My question was rather whether "Afrikaner" is necessarily a pejorative term or not. -- leuce 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Also the accent of Boers (using the term in a geographical rather than political context, to denote those of voortrekker descent) differs greatly from that of Cape Afrikaners, which is hardly suprising considering the two groups have been developing seperately since the 1690s- early 1700s.
Perhaps this information should be included in the article? 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt if the accents of Gautengers vs Capetonians have anything to do with the fact that there were two dialects of Afrikaans (a western and and eastern one, not counting the northern one). With the advent of rail and the automobile, the speakers of these "dialects" have moved around quite a bit and the boundaries of accents based on the dialects may be indistinguishable by now. This is just my opinion. -- leuce 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, it does say in the Boer article that the two ethnic groups have been dispersed around the country in lots of cases, however there is still specifically Boer communities and I'm quite sure that their accent and pronunciation will differ greatly from that of a Cape Afrikaner. In the way that Cape Malay Afrikaans- speakers add -jie to the end of almost every word (or at least according to Leonard Van Os), the Boer and Afrikaner accents will, in those ethnicity defined communities, vary. 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we don't need a generic term for Afrikaans speakers, Afrikaner speakers will call themselves Afrikaners, Boer speakers will refer to themselves as Boers and coloured speakers will call themselves coloureds or brown Afrikaners.

I doubt their common language culturally binds them any more than the fact Englanders and Americans both speak English. 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation of External Links section

I've cleaned up the links list of irrelevant or superfluous links. Here is my reasons/rationale for removing the links:

  • - Why not just summarise it into a single sentence and put it in the article?
  • - We can't list all colleges with Afrikaans departments.
  • - Only a very small links list.
  • - Very little unique content.
  •,,, - One cannot possibly list all Afrikaans newspapers, radio stations, magazines, television stations, publishers etc.
  •,,,,, - One cannot possibly list all Afrikaans software and software organisations here.

I also feel quite strongly that the portals and links lists should also be removed -- they do not belong in an encyclopedia article, IMO. But I've left them there for someone else to delete... -- leuce 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Dutch and Afrikaans - "more regular grammar"

It is unclear to the reader which language posesses a more regular grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Afrikaans is more regular, I'll make that clear in the article.Cameron Nedland 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles says: "I'm a South African English-language magazine editor who is actively involved in the teaching of English in Taiwan. I also speak regularly with German, Dutch and French speakers here in Taiwan. I believe the success of English is largely due to its efficiency and lack of over-complicated grammar. In that respect, I think one of the achievements of Afrikaans is that it managed to discard EVEN MORE of the unnecessary complexities of European languages than English did. Why do we still have to discern between is/are/am and was/were when we can just use "is" and "was" for everything (as in Afrikaans)? And have/has/had + a third form of the verb (perfect), when we can just say -- "het" + "ge" + verb root (as in "het gesit")? AND, in Afrikaans the verb is either the verb root in the present and future, or the verb root preceded by "het ge..." IN ALL FORMS OF PERFECT OR PAST TENSE!

Forget about SEE, SEES, SAW, have/had/has SEEN - in Afrikaans all verbs are exactly the same: SIEN or het geSIEN - meaning that once you know the VERB ROOT you can use it perfectly in any sentence if you know the simple "het ge..." rule!

I think a comparative study of Afrikaans will show that it is the most efficient, logical, intuitive, stripped-down lean machine of a language out there - especially when compared to other European-origin languages. People who say they are proud of their over-complicated European languages are missing the point: The world is moving toward a unified language, and over-complicated, counter-intuitive, illogical languages will keep on losing ground against efficient, stripped-down, practical languages. And if you think you'll lose the "beauty" of a language when you strip it down, listen to songs like Koos Du Plessis' "Kinders van die wind", "Sprokie vir 'n stadskind", etcetera -- and any of the songs of Johannes Kerkorrel (Gereformeerde Blues Band) and Laurika Rauch.



I was wondering, approximately, what percentage of Afrikaans speakers, particularly in the Cape Dutch and Boer communities (as those in the Cape Coloured switch between Afrikaans and English with ease), are only able to speak Afrikaans. As I understood the majority of white schools, under the Apartheid regime, taught English and Afrikaans side- by- side, however, particularly in the former Western Transvaal, there seems to be a population of Boers, primarily in the most rural communtities, who cannot speak English.

Also, if there is a significant population of monolingual Afrikaanses, will this phenomena invariably die out with the conviction of the present government that English should be the future language of all White South Africans. I did here that they are firmly pro- English, with regards to education, however I know for a fact that in some schools Afrikaans is the only language used.

Could anyone with a more advanced knowledge than myself break down this mixed message, concerning the future role of Afrikaans in southern Africa. 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Being an english speaker growing up in the former Western Transvaal, now known as the North West Province, I can attest to the lack of spoken English in the region, but do not be mistaken - english is understood by a great deal of people - even in places like Ventersdorp. Children in the former white schools of the region were taught english until matric level. It was a compulsory subject at school for all white children. So, a great deal of people are able to speak english, but there is a great deal of animosity towards the language.

However, the aversion to english dates back to the Second Anglo-Boer War and for that reason, the area has a great dislike for the language. The British forces were not very successful in their endeavours in the area. Danie Theron, a Afrikaans national hero is remember for his death in the hills of the Gatsrand.

Praag is not for Afrikaans as language

IMO PRAAG is not a language activist organisation, but an ethnic one. The description of PRAAG on their own web site mentions only "Afrikaners" in the political, ethnic sense of the word. Don't be fooled by their name -- they are not "pro Afrikaans", but "pro white Afrikaner". IMO the link should be removed. -- leuce 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know but they've become very intertwined, particularly under the ANC's anti- Afrikaans ethos, with Afrikaans being one of the staples of Afrikaner and Boer culture in a way that it isn't for Coloureds or any other Afrikaans- speakers.
How do you think most Americans would feel if they were told they had to start speaking Spanish and Hispanic and Native American culture were the only ones that influenced their nation? That's the closest parallel you could get, there's a native people, who are now in control, there's another immigrant group (Brits in the case of SA) and suddenly your own language is no longer valued. 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to link to a political website such as on this encyclopaedia. The website has nothing to do with Afrikaans other than using it as a medium whereby to poison the Afrikaans speaking youth with far right and racist literature. There is NO PLACE for this website on this article. The link should be removed. — Adriaan (TC) 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


You can say that Afrikaans went through creolisation periods, i.e. the fact that it took on a diverse range of changed grammar became a lingua franca for the coloureds..why would the white settlers incorporate vocabulary from various sources and change the structure of the language?(this is copied from talk:Creole languages) It says it was influenced by a creole..but it's not a creole...right?Domsta333 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaans developed under the influence of all languages in Southern Africa, including German and French, as well as non- White languages like Malay, there's no politics involved in a languages' developement, I'd imagine they just picked up words from other settlers, and natives, and they became worked into the framework of Afrikaans. 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the white settlers take words from Africans/whoever? If you find something and your people have no idea what it is, who would you ask?Cameron Nedland 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You make a valid point.
Treurnicht 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole host of Afrikaans words that originated from non-Germanic languages. Afrikaans even adopted a few grammatical rules from these languages.[1] [2]. From Low Portugese examples include sambreel ("umbrella"), tamaai ("big") and "tarentaal" (guineafowl), as well as the practice of putting vir ("for") before the object: Ek het vir Jan gebel. ("I called Jan.").
From Malay we have, amongst others, piesang ("banana") and borrie ("turmeric") as well as the practice of repeating words like net-net ("just") and gou-gou ("quickly").
The use of the pronoun ons ("us") where other Germanic forms would use "we", stems from the Khoi-languages, as do words like abba (to transport someone on your back - not quite like a piggyback ride, in that the carrier remains upright) and boegoe ("buchu" - a type of plant).
If one understands "creolisation" to mean a quick and radical language change in context, then Afrikaans would definitely be viewed as a creole. Remember, the settlers arrived only to be confronted with a load of objects (animals, plants, fruits) which they had no vocabulary for, including objects which the traders brought from Malaysia, etc. Words were needed - and fast - to name these things, and this usually meant adopting the existing foreign words. In one disastrous case, a fish, the Johanius hololepidotus, reminded the Dutch settlers of a fish back home and they continued calling it "Kabeljou", even though the Dutch kabeljou refers to the Cod family.
The presence of these foreign languages also had a permanent effect on the language, apart from the voabulary (examples above, also the use of double negatives, which, unless I'm mistaken, the Afrikaners can thank the French Huguenots for). So, just some examples of the way in which Dutch become Afrikaans during its creolisation. Anrie 13:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no common agreement as to the origin of the double negative in Afrikaans and the evidence does not point to a single, identifiable origin. It's discussed in a chapter in The Development of Afrikaans by Fritz Ponelis which looks at the Dutch dialect, Low Portuguese and Khoi origin theories. Lex3000
The pronoun "ons"? You said it had come from the Khoi languages? I think it is rather a Germanic word. For example "uns" is used as a dative and an accusative of "wir" (we) in the German language. I'm quite sure there is some form of "uns" in Dutch as well and that it came to Afrikaans via Dutch :) (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Ons is indeed Dutch for us or ours, but does not mean we as it does in Afrikaans. Ons praat Afrikaans is correct Afrikaans but incorrect Dutch since it translates as us talk Afrikaans. The use of ons when meaning we is indeed part of its creolisation.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
According to Prof. Edith Raidt's "Historiese Taalkunde", citing a Danish study, the use of "ons" instead of "wij" is a "Germanic vulgarism", and is found in Europe as well. It would be highly speculative to suggest that this is evidence of creolisation. The same book questions the creolisation theory fairly extensively. Most of the sources I've read on the subject suggest that Afrikaans underwent very limited creolisation, and largely maintained its Germanic structure. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

In Afrikaans "ons" is the first person, plural pronoun in all cases whereas English uses "We", "us" and "our". I'm not familiar with all the cases in Dutch. Roger (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In Dutch, however, ons can only be used in the genitive (dat is ons huis — that is our house), accusative (hij haat ons — he hates us), or dative (geef het (aan) ons — give it to us), just like in Afrikaans, but not in the nominative (we zien de zee — we see the sea — ons sien die see). Interesting though that Afrikaans kept this distinction for ek/my, jy/jou, hy/hom and sy/haar, but not for hulle. For julle (you, your), standard Dutch —contrary to English— also uses a common form (jullie). Hulle, also used in Brabantian, is zij (nominative), hen (accusative, also often dative) or hun (dative and genitive) in standard Dutch. So the use of the ons and hulle, as well as the loss of mijn (my), can be considered part of the creolisation of Afrikaans. Regards, --Hooiwind (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I live in the Netherlands, not far from Zeeland (Zealand), and I can assure you that "ons" (=us, our) is used (in the dialect of Zeeland) instead of "wij"(=we). It's even a common joke about the people of Zeeland:"Ons ben zuunig." (lit. "Us am thrifty/economical") As you can see the plural "zijn" (=are) has disappeared in this dialect, only "ben" and "is" are still used. This puts it even closer to Afrikaans, which has only kept "is", the third person singular.

"Ons" as nominative is strictly forbidden by every grammarbook, but of course native speakers don't learn their language from a grammarbook. The same goes for "hun"(=them, their), which can replace "zij"(=they). ("Zij" means also "she". "Zij" in the meaning of "she" is never replaced by "hun".) You can find the same thing in English, I think. People from the southern part of the USA use, if I'm not mistaken, frequently "them" instead of "they".

There are many more similarities between Afrikaans and Dutch dialects. Here are a few examples to compare Afrikaans and Hollands (Hollandic):
Af. hy dog - H. hij doch - he thought; "g" and "ch" as "ch" in German Nacht. There's no difference in pronounciation between y and ij.
Af. 'n bietjie - H. 'n bietjie - a bit; "ie" as "ea" in bean, "j" as "y" in yes
Af. perd - H. paerd - horse; "ae" as "a" in that, but a bit longer.
Af. onregverdig - H. onrechtvaerdig - unjust
The "i" in dit is both in Afrikaans and Hollandic pronounced as "e" in the.
In North Holland, around Amsterdam, "v" is pronounced as "f" and "z" is pronounced as "s", just like in Afrikaans.

I don't think that Afrikaans is a "creole language". It just combines dialectical Dutch with now and then a stange pronounciation. The "ui" par example is pronounced in Dutch as something between "äu" in German Häuser and "eu" in French jeu. (It's a diffucult sound for foreigners.) In Afrikaans "ui" is pronounced with a Heinrich-and-François-speak-Dutch accent, a bit like that "äu". (No offence, Heinrich and François, I love the accent!)

I see that I've written more than I was planning to. I hope it's useful! (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The Afrikaans diminutive suffix -kie is, in the form of -ke or -kie, also found in contemporain Dutch dialects, especially in those from "below the rivers." The Hollandic pronunciation of -tjie (see above) is a little simplified. The combination t+j is pronounced as written above, but not as two separate consonants. It is one sound, a bit towards "ch" in church. (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of <ie>


The other day I had an argument with a friend of mine. We (being Dutchmen) are both rather fluent in Afrikaans. The argument was about the pronunciation of a closed syllable when spelt <ie>.

My friend maintained that <siens> from "tot siens" (=goodbye) is pronounced like English "since" whereas my opinion was that - similarly to Dutch - it has to be spoken as in "scenes".

Which is now true, and is there a common rule? Or does it depend on the regional dialect?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

Best regards


It is pronounced like the Dutch "tot ziens", except for the "z" that becomes "s". Also, it's one word in Afrikaans: "totsiens". It is a common misconception that being able to speak Dutch also enables one to speak Afrikaans. Anrie 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

z becoming s due to English influence in Afrikaans is clear. Spelt in one or two words - who cares? What confuses me much, however, is the German counterpart of your site that I've been recently visiting. There is a table with pronunciation rules for syllables with single vowels. If I interpret this table correctly, the <ie> in a closed syllable is spoken short and only re-prolonged with another vowel following the syllable. "diep" which in Dutch is pronounced just like English "deep" therefore would be spoken "dip" - but then again "dieper" just like "deeper". If this is so, my friend would be right.

Thank you and best regards


The use of S instead of Z in Afrikaans has nothing to do with English influence, and in fact Afrikaans uses a non-voiced S in many words that have a Z or voiced S in their English equivalents. Compare Afrikaans sink as in the common word "sinkplaat" (corrugated iron) with English "zinc", and plesier with the standard non-voiced S with the English "pleasure", even sebra rather than "zebra". In fact English was of minimal influence on Afrikaans in the language's early development, only becoming a significant influence in more recent years when spelling conventions, pronunciation etc had already become standardised.

/ie/ in diep is pronounced rather like English "deep" but the sound is shorter, mid-way between "deep" and "dip".

Booshank 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friend is incorrect. Afrikaans is my mother-tounge and i cannot think of single instance where <ie> is pronounced as your friend stated it ("i" in "dip"). It is always pronounced like the "i" in "mini" or "in" in English, regardless of dialect. I natively speak with a "Transvaal" or Northeastern Afrikaans accent. (in my opinion) The <ie> in "nie" is pronounced shorter than the <ie> in "kies" because of the surrounding vowels, though this is not uniform and is by no means a rule. -HannesJvV- 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Hannes, but what is the difference in pronunciation between the vowels in the English words "dip" and "in"? Both are clearly short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald4244 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can help with this. In SA English - such as I speak - the vowel sound of "dip" sounds like "a" - the indefinite article - "a book", whereas the vowel sound of "in" is a shortened "e" as in "the letter e". Both are very close to a schwa. Sorry I don't know IPA! Roger (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Double negative

One of the comments above mentions the French origin of the double negative. I think more detail on that topic would benefit this article. --StefanVanDerWalt 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion in Dutch can be found at, which includes some statements on the double negative (among others one Johan Nijhof arguing contra on 7/01/04). Classical geographer 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The double-negative is one of the most unique features of Afrikaans, and it doesn't even rate a mention! My understanding is that it's Malay in origin, not French, but I came here looking to find out. Overall, the article is very euro-centric, and ignores the African nature of the language, particularly local Khoi nouns, but also for Malay words like "baie."Coogie1 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a paper on Afrikaans in an undergraduate Historical Linguistics course and vaguely remember reading that there were signs of a double negative in 16th Century dialects (?Middle dutch). If I can find the paper I'll find the references and post them here. Paul Roberton (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Prof. Edith Raidt's book "Historiese Taalkunde", mentioned above, the double negative also occurs in dialectical variations of Dutch. For instance, the dialect of Aarschot in Belgium, where is is used in exactly the same way as in Afrikaans. Moreover, it existed in old Dutch (niet-en), and of course, in several other languages, so to say that it is one of the "most unique features of Afrikaans" is a bit of a stretch. This suggests that it probably came from the Low Countries with the early settlers as a dialectical variation. (talk)

Afrikaans in argentina

There is no mention of afrikaans being spoken in argentina? There is quite big and active communities living there and even boere sport events!

Some more info can be found on these pages:\

Think we should work on including them...

sKAApGIF 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From most reports I have read about the Afrikaner communities in Argentina (mostly from around Comodoro Rivadavia in Patagonia), Afrikaans has mostly disappeared, and the people have become largely Hispanisised and integrated into the larger Argentinian society. The only cultural remnant is their Reformed church, the Iglesia Reformada. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Kameelperd x Camel horse

Ek noem maar net dat "kameelperd" nie "camel horse" beteken nie, tensy jy volksetimologie in ag neem. Die Nederlandse woord kameelpaard kom uit die Middeleeuse Latyn camelopardus, wat 'n samestelling is van die woord vir kameel (die kameelperd se pote lyk soos 'n kameel s'n) en luiperd (die kameel se kolle lyk soos 'n luiperd s'n). -- leuce (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I double-checked in the HAT, just to be sure, and then removed this "literal" translation. Anrie (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed this again. As Leuce says, kameelperd looks as though it is simply a compound of kameel (camel) and perd (horse) but actually comes from the Middle Ages Latin camelopardus which refers to a camel and leopard. Booshank (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think something about this should be included on the Wiki page itself. First of all, as is clear from the Afrikaanse text Leuce quoted, the word does derive from Dutch. It simply doesn't mean Camel Horse. The second line reads 'The Dutch word 'Kameelpaard' derives from the medieval Latin word camelopardus, which is a concatenation of Camel and Leopard.'
So, even though the Dutch language currently doens't use the word 'Kameelpaard', it apparently did so a few centuries ago. What the text says is that this Dutch word didn't come from Camel and Horse, but from Camel and Leopard. The Dutch language has since adopted 'Giraffe', but not without passing on the 'Kamelperd' to Afrikaans first.
So, something about this should be added. If only because every Dutch speaker will think 'Oh, it's a camel horse', and will only get corrected if he/she takes the trouble to edit the page :)
By the way, Leopard is 'Luipaard' (Lui-paard) in Dutch ('lazy horse' - I didn't make it up), so I think even most Dutch thought they meant Camel Horse when they used Kameeelpaard ages ago :)
--Hertog (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Whats my name in this language? --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking to get a translation of the meaning of the name, then your surname would be "Draaier". "Jay" leaves me stumped. The letter "J" is pronounced "Yee" (rhyming with peer), but that's not quite the same thing. (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Nick
If Jay is short for Jacob then in Afrikaans it would be Jaap or Jaco, also short for Jacob (or Jakob). — Adriaan (TC) 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How would you translate my last name (van der Ven) into Afrikaans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatboy (talkcontribs) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Van der Ven is already Afrikaans. Or to be strictly modern it would be Van die Ven, but surnames retain their old forms (such as Van der Merwe, Van de Kaap, Van den Berg, Van Vuuren). — Adriaan (TC) 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper names are not normally translated - in any language - this discussion is meaningless and also a violation of the purpose of a Talk page - discuss the article not the subject. Roger (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Language of the Oppressor

Replaced the term 'Unfortunately' with 'However' in the line 'Unfortunately, the ruling party in South Africa still see Afrikaans and Afrikaners as the language of a oppressor.'

Regardless of whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with the sentiment, 'unfortunately' does seem POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wight1984 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can have a problem with your edit. I agree that "unfortunately" is POV. Anrie (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole "Future for Afrikaans" section is POV. It consists entirely of (anonymous) personal opinion and speculation. I would prefer to see cited statements by recognised politicians, academics and other language professionals. Roger (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit this section today in an effort to improve it. Here is the "why" to some of the changes I made:

  • Added: "Since the end of apartheid, the Afrikaans language has been continuously downgraded by the ruling ANC in terms of education, social events, media (TV and Radio), and general status in the country, seeing as how it now shares it's place as official language with ten other languages."

So as not to give the impression that Afrikaans is being downgraded just because the government is being "mean", but because of the (im)practicalities of having 11 official languages.

I am not convinced that the "practicality" argument is a NPOV, either. Perhaps the government is indeed "being mean." Just by way of stirring the pot: Take the example of the renaming of towns, etc., with Afrikaans names, which can seldom be justified on practical grounds. There seems to be a conspicuous lack of similar zeal to replace English place names in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Changed: "However, the ruling party in South Africa still see Afrikaans and Afrikaners as the language of a oppressor"

Removed "Afrikaners"; they do not constitute a language. Changed "ruling party" to "many" - if you're going to claim that of the ruling party, you definitely need a reference.

Speculative. If there is any doubt or speculation from a verifiable source that Afrikaans is in danger of losing its place as an official language, it should definitely be cited. Otherwise it's just speculation by a user, which isn't acceptable.

Hope this appeases both opposers and the writer of the original piece? (I also improved the language use somewhat). Anrie (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"SOV language"

Why does it say that Afrikaans is a SOV language "like other Germanic languages (except English)." German and Dutch are only SOV in certain types of clauses. It seems they would still classify as SVO. It's probably the same with Afrikaans.

I agree it needs some sort of explanation. To me, it is SVO, e.g Ek het 'n hond (I have a dog), unless there is a conjunction then it is SVO, VSO or SOV depending on the conjunction. Examples: Dit was dinsdag dus was sy daar. (It was Tuesday thus was she there (word for word)) (SVO conj VSO) Ek weet omdat ek daar was - I know because I there was. (SVO conj SOV) Ek weet want ek was daar - I know since I was there. (SVO conj SVO)-- (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Afrikaans indeed seems to be an SVO language (as German ,Dutch and English are). In fact I always thought that it was. Vis. I kick the bucket. Ek skop die emmer. Ik schop de emmer. Dutch, it is stated is SVO in primary clauses, though SOV in underlying structure. Maybe this would be better included in the article for the sake of clarity. I also believe that Afrikaans is a V2 language just like Dutch. Though I have trouble with explaining the way we form the past tense in the second and last position of a clause.
The previous contributor to this discussion page gave good examples, except for his use of verbs that some might consider special in some sense or another since they need not take an object in the strictest sense.
These might be better:
Ek besit 'n hond (I own a dog)
Ek weet dit omdat ek dit gehoor het - I know it because I it heard. (SVO conj SOV)
Especially "Dit was dinsdag dus was sy daar" and "Ek weet omdat ek daar was" I feel are not accurate because "Ek was daar" might not be parsed as subject-verb-object, but subject-copula-adverb as compare with "Ek was honger" (I was hungry). The sentence could be said to describe a state rather than an action and as such is not an indicative example.--payxystaxna (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist but I wonder about this: Simple present tense declarative sentences are in SVO order "Die hond byt die man." - "The dog bites the man". When one changes it to past tense "Die hond het die man gebyt." it switches to SOV order - "The dog did the man bit." but the past tense verb actually consists of two words "het" and "gebyt" separated by the subject noun, which makes it rather complicated to compare to English - perhaps it is best described as SVOV. I'm actually confusing myself as I write this!. Roger (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly why I might want to consider Afrikaans a V2 language - since Afrikaans splits the verb phrase of the past tense (as well as some other constructions ie. "Ek kan boekdele skryf"), and the first part of he verb (an auxiliary verb) always has to be in the second position and the second part (the verb) always at the ending. I am fairly certain that Dutch and German does the same thing. This shows them (as well as Afrikaans) to be V2 languages as well as SOV.
The auxiliary (which is very important to convey the meaning) has to be in second position, and the actual verb has to be at the end. As in "Die hond het die kat gejaag" - The dog did the cat chase.
English on the other hand has: The dog did chase the cat. The auxiliary and the verb are together and the object is in the last position. English seems also to be a V2 language but is SVO instead of SOV.

I noticed this immediately as well and i tried remedying it by calling it a V2 language with verb final subordinate clauses because in main clauses the finite verb is restricted to second position and only non-finite forms are used at the end and in conjunction with a finite verb. Hope I'm not wrong about that, btw. Slamoureux1 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Die Stem van Suid-Afrika

I think that Die Stem should not be part of the Afrikaans page, since it has no information pertinent to the study of the language at all, neither can it be described as a representative example of Afrikaans music or poetry. Since it is used to the the anthem of the Republic of South Africa, might it not be better on it's own page, linked to this article and the articles about the South Africa?

The inclusion of this song which (in South Africa) still has some negative connotations with the the previous separatist regime of South Africa might be viewed by some to be a political message.

I think these changes should be made, but would appreciate some feedback as to where this text and information should go, rather than just deleting it from the Afrikaans page. payxystaxna (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have since noticed that there already exists a page for Die Stem which contains an exact copy of the entire text as well as translations, and think a link to this page is more appropriate. It is not the place of Wikipedia to give long and full translations, and even if the literal translation from Afrikaans were to be lost on the link page, the accepted English translation should suffice. payxystaxna (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to duplicate the entire content of another article here. Roger (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Roger (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


The article states that the Great Trek originated from the South-East of the country. It started from the South-West. I've made this edit before, but I see it has been changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you are wrong - sorry. Most of the trekkers came from what is now the Eastern Cape. Check any high school history textbook. Roger (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


The paragraph on diacritics includes this: "letters from Esperanto, like ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ are retained in Afrikaans loan words". Are there really that many (or any?) loanwords from Esperanto? Or, does anyone have a reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised to find even one esperanto word in an Afrikaans dictionary - in fact I cannot imagine that many more than 1 in 10 000 Afrikaans speakers have ever even heard of Esperanto. For the record; I am fluent in standard Afrikaans and hear a wide variety of other dialects daily. Roger (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced, then. I removed the section on foreign glyphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WmGB (talkcontribs) 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


This whole page needs a fair amount of work. Compare Dutch, which isn't perfect, but shows what this article could be more like. This article suffers from weasel words and too many red links.

  • Dialects: this section begins with the phrase "there is evidence...", but goes on to cite no sources. I'd especially like a reference about the prison cant, which strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Also, a lot of red links.
  • History: this whole section, including dialects, cites only two sources, both for the Lord's Prayer.
  • Grammar: this section consists of a lexical comparison, irrelevant to its topic. Compare French for a bare minimum of what this section should be. If there has to be this lexical comparison, do it in its own section.
  • Orthography: this section's OK, although it could use some tidying up.
  • Afrikaans phrases: perhaps this would be better merged with the lexical comparison, especially the last few examples.
  • Sample text: fine.
  • Sociolinguistics: this whole section suffers from weasel words, and I have tagged it as such.
  • Future of Afrikaans: "Afrikaans is still viewed negatively by some. Through all the problems of depreciation and migration that Afrikaans faces today, the language still competes well, with Afrikaans DSTV channels (pay channels) and high newspapers and CD sales as well as popular internet sites."
    • Firstly, "Afrikaans is still viewed negatively by some" is passive when it could be reworded actively to better effect. Secondly, the use of "by some" here constitutes weasel words. Specifics?
    • Secondly, this second sentence reads oddly, especially the first half. What problems of depreciation and migration? They're not mentioned in the sociolinguistics section, which is presumably where they would go.
  • Afrikaans music: this section just seems out of place. Is there a better way that it could be incorporated into the article?
It's not even out of place -- it is complete rubbish. It is pure speculation and contains no real facts. I agree that there should be a music section, but then it should contain verifiable information, or at least information about recorded and written music -- not just "songs sung by sailors on the slopes". -- leuce (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A particular glaring omission: no phonology. This article isn't bad, but neither is it good. It needs work, especially in the areas above. Sectori (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the statements made above. I'll see what I can do to edit the article. I am also adding a {{cleanup}} tag to the article payxystaxna (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I also have to second the above statements. I think it might be a good idea to create an article on the differences between Afrikaans and Standard Dutch (compare Differences between Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish) and on Afrikaans phonology. This would shorten the article considerably. The tables in the grammar section, most of the Bible section and Afrikaans phrases section, and all of the sample text and Afrikaans music section should go. It's better to start off with a clean slate.--Hooiwind (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As is often the case, the German wikipedia is of great help: see de:Afrikaans.--Hooiwind (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Early Afrikaans Document

I seem to recall hearing about the first or one of the first pieces of writings in Afrikaans being a copy of the Qur'an, but I'm not so sure. I can't find it in Wikipedia but maybe it does exist. Can anybody help me? Lyle0220 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See Arabic Afrikaans Roger (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Where Afrikaans is spoken

There is nowhere Afrikaans is not spoken. But to list Taiwan so prominently as being a place where the language is spoken is incorrect. I suggest we remove Taiwan and any place where fewer than a few thousand people speak the language. OK? Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Roger (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


In "Future of Afrikaans":

"Modern, often rage-infused music" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Online dictionaries

Are there any decent Afrikaans-English online dictionaries (something in the vein of for English-German)? The few that I have found are utterly rubbish... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Afrikaans"

The IPA for "Praat jy Afrikaans?" is [prɑˑt jəi afrikɑ̃ˑs], while "Die kinders praat Afrikaans" is [di kənərs prɑˑt afrikɑˑns]. Why are two pronunciations given for "Afrikaans", and if [ɑ̃] is present in the sound inventory of this language, should it be added to the table of IPA characters? Lfh (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The first version ([afrikɑ̃ˑs]) is dialectical and non-standard. — Adriaan (TC) 09:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sample text


Does this article really need the lord's prayer... twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Newest language

Afrikaans is the newest modern language - not only much simplified, but a lot of work has gone into developing it into an academic language. I think it's worth finding references to substantiate these facts and mention them in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the newest modern language... although it is somewhat new. If you can find sources for your claim then you can gladly insert it into the article, because it is quite a substantial claim to make. — Adriaan (TC) 12:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


The article would benefit from a phonology section? Anyone knowledgeable that feels inclined to write one? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Table of Characters entry for 'i'

In the table of characters, is the IPA provided for 'i' really correct? I can't thank of many occasions where 'i' is pronounced as /i/ at all — maybe in proper names like 'Mali' /mɑːli/ or 'Fidji' /fid͡ʒi/. For the most part, where the pronounciation is /i/, the spelling is 'ie': dankie, bietjie, brief, etc. I think that for the 'i' entry we should replace /i/ in the chart with /ɪ/, as in 'blind' /blɪnd/ (not /blənd/, because of the two different vowels in 'blinde' /blɪndə/), 'vink' /fɪnk/, 'ridder' /ɾɪddəɾ/, and so on. At the very least, we should add /ɪ/ to the chart entry for 'i'. --GoodIntentionstalk 11:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)