# Afrikaans: Dialect or Creole?



## Joannes

avok said:


> I think, Afrikaans is not classified as a creole because it is spoken (as a native language) by the great grand children of the first Dutch settlers


 
As well, but not exclusively.



avok said:


> i.e. the people is white


 
This is not only incorrect. You probably should be a bit careful with what you say in this matter. Apartheid is not that far away in history, and it has left scars as well as sensitive subjects. Just so you know.



avok said:


> so they simply speak a modified version of their own anscestors' language. No slave language, no "master" language, no local language is in the process.( Of course there may be some influences but the language is still pure germanic)


 
It really isn't. There were lots of influences from other languages (Khoi, Malay, Zulu, Xhosa, Portuguese, ...).



avok said:


> To be honest I find English more "creole" than Afrikaans


 
Well, the 'Germanicness' of English has been doubted before. 


Now let's leave this thread to Papiamentu, shall we? We can always open a new one if we want to discuss Afrikaans.


----------



## jfm

Joannes said:


> To be honest, personally I have no clue as to why Afrikaans was not classified as "creole - Dutch based", but rather "Indo-European, Germanic, West, Low Saxon-Low Franconian, Low Franconian" (_Ethnologue_). Maybe out of practical considerations; because Afrikaans has 'its own' creoles, although I don't quite see why that would be good enough a reason.
> 
> Anyone who can explain to me why Afrikaans was not classified as a creole, please do so -- although you will probably have to open a new thread for it.




SIL's Ethnologue is not a definite source. Just because SIL says something about any given language, it doesn't follow that that is common consensus about that language. They are generally good and reliable when it comes to languages for which SIL-associated people have worked on, while for other languages (the large majority of them) they simply summarize info from selected literature, sometimes obsolete works. (Ethnologue is a huge database and it's a long and slow process to update all bits and pieces in it. There are many parts where their info is just a mess.)

That said, their info on Afrikaans certainly comes from some linguistic source, not their own research. Before the twentieth century, it was generally assumed that Afrikaans was just an ordinary dialect of Dutch. It was for long called simply "Cape Dutch". It then became recognised as a separate language during the twentieth century and acquired the name "Afrikaans".

During the South African apartheid era, it was vehemently emphasised by South African scholars that Afrikaans was a genuine Germanic language which had developed just like any other Germanic language. Much research was done to show this. Later in the twentieth century, a creole-origin theory was proposed, and for long there were two theories competing: one emphasising the Germanic/Dutch dialect connection, another emphasizing the creole origin.

However, the question is not one of "either-or". 

There is still not a total consensus about whether or not to consider Afrikaans a creole. And if it is a creole, then the question is what kind of creole. Eventhough it displays many typological characteristics of typical creoles (e.g. morphological simplification), that in itself is not sufficient to give it creole status. The social conditions in which Afrikaans emerged are not comparable to how the so-called plantation creoles were born. 

The typical definition of a creole is based on:
(1) a situation in which speakers of several languages use some sort of lingua franca containing a limited vocabulary and a rudimentary grammar (a so-called "pidgin" language)
(2) children growing up in that milieu, pick up their perent's imperfect language and in the process they develop it into a full-fledged language (= creolization)

In short: (1) rudimentary pidgin spoken by adults, (2) picked up by children, (3) results in a full-fledged creole language.

Whether or not Afrikaans went through such a process is debatable, as much documentation suggests that Cape Dutch was in fact developed by adult speakers, not children.

---
jfm


----------



## Joannes

Thank you for your answer, jfm, and welcome to the forums! 



jfm said:


> During the South African apartheid era, it was vehemently emphasised by South African scholars that Afrikaans was a genuine Germanic language which had developed just like any other Germanic language. Much research was done to show this. Later in the twentieth century, a creole-origin theory was proposed, and for long there were two theories competing: one emphasising the Germanic/Dutch dialect connection, another emphasizing the creole origin.


 
But are there still people holding on to the first theory, disregarding Boers whose dreams lie in the past? (Could you give some references, maybe?)



jfm said:


> However, the question is not one of "either-or".


 
It rarely is, in language, isn't it? Still, I’m not very convinced of much language internal change in Dutch/Afrikaans except speaking foreigner talk and getting rid of dialectal differences, converging towards a supra-regional variant, which I'm sure must have been developments in the emergence of other creoles as well.



jfm said:


> There is still not a total consensus about whether or not to consider Afrikaans a creole. And if it is a creole, then the question is what kind of creole. Eventhough it displays many typological characteristics of typical creoles (e.g. morphological simplification), that in itself is not sufficient to give it creole status. The social conditions in which Afrikaans emerged are not comparable to how the so-called plantation creoles were born.


 
_What kind of creole_? Could you give a typology of creoles? (Not mocking, genuine question.)

Still, does the _kind of creole_ play a part in the classification of the language?



jfm said:


> The typical definition of a creole is based on:
> (1) a situation in which speakers of several languages use some sort of lingua franca containing a limited vocabulary and a rudimentary grammar (a so-called "pidgin" language)
> (2) children growing up in that milieu, pick up their perent's imperfect language and in the process they develop it into a full-fledged language (= creolization)
> 
> In short: (1) rudimentary pidgin spoken by adults, (2) picked up by children, (3) results in a full-fledged creole language.
> 
> Whether or not Afrikaans went through such a process is debatable, as much documentation suggests that Cape Dutch was in fact developed by adult speakers, not children.


 
I was always taught a creole is a nativized pidgin. I think I’m missing the importance of whether it were the parents or the children that made the variant into a ‘full-fledged’ language, whether creole or still pidgin.


----------



## jfm

I'm sorry if this is too much ranting, but "you asked for it", so to speak ;-)


There's no generally agreed upon taxonomy or typology of creoles, but there are ongoing disputes about how to define creoles.

One strand of definitions are based on structural linguistics (or general typological features). John McWhorter is currently the main proponent of such typologically-based definitions. According to him, all "true" creoles display predictable simplifications in their phonemic inventories, irregularities vs regularities in their syntax, the semantic make-up of pragmatic and grammatical categories, plus degree of inflexions.

According to him, only the so-called plantation creoles display the necessary typological features. These are all Europhone creoles, and he thus excludes potential creoles developed from other languages (Arabic, Swahili, Kikongo, etc.). In addition, and this has been contested by many, he also claims that all "true" creoles derive from a single original Proto-Creole once spoken on the West African coast, the so-called "Afrogenesis Hypothesis".

If you favour the typological definition, then you also must recognize a whole scale of different types of languages ranging from "true creoles" to "true non-creoles". Afrikaans would occupy a place somewhere in the middle. Afrikaans is clearly not as simplified/different in relation to Dutch as, say, Papiamentu is compared to Portuguese. It does not display the same degree of simplifications as do plantation creoles. 

Most linguists would classify Afrikaans as a semi-creole rather than "pure" creole. However, this depends, of course, how to chose to define "creole". You could expand the defition to  include also other languages than the plantation creoles, but either way, you would still have to recognize the typological difference between languages like Afrikaans and Papiamentu. 

There is another type of definitions, a more traditional one, and one which is also the more common, which relies on social or sociohistorical factors current during the birth-period of the language in question. (Such sociolinguistic definition can entirely ignore typological matters or they can be used jointly.)

If you favour a social (sociohistorical) definition, then the birth of Afrikaans is also different from how plantation creoles developed.

During the early days of the Cape society, there was a continual immigration of Dutch first language speakers, along with speakers of many other European languages (who came to adopt Dutch as a second language). There were also many local Khoekhoe-speakers who came to learn Dutch (as second language). In addition, slaves were "imported" from other parts of Africa but more commonly from Asia.

The result was that there existed several categories of (Cape) Dutch speakers:
(1) first-language speakers
(2) European second-language speakers 
(3) Khoekhoe second-language speakers
(4) Asian second-language speakers 
At some point, a pidginized variety was used by categories (3) and, to a lesser degree, (4).

The debate about the origins of Afrikaans is very much a debate about who had the largest linguistic influence during those early years. 

During the apartheid era, the main ideologically-based idea was that there is a direct unbroken link from Dutch L1-speakers to present-day Afrikaans, with little or even no influence from any L2-speakers. Obviously this extreme view has not survived, but there is no clear-cut evidence to suggest that present-day Afrikaans is *not* more or less directly decendent from the L1-speaking community, albeit with a heavy load of influence from L2-speakers.

However, creolists such as Hans den Besten and Paul Roberge purport that it was the pidginized variety originally used by the local Khoekhoe that eventually developed into a creole, and which eventually was picked up by and mixed into the speech of the Boer farmers living outside the Cape society proper. This rural variety later became more wide-spread and formed the basis of the current standardization of Afrikaans.

Either way, there is no (stereo)typical creole-origin for current-day Afrikaans, which even the creolists agree on. From the sociohistorical perspective, Afrikaans is still a different kind of "beast" from the plantation creoles, since the social conditions were very much different. The process of development would also be different, as there were always a constant (leveling) effect from a Dutch first-language-speaking community.

The category/class "creole" is either a simply-defined category (a la McWhorter) with all other languages placed on various continua outside that class, or it is a more complex category with a variety of sub-categories. You can chose to use typological (structural linguistic) or sociohistorical factors in your definitions, or you can mix them. Either way, the set of languages you are dealing with do not form a monolithic unit. It's a heterogeneous category.

---
jfm


----------



## Joannes

Thank you for your ‘ranting’, jfm. That was very interesting. 

I suppose typologically you could say there are reasons not to regard Afrikaans as a ‘true’ creole, although I believe there are also quite some reasons to do so nevertheless. Someone will have to draw the line.

Apparently McWorther dared to draw one but I believe McWorther’s requirements for creoles are too specific if he has to exclude non Europhone creoles. I never read him, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t buy his “Afrogenesis hypothesis”. I do believe in a (partial) monogenesis for _some_ creoles, but if he includes only those as ‘true creoles’, I’d say his definition is too restricted again.

Your sketch of the social circumstances in which Afrikaans emerged is accurate, but I don’t quite see what are the factors that make the language less of a creole from the sociohistorical point of view. Maybe you could set those against the circumstances in the plantations? I have to admit that I don’t know much about the development of plantation creoles. (I’m only familiar with the situation of Bislama, and only to some extent.)

To not have you do all the work here -- because so it starts to seem , let me try to say what _I think_ _may_ be differences between Afrikaans and the plantation creoles:
- The constant influx from Dutch immigrants (of which the immigration of intellectuals was particularly determining for the evolvement of Afrikaans), and Dutch education that kept the contact with European Dutch going and enriched the language in a way many other creoles probably didn’t enjoy.
- The long holding idea that Afrikaans was Dutch, and was treated thus, while other creoles may have been conventionally seperated earlier from their ‘bases’ (or rather target languages) and regarded as ‘defective’ variants.
- And - historically - probably the most important one: ethnicity. While I think in the development of most other creoles it were eventually only the slaves’ (or workers’) descendants that ended up speaking a creole, for Afrikaans the descendants of the Dutch did too. (Although this doesn’t mean that Afrikaans just went through its own language internal development! There simply was a willingness of the Dutch to adapt their language: the foreigner talk is probably not that unique in a pidgin/creole context, but the colonisers adopted characteristics of the actual pidgin/creole too, something we probably don’t find very often with other creoles. (History makes this tolerance of the Boers towards foreign language influences back then (although not _intentional_) painfully ironic, doesn’t it?))

Correct me if I’m wrong, and please add others you know. (You probably already mentioned some others, but since I'm not very familiar with the (development of) other creoles, I don't know the differences with Afrikaans unless you explicitly point them out to me. )

If these differences (although still awaiting more) suffice to say Afrikaans doesn’t fit the (sociohistorical) definition of a creole, then I’m done talking. (I will just go sit somewhere quietly disagreeing with that definition then. )


----------



## jfm

As for what is and what is not a creole, there are two requirements: as I sketched out in an earlier post, the children's involvement is necessary. A second necessary factor is that there is a "break" involved in the development. I'll explain this shortly.

There are two types of typical creoles: plantation creoles and fort creoles. 

PLANTATTION CREOLES, like those in the Caribbean, are characterized by a European minority ruling over a large majority of slaves with varied linguistic backgrounds. The slaves have no common languages among themselves so are forced to communicate using the rulers' language. In the process, they create at first a pidgin, i.e. a "broken", rudimentary version of the masters' language.

The slaves' (and marginally the masters') children grow up in this linguistic environment and pick up this pidgin, and for most/all it becomes also their mother tongue, i.e. L1. In this process, the piding ceases to be a rudimentary language, and develops all the complexities and communicative latitude that "normal" languages have. This is what is meant by "creolization". 

The "break" in this process refers to the fact that between the European masters' L1 (e.g. English) and the slaves' children's L1 (the new creole), there is a part lacking any L1-speakers.

stage 1) 
-- plantation owners' English (as a L1)
stage 2) 
-- slaves' pidgin English, which is a second language (L2), their L1's being various other languages
stage 3) 
-- the slaves' children's creole English (L1), their mother tongue

FORT CREOLES are more typical of West Africa. There you have a slightly different situation, involving small fortified European coastal bases, in each of which a single European language is spoken by the European settlers (the European L1). The "workers" or "slaves" share, to a large extent, a homogenous linguistic/ethnic background, whatever language is dominant locally. In this particular setting, the local majority have a common linguistic background. They use a rudimentary version of the European L1 when communicating with the Europeans, while retaining their own L1's when speaking amongst each other. (In the plantation context, the slaves are forced to use the pidgin for both "vertical" and "horisontal" communication.)

The children growing up in a "fort" context may or may not pick up the pidgin. In contrast to settings where plantation creoles have developed, fort creoles take longer to develop, if at all, and they are usually characterized by having a lot more input from the surrounding local language (the majority L1).

In those situations where fort creoles have developed, they, too, are characterized by a typical "break". Europeans' L1 -> locals' L2-version (pidgin) -> a new generations' L1 (creole).

In order for creolization to occur, the language have to acquire mother tongue speakers, and it can only do that if children pick it up while growing up. It need not be the *only* language they grow up with, but it has to be a language they grow up with. How else would a language acquire L1-speakers?

Now on to AFRIKAANS.

If there is an unbroken link of L1-speakers from the early Dutch settlers to current-day Afrikaans, then it cannot be labelled a creole, at least not according to current standards.

stage 1) 
-- European Dutch L1-speakers
stage 2)
-- Dutch settlers at the Cape using Dutch as L1
stage 3)
-- South Africans using Afrikaans as L1

Note that in the above development, there is an unbroken link of L1-speakers. In this case there is nothing to distinguish it from how "ordinary" dialects and language develop. It makes no difference that the setting is "foreign" (Dutch in Africa instead of Europe). It adapts to the new environment, largely by developing a new lexicon (although other things occur as well), in the same way as any language constantly adapts to new circumstances. (Latin spread all over Europe and adapted. Chinese has spread over much of East Asia and adapted.)

The only way to securely define Afrikaans as a creole, is to argue that its origin/development looked like the following:

stage 1) 
-- European Dutch L1-speakers
stage 2)
-- Dutch settlers at the Cape using Dutch as L1
stage 3)
-- local Khoekhoe use Cape Dutch as L2
stage 4)
-- the L2-variety spreads and is eventually picked up by SoAfr's children as their L1

The "break" (or, L1-to-L2-to-L1) is essential for the definition of a creole. The last step in the process (the L2-to-L1-part) occurs when children pick up the language. In fact:
L1-to-L2 = pidginization
L2-to-L1 = creolization

Now, if you prefer own definition, then that's perfectly OK, but I can assure you that the linguistic community, esp. creolists, would not agree with you. The concept of "creole" was originally created in order to distinguish the abrupt birth of "new" languages from the slow, incremental process involved in "normal" language development.

As for typological characteristics, I can't produce a list from the top of my head. In general terms, creoles are highly isolating (transparent, analytic), meaning mainly that they use little or any inflections. They prefer a Subject-Verb-Object word order. Tense/mood/aspect categories are usually marked with free adverbs. There are few if any prepositions. From a general typological perspective, in fact, creoles are difficult to distinguish from "ordinary" isolating languages, such as Vietnamese, Chinese, etc.

Plantation creoles are usually more similar (lexically) to their European source language, while fort creoles are characetrized a lot more input from a single, identifiable non-European language (cfr the difference in settings sketched above).

The most accessible source for information on creoles is the 2-volume "Pidgins and creoles" by John A. Holm (publ. by Cambridge University Press, 1989). It includes lots of material on individual creoles, in fact most of the known ones, plus a history of creolistics. The chapters are organised very beautifully in "English-based varieties", "French-based varieties" and so on. Highly recommended.

---
jfm


----------



## Joannes

I’m a bit confused by your development stages of Afrikaans as opposed to those of the plantation creoles. I don’t see the importance of a distinction between stages 1 and 2, especially because I think the distinction could as well have been made for the plantation creoles: 
stage 1: European English L1 speakers
stage 2: plantation owners' English (as a L1).



jfm said:


> The only way to securely define Afrikaans as a creole, is to argue that its origin/development looked like the following:
> 
> stage 1)
> -- European Dutch L1-speakers
> stage 2)
> -- Dutch settlers at the Cape using Dutch as L1
> stage 3)
> -- local Khoekhoe use Cape Dutch as L2
> stage 4)
> -- the L2-variety spreads and is eventually picked up by SoAfr's children as their L1
> 
> The "break" (or, L1-to-L2-to-L1) is essential for the definition of a creole. The last step in the process (the L2-to-L1-part) occurs when children pick up the language. In fact:
> L1-to-L2 = pidginization
> L2-to-L1 = creolization


 
Well, that is what I would argue, basically.  Admittedly, the first Khoi that learned Dutch/Afrikaans as a L1 were probably often children in mixed Dutch-Khoi unions. But that does not have to mean that the home language was not a pidginized variant.
In this respect an interesting quote from Ponelis, Fritz (1993) _The Development of Afrikaans._ Frankfurt am Main: Lang. (p. 28). (I didn’t have to look very far, because I always remembered about its almost prophetic value.) This is an observation made by H.A. Van Rheede who was commisioner-general of the VOC and visited the Cape in 1685 (Ponelis himself is quoting Scholtz who in his turn got the translation of J.J. Smith.):
“It is a custom among all our people that when these natives learn the Netherlands speech and speak it in their own way in a very crooked and almost unintelligible manner, our Netherlanders imitate them, indeed yes in such a way that if the children of our Netherlanders also accustom themselves to it, a broken language will be established which it will be impossible to overcome afterwards.”

But in time children of acculturated Khoi learned Afrikaans as a L1 too. And there were also unions between (mostly Asian) slaves and Khoi, where obviously Afrikaans/Dutch became the home language. There were marriages between slaves and Dutch too, but that hasn’t even been a necessary factor to transfer Dutch to the slaves’ children. That was already the case before. Let me quote Ponelis (p. 26-27) again (now that I have a copy next to me anyway):
“Van Rheede noted that he visited the Company’s slave lodge and found there “... many small children, white as well as black, speaking the Dutch language without any exception” (“... veel kleyne kinderen, soo wit als swart, sprekende de Nederduytsche tale sonder eenigh onderscheydt”). [...] His comments were those of an observer of the interaction among slave children. They did not relate to his own dealings with children, i.e. his eliciting information from them.”


Let me reassure you, I’m not planning to come up with a new - better  - definition of a creole.  I simply still think it’s arguable that Afrikaans does fit the definitions as you described them (the ‘sociohistorical’ one probably more easily than the ‘typological’ one).



jfm said:


> The most accessible source for information on creoles is the 2-volume "Pidgins and creoles" by John A. Holm (publ. by Cambridge University Press, 1989). It includes lots of material on individual creoles, in fact most of the known ones, plus a history of creolistics. The chapters are organised very beautifully in "English-based varieties", "French-based varieties" and so on. Highly recommended.


 
Thank you. I will keep it in mind if I need to get some information on the subject!


----------



## jfm

(How strange. I wrote a reply, and then edited some typos. When I hit "save" it just deleted the whole message...)


----------



## jfm

Joannes said:


> I’m a bit confused by your development stages of Afrikaans as opposed to those of the plantation creoles.



I don't know why I added that extra line for Afrikaans. How silly of me.

Anyways, I agree that there are elements of creoleness in the development of Afrikaans. However, the complicating factor is the constant presence of (Cape) Dutch L1-speakers. There is no clear evidence of a "break", as is the case with more typical creoles. The L2-stage in Afrikaans was a parallell development that happened alongside the unbroken link of L1-speakers.

That's also why (most) creolists are reluctant to label Afrikaans a creole. Den Besten and Roberge see no problem in labelling it creole, however, so you're certainly not on a "loony-ride", so to speak.

---
jfm


----------



## Outsider

jfm said:


> However, the complicating factor is the constant presence of (Cape) Dutch L1-speakers. There is no clear evidence of a "break", as is the case with more typical creoles. The L2-stage in Afrikaans was a parallell development that happened alongside the unbroken link of L1-speakers.


But there was a constant presence of L1-speakers in the plantations and the forts, too, wasn't there? If I decide to call (say) Capeverdian Creole a "developed form of Portuguese", then don't I get an unbroken link between it and European Portuguese, too?

The difference is a matter of degree, or so it would seem from your description, if I've understood it well.


----------



## Joannes

jfm said:


> Anyways, I agree that there are elements of creoleness in the development of Afrikaans. However, the complicating factor is the constant presence of (Cape) Dutch L1-speakers. There is no clear evidence of a "break", as is the case with more typical creoles. The L2-stage in Afrikaans was a parallell development that happened alongside the unbroken link of L1-speakers.


 
Yes, that's certainly true. But it's nice to see how both L2 learners _and_ Dutch L1s converged towards a form Afrikaans, that - if it is not a creole - still has a lot of creole features (certainly when compared to Dutch).



jfm said:


> That's also why (most) creolists are reluctant to label Afrikaans a creole. Den Besten and Roberge see no problem in labelling it creole, however, so you're certainly not on a "loony-ride", so to speak.


 
That's comforting. I can add Fritz Ponelis and Christo van Rensburg, although they are no creolists but rather Afrikaansists (you know what I mean ), I think.

Anyway, it has been an animated and interesting discussion, and I learnt a lot. I hope to get this thread back up one day when _Ethnologue_ adjusted their classification.

Thanks, jfm.


----------



## jfm

Outsider said:


> But there was a constant presence of L1-speakers in the plantations and the forts, too, wasn't there? If I decide to call (say) Capeverdian Creole a "developed form of Portuguese", then don't I get an unbroken link between it and European Portuguese, too?
> 
> The difference is a matter of degree, or so it would seem from your description, if I've understood it well.



Well, yes, to a certain extent. The major point is that in the case of the plantations/forts there is usually clear evidence that the development towards the creole happened in the L2- (later L1-)speaking community. It was the slaves'/workers' variety that developed into what today are recognized as creole languages. The input from the small number of L1-speakers was generally minimal.

In the case of Afrikaans, the L1-speaking community was much larger than were the L1-speakers of English, Portuguese or French on the plantations and forts. When Afrikaans was eventually standardised and formally recognised as a language, it was the Boers' variety that was developed.

The question is how much input/influence did the non-Boers have, especially the Khoekhoe during the 17th/18th centuries.

---
jfm


----------



## Pontificator.

When Afrikaans was standardized in the 20th cent it was not the Boers' variety but in fact that of the Cape based Afrikaners. The Boers' Afrikaans was removed from the public sphere after the Boer Republics were conquered. The Boers often called their language "die Taal" and it was later classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans which developed among the Boers of the frontier. The Boers adopted and developed a dialect of Afrikaans early on as this language developed during the 1600s and into the 1700s from the various linguistic influences on the Frankonian dialect initially spoken by the poorer segment of the European arrivals who were the foundation of the Boer people. The Trekboers who trekked from colonial society beginning in the 1690s and throughout the 1700s into the northern and eastern Cape frontier were the poorer segment of the White Afrikaans speaking population who would go on to form what would later be called the Boer nation. The constant attempts at Dutchification of the Afrikaans language was mainly an attempt on the part of the affluent Western Cape based Afrikaner Dutch purists to reverse the creolization of the initial High Dutch dialect that was first used by the settlers the VOC brought to the region.


----------



## avok

Joannes said:


> ..There were lots of influences from other languages (Khoi, Malay, Zulu, Xhosa, Portuguese, ...)


 
But as far as I know, those languages only influenced the Afrikaans language just like Arabic/Persian influenced Turkish. 

Have those languages played an essential role in the evolution/creation of Afrikaans, just like Portuguese did in the evolution of Papiamento (or English in Tok Pisin)? I dont think so.

In Turkish, there are not just Persian words but also some Persian grammar rules but still Turkish is not a Creole language.


----------



## Joannes

Hehe, that's been a while. 


avok said:


> But as far as I know, those languages only influenced the Afrikaans language just like Arabic/Persian influenced Turkish.


Well, as jfm explained, creoles are not just so much about the percentage of language forms of other languages, but rather about adopting a simplified (at first often considered defective) pidgin language as a mother tongue.



avok said:


> Have those languages played an essential role in the evolution/creation of Afrikaans, just like Portuguese did in the evolution of Papiamento (or English in Tok Pisin)? I dont think so.


No, the _Portuguese-of-Papiamento_, or _English-of-Tok-Pisin_ of Afrikaans obviously is Dutch.


----------



## avok

But from which pidgin language Afrikaans evolve from? A Dutch pidgin? 

What about English? Adopted by Celtic peoples of British Isles who spoke no English, then English is also a Creole language? Or Vulgar Latin adopted by local inhabitans of Romania, France etc? Is it Creole as well? What makes the situation of Afrikaans more Creolized vis-a-vis Latin / English? Just because the languages who influenced Afrikaans are African languages and the speakers who adopted Afriikaans are Africans make Afrikaans a Creol language?


----------



## JGreco

But I thought the main difference between a creole and a dialect was at what level intelligability can there be with the mother tongue. A creole should have a greater intelligability thatn a dialect. Technically Portuguese and Spanish could be considered dialects of each other if not for the sociopolitical constrictions. Anecdotally, the reason I say this is because my best friend's mother (who considers me her son also) is Dutch and we have had many conversations on this subject. On in intelligability level she can say that she could get the gist of what a Afrikaaner can say but it is by far not complete intelligability. To her ears she says it reminds her of baby speech. I thought according to most texts that Afrikaans is directly developed from the 18th century speech patterns of the Dutch settlers (Boers) and not because of all those other developments later where just marginal influences.


----------



## Outsider

JGreco said:


> A creole should have a greater intelligability thatn a dialect.


I doubt that. I have great trouble following Portuguese-based creoles.


----------



## sokol

The grade of intelligibility is not something helpful at all in the discussion of wether a language is ('genetically') a creole or a dialect.

jfm has given an extremely concise and (at least in my opinion) clear overview of what makes a creole. I'd suggest you re-read his posts. And it already has been said above that the theory of modern Afrikaans being a direct successor of Boer speech was politically motivated and that today there exist different theories.

In any case: what is most important about creoles is, as jfm said, that at some point there was a break, that creoles are called creoles because they emerged from pidgins (which were a simplified version of a second language), where creoles are the varieties already used as mother tongues.

It even may be that an Afrikaans creole became mixed with the Boers Dutch at some point, and that modern Afrikaans were a mixture of a creole and a dialect, for all I know. (Note, I am not familiar with the Afrikaans situation at all. I only posted here to prevent discussion running in the direction of 'intelligibility' or 'diversity' which is _not _what creoles are about, basically.)


----------



## Joannes

avok said:


> But from which pidgin language Afrikaans evolve from? A Dutch pidgin?


Yes, and in a more profound way than some people would recognize, at least I believe so.



avok said:


> What about English? Adopted by Celtic peoples of British Isles who spoke no English, then English is also a Creole language?


 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=240473&highlight=english+creole



avok said:


> Or Vulgar Latin adopted by local inhabitans of Romania, France etc? Is it Creole as well?


 
Maybe at some point it was, but the word _creole_ didn't exist yet back then. 



avok said:


> What makes the situation of Afrikaans more Creolized vis-a-vis Latin / English?


 
I can't really tell as very little is known about the exact circumstances of the spread of Latin and the emergence of English. But the earliest written forms don't show great simplification compared to the Latin base (or target).



avok said:


> Just because the languages who influenced Afrikaans are African languages and the speakers who adopted Afriikaans are Africans make Afrikaans a Creol language?


No.



JGreco said:


> To her ears she says it reminds her of baby speech.


Which shares a lot of features with creoles. 



sokol said:


> It even may be that an Afrikaans creole became mixed with the Boers Dutch at some point, and that modern Afrikaans were a mixture of a creole and a dialect, for all I know.


----------



## avok

To me, all European languages I have known remind me of "baby speech" since they lack much of the complex structures of Turkish. 

ex: "I go home" in English or even portuguese "vou pra casa" . Whereas in Turkish, even to be able to say "I go home", you need to learn many rules including the vowel harmony. But I still don't think European languages are some sort of Creole just because they have simplified grammars (than they used to have)

Which adjective can we use for a language that had been influenced by a Creole language?? I dont know. Maybe Afrikaans is a language like that?


----------



## Outsider

It's not just a question of having simple or complex grammar, though. Creole languages develop from pidgins. Present European languages were not born from pidgins, that we know.

This is an interesting thread, though I can't contribute much to it. From my point of view, speaking neither Dutch nor Afrikaans, they look pretty similar to each other.


----------



## avok

Outsider said:


> It's not just a question of having simple or complex grammar, though. Creole languages develop from pidgins. Present European languages were not born from pidgins, that we know.
> 
> This is an interesting thread, though I can't contribute much to it. From my point of view, speaking neither Dutch nor Afrikaans, they look pretty similar to each other.


 
Yes, that's what I am tryin to say, just because a language has some simplified feautures does not necessarily mean they evolved from a pidgin. That's what Joannes implied though.

What I d like to know, if Afrikaans is a Creole language there must be a pidgin language somewhere. Is there any written / oral proof about this pidgin who must have given birth to Afrikaans language?


----------



## Joannes

avok said:


> Yes, that's what I am tryin to say, just because a language has some simplified feautures does not necessarily mean they evolved from a pidgin. That's what Joannes implied though.


Then you misunderstood me. Let me refer once more refer to what jfm wrote above about what it means to be considered a creole. What I meant to say with "But the earliest written forms don't show great simplification compared to the Latin base (or target)." -- because I think that's what you're referring to -- is that it offers no proof that there would have been pidgin variants predecessing English or the Romance languages (as although simple structures don't imply pidgins/creoles, pidgins/creoles do imply simplification).



avok said:


> What I d like to know, if Afrikaans is a Creole language there must be a pidgin language somewhere. Is there any written / oral proof about this pidgin who must have given birth to Afrikaans language?


There is written proof of it being reported. (I gave an example earlier in this thread.)


----------

