Cape-Dutch. 443 



done, and sureh, that tact, if it were a tact, which it is not. could 

 not be a reason for despising the language I 



Or, can he possibly wish to assert that those who speak Cape- 

 Dutch use each independently of the other all various and constantly 

 var}-ing foniis. constructions, orders or combinations of sounds, which 

 the one at the one moment employs for some idea, and the same 

 mail at another moment, or another man at the same moment, uses 

 for quite another notion ? Surely, the idea is inconceivable :no col- 

 lection of sounds so used could possibly serve for intercommunica- 

 tion of thought, and no one, be he ever so anxious to sneer at any 

 " patois '"'" or " dialect '' or " language,'" could possibly make such an 

 assertion. 



I think we may dismiss the statement that '" Cape-Dutch has no 

 Grammar,"' without further discussion or comment. 



A third accusation (jr (observation made frequently against Cape- 

 Dutch refers to many of its constructions and to the forms of very many 

 of its words, and originates with the Hollander who. fresh from 

 Europe, and — perhaps pardonaloly — misled by the name of the 

 language, Cape-Dutch, i.e., Kaapsch HOLLAXDSCH, commences by 

 measuring what he hears and reads by the standard of what is 

 "correct" and elegant or refined in his own countr}' and language. 

 He hears forms like oiis is, instead of luij zijn, vark for varken, 

 koci for koc. etc.. etc., and these grate on his ear ; to him they seem 

 here, what in Holland they would undoubtedly be, gross mistakes, 

 silly or vulgar abbreviations or unnecessar}- lengthenings. 



Generally, — before having inquired in how far his ideas are well 

 founded — he will express his opinion freely, in the presence of otheis 

 who cannot judge for themselves, and the man in the street may 

 well be pardonerl if he repeats what he has heard asserted l)y one 

 who "ought to know'": that Cape-Dutch is full of mistakes, that it 

 is silly and " very ungrammatical. 



As soon how-ever as any one realises what we discussed a little 

 w hile ago. that in language certainly, if anvwhere, " whatever is, is 

 right," that there is no " yes, but it OUGHT to be "' against the 

 decrees of the iisus tyr annus, he will become less confident in his 

 assertions as to the inferiority- of Cape-Dutch, and, if he will inquire 

 seriously, so as to gain the right of giving an opinion on the matter at 

 all, he will .soon find that the history of his own, or of almost anv 

 other, language will supply him with parallel instances of similar 

 developments, and that what seems to him at first sillv or incorrect, 

 is generally but an instance of what may .sound uncouth lo HIM, but 

 has happened again and again in words of his own speech, words 

 which do not .sound to him silly or incorrect for ab.soluteh no other 

 reason than that he is accustomed to them, and ignorant of their 

 history and older form. 



it is ot course impossil)le to prove this here in a complete col- 

 lection of all instances that might l)e adduced, and it would even be 

 impracticable to take a LARGE number of these cases. 



Eet us just go over the few incidentally given above : the Ace. 

 nis \(^x the Xnm. wij : the shortening of varken to vark. and the 



