Cape-Dutcm. 445 



ruination is ihc sii;n of the plural, like it lealK is e.^. 

 bockcn, slocliii, etc., etc.,... to remind him, 1 say, of the 

 fact that in Holland-Dutch exactly the .same ha.s happened, 

 e.g. in raaf (cf. Engl raven), in baak (by the side of 

 which even in Dutch it.self we still find the form baken, and which is 

 the same word as the En,^l. beacon) ; that in Engl, the word pea is a 

 renuiant of what was once, in the singular. " {a) peas,'' similarly 

 mistaken for a plural, whilst in its turn this very form "a peas "' was 

 an al)breviation of peaseii, from which the termination en was oniitted 

 for the mistaken reasoai in a time when this en was also in English 

 slill a common termination of plural-forms. And cherry instead of (a) 

 c/ierries. with which we compare the French word cerise, from which 

 it comes: the A\e]l-known ^^ heathen chinee" for Chinese, the sliax in 

 which we find the remains of the French chaise, are not these and 

 man\ others ])arallel? 



Xext to the singular koe. Dutch has the plural koeicn. Jf Cape- 

 l^utch has from this plural formed a new singular koei by merely omit- 

 ting the en, has not the Dutch of Holland done exactb the same in 

 vlfloi from vlooien. the "regular"" plural of vlool 



And now that D in the word Afrikaander , which the " Cape 

 Times" con'espondent maintained was a .sign of ignorance or of I-do- 

 no't-know-what in the poor benighted man who' thus dares tn^ y-y\ wha'- 

 '■' ought to- be " Afrikaan or Afrikaner, do we not find exactlv the 

 same sound inserted between the n and the r in English ihiinVer. 

 once thiinnr; in Dutch donVer, with both of which we can still 

 <'ompare the German Bonner ; in the Dutch minder. 

 the comparative of rnin; in the French Vendredi, the Verier is dies: 

 in the future oi vciiir, jc vicn Drai ; in the Greek ftrcpoc Genitive 

 ol i\yt]f), etc., etc. 



Or is the same thing in Classic Greek a sign of wisdom and 

 elegance, in English, Dutch, or French not worth talking about, and 

 in Cape-Dutch wrong, stupid or silly? 



To whom would in this case these adjectives best appl\ "-' J 

 ;hould like to ask. 



T trust I have in the foregoing remarks given a suffi(;ient replv 

 to some if not all of the main objections made frequently against Cape- 

 Dutch as a " language."' T repeat that 1 purposely omit all discussion 

 as to the desirability of maintaining it as a second (or first) ofificial 

 language of this country. The most violent opponent of its rights 

 or of its claims to continued existence may grant all that is here 

 maintained: my object is to show that Cape-Dutch need not be 

 looked down upon, that it fully deserves a study of its Historv. 



It is to this, or rather toi the first question which presents itself to 

 the student in connection with it. that I now wish to call vour atten- 

 tion for a litde while. "What— it has naturally been asked, — is the 

 origin of Cape Dutch; whence this development so very different 

 from that of the language which has been its main source? 



The first, as far as I know, who made any serious attempt at 

 answering this question was Dr. W. J. Viljoen, now my esteemed 

 colleague, Prof, of Mod. Langs, at Victoria College. Stell'enljosch. 



