- Dutch
- Frisian
- Saterfrisian
- Afrikaans
-
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Word stress
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
- Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
- Morphology
- Word formation
- Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
- Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
- Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
- Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
- Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
- Word formation
- Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
- 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
- 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
- 3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
- 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
- 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
- Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
- 3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
- 3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
- 5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
- 7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
- Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
- Adpositions and adpositional phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- Phonology
-
- General
- Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
- Morphology
- Inflection
- Word formation
- Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
- Compositions
- Derivation
- Syntax
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
- Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
- Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
- Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
- Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
- Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
- Verbs and Verb Phrases
-
- General
- Morphology
- Morphology
- 1 Word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 1.1.1 Compounds and their heads
- 1.1.2 Special types of compounds
- 1.1.2.1 Affixoids
- 1.1.2.2 Coordinative compounds
- 1.1.2.3 Synthetic compounds and complex pseudo-participles
- 1.1.2.4 Reduplicative compounds
- 1.1.2.5 Phrase-based compounds
- 1.1.2.6 Elative compounds
- 1.1.2.7 Exocentric compounds
- 1.1.2.8 Linking elements
- 1.1.2.9 Separable Complex Verbs and Particle Verbs
- 1.1.2.10 Noun Incorporation Verbs
- 1.1.2.11 Gapping
- 1.2 Derivation
- 1.3 Minor patterns of word formation
- 1.1 Compounding
- 2 Inflection
- 1 Word formation
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
- 0 Introduction to the AP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of APs
- 2 Complementation of APs
- 3 Modification and degree quantification of APs
- 4 Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative
- 5 Attribution of APs
- 6 Predication of APs
- 7 The partitive adjective construction
- 8 Adverbial use of APs
- 9 Participles and infinitives as APs
- Nouns and Noun Phrases (NPs)
- 0 Introduction to the NP
- 1 Characteristics and Classification of NPs
- 2 Complementation of NPs
- 3 Modification of NPs
- 3.1 Modification of NP by Determiners and APs
- 3.2 Modification of NP by PP
- 3.3 Modification of NP by adverbial clauses
- 3.4 Modification of NP by possessors
- 3.5 Modification of NP by relative clauses
- 3.6 Modification of NP in a cleft construction
- 3.7 Free relative clauses and selected interrogative clauses
- 4 Partitive noun constructions and constructions related to them
- 4.1 The referential partitive construction
- 4.2 The partitive construction of abstract quantity
- 4.3 The numerical partitive construction
- 4.4 The partitive interrogative construction
- 4.5 Adjectival, nominal and nominalised partitive quantifiers
- 4.6 Kind partitives
- 4.7 Partitive predication with a preposition
- 4.8 Bare nominal attribution
- 5 Articles and names
- 6 Pronouns
- 7 Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- 8 Interrogative pronouns
- 9 R-pronouns and the indefinite expletive
- 10 Syntactic functions of Noun Phrases
- Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases (PPs)
- 0 Introduction to the PP
- 1 Characteristics and classification of PPs
- 2 Complementation of PPs
- 3 Modification of PPs
- 4 Bare (intransitive) adpositions
- 5 Predication of PPs
- 6 Form and distribution of adpositions with respect to staticity and construction type
- 7 Adpositional complements and adverbials
- Verbs and Verb Phrases (VPs)
- 0 Introduction to the VP in Saterland Frisian
- 1 Characteristics and classification of verbs
- 2 Unergative and unaccusative subjects and the auxiliary of the perfect
- 3 Evidentiality in relation to perception and epistemicity
- 4 Types of to-infinitival constituents
- 5 Predication
- 5.1 The auxiliary of being and its selection restrictions
- 5.2 The auxiliary of going and its selection restrictions
- 5.3 The auxiliary of continuation and its selection restrictions
- 5.4 The auxiliary of coming and its selection restrictions
- 5.5 Modal auxiliaries and their selection restrictions
- 5.6 Auxiliaries of body posture and aspect and their selection restrictions
- 5.7 Transitive verbs of predication
- 5.8 The auxiliary of doing used as a semantically empty finite auxiliary
- 5.9 Supplementive predication
- 6 The verbal paradigm, irregularity and suppletion
- 7 Verb Second and the word order in main and embedded clauses
- 8 Various aspects of clause structure
- Adjectives and adjective phrases (APs)
-
- General
- Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
- Segment inventory
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
- Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
- Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
- Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
- Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
- Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
- Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
- Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
- Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
Modal verbs have two kinds of meanings: root meanings, which include dynamic and deontic meanings, and non-root or epistemic meanings. The Afrikaans modals, sal, gaan, wil and moet (neg. moenie must.AUX.MOD=not mustn't), hoef (te), mag, kan and behoort (te) are listed in Table 1, along with their English equivalents, preterite forms (if extant), root meanings, truth value and epistemic probability. Behoort te and hoef te may be described syntactically as quasi-modals because of the obligatory addition of an infinitival te particle. Root meanings are often influenced by the relationship between the “source of modality” and the entity represented by the sentential subject. Thus in (1a) the subject, jy you.2SG is the object or recipient of an obligation, while the subject of (1a), hierdie probleem this problem, is the source rather than the object of the general ‘obligation’ or ‘necessity’ expressed by moet.
Another semantic or functional distinction is between the present and preterite usage of Afrikaans modals. Afrikaans modals form a morphological class of their own, much like English modals and in contrast to Dutch modals. This is illustrated, for instance, by the modal mag, English may and Dutch mocht . While English might is no longer the past tense of may and Afrikaans mog has virtually disappeared, Dutch mocht is still the past tense form of mogen. Next the set of Afrikaans modals will be discussed briefly.
Sal is involved in various types of ‘prediction’, for example in a confident statement about a future occurrence (2a), or characterising someone or something in terms of their typical actions (2b).
When a speaker explicitly identifies with such future projection, this may be referred to as an ‘intention’, and when the projection is shared with an addressee, it becomes a ‘promise’. Both ‘intentions’, if expressed, and ‘promises’ have the force of speech acts (see Pragmatics):
Ons sal dadelik werk maak daarvan. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
we will.AUX.MOD immediately work make.INF PN.of | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We will immediately see to it that it gets done. |
As senses such as ‘intention’, ‘promise’ and ‘prediction’ all involve future actions and states of affairs, sal – but not wil as in the case of English will – is often employed for future reference as such, as in:
Môre sal dit beslis reën. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tomorrow will.AUX.MOD it definitely rain.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tomorrow it will definitely rain. |
Sal and wil therefore do not form a pair with future reference like shall and will in English.
The preterite form sou introduces 'uncertainty' in predictions, and may indicate that the speaker is not the source of information, in which case the modal has an evidential meaning.
Drinkwater sou tydens die marathon beskikbaar wees. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drink.water shall.AUX.MOD.PRT during the marathon available be.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drinking water is/was supposed to be available during the marathon. |
Sou also renders a prediction hypothetical, as in:
Daar sou water op Mars wees. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
there shall.AUX.MOD.PRT water on Mars be.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is said to be water on Mars. |
Sou introduces a tentative element in promises, as in:
Ek sou jou môre kon help. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I shall.AUX.MOD.PRT you.2SG tomorrow can.AUX.MOD.PRT help.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I might be able to help you tomorrow. |
Sou is used in conditionals, as in:
As dit sou reën, sou die paaie te glad wees. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
if.CNJ it shall.AUX.MOD.PRT rain will.AUX.MOD.PRT the roads too slippery be.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If it were to rain, the roads would be too slippery. |
As an auxiliary gaan is a competitor of sal in present-day Afrikaans, cf.
While both express ‘prediction’, gaan seems to be more subjective in involving the speaker and his/her actions, and also more clearly expresses inchoative aspect.
Wil may mean ‘to want to (10a), ‘be willing to’ (10b) or ‘be imminent, be on the point of’ (10c). The anterior aspect, already present in (10c), is emphasized by means of reduplication in (10d).
Past tense is expressed by wou want.to.AUX.MOD.PRT – and wou-wou want.to.AUX.MOD.PRT-want.to.AUX.MOD.PRT – in the senses of ‘wanting to’ and ‘being imminent’.
Wil also has a cohesive function; the main and subordinate clauses are related by the fact that wens wish in the main clause and the ‘volition’ expressed by the modal wil share a semantic field, as in (11a). Wil may, however, be omitted without a change of meaning, as in (11b).
Moet expresses the related senses of ‘obligation’(12a) or ‘necessity’(12b).
Moet is used as a transitive verb with clausal object in (13):
Jy moet dat ek vir jou die helfte terugbetaal. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
you.2SG must.AUX.MOD that.COMP I for you.2SG the half back.pay.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You should allow me to pay you back half the amount. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
F.Bloemhof: Doodskoot, 2016, 145 |
In both instances, the past tense can be expressed by moes. A factual or counterfactual interpretation is possible for a proposition like that in (14a); a counterfactual interpretation is more likely if the main verb is a perfect, as in (14b).
The source of the ‘obligation’ or ‘necessity’ expressed by moet/moes is highly context dependent, and may vary from an agent external to the sentential subject such as the speaker, as in (15a), to elements of a diffuse situation, as in (15b).
Negative imperatives, such as prohibitives, are not expressed directly by a lexical verb in Afrikaans, but consist rather of the verb preceded by the modal moet with optional subject (indicating to whom the prohibition applies). If moet and nie not are juxtaposed, they are commonly contracted to moenie, as in (16a) and (16b). In (16c), moet is separated from nie by the subject.
Moet is also used in a cohesive function, after main clauses expressing ‘will’ or ‘expectation’; the main and complement clauses are pragmatically linked in that the speaker’s expectation is tantamount to an obligation from the perspective of the addressee:
Ek wil hê jy moet nou daarmee begin. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I want.to.AUX.MOD have.INF you.2SG must.AUX.MOD now PN.with begin.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I want you to begin with it now. |
Kan expresses senses such as the ‘non-restriction’ of action, ‘being in a position to,’ ‘possibility’ and the dynamic sense of having the ability to perform an action, all of which are related to ‘capability’. In the following examples meanings such as ‘non-restriction’ (18a), ‘possibility’ (18b), ‘capacity’ (18c) and ‘ability’ (18d) are demonstrated.
Kon expresses past tense in (19):
Hy kon die ingewikkeldste probleme oplos. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
he can.AUX.MOD.PRT the most.complex problems solve.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He was able to solve the most complex of problems. |
Kon is also employed to make a proposition more speculative, as in (20a), or an offer more tentative, as in (20b):
Kan, which echoes ‘possibility’ expressed by kans chance in the main clause, enhances interclausal cohesiveness in the following sentence:
Die kans dat julle kan wen, is maar skraal. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the chance that.COMP you.2PL can.AUX.MOD win.INF be.PRS somewhat slender | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The chances that you will be able to win, are quite slender. |
Mag expresses ‘permission’, as in (22a), and ‘possibility’, as in (22b) – the latter employed in epistemic sense:
The obsolescent preterite form mog may express past tense, as in (23a), or is used in epistemic function, as in (23b).
The sense of ‘possibility’ inherent in mag creates semantic congruence with the uncertainty implied in the main clause:
Die dokter was besorgd dat sy pasiënt dalk iets mag oorkom. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the doctor was concerned.ADJ that.COMP his patient perhaps something may.AUX.MOD befall.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The doctor was concerned that his patient might come to harm. |
Behoort te be supposed to expresses ‘duty’ or ‘expectation’ rather than ‘obligation’:
Hy behoort sy plig te doen. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
he ought.AUX.MOD his duty PTCL.INF do.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He is supposed to do his duty. |
Epistemic use is also possible:
Hulle behoort nou al tuis te wees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
they ought.AUX.MOD now already at.home PTCL.INF be.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They should be home by now. |
Hoef commonly co-occurs with the negative nie NEG, as in (27a), and expresses ‘absence of obligation’ rather than ‘prohibition’. In (27b) it is used in a yes/no question to enquire about ‘obligation’ and in (27c) it forms part of a restrictive statement, with net only as restrictive adverbial. In (27d) hoef indicates median probability in epistemic usage.
- Introduction
- sal ‘will’, sou ‘would, should’
- gaan ‘to go, be going to’
- wil ‘to want to’/ wou ‘wanted to’
- moet ‘must,to have to’, moes ‘had to’, moenie ‘don’t’
- kan ‘can’, kon ‘could’
- mag ‘may, to be permitted to’/mog ‘was/were permitted to’
- behoort (te) ‘to be supposed to, ought to’
- hoef (nie) (te) ‘need/need not, should/shouldn’t’
For the basic meanings of the modal verbs the term root meaning is used; this covers dynamic and deontic meanings, and contrasts with epistemic meanings, which are non-root [see Epistemic usage]. The term root, which is traditionally employed, is not particularly felicitous as the root meaning may not be basic but rather based on more abstract – or less differentiated – senses such as ‘necessity’ or ‘possibility’.
The root and other meanings of modals are highly context dependent and overlap greatly (cf. (De Villiers 1971:82). Modal meanings are also partly determined by the relationship between the initiator or source of the modality and the sentential subject, i.e. whether the subject may be considered agent, patient, instrument, etc. vis-à-vis the modal force, or is just vaguely related to it. The modal source may, for instance, be the person who desires to perform an action (wil to want to), gives permission (mag may) or compels someone else to do something (moet must‘must’). As is the case with English modals, the preterite or past tense forms do not always match semantically or functionally with the present tense forms. In certain cases, particularly in dependent clauses, modals which seem omissable may contribute to strengthening the semantic relationship between a main and subordinate clause and therefore have a cohesive function.
Extensive overviews of the meanings and functions of Afrikaans modals are provided by De Villiers (1971) and Van Schoor (1983). Table 1 provides an overview of Afrikaans modal auxiliaries, henceforth referred to as modal verbs or simply as modals. This is followed by a more detailed exposition of their meaning and usage.
MODAL VERB | English equivalent | Preterite form | Root meaning(s) | Truth value | Epistemic probability |
sal | will | sou | prediction, future projection | necessity | high |
gaan | to be going to | - | intention | necessity | high |
wil | to want to | wou | wish, desire | - | - |
moet | must, should | moes | obligation | necessity | high |
moenie | must/should not | prohibition | necessity | - | |
hoef (nie) te | to need to, need not | - | obligation, requirement | necessity | low |
mag | may, to be allowed to | mog (obsolescent) | permission | possibility | median |
kan | can | kon | capability (permission) | possibility | median |
behoort te | to be supposed to, ought to | - | duty, expectation | possibility | median |
Sal will is almost always used as an auxiliary, but can, on occasion, be used as a transitive verb, cf.
Ek sal dat Roos vir ons tee maak. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I will.AUX.MOD that.COMP Roos for us tea make.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I will ask Roos to make tea for us. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C.B. le Roux: Koek, 2006, 96 |
The modal auxiliary sal in particular, is characterised by semantic overlapping or fuzzy boundaries between meanings and functions such as ‘prediction’, ‘necessity’, future reference, and epistemic and directive function.
Sal is employed to express various related types of ‘prediction’, for example the prediction of future events (29a, 29b), the prediction of existing but yet unobserved situations as is customary in scientific hypotheses (29c) and (29d), and for characterising someone/something by predicting their habits or customs on the basis of observation (29e).
Prediction, particularly the hypothetical kind (29c, 29d), is very similar to epistemic use [see Epistemic usage]. A possible difference with epistemic use is that epistemic sal is usually employed to indicate strong probability rather than mere hypothesis. Future prediction (29a) is, however, clearly differentiated from epistemic use, as is the use of prediction for the purpose of characterising (29e). Characterisation, unlike epistemic usage, implies the repeated manifestation of a trait: the speaker predicts that a particular action or state of affairs will be observable at any given time.
In the following example ‘prediction’ and ‘necessity’ overlap, while ‘future reference’ is also salient:
Só het die heerskappy en oorheersing van die man oor die eeue beslag gekry – om te sê hoe dinge ís en sál wees ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
so have.AUX the sovereignty and domination of the man over the centuries finality get.PST.PTCP for.COMP PTCL.INF say.INF how things be.PRS and will.AUX.MOD be.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In this way the sovereignty and domination of the man became institutionalised over the centuries – to say how things are and will be ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
W. Jordaan: Beeld, 2016/10/26 |
‘Intention’, which according to Van Schoor (1983:148) is the only primary meaning sal and its preterite sou have in common, is expressed in (31) (see Pragmatics).
Sal and its preterite form sou do not form a “future tense” pure and simple, in the sense of the dedicated futures of for instance Latin or French. Most modal senses, such as ‘prediction’, ‘intentionality’, ‘volition’, ‘obligation’, ‘ability’, ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ contain an element of ‘futurity’, though future reference as such occurs most stripped of modal senses in propositions with sal and gaan:
Dit sal/ gaan môre sneeu! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
it will.AUX.MOD / go.AUX.MOD tomorrow snow.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It will / is going to snow tomorrow! |
However, even here these modal senses are still present if compared to the factual tone of:
Môre sneeu dit! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tomorrow snow.PRS it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tomorrow it's going to snow. |
Eggins (2004:175) points out that any additions (here of a modal verb) paradoxically reduce the certainty of a statement: (T)he more we say something is certain, the less certain it is. If we are sure of something, we do not use any modality.
In the following example, in which the possible outcomes of an action are predicted, a future perfect (sal gemaak het will have made ) is followed by a future (sal lag will laugh ):
Hy sal 'n totale gek van homself gemaak het. Almal sal daaroor lag. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
he will.AUX.MOD a complete fool of himself make.PST.PTCP have.AUX all will.AUX.MOD PN.over laugh.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He would have made a complete fool of himself. Everyone will laugh about it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M.Heese: Maestro, 2016, 145 |
In the next example, both instances of sou are hypothetical:
As jy hom die vorige dag so sien sit en koerant lees het, sou jy nooit raai hy sou so iets doen nie. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
if.CNJ you.2SG him the previous day so see.LINK sit.LINK and newspaper read.INF have.AUX shall.AUX.MOD.PRT you.2SG never guess.INF he will.AUX.MOD.PRT so something do.INF PTCL.NEG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you saw him sitting reading the paper the previous day, you wouldn’t have imagined that he would do such a thing. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beeld, 1999/7/30 |
Van Schoor (1983:150)mentions a specialised stylistic use of sal/sou, which he refers to as ‘dramatising’ (dramatiserend).
Toe sal sy eers agterkom hy terg maar net. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
then shall.AUX.MOD she first behind.come.INF he joke.PRS just only | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Only then did she notice that he was just joking. |
In literary usage, sal/sou might have a double (realis and irrealis) or anticipatory perspective, indicating at the same time that at speech time an action had not yet taken place (irrealis), but at a later point it did in fact take place (realis). This usage is telic, in that realisation of the action is envisaged from the start.
While epistemic meaning concerns the speaker’s own evaluation of the truth of a proposition, he/she may also invoke an external source or authority. The deverbal adverbial glo reportedly has this evidential function, as in (38a). Sou would, the preterite of sal will, has a similar function, and may refer to present or past evidence, cf. (38b)
Conditional clauses may be introduced by a complementiser such as as if (39a), the preterite of sal (with inversion) (39b, 39d, 39e), or both as and sou (without inversion) (39c).
In sum, the preterite form sou takes on several related values or functions, namely (cancelled) ‘intention’(40a), request mitigation (40b) and evidentiality (40c). In (40d) it has a hypothetical slant; in (40e) it has an anticipatory function and in (40f) it introduces a conditional clause.
Modal preterites are also found after the verbal particle te to, though in Afrikaans (unlike in Dutch) sal/sou never co-occurs with te, e.g.
The complementiser as may combine with sou to introduce an evidential complement:
Die bewering as sou hy 'n opstoker wees, is heeltemal ongegrond. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the allegation as.CNJ will.AUX.MOD.PRT he an agitator be.INF is completely unfounded | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The allegation that he would be an agitator is quite unfounded. |
Gaan is used as a main verb (43a), linking verb (43b) and modal auxiliary (43c), respectively, in the following examples:
The difference between gaan as linking verb and gaan as auxiliary verb, is that only a linking verb can combine with the main verb in the verb-second position. While gaan expresses the modal sense of ‘intention’ in (44a), though the non-modal sense of 'go' is not excluded, it can only be a linking verb (i.e. 'go') in (44b).
As an auxiliary verb, which is our main concern here, gaan is in many ways a competitor of sal in present-day Afrikaans, perhaps more subjective by involving the speaker (and his/her actions) to a greater extent than in the case of a mere prediction. (However, in a longitudinal corpus study, Kirsten (2016:139) found that in the context of future reference, gaan was not employed with agent-oriented modality as is the case with sal, but rather to make objective predictions about the future.) Speaker involvement may also contribute to the expression of inchoative aspect, cf.:
Ons gaan jou help, kom wat wil. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
we go.AUX.MOD you.2SG help.INF come what will.AUX.MOD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We are going to help you at all costs. |
Like sal, gaan (46a) may express ‘prediction’, with a gaan statement perhaps having a more subjective angle than one with sal (46b).
In both examples the completion of the work is predicted for the next day, but while sal only guarantees the completion of the work the next day, gaan relates the completion of the work to the efforts of those involved. And while both sal and gaan have an element of ‘intention’, gaan is aspectually inchoative, while sal is stative. This sense of gaan is exemplified by (47).
Nee, ek is te arm. Ek gaan sommer hier in my woonstel bly en die gordyne toetrek. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
no I be.PRS too poor I go.AUX.MOD just here in my flat stay.INF and the curtains pull.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No, I’m too poor. I’m just going to stay here in my flat and pull the curtains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J.Kirsten: Wit plafon, 2009, 151 |
While sal expresses ‘certainty’ on the basis of future prediction, gaan expresses ‘certainty’ on the basis of speaker involvement. Gaan implies a certain route or progress towards a goal, which ties in with the ‘motion’ element in ‘go’. As a modal auxiliary, gaan would then mean, ‘setting a process in motion of which the outcome will be certain’.
Wil/wou is occasionally used as a transitive verb, and is the only Afrikaans modal forming a past participle, cf. gewil will.PST.PTCP as in (48a) and (48b). In (48c) transitive wil is used in an evidential function.
As an auxiliary, wil want to and wou wanted to generally express a present or past wish or desire. The sentential subjects in the following are the exclusive source of ‘volition’, whether human, as in (49a), (49b) and (49e), animal, as in (49c), or institutional as in (49d).
The subject may remain the source of 'volition' without being the agent of the associated action, as in:
However, where a second source of volition is implied, the subject only has a mediating function and ‘willingness’ rather than ‘volition’ as such is expressed:
When the subject takes on a non-agentive role, as in (52a), (52b) and (52e), indirectly refers to the subject, as in (52c), or agency is only vaguely identified, for instance as a force of nature, as in (52d), wil/wou takes on an anterior aspectual function and has the sense of imminent action, viz. ‘being about to, on the point of, imminent’. Anteriority rather than volition is even more pronounced when the subject is [- human], as in (52d). The difference between the volitional and aspectual senses of wil/wou may be ascribed to a difference between an ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ perspective on action, respectively (cf. Conradie 2016).
The aspectual sense of ‘being imminent’ may be emphasized by the use of reduplication (also of the preterite wou) because Afrikaans reduplication is employed, inter alia, to signal ‘repeated attempt’ via its repetition function (cf. Conradie 2003). Wil/wou is the only Afrikaans modal verb to allow reduplication.
Wil/wou also has an inter-clausal cohesive function, in that wil/wou in the complement clause echoes the wish expressed in the main clause, as in (54a) and (54b). Omitting the auxiliary does not imply semantic change, cf. (54c) and (54d).
The modal moet has ‘obligation’ as its root meaning, as in (55a), to which the value of ‘necessity’ is closely related, as in (55b). In (55c), the speaker expresses his/her doubt about the necessity of a certain incident.
The relationship between Afrikaans moet and English must in South African English and in particular the influence of the former on the latter is described by Wasserman & Van Rooy (2014) and Wasserman (2016). While the illocutionary strength of Afrikaans moet as 'obligation' has diminished during the second half of the 20th century (Wasserman 2016:34), must in South African English has remained an important vehicle for expressing 'obligation' and 'necessity' (Wasserman 2016:28). At the same time S.A.Eng. must also extend(ed) its semantic domain to express median obligation, becoming partly synonymous with should (Wasserman & Van Rooy 2013:1). It should therefore be appreciated that describing the meaning of Afrikaans moet by means of S.A.Eng. must and should may at times be misleading to speakers of other varieties of English!
‘Obligation’ in the past is expressed by the preterite moes. With preterite moes, the proposition is unmarked in regard to factuality, e.g. the proposition may be interpreted as factual (i.e. realised) or as a mere obligation.
Dié Saterdagoggend moes ons die opname doen | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
that Saturday.morning must.AUX.MOD.PRT we the recording do.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That Saturday morning we had to do the recording. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VivA-KPO |
The context enforces a factual interpretation in:
Die hele dag moes ek al sy werk doen. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the whole day must.AUX.MOD.PRT I all his work do.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All day long I had to do his work. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VivA-KPO |
Combined with the perfect, a counterfactual interpretation is likely (see Construction 1):
Hulle moes vanoggend gaan stroop het maar gelukkig reën dit nou. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
they must.AUX.MOD.PRT this.morning go.LINK harvest.INF have.AUX but.CNJ luckily rain it now | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They should have harvested this morning but luckily it’s raining now. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VivA-KPO |
In rare instances ‘obligation’ – which implies ‘futurity’ – is combined with past reference; the context of the following is a description of what an envisaged sculpture should look like:
Neptunus moet staan, dink Gianlorenzo, en sy seun Triton moet pas uit die see verskyn het. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neptune must.AUX.MOD stand.INF think Gianlorenzo and his son Triton must.AUX.MOD just out.of the sea appear.PST.PTCP have.AUX | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neptune should be standing, Gianlorenzo thought, and his son Triton should just have appeared from the sea. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M.Heese: Maestro, 2016, 236 |
In subordinate clauses, moet may take on a hypothetical value similar to sou would, were to:
Ek wonder wat my skoolhoof en kollegas sal dink as hulle my nou moet sien. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I wonder what my principal and colleagues will.AUX.MOD think.INF if.CNJ they me now must.AUX.MOD see.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I wonder what my principal and colleagues would think if they were to see me now. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P. Stamatélos: Pastoor, 2013, 62 |
The source of ‘obligation’ or ‘necessity’ may vary from direct to diffuse; it may for instance be the speaker or the sentential subject, or have a source sharing both of these or difficult to pinpoint. In (61a), where the subject is directly addressed by the speaker, the speaker is clearly the source. In (61b) to (61d), the sentential subject takes on the role of ‘source of obligation or necessity’. In (61e), possible sources vary from a personal wish of the speaker to supposed municipal regulations or what the speaker considers to be his/her right. In (61f), a common wishing formula, the subject, as “receiver” of the wish, is clearly non-agentive. [see Modal pragmatics] A similar wish is echoed in (61g).
In Afrikaans negative imperatives or prohibitives are not expressed directly by a lexical verb, but are signalled by initial moet must + nie not, commonly contracted – only when it functions as a prohibitive – to moenie [muni]. This structure is ascribed to the language contact situation in which Afrikaans developed. Possible sources are Low Portuguese na mistinot must, mister meaning 'necessary', and the Malay particle jangan don’t, mustn’t (cf. Ponelis (1993:460). Moenie is commonly used as an interjection (62a) or to express a negative imperative or prohibition (62b). Moenie is optionally followed by a sentential subject (typically a pronoun such as jy you.SG or julle you.PL), as in (62c). The subject may also follow directly on initial moet , as in (62d), to parallel the inversion structure of a yes-no question.
In subordinate clauses controlled by wil/wou hê want/wanted to have, moet/moes has an inter-clausal cohesive function; it facilitates the link between main and subordinate clause by converting the speaker’s wish or expectation expressed in the main clause into an obligation in respect of the addressee in the subordinate clause, as in (63a) as against (63ai). Moet/moes thus adds no new meaning, and becomes redundant in the more formal and uncommon rendering with wil/wou as main verb rather than auxiliary and obligatory use of dat that as complementiser, as in (63b) as against (63bi). The same applies for wou hê ... moes , as in (63c) as against (63ci).
Kan expresses ‘capability’ on a cline from the non-agentive sense of the ‘non-restriction’ of action or simply ‘being in a position to,’ as in (64a), to the agentive or dynamic sense of having the ability to perform an action, as in (68) and (69). Closely related is also the ‘possibility’ of an action taking place, with ‘permission’ as a derived sense, particularly in speech acts [see Modal pragmatics]. In the following examples meanings such as ‘non-restriction’, ‘possibility’, ‘capacity’ and ‘ability’ are demonstrated. In (64), action is not restricted.
The sense of ‘having the capability of being acted upon’ is also expressed by a deverbal adjective with [-baar] -able as suffix:
Jou motor is nie onherstelbaar nie; dit kan nog herstel word. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
your car is not irrreparable.ADJ PTCL.NEG it can.AUX.MOD still repair.PST.PTCP be.AUX.PASS.PRS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your car is not irreparable; it can still be repaired. |
Both (66a) and (66b) entail 'possibility', (66b) by way of a rhetorical question.
In the following the context must determine whether the school boys in question are free to perform the action, are allowed to do so or are invited to do so.
Hy sê toe al die skoolseuns kan daar kom werk. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
he say then all the schoolboys can.AUX.MOD there come.LINK work.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He then said that all the schoolboys could come and work there. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VivA-KPO |
In the following sentences ‘ability’ is expressed.
In the ‘capacity’ meaning of kan, its preterite form kon expresses past tense, e.g.
Jou motor kon gelukkig herstel word. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
your car can.AUX.MOD.PRT fortunately repair.PST.PTCP be.AUX.PASS.PRS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fortunately your car could be repaired. |
The preterite form may also indicate a tentative offer or suggestion, as in (70a) and (70b), logical inference, as in (70c) and (70d), or hypothetical situations, as in (70e) and (70f):
In what may be an ironical use of ‘ability’, kan is sometimes employed to characterise someone through his/her habits or customs (Ponelis 1979:253):
Piet kan sommer sit en niks doen. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Piet can.AUX.MOD just sit.LINK and nothing do.INF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Piet has a way of just sitting there doing nothing. |
Kan/kon in (72a), which is omissible without a change of meaning as in (72b), enhances cohesiveness by rendering the main and subordinate clause more congruent with each other as both kans chance and kan/kon can/could express ‘possibility’.
Mag confers the ‘possibility to perform an action’, or more precisely ‘permission’ on the sentential subject, as in:
In epistemic usage [see Epistemic usage], mag signifies median certainty through ‘possibility’:
The preterite form mog is becoming obsolete and is only used by older speakers to indicate past, as in (75a), or epistemic function, as in (75b).
In its ‘possibility’ meaning mag may serve as a semantic link between a subordinate and main clause by echoeing the ‘uncertainty’ expressed by the latter, as in (76a); in this function mag may be omitted without a change of meaning, as in (2).
In its root sense, behoort te be supposed to, ought to expresses ‘duty’ or ‘expectation’, rather than ‘obligation’ as in the case of moet, cf. (77a); in its epistemic sense, behoort (te) indicates median probability of an event or state of affairs, as in (77b) and (77c). [see Epistemic usage]
Rather than expressing ‘prohibition’ as in the case of moenie, negative hoef indicates ‘absence of obligation’. Hoef te need to is commonly used in the negative in the meaning of ‘need not’ (more than 80% of the time in the TK corpus), as in (78a) and (78b), but may be positive in yes/no questions, as in (78c), or in restrictive statements with net or slegs (both ‘only’), as in (78d) and (78e).
In epistemic usage [see Epistemic usage] we find:
Dit hoef nie die enigste uitweg te wees nie. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
this need.AUX.MOD not the only out.way PTCL.INF be.INF PTCL.NEG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This needn’t be the only way out. |
- 2003The iconicity of Afrikaans reduplication.(In Müller, G., Fischer, O., reds. From sing to signing: iconicity in language and literature 3. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. p. 203-224.)
- 2016Willens en wetens: Perspektiewe op die Afrikaanse werkwoord 'wil'.Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe567-24,
- 1971Die grammatika van tyd en modaliteit.Balkema
- 1971Die grammatika van tyd en modaliteit.Balkema
- 2004An introduction to Systemic Functional LinguisticsContinuum
- 2016Grammatikale verandering in Afrikaans van 1911-2010.Thesis
- 1993The development of Afrikaans.ReeksP. Lang
- 1979Afrikaanse sintaksis.Van Schaik
- 1983Die grammatika van standaard-Afrikaans.Lex Patria
- 1983Die grammatika van standaard-Afrikaans.Lex Patria
- 1983Die grammatika van standaard-Afrikaans.Lex Patria
- 2016Moet en must: 'n geval van Afrikaanse invloed op Suid-Afrikaanse Engels / 'Moet 'and 'must': a case of Afrikaans influence on South African English.Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe5625-44,
- 2016Moet en must: 'n geval van Afrikaanse invloed op Suid-Afrikaanse Engels / 'Moet 'and 'must': a case of Afrikaans influence on South African English.Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe5625-44,
- 2016Moet en must: 'n geval van Afrikaanse invloed op Suid-Afrikaanse Engels / 'Moet 'and 'must': a case of Afrikaans influence on South African English.Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe5625-44,