Cover not available

In:Advances in Contact Linguistics: In honour of Pieter Muysken
Edited by Norval Smith, Tonjes Veenstra and Enoch O. Aboh
[Contact Language Library 57] 2020
► pp. 283–338

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Pottefers Cant, Groenstraat Bargoens, and the development of “have” and “be” in the wider context of contact

ORCiD logo with link | University of Amsterdam
 | Meertens Instituut | Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Published online: 29 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.57.10smi
Abstract
Our article falls into two parts. In the first part we compare two “secret” or replacive Dutch languages, Potteferstaal (Pot-repairers language) and Groenstraat Bargoens (Groenstraat cant), which developed in and around eastern Belgium and the southeastern fringe of the Netherlands, respectively. Nothing has been published on the first as yet (but now see Van Hauwermeiren (2018), while the second has been well-studied. Speakers of both cryptolects used similar strategies, the replacement of frequent lexical items by alternate ones with the purpose of inhibiting comprehension by outsiders. We also provide a general account of the social conditions surrounding the use of this type of replacive language. The social history of Groenstraat Bargoens is covered in some detail, while that of Potteferstaal is described as fully as possible, given our limited information. In the second part of our article we treat a striking structural difference shared by Potteferstaal and Groenstraat Bargoens and other similar replacive languages. This concerns the fact that various uses of “have” and “be” verbs, including “main verb”, auxiliary and copular usages are expressed by a single form. We add three other so-called “Bargoens” varieties from northern Belgium and Dutch Limburg to the study, brief information on the Kempen traders’ cant, as well as “Henese Fleck” spoken in Breyell just over the German border, and discuss their parallels and differences in connection with this feature. We relate this phenomenon to the retention of a small but persistent number of Romani lexical items by most of these languages. One group which exhibits the same identity of expression of “have” and “be” as well as formerly similar historical ways of life, is the Sinti Romani. We ascribe this shared structural pattern to early contact between Dutch and Belgian “travellers” and Romani, despite the fact that the languages of the first group are inflection-poor, whereas Romani languages are inflection-rich.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Pottefers and their hidden secret language
  • 3.The “not so well-hidden” secret language of the Groenstraat pedlars
    • 3.1Development
    • 3.2Ausbau (expansion) and subsequent functional specialization
    • 3.3Groenstraat Bargoens’ third youth?
  • 4.The lexica of both cryptolects, their origins and overlap
    • 4.1Pottefers Cant
      • 4.1.1Combiverbs
      • 4.1.2Personal pronouns
      • 4.1.3Negation
      • 4.1.4Numerals
    • 4.2Groenstraat Bargoens
      • 4.2.1Combiverbs
      • 4.2.2Personal pronouns
      • 4.2.3Negation
      • 4.2.4Numerals
    • 4.3Overlap
  • 5.Morphology: Inflexion and derivation
    • 5.1Pottefers Cant
    • 5.2GrBargoens
  • 6.The have/be combiverb
    • 6.1Comparison: “Main verb” usages (PC & GrB)
      • 6.1.1 Be-copula
      • 6.1.2 Have-lexical verb
    • 6.2Comparison 2: Periphrastic usages (PC & GrB)
      • 6.2.1Active perfect
      • 6.2.2Progressive
      • 6.2.3Passive
    • 6.3Comparison 3: “Main verb” usages (PC & close relatives)
      • 6.3.1 Be-copula
      • 6.3.2 Have-lexical verb
    • 6.4Comparison 4: Periphrastic usages (PC & close relatives)
      • 6.4.1Perfect
      • 6.4.2Passives
    • 6.5Bargoens versus Traders’ cants (Kramertalen)
      • 6.5.1A Kempen parallel
      • 6.5.2Henese Fleck (Breyell, left-bank of lower Rhine, Germany)
  • 7.Conclusion on have/be verbs
    • 7.1The source of have/be
  • 8.Romani as the source of have/be verbs?
    • 8.1Parallels between Bargoens and Sinti-Romani
      • 8.1.1
      • 8.1.2Perfect passive
      • 8.1.3Conclusion
  • 9.An examination of Romani lexical items in Bargoens
    • 9.1Some shared Romani lexical items
  • 10.Possibilities for future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References and sources
References (54)
References and sources
Bakkes, P. 2007. Sjpan, kantj ane bóks. Roermondenaren en hun Bargoens. In Riek van klank, R. Keulen, T. van de Wijngaard, H. Crompvoets (eds), 77–84. Sittard: Mediagroep Limburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakker, P. 2006. Review of J. Kirk & D. Ó Baoill (eds), Travellers and their Language. Language in Society 35(3): 429–432.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellmann, G. 2003. Ethnolinguale Unbestimmtheit und Interlingualität. Talk delivered at the Internationale Fachtagung “Niederländisch-Deutsch-Slawische Sprachkontake im Mittelalter und ihre Spuren in (nieder-)deutschen Mundarten des 20. Jahrshunderts”, Lutherstadt Wittenberg, 25. October 2003.
Bischoff, E. n.d.. Wörterbuch der wichtigsten Geheim- und Berufssprachen. Jüdisch-Deutsch, Rotwelsch, Kundensprache; Soldaten-, Seemanns-, Weidmanns-, Bergmanns- und Komödiantensprache. Leipzig: T. Grieben.
Bosten, L., Goossens, H., Plum, J., Roemkens, H., Schunken, X. & Driessen, C. 1981. Groenstraat-Bargoens woordenboek. Ubach over Worms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breuer, H. 1974. Mijnsluiting; personeelsbeleid in het kader van de sluiting van het steenkolenbedrijf ‘Laura-Julia’ in een tijd van regionale herindustrialisatie. Thesis, Katholieke Sociale Akademie Sittard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coehorst, E. 1983. De plaats van het bargoens in het Venloos dialekt. Veldeke 1983(2): 8–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creemers, C. 1871. Aanteekeningen over het dorp Stamprooy. Roermond.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewulf, M. 1980. Bargoens te Sint-Niklaas. Annalen van de Koninkijke Oudheidkundige Kring van het Land van Waals deel 83, Jaarboek: 5–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duden Online. “hocken” in Duden Online. <[URL]> (12-7-2018).
Endepols, H. 1924. Groenstraat-Bargoens. De Nieuwe Taalgids 18: 172–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finck, F. N. 1903. Lehrbuch des Dialekts der deutschen Zigeuner. Marburg: N.G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, H. M. W. 1981. Ubach over Worms: Van Overworms kwartier tot gemeente Landgraaf. Ubach over Worms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, J. 1965. Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen. Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 30: 79–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günther, L. 1919. Die deutsche Gaunersrache und verwandte Geheim- und Berufssprachen. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haalboom, A. 1995. ‘Zwartje met flens en soetering’. Woonwagennieuws 3 april 1995: 16–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermant, P. 1933. Glossaire d’argot Bruxellois (Burgonsch). Le Folklore Brabançon 13(73): 53–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1933/1934. Woordenlijst van brusselsch Bargoensch (Burgonsch). De Brabantsche Folklore 13(73–76): 29–68, 186–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinskens, F. 1985. Versjtrunkelt diene tuuën wat e keeäneske oop e huuëvelke drait? Enkele structurele en functionele aspecten van het ‘Groenstraat-Bargoens’, Mededelingen van de Nijmeegse Centrale voor Dialect- en Naamkunde XIX: 17–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. (eds). 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Honnen, P. 2000. Geheimsprachen im Rheinland. Eine Dokumentation der Rotwelschdialekte in Bell, Breyell, Kofferen, Neroth, Speicher und Stotzheim. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag (with a CD).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ješina, J. 1886. Romáňi Čib oder die Zigeuner-Sprache (Grammatik, Wörterbuch, Chrestomathie). Leipzig: Verlag von List & Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knippenberg, W. H. T. 1974. Haarteuten in Noord-Brabant en het kasboek van een Bergeijkse haarteut. In De Teuten. Buitengaanders van de Kempen: Een verzameling losse bijdragen, W. H. T. Knippenberg (ed.), 166–184. Eindhoven: St. Brabants Heem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kluge, F. 1901. Rotwelsch. Quellen und Wortschatz der Gaunersprache und der verwandten Geheimsprachen. I Rotwelsches Quellenbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köster Henke, W. 1906. De Boeventaal. Zakwoordenboekje van het Bargoens of De Taal van de jongens van de vlakte, in woorden en zinnen alphabetisch gerangschikt. Dockum: Schaafsma & Brouwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labbé, J. 1892. Limburgsch Bargoensch. Limburgsch Jaarboek, 24–33. Bilsen: Het Genootschap.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 2004. Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moormann, J. G. M. 1930. De kramertalen. Een vergelijkende geheimtaal-studie. Tijdschrift voor Taal en Letteren 8: 49–83, 121–149, 233–266.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1932. De geheimtalen. Een studie over de geheimtalen in Nederland, Vlaamsch-België, Breyell en Mettingen. Zutphen: W. J. Thieme & Cie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1934. De geheimtalen. Bronnenboek. Zutphen: W. J. Thieme & Cie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. De geheimtalen: Het Bargoense standaardwerk, met een nieuw, nagelaten deel, N. van der Sijs (ed.), met een inleiding van Enno Endt. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J. Veen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muysken, P. C. 2001. Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. From Colombo to Athens: Areal and universalist perspectives on bilingual compound verbs. Languages 1(2): 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ó hAodha, M. 2002. Travellers’ language: Some Irish language perspectives. In Travellers and Their Language, J. Kirk & D. Ó Baoill (eds), 47–63. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewert, K. 1991. Masematte. Zur Situation einer regionalen Sondersprache. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 58(1): 44–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. Das Pfedelbacher Jenisch. Mit einem Glossar aus den schriftlichen Quellen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 64(1): 37–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stüve, L. 1923. Die Geheimsprachen, insbesondere: Die Tiöttensprache genannt Bargunsch oder Humpisch; eine Geheimsprache westfälischer Kaufleute aus dem Kreise Tecklenburg. Mit vollständigem Wörterverzeichnis. Recke: Vorberg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Bolhuis, E. G. 1937. De Gabbertaal: Woordenlijst van het Bargoens. Ede: Niessen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van de Kamp, J. & van der Wijk, J. 2006. Koosjer Nederlands. Joodse woorden in de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Contact.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Sijs, N. 21995. Zigeunerwoorden in het Nederlands. Trefwoord 10: 102–110. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
, (ed.). 2010. Etymologiebank. <[URL]> (27 April 2020).
van Ginneken, J. 1914. Handboek der Nederlandse taal, Deel II: De sociologische structuur onzer taal II. Nijmegen: Malmberg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Hauwermeiren, P. 2004. Bargoens, een ‘taal’ met vele namen. Taal en Tongval 56: 160–186.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. De belangstelling voor het Bargoens. Taal en Tongval 61: 114–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Nominale afleidingen in het Bargoens. Taal en Tongval 64: 263–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. De Pottefers van Tienen en hun drol verknoeide preuvel: De kramertaal van rondtrekkende handwerkslieden. Van Mensen en Dingen: Tijdschrift voor Volkscultuur in Vlaanderen 16(1): 9–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Nerum, H. n.d. De Pottefers. Ms, 9 pp. [ca 1964].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Winkel, F. 1974. De Teuten, benaming en oorsprong. In De Teuten. Buitengaanders van de Kempen, W. H. T. Knippenberg (ed.), 29–47. Eindhoven: St. Brabants Heem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Sowa, R. 1898. Wörterbuch des dialekts der deutschen Zigeuner [Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Band XI, No. 1]. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vek, J. 2002. Tieske en Niske. Ing gesjiechte uever d’r aldaag van de Grunsjtroater lüj um 1860 erum. Bargoensjkloeb ‘ut Keieskwieëste’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vos, P. & van Lieshout, L. 1990. Woordenboek van de Brabantse dialecten, Deel II: Niet-agrarische vakterminologieën, Aflevering 5: Kaarsenmaker, sigarenmaker, potten-bakker, diamantbewerker. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, J. F. 1838. Het Bourgondsch in de Kempen. Belgisch Museum II: 427–431.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkler, J. 1874. Algemeen Nederduitsch en Friesch Dialecticon II. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, S. A. 1956. Wörterbuch des Rotwelschen. Deutsche Gaunersprache. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut AG.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue