This has been a good week or so of study for my Haitian Creole lessons.
I’m at the point in my education where I can read fairly well as long as the writing isn’t too complicated. For example, I picked up a copy of the Christian New Testament in Creole (Nouvo Testamen – Vesyon Kreyòl Fasil) recently and started reading it this morning during my breakfast. It works better for me if I read out loud because often hearing the words “snaps” the meaning into place a little faster than just reading it silently. (And it helps to have a familiar text!)
So I found myself about halfway into the second chapter realizing that I am reading Haitian Creole without translating it and yet I’m understanding it. I think this is a milestone!
And I emphasize, it’s simple Creole, so I understand most of the vocabulary. I can kinda figure out much of the unknown without Google Translate, but every so often I do have to go to the tools.
Which brings me to my first question: why are some words accented in some cases and not accented in others? There are certain words where the accent mark makes it a different word. For example, “ke,” “that,” is unaccented, but “kè,” “heart,” is accented.
However, in many cases, the accent mark—which is used to indicate a long or short vowel sound (“ke” is similar to the name “Kay,” and “kè” is similar to “keh”)—is present or not present, and the meaning is the same.
The one that just got me was “sòti/soti,” “from.” The accent mark indicates a slightly different pronunciation. One is closer to its French origin “sortie,” and the other is closer to “soh-ti.” But both are acceptable and widely used.
But what drives me bonkers (because I like order and rules) is that they are mixed in together in the same page or paragraph or sometimes even sentence!
I’m reading this “official” translation of the International Bible League which has a team of scholars and linguists doing this translation, and on one page I see “sòti,” but on the other page I see “soti.” Like, can you even do this?! Apparently you can!
So I talked with my instructors, and they are amazing people and very patient with me. It would seem that some of the accented words come from a more French-ified Creole, and the “flatter” pronunciation from a closer alignment with native Creole. So it’s not something to worry much about, but it does mean that learning Haitian Creole will be harder because it does require learning more of these subtleties.
(Given the chaos of English spelling/pronunciation—knot/bought/caught/taut and rough/cough/through/thorough—it’s not like we English speakers can crow about our easy spelling and pronunciation!)
The second thing, which is a question that isn’t as crisp, is how much of what I’m reading do I really understand from context, and how much is flying over my head? As I’m reading, I’m thinking that it’s very, very likely that this version is tuned specifically for the culture of Haiti and the Haitian Diaspora, so there are references and allusions I don’t get. And part of that feeling stems from seeing things in Haitian Creole that are, to be blunt, very, very blunt.
Haitian Creole often doesn’t talk around something delicate. Here I’m reading Matthew 1, where the ESV puts it as “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” Good ol’ Authorized Version (King James Version to Americans) puts is thusly: “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”
You have to have a better knowledge of English to understand that the Biblical use of “know/knew” can be related to intimacy between a man and a woman. “Adam knew Eve, and then they had children.”
This kreyòl version is blunt: “Lè Josèf leve nan dòmi an, li fè sa anj Senyè a te di l la. Li marye ak Mari. Malgre sa, li te tann jouktan pitit la fèt anvan l te antre nan zafè sèks ak mari. Li rele pitit ki te fèt la Jezi.”—“When Joseph woke up from his sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He got married to Mary. Despite this, he waited until the child was born before entering into sex with Mary. He called the child that was born Jesus.”
There’s no euphemistic language here. No “knowing” or “lying with” fancy language. Exactly how you’d talk if you were talking to your family or friends about a gal down the street with a baby and no husband, and then someone comes up and marries her anyway but stays apart until after the wedding and after the birth. It would generate a lot of gossip, right, and that would make the story a lot more remarkable and well known, and thus it would be more likely to be recorded as part of the history of Jesus, warts and all.
And this made me wonder if we are not seeing some of the strength of the stories of Jesus in the New Testament, that our desire to “descandalize the Gospel” has made the strength of the story less and weakened the audacity of the message.
Now, all of this could be moot. Perhaps it is not as scandalous as I think it is, and to speak of “zafè seks la” (the matter of sex) is just as ordinary and euphemistic as “knowing your wife.”
But I suspect not. Of the people I know who are in Haiti or who are part of the Haitian Diaspora, the language is just as blunt and honest as I’m seeing here.
Which is refreshing to me as someone who reads the Bible and wonders why it seems so dull and plodding.
Image by Ольга Бережна from Pixabay