A Concise Kreyòl Grammar
a provisional
version
Jacob Rabinowitz
Dedication:
Travay-sa-a, se pou onè
Mistè yo, Mò yo ak
Marassa yo.
Ay bobo!
Introduction
There does not, to my knowlege, exist a good teaching grammar of the Kreyòl language. Albert Valdman produced an excellent English-Language introductory textbook in 1988 (Ann Pale Kreyòl ), and there is an up-to date (2002) French language equivalent by Robert Damoiseau (J’apprends le Créole haïtien) but these leave unanswered a host of questions about more complex sentence structures.
This is a concise grammar, which means I assume a basic knowlege of grammar on the part of the reader, and some small acquaintance with French. Ideally one would read this after a book like Valdman’s (which, for the Anglophone, is still the only game in town.) I have not explicated matters which would be resolved by consulting a dictionary.
The dictionary is: Haitian-English
Dictionary, Bryant Freeman, La Press Evangélique, Port-au-Prince
2004. This is the only adequate
dictionary that exists. Published under the auspices of the U. Kansas, it is
not actually printed or distributed by them (this is what they told me on the
phone.) I was able to purchase it only through Schoenhof’s in
I was not able to consult all of the books out there on the
subject of Kreyòl grammar, since these are extremely difficult of access. What
I could find at the library of
But I’m not holding my breath. The works out there fell into two main categories: treatments by linguistics specialists, and “teach yourself” textbooks. I’m still not entirely sure what Linguistics is concerned with. It used to be all about phonology, and then it got very theoretical. I am not qualified to appreciate or criticise the concerns of this discipline. I can however say with certainty that they have nothing in common with the concerns of those who simply wish to read and speak a language.
As for the basic textbooks, they all suffer from the
unconscious Jim-Crow assumption that Kreyòl is really just bad French. Thus the
tense system is unfailingly presented in terms of absolute time (past, present,
future) rather than the relative time system one finds
in certain African languages. The failure to understand how the tenses work
results in a bizarre over-application of te, which makes ridiculous such well known printed texts as
the Bible translation into Kreyòl.
Another very central structural aspect of Kreyòl, one that
has never been addressed, is the phenomenon I call repetition to show subordination. Now Kreyòl has no subjunctive,
and manages very well in most cases without one, either by using the indicative
or the infinitive. In this, Kreyòl is just like English. But in cases where
subordination must be shown, that is, in complex sentences, Kreyòl will repeat
a word (often te
but it could be anything!) This phenomenon has been very oddly, and very
completely, ignored.
This is the first in-depth grammar of Kreyòl. Indeed, it is
a provisional version of that. Thus I will be extremely grateful to anyone who points out to me any errors in my
book, or suggests improvements I should make.
Note: phrases in Kreyòl used in this book, that have not simply been made up gratia exempli, have the source book and page number in parentheses. These references are:
Voodoo Song: my own forthcoming edition of Voodoo lyrics collected by Steve Deats
Valdman: Ann Pale Kreyòl, 1988.
Hall: Robert Hall, (The American Anthropologist,
vol. 55 no.2) Haitian Creole, 1953
Pronouns
I mwen, m’ we nou, n’
you ou (“w”) you
(pl.) nou, n’
he, she, it li, l’ they yo, y’
The pronouns are given here in their regular forms, followed by their contracted forms.
These are the only forms for the pronouns which exist in Kreyòl.
They are used, whether in full or contracted form, as subjects, as direct and
indirect objects, and to show possession. Examples:
Subject: M’ap kenbe.
(I’m managing).
Indirect Object: Ba m’ visit. (Pay me a visit).
Direct object: Koute m’. (Listen to me).
Posession: Kay-mwen (my
house); Se pou li. (It’s his).
Note that nou or n’ is used both for the first and second persons plural.
The rules governing the contraction and alteration of pronouns
are as follows:
Mwen
m’ may appear for mwen at any time:
M’ byen.
I’m
well.
Ayiti, se payi-m’.
Ou
Ou
is pronounced like a “w” when the next word begins with a vowel. (Many
persons will write a w in place of ou in all cases. This usage should not
be employed in formal writing.)
Ou ap we! (pronounced w ap we!”)
You’re
going to see!
Li, Nou, Yo
We may find l’ for li when it is preceded or followed by a vowel:
L’ ale.
He went.
Sadrak renmen l’.
Sadrak
likes her (a nasalized vowel does not count as a consonant. See below.)
li becomes ni after the nasal consonants “m,” “n” and “g.”
Se machin-ni
It’s his
car.
Li vann ni
He sells
it.
Nasalized Vowels
Li also becomes ni after nasal
vowels These occur when there is an “n” which is not pronounced, but is only
used to add nazalization to the preceding vowel, in the manner well-known from
French. This is the case with words ending -an, -en and on. The “n” in words ending -un and -in is a fully pronounced consonant. The
nasalized vowels are pronounced as follows:
for -an, the vowel is pronounced like the “a” in “alms”
for -en, the vowel is pronounced
like the “a” in “man”
for -on, the vowel is pronounced like the “o” in “don’t”).
M’ pran ni.
I take
it.
Fòk ou renmen ni.
You’ve
got to love him.
The other pronouns do not alter their consonants as li does.
We may find n’ for nou when it is preceded or followed by a vowel:
N’ ale.
They (or
“you-all”) went.
Ba n’ nouvel-ou.
Tell us
your news.
Y’ is used for yo only when it is followed by a vowel:
Y’ ale.
They
went.
Hyphens
A hyphen is used to connect all possessive pronouns, demonstratives and definite articles to a preceding noun. It is not used to connect an object prounoun Very often the possessive pronoun is given in shortened form. Examples:
definite article (bagay-la, the thing,) pa li-a (hers, i.e., the thing that belongs to her);
demonstrative adjective (wou-sa-a, this wheel);
possessive pronoun (papa-m’, my father).
Articles
The Definite Article
The singular definite article is la after a consonant (tab-la, “the table”) and a after a vowel (msye-a, “the gentleman.”) In the plural the definite article is always yo.
The Indefinite Article
This is invariably yon.
(Yon moun, “a person.) There is no
plural indefinite article. Gen moun nan lakou, “There are (some) people in the
yard.” However, when an ambiguity might otherwise arise, one will find the
definite plural article yo supplying
the lack of an indefinite plural.
The Nasalized “N” and the Definite Article
A nasalized final “n” (see above under Pronouns) effects the form of the singular definite article which
follows it. (The plural definite
article, yo, is not affected). The singular definite article, a, becomes an:
blan-an “the foreigner”
maten-an “the morning
pantalon-an “the trousers”
This is also the case after a word ending in an i preceded by a nasalized consonant:
zouti-a “the tool,”
but:
fanmi-an “the family”
After an -n that
is not fully nazalized, -m, and -ng one uses lan or nan indifferently as
the singular definite article
machin-nan/-lan “the car”
plim-lan/-nan “the pen”
madanm-lan/-nan “the lady”
moun-lan/-nan ‘the fellow”
There is some possibilty for confusion beween the plural definite article and the third person plural pronoun, since both prounous and definite articles take a hyphen. Eseye wòb-yo could mean “try on the dresses” or “try on (some of ) their dresses.” “Try on their (definite) dresses,” which would theoretically be Eseye wòb-yo-yo, does not seem to exist in practice.
However,
phrases like wòb-ou-yo, “your
(definite) dresses” are common.
Use of the Definite Articles
This is generally the same as in English. The article is frequently omitted before the names of familiar places:
Mari pral nan mache.
Marie is going to market.
The article comes after the subject even when this is complex:
Ki jan piti ki pral nan mache ak Mari-a rele?
What is the name of the child who is going to market with Marie?
Anpil moun ki
t’ envite pou demen (wit Fevrye) yo,
yo vini . . .
The other people who had been invited for the next day,
February 8, they came . . . (Hall 101)
Nouns
and Adjectives
Genitive Construct
Kreyòl uses a genitive contruct,
like Hebrew or Arabic. This is probably best understood as the French
possessive de (le livre de Jean, John’s book) with the de omitted
Gen yon zwazo ki grosè yon peyi.
There is a bird the size (of) a
country. (Hall 122.)
Demonstrative Adjectives
These correspond to “this” and “these” in English. These are formed by placing sa between the noun and the article:
Li achte
chemiz-sa-a.
He buys this shirt.
Kote
timoun-sa-yo?
Where are these children.
“That”and “those” are expressed
simply by adding the word la
(“there”).
Timoun-sa-yo
la.
Those children.
Interrogative Adjectives
Ki is the invariable interrogative adjective. Its meaning is “which” or “what.”
(It does not mean the interrogative “who?” “Who?” is expressed by combining ki with moun, giving Ki moun? (= “who?”). Similarly Ki sa? is “What?”, Ki lè is “When?”, and so on.)
A few examples of ki showing the confusion that may arise with the relative pronouns:
Ki ti bebe ki
malade?
Which (is) the baby who is ill? (Valdman 105)
The first ki is the interrogative adjective applied to ti bebe. The verb “to be” which follows it is not expressed (see “Existence” below.) The second ki is the relative subject pronoun (see “The Relative Clause” below.)
Ki chanm ou
pito?
Which (is) the room (which) you prefer? (Valdman 105)
The ki is the interrogative adjective. The verb “to be” which follows it is
not expressed (see “Existence” below.) The direct object relative “which” is not expressed (see “The
Relative Clause” below.) The English translation “Which room do you
prefer” is quite correct, and precisely mirrors the very streamlined Kreyòl
phrase.
Fronted Adjectives
Though adjectives are typically placed after the noun they modify, these six adjectives always go in front of the noun:
gran big
ti small
bèl beautiful,
bon good
vye old
gwo big
Skin and Hair
This is a matter of great interest to the Haitian, and the specific terms are well worth mastering:
blan, moun wouj white or
foreign
milat light skinned with straight silky hair and Caucasian
features
grimo light skinned with curly hair
marabou dark skinned with straight silky hair and Caucasian
features
grenn kinky haired
kwòt kinkyhaired; with uncombed, unkempt hair
gridap kinkyhaired; with short kinky hair (on a woman).
Existence
Contemporary
In contrast to English, no linking verb is used for a present-tense predicate consisting of an adjective, a preposition of place, or an adverbial phrase.
Li Bon.
He’s
good.
Yo nan lakou-a.
The are
in the yard.
Li sizè nan maten.
It’s six
in the morning.
This holds true even in complex sentences:
Bouki, m’a mete ou deyo, men se pou ou promèt mwen ou
kit sòt . . .
Bouki,
I’ll let you out, but you have to promise me you’ll stop (sc. being a) fool . . .
(Hall 123)
Se
Se, (“he/she/it is, the French c’est”) is employed at the head of a sentence to mean “it is” or “they are.”
Se yon kabrit; se Kabrit.
It’s a
goat; they’re goats.
It is also used when the predicate is a noun or an adjective that acts as a noun.
Li se (yon) Ayisyen/ (yon) jounalis/ (yon) gason/ (yon)
grimo
He’s a
Haitian/ a journalist/ a boy/ a light-skinned-curly-haired-boy.
Note that when the predicate is a nationality, a religion,
or some other qualification that is particular to humans, the use of the
indefinite article becomes optional. One is equally likely to hear the phrase
“he’s a priest” rendered by li se yon pè
and li se pè.
Se, like any other Kreyòl verb, indicates contemporaneity, not tense. In conversation it will usually be rendered by an English present, and in narrative by a past.
Malis menm tonbe nan kache,
men se pièj li tan Nonk Bouki.
Se is combined
with te to
show anterior existence (see “Te”
below).
Neg-sa-a, se te yon mon moun.
That
fellow was a good man. (Valdman 97)
Ye
Ye appears when the subject has been moved to, or is repeated at, the end of the sentence. Shifting the place of the subject is particularly common in questions, for in Kreyòl as in English, a question ordinarily entails reversing the word order.
Kote ou ye?
Where
are you?
Ki jan li ye?
How is
she?
Ye also appears after the subject when the subject is reiterated, which may be done either for clarity or to achieve a stylistic effect:
Mari, se nan lakou-a li ye.
Marie,
she’s in the courtyard.
. . . yon ban ti moun anpipèt te gentan al fwape pòt kote tòtu-a ye a.
. . . a group of naughty children had already gone to knock on the door (of the room) where the tortoise was. (Hall 165)
In this last sentence note that the a after the ye is the definite article for pòt.
When anterior existence must be shown, ye is combined with te:
La Plenn du nord m’ te ye . .
.
I was in
Plaine du Nord . . . (Voodoo song,)
We note here that Kreyòl has no future form of the verb to be. Therefore one must create a future by adding ava or ap to another verb and making the point of future existence obliquely.
Anterior Existence: Te
Te acts as the verb “to be” for the anterior tense. Unlike se, it is expressed for every sort of predicate.
Li te malad.
He was
sick.
Li te mèt lekòl.
He was a
school teacher.
Yo te lavil.
They were in town.
The Contemporaneous
Verb
The bare verb in Kreyòl does not indicate a specific tense:
rather it indicates that one action is contemporaneous with another action or a
suggested context. We may render the contemporaneous verb into English with the
simple present, the gnomic present, or
the simple past.
The simple
present will tend to be the preferred translation for conversation, the gnomic
present for proverbs and general statements, and the simple past for narration.
Only context will tell which rendering is to be preferred.
The simple present:
Yo pentire kay-yo, means “They paint
their house.” (The ongoing present,
“they are painting their house, requires the marker ap: Y’ap pentire kay-yo.
See “Ap” below).
The gnomic present: Gabi vann rad nan mache-a. “Gabi sells clothing in the market place.” Used for statements which are generally or proverbially true. Fimen move pou sante-ou. “Smoking is bad for your health.”
The Simple Past: Li plante pwa. “He
planted beans.” Simple, completed action in the past.
The contemporaneous verb is identical in form, but not in
use or meaning with the past participle,
the imperative, and thethe infinitive.
The Past Participle: Mayi-a plante. “The corn is planted.”
This is a past participle (“planted”) modifying the subject(“corn”) with the
verb “to be” (“is”) left (as is typical) unexpressed. The construction is
clearly derived from the French passé
composé.
Imperative: Pran zouti-ou! “Take your tools!” Note that the Kreyòl imperative does not express its subject with a pronoun.
(A more polite form for commands is the formula se pou ou + infinitive (“you ought to”)
The imperative of the verb “to be” is always left unexpressed: necessarily, for there is none.
Frè-mwen, byen ave m’, non!
My
brother, won’t you be on good terms with me? (Hall 117-118)
Infinitive: Ou
bezwen ale nan
dispanse-a? “Do you need to go to
the clinic?”
Negation
In every case the negative particle pa is placed immediately before the verb or before the particle which modifies its tense:
Li pa vle.
He
doesn’t want to.
Li pa te vle.
He didn’t
want to.
Li p’ap vle.
He isn’t
wanting to.
The Past Marker
Te
Combined with a verb, te simply indicates that one action is anterior to some other action or circumstance. In English one will render this sometimes by the perfect (did), sometimes by the pluperfect (“had done’), and sometimes by adding the word “already.” The choice depends purely on context.
M’ te rive lakay lè li rele-m.
I had
arrived at the house when he called me. (Valdman 97)
M’ te benyen yè aprèmidi.
I already
bathed yesterday afternoon. (Valdman 97)
Se sa m’ t’al wè, you ba m’ yon ti kout pye, you voye
m’ isit . .
That’s
what I’d gone to see, they gave me a kick and sent me
here. (Hall 118)
We may find, at the beginning of a narration, a number of
sentences using the particle te. This is to set place the story as a whole in the past. After
the initial paragraph, the author will use the contemporaneous verb with the
reader’s understanding that it is meant as a simple past. The most glaring
blemish in translations made by non-Kreyòl speakers is the overuse of te, in imitation
of the tense system of European languages.
Te does not make an anterior tense when combined with ap. There it makes an imperfect: see “Ap” below.
Te is used alone as
the simple past of the verb se (“to
be.”)
Mwen tonnbe kire, di: “Manman, li pran ti plat mwen.”
Epi li menm te pli piti pase mwen, li di: “Se pitit
kouzen-ou, lite l’ ale vek ti plat . . .
I began
to cry and said: “Mama, he took my little dish.” Since he himself was younger than me, she said: “It’s
your little cousin. Let him go with the little dish. . . (Hall 75)
Te is also combined with verbs to indicate potentiality, thus supplying the
want of a subjunctive mood in Kreyòl that would show possibility or volition.
This is particularly the case with ava (see below).
AP, the marker of ongoing action
Here again we note that the Kreyòl marker does not indicate tense. Ap informs us us that an action is ongoing: from this primary meaning we derive the notion of something taking place in the present and extending into the immediate future. Thus M’ap pran can be translated “I’m taking,” or “I’m going to take.”
A special form is used when ap is combined with al (“to go.”) The marker and the verb “to go” produce the form pral.
When the
sorcerer saw he was in prison, he took it into his head he was going to die. .
. (Hall 140)
Ap may be combined with te to create an imperfect (“was doing”) tense:
Vwala yon jou, Nonk Bouki t’ap fè faksyon, li tande
chan . . .
Now one
day Uncle Bouki was keeping watch (when) he heard singing. (Hall p 120)
A,
Ava, Va the Marker of will
These are three forms
of the same time marker. It is a matter of preference which one is used.
In all its forms ava suggests intention and certainty, like the English “will” in the phrase “I will not be defeated!”
Ap will be used
for an action that is simply going to happen, naturally and of itself, if
things go on as they are in the present. Ava,
on the other hand, implies an act of will or volition.
Nonk Bouki di li ba li ke li, l’a kenbe l’ epi l’ava
sòti nan trou-a.
Uncle
Bouki told him to give him his tail, that he would
grab it and he’d get out of the hole. (Hall p. 116).
The ava
above was translated with the English “would” rather than “will” because the
whole sentence was set in the past.
T’a: should, would, could
This usage is a classic example of how the lack of a subjunctive to show will or possibility is remedied.
T’a is nothing but ava preceded by te. T’a translates as “should,” “would” and “could,” depending on context. English shows precisely the same want of precision, using the three translation terms almost interchangeably. The most common categories of usage are:
potential “could,” “would”
Li pase tout nwit-la ap we si
lit t’a plen panye-a.
He
passed the whole night seeing if he could fill that basket. (Hall 131)
. . . li wè yon grenn soulye
ki sanble’l t’a bon pou li.
. . . she saw a single shoe which seemed (like) it would be good for her. (Hall 150)
It is not uncommon to place potential t’a before pral (ap added to al), producing an idiom I call a future-intentional.
Li t’a pral
arete ti batiman Lapòt t’a komande-a
He was meaning to (lit.
would be going to) sieze the little boat (which) LaPorte commanded (Ti Koze 40)
. . . fi rwa-a devine sa you t’a pral di.
. . . the
king’s daughter guessed what they were
planning to (lit. would be going
to) say. (Hall 174)
the “should” of obligation
“Enben nou t’a pwete kèk ti zèl . . .”
“OK, you should lend me some small wings . . .” (Hall p. 164)
This however may simply be a careless
use. The word dwa (“ought to”) or the
expression se pou li (see “Other Subordinate
Clauses” below) would be the ordinary way of expressing this.
conditional sentence
t’a . . . t’a is the standard form for a should/would conditional sentence, that is, a sentence
which says that if one thing should happen, something else would result; i.e., “if X, then Y . . .”
. . . li di Lando ke si li t’a vle fè yon babako,
li t’ava fè l’ yon pakèt bagay . . .
. . . he said to Lando that if she should wish to make a barbecue,
he would do a lot of things for her . . . (Hall 114)
Men m’ t’a pi bon si ou t’a kite m’ pase brid-mwen nan kou-ou . . .
But I
would (be) better if you should let me pass my bridle over your neck . . .
(Hall 110)
Note the correct omission of the verb “to be” in the “then” part of this last sentence.
Often one finds a conditional in a sentence where one or both halves are not a conditional t’a, but something more definite, such as an unmodified ava. An if/then conditional sentence may be made with any tense of mood of verb. T’a is only required in the ones we translate with “should” or “would.”
A, m’a kontrarie anpil, mwen pa t’a vle kontre konpe chen
isit-la menm.
Ah, I
shall be quite put out, I wouldn’t like to meet friend dog here at all. (Hall
126)
The following interesting example uses the pou li obligation idiom (considered below under “Other
Subordinate Clauses”.) The “if” half of the sentence is a simple past
indicative, while the “then” half is an expression of obligation (pou) given an emphatically future
character by the use of a.
Si nou ouvri
pòt-la, pou mwen a chante.
If you opened the door, I would have to sing. (Hall 165)
Noun
Clauses and Indirect Statement
Note: Subordinate
clauses in Kreyòl are not usually signalized by anything more than using a
subordinating introductory word — and not always even that. Where subordination
does need to be marked, Kreyòl will
reiterate a word. This latter phenomenon we will call Reiteration to show subordination (RSS). RSS will be dealt with in detail in the final
section of this essay.
The Noun Clause
Sometimes called an “object clause,” this is a complete clause with its own subject that is taken as a direct object by a verb, e.g. “She made me do it.”
A noun clause is very like indirect statement: the only important difference is that a noun clause is not the object of a verb of speaking or thinking.
Yon lòt jou tonton Jan kite bezwen kenbe ti volay yo, li fe yo gennen
yon pakèt pwa . . .
On
another day, uncle John left his business to catch the
little birds, he made them scatter a
packet of beans . . . (Hall 164)
Nonk, si li pa vle ou pran ke-a, pran yon pye.
Uncle, if he doesn’t want you to take the tail,
take a foot. (Hall 117)
Indirect Statement
It is worth streesing: in Kreyòl, the subordinate clauses of indirect statement are simply placed after the verb of speaking or thinking: no change is necessary in the clause that is subordinated, no introductory word (such as “that”) is required.
. . .
. . . when the sorcerer saw he was in prison, he took it into his head he was going to die. (Hall 140)
. . . epi li voye ti moun al di papa li mete manje sou tab pou li.
. . . then she sent a child to
tell father she’d put food on the table for him. (Hall
79.
Li kalkile
Franse te sanble yo te ofri plis garanti pou
ansyen esklav-yo.
He reckoned that
In this last example we have indirect statement introduced
by past kalkile. Sanble is preceded by a te to show that Toussaint is considering a matter anterior
to his present act of reflection. Te sanble
in turn introduces a further indirect statement, te ofri. In the te in te
ofri is a sign of Reiteration to Show Subordination (RSS) not the anterior te. This is an optional, not a necessary feature,
for a subordinate clause.
Occasionally a ke (from the French que) will be placed before the indirect statement. This is a borrowing from the French, and introduces a note of formality (or pretentiousness) to the utterance.
Diskite diskite, li
wè vwe ke se byen fè mal rekompanse . . .
Afte
much discussion, he saw truly that it
was a good deed ill-repaid. . .
(Hall 116-117)
Relative
Clauses
Relative clauses in Kreyòl are
fairly easy, since there is no agreement of the relative pronoun with its antecedent. The relative prounoun ki does however disappear
to when it is the object and not the subject of the relative clause.
The relative subject-clause is
introduced by ki:
Li mete wou, ki bon an, nan
machin ni.
He put the wheel, the
one which (was) good, on his car.
Rat konnen sa li fè lanwit ki fè li kache lajounen.
The rat
knows what he did at night which causes him
to hid in daytime. (Hall p. 199.)
Relative Clause of Characteristic
The relative subject clause may become a relative clause of characteristic. While a relative clause simply states some fact about its antecedent (e.g. “The bear, which is an animal,”) a relative clause of characteristic expresses a quality or characteristic of its antecedent: it tells what its antecedent is of the sort to do (e.g. “The bear, which is an animal that may attack people.”)
In the relative clause of characteristic, the subject takes the infinitive which is prefaced by pou. We might mirror the structure of the Kreyòl by translating the “ki pou + infinitive” clause by a phrase such as “who is the type to . . .”
. . . se manzèl Lanj sèl selon mès fanmi-a ki pou di ou wi ou byen non.
. . . it was Mlle. Lange
alone, according to the custom of the family, who would say (lit. who
was for to say) yes or else no (to a suggestion). (Hall 154)
Ou kapab di
yon bagay ki pa vre dèyè
yon moun, men lò tou de kontre, nan pwen manti ki pou bay ankò.
You can say a thing that isn’t true behind a person’s
back, but when both meet there’s no lie that
is of a sort to hold up. (Hall 190)
The relative clause of characteristic may be given an pointedly subjunctive quality by adding te. This is an idiomatic development of
the “ki pou + infinitive”
construction, and should be translated with “who ought to have.”
“. . . ou sonje ane pase? Lè
konsa, se pa ti lapli, non, li te gentan fè.”
“Wè, monchè! Epi chak
kout zèklè ak loray, se bagay ki pou te fè nenpòt moun pè.
“. . . do you remember last year? At that time it wasn’t a small
rain, no, that had already fallen.”