Comparison of Pidgin Languages: Tok Pisin and ... - Derek Dailey

Derek Dailey | www.DerekDailey.com | Inquire@DerekDailey.com 

Derek Dailey | www.DerekDailey.com | Inquire@DerekDailey.com 1 

Comparison of Pidgin Languages: 

Tok Pisin and Solomons Pijin 

By Derek Dailey 

Keywords: Linguistics, Syntax, Sociolinguistics, Pidgins, Pidgin Languages, Pidgin 

Comparison, Tok Pisin, Solomons Pijin, Psycholinguistics, Linguistic Psychology, 

Linguistics Research, Cognitive Linguistics, Spatial Reasoning, Spatial, Physical, 

Physics and Language, Prepositions, Language, Typology, Creole, Creoles, Analysis, 

Syntacticians, Linguists, Professors, Experts, Analysts, Strategists, Instructors, 

Researchers, Teachers, Foreign Languages, English, Derek Dailey, Resume, CV 

02/15/2010

Introduction: 



This document compares Tok Pisin and Solomon’s Pijin using 

text from the King James Bible (Mark 5: 1-5) as a guide. The 

organization of this document is as followed. I first provide 

the actual text from the King James Bible. Afterwards, I 

provide the corresponding text from the individual pidgin 

languages (Tok Pisin then Solomon Pijin). I present the pidgin 

texts by providing line-for-line literal translations (in 

English) with color coding to show exactly which word or segment 

in the literal translation is corresponding with the word or 

segment in the pidgin language. I find this method best for 

displaying language translations while still maintaining the 

natural presentation and flow of the language in question. 

Please note that some non-highlighted words have been included 

in the literal translations to simply maintain “flow” in the 

literal translations while parenthesized words have been 

provided for elaborative purposes. Finally, I provide an 

analysis of the languages; using a “compare and contrast” 

framework. 

King James Bible: Mark 5: 1-5 

1. And they came over onto the other side of the sea, into the country of 

the Gadarenes. 

2. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of 

the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 

3. Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, 

not with chains: 

4. Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the 

chains had been plucked asunder him, and the fetters broken in pieces: 

neither could any man tame him. 

5. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, 

crying, and cutting himself with stones.



Tok Pisin: Corresponding Text with Literal Translation 

Ol i kamap long hapsait bilong raunwara, long graun bilong ol 

Gerasa. 

o Translation: They arrived at the far side of the sea, to 

ground belonging to them (plural) Gerasa. 

Em i lusim pot pinis, na kwiktaim wanpela man i gat spirit doti i 

stap long en, em i kam painim Jisas. Dispela man i stap nabaut 

long ples matmat na i kam. 

o Translation: He left boat finish (completely), and 

quicktime (quickly) onefella man he has dirty spirit 

(possession) it lives/exists inside him, he came to meet 

Jesus. This fella man he lives around in the place dead 

(cemetery) and he came. 

Em i save slip long ples matmat. Na i no gat wanpela man inap 

long pasim em. Sen tu i no inap. 

o Translation: This man always/continuously slept in a 

cemetery. And not one man was able to restrain him. Chains 

too they not capable. 

Planti taim ol i bin pasim em long hankap na sen. Tasol em i 

save brukim sen na hankap tu. Em i strongpela tumas, na i no gat 

man inap long holim pas em. 

o Translation: Many times all them (i.e. they) had shackled 

him in handcuffs and chains. But/however? he 

continuously broke the chains and the shackles too, he is 

strong fella too much, and not any man was capable of 

holding him. 

Oltaim long san na long nait em i stap long matmat na long 

maunten. Na em i save singaut nogut na katim skin bilong em yet 

ston. 

o Translation: All time in the sun and in the night he 

lived/walked in the cemetery and on the hills. And he 

continually cried out and cut his skin with his only stone.



Solomon’s Pijin: Corresponding Text with Literal Translation 

1. Bihaen olketa i go long narasaet long big wata Galili. Desfala 

haf ia olketa i go soa long hem, i haf bulong olketa pipol long 

Gerasa. 

a. Translation: Bihaen they go to otherside of Sea Galilee. 

This fella/man have with they go ashore with him, it (3 rd 

person) has belonging to them (plural) people of Gerasa. 

2. Steretwe taem Jisas i go soa, wanfela man wea i stap long 

berigiraon i kamaot fo mitim hem. Desfala man ia devol nogud i 

stap long hem. 

a. Translation: Straightaway time Jesus he goes ashore, one 

fella/man who he stays/lives in the cemetery he come out 

for meeting him. This fella/man with devil no good/evil it 

stays inside him. 

3. Ples bulong hem nao long berigiraon. Bikos hem i karangge tumas, 

no man i save taemapim. 

a. Translation: Place belonging to him is (copula) in a 

cemetery. Because he continuously too much, no man he 

continue/keep tie him up. 

4. Plande taem olketa i hankapem han an lek bulong hem, bat hem i 

smasing olketa nomoa. No man i storong fitim fo holem. 

a. Translation: Plenty times they handcuffed/shackled his 

hands and legs belonging to him, but he smash them/they 

nomore/completely. No man strong fit them for holding him. 

5. De an nait hem i no save stap kwait. Hem i waka long go olabaot 

long melewan berigiraon an olketa hil. Hem i waka tu long 

singaot karangge an katem bodi bulong hem wetem ston. 

a. Translation: Day and night he not continually staying 

quiet. He walks around going all about meadow one (?) 

cemetary and them (plural) mountains. He walks too 

while/with crying continually and cutting his body 

belonging to him with his stone.

Analysis: 



The first observation I made was somewhat on a macro level. 

I noticed that, while the general plot remains similar amongst 

the texts, the literal translations indicate that the pidgin 

languages (Tok Pisin and Pijin) deviate from the King James text 

in terms of word-sequencing and, thus, ideas conveyed. That is 

to say, the exact sequence of words in the Tok Pisin and Pijin 

texts do not translate into the same sequence used in the King 

James Bible. The exact storyline and/or perspective is changed 

somewhat. It is important to note that the word sequences, 

ideas, and perspectives are also not identical between the 

pidgin languages; however, Tok Pisin and Pijin seem to be much 

more similar with one another, at least in this respect, than 

they are with English. As an example, based on the mere 

presence or absence of lexical items in the texts, the actual 

name “Jesus” is not present in the King James text; however, the 

name “Jisas” is present in both Pacific pidgins (even spelled 

the same). 

As I just mentioned, the data representing the two pidgin 

languages display similar lexical items. In my opinion, the 

word “save” is the most interesting, and one of the most 

illuminating in terms of English to pidgin development, found in 

both pidgin texts. The word “save” indicates continuity in the 

action, even, and/or situation. It is best translated to mean 

something like “continually”. One does not need to travel very 

far mentally and logically to see how a word clearly derived 

from the English word “save” (meaning “to hold or to maintain”) 

could be reanalyzed to indicate continuity. In fact, this 

reanalysis situation is very representative of many instances 

observed in the texts. For example, Pijin uses the word “stap”,



which is likely derived from the English word “stop”, to 

indicate a durative action (i.e. to stay). Additionally, the 

word “long” is used generically in both pidgin languages to 

represent prepositions (e.g. in, on, inside, etc.). As one 

might expect, this word is likely derived from the English 

preposition “along”, which is, indeed, very general as a 

locative preposition. 

As I mentioned previously, the data indicates that English 

words are often reanalyzed in very unique ways during the 

derivation of a pidgin lexical item. Sometimes, the derivation 

process involves the reanalysis and combination of two English 

words. For example, the English words “this” and “fella” have 

been combined to form “dispela” in Tok Pisin and “desfala” in 

Pijin; both meaning “a man already referred to” while “wanpela” 

and “wanfela” (one fella) mean “an introduced man”. It is 

likely that these words formed in the languages because, like 

many other pidgin languages, they do not make use of articles; 

thus, the language must compensate in other ways for indicating 

definiteness and indefinites. The nature of pidgins and creoles 

probably leads to compensation in other ways and for other 

reasons. For example, I suspect that the word “matmat” (meaning 

“cemetery” in Tok Pisin) was likely formed via the 

reduplification of “mat” (probably meaning “dead”) to compensate 

for the minimal words being adopted from the full array of 

English words pertaining to death and the dead; likely from 

minimal exposure. In other words, it is easier to compensate 

for a missing word in the vernacular by simply forming a word 

from a previously formed word than it is to form one from 

scratch; especially if one just repeats that previously formed 

word. In this case, compensation is driven by a lack of input



and a necessity for a new word. It is likely that compensation 

also plays a role in the reanalysis process already mentioned 

and even in other features shared by many pidgins and creoles. 

The following paragraph mentions what the data indicates about 

the nature of Tok Pisin and Pijin with respect to these 

features. 

Minimal grammatical inflection is a common 

characteristic shared by many pidgins and creoles. Indeed, the 

data indicates that Tok Pisin and Pijin use grammatical 

inflections relatively less than other languages; however, I did 

observe instances of verbal inflection in Tok Pisin. 

Specifically, Tok Pisin marks the transitivity of verbs with a 

suffix “- im”. The “-im” indicates that verb takes an object. 

I didn’t observe any other cases of inflection within the 

remaining Tok Pisin data nor did I observe any inflection in the 

Pijin data. However, the lack of inflection is compensated for 

in another way – by adding additional words in sentences to 

indicate various features of arguments (e.g. person, plurality). 

For example, the word “i” is added to indicate third person in 

both pidgins while the words “ol” and “olketa” are added in Tok 

Pisin and Pijin, respectively, to indicate plurality; often 

referring to “they” or “them”. Interestingly, the words 

indicating plurality share morphology, “ol” is present in “ol” 

and “olketa”, and the Tok Pisin data indicates that this 

morphological unit is also used in other words, possibly as a 

prefix (e.g. “oltaim” means “all the time”). 

Another common feature of pidgins and creoles is the 

minimal use of copulas. However, the data indicates that Pijin, 

but not Tok Pisin, deviates from this expected feature. Line 3 

in the Pijin text contains the word “nao”, which I concluded is



being used as a copula verb similarly to how English speakers 

would use “is”. Interestingly, the presence of this word seems 

to tie my whole analysis together because it also illustrates 

the importance of reanalysis and compensation in pidgin lexical 

formation. I first analyzed the word “nao” as meaning “now”, 

which may actually be the English word bearing its origins, but 

then reanalyzed the word as a copula. I did this because, even 

if the word does translate more directly into “now”, I felt that 

it was ultimately acting as the copula in the sentence to 

connect an argument to a feature (i.e. the cemetery has the 

feature of belonging to him). After all, I was able to 

understand how the concept of “now-ness/current-ness” could 

easily be analyzed as an indicator of simultaneity between an 

argument and a feature; which is one way to analyze a copula. 

If one thinks about it conceptually, even in English, a copula 

does ultimately indicate the coexistence of the argument and the 

feature/characteristic. In other words, it attaches the real- 

time existence of the argument to the real-time existence of the 

feature. With all of this in mind, there is no wonder that 

copulas are used in progressive sentences (e.g. The cat is 

running). The “cat” and “running-ness” are coexisting. Indeed, 

this is possibly a “Plato’s Forms” way of analyzing copulas.

Comparison of Pidgin Languages: Tok Pisin and ... - Derek Dailey

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?