Fon Consonants tckkp djggb fs vz b m n 21
kp vs. kw Sar 1Sar 218 th c.source kpéfakwéfakwefaPtg. coifa kpéikwéikwêri, kwêliEng. square ahalakpákpaaherapápa ahalakpákpa Fon hlakpakpa kpan kpanFon kpa
gb vs. gw Sar 1Sar 218 th c.source gbambagwambakwambaK. gwamba gbaninígwaninígwaninì gbegbé bebèh F. gb gb * gb l gb l bloblo F. gbl *Sranan bebé
b vs. DutchSara.gloss blaas aási 'bladder, balloon' balk áiki 'cross-beam' brak(en) baláki 'bring up' blommetje bolómítji 'flower' N.B. obvious late borrowings from Sranan
d vs. English Saramaccan gloss down + go 'go down' dead 'dead' drink 'drink' (n.) dig 'dig'
Sranan Consonants Lacks the “exotic” substrate segments of Saramaccan. Implosives appear as ordinary voiced stops /kp, gb/ are nearly always /p, b/ Lacks #mb, nd, ndj, ŋg clusters of Kikongo. Why? Due presumably to the hundreds of years of contact with Dutch.
Saramaccan diphthongs In English/Portuguese vocabulary originally only morpheme-finally. Non-final English/Portuguese diphthongs reduced to monophthongs
Fon Vowel sequences In Fon vocabulary only syllable-finally u+i>wiui o+i>we/wioe/ui +i>w /wi some of the patterns
The origin 1.We see that the earlier form of the imperfective marker was de. 2.This is homonymous with the locative copula de. 3.Therefore we can hypothesize that the original structure was actually: LocCop V
Sranan locative copula The locative copula in Sranan (and other Surinam creoles) derives from the English word there, presumably – in its copular use – something like ‘be there (at)’. Why was this chosen rather than an actual form of the verb “be”? In fact the suppletive nature of “be” with its weak enclitic stems ‘s, ‘m, ‘re would have rendered it eminently unsuitable for this purpose.
What happened to -ing -ing was just as redundant as all the various wildly different post-verbal markers in the various Gbe lects. It was therefore unnecessary – the locative copula was sufficient, an obvious substrate feature.
Conclusion Nothing inherently either complex or simple about creole grammar. Most phenomena can be explained as the effects of substratal, adstratal, or superstratal influence. In other words due to contact between languages.