--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
<Snip>
> And of course the obsessive concentration on a single substratal
element in a language that has several such components, and even
demanding that the language should be genetically re-classified for
the sake of that particular substrate is something no linguist can
approve of.
I wonder how much grief has been caused by the ambiguity of the
word 'substrate':
1. The remains of a (usually dead) language embedded in another.
2. The remains (including influences) of a population's original
language embedded in the higher-status language that has replaced it.
(There may be better definitions of these two notions.)
Meaning 1 is the one given by the OED.
I looked up the term in Crystal's 'Encyclopedia of Language' last
night. It gives Meaning 2 only.
Examples of grief:
A. Alex is keenly interested in a 'substrate' as defined by Meaning
2. What he latched onto was a 'substrate' with Meaning 1.
B. Piotr and I had one exchange on Bangani simply because I was
unaware of Meaning 1.
Richard.