--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:
>>>> (one might say a "pidgin French"), and that the fascist
>>>> linguistic policies following on from Grégoire's 1794 report
>>>> ("Rapport sur la necessité et les moyens d'anéantir les patois
>>>> et d'universaliser l'usage de la langue française")
>>
>>> Hm! Given their similar political situations, would you call
>>> Catalan a "Spanish pidgin"?
>>
>> Miguel did not call Occitan "pidgin French", he just said some
>> people might consider it erroneously as such.
>
> That is your interpretation of what 'one' means here.
That's the interpretation of a person reading the phrases in their
whole context, then making the point: "Occitan, [...] is a daughter
language of Latin. It is not a pidgin, not a creole, and it doesn't
have Gaulish morphology, so the existence of Occitan has no relevance
to the present topic of discussion, except perhaps very obliquely by
the fact that it was -- and in certain circles still is -- considered
a "patois" (one might say a "pidgin French") [...]". The parenthesis
refers to the French word "patois" which means `a kind of involuted
form of (French) language`. Miguel explained its' sense by analogy
with your favorite lexeme "pidgin", suggesting that could be the
only weak link between Occitan and your Creole Romance theory; but
you should be aware of the fact that those "certain circles" in
which people might still consider it "patois" have nothing to do
with science. This was an idiocy taught once in French schools in
order to make native Occitanian speakers be ashamed of their own
tongue and speak only the official language. It was connected not
to linguistics but on linguistical policy. I can guarantee you that
nowdays French books no longer propagate this idiocy (having already
lectured a good amount of books has been helpful), but the damage
has been done and Occitan language looks on a extinction path.
> Why bot ask Miguel?
You may ask anyone you want.
>> As a general matter, you failed to produce any valid argument
>> in order to support your theory that Romances are a kind of
>> Latin pidgin/creole, offering only irelevent & false analogies.
>> OTOH, you didn't give an answer to relevant part of critics of
>> your position, you have just ignored them. That's not the usual
>> approach in science and reminds me some funny stories which I
>> won't mention here.
>
> Only happy to amuse you. Could you be more specific?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21403 sums up some
important points hinted recently also by Piotr, Brian, Miguel &
others.
Cheers,
Marius Iacomi