[tied] Re: Creole Romance? [was: Thracian , summing up]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:

>> If you know the established definition of "pidgin", please don't
>> use your private terminology instead. Otherwise you drag me, and
>> other people, into purely terminological disputes, producing
>> unnecessary annoyance.
>
> As time goes, creoles are superseded by still more credible
> imitations of the donor.

Who says so?

> "The opposite view" of those who disagreed with me was
>
> 1) There is no variation by region in the type of vulgar Latin that
> is found in the Roman provinces.

Up to some historical moment. When central power collapsed, several
different convergence areas arose naturally.

> 2) We can follow step by step the progression from Latin to the
> modern Romance languages.
>
> I find it difficult to reconcile the two statements.

So you find difficult to accept that people speaking initially
the same language can split into several different populations,
ending up by speaking different tongues?!

> Any encyclopedia article on a Romance language will tell you:
> "the first text in Romance language X is ... in the year ...".
> It seems to me there is assumed to be a break here.

There is really a break, but not in the language which evolves
continuously. The break is in attestation and recognizing the
evolution has gone far enough.

> To give an example: French is supposed to have begun with the
> Strasbourg oaths.

No. Strasbourg Oaths mark the first clear Romance text, recognized
as such (in opposition with Latin). French starts conventionally
with Strasbourg Oaths, but the day before Ludwig pronouncing the
canonical text "Pro Deo amur [...]", people in Gaul were still
speaking the same vernacular.

> It is interesting to learn from one of the latest postings that
> Charlemagne insisted on a "correct" pronunciation of Latin.

No, this is a different story. I think you should read first that
chapter from Dag Norberg's book reccomended by Piotr some time ago,
which is called "A brief history of Medieval Latin". You find the
pdf in the "Files" section of cybalist.

> This looks like going half the way down the path of creoles,

Looks like but it isn't. For the very same diachronical reasons.

> but why don't we have a word for that phenomenon?

We do have. "Continuous evolution" fits well.

> Extending the definition of 'creole' seems the natural way to go.

I find that not necessary

> As for the fact that no pidgin or creole Latin has been found: what
> about those semi-intelligible inscriptions that make experts give
> up?

What are you talking about? Graffiti?! Just look on your walls
and try to understand what's written there.

> Don't forget that we know from Jerome that they still spoke
> Celtic around Trier long after the empire collapsed.

So?!

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi