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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 28-06-03 11:41, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > I'm not insisting on using the word 'creole'. I'm saying that the
> > difference between a classical creole situation and that of the
> > origin of the Romance languages is one of degrees, not category.

How

> > else account for the 'worn' look of the Germanic and Romance
> > languages compared to, say, the Slavic ones?
>
> So, according to you, the Slavic languages did not undergo
> "creolisation" (in the strictly Pedersenian meaning of the term)?

And

> that despite all those contacts between the Slavs and the Iranians,
> Avars, East, West and finally North Germanic speakers, the
> Romance-speaking Vlachs, the Greeks, and a dozen other peoples? Not

that

> I envy other nations their worn-looking languages... but why?
>

Exactly. Why? As usual you hit the nail on the head. 'Why?' is what I
asked myself, 'have Romance and Germanic lost so much inflection, so
many paradigms?'. Not that I'm ungrateful for all the lectures on
what a creole should be, that people have dumped on me, but why are
those language families so, comparatively ... (deep breath) creole-
like?

Torsten