[tied] Re: Creole Romance?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:
>
> >>>> Any speaker imitates other speakers. According to your
> terminology,
> >>>> nobody really speaks English or French, we all use imitations

of

> >>>> them. So in which conditions can one say "I speak English
> (French)"
> >>>> in opposition to "I speak an imitation of English (French)"?

Just

> >>>> to clarify this point.
> >>>
> >>> The former is short for the latter.
> >>
> >> If the two formulas are equivalent from your point of view,

there

> >> is no opposition between them (incidentally, your terminology is
> >> confusing). My question contained an essential

keyword "opposition

> ".
> >
> > My answer didn't.
>
> That is: your answer was not answering my question
>
> > It's your terminology, not mine.
>
> Well, most people in the world still say they're speaking

languages,

> not imitations of them. What would you call English (French)

language

> if the main blah-blah of people in UK, USA and other places is to be
> called "imitation of English" according to your terminology?

But it isn't. _You_ introduced the whole distinction-between-language-
and-imitation-thing.

>

> >> Written English of nowdays belongs obviously to the same

diasystem

> >> as spoken English. The discrepancy is _only_ in pronunciation,

not

> >> in structure. Therefore there is no point in declaring "written
> >> English" as "English ((c) - T.G. Pedersen)" in opposition with
> >> "spoken English" re-labeled as "Other Language than English".

Both

> >> written and spoken forms are English.
> >
> > Exactly my point. Since there's no point in doing it, no one does.
> > Except in Papua New Guinea, where there is a political point.
>
> ... since Tok Pisin is not spoken English but spoken creole, there

is

> also some linguistical support.

It is an English creole, therefore, given enough time and exposure
to "proper" English, all of Paoua would eventually be English-
speaking.

>
> >> I didn't missed your point. It's just totally irrelevant for the
> >> issue we discuss here. I only pointed out _why_ Tok Pisin (or

its'

> >> further evolutionary stages) could _never_ be labeled as English.
> >
> > Give it another 50 years without a written language and it would

be

> > English.
>
> No, since the place is occupied by English.
>

???

> >> You seem to infer that there were a lot of intermediate speakers
> >> from A to B, at a given time during Middle Ages, in a given

place.

> >> That is not supported by any facts and by any logic.
> >
> > As for facts: given that surviving sources are so rare, you
> > wouldn't get any examples of "bad Romance".
>
> Known sources are still pointing to that A/B story. If you want to
> build up a unnecessary and unobservable theory, without any facts in
> support of it, feel free to produce it, but be aware of that Occam
> guy, frantically shaking a razor.
>

He might try to start at the introduction of Latin in the colonies.
See if he can slash away the necessity of a creole transition phase.

> >>>> The geographical variation,
> >>>
> >>> At what time after the fall of Rome did that geography begin to
> >>> vary?
> >>
> >> If you'd bothered to read all the phrase, you'd have seen what I
> >> mean by "geographical variation" which you seem to confuse with
> >> "variation of geography".
> >
> > ??
>
> Since you wrote "geography begin to vary", I interpreted that in

the

> normal sense (that is: you asking about "variation of geography").

If

> your formula really was to be interpreted in a *very* figurate

sense,

> then I misunderstood you.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. In the future I will mark sarcasm
clearly with smileys.

>
> >>>> What "creole-like" features are you speaking of? Those like
> >>>> partial conservation of verbal and nominal systems?! :-)
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
>
> >> [...] conservation -- even partial -- of verbal and nominal

systems

> >> rules out creolization. I have to recognize that I didn't

expected

> >> you to say "yes" to this argument.
> >
> > That's not an argument, that's a definition.
>
> Partial conservation is not a definition, is a linguistical fact
> which
> can be taken into account as argument ruling out creolization.
>

You have a knack for parsing my sentences wrong. This is what I meant:

"
conservation -- even partial -- of verbal and nominal systems rules
out creolization
"
is not an argument, it's a definition.

> >>>> No, these are facts. Not even arguments. Your judgement

follows

> >>>> the pattern:
> >>>> 1. {at some moment t0, A & B are (in some sense) the same}
> >>>> 2. {at some moment t1, some authority decides B =/= A}
> >>>> => [your contribution]
> >>>> 3. {there is discontinuity in B (with respect to A) at t1]
> [...]
> >> In general, showing some counterexamples (as I did in my

previous

> >> posts) should have been enough to make you get rid of {{1 & 2}

=>

> 3}
> >> judgement.
> >
> > Examples counter to what?
>
> To the type {{1 & 2} => 3} judgement as exposed above.
>

Judgement? Do you know what you are talking about?

> Summing up: you note some simplifying features of Romances with
> respect to Latin. Some of them can be observed also for creoles
> with respect to their creolized source language. You infer: some
> similar features could mean similar derivation up to some point.

No, I hypothesize that.

> The inference is not valid since the originating process is
> different. The shared simplifying features are absolutely natural:
> most simplifying processes affect too complicate morphologies, hard
> to remember of when laziness gets into play.

What is your metric for 'too complicated'? Why was Latin grammar OK
for everyone 2000 years, and suddenly it was 'too complicated', when
eg. Russian has a grammar today that is similar (in 'complication')
to Latin, and the Russians don't seem to complain?

>In Romanian we have
> even today samples of linguistical laziness: "ei avea" instead of
> "ei aveau" (confusion of 3rd persons singular and plural into one
> and only form) is very common in low level language; idiosyncrasy
> of using conjunctive form has the tendency to replace normal future:
> "o sa fac" instead of "voi face" (`I'll do`); declined forms have
> the tendency to be replaced by prepositional forms: "cartea lui
> Maria" (or even "cartea la Maria" in some regions) instead of the
> correct literary "cartea Mariei". All these examples are pointing
> in the very same direction of progressively eliminating too-hard-
> to-remember-in-real-time-conversation-for-lazy-minded-people-type
> grammar. And, of course, that is not creolization: it is realized
> within the system, by native speakers.

Where do you get all these 'of course's and 'obviously's from?

> That is: those similarities in some features are expected, not
> meaningful.

??

>The definition of pidgin/creole relies on the process
> of discontinuous creation "over the night".

And Latin didn't happen in Gaul or Dacia over night? Those Gauls and
Dacians that were there to experience it would disagree.

>The some shared features
> in simplifying are not definitory for creoles.

They are not in your definition of 'creole'.

>If you want to check
> if a language went through a creolization phase, you have to look
> for all its' features: if you find features not compatible with
> creolization (and this is the case for Romances), or if you don't
> find all creole features (and this is still the case for Romances),
> you cannot assert a creole phase.

Unless I expand the definition of 'creole' to capture them ,which I
did.

> Looking just on some features and inferring a creole phase would
> be like looking to French "cent" [sã] and "chien" [Syã] and stating
> it is a Satem language.

Erh?

>In fact it isn't since the process leading
> to "cent" and "chien" is totally different in timing with respect to
> Satem shift, hence being something else.

I think I knew that. So?

> Therefore, the correct question to ask is: was the birth of Romance
> languages the result of some abrupt discontinuity point in time, in
> which they acquired all creole features?!

See above.

>The answer is no, because:
> 1. Romances haven't all creole languages features, creoles haven't
> all Romance features and those shared are several orders of

magnitude

> less important in the case of Romances with respect to creoles;
> 2. there is no discontinuity in time between VL and Romances. Were
> it any definitory discontinuity, that should have been since the
> very beginning of Roman conquest -- but nobody noticed that for
> quite a long time: people were convinced up to Middle Ages that
> vernacular speaking was still Latin. The case with pidgins is all on
> the opposite: people know from the start they are speaking something
> else.

They do? When the English(?) wrote down a grammar of Delaware they
discovered after some length of time to their dismay that the
Delawares were talking foreigner Delaware to them, to be understood
better. Back to square one!

>Late acknowledgement that "rustica romana lingua" was different
> from Latin is the clear indication of a slow process, not of a

sudden

> discontinuity during Middle Ages: you tried to make a case of it,

but

> that's useless since {{1 & 2} => 3} judgement as above is not valid.
>

Oh.

Torsten