Re: [tied] Re: Creole Romance?

At 11:11:13 AM on Thursday, July 3, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:

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

[...]

>> 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?

In this case from the definition of 'creolization'. (By the
way, there's only one 'of course' in the entire relevant
passage, including the part that I snipped, and there are no
instances of 'obviously'.)

[...]

>>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.

This has already been addressed at least twice. Some
pidgins may have been created in the early stages of
contact, but if so, they have left no discernible traces.

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

> They are not in your definition of 'creole'.

Which is the standard one. If you want to make up a new
term for whatever it is that you call a creole, fine: make
up a new one -- 'TP-creole', if you can't think of anything
better -- give us a definition, and use the term
consistently. Your insistence on hijacking 'creole'
suggests that you *want* to equivocate between the two
senses.

Brian