From: tgpedersen
Message: 20679
Date: 2003-04-02
> At 3:55:06 AM on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:You introduced this distinction - I didn't. Of course there would
>
> > Yes, I should have checked that there was also
> > declensional simplification etc.
>
> <shrug> I suggest that in future efforts to communicate
> your ideas, you insert boilerplate reminding your readers
> that you use your own definition of 'creole'. I have only
> one question: how do you distinguish your 'creoles' from
> real ones -- those born of pidgins -- terminologically? Or
> do you really think that all of your 'creoles' do derive
> from pidgins?
>