From: alex_lycos
Message: 21267
Date: 2003-04-26
----- Original Message -----
From: "rhtabone" <rhtabone@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: [tied] Was proto-romance a pidgin?
> Hi all
>
> I am looking for materials that either prove or disprove that proto
> romance was a pidgin that was later creolized
>
> My focus is on the possible creolization of Vulgar Latin by Celtic
> speaking populations.
>
> Are there any materials anyone is aware of?
>
> Thank you
That would imply the people used Latin vocabulary with celtic structure
of the language ( in the pidgim periode) and the next generations spoked
this pidgim as natives depidginzating it and making a creole of it.
The postcreoliasation means that the creole language merges lexically
with the languages it is based on ( in this case , Latin) and we have
the so called Pos-Creole-Continuum.
I doubt we can speak about this subject in Romance. The first question
should be " was there indeed an Proto Romance ( one unitary language) ?
If yes then it should have been a very short time of existence and it
became very quick diversified in what we know as "neo Latin today".
The second question should be " does the no Latin languages of today
have the Latin structure or not"?
Since in Easter Roman Empire the lexically part of Latin is in a very
big part lost ( or was never belonging to the languages) there cannot be
a creole but just loans rom Latin into these Languages.At least so I
guess.
regards.
alex