From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 21326
Date: 2003-04-28
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Was proto-romance a pidgin?
>> It's being revised all the time, but the revisions are better left
to the researchers who study actual pidgins and creoles. At any
rate, there doesn't seem to be any need at present to redefine the
well-established terminology of creole studies.
> I didn't know you were one of those researchers?
I'm not, so I'm not trying to revolutionise the field.
>> ["Creolisation"] does not mean "changes that could be attributed to imperfect learning in contact conditions".
> I don't think I said that.
You didn't, and sorry if my use of quotation marks suggested I was citing you. I didn't intend that. I used my own words to define what seemed to me to underlie your talking about "creolised" Vulgar Latin (and in earlier discussions about English and other languages as products of "creolisation").
Piotr