25-06-03 13:29, tgpedersen wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> wrote:
>> At 9:28:52 AM on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:
>> > Why is that clear?
>>
>> If the question isn't rhetorical, I suggest consulting the
>> vast literature on Romance linguistics. It might also be
>> necessary to learn what is traditionally meant by 'pidgin'.
>>
> But after having consulted the vast literature on Romance
> linguistics, don't you feel capable of explaining it, oh erudite one?
> And thanx, I already know what is traditionally meant by pidgin.
>
Torsten,
The answer is simple: there is no linguistic evidence that (any of) the
Romance languages passed through a pidgin/creole phase in the transition
from Latin to modern Romance. If you are privy to such evidence, please
share it with us instead of giving us your Socratic irony. Since none of
the pidgins that _might_ have arisen as a result of contacts between
Latin and Gaulish, Dacian, Gothic and other "local" languages has left
any discernible traces, the assumption of their existence serves no
useful purpose.
If you know the established definition of "pidgin", please don't use
your private terminology instead. Otherwise you drag me, and other
people, into purely terminological disputes, producing unnecessary
annoyance.
Piotr