[tied] Re: Creole Romance? [was: Thracian , summing up]

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

> > There is really a break, but not in the language which evolves
> > continuously. The break is in attestation and recognizing the
> > evolution has gone far enough.
> >
> In other words, we can't follow in detail the development in stages
> from Latin to the Romance language, but we strongly believe that's
> what happened.

"Strongly believe"? No, we accept what we have evidence for. The
available evidence forces us to assume continuity. We simply don't
know if there were any breaks patched up at a a later date (i.e.
short-lived pidgins subsequently replaced by "mainstream
Proto-Romance"). There is no evidence of them, so we don't assume
their existence. It's an agnostic rather than negationist attitude. If
you want to argue in favour of Pidgin Latin, you should present _your_
evidence; then we can talk.

Piotr