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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> --- 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.

As I understand the data are:

1) Uniformly bad (and better) Latin, and then

2) Suddenly the first text of the particular Romance language appears

>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.

But there's no evidence of the first imaginary stages of the future
Romance language either. I simply don't understand your logic.

If you want to argue in favour of Pidgin Latin,
Creole, please. And with an extended definition of what a 'creole'
is. And since you refuse to go there, the discussion ends before it
begins.

>you should present _your_
> evidence; then we can talk.

For the 'creole' defined my way, yes.

Torsten