--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:
>>>>> As time goes, creoles are superseded by still more credible
>>>>> imitations of the donor.
[...]
>> Oh, yes. But that's a different story. Proper English or French
>> impose themselves not as "imitations" but as normal languages of
>> culture in their usual correct form. [...]
>
> And it's 'different' by your fiat.
No. English and French are living languages. There is no `imitation`
of some dead language: it's just English or French. When I speak
French I don't imitate French language, I just speak French.
>> So you cannot accept that such a transition can spring from a
>> smooth continous process?!
>
> No, I can't accept that a discontinuity can 'spring' from a
> continuity, this discontinuity being the one we see in the sources.
You should have understood up by now that there is no linguistical
discontinuity in time, just the amount of changes being obviously
too important to be further ignored. The discontinuity is only at
the perception level. As if you decide to explore some steps of the
stairs at the groundlevel in a Grand Hotel, and after a while you
suddenly discover that you're no longer at the ground level but at
the first floor: there is no big discontinuity between succesive
steps, making your climbing quasi-continuous, but there is a clear
discontinuity in conscience when finding out you changed the floor.
>> That's about political importance. On cybalist, linguistics
>> should have a place of honour, though.
>
> Languages are spoken by people. The particular language, sociolect
> or register chosen is a function of what you call politics.
Yes, but of minor interest for our goals. One chief speaks using
the other's army vernacular, in order to give a supplementary weight
to his words. That's all, nothing to be used here.
>> That's explained too. But let me put it in another form. It's
>> about the "sand pile paradox", already debated by ancient Greeks:
[...]
>> At no intermediate moment one can infer a _sudden_ occurence of
>> a lot of Romance features in that vernacular, changing its'
>> character from "definitely Latin" to "definitely Romance".
>> On the contrary, for pidgins this is definitory.
>
> Thank you for explaining 'continuity' to me. Other than that you
> are just restating your position.
That's bad understanding. I did not explain continuity but *why*
the transition from Latin to Romance is quasi-continuous.
>> "Continuous evolution by progressive accumulation of Romance
>> features" would finally please you?!
>
> No.
After previous explanation still doesn't?! Then see above.
> Let me explain here that I don't have a problem with a continuous
> development from Latin to a Romance language. But where you at any
> given time see e.g. a uniform, mutually completetly intelligible
> language, I see at any given place and time a range of sociolects or
> registers, from (passably) perfect Latin in the monasteries down
> (sociologically speaking) to creole-like low-register sociolects.
No. There was no continuous range of sociolects. There were two
idioms, say A and B, in evolution. During Classical Latin stage,
A is the "good" Latin usage and B is the vernacular Latin. Both
A and B belong to what is called "Latin" (system). As history
goes on, A became progressively a dead language as practically
lesser and lesser people were spoking it as mother tongue, whilst
B acquired more and more Romance features. Between A and B, during
this transition period, there was some influence, some constructions
specifical to B springing out in A texts. That is easy to understand
since most A writers were also B speakers and they still thought
A and B were belonging to the same system.
Evolution of B was obviously faster and *not* due to A writers
(forming a insignificant minority), but to the large mass of people
who had no worry about conserving a "good" A. It was a continuous
process, as well as the somehow slower degradation of A with respect
to Classical Latin. At some historical point (described in D.N.'s
pdf), A writers decided (or were told to) to sistematize degraded A
by restoring the Classical Latin A. At this moment, A was already a
dead idiom for several centuries and the discontinuity in writing
it doesn't concern directly Romance languages [it has something to
do with these for some Medieval Latin loanwords and nothing more].
At some other historical moment, people realized that A and B can
no longer considered one same language. Since A was constructed as
Classical Latin, that accounts for acknowledgement that B cannot be
called Latin; though continuing vernacular Latin from Classical
period, it was called "rustica romana lingua". That is: B is the
living language in continuous evolution having given birth to
Romance languages and the only interesting object in diachrony.
A is a dead language of interest as source of inspiration, but not
as idiom with descendents.
> And therefore, when a political decision was made that we need a
> language for this particular area that happened to be ruled over
> by one monarch, that language was chosen somewhat down the scale,
> and therefore contained creole-like features. So there!
What "creole-like" features are you speaking of? Those like partial
conservation of verbal and nominal systems?! :-)
The language was chosen because was the only living one. The fact
that choice was made at a definite moment has nothing to do with
language's continuity over the time and does not imply any fracture
point in its' evolution.
Cheers,
Marius Iacomi