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

At 5:35:40 AM on Saturday, June 28, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:

> Thank you for part two of your lecture on continuity.
> Question: When will the Anglophonians make the observation
> they no longer speak English and take appropriate action?

We do; it's Alfred and Chaucer and even Shakespeare who
didn't. ;-)

>>> 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. [...] 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.

> That is the classical position, yes. I know that. You seem
> to think I haven't understood what you are saying.

> I repeat, if it were so uniform, why all the hassles over
> incomprehensible patois' later?

Regional variation. And for sufficiently large values of
'later', new A and B varieties.

[...]

>> 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.

> More credo's.

No, it's a statement of fact: there *is* no such
implication. The fact that the choice was made at a
definite point in time is consistent with both continuous
development and an abrupt fracture. It's the *rest* of the
evidence that points decisively towards continuous
development.

Brian