>
> And even if it were not parallel, it would demonstrate the
> original point, that a sharp break in the visible evidence
> does not *necessarily* imply a sharp break in the underlying
> object.
>
I don't know where you got that idea from. I don't think I've said
you could argue from a break in the written language to a break in
the "underlying language".
Any way, in the case of an invasion, you'd have to distinguish which
is "underlying object," the language of invader or invadee. In case
the former prevails, it might go through a creole phase in the new
territory. If the latter prevails, it most likely does in a creole
version
Torsten