[tied] Re: Creole Romance?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
wrote:

> At 11:11:13 AM on Thursday, July 3, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi"
> > <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> All these examples are pointing in the very same
> >> direction of progressively eliminating too-hard-
> >> to-remember-in-real-time-conversation-for-lazy-minded-people-type
> >> grammar. And, of course, that is not creolization: it is
> >> realized within the system, by native speakers.
>
> > Where do you get all these 'of course's and 'obviously's
> > from?
>
> In this case from the definition of 'creolization'. (By the
> way, there's only one 'of course' in the entire relevant
> passage, including the part that I snipped, and there are no
> instances of 'obviously'.)

True. But your 'of course' hinges on your using the traditional
definition; I'm extending that definition, as should be clear by now,
therefore your argument is invalid.

> [...]
>
> >>The definition of pidgin/creole relies on the process
> >> of discontinuous creation "over the night".
>

See above.

>
> >>The some shared features
> >> in simplifying are not definitory for creoles.
>
> > They are not in your definition of 'creole'.
>
> Which is the standard one. If you want to make up a new
> term for whatever it is that you call a creole, fine: make
> up a new one -- 'TP-creole', if you can't think of anything
> better -- give us a definition, and use the term
> consistently. Your insistence on hijacking 'creole'
> suggests that you *want* to equivocate between the two
> senses.
>

No, I just didn't see the need for the narrow definition you are
using.

Torsten