Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme

At 3:03:15 AM on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, tgpedersen
wrote:

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

>> At 3:26:48 AM on Monday, September 3, 2007, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

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

>>>> At 5:37:49 PM on Sunday, September 2, 2007, tgpedersen
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> Wrong. Runic might look like Icelandic, which it is
>>>>> close to, but the 'Continental Scandinavian' languages
>>>>> Norwegian, Swedish and Danish have been creolised in the
>>>>> same was as English, Dutch and Low German:

>>>> None of these languages has been 'creolized', unless you
>>>> have a private definition of the term that basically
>>>> means no more than this:

>>>>> drastic reduction in inflection for cases and genders in
>>>>> nouns, and person and number in verbs.

>>> What else is there to it?

>> Creolization is the formation of a creole. None of these
>> languages was ever a creole.

> Circular argument.

I'm not making an argument: I'm objecting to your misuse of
the term 'creolize'. Have you now changed your position?
You now accept that creolization requires a creole and no
longer think that 'creolization' is synonymous with 'drastic
reduction in inflection for cases and genders in nouns, and
person and number in verbs'?

If so, you are apparently contesting the claim that none of
these languages was ever a creole. Note that the drastic
reduction in inflection isn't even close to being sufficient
evidence for such a conclusion; at most it's reason to raise
the question. Certainly the history of English is clear
enough: unbroken transmission, with no creole in sight, let
alone a precursor pidgin.

Brian

Brian