RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme

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

>
> 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'.

I'm using it in the usual sense.

> Have you now changed your position?

No, and I haven't stopped beating my wife either.

> You now accept that creolization requires a creole

I've always accepted that, and the languages I mentioned started as
creoles.

> 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'?

Not synonumous but those symptoms are a strong indication it took place.

> If so, you are apparently contesting the claim that none of
> these languages was ever a creole.

Not so.

> 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.

Sez who? Can you back up that with facts?

> Certainly the history of English is clear
> enough: unbroken transmission,

Germanic invasion? 1066? Give me a break.

> with no creole in sight, let
> alone a precursor pidgin.

How do you think Hengist & Horsa or William communicated with the natives?


Torsten