Re: Existence of PIE

On 2008-01-27 15:57, tgpedersen wrote:

>> They remain IE, because their continuous development from PGmc. is
>> demonstrable,
>
> So is the development of Afrikaans from Dutch.

That's why Afrikaans _is_ "pukka Germanic", to quote Richard.

> That can't be relevant.
> Demonstrability of development is a property of the documentation, not
> of the languages involved. It's like saying that if you watch paint
> dry or potatoes boil, it/they won't. I don't think Heisenberg applies
> in this particular case.

If you want to classify languages on a genetic basis you have to assume
that development is demonstrable on the basis of their properties. There
is no documentation for anything between PIE and PGmc. (including both),
but the continuity of the development from PIE to Modern English or
Afrikaans can be demonstrated nevertheless. We know what a creole
language looks like and what kind of structural replacement can't be due
to continuous change.

>> and IE is not a typological grouping.
>
> A-hm. Do you recognize this quote:
> "TP grammar is too obviously non-IE"
> ?

What I mean is, its syntax and morphology are non-inherited. Crucially,
it preserves no archaisms, no "junk DNA", so to speak. It's _all_ new
structure, not just _some_ of it.

>> Then, they all have preserved things a true contact language is
>> likely to lose (e.g. a simple preterite
>
> I thought 'simple' (ie. unitary) was a characteristic of creoles?

No. Creoles typically have analytic tenses only and no allomorphy
whatsoever, at least initially. The <sing/sang/sung> alternation
evidently goes back all the way to PIE and is a typical case of a
structure that would have been erased in the process of creolisation.
Its functionality in Mod.E is questionable. The pattern is just a
cultural replicator which has managed to survive because of its frequent
occurrence. New speakers of English would probably be happier with
<sing-ed>, but <sang> is too frequent to be ousted easily.

> Semitic-speakers presentv near the
> Germanic Urheimat may have perceived the adaptation of that IE dialect
> to the Semitic system of vowel alternation as a simplification?

What we see in contact languages is not "let's use their allomorphic
variation to express some familiar function" but rather "damn all those
tricky complications, let's begin from scratch".

>> their derivational morphology is still complex;
>
> ?? Example?

Eng. leng-th, ring-ed, wood-en, ston-y, care-less, care-less-ly,
care-less-ness, un-know-n -- you get the idea. The morphological
complexity of Middle English alowed it to absorb a Latinate
detrivational layer, but the foundation is still recognisably Germanic
and in some cases IE.

>> there are no signs of a radical simplification of their phonology
>> (another hallmark of pidginisation).
>
> Not simplification; adjustment to the phonetic inventory of the substrate.

No. The phonological system of a creole is normally much simpler than
both. The phonological systems of the (quite a few) languages which can
be regarded as "substratal" in this case are at least in some respects
more complex than that of TP. For example, Kuanua has six pairs of vowel
phonemes (long : short), while TP has only five vowels and no
phonological length contrasts.

> English has a three-way distinction in stops/continuants: b/p/f etc.
> Many languages only have two. Compare with Indian English, which has
> managed to accommodate the English system within its own by means of
> substitutions. I don't think Tok Pisin qualifies as a master pattern
> of what a creole necessarily must look like in this respect.

With sexteen consonantal and five vowel phonemes the inventory is
approximately half the size of that found in any ordinary dialect of
English. It isn't a decisive criterion in itself, but it has its weight
in combination with the rest. Tok Pisin has ALL the features of a
typical creole.

Piotr