Re[2]: [tied] Re: Volcae and Volsci

At 3:00:50 PM on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, Rick McCallister
wrote:

> --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

[...]

>> If I understand what you mean about Germanic expansion in
>> Central Europe, when you say "creolized", you mean that
>> Germanic was altered in the process of its expansion
>> because it was superimposed to xenophonic people by
>> Germanic speaking people. The resulting mix was somehow
>> polluted and distorted Germanic languages. I don't think
>> "creolized" is adequate. If we indulge into Greek poshy
>> words, maybe a kind of "xenolytic" alteration is better.

I don't see the need for special terminology, but I agree
with the basic idea: there's no evidence for anything more
than contact effects. Indeed this is obvious from the fact
that the Gmc. languages are clearly IE: the line of descent
is unbroken.

>> Afrikaans is a "xenolyzed" variety of Dutch.

It certainly looks like it.

> I think it's more like a standardized creole that is
> informed by the most prestigious parent language

You have yet to show that it doesn't descend in a continuous
line of development from 17th c. Dutch.

Brian