Re: Volcae and Volsci

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

>
> 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.
>

You could argue the same with any other creole language; any
linguist worth his salt would find the rules leading back to the
original acrolect (inasmuch as it was known to him)

> >> 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.

They all show a continous line of development from their mother
tongue. The salient fact about Afrikaans is that it is the language
of the tribe that decided to stay and therefore broke with the
language of back home. The 'top acrolect' was dropped. I'm arguing
the same happened with the various Germanic languages when they
became Christian and the old power elite became irrelevant.


Torsten