Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: pidgins & creoles was Re: Proto-Latin or Italic

From:Thomas R. Wier <artabanos@...>
Date:Monday, September 4, 2000, 22:44
Jonathan Chang wrote:

> In a message dated 2000:09:04 1:50:04 PM, artabanos@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes: > > >> "In almost all cases of pidginization, and to a lesser extent in any > >> consequent creoles that might develop from it, there is usually a complete > >> loss of all morphology of any kind from both substrate and adstrate > >> influences." > >> Yes, this is certainly true. > >> IMHO, people tend to bandy the labels "pidgin" and "creole" about > >too > >> much. > > > >I agree entirely. > > Mi ripondi yep-yep. <<Me reply yes-yes>> > I have seen some amazing claims about both pidgins & creoles... i.e. the > mostly negative & erronous statements generated on the AuxLang list. > I admit I still learning about pidgins & creoles...
Books on the subject: The textbook we used in our sociolinguistics class at UT is called _An Introduction to Sociolinguistics_ and covers the debate about pidginization and creolization fairly well. There is also a book put out by the Cambridge Linguistics Series on the topic, which is aimed at a more advanced audience than the first book, called _Pidgins and Creoles: Theory and Structure_ by John A. Holm. ====================================== Tom Wier | "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero." ======================================