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
> >> 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."