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

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."
======================================