Re: Easy and Interesting Languages -- Website

John Cowan wrote:
> Mark P. Line scripsit:
>
> > I think he fails to show that Modern Cham cannot be considered a creole
> > (or former creole) with Austronesian lexifier and Mon-Khmer substrates.
>
> I think the burden of persuasion would be on those who claim that it
> can, and the required evidence would consist of specifically Mon-Khmer
> characteristics in modern Cham.  The default assumption is that a language
> is not a creole or ex-creole.
>
I wasn't totally impressed with Thurgood's paper either (his "From Ancient
Cham to Modern Dialects" is excellent, however).  First of all it was
unclear which Modern Cham language/dialect he was talking about-- there are,
of course, several. Obviously these languages have developed over at least
2000 years side-by-side with AA languages, and of course there have been
mutual influences.  Whether that amounts to creolization, or koine-ization,
or merely has produced a Sprachbund, is debatable.  Bear in mind too that
over the past 1000 years, the Cham languages have gone from being
status/ruling class langs. to very minority status.

Furthermore, the reconstruction of Proto-Chamic produces a language that is
clearly related to other languages of the Malayic subgroup