Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Easy and Interesting Languages -- Website

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Friday, May 28, 2004, 14:28
Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark@...>:

> jcowan@REUTERSHEALTH.COM said: > > 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 agree that anybody who wants to claim that Cham has undergone > creolization should be prepared to show evidence, and that the rest of us > have no particular reason to believe it until she does. > > I don't agree that the absence of creolization in the evolution of a > particular language is the default assumption. Neither the absence nor the > presence of creolization can be assumed by default. By the same token, > neither the absence nor the presence of pidginization, decreolization, > koineization, segmantal assimilation, segmental dissimilation, tone > emergence, tone submergence, metrical reorganization, consonant cluster > reduction, vowel lengthening, vowel shortening, phoneme inventory > reduction, phoneme inventory expansion, etc. etc. can be assumed by > default. > > I therefore believe that anybody who wants to claim that Cham has never > undergone creolization should be prepared to show evidence, and that the > rest of us have no particular reason to believe it until she does.
I would agree if I believed that exactly 50% of all languages have undergone creolization at some point in their development, and 50% not. Andreas

Reply

Mark P. Line <mark@...>