> En réponse à Joe :
>
>
>> Surely, a Creole is a Pidgin that is spoken as a firstl language by some
>> people...
>
>
> Not exactly correct. It's true that a pidgin that becomes a L1 turns
> into a creole, but that's a side-effect, not the main definition of
> the word "creole". Basically, pidgins and creoles are both contact
> languages, and the frontier between the two (an admittedly blurred
> one) is on grammatical completeness: a pidgin is normally *not* a
> complete grammatical system (there *are* things that are *totally*
> unexpressible in a pidgin, how hard you try it) while a creole is
> "complete": it doesn't have this limitation, it is a full-fledged
> language (Some languages called pidgins are actually creoles, and
> vice-versa, but that's common to mix terms among humans :) ). So of
> course, when a pidgin becomes a L1, the L1 speakers will *create* the
> missing structures necessary to make the language full-fledged (it
> seems to be a remarkable feature of the brains to add things where
> they didn't exist at first, and it seems to be rather innate :) . But
> it's perfectly consistent with the works of the brains as
> pattern-finder :) ), and the pidgin will become a creole. But that
> doesn't make a creole "a pidgin that is spoken as firt language by
> some people". There are creoles out there which started out already
> full-fledged, with no trace of a pidgin stage.
>
>
>> Is Esperanto?
>
>
> It has never been a pidgin, but it does have native speakers
> ("denaskaj Esperantistoj" as they are called in Esperanto, although I
> prefer the term "Esperantoparolantoj" and reserve the term
> "Esperantisto" for people who actually believe in the role of
> Esperanto as world IAL and want to support it. I am myself an
> "Esperantoparolanto": an Esperantophone, but not an Esperantist by any
> stretch of words). I've even been told that there are families where
> the parents are native speakers of Esperanto and the children took it
> over from their parents. So it seems to stay even at adult age :) .
> ________________________________________________________________________
> En réponse à Ph. D. :
>
>
>> Another construction which is not official and is not recognized
>> by all (most?) Esperantists is the combined progressive tense.
>>
>> A root X which is fundamentally an adjective can be made into
>> a verb which means "to be X":
>>
>> La papero estas seka = The paper is dry.
>> La papero sekas = The paper is dry.
>
>
> Also not a very accepted construction. Never understood why :( .
>
>> "anta" is the ending of the present active participle, so a
>> compound tense can be made (although not commonly used):
>>
>> Mi estas kuiranta la rizon = I am cooking the rice.
>>
>> (Normally one would simply say "Mi kuiras la rizon.")
>>
>> Some Esperantists form one verb from this:
>>
>> Mi kuirantas la rizon = I am cooking the rice.
>>
>> Again, this is not official and is deprecated by many Esperantists.
>
>
> Except in poetry where it's accepted by everyone.
>
> I am myself one of those who insisted on using the synthetic forms
> rather than the periphrastic ones which I found too long and rather
> foreign to the language. The Esperanto structure asks for synthetic
> forms. Why prevent what makes sense?
>
> It's one of the reasons why I stopped having any contact with the
> Esperanto movement. They are a bit too reactionary to my tastes :) .
>
> Christophe Grandsire.
>
>
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
>
> You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.