Re: Evolving a Pidgin (was Re: Reduction and Grammaticalization)

>>
>>I should probably warn you that most Creolists no longer believe
>>in this view of creoles and pidgins.  It's been fairly clearly
>>shown by the likes of Michel Degraff and Salikoko Mufwene that
>>creoles do not evolve out of pidgins, and that languages often
>>called pidgins are often every bit as complete as regular languages.
>>But otherwise, I think the project is an interesting one.
>>
>>
>
>Oh dear! This is what I had been led to believe was the current
>thought on pidgin > creole formation. Could you possibly point me to a
>website or paper (on- or offline) that discusses this?
>
>
>
As I already said I'm really interested in pidgins and creoles and their
formation at the moment, so the request for more information is
seconded. :) Perhaps the reason languages often called pidgins are as
complete as normal languages is because people have kept calling them
pidgins when they've long since become creoles? (assuming for a second
that the traditional view of pidgins and creoles is true). If not, is
there any difference? Or can we safely drop the word "pidgin" and simply
refer to all such languages as creoles?