Re: Are pidgins natlangs? (was Re: Telona Grammar, part 2)

In a message dated 02/12/02 11:03:45 PM, Philip.Newton@GMX.NET writes:

<< I suppose I would consider them auxlangs -- initially, they're an
auxiliary language, aiding comprehension between speakers of different
languages, and initially they're no-one's first language. And they
become natlangs when someone speaks them natively (as a creole), I
guess. >>

    Except they're not constructed languages, in the sense that we construct
languages.  I'm not disagreeing that they're auxilliary languages since any
language has the potential to be one, and pidgins and creoles certainly are,
but simply that they're natural in their evolution; they're not consciously
constructed the way ours are.  Another way to define a creole rather than
saying that someone speaks them natively (one can speak a pidgin natively,
after all) is to say that a creole is the stage where a pidgin's grammar has
become more or less standardized, so that all or most of the speakers of the
creole either agree on or exhibit a certain set standard of rules governing
word order, pronouns, verb aspects/tenses, etc.  (This is my own definition
which I came up with when I did my final write-up on the pidgin experiment I
ran last semester.)

-David

"Zi hiwejnat zodZaraDatsi pat Zi mirejsat dZaCajani sUlo."
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
                --Jim Morrison

Reply