Re: Are pidgins natlangs? (was Re: Telona Grammar, part 2)
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, February 14, 2002, 18:07|
>In a message dated 2002.02.12 11.03.45 PM, Philip.Newton@GMX.NET writes:
> >On 12 Feb 02, at 8:14, Jim Grossmann wrote:
> >> One nitpick: techically, are pidgins natlangs? I've heard that
> >> they're contrived by definition, although they take their lexicons
> >> from natlangs, and often serve as the ancestors of natlangs (namely
> >> creoles) in the space of a generation.
> >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
> Of course pidgins and creoles are NatLangs. They naturally arise from
>cultural contact (or, more likely, imperialistic contact), hence another
>of saying "pidgins and creoles" is to simply say "contact languages" or
>"languages of contact."
I thought "natlang" was to be expanded as "native language", in which case
pidgins by definition aren't any, wereas creoles by definition are. What do
you mean by "natlang"? "Naturally occuring language"?
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: