----------
> Daniel Andreasson <daniel_noldo@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
>
> R Nierse wrote:
>
> > There are two theories: one says that Creoles look alike because they
> > reflect the basic grammar in our heads (Chomsky). The other says that
> all
> > pidgins/creoles originate from one ancestral pidgin, located
> somewhere in
> > West Africa or the Mediterranean (Lingua Franca?), that the slaves
> brought
> > with them when they were shipped to other places.
>
> How does the second theory explain such creoles as Russenorsk
> and Chinook Jargon? There can't possibly have been any African
> slaves influencing Russenorsk (Russian/Norwegian).
>
That's excatly why I don't really believe in the monogenesis theory. it
could be true for Portugese based pidgins (in Africa, Asia and the
Caribean).
> > My son (15 months) is suffering from LAAD as well. He is copying
> intonation
> > patterns right now.
>
> What's that?
Just forget that. My son is learning to speak and I like it a lot to hear
what he is "saying". It looks unintelligeble, but he manages to communicate
quite well with us, especially by means of facial expression *and* (at the
moment) intonation. Many parents I speak are not aware of how difficult it
is for a child to destilate the words out of the gibberish we utter. A
computer could never be as smart as a child when learning a language.
>
> Ok. Let me ask again:
> Does a creole with English as lexifier and a bantulanguage
> as grammifier look different from an English/Chinese creole
> regarding the grammar? I.e. does the grammar look the same
> regardless of what language is the base of the grammar?
I don't know for sure. I have only seen Pidgins that are English or
Spanish/Portugese based. The info in Chinook I have is to few to make up
what its grammar looks like.
>
> Daniel Andreasson