Re: Creole vs. Pidgin

Nik Taylor wrote:
>Kristian Jensen wrote:
>> dialect called Cavite=F1o. (Chavacano is a Spanish creole spoken in =
the
>> Philippines). He taught me some Cavite=F1o, and the word order is NOT =
SVO.
>> Its consistently VSO.
>
>Fascinating.  I had a suspicion that there would be exceptions.  Thank
>you.  I take it that the substrate language(s)' word order is also VSO?
Yes, that's right. All Filipino languages are verb initial languages.=20
But something resembling SVO also does occur in pragmatically marked=20
constructions in Filipino languages. So actually, its curious why=20
Chavacano did not just adopt an SVO word order.

>>      ta     come usted ba
>
>Do you know the origin of this _ta_ and _ba_?  _ta_ looks like it might
>be connected with _est=E1_.
As Barry already pointed out, _ba_ is a Filipino question particle.

I don't know where _ta_ come from, but preverbal particles are common=20
among Spanish and Portuguese based creoles. In fact, from what I have=20
seen, _ta_ is quite similar across different Spanish and Portuguese=20
based creoles. So it probably derived from a common Iberian word.=20
Perhaps _est=E1_ as you say.

In other creoles, preverbal particles express tense. But in Chavacano,=20
they have been interpreted as aspect.

The other particles are derived, I'm sure, from Filipino particles:=20
_na_ is identical with the morpheme expressing perfective in all=20
Filipino languages, the same almost goes for _di_ which expresses the=20
contemplated aspect in some Filipino languages.

>>      ta     habla elle chavacano contigo
>
>Interesting, it actually borrowed the form _contigo_?  I would've
>thought that they'd simply say _con tu_ or _con usted_.
I noticed this too when I was first introduced to the word. ;-)

>>      na      sabe el  mga chiquitos aquel como habla chavacano
>
>_na_ and _mga_?  Those can't be from Spanish, can they?  Are they
>borrowed from the substrate lang, do you know?
Regarding _na_, see above.

Regarding _mga_ [ma'Na], this is a Tagalog pluralizer. The wierd=20
thing I feel is that even though Chavacano nouns are marked for=20
plurality by adding '-s', Chavacano still uses _mga_. Thereby doubly=20
marking plurality.


Nik also wrote later:
>Barry Garcia wrote:
>> Interesting. My friend Liz is fluent in Chavacano. She says that the =
verbs
>> are all in the usted form (from what i see it seems to be that way =
with
>> your examples)
>
>I wonder, is that really from the usted form, or is it from the
>infinitive form with final -r lost?  Is the _habla_ in Kristian's
>examples pronounced ['abla] or [ab'la]?  From what I've read about
>Romance-based creoles (admittedly, not much), it seems that most use =
the
>infinitive (which is most apparent in irregular verbs and -ir verbs),
>for example, the Media Lengua I mentioned in my last post has _i_, not
>_ba_ for "go" (inf =3D ir, usted form =3D va)
Its pronounced with stress in the first syllable, so I think Barry is=20
right. Which reminds me, another curious thing about Chavacano is that=20
many of the Spanish words used reflect a more formal, polite, or=20
positive use, thereby acknowledging indirectly the 'superiority' of=20
the colonial tongue. Hence _usted_ instead of _tu_ for the second=20
person pronoun. Similarly, many adjectives with a 'positive' meaning=20
are based on Spanish, while adjectives with 'negative' meanings are=20
based on Filipino words. For example, _dulse_ for 'sweet' versus=20
_mapa?it_ for 'bitter'.

-kristian- 8)