Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: LUNATIC again

From:Matt Pearson <mpearson@...>
Date:Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 23:14
Lojbab wrote:

>And yes I recognize that in other countires, where Chomskyans did not come to >dominate, it might be easier for linguists to look at pidgins, conlangs, >and other such things with respect. But I will note that Matt, while >defining "language" more broadly, did say the same thing - that >linguists are interested (only) in natural languages and creoles, but not >necessarily pidgins.
This is as far as I know. I know that many linguists study creoles, and there is an extensive literature on creolisation, which deals with the evolution of creoles from pidgins, and the relationship between creoles and substrate languages. But I think that most linguists would regard a pidgin as being something 'less than a language' (to put it vaguely), something more akin to a sophisticated argot than a natlang. Matt. ------------------------------------ Matt Pearson UCLA Linguistics Department 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 ------------------------------------