|
|
 | | From: | Michilín | | Subject: | Re: Not John Lawler [was; Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]] | | Date: | Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:55:57 GMT |
|
|
 | On 17 Dec 2004 01:59:12 -0800, jwlawler@yahoo.com wrote:
>Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>> jwlawler@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> > I am not an expert but I expect that English could be described as
>a
>> > creole (*) since its modern form is a blend of the original
>> > Anglo-Saxon, French and various other things.
>> >
>> > (*) I say creole rather than pidgin since some speakers have grown
>up
>> > with it as their native tongue.
>> >
>> > Anyway, are creoles and pidgins necessarily bad? The same could be
>> > said of other languages and some may only escape because records
>don't
>> > go far enough back to answer the question. Which languages are
>pure
>> > and why does it matter?
>>
>>
>> Pidgins are bad only in the sense that they are not complete
>languages, able
>> to accomplish everything their speakers need to accomplish, as
>creoles are.
>> Of course, a pidgin is a better lingua franca than no lingua franca
>at all.
>
>Are pidgins necessarily incomplete or is it just that they may be? Are
>there any lingua francas which are no one's native language which are
>complete? Would they fail to qualify as pidgins just because of that?
>Or is it just inconceivable that a pidgin could become complete without
>becoming a creole first?
>
>> The idea that English is a creole language is an intriguing one, as
>is the
>> idea that modern Hebrew (Ivrit) is a creole. However, from what I
>have read,
>> most linguists have concluded that neither is a creole language.
>
>I have not looked into this before but I may do so now. Do you
>remember some of the reasons that English is not regarded as a creole?
>It has had tremendous influence from other languages. Is it that the
>grammar is basically Germanic and there is still a substantial stock of
>Germanic vocabulary? Is it that the other influences were mostly also
>Indo-European? Is it just that it has been stable for quite a long
>time and has shaken off its creole status. Or is it the literature
>(see below)?
>
>> Michil=EDn referred to Chinook as a jargon, but Chinook is an American
>Indian
>> language. There is a pidgin based upon it which Ethnologue.com
>identifies as
>> "Chinook Wawa," also known as "Chinook Jargon" and "Chinook Pidgin."
>>
>> See
>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=3DCRW
>>
>>
>> This use of "jargon" is one which is now almost completely unknown in
>> English (well, American English, anyway). It's one of the older
>meanings of
>> the term. The following is from *The Century Dictionary,* an American
>> Dictionary of 1895:
>>
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> *1.* Confused, unintelligible talk ;
>> irregular, formless speech or language ; gabble ;
>> gibberish ; babble.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Specifically*--2.* A barbarous mixed speech,
>> without literary monuments ; a rude language
>> resulting from the mixture of two or more dis-
>> cordant languages, especially of a cultivated
>> language with a barbarous one : as, the Chinook
>> _jargon ;_ the _jargon_ called Pidgin-English.
>>
>> [end quote]
>>
>>
>> I expect that "jargon" was used at the time when speaking of both
>pidgins
>> and creoles, the concept that a creole was a fully-formed,
>grammatical
>> language, much different from a pidgin, having not yet been
>understood. As
>> you indicated, English would be a creole, not a pidgin, if it was
>considered
>> to be a mixed language in the same sense that a creole language is.
>The
>> "without literary monuments" would not apply to it, of course, but
>the same
>> is probably true of some of the languages which we know to be creole
>> languages, such as the creole version of Tok Pisin (which is said to
>exist
>> in both a pidgin and a creole form).
>
>Jargon has a new meaning that is so well established that care would be
>needed to use it with the old sense. The modern use of jargon seems
>quite appropriate to me.
>
>I did not realise that "without literary monuments" was a feature of a
>creole. If we dropped this requirement might English qualify as a
>creole? If Tok Pisin developed a substantial literature, would it
>cease to be a creole?
Does "without literary monuments" mean "unwritten cultural momuments"?
I come form an oral tradtion and here in Western Canada I live among
another oral tradition (native Canadian)
Both are recognised by the legal systems of their respective countries
(Scotland and Canada) as complete and accurate records, as both
cultures adhere to the principle that any deviation from the original
invalidates the whole.
(Like Hindu prayers, which are invalid unless perfectly pronounced,
which is why Sanskrit is the only ancient language for which we have a
complete record of how to pronounce it exactly as it was pronounced
5,000 years ago.)
>Another way of asking my question above is: how could Tok Pisin shake
>off its creole status? Develop a substantial literature, just wait a
>few hundred years, develop mass amnesia with regard to its origins?
By Tok Pisin, I assume we are discussing NiuGini TokTok? My favourite
was the phrase for the plumes attached to the Governor-General's
tricorne hat - "himpela grass bilonga cockatoo's arse". Himpela
mixmaster was a pretty neat description of a helicopter, I thought.
Chinook wawa would be very like NiuGini TokTok if you understood the
native and French elements.
>>
>> --
>> Raymond S. Wise
>> Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
>>
>> E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
>
>P=2ES. Do you go to Rochester often? I have been to Minneapolis just
>once but I have been to Rochester many times. =20
>
>Se=E1n O'Leathl=F3bhair
>
Michilín
|
|
|
