From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Thu May 21 12:29:14 1992 Return-Path: Date: Thu May 21 12:29:14 1992 Message-Id: <9205211544.AA13776@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: creoles X-To: lojbab@GREBYN.COM X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: ; from "Logical Language Group" at May 20, 92 4:35 pm Status: RO X-Status: Lojbab quoth: > Now the fact that Esperanto norms are NOT determined by native-born speakers > is therefore precisely why such linguists do not consider Esperanto a true > language yet, as opposed to a creole (which is precisely an amalgamated > language spoken by adults of differing native language backgrounds for > mutual communication). There are some linguists, but very few, who study > creoles, and the creolization process whereby a creole spoken as the dominant > tongue in a region becomes a true language because that becomes the language > that adults teach their children. These linguists tend to study those > processes, not the adult speaking norms, which as I've said are not > 'interesting' because they are likely to be uninstinctive in nature and hence > not reminiscent of pure linguistic behavior. I believe that what you've described as a 'creole' is more often termed a 'pidgin'. Creolization is when the pidgin does start to be the native language of a new generation, and thus becomes a creole. va'o I agree with Edmund on computer languages, and indeed in general on his categorisation. kolin