not have a UG-like model with lines and arrows, as he does, and I have never
espoused some complex OT mechanism wherein Gender is moved down a notch whenever an
L2 is not white. It is those very non-linguistics factors that you seem to think I
have ignored that I believe is responsible for the lack of gradual change in some
languages, those being the languages we call creoles.
the languages you call creoles. The point I'm making is that this is not so for the
French creoles. There's nothing in the differences between creole and koine
varieties of French that are indicative of non-gradual jumping. If jumping took
place, it must be laid into a period preceeding the genesis of the 17th century
common koine that was ultimately exported to the colonies.
two people rarely continue to focus on one another's arguments. One
person gets called off by someone else's remarks, and turns to engage
them, then another person chips in, and another, and then they begin to
quibble among themselves. Eventually there is nothing but a cacophony of
voices all saying something slightly different, each convinced that the
slight difference in their point is of great significance.
was recently managed by DeGraff and Goyette, they eventually each conclude that
their opponent is using faulty logic or bad data, so it seems hopeless. It's rather
like arguing about religion, and I should probably not state this publicly, but I
often wonder what any of us are actually accomplishing.
debate with McWhorter, stating (somewhere in July-August of 1999) that:"[...] true
believers can't be outargued in any useful scientific fashion" simply because
"believes cannot be falsified scientifically". It didn't get me more unpopular with
those I'd be unpopular with anyhow.
If convergence has nothing to do with creolization, then evidence that might be due
to convergence is evidence that likely has nothing to do with creolization. If
someone offers data that they say casts light on creolization, but the data can be
explained by convergence, then the data does not cast light on creolization at all,
does it? And that was why I needed to know whether DeGraff agreed with you. If he
did, then we would all be in agreement that data that can be explained by
convergence is useless in shedding light on creolization and that was why I needed
to know when DeGraff's data was from.
evidence why metathesis should not be what was involved here. Structures like
/rkule/ are hardly credible French structures as far as I know. Secondly I don't
really see what the argument's about. Clearly a mixture of French dialect forms was
present in the French spoken by the early French settlers in the Caribbean. That
seems like much the simplest explanation. [...]for another example of Picard
metathesis which probably does not involve a synchronically understood prefix, and
probably not a schwa either, take the name of the first French farm in Cayenne,
known variously as Re'mire and Hermie`re.
metathesis. So much so that we had a two-day workshop on the subject last year. A
language I am working on - Dawanese - is just one of many examples of such
languages. Whether you call it metathesis or the permutation of segments does not
seem to matter very much.
mattered at all. It did so with Stephane Goyette.
regarding this point--
including the 17th-century French dialects qua lexifier of Haitian Creole.
out that the /pye-bwa/ example was one I gave in Chicago, in Professor DeGraff's
presence, and where I gave some reasons for doubting its being an inheritance from
dialectal French pure and simple. That over a year later Professor DeGraff has
failed to present counter-evidence suggests he has none.
have been able to see DeGraff's own text continuing unfailingly:
F.E.W. and other _reliable_ sources on French etymology (check further references
in Chaudenson's work on Reunionese).
Wartburg's Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, a standard reference everybody in
French linguistics knows], it gets me VIII, 297, a:"Nfr. pied 'unité (en parlant
d'arbres, de plantes)," with a reference going back to 1671. Otherwise said, since
1671 at least, trees and plants are known in French to be countable as "pieds". A
"verger de 120 pieds" would translate into English as an "orchard with 120 trees".
Any dictionary of French will give you the expression "fruits vendus sur pied" which
translates literally as "fruits sold on the tree" meaning that the fruits are being
sold before harvest time. The same dictionaries also tell us that "pied" can refer
to the whole of any cultivated "plant" or "tree" with examples such as:pied de
vigne, pied de salade, pied de céleri. Botanical dictionaries have a great number of
examples formed on the model of "pied d(e) X". What is more, in Québécois French,
<pied> is the generic label for any small plant. Some "pieds" stay "pieds" such as
the <pieds de framboise> "raspberry canes/bushes" of my garden:they were <pieds>
"canes" when we bought them and are now full-grown <pieds> "bushes". Even trees are
"pieds" when they come out of the nursery such as the 6 foot <pied de lilas> "lilac"
I bought three years ago. No wonder <pied> generalized to generic "plant, tree" and
to derived uses in lexical compounding for a number of varieties of "Frenches". Even
the non-creole French documented in Highfield has /pyé/ "tree, bush, plant" as well
as /pyé de bwa/ "tree".
For the benefit of the list owners and all those non-natives of French who
unwittingly but in good faith had recourse to any such data, I'd publicly submit the
following question:To what extent is it likely that a native speaker of
non-standard and standard varieties of French with a PhD in linguistics (everybody I
asked assures me this is actually so) would not know the botanical extensions in the
meaning of the French word <pied> "foot" and derived lexical compounds of the type
"pied d(e) X"?
admitting error, I should like to end on a constructive note by pointing to a
methodological *blunder* which I committed. I had mentioned, several times, that the
*rather than inherited*. This last part of the statement is incorrect. Strictly
speaking, one cannot prove that an affix *was not* borrowed. If it was borrowed at
early enough a date, an affix from thelexifier of a creole might be
indistinguishable, in phonological form, from an element inherited from the
lexifier. In short, it is sometimes possible to prove that something was borrowed.
It is impossible to prove that something was not.
language, explains it nicely.
expatriate dialect of the koine variety spoken in the western part of
Saint-Barthelemy which I told you to have unproductive schwa-insertion in front of
/r-/ (such as in /Arkul arkul/ "Hercules step back"). Even if you've got only
Highfield to rely on for this, it's obvious from the glossary (pp. 228-347) that
/re-/ is the norm and /a(r)-/ the exception, just like in Haitian Creole.
re-do", /armèt/ "to put back", /arvèni/ "to return" (pp. 234-235 of Highfield's
glossary)(REFAIRE, REMETTRE, REVENIR).
exception, just as in HC. Since the two norms coincide, what we have to explain is
not the norm, but the exception:if it's a borrowing, it most probably is a
borrowing in both;if it's a diffusional residue, it most probably is a diffusional
residue in both. What's pretty akward in your "scenario" is that what's the norm by
any standards of linguistics becomes guilty of being borrowed unless proven innocent
Saint-Thomas which, as it is, don't really talk to each other:one hailing form the
eastern part of the isle which is creole speaking, one from the western one which is
koine speaking (there is no expatriate community from the central "transitional"
part). The variety documented by Highfield represents the koine speech of the west
which is by no means "creole-influenced", not any more than I would call Magoua
for the /re/ variant to be the only variant found of the prefix RE, unlike the
situation in Haitian, which I trust I have explained sufficiently in earlier
postings. This otherwise inexplicable difference between the two varieties
indubitably strengthens my case.
variant to be the only variant found of the prefix REbecause (AB)it never went
trough an affixless stage? (BA)Haitian CreoleHASa reason for the /re/ variant to
be the only variant found of the prefix REbecause (BB)it went trough an affixless
explained it only as an article of faith, not as a scientific fact. Because of (BB),
there is no exception to the generalization of /re/ in HC. This is contradicting
your earlier admission in your post of 05/02/01 where you admitted that Magoua
/eùkulé/ from earlier /eùrkulé/ "fitted" HC /ekile/ "perfectly" as an exception
sporting the variant /er/ instead of /re/. There is another exception I know of, HC