on a par in my curriculum. I eventually came to the conclusion that the most
attractive theories weren't necessarily meant to hold the road. It's certainly my
Romanistic background which stopped the Africanist in me to make my bread and butter
on the most attractive theory.
could call excellent enough to consider it on a par with the rest of his or her
"foot" and derived lexical compounds of the type "pied d(e) X"?
as I hope to have shown above. For someone who chided me for not being sufficiently
cautious, Professor Witman appears rather reckless in drawing conclusions.
that my conclusions as to the inconclusiveness of your "knowledge and ... position"
are far from being "reckless".
until proven borrowed.
with in this debate has gone down the drain. All there is left is to admit as an
article of fait that HC shows "massive morphological loss". The mere etnonym
"Creole" does not have to imply any such belief.
Surinamese creoles) we find that NO morphology survived from the lexifier to the
here Haitian Creole for which these assertions are false.
derivational but little if any inflectional morphology therefrom. Derivational
morphology is more easily borrowed than inflectional morphology. What would the
simplest, most natural explanation be?
when, why and how HC turned from "affixeless" to something else. Again, we have to
believe you on faith, a.k.a. your framework of believes based on "natural
their morphology from their lexifiers. If one believes in the principle of parsimony
(also known as Occam's razor), then this should be one's working hypothesis.
Except for repeating that your razor cut MUST be the right one, you havn't brought up
anything serious to show in which way my applying the priciple of parsimony could be
wrong or not well-founded in any way.
that an affix was not borrowed.
faith. It sounds like a neverending prayer mill. You haven't taken up any of my
arguments painstakingly one by one to show me wrong. The following question to you
will be meant as a challenge:Can you explain to us what step by step scientific
method it takes to satisfy the requirement that there must be a FEASIBLE way to show
you wrong? If you can't, your theory isn't falsifiable:Do you know what that
anything to prove. The burden of prove rests with those that challenge your articles
affixes are indeed inherited.
If "there really is no way" you "can think of" for us to falsify your beliefs, well,
it means that nobody except GOD can debate with you with a fair chance to get
behavior; 9.1. The "sontaient" syndrome; 9.2Noun class system death and determiner
system renewal; 9.3. The syntax of comparative constructions; 9.4. More on verb
serialization; 9.5. Bimorphemic interrogatives; 9.6. The Saint-Barth "enigma"; 9.7.
Varia; 9.8. The rest of Out of Africa; 9.9. Concluding on Parkvall. I'm sending them
in the following order:(1) 9.0, 9.1, 9.2;(2) 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6;(3) 9.7, 9.8,
9.9. A mime-compliant handout for the examples is available at:
several reasons. one of these is lack of time, but another one is what I see as a
DISHONEST AND UNSCHOLARLY TREATMENT OF THE MATERIAL he cites from my recent book
[Parkvall 2000, emphasis added].
frequently in the Indian Ocean than in the Caribbean French creoles, Wittmann says
notwithstanding that "substrate factors were somehow at work. I have not been
able to identify these, however."
had written, and it turned out that Wittmann had deleted a rather significant part
of the sentence he quoted from me. What I did write was that the data discussed
earlier on the same page, "MIGHT SUGGEST that substrate factors were somehow at
work. I have not been able to identify these, however" (emphasis added). In the
summarising table immediately following upon this, I clearly did not include the
feature in question, as I did elsewhere throughout the book when I claimed to have
pretty clearly shows that I did not uncritically conclude it to be
CITATIONS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT. [Emphasis added]
I'll try to be as dishonest and unscholarly as befits the material at hand. I'll
return specifically to dishonesty and unscholarly behavior in regard to the
agglutination issue in section 9.2.
before that I have never seen any variety of French looking so much like a creole,
and this, of course is what makes it so interesting. In Magoua, Wittmann has a more
powerful argument in favour of the superstratist position than I've ever seen
before. One problem I have, though, is that no one else seems to have described the
variety. Without doubting Wittmann's expertise on Magoua, he does claim that there
are other varieties that look pretty similar, and this is something that is not
borne out by what I have read on colonial varieties French. It may be some time ago,
but I have read about the exotic varieties of French in Monroe county (Michigan),
Old Mines (Mississippi), St. Thomas (Virgin Islands), Louisiana, and elsewhere. And
none of them looked as creole-like as Magoua does in Wittmann's description, despite
many being in an advanced stage of language death. Although we don't know what
sociolinguistic factors that lie behind this, it could be that an unusually large
number of simplificatory changes have happened to cluster in Magoua.
taught us (since there seems to be no other source to turn to), I apparently need to
repeat once more that I am familiar with non-standard varieties of French spoken
problem in a perspective of ethics in scholarship. I heard about Parkvall for the
first time in January 1997 when he was in Aix to learn more about koine French
varieties as a possible input into creole French. Since this is not exactly their
"fort", I was put to contribution and this is how I came to send him the materials he
mentions on page 15 of his thesis. At the time I thought to have reason to believe
he would investigate African origin hypotheses on a par with koine French orientated
evidence. That this is not so is obvious not only from the title but also at the
outset from his "Aim and scope of the study". Though I had sent him everything
Robert Fournier and myself had ever got to writing down, including in preprint form
everything that appeared in 1997 and 1998, only fleeting mention is made to this
material:On pages 70 and 74 from a 1983 review of C. Lefebvre's first version of
relexification and on pages 78 and 90 from our 1996 critique of the same hypothesis
(published in 1998). The 1983 article is used to represent our stand on
serialization though much newer material was available to him. As a matter of fact,
he could have easily averted adverse criticism in part IV (on serialization) by
referring to that material (see here under 9.3 and 9.4). On page 78, he extrapolates
the relevant information on the post-nominal determiner system [that koine French
developed in replacement of the categorially downgraded pre-nominal article system]
to a point where I have difficulty to believe he didn't see the correlated evidence
on "a specific kind" of pre-nominal "article agglutination" continuum (see here under
9.2). I utterly fail to understand how he can thus conclude that (2000:83):
substrate influences [...], its very different frequency in various FCs [...]
might suggest that substrate factors [though admittedly unidentifiable] were
somehow at work.
diffusion of agglutination phenomena in koine and creole varieties of French) he
admittedly came into contact with (Fournier 1998, cited by him as Fournier 1996). On
page 90, citing from the 1996 preprint version of Wittmann 1998, he demonstrates his
capacity of extrapolating Magoua data when its suits his purposes, leaving aside the