Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!alderson
From: alderson@netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III)
Subject: Re: PBS is at it again---so are the Linguists
In-Reply-To: johan.nordlander@engelska.umu.se's message of Tue, 14 Mar 1995 10:09:09 +0100
Message-ID: <aldersonD5HuDL.1Iy@netcom.com>
Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com
Fcc: /u52/alderson/postings
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <794098172snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk> <D4tvGs.Ew8@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<794354924snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
	<johan.nordlander-1403951009090001@nod.eng.umu.se>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:08:09 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: alderson@netcom20.netcom.com

In article <johan.nordlander-1403951009090001@nod.eng.umu.se>
johan.nordlander@engelska.umu.se (Johan Nordlander) writes:

>By all accepted definitions, "creolization" is the creation of a NEW mother
>tongue, not the, albeit rapid, development from one language state -- in this
>case Old English -- to another -- Middle English.

This, while true, is a non sequitur.  Those who claim that Middle English is
the result of creolization are aware of the definition thereof.  They are
making their claim based on, IMNSDHO, a faulty reading of the evidence, not on
a misunderstanding of the theoretical and historical implications of their
claim.

I find the arguments in favour of a creolization in the history of English to
be unconvincing.  However, I believe that addressing the arguments is the
proper way to decide the issue, not that we should assume that those making the
arguments don't know what they are talking about.
-- 
Rich Alderson		[Tolkien quote temporarily removed in favour of
alderson@netcom.com	 proselytizing comment below --rma]

Please support the creation of the humanities hierarchy of newsgroups!
