Talk:Creole language

message: On 01:17, 10 September 2007, the article Creole language as a whole got tagged on two counts, by one user Kemet. There were no edit summaries in sight and no reason were given on any of these counts on this talk page or elsewhere. What is more, this user's own Talk page turned out to be a heap of complaints about his disruptive editing all over Wikipedia and none of these complaints seemed to have attracted his attention in any way. So I reverted his edit and added a warning to this user's Talk page. In the meantime, this user has reverted again my edit, putting one of the tags back on top of the article as whole, with an edit summary he left on my own User page. 
I'm moving the relevant messages pertaining to this dispute right here to this talk page so that the whole community of contributing editors who may be concerned, working on this or related articles, might be able to react. What follows here are my original warning to him, his response, and my reactions to his queries. Noula69 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unreasonable to ask someone to not make edits to an article, but that's more in the context of "let's figure it out in the talk page first."  Asking someone not to edit an article because you want to review how contentious an editor they are isn't a very good reason.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the privilege of any editor to review the contributions of other editors and to report presumptively hostile editing and related incidents on the appropriate lists. Kindly refer yourselves to the action I have taken on this account on the Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks. Noula69 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mechanical" concerns and tag requesting 

message: My concerns here are similar to  the preceding ones under Multiracial. You tagged the page Creole language with the  and  banners at the top without using edit summaries or the Talk page to motivate your objections even though the expert  banner specifically indicates: "See the talk page for details." As it is, I am an expert on the subject under review and I have been giving this article the attention it needed to warrant the removal of the neutrality (disputed) banner. I have reverted your edit. I also note that  all your messages on your User talk page are without exception highly critical of your interfering in other people's edits. Please use the sandbox for any other editing tests you want to do. Noula69 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My warning (moved from the page [[User talk:Kemet#Creole language|User talk:Kemet]])

message: Hello, if you have carefully read all of my contributions on the talk pages, then you will have noticed that my initial comments emphasize the mechanical concerns of articles, call attention to useless comments, and occasionally responsed to hypersensitive people who take critiques too personally; your characterization is distorted.  Since you self-identify as an expert, then I will take the time to explain my misgivings, such as:
(1) The etymology of "creole."  It is derived from the Spanish and Portuguese "criado," or (literally "raised"), indicating a dependent of an affluent household (socially considered "minors"), suggesting the lower social status of those born in the Americas, because it was argued that the American climates negatively affected the physical and intellectual condition of those born there (yes it sounds irrational).  The term "creole" applied to ALL American-born non-natives, including Africans until the nineteenth century, so the European-creole elision is retroactive essentialism.
(2) Under "Recognition and renaissance," what are the sources of your assertion?
(3) Same question for the first paragraph of the section "Substrate and superstrate"---for those of us who are unfamiliar with these terms (such as I), it would be helpful to more clearly explain these terms, and since it ISN'T common knowledge, then citations are needed.
(4) The first paragraph of the section "Shared features" is inconsistent in its citations; the first sentence contains weasel words and needs to be substantiated.
(5) The section "Gradualist and developmental hypotheses" is also inconsistent in its citations.
I stand by my tag requesting more verification and sources, and will re-insert it.  The citations that are given are fine, but again, since you self-identify as an expert, I would suggest that you keep in mind the (inexpert) general audience that would appreciate more careful citations and brief, cogent definitions of the specialized vocabulary.  In the future, I will enter suggestions in the talk page before I insert tags.  Kemet 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: His response (moved from the [[User:Noula69]] page)

message: (1) Etymology of creole. I do not understand what you mean by American-born natives or European Creole elision as retroactive essentialism. The term creole came into use in colonial settings where Spanish, Portuguese and French language usage prevailed and spilled over into English about the time the U.S. bought Louisiana from the French. In this context, where people were called Creoles in such places as the Indian Ocean, American-born non-natives has little sense. Maybe your concerns could be aired in a more useful way in articles on Créolité, Creole peoples or Creole elites which are not strictly linguistic in nature. (2) Recognition and renaissance. I moved your tag as "refimprovesect" to the top of this section so that the concerned editors might act on this. (3) Substrate and superstrate. I added at the top of this section the reference: main article: substratum. (4) Shared features. Though there is already a reference to a main article, Syntactic similarities of creoles, I added the "weasel" tag to the top of this section. Anyway, the whole corresponding main article is in need of reediting to get rid of its theory-oriented bias. After all, it's a moot question whether the similarities are due to the workings of some creoleness parameter, to superstrate-substrate influence, or to universals of language change. (5) Gradualist and developmental hypotheses. This section had been demoted from section status to sub-section under a neutrality challenge. I added the "refimprovesect" tag to the top of this section so that the concerned editors might review its content or even move it to a new article leaving a shorter résumé in its place. Noula69 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My reaction

message: Thank you for the clarification, and I am satisfied.  Do not take critiques personally; since this a public reference source, then you should expect regular critiques and suggestions for improvement.  As for the Creole issue, I brought it up since your original discussion of its origin was incorrect, which of course should have been brought to your attention.  In response to your last message to me "As it is, I will have to go through the trouble of reviewing all your contributions given the admittedly contested nature of your editing procedures. In the meantime, I would appreciate you refraining from doing any other edits. Thank you," have fun, but you are not authorized to request that other people don't edit, especially, as I already communicated, I will include my reasoning in the discussion pages before placing future tags. Kemet 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unreasonable to ask someone to not make edits to an article, but that's more in the context of "let's figure it out in the talk page first."  Asking someone not to edit an article because you want to review how contentious an editor they are isn't a very good reason.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the privilege of any editor to review the contributions of other editors and to report presumptively hostile editing and related incidents on the appropriate lists. Kindly refer yourselves to the action I have taken on this account on the Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks. Noula69 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello,
I appreciate the decision to have Arends et al as a guideline for the structure of this article. Since this book is now 12 years old, it does not include more recent developments. In order not to disrupt the overall structure, I have added the recent developments to the end. I have given the most prominent sources for these claims as a start, but I can find some more specific ones, just in case someone feels that these things are nonsensical. 
I will be away to a conference until the end of this month, and I trust my fellow editors that a fortnight's absence will be tolerated until I can provide more specific bibliographic references.
There are some topics missing, e.g. the rise of L2A as a paradigm, but there is room to add that in.
There is also some overlap with preceding sections, so we will have to find a way how to deal with Arends et al and the current research
So long Jasy jatere 13:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent developments section 

message: A creole language, or simply a creole, is a stable language that originates seemingly as a "new" language, sometimes with features that are not inherited from any apparent source, without however qualifying in any appreciable way as a mixed language. 
The current definition sentence says at least twice what a creole isn't (namely, it isn't what everybody has been saying it was). But as far as I can see, it doesn't say what it is. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster creates a new language out of the blue, it would seem to fit the current definition. Compare the crystal clear definition of Britannica  "Any pidgin language that has become established as the native language of a speech community" (hopelessly outdated, I presume?) and Encarta  "a language that began as a pidgin but has become the native language of a community" (likewise outdated?), and any other general reference tool (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=creole), as well as the Wikipedias in other languages such as German, French and Spanish. All of these may be wrong or biased, but at least they say something, whereas the current definition says practically nothing. 
Also, the "however" in the sentence puzzles me, because the bit before it and the bit after it are not opposed to each other and are both vehement denials of the usual definition.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, there is perhaps something missing.  I think the notion that is User:Noula69 has added to the page earlier this year is that it's not actually certain if creoles all come from pidgins.  What do you suggest we do to clarify it in that first paragraph? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, I have no idea what is "true" or even accepted in modern scholarship apart from what I'm reading here and in the other reference tools above, so I can't be very helpful here. Now, if we take what you're saying, obviously the simplest way to put it is to write that: 1. a creole is commonly defined as a nativized pidgin, but 2. it's not certain/it is disputed whether all creoles come from pidgins. However, this makes little sense - if we still call them creoles despite their not coming from pidgins, then we clearly have another definition in mind. And what is that definition? No idea. Reading the article, I get the impression that it is uncontroversial that a creole language is 1.a native language; and 2.originating, OK maybe not entirely, but at least to a significant extent, from a mixture of sorts. But a generalization/synthesis of this type would need to be sourced (by the way, the current one isn't sourced either). Mentioning and sourcing both the traditional definition and the "anti-traditional" one separately would probably be easier, but unfortunately I don't know what the meaningful "anti-traditional" one would be (maybe "creoles are a myth"?) and whether it exists so as to be sourced. So it's the usual thing - you have to be acquainted with the material, but people who are also tend to have a strong POV which reflects on their edits. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Currently, the article has a few sections that end in something like "Sources: McWhorter 1998, 2001, 2005, Linguistic Typology 5 2/3 (2001), Wittmann 1999." While these sources are listed in the bibliography, I think we need to use inline citation so we know what is being sourced and what isn't.  Knowing the page numbers is also important.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the refimprove tag with citations needed - in the notes section. —Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I read the intro several times and still only have a vague idea of what this article is about. It jumps directly into a debate without giving a primer on what the context is. Is this a type of language or a specific language, and if it's specific, who speaks it? Am I the only one getting confused? Vicarious (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one (see #Definition above).  Not sure how to remedy your confusion since it seems fairly clear to me (someone who's familiar with the subject).  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I shouldn't have disclosed that I wasn't. Then you would have paid attention to what the "definition" sentence literally says, when context-free - namely that a creole language is any language created from nothing by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Shouldn't be much to ask from a linguist, either.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no evidence refuting FSM intervention.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster has nothing if not a sense of humor.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The joke had a point. Anyway, let me try this approach then: the definition is uncited, so I'm placing a  tag.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address some of the issues of concern here. I would appreciate some help though in the cross-referencing, especially as far as the FSM definition (a def. as valid as any other) is concerned. Eklir (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't pay close attention to your edits until I noticed that one definition of creole is "any language created from nothing by the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other force to foster in-group cohesion."  Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  While I must assume good faith on your part, I don't have to assume competence.  I'm deleting that section and expect inline citations for any further edits that you make.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All right, I've addressed your concern.  I was hoping User:Noula69 would come back to defend his edits (see above) to that lead section, but he has not.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Now, as far as I understand, Noula is or represents the views of linguist Henri Wittmann, http://homepage.mac.com/noula/, whose papers he also cites. It's great that the article is edited by an expert. But it is also very important to preserve the neutrality of the article, without presenting Wittmanns's view as the only true one. This concerns in particular the definition sentence - whatever it is, it needs to be sourced in a way that shows that it is not contested and does not take a side in the scholarly debate which clearly exists and in which Wittmann is a part. The same applies to other general statements. For example, "Prototype as a typological yardstick to creoleness" (1999) (http://homepage.mac.com/noula/ling/1999a-prototype.html) is obviously part of a rather heated online discussion (the heatedness can be illustrated by the fact that Wittmann called his opponents such as McWhorter "true believers that can't be outargued in any useful scientific fashion"). Obviously this type of publication shouldn't be used as a single source for the claim that "efforts to define creoles in any meaningful way have failed", because it only shows that Wittmann thinks that, while McWhorter apparently strongly disagreed with the opinion that his efforts had failed; rather, the article needs a source showing which view, if any, is generally or at least most widely accepted today. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Konrad Rybka has created some articles detailing several theories of Creole genesis.  I suggest we merge these articles into this one once we've eliminated the "essay" style that they're written in and unsourced statements.
These are the articles I'm referring to
* Foreigner talk theory (merged)
* The Language Bioprogram theory
* Imperfect second language learning theory (merged)
* Creole Monogenesis Theory (merged with Monogenetic theory of pidgins)
* Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis (merged)
* Superstrate Theories (merged)
* Substrate Theories (merged)
*Evolutionary Theory (redirected to evolution)
I've gone through the first two and cleaned them up, so they're ready to merge (though one could argue that the second one is developed enough to be its own article).  Thoughts? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I've merged the ones I think should be merged.  The bioprogram article seems strong enough to stand on its own (especially with the nifty table that I added).  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Really, for someone who has no background in linguistics, they'll have a seriously difficult time trying to understand what the first sentence of the introduction means (without clicking on those links, that is). Can we maybe change its definition to something slightly simpler? And it is true that in some instances "creole" simply means the combination of more than one language. Colipon+(T) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a reader to click on a link to get an understanding of "pidgin" if they don't already have one.  That's one of the main reasons we have such links.  There's just no lay word or phrase that's equivalent. As for nativization, we could instead say "...a stable language that originates seemingly as a pidgin that has aquired native speakers." — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativized pidgin 

message: Kotabatubara (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Source for "internal" and "external" history?
 (Problem solved; see [[Internal history]].) 

message: It looks like there is some bug where it says "monkey booty" in the "Classification of creoles> Whose creole problem" section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interfaced (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it.  I guess the problem has been fixed.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Whose creole problem 

message: In Grand Theft Auto: Vice City guide book, creole language is mentioned as an official language in little haiti. I'm not sure if it's mentioned on the article but in the guide there is tottaly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.248.236 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That hardly seems notable.  Plus, it's actually a reference to Haitian Creole.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creole in Vice City 

message: I have some objections to the presentation of this section.
(1) What is "L2 learning"? The term is not described in the article, and the uninformed reader must do a separate search to find its meaning. Perhaps it should be rewritten as "second language learning" or some such.
(2) The first sentence of this section assumes what might be too specific a context:
:"The imperfect L2 learning hypothesis claims that pidgins are primarily the result of the imperfect L2 learning of the dominant lexifier language by the slaves."
Not all pidgins arise from a slave-master relationship. Is the imperfect L2 learning hypothesis only attempting to describe pidgins that do arise from such a relationship? If so, this context should be made explicit. If not, then sentence should be changed. (Indeed, this is a concern that permeates the article as a whole: it seems to be assumed that the only creoles in existence are those formed from European interaction with Africans.)
Cpryby (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperfect L2 learning 

message: I think this article could use a map showing places in the world where creole languages are prevalent. It seemed odd to me that it didn't already have one. 70.116.76.173 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: ===  Photo  ===
Hi,
thumb|Slow down! Children are playing here!
I noticed this article has no figures or photos, which makes it kind of boring to read (sorry to say). I took this photo of a road sign in Guadeloupe, and I think it is an instructive example of the metaphoric character of creole languages - in this case Guadeloupe Creole. However, I am biased myself, and would rather want an uninvolved editor to consider if it is relevant and how it could be incorporated in the article. --Slaunger (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, I tried boldly to insert it. --Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I think your are correct that metaphoric is not the right word in this context. It was mentioned as a characteristic in one of the translations in one of the links on the file page for the photo, and being linguisticaly ignorant myself, I took it for granted to be true, albeit I did not persoanlly undertstand why it was "metaphoric" myself. I have now removed that part of the figure caption as it is unclear and perhaps a false statement. I have also not seen it sourced that creole languages are metaphoric. --Slaunger (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo for consideration of inclusion illustrating Guadeloupe creole 

message: Hi,
thumb|Slow down! Children are playing here!
I noticed this article has no figures or photos, which makes it kind of boring to read (sorry to say). I took this photo of a road sign in Guadeloupe, and I think it is an instructive example of the metaphoric character of creole languages - in this case Guadeloupe Creole. However, I am biased myself, and would rather want an uninvolved editor to consider if it is relevant and how it could be incorporated in the article. --Slaunger (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, I tried boldly to insert it. --Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Photo  

message: The description of that image now reads:
Road sign in Guadeloupe Creole meaning Slow down. Children are playing here. The literal translation is "Lift your foot. Small people are playing here" showing the metaphoric character of the language.
I think there's something wrong with that. It says it shows the "metaphoric character" of the language, yet there's no metaphor in it. Instead, it seems to be much more "literal minded" than the translation "Slow down. Children are playing here." - "Lift your foot", referring to the gas pedal and also "small people" describing children. So, I think that should be changed. I'm not saying that language does not have a metaphoric character, but that sign certainly doesn't show it. Or maybe the term really should be "vividness" or something like that, not "metaphoric character"?
I am not sure with what to replace that formulation, so I didn't change anything yet and instead put it up for consideration here.
89.245.94.186 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your are correct that metaphoric is not the right word in this context. It was mentioned as a characteristic in one of the translations in one of the links on the file page for the photo, and being linguisticaly ignorant myself, I took it for granted to be true, albeit I did not persoanlly undertstand why it was "metaphoric" myself. I have now removed that part of the figure caption as it is unclear and perhaps a false statement. I have also not seen it sourced that creole languages are metaphoric. --Slaunger (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Caption  

message: While this subject/page definitely seems to me to be a bit more thorough and complicated than the Pidgin page, the two pages don't seem to quite synch up. In fact, this Creole page seems to be a bit more focused on what appear to be old and outdated theories of Creoles, creole creation, creole development, etc. which may be misleading. I'm not a linguist, so I don't feel I should be editing this too much, but I'm going to try to do some editing to add information, especially from the last paragraph of the Pidgin article which reads: 
"Other scholars, such as Salikoko Mufwene, argue that pidgins and creoles arise independently under different circumstances, and that a pidgin need not always precede a creole nor a creole evolve from a pidgin. Pidgins, according to Mufwene, emerged among trade colonies among "users who preserved their native vernaculars for their day-to-day interactions". Creoles, meanwhile, developed in settlement colonies in which speakers of a European language, often indentured servants whose language would be far from the standard in the first place, interacted extensively with non-European slaves, absorbing certain words and features from the slaves' non-European native languages, resulting in a heavily basilectalized version of the original language. These servants and slaves would come to use the creole as an everyday vernacular, rather than merely in situations in which contact with a speaker of the superstrate was necessary." 
And, in fact, it appears that, based upon my own reading of the Creole article, the introduction is in great need of clean-up. Their appear to be controversies surrounding the definition and categorization of Creoles and so I"ll see what I can read and learn to try to improve the article, but it would probably be best if someone currently studying and with up-to-date knowledge on this article would expand it (Yes, an expert. Scary, right?). It seems best for wikipedia to try to maintain consistency and clarity, so perhaps clean up is necessary for this article, but, as I said, I'm not really knowledgeable in this area, so it may just have to be left up to someone who is an expert.
 Zanotam (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Cohesion with Pidgin page 

message: Perhaps a list of creoles that have official status? BigSteve (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Haitian Creole and Tok Pisin are the two that I can think of at the moment.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: This may be nitpicking, but is it really valid to say that the vocabulary consists of cognates?  That term typically refers to words with common etymological origin.  True, the term is used in foreign language acquisition often to refer collectively to historical cognates, loanwords, etc.  Since creoles are not properly dialects of the superstrate(s) nor genetically related varieties, I think it would be more precise to say "words" (if we don't want to make the article extremely technical) or reword it like such: </br>
"The vocabulary of a creole language is (largely supplied) by the parent languages"</br>
Maybe I'm not looking at this issue clearly? Iank125 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cognates isn't inaccurate, but it is more technical.  I like your reword.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll add it then.Iank125 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

text: No doubt, a creole is understood to have cognates with superstrates. It is a necessary part of the definition. A dialect on the other hand is restricted geographically within the area of the dominant (official, standard as used in public addresses, education, publications, and media) language; mostly they are just pronunciation variants with nary a difference in morphological and syntactical grammar, whereas a creole includes words not from the parent languages and has an altered simplified grammar, some derived from parent languages. A dialect will have cognates with only one parent language, possibly more than for creoles. 74.104.151.38 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognates? 

message: It was observed, in particular, that definite articles are mostly prenominal in English-based creole languages and English whereas they are generally postnominal in French creoles and in the variety of French that was exported to the colonies in the 17th and 18th century.
If the article is suggesting that Quebec French primarily uses postnominal definite articles, that is not correct. 69.136.131.33 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read the article the note refers to (Fournier 1998). It appears that the etymological definite articles no longer function as such taking on classifier functions remindful of some African languages whereas the syntactic segments signalling definiteness appear mostly in post nominal positions. 24.226.208.126 (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postnominal articles 

message: My advisor once gave an interesting cautionary example: In Russenorsk, there is a tendency towards verb-finality (at least when adverbs are present in the sentence), a feature which is found neither in Russian nor in Norwegian. Universalists/exceptionalists are quick to point to such examples as evidence that there is some kind of innate grammar default which comes to the fore here, but the real reason is different according to him (if I remember this correctly): There is a stereotype in Russian that foreigner talk is verb-final, so this supposedly influenced the rise of this feature in Russenork. The origin of this stereotype, however, is not found in Northern Europe but in Central Asia, where native speakers of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages tended to carry verb-finality from their L1 into Russian. (Also compare Kyakhta Russian–Chinese Pidgin.) Also, I remember now that another prof mentioned that the Russian spoken in Dagestan typically occurs in a pidginised or in any case morphologically strongly impoverished form, but it was not formed by direct contact between Russian and local Northeast Caucasian languages, but by contact of Russian with Kumyk, the traditional lingua franca of the region. Again, a researcher not aware of these complications could come to wrong conclusions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding pidgin/creole grammar 

message: The lead defines a creole as follows:
"a creole is a stable, natural language that has developed from a pidgin"
However, in the overview section it is stated:
"Other scholars, such as Salikoko Mufwene, argue that pidgins and creoles arise independently under different circumstances, and that a pidgin need not always precede a creole nor a creole evolve from a pidgin."
Thus it would appear that the origin of creoles is a (debated) detail/aspect of creoles rather than the essence of what a creole is. Which begs the question - what exactly is (the definition of) a creole?
Yaakovaryeh (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition in lead is contradicted in article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Creole language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020021010/http://www.umac.mo:80/fsh/dp/acblpe/ to http://www.umac.mo/fsh/dp/acblpe/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This isn't English. Points in time aren't sudden. The expression might be recast to the effect that the emergence of the creole takes just a few years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.173.106 (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: a fairly sudden point in time

message: Comment by 72.80.121.203 moved from article:
 ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 17:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See Special:Diff/1066506369, Special:Diff/1066496776. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most speakers 

message: The article states: "Mufwene (2002) argues that some Romance languages are potential creoles but that they are not considered as such by linguists because of a historical bias against such a view." I wanted to investigate this further, but it seems there is no actual "Mufwene (2002)" cited. Mufwene's website doesn't sort his publications by year, either. Does anyone know what source this is referring to? ZeegoTheDeer (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mufwene (2002) 

message: I’m Cajun born in south LA. The sign says “pick up your feet, children are playing here. There is no Chinese or other exotic influence on Cajun or creole language. 2600:1700:7060:2A10:A8CB:4F25:AA27:ED9E (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point?? BilCat (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sign 

message: , in reference to this edit, and I'll tag you too  because you have an interest in this, I did NOT check all the "first few sources" but I checked the first one, the book by Calvet, which does have the term "simplification" (p. 169)--but only to describe the origin of the term "creole". On p. 174, he uses the term "advanced", and says "the difference between certain linguistic forms is quite simply a phenomenon of linguistic evolution". On the next page, he talks about such a movement as "a self-regulated phenomenon of dialectal evolution". The term "simplification" simply does not apply, and does no justice to reality: it is pejorative and POV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, I'm not sure how you interpreted the Calvet source as "the first one"; to me it appears as the fourth citation on the page. The source labeled "The study of pidgins and creoles" (which could be better cited) says, while discussing some of the subjectivity of what makes a creole, "Creole languages are often assumed to be more simple than other languages. There is a wide-spread belief that creole languages are not just morphologically, but also syntactically and phonologically simpler than other languages" (9). The second source, "Language Varieties", straightforwardly defined pidgins as a "simplified form of language" and then creoles as "when a pidgin becomes a first language of a new generation" (118). The next source admittedly addresses some of the controversy that concerns you.  (Obviously "simplicity" is subjective and not some technically defined term in linguistics. Still, McWhorter, a creolist quoted variously throughout this page, argues "The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars" and even has an article with that very title). Anyway, can you think of a better wording? Perhaps we can qualify the type of simplifying, if you have sources that can support that? I don't think we can just leave the sentence as saying "mixing" since WP already has a mixed language page. Wolfdog (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

text: No tanks, mum. Mi a sit dis wun out. BilCat (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

text: * Translation into from (poorly written) Jamaican Patois/Creole into plain English: "No thanks, ma'am. I will sit this one out." (I do speak, but can't write, Jamaican Patois, so while its use was intended as humorous code-switching, it wasn't meant to be disrespectful to anyone. I spoke Patois as a child from age three on, so it's my second language, though I am no longer fluent.) BilCat (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simplification"