4 ms·

I don't understand this comment. It makes absolutely no claims about the definition of a creole, and it makes no claims about how English doesn't conform to tha

I don't understand this comment. It makes absolutely no claims about the definition of a creole, and it makes no claims about how English doesn't conform to that definition. It just talks about "squinting" at languages, mentions black Americans for no particular reason, and accuses anyone who would argue that English is a creole of being "disingenuous" for trying to reverse the "legitimazation." It's like the perfect troll comment. Makes no argument, implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist, and uses black Americans as a comparison for no particular reason.* Here's my opinion: English is the result of a simplification of grammar caused by Old Norse and Old English crashing into each other with the same words but different grammar; then the French forced French usage in commerce, so most people started using a ton of French words with this English grammar. That last part sounds exactly like a creole. Is your argument that considering English a creole lets English people off the hook for something? Are things that happen to non-white people somehow delegitimized when they are also noted in white people? Are white people so special and unique that everything else has to be defined by it's non-whiteness? If I'm missing your point, what was it? [*] As a black American, I'm starting to recognize this as a long-standing feature of western rhetoric. A lot of modern argument seems to boil down to which side is more like black Americans. Humorously, actual black Americans are never considered to be like metaphorical black Americans; we're actually spoiled whiners with a sense of entitlement.

imbnwa 2y ago
>Here's my opinion: English is the result of a simplification of grammar caused by Old Norse and Old English crashing into each other with the same words but different grammar; then the French forced French usage in commerce, so most people started using a ton of French words with this English grammar. That last part sounds exactly like a creole. Grandparent's point is that you're stretching the meaning of the term to a level of generality that applies to everything, therefore meaning nothing in particular. Your point applies to French just as much as English: Gaulic Celtic speakers poorly adopt Latin after getting bull rushed by Romans, then mix in Frankish terms when the Romans' former allies take over; or how about Sicilian: a mash-up of Latin, Greek, Germanic, Arabic conquerors. You have to go pretty far to find a language which isn't a fusion of other languages that results from different peoples entering into extended contact. 'Creole' is a word that only appears with its current meaning and history in the last 100 or so years, grandparent is simply preserving that particularity. Nothing more. No one in 1200s Europe thought English or Sicilian were languages not worth engaging with as actual languages owing to modern racial connotations.
- empath75 2y ago
  They definitely did think English was not a language worth engaging with. Even literate people in England barely thought of English as a language worth studying -- they wrote everything in Latin. Certainly the Norman conquerers only bothered to learn the minimum amount of English they had to to talk to the locals. That's why there are so many French words in English. I think the status of a "creole" language is sort of time limited. After enough people are born speaking it and it's diverged enough from it's origin languages, it's just a language. English probably was very much like a creole language in particular places and times (particularly in northern england after the viking invasions for example).
  - tremon 2y ago
    That attitude is not unique to England though. Latin was the lingua franca of the European literate and scientific world, first because of the Church, and then because of the Renaissance. Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza also wrote primarily in Latin instead of their country's language. Pretty similar to how we are conversing in English right now, regardless of what language we speak in our home town.
  - imbnwa 2y ago
    >They definitely did think English was not a language worth engaging with. Even literate people in England barely thought of English as a language worth studying -- they wrote everything in Latin. This... the point of the matter is that no one thought English was not a language in its own right. Not which landed aristocrat or educated clergymen wrote in English for other non-English speakers, which was the point of writing in Ecclesiastical Latin.
- nxobject 2y ago
  As an aside: would you know any good resources/other ways to learn about the social history of Sicilian-the-language? I know Maltese has had a similar social history, and its Arabic inheritance is very clear.
nxobject 2y ago
> I don't understand this comment. It makes absolutely no claims about the definition of a creole, and it makes no claims about how English doesn't conform to that definition. It just talks about "squinting" at languages, mentions black Americans for no particular reason, and accuses anyone who would argue that English is a creole of being "disingenuous" for trying to reverse the "legitimazation." > It's like the perfect troll comment. Makes no argument, implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist, and uses black Americans as a comparison for no particular reason.* I don't think you're engaging with the author's point: it is _precisely_ that the study of Creole languages wasn't a top-down predetermined "this is the definition of something, and we're studying it" program, but arose after the fact to label the work of a school of linguistics. > Is your argument that considering English a creole lets English people off the hook for something? > If I'm missing your point, what was it? The point is that the author assumes that concepts arise by labelling the results of historical processes, but ultimately our goal is to describe a historical process. It's not warranted to jump to speculating about "western rhetoric" or "modern argument", which doesn't substantially engage with the OP. Nor is it warranted to speculate that the author "implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist".

imbnwa 2y ago

>Here's my opinion: English is the result of a simplification of grammar caused by Old Norse and Old English crashing into each other with the same words but different grammar; then the French forced French usage in commerce, so most people started using a ton of French words with this English grammar. That last part sounds exactly like a creole. Grandparent's point is that you're stretching the meaning of the term to a level of generality that applies to everything, therefore meaning nothing in particular. Your point applies to French just as much as English: Gaulic Celtic speakers poorly adopt Latin after getting bull rushed by Romans, then mix in Frankish terms when the Romans' former allies take over; or how about Sicilian: a mash-up of Latin, Greek, Germanic, Arabic conquerors. You have to go pretty far to find a language which isn't a fusion of other languages that results from different peoples entering into extended contact. 'Creole' is a word that only appears with its current meaning and history in the last 100 or so years, grandparent is simply preserving that particularity. Nothing more. No one in 1200s Europe thought English or Sicilian were languages not worth engaging with as actual languages owing to modern racial connotations.

empath75 2y ago
They definitely did think English was not a language worth engaging with. Even literate people in England barely thought of English as a language worth studying -- they wrote everything in Latin. Certainly the Norman conquerers only bothered to learn the minimum amount of English they had to to talk to the locals. That's why there are so many French words in English. I think the status of a "creole" language is sort of time limited. After enough people are born speaking it and it's diverged enough from it's origin languages, it's just a language. English probably was very much like a creole language in particular places and times (particularly in northern england after the viking invasions for example).
- tremon 2y ago
  That attitude is not unique to England though. Latin was the lingua franca of the European literate and scientific world, first because of the Church, and then because of the Renaissance. Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza also wrote primarily in Latin instead of their country's language. Pretty similar to how we are conversing in English right now, regardless of what language we speak in our home town.
- imbnwa 2y ago
  >They definitely did think English was not a language worth engaging with. Even literate people in England barely thought of English as a language worth studying -- they wrote everything in Latin. This... the point of the matter is that no one thought English was not a language in its own right. Not which landed aristocrat or educated clergymen wrote in English for other non-English speakers, which was the point of writing in Ecclesiastical Latin.
nxobject 2y ago
As an aside: would you know any good resources/other ways to learn about the social history of Sicilian-the-language? I know Maltese has had a similar social history, and its Arabic inheritance is very clear.

nxobject 2y ago

> I don't understand this comment. It makes absolutely no claims about the definition of a creole, and it makes no claims about how English doesn't conform to that definition. It just talks about "squinting" at languages, mentions black Americans for no particular reason, and accuses anyone who would argue that English is a creole of being "disingenuous" for trying to reverse the "legitimazation." > It's like the perfect troll comment. Makes no argument, implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist, and uses black Americans as a comparison for no particular reason.* I don't think you're engaging with the author's point: it is _precisely_ that the study of Creole languages wasn't a top-down predetermined "this is the definition of something, and we're studying it" program, but arose after the fact to label the work of a school of linguistics. > Is your argument that considering English a creole lets English people off the hook for something? > If I'm missing your point, what was it? The point is that the author assumes that concepts arise by labelling the results of historical processes, but ultimately our goal is to describe a historical process. It's not warranted to jump to speculating about "western rhetoric" or "modern argument", which doesn't substantially engage with the OP. Nor is it warranted to speculate that the author "implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist".