this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
87 points (97.8% liked)
Linguistics Humor
1244 readers
1 users here now
Do you like languages and linguistics ? Here is for having fun about it
For serious linguistics content: [email protected]
Rules:
- 1- Stay on Topic
Post about linguistics or language humor & memes - 2- No Racism/Violence
- 3- No Public Shaming No shaming someone that could be identifiable or recognizable
- 4- Avoid spam and duplicates
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’ve heard English referred to as a Germanic-Romance creole, which makes a lot of sense when you consider how far removed it is from Old English.
[Sorry for the serious wall of text.]
I've heard those claims, too. They're incorrect.
A creole is born from a pidgin (language fragments) glued into a coherent whole by grammatical rules made "on the spot". Because of that, it's practically impossible to analyse the grammar of a creole as the result of mutations over the grammar of any parent language.
However you can do it with English just fine:
Even weirder features like do-support are easy to explain if you look at other Germanic languages (e.g. some German dialects spam tun "do" in a similar way.)
As a counterexample, look at Haitian - an actual creole, with the main parent languages being Fon and French. If you try to explain it as a grammatical descendant of either, you hit a wall already in the plurals:
Fon marks the plural mostly in the noun itself. French in theory does it, but most of the job is done by closely connected determiners, articles, and pronouns. If Haitian simply inherited the plural from either, you'd expect it to be marked before the noun, as a prefix of sorts. It doesn't: the plural marker is a free word that goes after the noun phrase. And it is not bound to the noun, as zwazo mwen yo "my birds" shows.
I don't think that contemporary English can be even remotely explained by creolisation. The Romance lexical influence is easier to explain if you had some sort of bilingual ruling chaste, exerting pressure over the language over a few centuries. One that would eat bœuf and porc while the plebs were raising cows and pigs. ...and, well, that's exactly what happened.
I did once make a conlang that was what an Old English-Old French creole would be like.
Here's the Sermon on the mount:
Comments like yours give me the itch to work on my conlangs... I've been neglecting them for more than a year now.
And it's really cool how you're picking extinct OE features as building blocks for your conlang: ġe- → je- in participles, thou → tu (unless it's a backed version of OF ⟨tu⟩ /ty/? IIRC /u/→/y/ was around 1100 or so), so goes on. It's also interesting that you're messing a bit with the prepositions, such as in dhe muntéanjes instead of on the mountains.
Just for curiosity, that ⟨dh⟩ represents /ð/, right? Was this some later, post-creolisation process?
does represent /ð/ in this romanization, yes.
As for being thou or tu, I'd have to check my design document.