> daniel andreasson wrote:
> > This means that you can't derive any constructions from
> > *any* language. The pidgin is created from scratch.
> Depends. Frequently people import the usages of their own language onto
> the pidgin. Morphologically, of course, there'd be little or no direct
Yes, of course. I was stretching it a bit.
> > Impoverished means that the lang's expressiveness
> > diminishes. For instance the lexicon often only consists
> > of a couple of hundred words.
> Depends on how long the pidgin is used. If it's in use for many years,
> it will grow in complexity.
Yes, but then it will be a *creole* and not a pidgin. Unless
you want to stick to the explanation that a creole has to have
native speakers. For instance Tok Pisin should rather be called
a creole, even though it hasn't very many native speakers, but
lots of urbanized L2 speakers.
> > So, from what I can tell, I don't think that there
> > would remain any declinations at all in Raatingo.
> Quite unlikely as well, but if there was long enough contact
> with Latin, some of the declensions might be re-introduced.
> But if there was that much contact, the phonology would almost
> surely not remain so simplified.
So, are you saying that there would remain declensions or not?
I think you're saying that there wouldn't. And I agree that
they could very well be reintroduced. And since this is a case
where the lexifiers would still be present and thus would be
influencing the pidgin, it would probably be very acrolectic.