Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social'

[Ellen F. Prince]

Mikael Parkvall wrote:

>Michel DeGraff wrote:
>
>>Actually the question whether some languages are less developed than
>>others is unfortunately still very much at the forefront of
>>contemporary creolistics.
>
>For those who did not follow the debate out of which DeGraff's article was
>born, a clarification is in place. The ideas that DeGraff takes issue with
>do _not_ claim that certain languages are more developed in the sense of
>being "more expressive", but rather that some languages contain a larger
>number of features not motivated by communicative needs (such as
>grammatical gender or irregular verbs). Although DeGraff makes his best to
>miss this point, there is no one in contemporary creolistics who believes
>that creoles are inferior means of communication.

Excuse me but you have just given the clearest evidence imaginable
that the attitude of which De Graff speaks is alive and well!

Hint: It's the syntax -- i.e. those pesky things that 'are not
motivated by communicative needs' -- that are at issue here.