Genetic Descent/Haitian Creole

[David L. White]

> Let's look at Dr White's approach here and what it might mean:

> Situation #1:  Language A shares its ENTIRE "nominal morphology, derivational
> or non-finite verbal morphology,... and categories" with Language B, but it's
> "finite verbal morphology" is shared with no known language.

> RESULT: There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this would be
> universally seen as establishing a genetic relationship between A and B.

         Just briefly again (I have bailed back into the Finland conference,
which I had bailed out of) ...
        Actually, I would be quite happy to call such a language an isolate.
It is not possible, I would hope, simply to ignore in such a case the
problem of where the verbal morphology came from, as if it came out of
nowhere, no problem.  If it is not traceabe to Language B, we are not
justified in blithely proceeding as if it is, or ignoring it.

        But the point is, we have a fact here that cries out for
explanation:  that there are no mixed finite verbal morphologies.  What I
have suggested, essentially that finite verbal morphology is so basic that
it is not borrowable,  explains this, while nothing else that has been
proposed does.

        We do, by the way, have at least one mixed finite verbal morphology,
though the nature of its "mixture" is rather different than might be
expected:  Kormakiti "Arabic", where (if the facts have been reported
correctly) Arabic verbs use Arabic morphology and Greek verbs use Greek
morphology.  (Thus it is not the case that, as an example, singular personal
morphemes are Greek and plural personal morphemes are Arabic.  This would be
a true mixed finite verbal morphology, of the sort that evidently does not
occur.)   It is interesting to consider why mixture has occcured in this
case but not the case of Kupwar.  The answer is fairly obvious:  Greek and
Arabic have two different kinds of verbal morphology, concatenative and
non-concatenative respectively, so that the two can mix without getting in
each other's way.  The parallel expedient applied to Kupwar, Kannada endings
for Kannada verbs and Marathi endings for Marathi verbs (to simlify a bit)
would produce a situation where two different morphemes meaning the same
thing would occur in exactly the same place and pattern, which would be
rather pointless.  Therefore mixture is more difficult to pull off and does
not occur.   The nature of the languages in contact makes a difference.
        I cannot say more at this time (I am working on my own rival
theoretical framework to oppose to TK's "shift" versus "borrowing"), but I
would ask those sharing their views on this matter to PLEASE ANSWER THE
QUESTION  why it is that truly mixed finite verbal morphologies do not
occur.  Continued ducking will qualify you folks to seek a career in
politics.

Dr. David L. White