Genetic Descent/Haitian Creole

[JoatSimeon at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/14/01 12:36:12 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
X99Lynx at aol.com writes:

> The road that Dr. White goes down in the quote above is one inevitable result
> of the assumption that languages can be "genetically" descended from ONLY one
> ancestor.

-- demonstrably, virtually all the languages which we can observe are so
descended. "But it was different long ago" doesn't cut it.

> Common sense and half-way decent science would suggest that it is a form of
> both source languages.  Why should one genetic element make another
> non-genetic?

-- well, English is not a form of French, nor is it a Romance language,
despite having nearly half its vocabulary derived from those sources.

You won't find one single, solitary linguist who'd say that it is.

I suggest that if you want to argue in this field, you have to learn its
vocabulary and how words are defined.  To question them, you must first
understand them in their own terms.

> A language is made up of many totally independent parts.  Why should the
> "genetics" of one part affect the "genetics" of another part.

-- no, a language is a system of interrelated parts (or rules) in a
continuous process of change.

It is a single "thing"; rather like a living organism, in fact, particularly
considered in its development through time.  (Please note that "rather like"
is not the same as "identical to").