next up previous
Next: Post-Creole Continuum Up: Strong Proponents of Previous: Objections to Polygenesis

Strong defense of Monogenesis:

  1. Navarro Tomas (1951) aruged that Papiament was not blend of port/Spanish/African elements but orig. in Portuguese pidgin used in slave trade. Key importance of Portuguese in slave trade, and even in origin of Afrikaans? (Hesseling 1923).

  2. Whinnon (1956) showed that 4 diff. creoles in Philippines didn't have diverse origins but came from common source in Moluccas which origin ated in Portuguese pidgin. Similar to Goan Portuguese-Creole in India, Sri Lanka, etc.

  3. 16th C. Portuguese pidgin replaced Arabic and Malay as trade languages in Far East, was used from India to Indonesia to Japan. Asian Spanish Crs. were relexified (Spanish replaced Portuguese). Case can be made that Chinese Pidgin E. was relexified from pidgin Portuguese Thus almost all Pidgin(s)/Creole(s) can be shown to have some Portuguese origin, which then goes back to Sabir.

  4. In any event, it is easier to posit divergence and relexification of all Pidgin(s)/Creole(s) than to posit convergence toward structural similarity.

Harold Schiffman
Tue Mar 25 08:54:40 EST 1997