Creolization Puns

This is an interview with Jane Anna Gordon speaking on her work on statelessness and contemporary enslavement involving topics such as the Bracero program to the uprisings following the murder of George Floyd. Gordon also speaks on her book Creolizing Political Theory: Reading Rousseau through Fanon as well as ideas on indigenous anarchism, internationalism, and Rosa Luxemburg, listen to the interview here: https://timetalks.libsyn.com/jane-anna-gordon-on-statelessness-contemporary-enslavement-frantz-fanon-creolization-anarchism-and-rosa-luxemburg

In this interview, LaRose Parris, author of Being Apart: Theoretical and Existential Resistance in Africana Literature discusses her education growing up, the violence of eurocentrism in western philosophy, the topic of creolization, representation in the media, the importance and internationalism of David Walker, how decolonization needs to be decolonized, Black Lives Matter, and survivance. Listen to the full interview here: https://timetalks.libsyn.com/larose-parris-on-education-eurocentrism-creolization-representation-david-walker-decolonization-and-survivance

Also, any literature you can link to or suggest would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys!

I am currently reading Gilles Havard's "Coureurs de Bois" (2016), a historic volume that looks at the history of fur traders in North America and he uses a lot of ethnology in his work here too. One thing that keeps coming up is that there are populations that are the product of a cultural Métissage in the West, where they took elements of the French (Or Scottish, or other European) and Indigenous and it was fundamental in creating a new culture. But he also mentions other populations in the West that he refers to as being Creoles, and the product of Creolization, in which "Indianization" (as the colonial administrators often called it) was fundamental to their new culture too. So I am confused - what is the difference between a cultural "Métissage" and cultural "Creolization" in Ethnology? (Ie without the question of 'biological' Métissage). It is a French work and I am not sure what an English equivilant to the term "Métissage" is.

I've been wondering about a social aspect in the process of creolization. The creation of a pidgin seems logical and very useful. But why would anyone choose to teach this pidgin to their children, so that it becomes their native language (ergo a creole)? Whatever the status of the native language(s) of the parents, the status of the pidgin would be lower I assume because it is not a "proper", a “broken” language. The only scenario I can imagine is one in which the parents want to teach their children the socially higher (lexifier) language but fail to speak it correctly. Since creoles usually have several substrate languages I think this is very unlikely. It is also possible to learn several languages at a near-native level. That's why I don't believe that the native language would influence the foreign language (of the parents, that becomes the creole) that much.

Thank you in advance.

Can someone please clarify? Thanks!

edit: if anyone finds this post some day, I eventually stumbled upon Michael DeGraff's work on creole languages. Not a direct answer, but very relevant. His MIT lectures on youtube are worth a watch regarding this topic.

Wondering if there are general and consistent observable mechanisms by which languages evolve through time (e.g. do vowels consistently always shift in a certain way, etc), or through contact with other languages?

Put another way, can we predict how a hypothetical creole language could look like if you mixed two languages that haven't mixed before? e.g. Would one grammatical system consistently win over the other, would lexicons just mix at a 50/50 rate, or are there just way too many historical/social variables at play to make a reliable prediction?

apologies if there is a very clear subfield in linguistics that studies this, I only did linguistics 101 in college and didn't get around to this question

Illustration

(This post is too long, at some point you'll have to click on a link to read the rest of the text)

So, yesterday, Les Républicains (LR), France’s mainstream conservative party, finally chose their candidate. As the final list of expected candidates is pretty much settled (although there’s still time for surprises), and as things have become quite complicated, I think it’s late enough to do a writeup on the incoming French presidential elections, similar to what u/bazarov_21 did with the Japanese elections.

What is the role of the president of France?

France is the only country in Western Europe where the president is the most important and powerful person in the country. Other Western European countries are either parliamentary monarchies or parliamentary republics where the president’s role is mostly ceremonial and the head of government holds the executive power (Portugal is a special case I think, the president doesn’t hold the executive power but still has an important role).

Since 2000, the president of France is elected for five years and since 2007, he can only serve two consecutive terms, although it’s still legal to serve an unlimited number of non-consecutive terms.

The president holds the executive power. He promulgates the laws, chooses the Prime Minister, is the chief of the Armed Forces, is able to order the use of nuclear weapons, is able to dissolve the National Assembly (lower chamber), and is able to call a popular referendum if the Parliement agrees.

There are two houses in the French Parliament. The upper house, the Senate, is of lesser relevance and most of the time can’t have the last word. The lower house, the National Assembly, is the one that actually dictates of much actual power the president holds.

When the president has a majority in the Assembly, the president appoints whoever he likes as a Prime Minister and is free to choose how much power he delegates to him. Some ‘strong’ presidents, such as Macron currently, choose a mere executor as their PM, and thus don’t get overshadowed, while some ‘weak’ presidents such as Hollande appoint a stronger PM and delegate him a significant part of the president’s prominence in French politics.

When the opposition has a majority in the Assembly, the president chooses a Prime Minister that satisfies said opposition, and the appointed PM becomes the de facto holder of the executive power. Theoretically, the president could st

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

NOTE: This is an extension of a question that I've posted in Quora last year.

DETAILS:

>In his personal page (now through Internet Archive; the original link that I've posted as link in my Quora question had long gone), linguist Andrew Hsiu hypothesized that proto-Hmong-Mien (and by extension, proto-Tai-Kadai) was a creole language formed in northern Hunan (in case of proto-Tai-Kadai, Pearl River Delta) involving "Old Middle Yangtze" substrate, Austroasiatic, a missing Sino-Tibetan branch called "Donor Hmong-Mien" and Old Chinese (in the case of proto-Tai-Kadai: pre-Austronesian, "Old Middle Yangtze" substrate, Austroasiatic and Old Chinese). In fact, it seems that in another post, he also compared both proto-Hmong-Mien and proto-Austroasiatic (the hyphenated link is also archived). What's your personal thoughts on such hypothesis. By the way, here's the updated version of Andrew Hsiu's personal site. Thanks!

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

They’re on standbi

With Christmas break, I finally have time to let my mind wander freely and somehow I ended up at this question which I'm not sure counts as biblical history, historical linguistics, or what. If my premise doesn't make sense, my apologies.

Basically I was thinking about the general "rule" in languages that languages that are left alone get more complex, and languages that are adopted by lots of new speakers get simpler. A recent historical example is Xhosa and Zulu, which are essentially sister languages, but Zulu is more regularized in terms of grammar, basically because Zulu was a language of empire and conquest. A more familiar example is English - Old English looked a lot more like German and Dutch, with a lot more cases, genders and irregularities, but those got worn away as Scandinavians immigrated to England and adopted English, and essentially "creolized" it.

Hebrew seems to be a lot more regularized of a language than the sort of "left-to-themselves" languages. Granted I am much more familiar with Modern Hebrew than Biblical, but the things that stick out to me are:

• few cases
• few irregular plurals (cf. Arabic, I mean, come on)
• few irregular verbs
• straightforward grammar (not a lot of "exceptions" to memorize)

My question is, has anyone looked at this and done any comparative linguistics to determine how consolidated the Israelites were at the time the Bible was written? Has anyone looked at, say, Phoenician, or a less-traveled language, to see if Biblical Hebrew was more or less regular than you would expect? Or looked at documents from different parts of ancient Palestine to see how popular the dialect of the Bible was, or when in time it might have become more regularized?

The basic underlying question is: does Biblical Hebrew look like the language of a culturally consolidated people, or does it look more like one point on a long spectrum? Can we say whether the Israelites were already a cohesive ethnolinguistic identity by the time the first layers of the Bible were written? If so, was that because of a pre-Biblical political experience? Or is my premise totally wrong and Biblical Hebrew is more complex than I assume it to be?

Pilot on me!!

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

When I got home, they were still there.

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

Where ever you left it 🤷‍♀️🤭

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

There hasn't been a post all year!

You take away their little brooms

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "