Talk:Portuguese-based creole languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Papiamentu's Base Language Is Disputed[edit]

See Bart Jacob's article (Note 1), where it says:

"Ever since Lenz’ (1928) pioneering description of [Papiamentu], its mixed Spanish-Portuguese vocabulary has provoked heavy debate. Lenz’ plea for [Papiamentu]’s Afro-Portuguese origins (“Su gramática … es ‘negro-portuguesa’ en primer lugar”...) received support from prominent scholars such as Navarro Tomás (1953), Van Wijk (1958), Valkhoff (1966) and Voorhoeve (1973), but linguists defending [Papiamentu]’s Spanish roots (e.g., Maduro 1965, 1966, 1969, DeBose 1975 or Rona 1976) have been similarly numerous. That the debate is far from settled is noted by Lipski...who asserts that up to present “scholars are … evenly divided as to the Spanish vs. Portuguese origins of Papiamento" (pg. 320)

For his part, Jacobs does think, Papiamentu stems from a Portuguese-based creole spoken in West Africa. But, . . . that is his thesis.

The experts -- as he himself admits above -- are still divided 50-50, however. This should be reflected in the article by:

  1. Clearly noting Papiamentu's disputed status as a Portuguese-based creole; or,
  2. Placing Papiamentu in its own section as a possible candidate for being a Portuguese-based creole.Mwidunn (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the English[edit]

I hope that someone reads this and correct it's English.Pedro 19:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lingua Geral[edit]

I thought that Lingua Geral is mainly Amerindian, with only some influence of Portuguese (like Tetum?). -- Error 23:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know. I'll try to investigate. Thought there were Portuguese Creoles in that region, in that time. But I dont know, I didnt wrote that. But I'll investigate. Tetum is largely influenced by Portuguese, it hasn't "some" influence. But many facts, in there are correct.Pedro 01:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ciberduvidas da Língua Portuguesa

Os jesuítas compreenderam-no muito bem mais tarde, ao estudarem as línguas indígenas para melhor evangelizarem o Brasil, indo até conceber uma «língua geral», composta de elementos do tupi-guarani, do latim e do português, a qual seria acessível a todos. from Instituto Camões The jesuits understood it very well later, they study the indigenous languages for a better evangelization of Brazil, they even had conceived a «Língua Geral» (General language), composed by elements of Tupi-Guarani, Latin and Portuguese, that was accessible to everyone.

Unclear. There were writen books about it. There's a way to look. Search for credible sources. There is much garbage on the net. Pedro 10:31, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

JOÃO RAMALHO (portuguese explorer in Brazil, and accepted by the Indians as one of them) - 1493(?) - 1580 says: Vossa Reverendíssima não torça o nariz porque, embora os portugueses sejam os novos donos do Brasil, aqui a língua portuguesa é como o latim, lá no Reino, só poucos a falam. Aqui, a língua-geral é o tupi, embora corrompido pela língua portuguesa, porém tupi ainda. E até a língua portuguesa que algumas criancinhas aprendem no Colégio (não nas ocas ou malocas) vai sendo corrompida pelo tupi. Vossa Reverendíssima, em Coimbra, falava um português impecável. Aqui já vai dizendo urubu em vez de abutre, mirim em vez de pequeno, saúva em vez de formiga, capim em vez de forragem, jabuti em vez de cágado, arapuca em vez de armadilha, catapora em vez de bexigas, jararaca em vez de cobra, e tantas mais... This is 200 yrs before Marquis of Pombal expeled the Jesuits. Lingua Geral was in formation then.

A doubt: Lingua Geral is different from the Guarani language official in Paraguay, isn't it? -- Error 00:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. The explorer was, in fact, elected by the indigenous people, as a leader (of them), he said: (translation)

« (...) Even if the Portuguese are the new owners of Brazil, in here Portuguese language is like Latin, in the Kingdom [Portugal], only few speak it. In here, the General language [língua Geral] is Tupi, even corrupted by the Portuguese language, it is yet Tupi. And even the Portuguese language that some small children learn in school (not in ocas or molocas) it is being corrupted by Tupi (...)»

Has faar as I know lingua geral could be only a "Portuguese-influenced indigenous language" or a creole in construction.Pedro 02:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese-influenced indigenous languages[edit]

Um, why is "Portuguese-influenced indigenous languages" in this article, given that they aren't creoles? - Mustafaa 22:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mustafaa (Your nick sounds great), I just copied the Spanish Creole style. It has some importance, many believe, for instance, that Tetum is a Creole, other believe that will become in the near future. Portuguese influence is so large, that a Portuguese speaker understands some Tetum. A basic conversation can be made with some help. Pedro 11:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, since the limit can be unclear in some cases, people looking for some PIIL could look for them here. An explanation here is not out of place. -- Error 00:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

there is no Portuguese Creole in Brazil[edit]

There is no Portuguese Creole in Brazil, only Cafundo, but that is not a Creole, that is a secret language, a special one, an "anti-creole"! I'll add info about it. Possibly, there are in Brazil some French Creoles. About the Quilombos, I'm almost sure that info is not coherent. But Leandro can be wright. (need to study it) There is a degree of uncertenty about Minas Gerais equivelent. Is that Patuá, from Minas Gerais? Saying that Brazilian Portuguese dialects presents signs of decreoulization is the most distant from the truth. The spoken Portuguese dialects in Brazil are even more preserved than those of Portugal. Pedro 19:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are incredibly arrogant, Pedro, deleting things added by people who know better than you.

There are still dozens of quilombos in Brazil, and in most of them Creoles are spoken. I'm adding back the words you wrongfully deleted.

Lanc-Patuá is a French-Portuguese pidgin, the name comes from French Langue Patois.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 22:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That's not arrongance. Show me your facts and links or something. Develop...--Pedro 23:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If the kilombo thing is true it should have a good entry in the article, not a simple mention. I would be happy to know that there are still creoles there. But no source confirms that.

where's that?

These two are the best sources on the net. Where's that what you are saying.

A creole language must have as substract language other language than Portuguese, and the lexicon in its majority must be Portuguese, to be a Portuguese Creole.-Pedro 00:03, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched and found nothing about any living Portuguese creole in Brazil

. There was a single hit about lanc-Patuá, but with no info. I've also read Brazilian articles about Creoles in quilombos, like the rest, it only says that in the past there could be creoles. I'm sorry but I'll delete again if you dont have a source confirming that. About the lanc-Patois why is it a French-Portuguese Creole? There are many languages, especially creoles that have one, two or more portuguese words due to the expansion History of this language. I'm pretty curious about lanc-Patuá. -- Pedro 11:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • After tomorrow I'll delete/merge with extinct Portuguese creoles the info about the Portuguese Creoles' in Brazil, but I dont know what to do w/ lanc-Patois, we must have credible info in here, and I dont know if that's credible.-Pedro 10:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot is known about Lanc-Patuá. I located a book about it once-- it had basic vocabulary and a bit of text. It's spoken in Amapá, mostly in the city of Macapá, IIRC by immigrants from French Guyana. Anyway, from the examples I've seen, it's basically a transplanted Guyanese French Creole; whether it's grown different I can't say.
There's another Guyanese-based French creole in Amapá, too, Karipuna French Creole, spoken by a different community: Karipuna natives who migrated from French Guyana to Brazil. I also once did manage to look at a book about it, but I can't remember much. 209.204.158.254 06:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Opinionated, anyone?[edit]

Pedro’s statement that “Saying that Brazilian Portuguese dialects presents signs of decreoulization is the most distant from the truth. The spoken Portuguese dialects in Brazil are even more preserved than those of Portugal” and the corresponding text in the article is simply rubbish, his own opinion and nothing more. There is a debate about this, true, but who is Pedro to pronounce the answer? In my view of the literature (large amounts of which I can actually cite), the decreolization position is strongly favoured. Although the suggestion that a full creole existed in Brazil was made as early as 1933 by Renato Mendonça and Silva Neto spoke oddly of semi-creoles, Greg Guy first proposed a modern view of BP (in analogy with AAVE) as a decreolizing creole in his doctoral thesis and this has largely been taken seriously. John Holm in particular has written extensively on this, developing a slightly more subtle concept (though to my mind problematic in other ways) of “partial restructuring”. Other creolists including Baxter have taken it seriously and even Naro admits its force. References below. (Re isolate (quilombo) Afro-Brazilian creoles, it may postdate Pedro dogmatism, but Dante Lucchesi has now written on them, and there is quite a research project on them going on in the baiano universities.

For my money, dialects such as caipira dialect (particularly the pre-mass media form as documented by Amaral) are patently obviously radically restructured both in their grammars and their phonologies. That the speech of the urban elite shows strongly conservative traits — particularly, of course, in Rio where the Portuguese court was based as it fled Napoleon — has little or no relevance to the widely (though I admit not universally) accepted view that the vernaculars are either decreolized.

I propose to rewrite the entry making it more balanced: setting out the arguments both in favour and against the decreolization position and not stating my personal opinion as categorical truth.

  • Baxter, Alan N., Dante Lucchesi & Maximiliano Guimerães. 1997. “Gender agreement as a ‘decreolizing’ feature of an Afro-Brazilian dialect.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 12(1):1–57.
  • Guy, Gregory R. 1981. Sociolinguistic variation in Rio Portuguese: sound change as a cause of syntactic change. Doctoral thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
  • Holm, John. 1987. “Creole influence on Popular Brazilian Portuguese.” In: Glenn G. Gilbert, ed. Pidgin and Creole Languages: Essays in memory of John E. Reinecke. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. pp. 406–429.
  • Holm, John. 2009. “The genesis of the Brazilian vernacular: insights from the indigenization of Portuguese in Angola.” Papia: revista brasileira de estudos crioulos e similares 19:93–122.
  • Lucchesi, Dante. 2008. “Africanos, crioulos e a língua portuguesa.” [“Africans, creoles, and the Portuguese language.”] In: Ivana Stolze Lima & Laura do Carmo, eds. História social da língua nacional. [A social history of the national language.] Rio de Janeiro: Edições Casa de Rui Barbosa. pp. 151–180.

Re “what is an anti-creole” — it is a fanciful term used largely by Hildo Couto and other Brazilian linguists. I don’t really understand what it’s supposed to be, and it has largely failed to take hold. (See Couto, H. H. 1992. Anti-crioulo. Papia 2(1):71-82.)

--Taguagringo (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "anti-Creole"?[edit]

Need a definition. --Erauch 10:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • there's no definition. I don't know if this a proper English word for Portuguese "Anti-Crioulo". it means it is the opposite of a Creole. This specific "creole language", was firstly confused to be a creole - superstract: Portuguese substract: Bantu. Other investigators later investigated this "creole" and they found superstract - bantu substract - Portuguese and called it "Anti-Crioulo". it means that native Portuguese speakers were engaiged in speaking a Bantu language, because they were natural portuguese speakers, they simply used bantu words with Portuguese background. Is it a Bantu Creole? I don't think so... -Pedro 11:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems slightly suspect that a creole with African lexicon and European syntax would not be a creole in the same way that the reverse is a creole. Almost as though a creole could be classified (in lay terms) as a bastardization of a European language (focusing on the saliency of the lexicon). Later, linguists discover that the "bastardization" in Creoles comes out of the underpinnings/infrastructure of non-European syntax. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, we're trying to say that it's not a creole??? Not sure about that. Wow, just realized that I'm six years late to this discussion...Ironically, in April of 2005 I was less than 1 hour drive from Helvecia, Bahia...could have confirmed it myself if I knew about it! 98.64.73.9 (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Tom in Florida[reply]

Damaõ[edit]

Gujarati is NOT the native language of Damaõ. It is a foreign language imported from Saurashtra-Kathiawar by Gujarati settlers in the Far North Konkan, in which Damaõ is located, just as Marathi is a foreign language in Central and South Konkan, imported from the original Maharashtra Desh across the Sahyadri mountain range to its east. I have therefore altered the line "Both the substrate (Gujarati) and superstrate (Portuguese) languages are still found in the territory" to remove the fabricated history. WikiSceptic 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's possible to say that the languages are "still" there without getting the implication that Gujarati is the native language of Damaõ. After all, nobody thinks that Portuguese is. I'd recommend putting some of the information about how Gujarati got there in the article to negate the ambiguity. AEuSoes1 21:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You had reverted my correction to the Damaõ section of Portuguese Creole, to the claim that Gujarati is the substrate language of Língua da Casa. Before you revert once again, can you kindly prove that the Gujarati language is the substrate language in a territory [North Konkan] where the Gujarati people are immigrants since the last five hundred years and not the natives? See also Norteiro people & History of Konkan. The claim that the Gujarati language, a language, by the way, which has also come into being in its contemporary form only in the last five hundred years or so, supplanting earlier languages of Anhilvad / Anhilwara, Kathiawar and Saurashtra, is the "substrate" of Língua da Casa is as idiotic as claiming that French is the substrate language of Castillian! WikiSceptic 07:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "Gujarati is not the native language of Damaõ" which is fine, but I don't understand why you're taking out the idea that it is a substrate language for Lingua de Casa. You didn't argue that in the talk page, and if you are taking it out because it's not a substrate language then mention of it is not important at all to the article section. However, Portuguese is still the superstrate language. I'll revert to my previous edit and if you think it's wrong because Gujarati's not a substrate language then take out all mention of Gujarati. AEuSoes1 21:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really couldn't prove either way whether Gujarati is a substrate language. If it isn't, then there's no reason to even mention it in the section. However, your claim that Gujarati can't be a substrate language because Gujarati hasn't been around there very long doesn't mean that it isn't a substrate language. Is that your only reason for thinking that it's not a substrate language? In the Carribean islands and United States, various creoles have formed with African languages such as Wolof as substrate even though African languages, by definition, are not native to the Carribean. Creoles can form in just a generation and so 500 years is by no means recent. Moreover, the actual Língua da Casa article still maintains that Gujarati is substrate. Also, if Gujarati isn't a substrate language, then what is?
So far you haven't convinced me that Gujarati can't be a substrate language and from what I can tell, Sarcelles is the fellow who put that information there in the first place. He is probably better equipped to tell you that it is. I myself actually have a problem with the idea that Gujarati is the substrate language because creoles have more than one substrate language; apparantly Gujarati is the only known one. AEuSoes1 03:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the Damao discussion back here - I erred in posting to your talk page, which mistake was due to my confustion.

At the moment, I am busy with the treatment of a relative who is to be operated, and so I will not be able to devote much time to this issue, but I will return to it, as I consider it important. I believe, but cannot prove it with complete certitude at this time, that the sustrate language is Konkani; however, I have provided evidence to support my hypothesis, especially in the pages to which I have linked. Gujarati as "substrate" is excluded, because the people of Damao are not descended from the Gujarati who settled the surrounding areas of "Eastern Gujarat" at about the same time Portugal seized bits and pieces of lands from the Sultanate of Cambay; moreover, Gujarati settlers or immigrants or colonists from their original homelands of Kathiawar and Saurashtra, while socially dominative, do not form the majority of the population of "Eastern Gujarat" taken as a whole.

The Damanese people are native to Damao, and so must be of Konkani origin (A minority of them are Gujarati immigrants into Damao).

There is a parallel between the situation in Damao and in Goa, where many Hindus deliberately adandoned their native Konkani and adopted the Marathi language for political reasons, principally to demonstrate their rejection of Portugal. That does not make them ethnic Marathi; it makes them ethnic Konkani who have assimilated to Marathi language and culture.

I include in the following table a rough note that I had drawn up, and which I intend to expand and use...

The available histories of Gujarat, Saurashtra and Kathiawar display great ignorance and are unsatisfactory. Gujarat is a comparatively modern development. It is not mentioned as such by this name in ancient records, for the simple reason that it did not exist then. It came into existence due to the establishment of a Gurjara kingdom by a dynasty belonging to the Gurjara race, who are primarily nomadic herdsmen living on the fringes of society and in the marches or borderlands between communties. The Gurjara are a comparatively latter entrants into South Asia, and belong to the same race as the Georgians and Khazars of the Caucasus. Before the establishment of the Gurjara kingdom, there were separate kingdoms of Saurashtra and Kathiawar on the peninsula.

Saurashtra and Kathiawar are not synonyms but are two distinct regions sharing one and the same peninsula. Kathiawar occupies the northern portion, while Saurashtra occupies the southern. Both are ancient and historical communities, and both had their own distinct languages. The establishment of a unified, supervening Gurjara kingdom did not change that. But subsequent political developments did.

Across the Gulf of Cambay also called the Gulf of Khambatta, is the region now known as Eastern Gujarat. Here, the "Ethnic Gujarati" are a minority and non-native, and "Scheduled Tribes" and "Dalits" predominate the demography. Part, at least, of this, belongs to the historic Konkan, for remnants of Konkani peoples are found throughout the portion south of the Narmada river.

This region also was effectively settled by a sustantial Muslim minority who colonized it by intermarrying with the predominant tribal population forming the famed Ganchi Muslim ethnic group that predominates among Muslim communities here, as for example in Godhra. The natives of "Eastern Gujarat" have always seen themselves as distinct from Gujarat. Amarsinh Chowdhary, a tribal who had been Chief Minister of Gujarat, justified his polygamy on the basis of tribal customs, as against mainstream Hindu custom of the Gujerati people. There is now a demand by a section of "Dalit" B.J.P. politicians based in this region for a separate province or state of "Dalitstan" (See 1 & 2).

Gujarat began to coalesce into a single ethnic community from the substrates of Saurashtra and Kathiawar only after the Muslim conquests and rule over the area. This was further influenced by the advent of Portugal and of the Mughal Empire, and subsequently of the English and the Marathas. Modern Gujarat and the Gujarati language is a product of these four influences.

WikiSceptic 08:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plz remember that the substrate is not as important as the superstrate. I never saw a reference saying that it is another language but it is quite possible. it has obviously very few traces of the language of the place and most people have some admixture. If it moved closer to standard Portuguese, it must have virtually nothing of other languages. We can solve the problem by putting superstracte Portuguese substrate local languages - If that historical information is correct, or some reference supports another language. There can be no comparison of the Creole of Damão with Spanish and French. French and Spanish are independent languages from Portuguese, that evolved from latin (like Portuguese). The (semi-)Creole of Damão is a Portuguese (semi-)Creole, that is, it uses Portuguese with some distinctive elements. Remember that most Portuguese Creoles are distinctive from English ones for instance. it is often composed of mixracing rather than an independent community learning a different language.-Pedro 11:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be obvious that the only reason I suggested that relating Língua da Casa to Gujarati is like relating Spanish to French (in the order of the first being a product and the latter being the "substrate") is to underline the absurdity. Whether Língua da Casa constitues an independent language or a Portuguese dialect is something I cannot speak of. WikiSceptic 16:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay about the talk page thing, I don't get very many messages so it was pretty exciting. I understand what you're saying, but your main argument that Gujarati can't be a substrate language because its arrival is recent compared to other languages doesn't prove either way. Comparing it with Spanish and French isn't a good comparison because neither are creoles whereas Língua da Casa is (or was) a creole. I'd say that Konkani could be another substrate language.AEuSoes1 20:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please sign your comments. Some sources that I used don't classify Língua da Casa as a Creole (in dead, it is not included, but it could also be forgotten).
  • In fact, let's look at its name "lingua da Casa", that is proper Portuguese, for a creole I would expect "lingu di Casa", "papia di casa", or something like that, but not "Lingua (language - fem.) da (of the - fem.) Casa (Home/House - fem.)", that's not common in creoles, at all. I had listen to Damanese ppl speaking (only) on TV. If they talk like they did on TV at home, and if that is the Lingua da Casa, that is surely a dialect, distinctive like all dialects are, but a dialect. But it can be like in Malacca, where there's the common Cristão (Creole) and the standard Cristão (Portuguese). Others include it as a creole, but refer that it reevolved towards the standard. So the best is to say that it is a semi-creole. Maybe some linguists should investigate it deeply.
  • About the substrate you are doing "a storm in a glass of water" ;) If you say "it is a Spanish Creole", "it is an English Creole", this discussion would be ok. Just change the Gujarati to local languages and it solves the problem. Nobody knows for sure. Once some capeverdians asked me what substrate their Creole had, but nobody knows, linguists just say Western African languages, and they are correct, because the population is from different origins mixed with Portuguese.
-Pedro 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creoles rather than "Creole"[edit]

To some extent this article treats a multitude of Portuguese creoles though they were just one language. This is not an accurate picture, even if all of them are descendants of Portuguese. The article should be moved back to Portuguese creoles (without a capital "c") to help amend this.

Peter Isotalo 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Now it's been moved to the obtusely verbose Portuguese-based creole languages. Please don't use titles as explanatory prose. This should be done in the article. Portuguese creoles is much more intuitive.
Peter Isotalo 10:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One justification is that "XXX creoles" may be misunderstood as the ethnic groups; this is especially true of French Creoles. Another is that the "principal parent" is often disputed, so "XXX-based" allows the same language to be listed under multiple major parents. Anyway this is a secondary article to creole language and Portuguese langauge, and there are shorter redirects.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we have dabpages for. Create a dabpage at Portuguese creole, then make one link to Portuguese creoles for the languages and Portuguese Creoles (note the capital "C") for the peoples. Either way, it's so much better than using the titles as an explanatory text. Especially when articles are moved about without probing the appropriateness of these moves, either by checking for consensus or applying common sense.
Peter Isotalo 09:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article back to Portuguese Creole, even if the title is slightly misleading. Either way, it's better than the ultra-long title.
Peter Isotalo 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please move it back? "Portuguese Creole" is misleading (not just "slightly"), in the singular, and with wrong capitalization. Jorge Stolfi 09:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • let an informed native English speaker choose. I think it should stay in "Portuguese Creole", based in some English literature about creoles. but "Portuguese creoles" would not be a problem, maybe a better one. --Pedro 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, please rename the article back to Portuguese-based creole languages. (Unfortunately it now takes an admin to do that.) The title should make sense to general readers, not just to the authors (or to Portuguese readers). Capitalization and final "s" may seem sufficient clues to the authors, but no reader will guess that convention. Right now, this is the only article on "XXX-based creole languages" that is called something else.
See also the article on creole language for arguments why it is better to call it "...creole languages" rather than just "...creole", and "Portuguese-based..." rather than just "Portuguese...".
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very good point Jorge. Not only does the rest of wikipedia go with "xxx-based" but all my sources on creoles say "xxx-based creoles" rather than "xxx creole" and the lack of the plural 's' makes it sound like it's one language.
"portuguese-based creoles" is not an "ultra-long" title and should be restored, at the very least to be consistant with the rest of wikipedia and the literature on creole languages. AEuSoes1 06:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to have "languages", you don't need "-based". It's just tautological, since it's already stated that it's about "creole languages". Just Portuguese creole languages will suffice.
Peter Isotalo 16:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "Portuguese creole languages" is that it looks like a classification, i.e. it would seem that a language is either one of the "Portuguese creole languages" or one of the "Malay creole languages", but canot be both. That is the implicit assumption when we say "Romance languages", "Indo-European languages", "Portuguese dialects", etc.; and the assumption is scientifically valid in these cases, because those languages evolved by small inclremental changes to a single language. But the tree classification approach is not appropriate for creoles. Since they do not have a single genetic parent, the question "who is THE parent language" is not meaningful. "Portuguese-based" is less categorical, it allows a creole like Papiamentu to be listed as "Portuguese-based", "Spanish-based", "Bantu(?)-based", and "Dutch-based" at the same time.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter is NOT better in this case. Not only is it incorrect and misleading, but it is inconsistant with the rest of wikipedia and the literature on creole languages. Are you going to change all of these articles too?

AEuSoes1 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can go as far as calling them XXX-based creole languages then you should have no problem calling them just XXX creole languages since "creole" already assumes "-based". I don't see any problem with categorizingm, and "classification" is quite obviously not a problem since you're willing to make all these titles into categories, i.e. classify them.
If you're going to insist on the super-correct longer titles, then at least dump the superfluous "languages". No one can possible confuse it with creole people.
Peter Isotalo 09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article[edit]

  • I don't know who changed the text so vastly, thatnow it has some serious incorrections. For instance the introduction is extremelly poor and biased... the geographic classification was also made by someone that didn't even read the article. Clean the article, sure, but read it first, then change it. --Pedro 14:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I cleaned up a lot of articles on creoles, especially Portuguese-based ones --- standardizing names, splitting multi-language pages into separate articles, moving language-specific information to the respective articles, removing duplication, fixing format and syntax, adding more info from Googleland, etc. (It was quite a lot of work; I expected to get at least a "thanks, but", but never mind...) Anyway, I tried hard not to erase any information, only move it to more appropriate places. If any got lost, it was an accident.
As for this particular article: I did not use the previous geographic classification because it was just an arbitrary partition by geographic region. Arbitrary for arbitrary...
There were some passages that I could not understand, and I had to make guesses in order to go on; probably some of the guesses were wrong, but I cannot take all the blame for them. The situation of Portuguese-Indian creole languages, in particular, is still quite confusing, especially in Sri Lanka where I cannot even tell how many different "Portuguese creole" languages there are.
A main source of confusion was the use of Portuguese or local names as if everybody knew what they meant, often very similar to ech other (and to other non-Portuguese creoles). Another was the recurrent mix-up between ethnic groups and languages, that is still present in many articles.
I would appreciate if you went through the various "Portuguese-based creole languages" and checked again the facts. It would also help to know something about each creole language other than their history; for example, the percentual composition of the lexicon, and the basic features of the syntax. Finally, it seems that there is a preoccupation in classifing every creole as either "Portuguese" (=interesting) or "not Portuguese" (=not interesting). This 0-1 classification is not scientifically meaningful, and it smells of lusophonic chauvinism or national/international political agendas. Let's take a broader perspective here. After all a creole is by definition a grown-up language on its own, with drivers license, credit card, and no set time to come home. It is no longer a "child" or "property" of any of its parent languages.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jorge, this article is about Portuguese creoles, and people edit on things they are interested (it is not a job)... so i didnt get the chauvinism. And there's not enough study on these languages. No one is property of no one; people speak the way they like to speak. How can you say that what comes out of your mouth is property of someone? There is still a strong relation between the creoles with the base languages, as the creoles are often used as a vehicle to teach the base language. That is the strategy in Guinea-Bissau, for instance. Their speakers also tend to change their way of speaking when the base language is spoken in that place. The strongest creole is Cape Verdean, even if it is becoming closer to Portuguese, it is so different, grown and strong that the relation is just a mean to get lexicon. the remaining will probably get extinct.

As for the organisation, Asia should be all together because all of these Creoles are related, the same for Africa, and the American ones are related with the African ones. In relation to the supposed Brazilian creole, it is not one. So the reader is missleaded.

And it this important for this article: There are two French-based Caribbean creole languages spoken in Brazil, in the state of Amapá, Lanc-Patuá and Karipuna Creole, which were transplanted to the region in the 20th century. They are poorly known, but the Portuguese influence on them is small (chiefly in the vocabulary).

Shouldnt that be in the French Creole article? There are several languages that are influenced by Portuguese...

The "portuguese Creole" is just style; an article about libraries should be in "library" not in "house with lots of books".

I got a lot of info from an "article" specifically about the creoles and the Portuguese expansion, so there's a lot of history and what you see as Lusophone chauvinism. And, I’ve tried to get info about the creole itself.

I respect the creoles and I see them as different, everybody sees that. I've even learned one.

BTW, thanks ;) --~~

Pedro, you are correct in saying that the Portuguese-based creoles of the Americas should be discussed right after those of Africa, since they were (at least in part) transplants of creoles that had already been formed in Guinea and Cape Verde. (At least that is what the articles claim, I have no way to confirm or deny that.) I will rearrange the sections.
As for putting all of Asia together, that doesn't seem so logical to me. From what I read in the articles, the Indo-Portuguese creoles were based on Indian languages (besides Portuguese), whereas those of Indonesia and Malacca were based on Malay; and these Malay-based creoles influenced Macanese after the Dutch takeover. So there seems to be no good reason to join India with Indonesia+China; and the length of the India section is a good reason to keep it separate.
On the other hand, the "Indian" languages comprise Indo-European in the north, and Dravidian in the south; and these two families are as different from each other as they are from Malay. Were any of the Indo-Portuguese creoles based on northern (Indo-European) Indian languages? If so, perhaps we should put another section split, or at least point out which creoles are in each class.
Finally, I think that it is is quite reasonable to mention Lanc-Patuá, Karipuna, and Cafundó, precisely to warn the reader that, even though they are in Bazilian territory, they are not Portuguese-based. (That is what I meant by "lusophonic chauvinism": we should spend some bytes to show how Portuguese things — in particular the Portuguese creoles — fit within the global picture and connect to non-Portuguese things. And not just cut out the lusophonic part of the map, and pretend that the rest of the world is not there.)
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You are welcome... 8-). Jorge Stolfi 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The substrate is not that important as you want to make. it is not that hard to see the superstate, but the substrate you can almost only use history. in your attempt to be neutral, you are becoming apart of it. These Creoles used to be simples forms of Portuguese that evolved and became a mature language. It is not a mixed African/Asian and Portuguese language, they arent that. --Pedro 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose creole[edit]

The problem is precisely that you cannot pretend to classify creoles into just one branch and attach them to a single parent language.

You say that having 95% of the lexicon derived from Portuguese is more important than having a Malay-like syntax. But, first, that is *your* opinion, and others may think otherwise. For example, many linguists consider Farsi to be Indo-European even though most of its lexicon is now derived from Arabic --- because they feel that syntax is much more important than lexicon. It doesn't matter whether we agree or not with them, the point is that placing a creole in a single bucket labeled "Portuguese" requires an arbitrary (subjective) choice of what features are important and what aren't. We can make such choices in our own webpages and our own papers, but here in Wikipedia we have to respect all views.

Second, even if we could use the lexicon as criterion, there would be cases like Papiamentu where the situation would still be disputed. For instance, if you look at the 100 most common words in English, probably 100% will be Anglo-Saxon; but if you look at all the words in the dictionary, without taking word frequency into account, that percentage may drop to less than 50%. So (as in Papiamentu) one often gets down to pointless disputes about whether *these* words are more important than *those* words, or whether one should look at todays lexicon or at the lexicon of 300 years ago. Fortunately we do not have to do that; we can say that Papiamentu is Portuguese based AND Spanish-based AND Bantu-based AND a little Dutch based, etc.. Better yet, we should give the percentages and explain the syntax; THAT is much more useful to the reader than telling him "it is a Portuguese creole, not a Malay creole, trust me".

Third, you are using the words "substrate" and "superstrate" inappropriately. They are defined only in cases of language replacement, when native speakers of language A are forced to learn a second language B; both coexist for a time, but children grow up learning B (not a mixture) as a native language, and eventually A dies out, leaving only minor vestiges in the local dialect of B. Then A is the subtrate and B is the superstrate. But that is not at all what happens with creoles, including Kristang. Rather, native speakers of A and of B invent a pidgin P to communicate, then P evolves into a creole C by becoming the native speech for children, and supplants both A and B. In this case, if you insist on using that nomenclature, A and B should be called substrates, and C the superstrate.

BTW, The Ethnologue uses a tree-like classification mainly for the same reason that computers force you to use a tree for classifying all your files: namely, because the software is easier to write that way.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fracly, jorge, you must calm down. Because you are not reaching your goals with filosophy. The formation of the African and the Asian creoles are quite different. I say learn Cape verdean creole, and see what's African in it. it is an evolution of a simplified Portuguese. Pratically nothing else. It is not a dialect, it is a Creole! it evolved from that simple form of Portuguese to a proper language. You insist using "kristang" which is a form not used any longer. it reminds me of Cafundo... the supposed Creole, that is nothing, that there is even has an entry on ethnologue. And you putted as if that is a Creole. And again, just Because brazil speaks Portuguese is not a reason to include French creoles in the article! About your philosophy on creoles, discuss that with creolist forums. not here. I don't have an opinion on what is and what's not a creole, I base myself in what i read. And this article is becoming imagination rather than an useful article. And you can do everything with a computer. --Pedro 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've often heard substrate and superstrate used in terms of pidgins and creoles. The superstrate language is the "dominant" language (often the language of colonizers) that has some sort of cultural dominance over the others in the region and the substrate languages are the others. Usually the superstrate language has the largest influence on vocabulary in the pidgin and this is part of the reason why some people, like Pedro, say that creoles derive from simplified forms of the superstrate language. However, all pidgins and creoles are, by definition, mixed forms. It's been my understanding that if you have two languages of equal social standing that bilingualism takes place.
As for changing it to "portuguese-based creoles", I have no problem with this as long as you change the other articles, you know for consistancy's sake. AEuSoes1 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant language[edit]

Pedro and Pedro: First, there is no animosity from this side, but unfortunately e-mail does not properly convey emotions. As for Cafundó and the French creoles, once again, they are there precisely to warn the reader that they are NOT Portuguese-based to any significant extent; because otherwise a reader may think that they are, because of their location (and this confusion inded happened to previous editors of this article, didn't it?). A good article must include that sort of contrastive and comparative information too.

Again I invite you to adopt a broader perspective. When writing for Wikipedia one must use a different approach than when writing a private homepage about a topic that one likes. One must try to see things as a generic reader from anywhere in the world, not just as a lusophone reader. From that perspective, for example, "Kristang language" is a better name for the language than "Cristão", and "Anobonense language" is better than "Fá d'Ambó" --- even though the opposite may be true for the pt: Wikipedia, or a paper published on a journal devoted to lusophonic linguistics.

For the same reason, one must be careful not to put exaggerated, sentimental, or apologetic claims about the subject, because they will inevitably be annoying (to say the least) to readers from Inner Mingrelia, who cannot be expected to share the author's feelings. For example, in the Kristang people article, it says:

Portuguese sea captains were also renowned for their cruelty (perhaps a psychological defense mechanism) for good reason - the perils of the sea lay open not only to other European competitors to the spice market (i.e. the Dutch and French), but sea pirates from every race and creed.

IN fact, this sentence arguably violates Wikipedia guidelines about neutral point of view (NPOV). But there are several other sentences scattered through the Portuguese-related articles that are technically NPOV, but still noticeably biased or parochial.

For instance, the articles about the Kristang and other creole people discuss in great detail their historical connections to Portugal and the Portuguese aspects of their culture, but do not seem to care much about their present situation as a people, or the non-Portuguese aspects. It seems in fact that once a former Portuguesoid community loses its Portuguese character it "falls out of the radar's range", even if it continues to be a thriving separate community. I.e. the current article Kristang people does not seem to be really about the Kristang people, but about "Aspects of the Kristang history and culture that have to do with Portugal". Ditto for most of the other articles on communities with Portuguese ancestry. Do you see what I mean?

Anyway, the good thing is that you already put a lot of good contents in all these pages. We just have some cleanup work to do...

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name[edit]

The Portuguese word for "creole" is crioulo, it derives from criar (to raise) and olo (house - a typical African house in the Portuguese African colonies). Since most of the African creole speakers had a Portuguese father and an African mother, they were raised (criados) by their African mother, not as slaves, in the olos, thus crioulos, and were servants in the house of their fathers

This sounds like folk etymology to me. Is there a source for it? FilipeS 20:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese creole in Barbados[edit]

I would like to ask to the person who added the information that there´s a Portuguese creole language in Barbados could tell me anything more about the subject. I am not telling that it´s wrong, just couldn´t find more information about it, aside a controversial website named ´Blacks and Jews Newspage´ Emerson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Upper Guinea Creole"[edit]

Although Ethnologue calls it "Upper Guinea Creole" the term seems to be incorrect. The Portuguese classifications [1] call "Upper Guinea Creoles" to all the Creoles spoken in the Upper Guinea region. TenIslands 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Galician[edit]

Shouldn't modern galician be on the list? As a spanish dialect of portuguese origin?

No. --Ptcamn 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galician is neither Spanish, nor a dialect, nor a creole, nor derived from Portuguese. Definitely not. FilipeS 18:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectos portugueses del Uruguay[edit]

Before someone edit AGAIN my text about Reiverense Portunhol, please, read the articles below. There´s IN FACT a portuguese (one or more than one) language in Uruguay, technically named ´dialectos portugueses del Uruguay´. People in Uruguay name it Bayano, Brasilero, Fronterizo or Portuñol (not to be confused with the term used for the mixture of Portuguese and Spanish in other frontiers of Brazil).

ARTICLES:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:PqQlujkVKbMJ:www.anep.edu.uy/actualidad/srp07032201.pdf+dialectos+portugueses+del+Uruguay&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=10

http://cienciaecultura.bvs.br/pdf/cic/v57n2/a21v57n2.pdf

http://www.labeurb.unicamp.br/elb/americanas/dialetos_portugueses_uruguai.html

Emerson

I know that Riverense Portunhol exists. However, I am not aware of any linguists who regard it as a creole language. This article is for Portuguese-based creoles only, not for Portuguese dialects, which is a different thing, and already has its own article. FilipeS 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Crioulo"[edit]

About the Riverense Portunhol, I don't know if it really is a Creole. But I am pretty sure that in Portugal and in the Portuguese speaking African countries the word "Crioulo" means Creole language, and not just the Cape Verdean Creole. If it is needed to be specified, then it's said Creole from Cape Verde, Creole from Guinea-Bissau, Creole from São Tomé, and so on.
In Cape Verde, the word "Crioulo" (either name or adjective) may also refer to anything from Cape Verde.
As far as I know, there is only one Creole in Guinea-Bissau, and not "Guinean Portuguese creoles".
Ten Islands 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC

Ten Islands, there are MORE THAN ONE "DPU". People uses standard portuguese, dialects and creoles in northern Uruguay. All Portuguese-based. All these languages were labeled "DPU".
Emerson

You are correct about the meaning of "crioulo" in Portugal. In linguistics, it means "creole". When nothing else is said, it's assumed that one is speaking of Capeverdean Creole. FilipeS 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Uruguayan Portunhol[edit]

O.K., clearly there's a strong difference of opinion here, with one editor repeatedly adding this language to the list of creoles, while others remove them with the argument that they are not creoles. I have noticed, however, that according to the article Saramaccan, Cafundó, and Simple Portuguese are also not proper creoles. Since what is and what isn't a creole may be in the eye of the classifier to some extent, I've had a change of heart, and am suggesting that the Uruguayan variety of Portunhol be included in the article, provided someone comes up with a reference which calls it a "creole". FilipeS 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Filipe. Regarding the classification of Portunhol as a Creole language, I’d sugest the reading of the discussion in the Portuguese page (assuming that anyone interested can read Portuguese...). Regarding the other edits, first, I’ve tryed to explain in the article itself why those other languages are not considered Creoles, and second, some Interwikis were wrong: the Interwikis for Alemannic, Esperanto and German directed to a List of Creole Languages; the Interwiki for Bulgarian directed to Cape Verdean Creole.
However, I will try to keep an open mind, and keep on waiting for some information (opinion?) regarding the classification of Papiamentu (Portuguese or Spanish Creole?), Saramaccan (really Portuguese Creole?), Pequeno Português and Cupópia (really Creoles?). See you. Ten Islands 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems to me that Domaleixo is failing to make a distinction between a creole and a mixed language. FilipeS 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetum Praca[edit]

Hi guys, just wondering whether tetum praca can be considered a Portuguese Creole or not, Ethnologue seems to believe it but I feel it's a lingua franca that spread out from a certain dialect(Tetum Tenrik) with a large use of Portuguese vocabulary. Anybody want to clarify this for me?Domsta333 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying my edits[edit]

Pedro, I come hereby justify my edits. I will try to list them for clarity.

1. The subdivisions of the Portuguese-based Creoles do not bear the word “Portuguese”. Those languages are not Portuguese, they are completely different languages. In which source have you seen that they are called “Upper Guinea Portuguese”, “Lower Guinea Portuguese” and so on? Do not change a name just because you don’t like it!
2.The correct name is “Gulf of Guinea Creoles” and not “Lower Guinea Creoles”. In which source have you seen that? Do not change a name just because you don’t like it! The name “Lower Guinea is incorrect because:
2.1 Those Creoles are spoken in the Gulf of Guinea islands and not in Lower Guinea.
2.2 “Lower Guinea Creoles” in an alternative name to the branch of English-based Creoles spoken in Lower Guinea (Krio, Nigerian Pidgin, Cameroonian Pidgin, Fernando Poo Creole.
3. Papiamento is not an Upper Guinea Creole, for several reasons:
3.1. It is not consensual if it is a Portuguese-based Creole or a Spanish-based Creole. This is Wikipedia, let’s be neutral and show that there are sources that claim A and other sources that claim B.
3.2. It is not spoken in Upper Guinea.
3.3. If you knew anything about creolistics, you would know that Papiamento has significant morpho-syntatic features that set it apart from Upper Guinea Creoles:
3.3.1. The verbal system of Papiamento is different. Papiamento does not distinguish the imperfective aspect from the progressive aspect. Also, Papiamento has a specific TMA for perfective aspect, which, besides Palenquero, the other Atlantic Creoles have not.
  Cape Verdean Creole
(Santiago)		 Guinea-Bissau Creole Papiamento English
Perfective aspect Ê’ pâpia I fala El a papia He/She spoke
(as “has spoken” — perfective action)
Imperfective aspect Ê’ tâ pâpia I ta fala El ta papia He/She speaks
Progressive aspect Ê’ sâ tâ pâpia I’ na fala El ta papia He/She is speaking
3.3.2. Papiamento does not distinguish between the permanent copula and the transitory copula:
  Cape Verdean Creole
(Santiago)		 Guinea-Bissau Creole Papiamento Portuguese
Permanent copula Bô ê Bo i Bo ta Tu és
Transitory copula Bu sta Bu sta Bo ta Tu estás
3.3.3. Papiamento does not make a distinction between the relativizer and the complementizer (among the Atlantic Creoles, only Papiamento and Palenquero do this):
  Cape Verdean Creole
(Santiago)		 Guinea-Bissau Creole Papiamento English
Relativizer Quel omi qui... Kil omi ku... E homber-aya ku... The man that...
Complementizer Ê’ sâbe ’ma... I sibi kumá... El sabi ku... He knows that...
3.3.4. Papiamento has a 3rd person plural personal pronoun of unknown origin: “nan”. The subtratist theories claim that it is probably from African origin (which language?) since reflexes of it are present in other Atlantic Creoles (Gulf of Guinea Creoles and Palenquero).
3.3.5. Also, while in Upper Guinea Creoles the plural is marked through a phoneme, in Papiamento it is marked through a separate morpheme: “-nan”. Compare this with Palenquero, French Antilles Creole, Berbice Creole. Also, compare the homophony of the plural marker in Papiamento with the 3rd person plural personal pronoun, and compare it with the Afro-Caribbean English Creoles, Surinamese Creoles, Negerhollands, Haiti Creole, French Guyana Creole and Gulf of Guinea Creoles.
3.3.6. I could go on and on showing why Papiamento is not considered an Upper Guinea Creole, but I don’t want to bother the readers with in-depth explanations in Creolistics.
4. There is no need to put the dialectal subdivisions of a language in this article. For further information one can read each of the respective article.
5. Is it relevant to put “decreolization”? It is a phenomena that happens in almost all Creoles.
6. Annobonese does not derive from Forro. Where are your sources? I recommend you to read Tjerk Hagemeijer about the Gulf of Guinea Creoles.
7. What do you mean with “Shift to noncreolized Portuguese”? That the language(s) is(are) losing its(their) characteristics and becoming Portuguese? What sources do you have for that?
8. The Bidau Portuguese Creole belongs to the Malayo-Portuguese branch. It is a typological classification rather than geographical.
9. Saramaccan is better considered as Surinamese Creole (again, a typological classification, not geographical). In spite of the heavy percentage of words of Portuguese origin, compare its grammatical features with the other Surinamese Creoles. In what sources have you seen the expression “English-Portuguese creole”? Não inventes!
10. In which source have you seen that Upper Guinea Creoles were spoken in a wider area? When?
11. Every source about Cape Verdean Creole state that is a single language, with a dialect continuum, and not nine Creoles. You are not Cape-Verdean, you don’t speak Creole, and you don’t know what’s happening here. All variants of Cape Verdean Creole have a sociolectal variation. It is not relevant to state that in an article about alll Portuguese-based Creoles. The source that you cite is speciffic to Santiago Creole, and not to Cape Verdean Creole in general. Please, do not talk about what you don’t know.
12. A Creole is not a “reconstruction” of another language. Please, read more about Linguistics and about Creolistics to know the difference.
13. It is true that there some authors that claim that “an Afro-Portuguese pidgin or creole is posited to be ancestral to both” Upper Guinea Creoles and Papiamento. But not to “Portuguese creoles of the Caribbean” or “Spanish creoles of the Caribbean”. There is only Papiamento (of Iberian language) in the Caribbean and it is debatable if it is Portuguese-based or Spanish-based.
14. “Many other Portuguese creoles probably existed in the former Portuguese feitorias in the Gulf of Guinea, but also in the Congo region.” I am not refuting that, but it would be nice to cite a source.
15. “Other English creoles languages of Suriname, such as the Paramaccan or the Kwinti, have also Portuguese influences.” How much influence? Is it just some words (there are Portuguese words in many languages of the world!) or is it a signifficant part of the vocabulary (like Saramaccan)?
16. Portuguese-based Creoles are not Romance languages! In fact, Creole languages are considered a specific family in language classification. They are not considered “dialects”, “subsets” or whatever of their lexifier languages. We are in the 21st century, it is time to drop the euro-centered perspectives of the former centuries and look what modern studies of Creolistics are showing.

I hope my explanation will suffice for today, for you and for the Wikipedia community. I kindly suggest to you, Pedro, to read more about Creolistics before making changes hastingly. The internet acces here in Cape Verde is to difficult (and expensive) for me spending my day reverting changes. Ten Islands (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]



  • In here reverts are easy, and done in a second as I've over 62 mbps (in real tests), not much here, but I dont have much time to debates because of work, I also work on weekends, so believe me I'm doing a lot of effort just to reply to you! so PLEASE why do instead of reverting, why dont you use your BANDWIDTH and read the FEW sources that are already in the article? including the proper language links of the creoles itself?

Upper Guinea Portuguese is because those creoles descent from Upper Guinea Portuguese, check glottolog for more info. the same goes for Papiamento. So, your fury also have to do with prejudice against Europeans? tell me something I didnt knew. We all have prejudices,, especially gotten from others inappropriate actions

2.1 That is the subdivision by glottolog, which is well-sourced. Besides it is debatable that Ano bom is in the Gulf of Guinea. I would be ok with Gulf of Guinea. But we should keep some consistency with sources, which you obviously arent aware because of bandwidth.
2.2 OK. but this is Portuguese creoles. not English creoles. Different hierarchy! geographical areas can OBVIOUSLY be the same.
3.3. Its glottolog division. Until better organization comes by...
3.3.6. dont botter: because of NOR. We copy, organize, translate and adapt info here.
4. Search the FEW Sources that are already in the article, and some of the sources that you kindly remove, because it hurts your nationalist 10 islands feelings. Some editors already use "varieties" for all creoles, because of SEVERAL reasons, but those creoles show up in glottolog and in all studies, but do not confuse that with varieties of Portuguese or English. These are creoles, not learnt in schools, developed in communities from rudimentary Portuguese. Sotavento and Barlavento creoles have very significant/obvious differences.
6. per history of that island. Ok, where's the source and we correct accordingly. for Forro/Angolar/Fa Dambo/Principense check this listing: http://www.umac.mo/fah/ciela/rcblpe/doc/As%20Linguas%20de%20S%20Tome%20e%20Principe.pdf
7. friend. There is even a census, showing that, not just opinions. Check Forro and Principense entries to see it is now threatened, every early source stated it was spoken by over 85% of the population, census now states only 36%. As mothers there do not want their children to speak Creole, but standard Portuguese. You can argue those 85% were just a gross estimative. But we all know the population isnt ethnically divided by Standard Portuguese and Creole!
8. Maybe, also Macanese. But Glottolog seems to have a problem there, so leaving all in a geographical Southeastern Asian is better, until they clear things out. They have a derivation from Timor Pidgin, which appears in some texts about Portuguese in Timor.
9. N:OR. Saramaccan appears in every Portuguese creole source listings as Crioulos com forte influência lexical portuguesa. Although unlike Papiamento, it is not a full-sized Portuguese Creole. So English-Portuguese, but should be always present in this article and in the early sources for this article.
11. Now this is the point, that got you made. And all this is just because of this. I know that. You dont need a confirmation!! So you feel motivated to all this. Dont you? and the guru of the creoles, because of that. Dont you? Sorry for the accusations, but you made several, but. IMO, all this edit warring and fury resumes to this.
13. leave that discussion for the Papiamento article.
14. Ok. I dont know if I wrote that or other wikipedian, but seems reasonable. I'll try to search in the papers that I've read. If not found, it should be removed: It is purely conjectural.
16. Ok... I agree with you. --Pedro (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Portuguese-based creole languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portuguese-based_creole_languages&oldid=1209832165"