Re: Subordinate clauses

Sally Caves wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Barrow" <davidab@...>
>
>
>
>>David says
>>You may have missed something about my sentence
>>Your sentence
>>
>>'The dog that I saw that was with the man was green'   breaks down thus:
>>
>>the dog was green
>>I saw (the dog)  (the dog) is replaced by the first 'that'
>>(the dog) was with the man  (the dog) is replaced by the second 'that'
>>
>>3 sentences so embedding 2 relative clauses
>>
>>whereas my sentence
>>
>>'The dog that I saw was with the man was green'    breaks down thus:
>>
>>the dog was green
>>I saw [that (the dog) was with the man] [object clause]   (the dog) is
>>replaced by the only 'that'
>>
>>2 sentences so embedding 1 relative clause
>>
>>
>
>Wouldn't it be easier just to say "The dog that I saw with the man was
>green"?  After my fervent posting on Wittgenstein, I feel unenergetic about
>arguing this distinction, I'm afraid.  But I'll try to absorb your comments.
>
>
Yes, it would,  And I think most of us would say it that way.
But remember I provided my sentence because of the ambiguity of who
'with the man'  qualifies

the dog that I saw that was with the man was green

Is clearer on this, but it has the double copula you don't like

>
>
>>The relative pronoun is not the object of I saw,  it is the subject of
>>the object clause
>>
>>
>
>It's still an infelicitous sentence that is confusing, especially with the
>two "was"s.  I find it almost unreadable.  The dog that I saw was with the
>man was green.   Your other sentence about the missing money is better
>because it doesn't involve this ugly double copula.
>
But it does have a double copula:  WAS missing - has BEEN found

or am I missing something in your dislike/definition of double copula

how about

those who ARE late ARE not TO BE allowed in?


>And your sentence
>below, because it substitutes who/whom clarifies the relationship (to a
>person instead of an animal/thing) and introduces case.   When I said
>"nobody" would say that, of course I was using hyperbole, and yes I was
>appealing to spoken discourse; but I do believe that an editor of a formal
>essay would call you on this sentence and ask you to reword it.  It's only
>really interesting because of the super subtleties you are expressing in it,
>but as a workable written sentence, I think it stinks.  I'm a stylist, see,
>and Teonaht reflects that propensity!  :)
>
Fair enough,

since you introduced 'the dog that I saw that was with the man was
green' as what seemed
to me to be a correction of my sentence I'm simply trying to point out
that it is grammatical


>
>
>>If I swap the dog and the man and use who/m instead of that
>>
>>your sentence would be
>>
>>the man (whom) I saw who was with the dog was green
>>
>>
>
>Point taken.  That's the problem with "that."  It doesn't have the case
>marking that who/m does.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>
>>>If by "the man as companion" you mean "I and the man" who see together,
>>>
>>>
>then
>
>
>>>that would be: vyrm li kohs kelry hain uo le zef: "Green the dog saw-I
>>>
>>>
>which
>
>
>>>and the man.  The "le" article shows that the man is a volitional
>>>
>>>
>subject.
>
>
>>>A variant: vyrm li kohs kelsoyts, yryi le zef-jo:  "green the dog we saw,
>>>
>>>
>I
>
>
>>>and the man."  Slightly more emphasis on our seeing it together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>David asks:
>>Why isn't 'hain'  after 'kelry uo le zef'  'saw I and the man' since 'I
>>and the man' is a compound subject
>>
>>
>
>Style, David.  Teonaht cares more about cadence and style than it does about
>compound subjects.  "And the man" is tacked on, here, yes; this is
>permissible.  That the article is the volitional "le" makes it clear that
>the man is also a watcher along with me.
>
>I suppose it could be put afterwards-- vyrm li kohs kelry uole zef hain--but
>that sounds utterly abominable in Teonaht, partly because "ry" is affixed to
>"kel."  That's why I preferred the second sentence: vyrm li kohs kelsoyts,
>yryi le zef-jo.  Green the dog we saw, I and the man."
>
>I think the problem with this exercise is that it forces Teonaht (or any
>other language) to be what it's not: have the same density that English has
>in some of its expressions and to express restricting or embedded clauses in
>exactly the same way.  Teonaht regards restriction and emphasis somewhat
>differently and possibly imprecisely according to English standards.  This
>is because Teonaht has its own quirky laws that have to be obeyed.  This is
>indeed a difficulty of  close translation.
>
The thing is to express the same idea

>
>Here's your verbum-pro-verbo of my sentence; I've added distinctions of
>meaning in CAPS:
>
>
>>translating 'vyrm li kohs kelry hain uo le zef'  word for word:
>>
>>vyrm  = green
>>li  = the   NON-VOLITIONAL SUBJECT
>>kohs = dog
>>kelry = saw-I
>>hain = which  IT, ACTUALLY, AND IT'S IN THE ACCUSATIVE
>>
you used which in your translation. Teonaht has no distinction between
subject and relative pronouns?

>>uo = and
>>le = the  VOLITIONAL DETERMINER
>>
what's the difference between a subject and a determiner in the context
of li and le above

>>zef  = man
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>vyrm li kohs kelsoyts, yryi le zef-jo
>>
>>vyrm = green
>>li = the
>>kohs = dog
>>kelsoyts = saw-we
>>yryi  = I  in a tense? which one?  EMPHASIZED VOLITIONAL
>>le = the  VOLITIONAL DETERMINER
>>zef-jo  = the man + tense? the man + and?  AND
>>
>>
>
>The much preferable sentence.
>
I'm curious about the different 'and's in the two sentences

>
>
>
>>David asks:
>>And if you translated my sentence in the sense I originally intended?
>>
>>
>
>"The dog that I saw was with the man was green"?  Wouldn't be accurate, for
>the reasons I explained above.  The closest I can come is: li kohs, elry ke
>nelai pomil zef, vyrm elletsa.  Or... vyrm ai.  "The dog,  I saw was it with
>the man, green same/ green it."  "The dog, I saw that it was with the man,
>that one was green/ it was green."  I think I prefer my pithier
>constructions.
>
>Etsa is a great reference, it can mean "the first one we were talking about,
>the same."
>
>Hey.  Grateful that you're interested in Teonaht.  ;-)  Of course T. has
>deficiencies compared to the subtleties of English.  And I am unpracticed in
>this process of sentence analysis.
>
It's even harder when you're analysing a language you know nothing
about. Word for word tranlations help
with the definitions,  but you still have to go beyond your own
language's (s)'  mindset(s)

>Perhaps I should adopt it; but a lot of
>T. is built up by intuition and "what works."  But I'll try it.  You have:
>
>The money has been found.
>I thought the money was missing.
>Ergo, the money that I thought was missing has been found.
>
>Teonaht:
>The money has been found:  Li nirrilbet aid nrinar uarretsa lis.  "The money
>its finding PERF-same get."  "The money has gotten its finding."
>
>I thought the money was missing:  "Li nirrilbet ry kare nelai ferrefib" (old
>past participle, used in subordinate clauses): "the money I thought was it
>lost."
>
>Ergo:  Li nirrilbet elry kare nelai ferrefib; aid nrinar uarretsa lis.
>"The money PAST-I think was it lost, its finding has same got."
>The money I thought was lost; it has been found."
>
>It can only really be done gracefully in two sentences, or rather, an
>embedded sentence.
>
>And as you can see, it's fairly analogous with the "green-dog" sentence:
>
>li kohs(,) elry ke nelai pomil zef, vyrm elletsa
>Li nirrilbet(,) elry kare nelai ferrefib, aid nrinar uarretsa lis.
>
>(commas in there to express the divisions of the clauses.  Teonaht in its
>own script is skimpy on punctuation)
>
>And I think that does it for the day.  Have to go pay off my traffic ticket.
>Maybe I have one more post.
>
>Sally
>scaves@frontiernet.net
>Niffodyr tweluenrem lis teuim an.
>"The gods have retractible claws."
>
>
I'm receiving posts in a weird order today so I think you will have used
up your quota before you get this

David

Reply