Re: Subordinate clauses

Sally Caves wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Barrow" <davidab@...>
>
>
>
>>Aaron Grahn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is there a good way to introduce a subordinate clause without a
>>>particle? For instance in
>>>
>>>The dog with the man that I saw was green.
>>>
>>>the relative clause is introduced with "that". This is probably a bad
>>>example, because English doesn't really distinguish (except by word
>>>order) which one I saw, and which one was with the one that I saw, but
>>>assume I saw a dog, the dog was with a man, and the dog was green.
>>>
>>>
>>Given that the best place for a relative clause is next to the
>>noun/pronoun it
>>qualifies, my first interpretation of the above would be that you saw
>>the man.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, that was my original understanding of the sentence.
>
>
>
>>However, people don't always do what's best :-)
>>
>>The dog that I saw with the man was green
>>
>>makes clear what I saw, but leaves the 'with the man'  ambiguous.
>>
>>
>
>It also makes clear that it's the dog, not the man, that you saw (although
>both are obviously seen together, but one or the other is focused).
>
>By "ambiguous," do you mean that you and the man might have seen the dog
>together?  I would have written "the dog that I and the man saw was green."
>
Yes, your sentence is clearer but mine is still ambiguous. Compare:

the film that I saw with my girlfriend was boring

>
>
>
>>The dog that I saw was with the man was green.
>>
>>
>
>There is a redundant "was."  Did you mean "the dog that I saw THAT was with
>the man was green"?  Because this reveals the structure and difficulty of
>this sentence which embeds two relative clauses in the long nominative
>clause, whatever the focus is:
>
>        THE DOG THAT WAS WITH THE MAN THAT I SAW was green.
>        THE DOG THAT I SAW THAT WAS WITH THE MAN was green.
>
>
The 'was' is not redundant

1 the dog was green

2 the dog was with the man
3 I saw this

3 + 2 I saw (that the dog was with the man)    object clause that =
conjunction

Then I embed 3 + 2 in 1

the dog that I saw was with the man was green

compare

the money that I thought was missing has been found


>What did I have for Teonaht?  Li zef kelry hain, vyrm lo kohs, as a way to
>remove one of the embedded relatives:  "the man saw I whom, green his dog."
>
How do you know the dog was with the man?
And if the focus of seeing is the dog, not the man?

>It's a lot more difficult for the second sentence:  Li kohs kelry hain pomil
>zef, vyrm elo.  "the dog saw I whom with the man, green past-he."  Both show
>the different focuses by putting kelry hain after the noun in question.
>
Your pronouns have past forms?
And if the focus of seeing is the man with the man as companion?

>Also possible:  Vyrm li kohs kelry hain pomil zef.  "Green the dog saw I
>whom with the man."  Vyrm li kohs pomil zef kelry hain.  "Green the dog with
>the man saw I whom."
>Sally
>
changing which one you saw and which one was the companion

Is the verb 'be'
a) optional in constructions like the above?,
b) always omitted in constructions like the above?,
c) what verb 'be'?


David  Barrow

Reply