Re: Subordinate clauses
| From: | David Barrow <davidab@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, June 18, 2004, 16:45 |
|---|
Sally Caves wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Barrow" <davidab@...>
>
>
>David uarlo krespr:
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Sally:
>
>
>>>Yes, that was my original understanding of the sentence.
>>>
>>>
>
>David:
>
>
>>>>The dog that I saw with the man was green
>>>>makes clear what I saw, but leaves the 'with the man' ambiguous.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Sally:
>
>
>>>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."
>
>
>
>David:
>
>
>>Yes, your sentence is clearer but mine is still ambiguous. Compare:
>>
>>the film that I saw with my girlfriend was boring
>>
>>
>
>Sally mal krespr:
>
>Right: the problem is with the blandness (despite that green dog!) and
>ambiguity of the first sentence. Films don't generally accompany
>girlfriends! Context is all.
>
>David uarlo krespr:
>
>
>>>>The dog that I saw was with the man was green.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Sally:
>
>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>David:
>
>
>>The 'was' is not redundant
>>
>>
>
>Sally: my bad; I should have said that a relative "that" was missing
>between "saw and was." As you can see, my second sentence above answers
>your explication of the nested phrases below.
>
>David:
>
>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>Sally: The problem with your sentence is its mega-awkwardness. It looks
>damaged.
>
>David:
>
>
>>compare: the money that I thought was missing has been found
>>
>>
>
>Sally: This is more syntactically permissible. "that I thought was missing" more
>easily loses the implied relative pronoun than does "that I saw was with,"
>especially when there's an extra "was" in the sentence to muck up the works.
>Nobody would say that anyway; they'd say "the dog I saw that was with the
>man was green." Or, they'd say: "You know that dog I saw? the one with the
>man? It was GREEN!" :) I guess we need a better sentence.
>
>
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
The relative pronoun is not the object of I saw, it is the subject of
the object clause
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
(whom) can be omitted
mine would be
the man who I saw was with the dog was green
who cannot be whom in this sentence, nor can it be omitted
'the money that I thought was missing has been found'
does not lose any implied relative pronoun as you say further up since
it also breaks down thus:
the money has been found
I thought that the money was missing
'the money that I thought that was missing has been found' would break
down thus
the money has been found
I thought the money (this doesn't work)
the money has been found
I wouldn't say 'nobody' when it comes to English :-) After all some
dialects allow not only omission of
object relative pronouns, they also allow omission of subject relative
pronouns. But in a sense you're right
multiple relatives and subordinates and complicated embeddings belong
more to the realm of written English
than they do to spoken English
>Sally said yesterday:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>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?
>>
>>
>
>You don't. As I responded to somebody else's remarks, Teonaht is Teonaht,
>and that's just how you say it. I gave some other tighter translations.
>Teonaht's vocabulary for ownership is very complicated and ranges from
>something being WITH someone, someone having something voluntarily, or
>having it involuntarily or indifferently. To avoid all that clapcrap, it's
>just easier to say "that man I saw [at the park, at the circus, at the
>trainstation], his dog was green." Ergo, the dog was with him. Just by
>putting pomil zef in here I've managed to screw things up: "with the man"
>means "he has the dog with him now" "from the man" would indicate the dog
>was with him in the past. This is used of indifferent possession or
>propinquity. The man and the dog could have been standing together. The
>dog from the man that I saw.
>
>THIS IS STILL IN THE TESTING PHASE... if it proves too ambiguous or
>cumbersome, I'll dump it. If there is any hidden cleverness or efficiency
>in it, I will have to find it. :(
>
>
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/verbs.html#alien
>
>With some prompting I came up with the sentences you comment on below.
>
>David:
>
>
>>And if the focus of seeing is the dog, not the man?
>>
>>
>
>Sally: then you front the dog: Li kohs pomil/tandil/omil zef kelry hain,
>vyrm lo. "the dog with/from/of the man saw-I, green he. i.e., "the dog that
>I saw with the man was green." See below:
>
>
>
>>>It's a lot more difficult for the second sentence:
>>>
>>>
>
> [I've forgotten which sentence now this is... I think the ones way
>above, in CAPS]
>
>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.
>>>
>>>
>
>David:
>
>
>>Your pronouns have past forms?
>>
>>
>
>Yessiree! I posted about this just a few days ago in a thread called "tense
>marking on nouns." Teonaht has tense marking on its pronouns. Also aspect
>and modal marking: elry, preterite-I. uary, completive-I. talry, "I can."
>
>David:
>
>
>>And if the focus of seeing is the man with the man as companion?
>>
>>
>
>I've answered this below my following comment
>
>Sal ely krespr:
>
>
>>>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."
>
>
>
>David:
>
>
>>changing which one you saw and which one was the companion
>>
>>
>
>No, changing the embedding: Green was the dog that I saw with the man;
>green was the dog with the man that I saw.
>In neither case am I and the man seeing the dog together.
>
David clarifies:
Actually, I should have queried only the first part since you put the
relative clause 'saw I whom' next to
the man.
>
>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
translating 'vyrm li kohs kelry hain uo le zef' word for word:
vyrm = green
li = the
kohs = dog
kelry = saw-I
hain = which
uo = and
le = the
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?
le = the
zef-jo = the man + tense? the man + and?
the reason for my translations are the different 'and the man's
>
>Actually, the verb "saw" in this sense probably requires the non-volitional
>particle. Ke means to "watch, observe, look at," whereas ke+n means "to see
>passively," "to have something come within your line of sight and surprise
>you."
>
>Vyrm li kohs kenelry. "Green the dog that I saw (by accident)." Or
>truncated: vyrm li kohs kelnry.
>
>
>
>>Is the verb 'be'
>>a) optional in constructions like the above?,
>>b) always omitted in constructions like the above?,
>>
>>
>
>Teonaht is nearly zero copula, and is usually omitted in everything. The
>only time you see parem ("to be") and its conjugations is 1) emphatic and 2)
>in some subordinate clauses:
>
> 1) Saly Kevz rynne, "I AM Sally Caves." Tah ainna, "it IS a bird."
> 2) Il beto ry ravvo nalo pamuis "The boy I love is he sick" (The boy
>I love is sick) (na, "is," is needed because main and subordinate clauses
>express their relationship through juxtaposition of verbs, one where the
>subject/pronoun precedes and the other where the subject/pronoun follows.
>This is an old development, and the reason why having two embedded relative
>clauses, such as the one posed by this thread, is very difficult in Teonaht.
>
>Of course, all of these things would be better worked out by being used in
>the world, something that Tolkien himself lamented. Teonaht needs
>circulation within the world to iron out its difficulties; making it work
>for ME is a lifetime of practice.
>Some things I hang onto and work around, because they have a history with
>me.
>
>
David asks:
And if you translated my sentence in the sense I originally intended?
>
>
>>c) what verb 'be'?
>>
>>
>
>Parem: not yet loaded on my website, alas. It's a long chapter that I have
>in WORD that needs a lot of revision.
>
David comments:
I meant this humorously as in answering: be? what verb be? Never heard
of it. What does it mean? :-)
Well, I saw it last night, but it was too late for me to comment
David Barrow
>
>
>
Reply