Re: Subordinate clauses

Mark P. Line wrote:

> Aaron Grahn said:
> > Is there a good way to introduce a subordinate clause without a
> > particle?
(snips)
> Actually, the relative clause could refer to either 'Hund mit dem Mann' or
> to 'Mann' in your example. The relative 'den' is accusative because it's
> the direct object of 'gesehen'; since both 'Hund' and 'Mann' are
> masculine, it could refer to either one. Compare:
>
> Die Katze mit dem Mann, den ich gesehen habe, war gruen.
> (I saw the man, and now I'm telling you about his cat.)
>
> Die Katze mit dem Mann, die ich gesehen habe, war gruen.
> (I saw the cat with the man, and now I'm telling you it was green.)
>
>
> (NB: Anaphora that hops over an NP and relies on gender for resolution, as
> in the second example here, is perhaps somewhat inelegant, but it
> certainly happens often enough in spoken German and in hyper-convoluted
> prose.)
>
Excellent!! Exactly what I was trying to say. It would probably be more
permissible in Latin, with its freer word order??

ObConlang!! It happens that Kash can, theoretically, avoid the problem too,
in that most transitive verbs take a human object in the dative case, but
anim.-nonhuman/inanim. objects in the accusative. But there would also be a
preference to put the relative clause directly after whichever noun it was
modifying.

pero yam kaçun re yan matikas, yatroçe
dog(nom) with man-acc REL 3s-masc-acc I-see, 3s-green
_yan_ only refers to _pero_; but it would be better stylistically to have
the rel.clause diredctly follow _pero_.

pero yam kaçun re ne matikas, yatroçe
_ne_ only refers to _kaçun_