Re: Participles and Other Verbals, vs Relative Clauses and Other Subordinate Clauses, in Conlangs and Natlangs
|From:||Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 0:07|
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:59:53 -0400, Eldin Raigmore
>Those responses let me notice that in many conlangs, and I suppose also in
>some natlangs, ideas that some _other_ languages express via verbals such
>as participles and infinitives and gerunds etc., are often expressed
>instead via relative clauses (whether restrictive R.C.s or the other kind
>of R.C.) and/or perhaps other kinds of subordinate and/or dependent and/or
>1) Are their any typological correlations or generalizations that can be
>made concerning the presence of various kinds of verbals with or instead
>of the presence of various kindds of dependent or subordinate clauses, or
>1b) Anyone know anything interesting about their own or anyone else's
>conlangs in this regard?
I'm not sure where this fits in, but what about languages where the same
form is used for both finite verbs and participles? Or are the participles
really relative clause verbs where there's no relative pronoun?
>Relative clauses have at least two uses;
>(a) they may be used as clausal adjectives, either "restricting" or
>appositively describing whatever participant they have in common with their
>2g. What about people's conlangs?
>4. Are there any other kinds of dependent clauses, and/or subordinate
>clauses, occuring in any languages, which my questions indicate I'd
>probably be interested in but was too ignorant to be able to ask about?
>4a. Especially any that actually occur in attested natlangs.
>4b. But how do people's various conlangs handle them?
I'm finding that in my latest monstrosity, that the verbs of complement,
adverbial, and sequential clauses all work the same way regarding
same/different subject and object.