On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> I'm currently struggling with understanding the rel. cl. of my lang
> correctly, and thought I'd look at how it works in other langs.
> Unfortunately, it seems that relative clauses is part of the grammar
> that is 'not yet online' :) Does it change too often?
Mine is online; at least the section on relative pronouns is. No
syntax whatever yet fit for publication (I'll probably have time for
that when I finish my current job, translating a book called
"PC-Grundlagen" from German to Dutch), except what trickles through
in the paradigms.
> rel. subject:
> "The dog that saw the cat was large."
dost lea muzea chalat moy echain
dog-nom REL cat-acc see-PRS-3s large-nom PST
"dog that cat sees large was"
Note the past marker _echain_ that obviates the need for past marking
on the verb in the relative clause.
> rel. object:
> "The dog saw the cat that killed the mouse."
dost muzea chalut lea mychea trudenat
dog-nom cat-acc see-PST-3s REL mouse-acc kill-PRF-PRS-3s
"dog cat saw that mouse has-killed"
It's clear from the use of the present perfect that the mouse was
killed before the dog saw the cat.
nested:
> "The dog that saw the cat that killed the mouse that was large drank
> from the river that John put the poison in."
Dost runie.
"The dog is dead"
No sane Valdyan would say that. They'd tell an elaborate story ending
with the dog's horrible death from the poison.
> rel. indirect object:
> "The dog that John gave the ball to."
I suppose "the dog" is to be the subject of something? "Arin" is the
most common Valdyan man's name.
dost lea Arin le cholsean menut [muzea chalat]
dog-nom REL John RES ball-acc give-PST [cat-acc see-PRS-3s]
"dog that John it ball gave [cat saw]"
The resumptive pronoun _le_ is needed because the subject of the main
clause is the object (or at least an object) of the dependent clause.
> rel. oblique:
> "The mouse that the cat chewed on." or,
> "The cat that the dog was bigger than."
mych lea muz le pirut
mouse-nom REL cat-nom RES bite-PST-3s
"mouse that cat it bit" (I don't have "chew" yet)
muz lea dost le domoy echain
cat-nom REL dog-nom RES AUG.big-nom PST
"cat that dog it bigger was"
This is a very contrived clause (even more than in English).
> rel. posessor:
> "The dog saw the cat whose teeth were huge."
dost muzea chalut lea gyr lean domoy
dog-nom cat-acc see-PST-3s REL tail-nom REL-poss AUG.big-nom
"dog cat saw who tail whose very.big"
Tricky, and no "teeth" yet so I'll use "tail". If there's marked
tense in a sentence (present tense is unmarked) it's always in the
main clause only if it applies to the whole of the sentence.
Irina
Varsinen an laynynay, saraz no arlet rastynay.
irina@rempt.xs4all.nl (myself)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt/irina/index.html (English)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt/irina/backpage.html (Nederlands)