Re: CHAT: Brainstorming! Relative clauses
| From: | Padraic Brown <pbrown@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 5, 1999, 16:23 |
|---|
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?
>
> Anyways, how -do- you do relative clauses in your conlangs? Here's
> something for y'all to translate... (substitute words when necessary...)
>
> rel. subject:
> "The dog that saw the cat was large."
A rel. cl. here is possible in Kernu:
Il cu ke la ngatte ys wedeit eoer magnos.
The dog that the cat he saw was large
More natural, however is to avoid one:
Il cu la ngatte ys wedeit ach eoer magnos.
The dog the cat he saw and (he) was big.
Note that the genders can be played with a bit, such that magnos (masc.)
can only modify the pooch, since the cat is feminine. Speakers don't
always think ahead to separate genders in this way (and sometimes the two
are the same gender) so there will be some confusion. If this is the
case, a short explanatory phrase might be tacked on:
...eoer magnos ... il cu.
...was big ... the dog.
>
> rel. object:
> "The dog saw the cat that killed the mouse."
Il cu le ngatte ke la luchette ys godnethu ys wetheit.
The dog the cat that the mouse he slew he saw.
> nested:
> "The dog that saw the cat that killed the mouse that was large drank
> from the river that John put the poison in."
Sorry, nested clause overload! The natural solution is to rearrange the
chunks and declausulate some of them:
Il cu de l'avon per Jowanon envenenizue ys bebev, achys le ngatte
the dog of the river by John poisoned he drank, &-he the cat
ce que la luchette magh ys godnethu ys wedeit.
who the mouse big he slew he saw
Otherwise you get this mess:
Il cu ke le ngatte ke la luchette ke fu magna ys godnethu
The dog that the cat that the mouse that was big he slew
ys wetheit de l'avon do kei il Jowan le mhenenon ys daphoneus
he saw of the river to whom John the poison he put
ys bevu.
he drank
Hardly understandable, but at least grammatical, in a sadistic sort of
way. Problem is, verbs get chucked to the back of the sentence, so when
you nest clauses this way you end up with a string of verbs that the
listener is compelled to sort out in a bemused haze. It would be possible
to rearrange somewhat, but comprehensibility would still be lowish.
>
> rel. indirect object:
> "The dog that John gave the ball to."
Il cu do kei il Jowan le mballon ys deda.
The dog to whom John the ball he gave.
>
> rel. oblique:
> "The mouse that the cat chewed on." or,
> "The cat that the dog was bigger than."
La luchets as quen il cats ys amosmordait.
The mouse on whom the cat he on-gnawed
Il cu ke fu plu magh kel cats.
The dog who was bigger than the cat.
>
> rel. posessor:
> "The dog saw the cat whose teeth were huge."
Il cu la ngatte do kei ay y denti magh ys wetheit.
The dog the cat to whom there are the teeth big he saw.
Thanks for the exercise! Lesson learnt: few rel. clauses is good, lots of
nested clauses is bad!
Padraic.