Re: Relative clauses

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:38:09 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
wrote:

>==================================
>
>Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:45:17 +0100, R A Brown
>  [snip]
> >>>construction, how does one differentiate between, e.g., "I know when
> >>>you are going" and "I know where you are going"?
> >>
> >>But these are surely indirect question, not relative constructions (at
> >>least that is certainly what they are in Latin & Greek).
> >
> > How about, "I know the day you are going" and "I know the house you are
> > going to"? I think these are now relative constructions ...
>
>Yes, they are. Arguably they do not mean quite the same as the indirect
>questions;
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they're the same. I think they're different
as well.

>however, it would, I guess, by a possibility for Charlie if
>he is happy to have relative clauses with no relative pronoun at the
>beginning. But I suggest that in the second example one uses a more
>generic noun like 'place', i.e. I know the place you're going to.
Yes, I was just giving examples with relative time and place clauses.

>[snip]
> >>I guess you use some sort of gerund (i.e. verbal _noun_) as the direct
> >>object of 'I know'. That would mean "I know your going" which, as you
> >>wrote, would then need context to give further meaning such as 'when'
>&amp;
> >>'where'. I suppose one could have a system of gerunds such as:
> >>temporal gerund ('when')
> >>allative gerund ('where to')
> >>ablative gerund ('where from')
> >>inessive gerund ('where')
> >>causal gerund ('why')
> >>etc.
> >
> > ... in which case temporal _participles_ etc. could be invented
>instead of,
>
>But participles are verbal _adjectives_. What would these participles
>agree with?
This (about the participles) should have referred to the relative clauses
earlier.

>============================================
>
>caeruleancentaur wrote:
>[snip]
> >
> > You misunderstood, but I didn't make the sentence clear.  I should
> > have written, "I do not want Senjecas to have relative pronouns,
> > relative adjectives, etc."
OK

> > "Have you seen which book he is reading?"
> >
> > I believe that in that sentence "which" is a relative adjective.
>
>No, it's an _interrogative_ adjective.
>Direct question: Which book is he reading?
>Indirect question: Have you seen which book he is reading.
>('which' cannot be omitted in English, even tho it's the object of 'is
>reading')
>
>A relative clause would be:
>Have the seen the book [which/that] he is reading.
>('which' or 'that' can, and normally are, omitted in English)
>
>-
>Ray
>==================================
>ray@carolandray.plus.com
>http://www.carolandray.plus.com
>==================================
>"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
>interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760
>=========================================================================