Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Relative clauses

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2006, 23:59
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:38:09 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>

>================================== > >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."
> > "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 >================================== > > >================================== >"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always >interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760 >=========================================================================