Re: Relative clauses
|From:||Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 0:24|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:45:17 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
>> I do not want Senjecas to have relative pronouns, adjectives, etc. I
First, I should note that relative clauses don't always need the pronouns
to appear, as in "the book the man gave the boy".
BTW, caeruleancentaur, how do you plan to do away with adjectives? Or have
>> 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 ...
>As I understand it 'when you are going' is a noun clause, being the
>direct object of 'I know'. In Classical Latin:
>scio quando iturus sis.
>'quando' means "when" only as an _interrogative_. The relative "when" is
>cum ad flumen pervenissent pontem fecerunt.
>When they arrived at the river, they made a bridge.
>Classical Greek very often used definite article + participle where we
>would use a relative clause. But thats another matter.
>I'm not sure how you could do 'when you are going' and 'where you are
>going' by participles; after all, a participle is a verbal adjective.
>What would such an adjective agree with.
>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' &
>'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')
... in which case temporal _participles_ etc. could be invented instead of,
or along with, the gerunds.
>I don't know of any language that does that, but it would certainly add
>However, as I say IMO the sentences you quote contain indirect
>questions, so how does Senjecas deal 'indirect speech' ('ratio obliqua')?
>I hope the above gives some ideas.
>"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
>interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760