Re: Relative clauses

Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> ---In conlang@yahoogroups.com, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Classical Greek very often used definite article + participle where
>>we would use a relative clause. But thats another matter.
>
>
> I have read, ISTR, that in the Balkan Sprachbund there is an areal feature
> whereby ideas that other languages (e.g. English) would express via
> infinitives, are expressed via relative clauses instead;
>
> "Give me that I may drink" rather than "Give me something to drink".
>
> Is that true?
>
> It seems relevant, at least marginally relevent, to your remarks above and
> the start of your remarks below.
Yes, basically it is true, but it is not a relative clause (which is
adjectival in function), but a noun clause that is used where we would
use an infinitive. But it is not in fact relevant to the remarks above,
but it is relevant to the remarks below such clauses could replace gerunds.

But this Balkan Sprachbund feature did not affect ancient Greek, which
had infinitives a-plenty and used then widely.

Interesting the rich system of participles & infinitives have
disappeared from Modern Greek. The only participle left is a passive
one. There is a single active form which is sometimes called a
participle; but it is invariable and is an adverb - similar forms in
Slav languages are, I believed, called 'gerunds'.

[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"
....
==================================
Philip Newton wrote:
 > On 6/27/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
[snip]
 >> "Give me that I may drink" rather than "Give me something to drink".
 >>
 >> Is that true?
 >
 > I'm not sure; judge for yourself.
 >
 > I'd translate the sentence into Greek as "Dose mou kati na pio" (give
 > me something that I-drink -- with "na" being followed by a form that
 > would be described by traditional grammarians as "subjunctive", though
 > the "present subjunctive" is pronounced exactly like the present
 > indicative [and is also spelled that way since, I believe, the
 > spelling reform in the 1980's that abolished the polytonic
 > orthography]

Yep - Katharevousa spells the so-called present subjunctive & present
indicative differently, even tho there is no difference in
pronunciation. But the 1980s reform did away with that nonsense  :)

 >and the "aorist subjunctive" is pronounced -- and now
 > spelled -- with the same endings as the present indicative).
 >
 > Also after modals, e.g. "I want to drink" = "Thelo na pio", "I must
 > drink" = "Prepei na pio", "I like to drink" = "Mou aresei na pio"
 > (literally, to-me it-pleases that I-drink, similar to German "es
 > gefällt mir" or Spanish "me gusta").
 >
 > Also e.g. in purpose clauses, e.g. "He came here (in order) to drink"
 > = "Irthe edo gia na piei" (He-came here for that he-drinks).
 >
 > I'm not sure whether using "na" counts as a relative clause, though.

No, they don't. In origin (i.e. ancient Greek) "na" was "hina" and they
were just adverbial clauses expressing purpose, as in your last example.
But in modern Greek they also serve as noun clauses, functioning instead
of infinitives. Such clauses, as I am certain Philip knows, can be
preceded by the neuter of the definite article:
einai kourasmenos ap   to  na min koimatai
he-is tired       from the NA not he-sleep
'He is tired from not sleeping' - the noun clause is preceded by a
preposition + definite article.

With modal verbs the clause is either the direct object (Thelo na pio)
or subject (Mou aresei na pio).

As for other Balkan languages:
Romanian - the verb does have infinitives, but _s@_ + subjunctive
clauses (like the Greek _na_ + subj.) are widely used where we would use
infinitives.
Albanian - as far as I can make out, there are no infinitives but from
one article I read it seems that participles can be used as verbal nouns
when preceded by certain particles. I could find nothing about noun
clauses, tho I feel sure are used.
Bulgarian - a quick 'Google' came up with:
{quote}
Often in Bulgarian да + perfective verb corresponds to English to +
infinitive, while да + imperfective verb corresponds to to + be +
<verb>-ing. E.g.

намирам, to find (imperfective)
намер�?, to find (perfective)

И�?кам да намер�? = I want to find
И�?кам да намирам = I want to be finding
{/quote}
Which is basically the same construction as in Romanian & Modern Greek.
==================================

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; 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.

[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?
============================================

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
==================================
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