Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Relative clauses

From:Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
Date:Saturday, August 6, 2005, 18:45
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:26:32 +0200, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
> >Hi! > >I have a question: are there natlangs where in a relative >construction, the modified noun is part of the subordinate clause? I >mean, it belongs to the matrix clause logically, of course, since the >relative clause modifies it there. But do some languages re-structure >this syntactically so that the modified noun becomes part of the >relative clause?
I think you're talking about *internally headed* relative clauses, which are used in LAadan, which means that some natlang does it the same way. Joseph B. or [I forgot who else here knows LAadan] could probably chime in.
>Example: > >Matrix Clause: > The man is tall. > >Relative clause: > who is eating > >Together: > The man who is eating is tall. > \_R_________/ > \_M______ _______/ > ^ > \_ modified noun > > M = Matrix clause > R = Relative claue > >But it may equally be possible to express this as: > > The man is eating, X is tall. > \_R_____________/ > \_ _M________/ > ^ > \_ modified noun > >Where X is some kind of 'reverse' relative pronoun that is used in the >matrix clause to 'import' the modified noun from the relative clause. >(This is just an example, I can think of other possibilities to move >the noun from matrix to relative clause.)
X is a *resumptive* pronoun; this is used in AAVE (a natlang). Jeff
>I think in all natlangs I know, the modified noun is part of the >matrix clause. Is there a theoretical reason for it? > >Bye, > Henrik >=========================================================================