Re: Distinct conjunctions for subordinate clauses in different case relations to main clause

Hi!

Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> writes:
>...
> Do any natlangs y'all know of have a similar distinction in their
> subordinate-clause conjunctions?  Can you think of other case-role
> distinctions that might be made in clausal conjunctions?
Maybe Japanese?  I don't know it good enough, though.

I perceive 'that' not as marking case on clauses, but as transforming
a clause into a noun phrase.  Put this way, the clausal noun phrase is
still unmarked for case, yes, and the difference is only maybe one of
view.  IIRC, Japanese then adds case markers after the conjunction.

Further, I think most case roles are possible.  E.g. some German
dialects indeed introduce subordinate clauses with prepositions, and
English can also do so:

   Ich hab  die Säge für ein Loch in den Tisch zu machen.
   I   have the saw  for a   hole in the table to make.
   'I have the saw for making a hole in the table.

Even together with 'that' some dialects allow this.  E.g.
_für_ 'for' is used in the sense of 'in order to':

   Ich esse  für daß  ich satt   werde.
   I   eat   for that I   filled get.
   'I eat in order to not be hungry anymore.'

In Qthyn|gai, I abstracted this view by allowing case markers on
verbs.  The subordinate clause's verb is marked for the clause's
function in the matrix clause.  (Agent/patient roles are not
dependent-marked, so they are marked on the verb of the matrix clause,
but nevertheless, this is distinguished.)

Da Mätz se Basa, being a posteriori Modern German, works similar by
allowing any preposition together with 'that'.

**Henrik
-- Relay 13 is running:
http://www.conlang.info/relay/relay13.html

Reply