Re: Creative ways to form relative clauses?

Languages which use more than one strategy for relative clauses tend to pick
the strategy to match a particular segment of Keenan's & Comrie's "Noun
Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy"; that is, which strategy is used depends on
where the head noun's function in the RC falls in that hierarchy.

You should read what they've written about it.  Not that everything there is
still accepted as true, but that it gives a good overview of the main
relativization strategies in the world's various languages -- few are left out.

An "embedded clause" is one that appears as part of another clause (For
instance, 'I see dead people' in "He says, 'I see dead people'"); a "dependent
clause" is one part of whose meaning depends on another clause (for instance,
when does the swinging take place in "He went down swinging", "He goes
down swinging", "He will go down swinging"?  We don't know from looking
at "swinging"; we have to look at the independent verb "went" or "goes".)
A clause is "subordinate" if it is embedded in a clause upon which it depends.

Subordinate clauses that "take the place of a noun" -- "clausal nouns", so to
speak -- that is, clauses that are arguments of the verb of their matrix -- are
called "complement clauses".  One strategy for introducing them is with
a "complementizer".

Subordinate clauses that "take the place of an adjective" -- "clausal
adjectives", so to speak -- that is, clauses that modify or determine or tell
more about an argument of the verb of their matrix -- are called "relative
clauses".  One strategy for introducing them is with a "relativizer".  The noun
or NP which is modified is usually a joint participant of or argument of both the
matrix clause and the relative clause.  Sometimes its place in the RC is
occupied by a "relative pronoun". Sometimes a relative pronoun can also be a
relativizer.  Which strategy gets used (when more than one is available in the
language) may depend on whether this head NP is the
Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Oblique Argument > Possessor >
Object of a Preposition > Object of Comparison (object of "than")
of the RC.

Subordinate clause that "take the place of an adverb" -- "clausal adverbs", so
to speak -- are called "adjunct clauses".  There's no special name for the
words which might introduce adjunct clauses, the way complementizers
introduce complement clauses or relativizers introduce relative clauses;
(perhaps "subordinators" or "adjoiners" would do?).  Some adjunct clauses tell,
or tell more about, the Tense and/or Aspect and/or Mood/Mode/Modality of
their matrix clause; some people have called these "TAM-relative clauses", but
I don't like calling them "relative" when I could call them "adjunct".

Complementizers and relativizers, in languages that have them, are often
similar to or even homophonous with, question words or demonstratives
(like "which" and "that" in English).  The same may be true of "adjunctivizers",
like "when" in English.