Re: Creative ways to form relative clauses?

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:19:41 -0700, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:

>In Tepa (and now Miapimoquitch) I've sidestepped the whole relative clause
>question by conflating all subordinate clauses into two types. The
>distinction made in subordinate clauses is whether the subject of the
>subordinate clause is the same as, or different from the subject of the main
>clause. This subordination strategy is called "switch reference" and is
>found in several Amerindian and Papuan languages. A brief explanation can be
>found at http://wiki.frath.net/Tepa_syntax#Subordination .
>
>I don't know of any other constructed languages that have switch reference
>systems; I'd be happy to see them if they're out there.
My Sabasasaj does something vaguely like this.  Like Tepa, Sab. doesn't have
any special kind of relative clause, only subordinate clauses.  It's also
quite fond of nestings of subordinate clauses.  It has two particles that
are only used in long-distance situations. Marking a clause with the
particle _a_ means that one of its arguments is the same as the subject of a
clause at least two levels above it; using _u_ instead means that one of its
arguments is the same as the object of such a higher clause.  (All Sab.
verbs are maximally bivalent, and you can't refer to an oblique with this
strategy.)

In short-distance situations (one clause) an inflectional relativiser /
nominaliser / whatchamacallit is used instead of this.  It makes no
switch-referency distinctions.  Though I wonder if I might not allow my
particles to extend to this situation too...

Alex