Re: Creative ways to form relative clauses?

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.

Dirk

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Daniel Bowman <danny.c.bowman@...>wrote:

> Hello fellow conlangers,
>
> I've been a lurker on the forums for some time, but I thought I'd break my
> silence with a question that's been vexing me for some time:  How should my
> conlang form relative clauses?
>
> Currently, my conlang follows the English model, and thus the relative
> clause structure of the sentence  "I hate the man who hit me yesterday"
> would be quite similar in my conlang.  I'd rather do it some other way
> since
> the rest of my grammar is decidedly non-English.
>
> How do your conlangs handle this type of construction?  Any creative (read:
> non English and romance language) ways to handle this?
>
> And lastly, some background on my conlang.  It's called Angosey and I've
> been working on it for about 10 years now.  It's not meant to be
> particularly naturalistic.  It has a Verb-Subject-Object order but with
> postpositions where English would have prepositions.  Word order is very
> important.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>

--
Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
La----c++d++600

Reply