Re: CHAT: Religions (was: Visible planets)

--- Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:

> > A very much older way of handling this
> > situation
> > is to make an actual relative clause:
> >
> > Gouethem me l' ommen currese ys po-z-el llas.
> > See I the man runs-REL he around the corner.
> >
>
> So Kemrese can make a relative clause without a
> relative pronoun?  Weirdsville. Which part of
> "currese" is the relative marker and what's the
> etymon?
-e marks the relative verb form, and is
ultimately Celtic in origin. Technically in Good
Kerno, it's only third person s/pl. But it has
become generalised. Curres is 3s present
indicative of currer, -s being the 2s and 3s
ending. So, currese and corrionte are the
relative forms.

> > This latter method pretty well disappeared in
> > speech anyway until Brithenig became more
> > common
> > in the South. A bastard construction
> > (disparaged
> > by prescriptivists from all sides) combines
> > the native and the Brithenig forms:
> >
> > Gouethem me l' ommen ke currese ys po-z-el
> > llas.
> > See I the man who runs-REL he around the
> > corner.
> >
> > It would be more correct (but less Kerno) to
> > say:
> >
> > Gouethem me l'ommen ke curres ys po-z-el
> > llas.
> > See I the man who runs he around the corner.
> >
>
> This is pretty much how C-a is doing it at
> present,
> but being pro-drop I'd have:
>
> Viu ul omu fin fudjed chirga al naxa.
> See-1p the man who runs around the
> street-corner.
"Pro-drop" meaning dropping the personal pronoun
from the relative clause?

That sentence could cause some very curious
misunderstandings in Dunein! Of course, "ffudded"
means screwed (in Brithenig, literally fucked);
'chirga" looks a lot like Spanish chingar, which
Cornishmen hear with some frequency down the
docks. ;)

> Chirga may be the wrong word, and naxa refers
> only to
> streets, there is a sepreate word for the
> corner of a room, etc.
I'm sure the two concepts are separate in Kerno
as well - llas is borrowed from Brithenig.

> What I've been trying to decide is whether or
> not
> there is a change of word order in C-a relative
> clauses -- perhaps to SOV (which would usually
> mean OV
> since the S would often be unexpressed) or
> somesuch.
>
> Thoughts?
It wouldn't work in Kerno, as OV is definitely a
marked order and indicates something important
about the object. The only time an object so
fronted is not topically important is when it's
an instrumental or part of a 'do clause'. The
former is formally identical to the nominative
and has no article. The latter is always in
indirect object in the dative. I now can not
recall the reason why this happens, but I do know
it trickled down from the literary language.

It might make it more obvious that a C-a relative
clause is in effect, since there would he an
obvious and predictable change in the normal
order. If C-a ever switches from VO to OV for any
other reasons (like Kerno), you might consider
not doing it because of the confusion it might
cause.

Padraic.


=====
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.


--

Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>


Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>







.