Re: HELP: Relative Clauses with Postpositions

Josh wrote:

<<That's unfortunately the problem you get when you mix left and right
branching. Eloshtan happens to have the same type of problem, though the
particular phrase you're translating works out a little differently.
Basically, most modifiers in Eloshtan go before the noun, but those pesky
relative clauses come after. So where do you put the postpositions? The rule
is that postpositions have to go directly after the noun, and relative
clauses end up coming after. I'd be surprised if natlangs did this (unless
it's one of those languages where modifiers can get tossed to and fro
anyway). The problem (or a problem) is that you're breaking up a
constituent. It's supposed to be "in [the land of Shinar]". If you start off
with "[in the land]", then "of Shinar" has no NP left to attach to. Of
course you could just say it started off formed properly, but then then
something moved.>>

I knew that somebody must have come across this problem first.   I like your 
solution.   Also, I could add some levels to the genitive, which would make it 
act more like an adjunct.

Henry wrote:

<<I think the second one is fine; it's clear enough that "in" goes with
"land of Shinar" as a unit.>>

Duly noted.   This would lead to a radically different way of conceiving what 
an NP (or DP) is.   That might be interesting, though.

Nik wrote:

<<Although, with that you get a problem if the phrase is "In the plain in
the land of Shinar", then it would become "Plain-loc land-loc Shinar-gen
in in"!  Probably why most languages with postpositions place the
phrases before the noun, and those with prepositions after.  :-)>>

This might be interesting.   I already have one language where you can get 
double cases.   Why not one with double adpositions...?

Ph.D. wrote:

<<The middle one seems most natural to me. Consider
the phrase "in a red box." Wouldn't this be:

   box-LOC red in

A genitive is much like an adjective, so I'd think

   land-LOC Shinar-GEN in

would be the way to go.

(Could "Shinar" be treated as an appositive? That is,
could you say "in the land Shinar"? Perhaps:

   land-LOC Shinar-LOC in>>

One facet of the language I may have forgotten to mention is that it has no 
adjectives.   So there are no things like "red" or "Shinar" in the sentences 
above.

Tommie wrote:

<<Consider this fourth possibility:

 plain-ACC. land-LOC. Shinar-GEN. [they found it].

 Yes, you can just get rid of "in"-- because it's useless!

 It suffices to say that the land of Shinar is the location

 of the plain they found, since that automatically means

 that the plain is in that land.>>

Actually, yes, that is how I will be translating, and how I *should* be 
translating it (that's what a locative's for, right?).   However, the problem that 
arose was something that eventually needs to be handled, anyway, so I thought 
I'd ask.   And now I've got some answers.   :)   Thanks a lot, everyone!

-David