Re: Relative clauses in Ikanirae Seru

Roger Mills <romilly@...> wrote:
<<<
It gets more complicated when non-3d pers. agents are involved (orang yang
kulihat 'the man who(m) I saw'); and it gets very complicated if not
impossible to relativize a gentive, dative or some other case--- 'the man
whose book I read', 'the man to whom I gave the book' or 'the man from whom
we bought the car'
>>>
Indeed, how would you say that?
orang yang mobilnya sudah saya beli. (???)
man who car-his past I buy.
I don't know whether the form Object+AUX+Subject+Verb can be used here.
Anyone knows?

<<<
> Finally, another way, especially for languages which are *not* pro-drop,
is
> to indicate the relativised function by the *absence* of a pronoun. Taking
> your example again, *"manikoso se _ seru na eki" ("_" indicates the hole
:)
> ) would mean "the man that talks about him", while *"manikoso se eki seru
> na _" would mean "the man that he talks about". This way is how European
> languages do it :) .
>>>
Estel is using "eki ini"-"himself" to refer back to the headnoun of the
subclause in contrast with "ini" "self" which is the reflexive pronoun.
I guess "ini" is the reflexive pronoun for all 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons like
in slav langs?
Slang French also tends to keep a pronoun inside the subclause to refer to
the headnoun:
"l'homme qu'il a parlé"
"the man who he talked" = the man who talked
"l'homme que je t'ai parlé de lui"
the man who I talked to you of him.
"l'équipe qu'on les a battus"
the team that we won them
That's awfully bad French but very common in certain places. And I picked it
for my conlang.

<<<
And this discussion has just made me realize that Kash has the same problem
as Ikanirae Seru, since its relativizer is also invariant and more like a
conjunction--
...kaçut re ne ya/tikas
   man  REL him 3s/see
 = either 'the man who saw him' or 'the man whom he saw' Aargh!!  I'll have
to think about this....It might be possible to drop the person-pfx in the
first case-- it's done when adjectives are put into rel.clauses (i.e. when
the subj. of the rel.clause = the antecedent)--
>>>
Gamelang for now uses the genitive preposition "yu" to refer to the headnoun
inside the relative subclause. "Yu" therefore may either mean "of",
"him/her" or "his/her":

kitari i apikita timiku (u musara)
person who sees him (in past)
the man who saw him

kitari i timiku apikita-yu (u musara)
person who he sees-him (in past)
the man whom he saw

kitari i timiku apikita sitangi-yu (u musara)
man who he sees head-his (in past)
the man whose head he saw

Actually, "yu" is already made of the relative pronoun "i" "that/who/which"
and the generic circumstancial preposition "u" "in/at/by/with/as".

<<<
ñaki yavelu
car  3s/new 'the car is new'
vs.
 ñaki velu = ñaki re velu
car   new  = car  REL new
'new car'
(ñaki re yavelu would be pedantically ultra-correct)
>>>
The ultra-correct Kash is the only possible Gamelang:

Kasari apumura.
Cart verb-new.
The car is new.

kasari i apumura
cart that verb-new
the car that is new

kasari yapumura
cart that-verb-new
the new car

kasari pumura ; kasari-pumura ; kasaripumura
cart-new
NewCar (TM)

kasari matanu ; kasari-matanu ; kasarimatanu
cart-engine
(the old word for "car")

Reply