Re: Relative clauses in Ikanirae Seru

Mathias wrote:


> 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.
Yes, or maybe even with "mobilnya" at the end, as if it were a normal
active SVO, though I suspect the grammarians would cringe.  Similarly for
"... the man from whom we bought the car"--

...orang yang mobilnya (sudah) kita beli daripada/nya
  man  REL  his-car     past     we   buy  from-him

or maybe  ...yang sdh. kita beli mobilnya daripadanya-- in these cases
"yang" seems to have been demoted from a true rel. pron. to a simple marker
that says "the following material modifies the antecedent _as if_ if were a
rel. clause"-- just like the _re_ marker in Kash, and your Gamelang _i_ in
the comparable sentence you gave.

> I don't know whether the form Object+AUX+Subject+Verb can be used here.
Correct AFAIK

> 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
> That's awfully bad French but very common in certain places.
That occurs in Engl. too, mainly as a parody (by Jewish comedians) of
immigrant/ older generation Yiddish speakers' usage-- at least that's the
only context where I've heard it (Jackie Mason et al.)

Out of curiousity, why did you switch from 2-syl. bases to 3-syl??  Is this
a revised version of Tunu, or another language altogether?

Reply