Re: Relative clauses in Ikanirae Seru

 --- Christophe Grandsire wrote:
(...)
> 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 :) .
Yeah, like English does.  Ikanirae Seru wouldn't do that, because it
avoids leaving subjects or objects out: it keeps subjects even in
imperatives.  (The one case I can think of where a subject would be
left out is in a passive-like sentence, which leaves the subject out,
and leaves the object in its normal position after the verb.  Thus,
"meat was eaten" would be closest translated as
ha tame ketu a.
PAST eat meat STATEMENT.)

Estel

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Reply