Ayeri: Relative Clauses Q's (was: Subordinate Clauses)

Hello!

From: "Sally Caves" <scaves@FRONTIERNET.NET <mailto:scaves@...>>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Subordinate Clauses


 > Sorry!!  I'm been known to write wiht, too, for "with."  My humble
 > apologies!!  Yry eftoihs...
 >
 > Sally
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Carsten Becker" <post@BECKERSCARSTEN.DE
<mailto:post@...>>
[...]
 > > And, Sally, I *am* written with a "C", except you made the name fit
 > > to Teonaht's phonology of course. [...]

OK, OK! That doesn't matter. For example, I mistype "the" and "they" and
other similar things all the time, as many people do ("teh" and "tehy").
I just wanted to notice you how my name is written correctly ;) Btw, I
meant orthography rather than phonology.

What I actually wanted to ask about is the following:

In the original topic we had discussed about two relative clauses which
were included in one sentence. I haven't decided about relative clauses
yet, I thought about using "si"+case ending. Thus, you'd have
siang/sireng, siaris/silei, siena, siyam, sieri, siea and sísa which
(unfortunately?) unambiguously (???) show which object the relative
clause represents in the main clause.

Let's take the example that has been used earlier, just a little changed
so that it's not that confusing anymore:

The dog that was with the man whom I saw was black.
1a[The dog] {that was with} 2b[the man] {whom} 2a[I saw] 1b[was black].

The only problem is that I don't know how to mark all these arguments.
And marking the possessed or the possessor? Rather the possessed, since
"-ena" means "PAT of AGT" => "dogena" so to say -- and the man is the
agent, because he possesses the dog. Nevertheless, the man at least
(perhaps the dog too?) are both experiencers of me, the agent, seeing
him/them:

                I, seeing
               /      (  \     )
           [AGT]      ( [AGT]  )
            /         (    \   )
           v          (     v  )
           man --[AGT]--> dog (GEN)

Or should I mark the man for both, or maybe the man for the agent of the
relative clause and the relative pronoun for being the patient argument?
This would be the most logical and analytic solution. Unambiguous?! I'm
a bit mixed up somehow ... Maybe it's because it's late in the evening
and I'm getting ready for bed after writing this?*

Thanks,
Carsten

*) I often write my mails the day before I send them, because I cannot
access the internet from my own computer. I have to use my parents'
computer. I've exceeded the daily quota for today (06/28/2004) anyway.