Re: Genitives NPs as Relative Clauses

<<
I've been taught that this "no" had nothing to do with the genitive
marker "no"
but was a short form of "mono": (concrete) thing, used to nominalise
subclauses
to use them as subjects or objects of sentences (that's why it's
followed in
your examples with the object postposition "o". In Japanese, with the
exception
of the topic marker "wa" which can follow other postpositions,
postpositions
cannot follow each other).
>>
I haven't been taught that...could anyone verify its veracity?

<<
Relative subclauses in Japanese don't need any mark,
and the language uses a lot of those relative clauses with some nouns
to make
sentence subclauses (with "toki": time, moment - usually followed
by "ni" - you
get "when", "koto": (abstract) thing is used also for nominalisation
of
clauses, but in the sense of "the fact that...").

Christophe.
>>
That's how I handle relative clauses in my conlang...

<< PS: is it me, or are my explanations pretty confuse lately? I can
hardly re-
read myself! >>

Not particularly :) Everyone gets confusing sometimes...

Imperative