Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Genitives NPs as Relative Clauses

From:D Tse <exponent@...>
Date:Friday, November 16, 2001, 11:34
<<
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