Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Genitives NPs as Relative Clauses

From:D Tse <exponent@...>
Date:Friday, November 16, 2001, 23:16

--- In conlang@y..., Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@M...> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:34:14 -0000, D Tse <exponent@T...> wrote:

><< >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?
Yes, Christophe is right about the two different no's. At least two Japanese grammars that I read contained lengthy paragraphs on how to distinguish between them.
Oops, I actually meant that I hadn't been taught that that usage of "no" is actually a contraction of "mono". Imperative