Re: Genitives NPs as Relative Clauses

<<

--- 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