Re: Relative clauses (Was: Re: Help: Syntax)

Quoting "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...>:

> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 09:23:26AM -0500, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> [snip]
> > Relative clauses are used to circumscribe a noun (or in some cases,
> > another phrase), just like adjectives in English.  So, for example,
> > the set of all dogs is larger than the set of all black dogs: the
> > adjective black formally serves to constrict the noun to a subset
> > relation.  Relative clauses do precisely the same thing.  In fact,
> > in Phaleran, as in some natural languages, there is no formal
> > difference between adjectives and relative clauses, since except for
> > only a handful of particles (mostly number and color terms), all
> > "adjectives" are verbs, and can only be used to thus constrict
> > nouns as relative clauses.
>
> Cool! In Ebisedian, there are no real adjectives; the adjectival
> relationship is expressed using idiomatic juxtapositions of different noun
> cases. Obviously, this cannot happen in the middle of another sentence;
> hence, all adjectival expressions in Ebisedian are relative clauses
> (except for compound words which involves prefixing nouns with the radix
> form of certain words).
>
> I was a bit worried about this fact before, but I'm glad to hear that
> Ebisedian isn't the only language that uses relative clauses that often.
Phaleran probably does use relative clauses more often than some
languages. However, it often gets around this by using abstract
nouns in place of relative constructions.  The other day, when
I was translating Dirk's new story, the phrase "were disputing
which was the stronger" came out as literally as "were disputing
relatively concerning their strength".

> In Ebisedian, the only possible way to express the role of a relative
> pronoun is to prefix the modified noun with the auxilliary particle _di_,
> which is inflected for the case role of the noun in the relative clause.
> Since relative clauses always appear before the noun, the "relative
> pronoun" (or particle) can only ever appear at the *end* of a relative
> clause. Is this normal? :-)
I somehow suspect not, but I'm not the right person to ask.  If
Matt were currently on the list, he could help you better.  I say:
go for it, unless someone comes up with a good argument that you
shouldn't.

=====================================================================
Thomas Wier          "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics  mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street   and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637     Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers

Reply