> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:42:16 EST
> From: David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>
> Subject: Kamakawi Relative Clauses
>
I hope you wont take offense if I just "borrow" your thread for a moment =)
>
> Hey,
>
>
> The basic relative clause is like, "I hugged the fish who saw a woman":
>
> Ka mama ei ie nawa poke mata i eine.
>
> /past hug I OBJ. fish GEN.-past see *gap* OBJ. woman/
>
thrist gify'g kreflad efo'g nefliz
[Tr\aIst gVfeg kr\Ifl{d Efog nIflaIz]
I hugged fish that.saw woman.
So, if you wanted to say "The woman who saw the man hugged a fish",
you'd say:
>
> Ka mama eine poke mata ie hopoko i nawa.
>
> /past hug woman GEN.-past see *gap* OBJ. man OBJ. fish/
>
neflist efo'g nofliz gify'g kreflad
[nIflaIst Efog nuflaIz gVfeg kr\Ifl{d]
woman that.saw man hugged fish
> Ka mama eine poke mata'u tie hopoko i nawa.
>
> /past hug woman GEN.-past see-PASS. OBL. man OBJ. fish/
>
Would I be correct in reading this as "The woman, who was seen by the
man, hugged the fish"?
neflist rofo'g nofliz gify'g kreflad
[nIflaIst r\ofog nuflaIz gVfeg kr\Ifl{d]
woman seen.by man hugged fish
>
> Ka kavi apule poke mataka'u ti nawa.
>
> /past be-big store GEN.-past see-APPL.-PASS. OBL. fish/
>
> "The store where I saw a fish was big."
>
krol edythro'z ulfo'k thriz kreflad
[kr\ul Edethr\oz Elfok thr\aIz kr\Ifl{d]
shop was.big where.saw I fish
> What this is doing is positing that the following is a sentence, as well:
>
> Ka mataka nawa i apule.
>
> /past see-APPL. fish OBJ. store/
>
> Which would means something like "Fish are/can be seen at the store", or
> "Fish are at-seen the store". Thus, the passive is, "The store is at-seen by
> fish" (clunky rendering in English, but it works).
>
krol ulfo'st kreflad kreflat urfo'v kron
[kr\ul Elfost kr\Ifl{d kr\Ifl{t Er\fov kr\un]
shop where.being.seen fish. fish are.being.seen.at shop.
> This led me to another problem: Serial verbs.
>
> To say something like, "I gave you a fish", you'd have to say:
>
> Ka li ei i nawa ke nevi i ia.
>
> /past get I OBJ. fish past(same subject) give OBJ. you/
>
> The verb "nevi", then, is something like "to give to".
>
thrist de'k kreflad sathriz
[thr\aIst dEk kr\Ifl{d s{thr\aIz]
I gave fish you
>
> Ka mama eine i nawa poke neviki'u i ia.
>
> /past hug woman OBJ. fish GEN.-past give-APPL.-PASS. *gap* DAT. you/
>
> "The woman hugged a fish that was given to you."
>
neflist gify'g kreflad rede'g thriz
[nIflaIst gVfeg kr\Ifl{d r\EdEg thr\aIz]
woman hugged fish that.was.given.to you
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. =)
> This seemed to me to be the only way to relativize a subject with serial
> verbs (i.e., you can't: You have to use the applicative).
>
> To those with knowledge of applicatives/relative clauses/passives in natural
> languages: How is my line of thinking here?
>
> That's it. :)
>
> -David