Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Translation exercise / Kamakawi Relative Clauses

From:Matt Trinsic <trinsic@...>
Date:Friday, November 14, 2003, 2:16
> 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 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 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 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