The relative clause can't have a subject... wait, WHAT?
Posted: 12 May 2022 19:24
Hello, I am a bit new to this still. I ended up working on relative clauses already. I have something that seems to function fairly well, but... I'm not entirely clear on what roles some of the words are taking. And anything you don't understand about your own language is a disaster waiting to happen, as I've already learned.
Some of how my language works:
Strict VSO word order with the exception of direct and indirect object: the indirect object is marked, allowing the two to be swapped around for emphasis.
Verbs ignore valency/transitivity most of the time, simply getting interpreted differently depending on the number of objects in the sentence. One exception is the passive prefix, which is important here.
Words like "into" are tacked onto the end of the object and have a tense marking that agrees with the verb.
Note: I am currently only translating directly into a gloss. (I would like to get a solid handle on the grammar before adding the extra step of remembering the nuances of vocabulary) Wish me luck: it's my first time using the leipzig rules.
So right now, "I threw the onion into the fire" is
/throw-PST I fire-DAT into-PST onion/
To say just "I threw" is
/throw-PST I/
To say something like "the onion was thrown," you use the passive prefix I mentioned, which lets you get rid of the subject.
/PASS-throw-PST onion/
Now, there's already a question of weather getting rid of the subject is optional or not, but considering what happens next, I feel like it may be obligatory.
I wanted to translate the relative clause "The fire I threw and onion into." As in, "will you help me put out the fire I threw an onion into." Or, more accurately "the fire an onion was thrown into." (I'm leaving out the "by me" for now) It comes out as:
/PSV-throw-PST fire-DAT into-PST onion/
But if you wanted to say "The onion that was thrown into the fire" the only simple option seems to be (and I'm heavily against adding any more case marking) switching the indirect/direct object order to change the emphasis.
/PSV-throw-PST onion fire-DAT into-PST/
I kind of like that solution. It does mean that the order of the direct/indirect object is a lot more important in a relative clause. It changes the meaning slightly more than just the emphasis. You can say "Don't worry: I threw the *onion* into the fire," or "Don't worry: I threw the onion into the *fire.*" but with relative clauses "Will you help me put out the fire I threw an onion into" makes sense, but "will you help me put out the onion I threw into the fire" doesn't.
BUT... there doesn't seem to be a place for "I" in either of those relative clauses. You would put "by me" or the lang's equivalent after it. So... no subject? Truly no subject, and no place for it? "Fire" can't be the subject, right? It's already an object and not in any way the thing that's *acting.* Is "By me" the subject if you choose to add it, and if so did the word order just get accidentally switched to VOS for relative clauses?
Sorry for the long post--my brain had enough trouble with this that I felt I needed to ask the question in full. And thank you for any answers in advance.
Some of how my language works:
Strict VSO word order with the exception of direct and indirect object: the indirect object is marked, allowing the two to be swapped around for emphasis.
Verbs ignore valency/transitivity most of the time, simply getting interpreted differently depending on the number of objects in the sentence. One exception is the passive prefix, which is important here.
Words like "into" are tacked onto the end of the object and have a tense marking that agrees with the verb.
Note: I am currently only translating directly into a gloss. (I would like to get a solid handle on the grammar before adding the extra step of remembering the nuances of vocabulary) Wish me luck: it's my first time using the leipzig rules.
So right now, "I threw the onion into the fire" is
/throw-PST I fire-DAT into-PST onion/
To say just "I threw" is
/throw-PST I/
To say something like "the onion was thrown," you use the passive prefix I mentioned, which lets you get rid of the subject.
/PASS-throw-PST onion/
Now, there's already a question of weather getting rid of the subject is optional or not, but considering what happens next, I feel like it may be obligatory.
I wanted to translate the relative clause "The fire I threw and onion into." As in, "will you help me put out the fire I threw an onion into." Or, more accurately "the fire an onion was thrown into." (I'm leaving out the "by me" for now) It comes out as:
/PSV-throw-PST fire-DAT into-PST onion/
But if you wanted to say "The onion that was thrown into the fire" the only simple option seems to be (and I'm heavily against adding any more case marking) switching the indirect/direct object order to change the emphasis.
/PSV-throw-PST onion fire-DAT into-PST/
I kind of like that solution. It does mean that the order of the direct/indirect object is a lot more important in a relative clause. It changes the meaning slightly more than just the emphasis. You can say "Don't worry: I threw the *onion* into the fire," or "Don't worry: I threw the onion into the *fire.*" but with relative clauses "Will you help me put out the fire I threw an onion into" makes sense, but "will you help me put out the onion I threw into the fire" doesn't.
BUT... there doesn't seem to be a place for "I" in either of those relative clauses. You would put "by me" or the lang's equivalent after it. So... no subject? Truly no subject, and no place for it? "Fire" can't be the subject, right? It's already an object and not in any way the thing that's *acting.* Is "By me" the subject if you choose to add it, and if so did the word order just get accidentally switched to VOS for relative clauses?
Sorry for the long post--my brain had enough trouble with this that I felt I needed to ask the question in full. And thank you for any answers in advance.