|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:53 pm
MagitekElite I believe that helps, yes! heart So sometimes it is possible to "freely" change some parts of the syntax, but certain elements should remain for the sake of clarity or to avoid some redundancy? Is there someplace I can go on the internet, or maybe some book to buy/rent, that can further define the various syntax and their (complete) orders? Like for SVO, VOS, SVO etc etc? This seems the hardest thing thus far in my process of learning Linguistics. I see so many conlangers and other langers write in a syntax that nearly all the sites give just a basic formation for. xp Thanks again for the replies and patience, Magitek~
As for books you could buy or internet destinations, I can find some for Latin specifically, but for sources dealing with this idea in purely a linguistic sense, I'm not sure. I can do some searching, and if I find anything, I'll be sure to let you know.
And you're more than welcome! I am always 100% ecstatic about answering questions. :}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:08 pm
That would be greatly appreciated. Anything on various syntaxes would be great too, like for Welsh or something. heart
Well, I think that's the last "big, big" issue in my way. In the mean time, I suppose I will put syntax aside for now (and also look for resources for it) and move on. xd
A few more things. whee What is Attributive vs. predicative adjectives? I see people making distinct markings (endings etc etc) for attributive and predicative adjectives separately for their conlangs, but I didn't know there were different types of adjectives. My books never said anything about that. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:13 am
MagitekElite That would be greatly appreciated. Anything on various syntaxes would be great too, like for Welsh or something. heart Well, I think that's the last "big, big" issue in my way. In the mean time, I suppose I will put syntax aside for now (and also look for resources for it) and move on. xd A few more things. whee What is Attributive vs. predicative adjectives? I see people making distinct markings (endings etc etc) for attributive and predicative adjectives separately for their conlangs, but I didn't know there were different types of adjectives. My books never said anything about that. xp
An attributive adjective is simply one that describes a noun. "A blue sock."
A predicate adjective is one that comes in the predicate of the sentence, describing the subject. "The sock is blue."
Most adjectives in English can fill either position, so that's probably why you were a bit confused. They're not necessarily "types" of adjectives; just different things adjectives can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:59 pm
Oh! Yes, that explains it quiet well. 3nodding Do languages have different markings in such an instance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:49 pm
MagitekElite Oh! Yes, that explains it quiet well. 3nodding Do languages have different markings in such an instance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:20 pm
Oh, okay then. Thank you! 4laugh
What about relative clauses in natlangs? What are some ways they are handled? redface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:24 am
MagitekElite Oh, okay then. Thank you! 4laugh What about relative clauses in natlangs? What are some ways they are handled? redface
In the languages I've studied that have three genders and several cases, the relative pronoun usually has genders, number and cases. So you have the question "Which case, number and gender should the relative pronoun take?"
"The boy who eats an apple eats the best."
The relative pronoun is "who" here, and in English, you just slip it in where the relative clause goes. In Latin, however, the way it works is that the relative pronoun takes on the number and gender of the noun it fills in for in the main clause, but takes on the case of the noun in the relative clause if you were to say the relative clause by itself. When I teach students in Latin or Greek (which does the same thing in this case), I usually tell them the easiest way to figure this out is to separate the sentences, even if they're incomplete alone.
"The boy eats the best." "The boy eats an apple."
Here, it's easy; both situations "the boy" appears in, he's nominative, so the relative pronoun will be nominative. In a slightly more complicated sentence:
"I see the boy you're walking with."
This is a little too colloquial in English to work out in Latin, so let's Latin-ify it a bit:
"I see the boy with whom you're walking."
Now we separate the clauses.
"I see the boy." "You're walking with a boy."
Now the boy is accusative in the main clause, but ablative in the relative clause. Oho! What do we do now? Like this:
Puerum quocum ambulas video.
Literally:
"The boy with whom you are walking I see."
The relative pronoun is quo (also having -c** ["with"] tacked on) and is ablative (because we pretended that the relative clause was alone, in which case the boy was ablative), but is singular and masculine, like in the main clause.
Okay, that's getting complicated. I apologize. Anyway, this is how it's handled in Latin, Greek and, though not to such an extreme extent, Old Norse. In most of the Romance languages, this is hugely simplified; usually the relative pronoun is numberless, genderless and caseless, so you don't usually have to worry about such complicated grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:05 pm
Oh my. It is a bit complicated. sweatdrop
Do you have any preferred references I can go to to learn more about relative clauses and, perhaps, how some languages that deal with it? (I mean with a more in depth explanation?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:11 pm
Okay! Okay!
I've been trying to find sites explaining and showing how different languages and even conlangs handle this, and I think I finally understand.
Basically (again, could be wrong), a relative clause works much like an adjective (that's why it is sometimes called "adjectival clause"?), and is handled differently in many different languages.
For example, in the Malay/Indonesian language, it is handled with "separate" word called "yang", whichmeans "which", "that" or "who". Like:
Kucing yang makan tikus yang makan keju adalah lemak.
English:
The cat that ate the rat that ate the cheese is fat.
And in Lakota it is handled, though with strict rules, with "Čha". While other languages and conlangs handle the relative clauses with simple "commas", like this:
The cat, that ate the rate, is fat.
I don't know much about Japanese, but I believe it handles Relative clauses with word order/syntax, while many others use "separate" words along side cases.
Assuming all of that is correct, I still cannot find a site that actually explains this instead of giving examples. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:33 pm
MagitekElite Okay! Okay! I've been trying to find sites explaining and showing how different languages and even conlangs handle this, and I think I finally understand. Basically (again, could be wrong), a relative clause works much like an adjective (that's why it is sometimes called "adjectival clause"?), and is handled differently in many different languages. For example, in the Malay/Indonesian language, it is handled with "separate" word called "yang", whichmeans "which", "that" or "who". Like: Kucing yang makan tikus yang makan keju adalah lemak.English:
The cat that ate the rat that ate the cheese is fat. And in Lakota it is handled, though with strict rules, with "Čha". While other languages and conlangs handle the relative clauses with simple "commas", like this: The cat, that ate the rate, is fat. I don't know much about Japanese, but I believe it handles Relative clauses with word order/syntax, while many others use "separate" words along side cases. Assuming all of that is correct, I still cannot find a site that actually explains this instead of giving examples. :/
You know, you're pretty good at this. Perhaps more so than you give yourself credit for. ;3
Yes, relative clauses act like adjectives. In the case of Latin, it's one relative pronoun that has cases and genders (qui, quæ, quod) which means "who/what/which/that" depending on the context, so it's a separate word. Commas aren't terribly common between relative clauses in Latin, and the syntax somewhat determines how they work. Since adjectives that are unstressed usually follow nouns, relative (or adjectival) clauses usually follow them too. You can, just like adjectives, move the relative clause out in front to really emphasize it as well. "The cat that ate the rat is fat" in Latin would be expressed:
Feles quæ ratum edit est obesus/obesa. ("Obesus" for a male cat; "obesa" for a female one.)
Literally: "(The) cat that rat ate is fat."
Using the second example:
"The cat that ate the rat that ate the cheese is fat." =Latin=>
Feles quæ ratum edit qui/quæ caseum edit est obesus/obesa.
Literally: "Cat that rat ate that cheese ate is fat."
The phrases "quæ ratum edit" and "qui/quæ caseum edit" are doing exactly that; acting like adjectives that describe the cat and the rat, and that is exactly why they come before the main verb. They do exactly what adjectives do. Concerning syntax, this would be another situation where you can have free reign, but you don't want to tear these apart. Everything concerning the relative clause should stay together. This way, you can follow what's being said and the adjectival sense of the clause maintains its integrity as a describing agent.
So in the end, you're absolutely right. :}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:55 pm
MagitekElite I don't know much about Japanese, but I believe it handles Relative clauses with word order/syntax, while many others use "separate" words along side cases.
食べる男。
Taberu otoko.
The man who eats.
Or, to write it in a way that mirrors the Japanese version,
The eating man.
By extension, the same thing can be done with entire clauses ending in a verb.
りんごを食べる男。
Ringo wo taberu otoko.
The man who eats an apple.
Or in other words,
The apple-eating man.
Finally, just to illustrate it with the example you provided in Indonesian,
チーズを食べたネズミを食べた猫は、太っている。
Chiizu wo tabeta nezumi wo tabeta neko wa, futotteiru.
The cat that ate the mouse that ate the cheese is fat.
The Japanese-ified English translation for this one is a bit tough to write.
The ate-(the ate-cheese mouse) cat is fat.
So as you can see, in Japanese things like relative pronouns are unnecessary because verbs and verb clauses can function directly as adjectives. This is one of the things I love the most about Japanese grammar. :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:12 pm
Thank you both for the replies! heart
@Shizuka Mizu:
Oh! The "separate word" I was referring to is correctly termed "relative pronoun", then?
So for example, when you said "In the case of Latin, it's one relative pronoun that has cases and genders (qui, quæ, quod) which means "who/what/which/that" depending on the context", using a relative pronoun that changes in definition based on the case used, would it work like this:
(random words) Relative Pronoun = "til", "so" = "I", + genitive case marking "ko"
Possessor: Jack nii rog eon tilko shon risil soko joan.
Possessor: Jack is the boy whose friend built my house.
But with a different case marking, such as the subject, it would be:
*subject case marking "jo"*
Subject: Hunter(jo) nii rog eon tiljo bosji Jessica.
Subject: Hunter is the boy who kissed Jessica.
And with "tiljo", the relative pronoun's meaning is changed to "who", because of the case that marked it? redface
@Houkou Ookami:
Oh, so let me see if I understand the Japanese RC way; In Japanese, the verbs placed before nouns act like adjectives, turning it into/making a relative clause? If that is the case, I can see why you like it; very unique and fun, if it wasn't twisted my head so bad. whee
*Also, I assumed <を> was an article?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:32 pm
MagitekElite @Houkou Ookami: Oh, so let me see if I understand the Japanese RC way; In Japanese, the verbs placed before nouns act like adjectives, turning it into/making a relative clause? If that is the case, I can see why you like it; very unique and fun, if it wasn't twisted my head so bad. whee *Also, I assumed <を> was an article?
In my opinion, it's better not to try and understand it in terms of relative clauses and such, because that will just make it confusing. Just pretend the entire verb clause is an adjective, so if you have an English 'sentence' like "[walking to store][person]", then "walking to store" describes the person. (I put in brackets to help separate it a bit.) So to make it more of a proper sentence, "The walking-to-store person saw a cat." That's basically how it works in Japanese. The only difference, of course, is that in Japanese the sentence order would be slightly different. "Store-to walking person cat saw." That seems nonsensical in English, but since Japanese uses particles, it would be quite clear in the actual language.
And no, 「を」, 「は」, etc. are particles; they indicate a word's grammatical function in the sentence. 「を」 marks direct objects. So in the second example, 「りんごを食べる男」, 「を」 indicates that 「りんご」 is what's being eaten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Well, it is certainly is the easiest I have read about for Relative clauses. 3nodding
Oh! See, I'm pretty terrible at this. redface I'm gonna go head over to your Japanese thread; might be I need to read something that will refresh my mind. Also, I'm hoping for the grammar section. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
