> Looks like a "switch-reference" system - I have one of these in Telek
> too.  Since not even all linguists have seen switch-reference, I suppose I
> ought to explain.

I'll do a quick check to see if Gevey conforms...

> Switch-reference markers usually occur in positions comparable to "that"
> (as in "I know that John is coming."),

I chose to use this sort of marker system, mainly because I didn't
want to replicate English relative pronouns in Gevey - so yes, the
markers are used where in English you would expect a relative pronoun
or relative conjunction

> and languages that have them usually
> require them to appear in nearly all subordinate clauses.

Markers appear at the beginning and end of every Gevey relative
clause, so again yes.

> There are two
> markers for each subordinate conjunction: a "same-subject" marker, and a
> "different-subject" maker.

Oops - I think Gevey may overcomplicate things here.

There are three possible markers at the start of the relative clause
(I call them "entry pronouns") which indicate which word in the
relative clause has the relationship with a word in the main clause:
"zhek" for the subject[s], "zhec" for the direct object[s] and "zhes"
for the indirect object[s]

Similarly, each relative clause will end with one of three "hook
pronouns" which indicate which word in the main clause the relative
clause is acting upon: "ok" if it is the subject, "oc" if it is the
direct object, and "os" if it is the indirect object.

Why the complexity? Well, this system does allow the relative clause
to be physically detached from the word it is acting on, which in turn
allows my rule of "no word order in Gevey" to be maintained. Indeed,
under my rules of focus (emphasis), the relative clause can act as a
block and receive focus in the main clause.

Nevertheless, I'll mark this down as a yes, despite the (possibly
unnecessary) complexities of the Gevey system

> Easily guessed, same-subject markers indicate
> that the subject of the subordinate clause refers to the subject of the
> main clause; and the different-subject markers indicate that the subjects
> are not the same -- it doesn't mean that the subject is the same as an
> object.  (But that is forced by "zhek" if I understand you
> correctly.)

Thanks, I think you do understand - which makes me keen to keep a
switch-reference system for relative clauses in Gevey (it just makes
sense to me...)

> Here's my old "God gave bread" translation as an example from Telek.
> lajhosdoo-l et-daabii-d ke-et-ax-e-'ni; ke-et-ax-nawwi'-e-'ni-ko
> Mother.Nature-NOM 1pP-tooth-ACC AsA-1pP-BEN-provide-PERF;
> AsA-1pP-BEN-bread-provide-IRR-CONJ(SS)
> "Mother Nature provided teeth for us, and she will provide bread for
> us."  ("She" is Mother Nature)
> lajhosdoo-l et-daabii-d ke-et-ax-e-'ni; ke-et-ax-nawwi'-e-'ni-ba
> Mother.Nature-NOM 1pP-tooth-ACC AsA-1pP-BEN-provide-PERF;
> AsA-1pP-BEN-bread-provide-IRR-CONJ(DS)
> "Mother Nature provided teeth for us, and she will provide bread for
> us."  ("She" is not Mother Nature)
I am going to have to learn how to parse properly, if only so that
others on the list can understand what I'm trying to say. Are there
any web links around? (I know I should use a search engine, but
there's no harm in asking)
There are some examples of how Gevey deals with relative clauses in my
Babel text -
- I think the system works, but then I'm completely in love with my
conlang and have lost all perspective on the matter. Comments are
always welcome.

Thanks for introducing me to "switch-reference"!


The Gevey Language Resource.