----- "Eugene Oh" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

> In both Japanese and Korean, SOV languages, relative clauses are skipped in 
> favour of turning the entire clause into a participial modifier. 

I feel John's pain. I have an SOV language with relative clauses and the verbs do bunch up on ya`. Hence, my legions of fans of Géarthnuns will note the use of SHO, HÖI, and BA (in tenses) as ways to divvy up the space. 

> If you definitely want relative clauses, consider Latin. 

> "Vir quem vidisti heri malum edit." 
> man-NOM REL-ACC-m saw-2psg yest. apple-ACC ate-3psg 

> "Vir malum quod carpsisti edit." 
> man-NOM apple-ACC REL-ACC-n plucked-2psg ate-3psg 

> I don't know any other SOV natlangs that use relative clauses, but in my 
> conlang, Arithide (also SOV), I decided to avail myself of the relative 
> clause to broaden my stylistic options, and modelled it after the Latin. 

> 2010/6/7 John Lategan <[log in to unmask]> 

> > I'm struggling with expressing relative clauses in Culmærian. I've come up 
> > with a system, but I'm not fully convinced that it "works". 
> > My main problem is that I don't want to disrupt the word order; therefore 
> > cannot place the Relative clause after or before the noun it modifies, 
> > because it'll result in a heap of confused verbs. Culmærian is a strictly 
> > verb- final language (SOV or OSV). 

> > Culmærian has 8 cases: 
> > Nominitive (agent); Accusative (patient); Dative (recipient of action or 
> > patient); Ablative (marks the source or origin); Instrumental (means by 
> > which the action is executed/ object used); Locative (used together with 
> > prepositions); Genetive (or possesive); Vocative. 

I have seven cases, and it looks rather similar. Here's what I did: 

The man you saw yesterday ate the apple. 

Chö dhaubs lé, chöböt öçek lé cha hereçködalthsev tel sho, chau mnístersaut glozh. 
the man-nom past, whom-acc. you-nom past the yesterday-loc. see SHO the apple-acc. eat 

The man ate the apple that you picked. 

Chö dhaubs lé chau mnístersaut, chauraut öçek lé dvel sho, glozh. 
the man-nom. past the apple-acc. which-acc. you-nom. past pick SHO eat 

> > The solution Ive come up with uses another 'case', inflected upon the noun 
> > to indicate that it will be reused in the relative clause. I call it the 
> > Relative Case. 

> > The man who you saw yesterday ate the apple. 
> > = manNOM-REL appleACC eat; youNOM manACC-REL yesterday-see 

> > The man ate the apple that you picked 
> > = manNOM appleACC-REL eat; youNOM appleACC-REL pick 

> > Could this work if, instead of repeating the 'relative-object', I replace 
> > it 
> > with "it" in the relative case? 

> > I dont want it to work because "anything can work in a conlang." Is this a 
> > realistic/ naturalistic system that is easy to decipher by the human brain? 

Color me silly, but I think I've seen sentence structures like this on this list referring to natural languages, so I think it's naturalistic. How "elegant" do you find relative clauses? You could just make adjunct sentences: "You picked apple. Man ate it."; "You saw man yesterday. He ate apple." Not necessarily requiring the REL marker. Still, it looks cool and utterly viable.