On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Garth Wallace" <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:46:02 PM > Subject: Re: Non-subject relativization strategies > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:54 AM, 1 2 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> My questions are: >> - What are other possible strategies for non-subject relativization? >> - The examples I gave above are for nominative-accusative languages. How >> would an ergative-absolutive language, for example, render this situation? > > Japanese dispenses with relative clauses completely. > ________________ > > I guess it depends on how you define 'em. > ___________________________ > > It just doesn't > have relative pronouns at all. > ______________________ > > True > _______________ > > Instead, it uses participial phrases > for just about everything. This is slightly obscured by terminology: > Japanese participles are usually not referred to as such. Instead, > participle inflections are referred to as the "plain form", since they > can double as finite verbs in casual speech (and the "plain" nonpast > affirmative is the citation form for verbs). > _____________________ > > I have never thought of the "plain form" (citation form) as being participial. The "-te" form, now that I would consider participial. How? A participle is a deverbal adjective, and the te-form can't be used attributively, which pretty much precludes it from being adjectival. The te-form is more like a deverbal adverb (converb?)*. I consider i-adjectives to be a particular class of defective stative verbs. For me, the important thing is whether it can be used attributively. The "polite forms" (-masu, -mashita, etc.) can only be used predicatively, but the "plain forms" can be used attributively**, so to my way of thinking they double as participles. They don't have the same shape as i-adjectives, but they behave very similarly. > Basically, you just stick a clause in front of the noun you're > modifying, with the verb of the clause in the plain form, and the > modified noun acts as one of the otherwise unspecified participants in > that clause. The way it's been explained to me, it can be any > participant. In practice, it really seems to be limited to the core > arguments and any participant that is considered particularly > important (re: commonly specified) for the verb, which is usually > recipient or location. So for "iku", to go, it could be the subject or > the destination; for "ageru", to give, it could be the subject, > object, or recipient. > ____________________________ > > Tookyoo e iku shinkansen > > "The bullet train that goes to Tokyo." I don't see this as participial. The going-to-Tokyo bullet train. The less awkward translation in English is "the bullet train that goes to Tokyo", because English generally doesn't use participles for that sort of thing. > You can also use the simple past in this kind of sentence: > > Tookyoo e itta shinkansen. The bullet train that went to Tokyo. Participial? Sure, it's a past participle. > These seem to me participial: > > "Itte kimasu" (Having gone, I shall return.) (Japanese thing you say when leaving) > > "Shinkansen wa Tookyoo ni *tomatte*, Kyoto ni ikimasu." > After the bullet train has stopped in Tokyo, it will go to Kyoto. (Dunno if that's true, work with me). Those don't look participial to me. Subordinate, sure. *As well as being used for certain kinds of verbal complements, and predicatively as a command form. It doesn't fit easily into any one category. **With a few exceptions, I think: AFAIK the plain imperative and volitive can't be used attributively, and neither can the plain forms of the copula.