On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 10 February 2014 15:42, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I'm considering whether or not Pandári will have resumptive pronouns
>> in relative clauses.
>> My first set of rules for relative clauses only allowed for the
>> modified noun to be the subject of the clause. When I tried to fix
>> that, I couldn't decide which way to go.
>> With resumptive pronouns:
>> The boy that HE broke the window ran away. SUBJ
>> The boy that I saw HIM ran away. D.O.
>> The boy that I gave the book to HIM was happy. IND OBJ
>> The boy that HIS mother spoke to us left already. GEN.?
>> Plus the possibility of expanding upon the resumptive pronoun:
>> The boy that HE AND HIS FRIENDS broke the window ran away.
>> The boy that I saw HIM AND HIS FRIENDS all ran away.
>> The boy that I gave the candy to HIM AND HIS FRIENDS were happy. (or was
>> happy?)
>> The boy that HIS AND HIS FRIEND'S mothers spoke to us left already.
>> (awkward. I don't think I like it.)
>> Without resumptive pronouns, with gap:
>> I the boy that () broke the window ran away.
>> The boy that I saw () ran away.
>> The boy that I gave the book to () was happy.
>> The boy whose mother (she) spoke to us left already.
>> But this will not allow elaboration of the resumptive pronoun.
>> One compromise is to use a relative pronoun that marks for role of the
>> dropped resumptive:
>> The boy THAT-HE broke the window ran away.
>> The boy THAT-HIM I saw ran away.
>> The boy TO-WHOM I gave the book was happy.
>> The boy THAT-HIS mother spoke to us left already.
>> Another compromise is to make the use of the resumptive pronoun
>> optional so that it can be left out if the case-marked relative
>> pronoun is used, or included and elaborated upon if so desired.
>> What are the other approaches to relative clauses?

Japanese puts the verb of the subordinate clause into an attributive
form (basically a participle, though in most cases it's identical to
the "plain" predicative form) and leaves a gap in the subordinate
clause; postpositions are left out as well as the noun itself  Even
oblique objects can be relativized like this, though I don't think
possessors can be. Since Japanese can freely drop any NP that can be
recovered from context, this can be ambiguous, but it's usually
obvious what's meant. For example, "the house (that I went to)" could
just be "itta uchi" (go-PAST.POS.ATTRIB house): the fact that the noun
being modified is a place tell you that it's the destination of "go",
and the subordinate subject "I" would be supplied by context.

> Use the resumptive pronoun. It's just one extra syllable, probably; it
> gives you lots of options; in some folks' native languages it's necessary
> for clarity; to other folks it doesn't impede understanding, it just sounds
> a bit redundant.
> Don't make it optional; then folks have to learn an optionality rule.
> You might want to have a resumptive pronoun that is distinct from the
> third-person pronoun, though, to help with clarity about which of perhaps
> several pronouns in the subordinate clause is the resumptive one.

That's a question I've had for a while, actually: how often are
resumptive pronouns distinct from other third-person pronouns?

The same goes for logophoric pronouns.