Print

Print


On Oct 27, 2015 18:56, "Jeffrey Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Couldn't the reason be that of minimization of effort?
> Let's suppose, for some language, that there is some part of speech for
> which there is no conjunction. Then, to communicate the conjoining, the
> speaker would be required to use two sentences or two clauses:
> -- John went to the market and Tim went to the market
> -- John went to the market and he went to the gym
> -- John went to the market with his brother and he also went with his
sister
> It seems natural that conjoining would develop for every part of speech.

It seems to me that a similar argument could be made with respect to
relative clauses; it takes less effort if any type of nominal expression
can be modified by a relative clause. However, languages differ on this:
some are unable to relativize indirect objects or objects of comparison,
while English has little problem doing so.