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.