What's the importance of complement and relative clauses?
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:39 am
So firstly, a complement clause is the clause that is mostly expressed with that in English. For example: I saw, that he slept. Headless relative clauses would be relative clauses but without a head, obviously. Something like the sleeping one though one is used as a dummy head in this case, some other languages would use just the sleeping, like Latin for example.
The sentence ilapim phaiatasa could either mean I saw, that he sleeps or I saw the sleeping one. However how important is this destinction though? I mean of course it's my conlang but how realistic is that cross-linguistically? Who knows maybe it's a very important feature cross linguistically and I just remove it.
Before I changed that the second meaning was expressed through the use of the prefix tzha-, so that the sentence would be: itzhalapim phaiatasa I saw the sleeping one.
PS: I believe I heard that some north american languages do the same. I think it was Navajo, but I'm not sure.
The sentence ilapim phaiatasa could either mean I saw, that he sleeps or I saw the sleeping one. However how important is this destinction though? I mean of course it's my conlang but how realistic is that cross-linguistically? Who knows maybe it's a very important feature cross linguistically and I just remove it.
Before I changed that the second meaning was expressed through the use of the prefix tzha-, so that the sentence would be: itzhalapim phaiatasa I saw the sleeping one.
PS: I believe I heard that some north american languages do the same. I think it was Navajo, but I'm not sure.