 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Sentences without any subject... |
|
Page 19 of 21 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| DKleinecke... |
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 9:05 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 3:20 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:30 am, erilar <dra... at (no spam) chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
So how old are you? 8-)
82
Ah. This might explain something I was wondering about. I thought
"middle of the 19th century" was a long time ago for your grandfather
to have been graduating from Cornell. My grandfather was graduating in
the late 1890s, and I'm 64. Hey! Come to think of it, Cornell wasn't
founded until 1865! Can you clarify the chronology here?
Ross Clark
[/quote]
My grandfather was born in 1854 on a farm just outside Ithaca. He took
advantage of the educational opportunity and was in the 8th (I think)
class which would be 1873. He wasn't the oldest son so he didn't
inherit the farm. He read for the law and moved west ending up as a
bank president in Kansas.
I think there was a considerable loosening up of university standards
between the 70's and the 90's. By the 90's you could probably graduate
without Greek. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 2:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Let's have a look:
English:
cardinal: one two three four five six
ordinal: first second third fourth fifth sixth
^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
4 irregularities already found among the first six!
Peter> How are "third" and "fifth" "irregular"?
This very question from you indicates that you're not eligible to
comment on how difficult English is to a L2 learner.
German:
cardinal: eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs
ordinal: erst zweit dritt viert fünft sechst
^^^^ ^^^^^
Only 2 irregularities out of six.
Peter> How is "dritte" irregular?
Is your IQ below that of a 3-year-old?
So we've just learned yet another English word you don't know the
meaning of: "irregular."
I would appreciate your explanation of "irregular" myself. Of course you can
give diachronic rules here, but then most irregular forms are revealed as
regular (in a way), if they can be traced back by language change laws to
older regular forms.
Is that your view of regular?
Diachronic derivations are often synchronic morphophonology.
I can accept that in the case of "fifth" (for some people's grammars at[/quote]
least, not sure if it's the case in my own) -- but then, why doesn't
nine + -th give [nInT]? But do you really think that "third" is
underlyingly "threeth", synchronically, for anyone at all?
And I don't pretend to know anything at all about the morphophonology
contained in a German-speaker's language organ, but what's the
synchronic rule that could produce "dritt-" from "drei", while at the
same time producing "zweit-" from "zwei"? Diachronically, there's no
problem, since drei < *Tri:, while zwei < *two:, but there's no way the
modern speaker can have incorporated in their grammar that these vowels
are "underlyingly" different.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Atkinson wrote:
[quote]
[...]
And I don't pretend to know anything at all about the morphophonology
contained in a German-speaker's language organ, but what's the
synchronic rule that could produce "dritt-" from "drei", while at the
same time producing "zweit-" from "zwei"? Diachronically, there's no
problem, since drei < *Tri:, while zwei < *two:,
Correction: That should probably be *twai- (Proto-germanic oblique[/quote]
stem), or *twa (neuter nom-acc). The posited masc nom-acc *two:
probably wasn't the direct ancestor of "zwei". My argument is unaffected.
[quote]
but there's no way the
modern speaker can have incorporated in their grammar that these vowels
are "underlyingly" different.
John.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"Joachim" == Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> writes:
Doesn't that "de" suggest that those are actually adjectival
clauses, like German "die _gestern bei Kaufhauf gekaufte_
Kafeemachine ist kaputt". Unless you would call that underlined
clause a "relative clause", I won't agree with you.
[/quote]
Joachim> It's not called a relative clause by German schoolbook
Joachim> grammar, but I think it is very close to what is called a
Joachim> relative clause in Japanese, and in fact, it means the
Joachim> same. (OK, no participle in Japanese).
Should that in Japanese be called a relative clause? Shouldn't it be
more accurately called an adjectival clause?
I can see the similarly between this, and the adjectival clauses in
Chinese and German, and I find these to be very different from relative
clauses in English, French, Spanish, Italian.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"Joachim" == Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> writes:
Doesn't that "de" suggest that those are actually adjectival
clauses, like German "die _gestern bei Kaufhauf gekaufte_
Kafeemachine ist kaputt". Unless you would call that underlined
clause a "relative clause", I won't agree with you.
Joachim> It's not called a relative clause by German schoolbook
Joachim> grammar, but I think it is very close to what is called a
Joachim> relative clause in Japanese, and in fact, it means the
Joachim> same. (OK, no participle in Japanese).
Should that in Japanese be called a relative clause? Shouldn't it be
more accurately called an adjectival clause?
I can see the similarly between this, and the adjectival clauses in
Chinese and German, and I find these to be very different from relative
clauses in English, French, Spanish, Italian.
I'd like you to explain _in_detail_ just what criteria of "difference"[/quote]
you find particularly significant for you in making this distinction.
I assume that in the European languages by "adjectival clauses" you mean
the participle _phrases_ of English, French, Spanish, Italian and
German, while by "relative clauses" you mean those constructions which
contain a finite verb (and which may or may not also contain a relative
pronoun), found in German, English, French, Spanish and Italian.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
J. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-26, DKleinecke wrote:
[quote]I think there was a considerable loosening up of university standards
between the 70's and the 90's. By the 90's you could probably graduate
without Greek.
[/quote]
"And they say standards aren't dropping!"
--
Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix.
I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"John" == John Atkinson <johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> writes:
[...]
Well... none of these look like relative clauses in English.
They are closer to Partizip I/II in German than Relativsätze.
John> Why do you say that (other than the word order, which of
John> course is irrelevant)?
Why should word order be irrelevant?
Also, there is no relative pronoun involved in those constructions (both
Cantonese and German).
And then, the position of that phrase is exactly where you would expect
an adjective or adjectival phrase.
German is (according to the specialists) a basically SOV language (even[/quote]
though it has prepositions and V2 in main clauses), as was Old English.
Modern English is a SVO language. As is well known since Greenberg,
SOV languages tend to have modifier-head order. SVO languages tend to
have head-modifier order. These are only tendencies, however. In
French, almost all modifiers (most adjectives, phrases headed by an
adjective, participle phrases, and "relative" clauses) do follow their
heads (exceptions -- numerals, demonstratives, possessive pronouns). In
English, only heavier modifiers follow: adjectives and short PPs precede
their heads, PhbaA, longer PPs, and RCs follow. In German all but the
heaviest phrases precede, clauses follow. I don't know of any European
languages, except Turkish, which are strictly SOV and where all
modifiers precede their heads.
So the fact that most PPs precede in German but follow in English is
simply to be expected, given their basic type.
Chinese (especially Mandarin) is highly atypical typologically. Its
basic order in the clause is SVO (except for the BA construction), but
in nearly every other respect it behaves like an archetypical SOV
language. All other Sino-Tibetan languages (except Karen and Bai) are
SOV. It's believed that this was the original position in Chinese, and
that though it switched from OV to VO thousands of years ago, it has
retained modifier-head, even when the modifier is a clause. This is
very unusual, perhaps unique, among languages of the world.
Of course, the situation is much more complicated than my summary says.
For a fuller treatment, see Dryer's "Word order in Sino-Tibetan
languages from a typological and geographical perspective" in the
Routledge "Sino-Tibetan Languages". But I hope it's sufficient to
indicate why I believe that whether a modifying clause precedes or
follows its noun has nothing to do with whether the clause should be
called a "relative clause" or not.
[quote]
The constructions are very different. Where are the "relative
pronouns", for instance?
John> There are no relative pronouns in the English translations you
John> gave. You could have added "that", but that isn't a relative
John> pronoun either. Or you could have used "which", which is
John> indeed a relative pronoun.
I consider "that" a relatively pronoun,
I don't. How do you define the term "relative pronoun"?
even when it is omitted.
When there's nothing there, how do you know something has been omitted?[/quote]
(Has something been omitted from that last sentence of mine? Is it a
relative pronoun? Reasons?)
[quote]
If you
also compare with French "que"/"qui", Italian "che" and Spanish "que",
which are not omittable, you'll notice that the English one is more like
these ones:
1) The relative clause is introduced by the relative pronoun (but
English "that" MAY (and need not) be omitted).
2) The word order of the relative clause is not normal, because,
like asking questions, the relative pronoun has to be put
at the beginning of the clause.
John> Though, as I said before, it would make more sense if the term
John> "relative clause" were scrapped altogether, for English and
John> every other language, and replaced by "adjectival clause" or
John> "modifying clause".
I can't agree more!
Good.
John> Call them whatever you like, just don't call them late for
John> dinner.
John> (But whatever you call them, you should use the _same_ term
John> for the (functionally) same constructions in English and
John> German.)
But English has no Partizip I/II like those in German or Chinese.
I don't know what you mean by "Partizip I/II" in Chinese (I didn't know[/quote]
that Chinese had "participles" of any kind!), but English certainly does
have participle phrases that modify nouns, and, as far as I can tell,
uses them about as often as German does.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 8:40 pm, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Let's have a look:
English:
cardinal: one two three four five six
ordinal: first second third fourth fifth sixth
^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
4 irregularities already found among the first six!
Peter> How are "third" and "fifth" "irregular"?
This very question from you indicates that you're not eligible to
comment on how difficult English is to a L2 learner.
German:
cardinal: eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs
ordinal: erst zweit dritt viert fünft sechst
^^^^ ^^^^^
Only 2 irregularities out of six.
Peter> How is "dritte" irregular?
Is your IQ below that of a 3-year-old?
So we've just learned yet another English word you don't know the
meaning of: "irregular."
I would appreciate your explanation of "irregular" myself. Of course you can
give diachronic rules here, but then most irregular forms are revealed as
regular (in a way), if they can be traced back by language change laws to
older regular forms.
Is that your view of regular?
Diachronic derivations are often synchronic morphophonology.
I can accept that in the case of "fifth" (for some people's grammars at
least, not sure if it's the case in my own) -- but then, why doesn't
nine + -th give [nInT]? But do you really think that "third" is
underlyingly "threeth", synchronically, for anyone at all?
And I don't pretend to know anything at all about the morphophonology
contained in a German-speaker's language organ, but what's the
synchronic rule that could produce "dritt-" from "drei", while at the
same time producing "zweit-" from "zwei"? Diachronically, there's no
problem, since drei < *Tri:, while zwei < *two:, but there's no way the
modern speaker can have incorporated in their grammar that these vowels
are "underlyingly" different.
Hmm ... seems like you haven't studied SPE recently.
Or ever. Does SPE define "synchronic morphophonology" as something[/quote]
different from the way I obviously interpreted it -- viz, as (part of)
the set of rules that were programmed into the brain of today's native
speaker when they acquired the language?
J. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:49:14 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:eT9Fm.50011$ze1.15204 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
[quote]When there's nothing there, how do you know something has
been omitted? (Has something been omitted from that last
sentence of mine?
[/quote]
For you I'd guess not, but had I written the sentence, the
answer would be 'yes'.
[quote]Is it a relative pronoun? Reasons?)
[/quote]
Here I'd call it a subordinating conjunction or a
complementizer. In 'the book that I read yesterday' I don't
mind calling it a relative pronoun.
[...]
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian M. Scott wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:49:14 GMT, John Atkinson
johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote in
news:eT9Fm.50011$ze1.15204 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
When there's nothing there, how do you know something has
been omitted? (Has something been omitted from that last
sentence of mine?
For you I'd guess not, but had I written the sentence, the
answer would be 'yes'.
As it happens, I first wrote "whether", then went back and erased it so[/quote]
I could add that parenthesis. So your guess (in this particular case
only) would be wrong.
[quote]
Is it a relative pronoun? Reasons?)
Here I'd call it a subordinating conjunction or a
complementizer. In 'the book that I read yesterday' I don't
mind calling it a relative pronoun.
I'm agnostic on such things, but I can appreciate the argument that it's[/quote]
more appropriate to call it a complementiser in this case too, since it
has less of the "pronoun" properties than the more blatant relative
pronouns like "who", "which", where" etc do.
The Norwegian "som" seems to be comparable. Don't think there's
anything similar in german -- der, welcher, and was are all "obviously"
pronouns.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 1:10 am, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:40 pm, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Let's have a look:
English:
cardinal: one two three four five six
ordinal: first second third fourth fifth sixth
^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
4 irregularities already found among the first six!
Peter> How are "third" and "fifth" "irregular"?
This very question from you indicates that you're not eligible to
comment on how difficult English is to a L2 learner.
German:
cardinal: eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs
ordinal: erst zweit dritt viert fünft sechst
^^^^ ^^^^^
Only 2 irregularities out of six.
Peter> How is "dritte" irregular?
Is your IQ below that of a 3-year-old?
So we've just learned yet another English word you don't know the
meaning of: "irregular."
I would appreciate your explanation of "irregular" myself. Of course you can
give diachronic rules here, but then most irregular forms are revealed as
regular (in a way), if they can be traced back by language change laws to
older regular forms.
Is that your view of regular?
Diachronic derivations are often synchronic morphophonology.
I can accept that in the case of "fifth" (for some people's grammars at
least, not sure if it's the case in my own) -- but then, why doesn't
nine + -th give [nInT]? But do you really think that "third" is
underlyingly "threeth", synchronically, for anyone at all?
And I don't pretend to know anything at all about the morphophonology
contained in a German-speaker's language organ, but what's the
synchronic rule that could produce "dritt-" from "drei", while at the
same time producing "zweit-" from "zwei"? Diachronically, there's no
problem, since drei < *Tri:, while zwei < *two:, but there's no way the
modern speaker can have incorporated in their grammar that these vowels
are "underlyingly" different.
Hmm ... seems like you haven't studied SPE recently.
Or ever. Does SPE define "synchronic morphophonology" as something
different from the way I obviously interpreted it -- viz, as (part of)
the set of rules that were programmed into the brain of today's native
speaker when they acquired the language?
[/quote]
You seem to be using "programmed" differently from the way people who
make fun of the notion of "language programmed in the brain" use it.
SPE, in essence, says that the whole history of Indo-European (encoded
in English spelling) is inside the head of each English-speaker. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bart Mathias... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"Joachim" == Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> writes:
Doesn't that "de" suggest that those are actually adjectival
clauses, like German "die _gestern bei Kaufhauf gekaufte_
Kafeemachine ist kaputt". Unless you would call that underlined
clause a "relative clause", I won't agree with you.
Joachim> It's not called a relative clause by German schoolbook
Joachim> grammar, but I think it is very close to what is called a
Joachim> relative clause in Japanese, and in fact, it means the
Joachim> same. (OK, no participle in Japanese).
Should that in Japanese be called a relative clause? Shouldn't it be
more accurately called an adjectival clause?
[/quote]
I wonder if I'm the only one who calls them "adnominal clauses"? I
suppose I'm slightly influenced by Japanese "school" grammar, which
makes them so (³sÊ^×¹¢¥y) as well as by my desire to name things
according to¡ at (no spam) their functions.
Bart Mathias |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"John" == John Atkinson <johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> writes:
[/quote]
John> Chinese (especially Mandarin) is highly atypical
John> typologically. Its basic order in the clause is SVO (except
John> for the BA construction), but in nearly every other respect it
John> behaves like an archetypical SOV language.
Perhaps, one should forget about the SOV, SVO typology when examining
Chinese, Japanese and some other East-Asian languages. Those languages
are better understood using the topic-comment model than SVO or SOV.
John> I don't. How do you define the term "relative pronoun"?
[quote]
even when it is omitted.
John> When there's nothing there, how do you know something has been[/quote]
John> omitted?
Because those sentences have the same meaning when those missing "that"s
are added back.
John> (Has something been omitted from that last sentence of mine?
Yes. A "that" after "know".
John> Is it a relative pronoun?
No.
John> Reasons?)
That "that" is for introducing a subordinate clause.
[quote]
But English has no Partizip I/II like those in German or Chinese.
John> I don't know what you mean by "Partizip I/II" in Chinese (I[/quote]
John> didn't know that Chinese had "participles" of any kind!), but
John> English certainly does have participle phrases that modify
John> nouns, and, as far as I can tell, uses them about as often as
John> German does.
But those participle phrases in English can't be as decorated as the
German equivalent. Try to translate:
Das gestern bei Kaufhof gekaufte Waschmachine ist kaputt.
How do you insert "gestern", "bei Kaufhof", etc. into the equivalent
English participle phrase? Is that a phrase, or just an adjective
(derived from a verb)?
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"John" == John Atkinson <johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> writes:
John> Chinese (especially Mandarin) is highly atypical
John> typologically. Its basic order in the clause is SVO (except
John> for the BA construction), but in nearly every other respect it
John> behaves like an archetypical SOV language.
Perhaps, one should forget about the SOV, SVO typology when examining
Chinese, Japanese and some other East-Asian languages. Those languages
are better understood using the topic-comment model than SVO or SOV.
True, of course. If this really worries you, call them verb-medial and[/quote]
verb-last languages. Does this change the argument? Not at all! The
point is that Chinese doesn't normally put the verb last if there's a
second nominal, while almost all other ST languages almost always do.
The terminology SVO and SOV is just a convenient shorthand for this. It
isn't meant to say anything about whether "subject" and "object" are
well-defined terms in the languages concerned.
Of course, the topic-comment language par excellence, Tagalog, is
classified as VSO (and, no surprise, it obeys most of the other
word-order rules associated with other verb-first languages, such as Welsh).
[quote]
John> I don't. How do you define the term "relative pronoun"?
even when it is omitted.
John> When there's nothing there, how do you know something has been
John> omitted?
Because those sentences have the same meaning when those missing "that"s
are added back.
Why can't you say "Those sentences have the same meaning when "that" is[/quote]
added"? By saying "back" there, you're assuming what you're purporting
to prove, that something was removed in the first place.
In Classical Chinese, your "adjective clauses" work the same way as in
Mandarin, or Cantonese. But, unlike the case in Mandarin with the
particle "de", the corresponding particle "zhi" isn't necessary -- you
can put it in or not as you like, with no apparent change of meaning
AFAIK. (In other words, it's just like "that" in English "relative
clauses".) Do Chinese scholars insist that that something has been
"omitted" when "zhi" isn't used? I don't think so, though of course
IANACS. So why do you insist that "that" has been omitted when it's not
there, in the English case?
[quote]
John> (Has something been omitted from that last sentence of mine?
Yes. A "that" after "know".
John> Is it a relative pronoun?
No.
John> Reasons?)
See other post. Actually, opinions vary.
That "that" is for introducing a subordinate clause.
But English has no Partizip I/II like those in German or Chinese.
John> I don't know what you mean by "Partizip I/II" in Chinese (I
John> didn't know that Chinese had "participles" of any kind!), but
John> English certainly does have participle phrases that modify
John> nouns, and, as far as I can tell, uses them about as often as
John> German does.
But those participle phrases in English can't be as decorated as the
German equivalent. Try to translate:
Das gestern bei Kaufhof gekaufte Waschmachine ist kaputt.
How do you insert "gestern", "bei Kaufhof", etc. into the equivalent
English participle phrase? Is that a phrase, or just an adjective
(derived from a verb)?
[/quote]
"That washing machine bought yesterday at the department store is fucked."
J. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bart Mathias wrote:
[quote]LEE Sau Dan wrote:
"Joachim" == Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> writes:
Doesn't that "de" suggest that those are actually adjectival
clauses, like German "die _gestern bei Kaufhauf gekaufte_
Kafeemachine ist kaputt". Unless you would call that underlined
clause a "relative clause", I won't agree with you.
Joachim> It's not called a relative clause by German schoolbook
Joachim> grammar, but I think it is very close to what is called a
Joachim> relative clause in Japanese, and in fact, it means the
Joachim> same. (OK, no participle in Japanese).
Should that in Japanese be called a relative clause? Shouldn't it be
more accurately called an adjectival clause?
I wonder if I'm the only one who calls them "adnominal clauses"?
You probably are. But I like it! Let's stick with it from now on and[/quote]
consign both "adjectival clauses" and "relative clauses" to the dustbin
of worn-out terminology that's passed its use-by date.
[...]
J. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:21 am
|
|