Message-Id: <199601120108.DAA00817@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 12 Jan 1996 02:03:56 MET
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: GEN: Nested preposed relative clauses
To:         Lojban Listserv <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Content-Length: 2362
Lines: 57

> I am taking a wider view at the problem of preposed relative
> clauses seeing that Jorge isn't very happy with them.
>
> We can divide languages in two classes: to those which use
> descriptors (articles) and to those which do not. English,
> Spanish, German and Lojban belong to the first class, Finnish,
> Japanese and Chinese to the second one. I don't know Spanish
> or Chinese so I speak nothing about them - I only make inferences.
>
> Some descriptor languages (English) have very limited possibilities
> of using preposed restrictive clauses. German fares better but
> succumbs soon with a bad case of center-embedding, as does Lojban.
>
> In some non-descriptor languages (Finnish) the preposed clauses
> are a viable/preferred alternative to postposed relative clauses.
> In some others (Japanese) they are about the only possibility.
>
>   J:  ((((machi) e iku) otoko) o miru) kodomo
>             N       V
>             |_______|
>                    VP     N
>                     |_____|
>                          NP        V
>                           |________|
>                                   VP     N
>                                    |_____|
>                                          NP
>
>   F:  ((((kaupunkiin) menevan) miehen) nakeva) lapsi
>   G:  das ((den (in die Stadt gehenden) Mann) sehende) Kind
>   L:  le (poi (le (poi (le tcadu) cu se klama ku'o) nanmu) cu se viska
>       ku'o) verba
>   E: *((((into the town) going) man) seeing) child

Well, I am only a beginning Chinese student, but I think it should be
something like

C:  ((((cheng2) qu4 de) ren2) kan4 de) xiao3hai2

Anyway, it definitely uses preposed clauses, whether I am correct or not
in my attempt.

But, Croatian disproves your theory: we have no articles, but we can't
prepose the relative clauses (actually, we could, but it is way too
ugly to be actually used - I don't have the slightest idea what the
official grammar has to say about Cr2):

Cr1:  Dijete (koje vidi (covjeka (koji ide (u grad))))
Cr2: *((((U grad) iduceg) covjeka) viduce) dijete

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++)
UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+)
t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r--
!n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out