Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[akam chinjir]

How do a language with neither oblique relativization nor applicative voice relativize on the non-subject?

One possibility would be not to relativise in those cases. "I read a book for that child. That child..."

[náʼoolkiłí]

How do a language with neither oblique relativization nor applicative voice relativize on the non-subject?
Using oblique relativization is simple.

You could use a resumptive pronoun in the complement position of the relevant adposition:

the child [_RC that I read a book [_PP for him/her ] ]

[malloc]

Why do many Brahmic scripts like Tamil and Javanese have such intricate characters with seemingly redundant loops and extensions? Was there a practical function behind such extra detail or did the prevailing aesthetic simply favor graphemic elaboration? I have always found these scripts especially beautiful but have often wondered about the practicality of writing such complex characters for single syllables.

[Vijay]

Can you give us an example of a "character with seemingly redundant loops and extensions"?

[malloc]

Some example have have always stuck with me are the Tamil characters இ and ண with their multitude of loops. More generally though, it just seems like the characters in these scripts are notably more complex than the Brahmi script from which they evolved. Looking at the Brahmi script and many of its descendants, it looks like many of them turned few straight lines into many loops and curves.

[Vijay]

I think that may be at least in part because manuscripts in India used to be written on palm leaves. I've never been really sure about இ, but ண requires an extra loop to avoid confusion with ன.

[Travis B.]

Scripts designed to be written on things like leaves and wood often avoid straight lines in certain directions; note how Futhark avoids horizontal straight lines because it is meant to be written on wood.

[Linguoboy]

I think that may be at least in part because manuscripts in India used to be written on palm leaves. I've never been really sure about இ, but ண requires an extra loop to avoid confusion with ன.

Yeah, I've read before that making straight lines on a palm life with a stylus tends to cause the leaves to tear. (I've never tried this myself.)

[zompist]

Why do many Brahmic scripts like Tamil and Javanese have such intricate characters with seemingly redundant loops and extensions? Was there a practical function behind such extra detail or did the prevailing aesthetic simply favor graphemic elaboration?

They got complicated because writers were lazy and tried to simplify them.

Sounds weird, but look at the example on my page here. Each step is a simplification in some way, but the result is far more complex than the original.

There are a few examples in the our alphabet: A > a, G > g, Q > q.

(And yeah, the curved lines are due to the change in medium. But not the increased complexity.)

[Xwtek]

How do a language with neither oblique relativization nor applicative voice relativize on the non-subject?
Using oblique relativization is simple.

You could use a resumptive pronoun in the complement position of the relevant adposition:

the child [_RC that I read a book [_PP for him/her ] ]

That is still oblique relativization. In WALS, basque has none, not even resumptive pronoun..

[WeepingElf]

A question about a language other than English:

I used to entertain the notion for a long time that the Italian surnames in -i preserve old genitives, but now I have grown skeptical of that, though it may actually be the case. Does anyone know?

[náʼoolkiłí]

You could use a resumptive pronoun in the complement position of the relevant adposition:

the child [_RC that I read a book [_PP for him/her ] ]

That is still oblique relativization. In WALS, basque has none, not even resumptive pronoun..

Can you clarify what you mean by a language lacking oblique relativization? I would interpret that to mean that a gap (empty argument position, aka trace) may not occupy an oblique syntactic position (not a core argument position) in a relative clause filler–gap dependency. Languages very frequently resort to resumption to get around constraints like this. Other possibilities are ineffability (the relevant relative clause is simply not possible to form; you must paraphrase) and, as you mention, applicativization (the oblique position is promoted to argumenthood).

Are you familiar with agent/ergative extraction bans in, e.g., Mayan languages? That might be relevant to look into also.

[Kuchigakatai]

How do a language with neither oblique relativization nor applicative voice relativize on the non-subject?
Using oblique relativization is simple.

The child-ren for whom I read a book.

DEF child-PL BEN REL 1SG read INDEF book

Using applicative is roundabout but possible.

Anak yang ku-baca-kan buku.

child REL 1SG.PASS-read-BEN.APPL book

But how it's done in Basque, for example.

Why is ku- glossed as "PASS" (passive)? I don't know Indonesian.

Can you clarify what you mean by a language lacking oblique relativization? I would interpret that to mean that a gap (empty argument position, aka trace) may not occupy an oblique syntactic position (not a core argument position) in a relative clause filler–gap dependency. Languages very frequently resort to resumption to get around constraints like this. Other possibilities are ineffability (the relevant relative clause is simply not possible to form; you must paraphrase) and, as you mention, applicativization (the oblique position is promoted to argumenthood).

Akangka is referring to the categories of WALS feature 123, so he's talking about ineffability. Basque and Tagalog are mentioned there as examples. I think akam chinjir already gave the best answer: use more than one main clause.

Some of the children I originally read the book for can be found in this picture.
-> I originally read the book for many children, and some of them can be found in this picture.

Although rewording things should often be possible too. I'm thinking that if "use" takes a direct object, then an instrumental NP can be relativized on as the direct object of "use" while moving the subordinate verb to a final clause:

The knife she allegedly killed her husband with was not brought to court.
-> The knife she allegedly used to kill her husband was not brought to court.
("knife" is now the direct object of "used")

[Linguoboy]

A question about a language other than English:

You mean like in the posts just above and below yours?

I used to entertain the notion for a long time that the Italian surnames in -i preserve old genitives, but now I have grown skeptical of that, though it may actually be the case. Does anyone know?

I’ve always assumed this was a marker of plurality since similar surnames in Catalan often end in -s.

ETA:

A large number of Italian surnames end in i, due to the medieval Italian habit of identifying families by the name of the ancestors in the plural (which have an -i suffix in Italian). For instance, Filippo from the Ormanno family (gli Ormanni) would be called "signor Filippo degli Ormanni" ("Mr. Filippo of the Ormannos"). In time, the middle possessive portion ("of the") was dropped, but surnames became permanently pluralized and never referred to in the singular, even for a single person. Filippo Ormanno would therefore be known as Filippo Ormanni.[9] Some families, however, opted to retain the possessive portion of their surnames, for instance Lorenzo de' Medici literally means "Lorenzo of the Medici" (de' is a contraction of dei, also meaning "of the"; c.f. The Medicis).

The citation is to an article by Robert A. Hall in Language, "Definite Article + Family Name in Italian". I'll try to hunt it down today.

[Znex]

How do a language with neither oblique relativization nor applicative voice relativize on the non-subject?
Using oblique relativization is simple.

The child-ren for whom I read a book.

DEF child-PL BEN REL 1SG read INDEF book

Using applicative is roundabout but possible.

Anak yang ku-baca-kan buku.

child REL 1SG.PASS-read-BEN.APPL book

But how it's done in Basque, for example.

Basque simply places a relative particle between the relativised phrase and its constituent, with the constituent inside the relative clause removed.

So if there's two original phrases: (Mandarin Chinese translations are given too, since it relativises similarly)
EU: Aitak irakurri nahi du liburua.
aita=k irakurri nahi d-∅-u liburu=a
father=ERG read want 3.ABS-3SG.ERG-have.3SG.PRS book=SG.ABS
ZH: 爸爸想读书。
bàba xiǎng dú shū
father want read book
Father wants to read a book.

EU: Amak liburua erre du.
ama=k liburu=a erre d-∅-u
mother=ERG book=SG.ABS burn 3.ABS-3SG.ERG-have.3SG.PRS
ZH: 妈妈把书烧掉了。
māma bǎ shū shāo diào le
mother FOC/OBJ book burn COMP PF
Mother has burned the book.

Then the composite is: (with a [] where the constituent of the relative clause would be if it remained)
EU: Aitak irakurri nahi du amak [libarua] erre duen liburua.
aita=k irakurri nahi d-∅-u ama=k erre d-∅-u=n liburu=a
father=ERG read want 3.ABS-3SG.ERG-have.3SG.PRS mother=ERG burn 3.ABS-3SG.ERG-have.3SG.PRS=REL book=SG.ABS
ZH: 爸爸想读妈妈[把书]烧掉的书。
bàba xiǎng dú māma shāo diào de shū
father want read mother burn COMP REL book
Father wants to read the book that mother has burned.

Essentially, relative clauses in these languages act like attributive phrases. The relative construction in both languages do show strong similarities to their possessive constructions (in Chinese, the constructions are identical).

[akam chinjir]

That's not relativising an oblique, though.

[Znex]

That's not relativising an oblique, though.

But it is? The relativised constituent is the object of the sentence, not the subject.

If you mean non-argument on the other hand, the same structure is used nonetheless. For instance:

1.
EU: Amak liburua kutxan ezarri du.
ama=k liburu=a kutxa=n ezarri d-∅-u
mother=ERG book=SG.ABS box.SG=INESS put 3.ABS-3SG.ERG-have.3SG.PRS
ZH: 妈妈把书放在箱子里了。
māma bǎ shū fàng zài xiāngzi li le
mother OBJ/FOC book put LOC box in PF
Mother has put the book in the box.

2.
EU: Kutxa joan da.
kutxa joan d-a
box.SG.ABS go 3.ABS-be.PRS
ZH: 箱子不见了。
xiāngzi bújiàn le
box is_gone PF
The box has gone.

The composite:
EU: Amak liburua [kutxan] ezarri duen kutxa joan da.
ama=k liburu=a ezarri d-∅-u=n kutxa joan d-a
mother=ERG book=SG.ABS put 3.ABS-3SG.ERG-have.3SG.PRS=REL box.SG.ABS go 3.ABS-be.PRS
ZH: 妈妈放书[在箱子里]的箱子不见了。
māma fàng shū de xiāngzi bújiàn le
mother put book REL box is_gone PF
The box that mother put the book in has gone.

[akam chinjir]

But the question was about languages in which you can't relativise obliques. If you can relativise obliques in Basque and Mandarin, then WALS is wrong about Basque, but it doesn't really help Akangka. (The Mandarin example looks strange to me, though.)

[Znex]

But the question was about languages in which you can't relativise obliques. If you can relativise obliques in Basque and Mandarin, then WALS is wrong about Basque, but it doesn't really help Akangka. (The Mandarin example looks strange to me, though.)

I must admit I'm not entirely sure what Akangka means myself.

[Xwtek]

How do a language with neither oblique relativization nor applicative voice relativize on the non-subject?
Using oblique relativization is simple.

The child-ren for whom I read a book.

DEF child-PL BEN REL 1SG read INDEF book

Using applicative is roundabout but possible.

Anak yang ku-baca-kan buku.

child REL 1SG.PASS-read-BEN.APPL book

But how it's done in Basque, for example.

Why is ku- glossed as "PASS" (passive)? I don't know Indonesian.

After reading Indonesian grammar, it turns out to be type 2 passive, where the passive subject is put here and active object is put before verb. The reason this is passive voice because when relativized, it's the moved object that is relativized.