As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

DefinedMeaning talk:betrekkelijk voornaamwoord (410175)

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The definition in language "jpo" (Template:jpo) is out of sync. The definition in language "fra" (French) is out of sync. The definition in language "spa" (Spanish) is out of sync. The definition in language "nld" (Dutch) is out of sync. The definition in language "mon" (Template:mon) is out of sync.

Icon tools.png
This article (betrekkelijk voornaamwoord (410175)) needs attention because:
Definition too narrow
It has been added to this category for attention. Thank you for your patience.

I think it's essential for a relative pronoun to link its clause as subordinated, which is not mentioned in the definition.
In Mongolian, there are coordinating conjunctions referring to something already mentioned. They are called "proword-conjunctions" by R. Kullmann and D. Tserenpil ("Mongolian grammar", Ulaanbaatar 2005, ISBN 99929-0-445-3 for the edition I have, but it had been corrected, amended and published several times). I wouldn't call them "relative pronouns". Translated word for word, they mean "Apart from this" (Besides), "not ending in this" (Furthermore), "I/you/he/she/it/we/they do/did/will do so and then" (Then, After that) etc..
--Fiable.biz 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the English definition. Is it better now? --Tosca 10:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It's better, but I see 2 problems: you use the word "relative" to define a "relative pronoun", which is a bit tautologic. A relative pronoun can replace a noun phrase: "Mongolian speaking people, who were able to understand, laughed.", a pronoun: "Those who are hungry can eat now.", a clause: "Becoming a physician, which is my goal, is quite demanding.", an adjective ("Étourdi que tu es!" in French. I don't think this works in English. Arguably, in this case "que" could be regarded as a "relative pro-adjective", but traditionally it's still called "pronom": pronoun.). What about:
"A word linking a subordinate clause it is member of to a grammatically superior clause, and replacing in the subordinate clause a word of the superior clause."?
There is a third, more serious problem: what about fused relative clauses, like "What he did is clearly impossible, but I saw him do it." (Wikipedia)? They exist at least in English, French, Latin and Malagasy, and their pronouns are traditionally regarded as "relative pronouns" in these languages.
--Fiable.biz 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we should find a definition that works for most cases. There is also a zero relative pronoun in English (Jack built the house that I was born in. vs. Jack built the house XX I was born in.) Special cases like this and the fused relative clause need their own DM. --Tosca 08:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking much about prowords this week. Fused relative pronouns are not a so special case. Other pronouns can also refer to an antecedent or to something not mentioned at all before ("What is this?"). I think we should better include fused relative pronouns. What about:
"Lexical item of relative meaning (i.e. whose interpretation depends essentially on the context) or void grammatical connection, introducing a subordinate clause it is member of, and used in place of any noun or equivalent (pronoun, noun phrase, clause...) if the noun or noun-equivalent referred to is member of the superior clause or if the notion referred to couldn't in itself be more general and is only specified by the subordinate clause."
This definition excludes the relative pro-adjective I mentioned above but, hopefully, includes the other cases. A good reason is that, in other languages, pro-adjectives are different from pronouns. In English my above example would be "Scatterbrained as you are!", and "as" is not a pronoun. So called zero relative pronouns also exist in Mongolian (where there is no relative pronoun at all, but where relative clauses are very frequent) and Malagasy (As in English the relative pronoun can be omitted.). But nobody in Mongolia (and probably in Madagascar) has the notion of "zero relative pronoun". I'm not sure whether or not in all languages the antecedent has to be located before the relative pronoun, and it seems unessential to me, so I only wrote "is member of the superior clause". If the definition seems too complicated, it could be slightly simplified as:
"Lexical item introducing a subordinate clause it is member of, and used in place of any noun or equivalent (pronoun, noun phrase, clause...) if the noun or noun-equivalent referred to is member of the superior clause or if the notion referred to couldn't in itself be more general and is only specified by the subordinate clause."
--Fiable.biz 09:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but this definition is way too complicated (even the simplified one). Omegawiki is a dictionary geared to the general public, not just linguists. We could use it as an alternative definition though. --Tosca 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
So you could propose something... Would this be OK:
"Word introducing a subordinate clause it is member of, and either used in place of a noun (or equivalent) member of the superior clause, either referring to a notion which couldn't in itself be more general and is only specified by the subordinate clause."
--Fiable.biz 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

However, we have to do something. In Mongolian, for instance, the relative clauses, infrequent (participial attribute clauses are usually used when in English a relative clause is used), are always located before the noun they determine. Another attempt: "Word introducing a subordinate clause and referring either to a noun (or equivalent) of the superior clause, or to a very general notion ('person', 'thing', 'place'…) only specified by the subordinate clause." --Fiable.biz 14:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)