NOV JUL Aug 18 2012 2014 2015 4 captures 13 Nov 09 - 18 Jul 14

Close Help

Vocabulary

Note the prefix “é–” (potential). It is a tremendously useful little prefix. One example of how useful it is occurs in the word “édáan” (lexical gap) [é– (potential) + dáan (word)].

Embedded Relative Clauses

A relative clause is a dependent clause that modifies a noun (in this sentence, “that modifies a noun” is, itself, a relative clause modifying the noun phrase “dependent clause”). The relative clause always modifies a noun or noun phrase; this noun or noun phrase could stand alone (without the dependent clause), resulting in a less detailed sentence. This is an important point in learning how to form embedded relative clauses in Láadan. In the first sentence of this paragraph, a less-detailed version (without the relatve clause) would read “A relative clause is a dependent clause.”

A clause in Láadan is defined as: (Auxiliary) + Verb + (Negative) + Noun Phrase(s)—just like a simple sentence, except without the Type-of-Sentence or Evidence Words. By this nature of the clause in Láadan, when we embed a clause—whether declarative, interrogative or relative—the first word in the embedded clause will be either a verb or an auxiliary.

Examples

In Láadan, unlike in English, the embedded relative clause contains the noun phrase it modifies. That noun phrase, of necessity, fulfills some case role in the outer sentence. So the embedded relative clause fulfills the same case role that the noun phrase, unmodified by the embedding, would. As a consequence, case suffixes applied to the embedded clause as a whole become much more crucial—and much less likely to be optional.

In the examples to follow, I’ll present the embedded relative clause in [brackets] as I have been. I’ll also underline the noun phrase in the embedded relative clause that could stand alone to give a less-detailed sentence.

As was the case when we were learning about the Relativizer, there are, in essence, two sentences being combined into one. The first, or outer, sentence is that “less-detailed” sentence alluded to before this example set: “Bíi an behid witheth wa.” The second sentence (embedded as a relative clause), gives context or detail about a noun in the outer sentence: “Bíi lalom with wa.”

In this very basic example, the same woman is being referred to, whether she’s referred to as “a woman” or as “a woman who sings,”—that is, with or without the relative clause. In the outer sentence “with” (woman) is the Object of “an” (to be acquainted with). In the embedded clause “with” is the Subject of “lalom” (to sing). When we embed the second inside the first, the embedded clause contains the noun that is common to both sentences, and the entire embedded clause fulfills the case-role that that noun used to fulfill in the outer sentence—in this example, in the resultant sentence-with-embedding, “Bíi an behid lalom witheháath wa,” the embedded clause, “lalom witheháa” (a woman who sings), is the new Object of “an” (that is, the embedded clause fulfills the case-role of “with” in the outer sentence), and “with” is the Subject of “lalom” (consistent with the second sentence).

Another way to look at the process is that it’s somewhat similar to how we form Possessives. In Possessives we insert the possessor and the ending indicating the type of possession between the thing possessed and its case ending. Here we’re inserting the entire embedded clause between the noun and its case ending—the difference is we then delete the original noun since it’s duplicated in the embedded clause.

The three examples above illustrate how the three types of embedding in Láadan change the meanings of otherwise identical sentences. In this very simple third example, it is true that the same meaning could have been conveyed using the relativizer instead of embedding a relative clause, giving “Bíi láad ehá mewohaba womahinath wa.” On the other hand, using the embedded relative clause structure allows us to also use the relativizer, as illustrated below.

The embedded clause, since it takes the place of a noun phrase in the larger sentence, likely will also require a Case ending that refers to the entire embedded clause. This Case suffix will be the same one that was on the noun phrase that is being replaced by the embedded clause. This clause-level Case ending will follow the embedding marker.

The embedded relative clause may, of course, have one or more case phrase(s), each with its Case ending, within it; a Case ending on the final noun internal to the embedded clause will occur before the embedding marker. One more, slightly more adventurous, example will illustrate:

Bíi íthi [sháad with bodi]háa wa.

Since “sháad with bodi,” the embedded clause, is the Subject of the larger sentence, no Case ending would be appropriate to follow the “–háa.” But there are two noun phrases within the embedded clause, the Subject, “with,” and the Goal, “bo.” So would the sentence as a whole mean “The woman who went to the mountain is tall” or “The mountain the woman went to is tall?” In usual writing or conversation, this ambiguity would not be an issue. We’d already be talking about tall people or tall mountains. In the event that the ambiguity is, or is likely to be, troublesome, we can disambiguate using the Focus Marker, as follows:

And one more example, even more complex because it has two internal case phrases and the entire embedded clause is a Goal Case element:

Note that we have to use the variant embedding marker, “–sháa” in these examples because it follows “–ha”, the Place case suffix.

Exercises

Translate the following into English.

Notice, in #2, that the embedded clause is the Subject of the sentence.

We also see, in #2, the verb “radazh” for the first time. Just as you may expect, it means “to be hard; to be firm” [ra– (non–) + dazh (to be soft; to be pliant; to be yielding)].

Also in #2, we see “–sháa,” the alternate form of “–háa,” which occurs when it follows “–ha,” the Place case ending.

In #4, we see the embedded clause “mewéedan bedihá áabeth menedebe” (students read many books) as the Object of the verb “áhesh” (to be responsible). This needs to be noted in the definition of “áhesh”: that, if it takes an Object, the thing or person over or for which/whom the Subject is responsible is that Object.

Change the embedded sentence/question into a relative clause; translate into English before and after.

In #10 we see “nedeloth” (fact); it is formed from “nede” (one) + “loth” (information).

Embed the second sentence within the first sentence (the underlined noun/noun phrase is the same in both sentences). Translate into English before and after.

Example: “Bíi néde eb Ána yuth wehede wa. Bíi melaya i meléli yu wa,” (Anna wants to buy fruit from the store. The fruit are red and yellow.) gives “Bíi néde eb Ána melaya i meléli yuháath wehede wa,” (Anna wants to buy the fruit that are red and yellow from the store.).

13	Bíi ul di Elízhabeth woháya woduthahádi wáa. Lalom i amedara duthahá wa.
14	Bíi eril wod rul urahuha ihé wa. Bíi rilrili nahóoha ra rul rahadihad wo.
15	Báa láadom Méri lometh? Bíi eril thod hóowith Máyel betha lometh wa.
16	Bíi aril elash Ána amedarahádan buzheya obée wáa. Bíi ril nosháad amedarahá eba bethoden wáa.
17	Bóo duheb ne laleth woyide woháwitheda. Bíi thi ra áwith ditheth waá.
18	Bíi aril ban edin letha anath ledi binenan bim wa. Bíi ril thóhel thul letha bin bim boshenan wa.

Translate the following into Láadan.

Notice, in #20, that the relativizr does the same conceptual work in the Subject that the embedded relative clause does in the Object.

In #22, did you remember to use the alternate form of “–háa?”

Also in #22, we see the word “elodá” [e– (science of) + lod (household) + –á (doer)], a new word, meaning “doer of household-science, housekeeper”. Of course, it’s used here in an Identifier structure, so no suffix is required.

Answers