[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: relative clauses and VSO



--- In westasianconlangs@yahoogroups.com, "eldin_raigmore" <eldin_raigmore@...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In westasianconlangs@yahoogroups.com, "carrajena" <carrajena@> wrote:
> >
> > I know that some of the semitic langs are or were VSO like my 
> > Carrajena.  (Which is the reason why C-a is VSO.)  But I'm not 
> > completely satisfied with using VSO in relative clauses.  Do any of 
> > the VSO semitilangs shuffle things around for relative clauses (or 
> > other types of sentences like questions, etc)?  If so how do they re-
> > order things?
> > 
> > Adam
> >
> 
> I found one reference suggesting (to me, at least, given I haven't read it carefully) that 
> Middle Egyptian might have varied the constituent order of RCs and/or of their matrix 
> main clauses.
> 
> (Apparently MiddleEgyptian had two types of Relative Clauses; "primary" RCs, like those 
in 
> other languages, and "virtual" RCs, completely different from anything this author has 
seen 
> in any other language.  But even the Primary RCs seem to have had situationally-variable 
> "word" order.)
> 
> Look at
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~rkramer/CLS%2040%20VRCs%20in%20Middle%20Egyptian%
> 20Ruth%
> 20Kramer%20(small%20correction).pdf
> especially
> 3.2 Proximity to Head NP and Linear Order
> and
> "
>