The preposition always appears before the pronoun, and the prepositions de and (at/to) contract with lequel to form duquel and auquel, or with lesquel(le)s to form desquel(le)s and auxquel(le)s. Aside from their highly inflected forms, German relative pronouns are less complicated than English. A relative clause is a clause that modifies a noun or noun phrase[1] and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments in the relative clause refers to the noun or noun phrase. Relative pronouns, like other pronouns in Latin, agree with their antecedents in gender and number, but not in case: a relative pronoun's case reflects its role in the relative clause it introduces, while its antecedent's case reflects the antecedent's role in the clause that contains the relative clause. The gap inside the relative clause corresponds to the position that the noun acting as the head would have normally taken, had it been in a declarative sentence.

A free relative clause (or fused relative[5]), on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to itself. In (6), the head, bata 'child', is the owner of the injured finger. These languages often allow an oblique object to be moved to the direct object slot by the use of the so-called applicative voice, much as the passive voice moves an oblique object to the subject position. In non-verb-final languages, apart from languages like Thai and Vietnamese with very strong politeness distinctions in their grammars[citation needed], gapped relative clauses tend, however, to be restricted to positions high up in the accessibility hierarchy. In Georgian, there are two strategies for forming relative clauses. Lehmann, Christian (1986). This is used, for example, in Navajo, which uses a special relative verb (as with some other Native American languages). On the same basis, it would be possible to substitute the pronoun welchem. As in most Germanic languages, including Old English, both of these varieties inflect according to gender, case and number. The girl [who was given a rose by me] came to visit. The former is called jumlat sila (conjunctive sentence) while the latter is called jumlat sifa (descriptive sentence). Yang is not allowed as the object of a relative clause, so that Indonesian cannot exactly reproduce structures such as "the house that Jack built". But when the relative clause's antecedent is a person, the English relative pronoun would be the subject of the relative clause, and the relative clause's verb is active and transitive, a relative clause is used and it begins with the relative pronoun nana: The one who me (past) sent = "the one who sent me". [23] The cause lies in the necessity to disambiguate the subject and the object by morphological means. The phrase ang daliri 'the finger' is the subject of the verb, nasugatan 'was injured'. The Ancient Greek relative pronoun , , (hs, h, h) is unrelated to the Latin word, since it derives from Proto-Indo-European *yos: in Proto-Greek, y before a vowel usually changed to h (debuccalization). (A, "[I saw the person yesterday] went home."

/ allatayn (acc. English is unusual in that all roles in the embedded clause can be indicated by gapping: e.g. One of them is the spread of the genitive-accusative syncretism to the masculine inanimate of the pronoun. That's the person [I gave the letter to]. The relativized noun may be preceded by a determiner. Some languages use relative clauses of this type with the normal strategy of embedding the relative clause next to the head noun. I found the rock [which the robbers had hit John over the head with]. Another difference in English is that only restrictive relative clauses may be introduced with that or use the "zero" relative pronoun (see English relative clauses for details). A direct relative clause is used where the relativized element is the subject or the direct object of its clause (e.g. [citation needed] These are typically listed in order of the degree to which the noun in the relative clause has been reduced, from most to least: In this strategy, there is simply a gap in the relative clause where the shared noun would go. Japanese does not employ relative pronouns to relate relative clauses to their antecedents. (Preceding relative clause with gapping and no linking word, as in, "The person [of my seeing yesterday] went home". If in English a relative pronoun would be the object of a relative clause, in Hawaiian the possessive form is used so as to treat the antecedent as something possessed: the things of me to have seen = "the things that I saw"; Here is theirs to have seen = This is what they saw". In English, a relative clause follows the noun it modifies. In many European languages, relative clauses are introduced by a special class of pronouns called relative pronouns,[2] such as who in the example just given. in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar the hierarchy corresponds to the order of elements on the subcat list, and interacts with other principles in explanations of binding facts.

Worthy of the freedom (lit. Alternatively, Hebrew asher derived from she-, or it was a convergence of Proto-Semitic dhu (cf. [20] The resumptive pronoun never appears in subject function.

Semitic *athar). A second strategy is the correlative-clause strategy used by Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages, as well as Bambara.

Case-marked relative pronouns in the strict sense are almost entirely confined to European languages[citation needed], where they are widespread except among the Celtic family and Indo-Aryan family. The direct relative particle "a" is not used with "mae" ("is") in Welsh; instead the form "sydd" or "sy'" is used: There is also a defective verb "piau" (usually lenited to "biau"), corresponding to "who own(s)": Indirect relative clauses are formed with a relativizer at the beginning; the relativized element remains in situ in the relative clause. Relative clauses may be either finite clauses (as in the examples above) or non-finite clauses. Edward Keenan and Bernard Comrie noted that these roles can be ranked cross-linguistically in the following order from most accessible to least accessible:[13][14]. A number of "adjectival" meanings, in Japanese, are customarily shown with relative clauses consisting solely of a verb or a verb complex: Often confusing to speakers of languages which use relative pronouns are relative clauses which would in their own languages require a preposition with the pronoun to indicate the semantic relationship among the constituent parts of the phrase. [21] The most frequently used relative pronoun is koji. Aramaic d) and asher [] Whereas Israeli she- functions both as complementizer and relativizer, ashr can only function as a relativize."[25].

(Languages with a case-marked relative pronoun are technically not considered to employ the gapping strategy even though they do in fact have a gap, since the case of the relative pronoun indicates the role of the shared noun.) Classical Arabic has "relative pronouns" which are case-marked, but which agree in case with the head noun. For example, Ha-kise adom means "The chair [is] red," while Ha-kis'e ha-adom shavur means "The red chair is broken"literally, "The chair the red [is] broken.").

This was made particularly expressive by the rich suite of participles available, with active and passive participles in present, past and future tenses. Pronoun retention is very frequently used for relativization of inaccessible positions on the accessibility hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relative_clause&oldid=1097204025, All articles with bare URLs for citations, Articles with bare URLs for citations from March 2022, Articles with PDF format bare URLs for citations, Articles containing Ancient Greek (to 1453)-language text, Articles with unsourced statements from May 2020, Articles with unsourced statements from December 2011, Articles with unsourced statements from August 2011, Articles with ambiguous glossing abbreviations, Articles containing Chinese-language text, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0. That's the person [who I was talking about].

A determiner precedes the relativized noun, which is also usually preceded by the clause as a whole. That is, non-restrictive clauses are to be set off with commas, while restrictive clauses are not: Nonetheless, many speakers of Modern Hebrew still use the pre-1994 rules, which were based on the German rules (described above). If it is the direct object, then it is usually suppressed, though it is also correct to leave it in. (A complementizer linking the two sentences with a, "The person [that her I saw yesterday] went home". An example of a non-finite relative clause in English is the infinitive clause on whom to rely, in the sentence "She is the person on whom to rely". In meaning, the two are interchangeable; they are used regardless of whether the clause is modifying a human, regardless of their grammatical case in the relative clause, and regardless of whether the clause is restrictive.

[19] This word is used together with a resumptive pronoun, i.e. "I met a woman and a man yesterday. Hence the following would be possible: The other ungrammatical examples above would still be ungrammatical. This occurs in modern, "The [I saw yesterday]'s person went home". Since 1994, the official rules of Modern Hebrew (as determined by the Academy of the Hebrew Language) have stated that relative clauses are to be punctuated in Hebrew the same way as in English (described above).

In general, however, nonreduction is restricted to verb-final languages, though it is more common among those that are head-marking. Instead, quoi, which usually means "what", is used. However, relative pronouns serving as the subject of a relative clause show more flexibility than in English; they can be included, as is mandatory in English, they can be omitted, or they can be replaced by another pronoun. Resumptive pronouns are common in non-verb-final languages of Africa and Asia, and also used by the Celtic languages of northwest Europe and Romanian ("Omul pe care l-am vzut ieri a mers acas"/"The man who I saw him yesterday went home"). Tagalog relative clauses can be left-headed, as in (1a) and (3), right-headed, as in (4), or internally headed, as in (5). Languages that place relative clauses before their head noun (so-called head-final or OV languages) generally also have adjectives and genitive modifiers preceding the head noun, as well as verbs following their objects. (An, Use of an indeclinable particle (specifically, a, Directly inserting the embedded clause in the matrix clause at the appropriate position, with no word used to join them. In fact, since so-called i-adjectives in Japanese are technically intransitive stative verbs, it can be argued that the structure of the first example (with an adjective) is the same as the others. In the nonreduction type, unlike the other three, the shared noun occurs as a full-fledged noun phrase in the embedded clause, which has the form of a full independent clause. If the object but not the subject is missing from the relative clause, the main-clause noun is the implied object of the relative clause: "the by-them-grown fruit" or "the fruit that they grow". Typically, it is the head noun in the main clause that is reduced or missing. the man IND-REL is his daughter {in the} hospital, "the man whose daughter is in the hospital", the man IND-REL {I gave} the book {to him}. The shared argument need not fulfill the same role in both clauses; in this example the same person is referred to by the subject of the matrix clause, but the direct object of the relative clause. al-fat (a)lladhi raaytuhu f (a)-affi amsi ibun al-yawma, "The boy I saw in class yesterday is missing today".

(1) "the person who made the tempura" Historically this is related to English that. Except for the simple adjective-phrase clauses described above, these speakers set off all relative clauses, restrictive or not, with commas: One major difference between relative clauses in Hebrew and those in (for example) English is that in Hebrew, what might be called the "regular" pronoun is not always suppressed in the relative clause. and gen.). The girl [who was liked by me] came to visit. (Similar to the previous, but with the resumptive pronoun fronted. However, the first meaning (in which the main-clause noun is the subject) is usually intended, as the second can be unambiguously stated using a passive voice marker: zutin bi pping de rn du bu zi zhl, yesterday PASS criticize PTCL person all not at here, "the people who were criticized yesterday are all not here". Where the embedded clause is placed relative to the head noun (in the process indicating which noun phrase in the main clause is modified).

Instead, the relative clause directly modifies the noun phrase as an attributive verb, occupying the same syntactic space as an attributive adjective (before the noun phrase).

For example, in the English sentence "I like what I see", the clause what I see is a free relative clause, because it has no antecedent, but itself serves as the object of the verb like in the main clause. That's the person [who I gave the letter to]. (Preceding relative clause with gapping and use of a possessive particleas normally used in a, "The [I saw yesterday] person went home". If it is the object of a preposition, it must be left in, because in Hebrewunlike in Englisha preposition cannot appear without its object. Such constructions are discouraged in formal usage and in texts written for nonnative speakers because of the potential for ambiguity in parsing.

The first person [I can't run faster than] will win a million dollars. For more information on the forms of Latin relative pronouns, see the section on relative pronouns in the article on Latin declension.

The Celtic languages (at least the modern Insular Celtic languages) distinguish two types of relative clause: direct relative clauses and indirect relative clauses. Languages differ in many ways in how relative clauses are expressed: For example, the English sentence "The person that I saw yesterday went home" can be described as follows: The following sentences indicate various possibilities (only some of which are grammatical in English): There are four main strategies for indicating the role of the shared noun phrase in the embedded clause. In Gullah, an English-based creole spoken along the southeastern coast of the United States, no relative pronoun is normally used for the subject of a relative clause. Or does it just describe the one and only? Sometimes a relative clause has both a subject and an object specified, in which case the main-clause noun is the implied object of an implied preposition in the relative clause: It is also possible to include the preposition explicitly in the relative clause, but in that case it takes a pronoun object (a personal pronoun with the function of a relative pronoun):[29], Free relative clauses are formed in the same way, omitting the modified noun after the particle de. In the examples in (1a), and in (3) to (6), the relative clauses are simple declaratives that contain a gap.

In (4), the head, lalaki 'man', is found after or to the right of the relative clause, nagbigay ng bigas sa bata 'gave rice to the child'. Relative Clause: Does it specify which one? How the role of the shared noun phrase is indicated in the embedded clause. The role of the shared noun in the embedded clause is indicated by, "The person [that I saw yesterday] went home". Here, the preposition "in" is missing from the Japanese ("missing" in the sense that the corresponding postposition would be used with the main clause verb in Japanese) Common sense indicates what the meaning is in this case, but the "missing preposition" can sometimes create ambiguity.

English, for example, is generally head-first, but has adjectives preceding their head nouns, and genitive constructions with both preceding and following modifiers ("the friend of my father" vs. "my father's friend"). "food", or "those who eat".[30]. Cognates include Sanskrit relative pronouns yas, y, yad (where o changed to short a). For example, a language that can relativize only subjects could say this: These languages might form an equivalent sentence by passivization: These passivized sentences get progressively more ungrammatical in English as they move down the accessibility hierarchy; the last two, in particular, are so ungrammatical as to be almost unparsable by English speakers. John knows the girl [I wrote a letter to]. However, the relative clause in (7a) looks more like an indirect question, complete with the interrogative complementizer, kung 'if', and a pre-verbally positioned WH-word like saan 'where', as in (7b).

I gave a rose to the girl [that Kate saw]. The second, which is more literary and used for emphasis, is the relative use of welcher, welche, welches, comparable with English which. In (1a), the gap is in subject position within the relative clause. Usually, languages with gapping disallow it beyond a certain level in the accessibility hierarchy, and switch to a different strategy at this point. For example, in the sentence I met a man who wasn't too sure of himself, the subordinate clause who wasn't too sure of himself is a relative clause since it modifies the noun man and uses the pronoun who to indicate that the same "man" is referred to in the subordinate clause (in this case as its subject). But languages with severe restrictions on which roles can be relativized are precisely those that can passivize almost any position, and hence the last two sentences would be normal in those languages. In Persian and Classical Arabic, for example, resumptive pronouns are required when the embedded role is other than the subject or direct object, and optional in the case of the direct object. A non-restrictive relative clause is a relative clause that is not a restrictive relative clause. When the head appears to the right of or internally to the relative clause, the complementizer appears to the left of the head. (.

The girl [whom I gave a rose to] came to visit. "the man whose daughter is in the hospital") or is the object of a preposition (e.g. There is no need to front the shared noun in such a sentence. lalaki =ng nagbigay ____ ng bigas sa bata. Gapping is often used in conjunction with case-marked relative pronouns (since the relative pronoun indicates the case role in the embedded clause), but this is not necessary (e.g. For a non-human antecedent in a non-restrictive clause, only "which" is used ("The tree, Of the relative pronoun pair "who" and "whom", the. Its usage has two specific rules: it agrees with the antecedent in gender, number and case, and it is used only if the antecedent is definite.

When an oblique noun phrase is relativized, as in (7a), na 'that', the complementizer that separates the head from the relative clause, is optional. ", Nino-m (is) sam-i, romel=ze-c vzivar, iqida, Nino-ERG (that.NOM) chair-NOM which=on-REL I.sit she.bought.it. (Gapping strategy, with no word joining the clausesalso known as a, "The person [whom I saw yesterday] went home". For example, all of the following can occur and all mean the same thing: There's one other girl who no can stay still, There's another girl who cannot stay still, There's one other girl she no can stay still. Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard (1977). (If it is suppressed, then the special preposition et, used to mark the direct object, is suppressed as well.) A second, more colloquial, strategy is marked by the invariant particle rom. [16], The Greek definite article , , (ho, h, t) has a different origin, since it is related to the Sanskrit demonstrative sa, s and Latin is-tud.[17]. They take their gender and number from the noun which they modify, but the case from their function in their own clause. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. for pronominal reflexes. There are exceptions to the subjects-only constraint to relativization mentioned above.

The woman, "I met two women yesterday, one with a thick French accent and one with a mild Italian one. The person went home."

Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix clause. Often the form of the verb is different from that in main clauses and is to some degree nominalized, as in Turkish and in English reduced relative clauses.[8][9]. The girl [whom I know the father of] came to visit. As with bound relative clauses, ambiguity may arise; for example, ; ch de "eat (particle)" may mean "that which is eaten", i.e.

Turkish and Japanese are prototypical languages of this sort.

Both direct and indirect relative particles can be used simply for emphasis, often in answer to a question or as a way of disagreeing with a statement. In these languages, relative clauses with shared nouns serving "disallowed" roles can be expressed by passivizing the embedded sentence, thereby moving the noun in the embedded sentence into the subject position. Alternatively, particularly in formal registers, participles (both active and passive) can be used to embed relative clauses in adjectival phrases: Unlike English, which only permits relatively small participle phrases in adjectival positions (typically just the participle and adverbs), and disallows the use of direct objects for active participles, German sentences of this sort can embed clauses of arbitrary complexity. * bigas na nagbigay ang lalaki ____ sa bata, {} rice COMP ACT.gave NOM man {} DAT child, for: "rice that the man gave to the child", * bata =ng nagbigay ang lalaki ng bigas ____, {} child COMP ACT.gave NOM man ACC rice {}, The correct Tagalog translations for the intended meanings in (2) are found in (3), where the verbs have been passivized in order to raise the logical direct object in (3a) and the logical indirect object in (3b) to subject position.

[31] As in English, a relative pronoun that serves as the object of the verb in the relative clause can optionally be omitted: For example, I never see the book that Lisa (past) buy, can also be expressed with the relative pronoun omitted, as.

Both words are two case forms of the same relative pronoun, that is inflicted for gender (here: masculine), number (here: plural), and case.

This corresponds to the subject position occupied by ang lalaki 'the man' in the declarative sentence in (1b). The same happens when the antecedent is an entire clause, also lacking gender. In many languages, however, especially rigidly left-branching, dependent-marking languages with prenominal relative clauses,[12] there are major restrictions on the role the antecedent may have in the relative clause. The first involves relativizing the possessor of a noun phrase within the relative clause. For instance, the Welsh example above, "y dyn a welais" means not only "the man whom I saw", but also "it was the man (and not anyone else) I saw"; and "y dyn y rhois y llyfr iddo" can likewise mean "it was the man (and not anyone else) to whom I gave the book". When the head surfaces to the left of the relative clause, the complementizer surfaces to the right of the head. For example, any of the following is correct and would translate to "I talked to his/her father and mother, whom I already knew": However, in the first sentence, "whom I already knew" refers only to the mother; in the second, it refers to both parents; and in the third, as in the English sentence, it could refer either only to the mother, or to both parents. The most common example is the use of applicative voices to relativize obliques, but in such languages as Chukchi antipassives are used to raise ergative arguments to absolutive. The Hebrew relativizer she- 'that' "might be a shortened form of the Hebrew relativizer asher 'that', which is related to Akkadian ashru 'place' (cf. A.J.Thomson & A.V.Martinet (4th edition 1986). This, for example, would transform "The person who I gave a book to" into "The person who was given a book by me". (A, "The person [I saw yesterday] went home".

The antecedent of the relative clause (that is, the noun that is modified by it) can in theory be the subject of the main clause, or its object, or any other verb argument. (1) "a restaurant about which I wrote an article" The question in (7d) shows the direct question version of the subordinate indirect question in (7b). The influence of Spanish has led to their adaption by a very small number of Native American languages, of which the best known are the Keresan languages.[10].