I

r

I

I

I

I I

THE CHICAGO WHICH HUNT

Papers from the Relative Clause 1estival

April 13, 1972

a paravolume to

Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting

Edittd by:

Paul M. Peranteau Judith N. Levi Gloria C. Phares

CHICAGO LINGUISTIC SOCIETY Foster Hall

1130 East 59th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637

30

rns RELATIVE CIAUSE IN SlAVIC

Zbigniew G~~b and Victor A. Friedman University of Chicago

Part I: CO~~Qn Slavic and North Slavic. Zbigniew G~~b

1. A relative clause can be defined as a predicative con-. struction (containing a verb~m finitum in Indo-European) modify~ng a noun in the governing clause. Thus~ a .relative c~ause 1) .expresses predication, and 2) is "adnom1naI. Schemat1Cally, 1t can be presented as follows:

main clause ( ••• Vpr ••• N)

H

relative clause ( ••• Vpr ••• )

N == noun

Vpr == predicative verb

The arrows indicate the essential syntactic relationship b:tween the noun of the main cLauae and the predicate of t~1e relat:ve . clause. From the standpoint of the main clause, tae relat10nship is that of domination (I), but determination (t) fr~m the stand: ooint of the relative clause. The central probl?m 1S the ,:!uest10n ~f the f'or-na.L means 1,lhich are used to express this synta'?t1c re.lationshi;> (, t): the fact that a predicative clause funct.Lona as a modifier of a norm belonginr, to another clause. As is ~own, IndoE1.1rO~Can languages use the so-called "relative pronouns for this purpose, Hence, the problem of relative clauses in Indo-European, and ~ fortiori in Slavic, can be reduced to the typology and history of relative pronouns.

2. Before we pass to a survey of the typology and history of relative pronouns in Slavic, it is worthwhile to consider ~hose liu,"'uistic entities which pcrf'orm basically the same func bf.on as re~tive clauses. I mean here the "competitors" of. relative

clauses in Slavic, name~y participles. Common Slav~c, on the basis of Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and the older stages of all.Slavic la!l,"'11arreS had the followin<>; participles, which occured ~n both attributive' and predicative positions: present active (e.g. *ved~tl-), pr-eserrb passive (*~-), past active (lfved.~), a~d past .pass1ve (*yeden-). ~on~ the modern Slavic lan,~a~es, Russla~, oWlng to

OCS influence, is the only one which has preserved tI11s. system,

cf. ved'~Mij, vedomyj, vedl';ij, veden, etc. (Under the ~~lue~ce

of literary Ituas i.an, a similfl.r situation ca~ be obs~r,:,ed a.n l1terary Bulgarian, where, however, the past act1ve partlclple of th';l ~lssian type vcd~ij is rc?laced by the I-form ~nd ~ccurs only w1th tlerfective- verbs, e.r,. dovel, etc.) The que sta.on 1S i-Ihether the

two cate"'ories unde r consideration, relative clauses and corr,:sponding ?artici?les, are f!mctiol1Ctlly. ident!~al •. The tr~sformat1onal method seems to a:1SH8r this quest10n af~~nll.t1vely, S1nce the participles will be illtcr~)reted by this metho~ as "nominal transformsll of undcrlying relative clauses, e.g. -- UGlnr, oes forms --

31

l ~~e v~deh ...... ~ (vedQ~t-), j"~e vede ~ ved\ (ved"k), etc.

For example, i~e yy {rimet~ m~ priemljetl. (Zo. Mt. 10:40)naprieml~i ~~qe priemle~· Sav., the same) the who receives you, receives mel. But syntactic synonomy does not mean syntactic (and semantic) ,identity. The replacement by a participle of a relative clause

.. with a pr-edi.cat.Lve verb preserves the basic external function of the relative clause with respect to its governing noun or pronoun, i.e. the function of an lIadnominal'l modifier. This replacement, however, deprives the relative clause of grammatical predication, thus destroying its status as a sentence. This ultimately means that a process presented prL~arily as something concrete, taking place in time and space, after the elimination of the relative clause, is conceived of as something abstract, beyond time and space. Thus the nominalization of a verbal clause deprives it of very important semantic features connected with the IIverbality" itself. So relative clauses and corresponding participles, despite the transformational relationship of''nominalizationll between them, are not identical semantically, and it is easy to see why many languages contain in their systems these two categories which enable them to present the same process in tyro different ways involving different semantic connotations.

3. On the basis of historical-comparative data from Slavic (and other Indo-European languages), I propose the following classification of relative pronouns:

A) Declinable relative (Gender, number, case), e.g. OCS (and Com:mon Slavic) ~, ia~e, ~ I qui, quae, quod! ,

B) General (indeclinable) relative, which usu~ represents Nom.-Acc. neut. sing., e.g. OCS je~e (cf. ne ~'rp kumir~ bezdu!hnyimo • n10 bogu svoiemu. je~e Vb nebesex; Supr. 23,9). Here arises the problem of how the "oblique" syntactic functions of this general relative are expressed. In historical Slavic languages, we observe in such situations the addition of oblique cases of the personal pronoun (third person): the archetype ie:!e j~ (lI.cc.),

je~e jemu (D'3.t.), etc.

C) Posoessive relative, which replaces tho geni!;lve Case of the d~clinable relative: jego~e ~ena ...... ~ija ~ena, etc. OCS (and Gommon Slavic) ~~j', ~.ja, ~6je is declinable and functions attribu. tively. This is, hovever-, a later acquisition of the Slavic Ian~lages and represents the relative use of an interrogative pronoun L~o jt. I whose? I )

D) Adverbial relative, which replaces "adverbial" cases of the declinable relative, e.g. vr~ill Vo 'e~e vo ·em.~e ~ (rr~m~)jegda(!e)j ml3sto v. jemb ~e _, (i!ltlsto) '"de ~e ; mllsto v~ je~e _" m~stQ) jamo( ~e); obrazom Im~nner' jim~~e - obrazomb (or adverb) ja~:o(~e); etc.

to the latter cf. ~~o~e xoste~i, tako v~rui Supr. 3)3,18; molr~te

~e s¥ ne lixo r;l~te, ~lco~e i jegiY!:"nici m-.nrh sf Zoo Ht. 6:12; etc.)

llithin the declinable rela.tives we should distinguish the relative referring to the "subsl;ance" of its noun (oes and Co~mon Slavic ~, .i.1!1£e, je~e etc., e.G. 1!lov1!k1. .j,,~e/h .h~e/ib~e, where the latter should be translated as Ihe whol) from the relative referring to the "p.ccidents" of its noun, which mayor may not be

32

expressed by separate ndjcc t.Lvou (OCS fwd Common Sl~vic' ,. ~e),

1aka(~e), ako ~e 'qualis, -e', e.g. ~lov~k1> vel b ale ~e

t aJ.c1, ~e . aka ~e where the latter should be translated I such

as'. In connection with jako(~e), cf. bQdet. bo tOrda skrill veli~. jaka~e n~st1> byla ot], na!!~la nsego mira • .,I,lar. Nt 24:21)

'II 6 ~ ,~", /.. "TT' .,(fX~C, /<. Dtrf'o'V •• , ,

1:.Il'"I:"'~ r~f 'C "C( "':XO'l'L<; I'Et.,c;"1j. 0 ... " "" r'Tovt"'" . '1 ,

Relative pronouns have their correlate a ~n corresponding de-

monstrative pronouns which can be used in the main ClllllS~ either for emphasis or simply for replacing the r,ovorninr, noun. ~hlls we obtain a clear system of correlation: dcmonct.rntd, ve relllt~ ve, e.g. :U""i~~)' tal;_"fo",ja'{1,(~e), tobO"da""jo_"'da(~e), :Iill""jl.de(l!e), tamo,,",

mo l!e , ta'co,,", jako( ~e), etc. ,

4. The above system of relative pronouns, "h~ch -- except for ~ ~~ja, ~ -- can be considered as Co~mon Slavic, was already unde~ned in the prehistorical epoch by a gradu~~ encroachment ~f interrogative pronouns. It can be 50 en clearly ~n OCS, e.g. a k to poxot~ imy ••• ~en~ oriimetD (Euch. sin. 103a,21) ~nstea~ of t~e re~lar a i~e poxot~ imy~. The replacement of l.·~e, laie, J(~e tq~i quae quod' f'unct.Loni.ng 'Iithout their nominal correlates ~.e. when' these' pronouns should be translated by Ihe who' etc.) by the interrogatives k"oto 'WhOI, t\&to 'whatl is exceptional in OCS; it spreads in later medieval Slavic texts. But the replacemen~ of the adjectival ~ by the interrogative ~ and of the adverbLal jlode(~el by the interrogative k"de seems to be more f:eqllent,in OCS, e.g.' UbyYb s~dii noM~nyix.,"ili3 ••• jel\~e i dullamL vlasb,po- , kuliajete s~, cil boga naliego VY~b~i s(1 tvonte 3Su?r.~ sa,1f-) ,JlKo{cft.rr\1 0'; ••• fct I<t'(~ t:.t:)v yv;XlZ\? l<.!l.tJ.rxtLV 'l'C:\O}(Cl vU"<'(, o~ r( [;, 1''1 ~

1<0(..1 'tol1 .J"l-OV ~t't:J'-' ?rfo"" t'''1tJ-t{;''jl:-£ '. The interrog~tiYe lsi.1k,

kaja, koje replaces jakl( ~e) referring ~o a noun ~od~fied by an adjective. In the following exam~le, an ~nter:ogat7ve :eplaces ~ . adverbial relative: iSllS~ otide ot~ tQde, ot~de, ~de ~ n~st. vLd~t~, M~a. iMe zavisto ne ra~dajeh s~, otide, kde Ijuby Hvetlo (Supr. 404 29). In the last sentence we have 11 parallel use of the relativ~ ~Hde « f* j~d(eHe)and the interrog(d;ive k}de. Thus already in OCS we can observo the very beGinninGS of '1 procens which in the historical Sln.vic Languages brought about a Iundamenta.l, tr~lsformation of the primary Common Slavic system of relatives.

In order to grasp th.'lt- process a.nd the present results in,the,Slavic lancmages it is worthwhile to realize its structural bas~s, ~.e. theOco;reiation between demonstrative, relative, and interrogative pronouns which can be established for OCS and late Common Slavic. This correlation is flS follo"Ts=-j~ ~e, ja~e, je~e 'he who' etc. h,ta,to~

Ithisl -k1.to, I\bto '''Tho', l"lhatl

h~e, ja~e, je~e 'whichl

h, ta, to~" l' l' '1' h'

(specifying a ~£i.l!!_, ,:8.Ja, ~oJe "!U; " I member of a set) kotOryl~, -:,qa, -0] e whi.ch of two

(primGry menni.ng]

33

____ j !lJno( ~e) tamo~ 'thith~ka~o 'whither'

________ jQd~/u(~e) t d~ u;::--_

=dU kpd~/u 'whence'

etc.)'thence'

___ ~ (usually tOgda~without l0 'then'

kOGda 'when'

~jeli(~e)tkw toli(ko>. ..............

'as much koliC kol

as' 'how much'

the above situation in a generalized abstract pattern Indo-European archetypes are used, we obtain:

The wholelhistorical developl:lent in all Slavic lanGUages consisted of the elimination of the opposition * jp2:-/* ko-, whose result in most Cases (but not always) was the replacement of *io- by *ko-. Thus the interrogative pronoun proved to be "dominant" ~ its relation to the primary relative. The reaSons for this dominance should be investig,'lted. I think that the main reason is the unmarked character of the interror,ative in its doictic function. The interroga" tive pronoun "points" toward something which should follow on the temporal axis of developing speech, namely:

of- *to- + *ko- ~ = ~ *io- ~

It is obvious that in t~case-;r neutralizZtIon, the unmarked term of an opposition, I ,o, the term with feHer positive features, takes over. But the essence of the Whole phenomenon, it should be emphasized, is the neutra~iz~tion of the opposition *~*ko-, which presupposes a period wheri * io- and * 1sQ::. wer-e used as optional variants. Such a situation acco'~ntrror the appearance of the new interrogative jakl. etc. (continuing the old relative *io-) in some North Slavic languaGes (e.g. in Polish, Czech, and Ukrainian).

5. In the follo\{in[', section I will briefly present the situation of relative clauses in I'our contemporary Horth Slavic la.nguages: &tssian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Czech. The present situation in these lanr;:·!ai;CS will be supplemented by some historical data.

34

ruSSIAN

The set of relative oronouno is as follows: koto (decli-

nable) ~ (decl.), ~ (decl. archaic), W (decl. , !!to (decl: and indecl.), ~ tadverbial) , ~ (adv.), otkud~Tadv.), ~ (adv.), ~ (adv.}. All these pr~nouns als~ func;~on as interrogatives, and they are interrog8.t~vos by on~in ( ~).

E.;;;amples: "

(1)Ponadobilsj a provodnik, koto:ryi.2toro~o znal by lesnye tropy A

guide WitS needed who would know the wood trails well"; (2)~

Qyli towry, kakix Los' nikogdr ne vide 1 "Here was m?rchandise

such as Los' had never seen"; 3)::: vy~cl on k nam ~ predlo!!~l ~toby ta osoba, ~ej fant yynetsia, oroval'sirovala vmeste s ~m.

" he came out to us and proposed that the person whose forfel.t w;~id be chosen dance a waltz with himl'; (4)Ni'6~0 U? ~~alo toj otdalenno-gulkoj ti'Siny. Ho nastqpila vokrug lIl'lothl.~g d~stur~ed that remote-hwnming silence, which set in all around; (5)Doffil.k,

!!d.e ~ili Nexody. stojal bliz gorY "The cottage wh?re the Nexods lived stood close to the mount.ai.n'[] (6)1 kak. raZ et~ bylo to v:'emja, kogda *ena stala l!asto otlu~at'sja •• , "And ~t WaS Just that hme when his wife beean to leave often .:,",

The most frequent type of relat~ve clause (and the mos~ ge~eral one) is that introduced by the declinable pron?un kotory] -ll.;J.lb _gjQ_. This pronoun a~rees in gender and ~\Ll!lbcr w:th ~he gover~ng noun, but its case de~ends on its syntact~c functl.o~ l.n ~he rela: tive clause, e.g. (7)-Trotuary. na kotor{x podmerzl~ lu~l.cy, byll. I tak skol' z\d ••• "The sidewalks on which the puddl.es had frozen . were so slippery ••• ", Undoubtedly kotoryi took over the fun~tLOn of the Common Slavic and OCS ~ etc. Already in Slovo o~OlKU Igoreve we have i~e three times and kotoryi once: (8) Kotorij dote~aBe ta predi pesru. poia~e, We should note that in the cas! of the r~placement of the governing noun by the pronoun tot etc: the interrogative leto instead of kotoryj is used (but ta kotoraJa), and of course to ~to. This is a very old pattern, known from Old Russian documents of the thirteenth century (in OCS we have here

lh).

The general relative pronoun ~to is used o~y in.the function

of subject and object (the latter in the case of ina~mate gender) in standard Russian. But in the colloquial style, ~to and the oblique cases of the third person (anaphoric) pronoun can replac~ the oblique cases of kotorYi, kaleoi, ~ (the type (9)~elovek Ho Ja ego videll~to ja emu dalJ~to ja s nim govoril etc.) (1)

UKRAINIAN

The set of relative pronouns is as follows: ~~o~~,~, ~, fotryj (rare), .iM (adv,), koly (adv.}, de. (adv.), lrudy (adv.), etc. Among the adverbial relatives, o~y th? sl.ffi~le are q~oted.) As far as the origin of the above relatives ~s concerned, 7t . should be noted that ~ 'when' continues the Common SlaVl.c kol~ 'how much' (cr, OCS koli 'quantum' but also already 'when', interrogative); de 'where' comes from ~ (Russian ill\.2). The

others are obvious.

35

Examples:

(1)Bi1ia toho haju. ~~o ~ornije nad vodoiu '" "Close to that

grove which grows black above the water •• ,-; (2)V ~vttju toho ~olovika proj~la jakas' ~yroka j hlyboka borozna, iakoju vidorane joho mYlNle vid teperiMnoho "In the life of that man appeared a

wide and deep split by which his past was separated from his present"; (3)Jde vona rozdoll·arn v 15 'e 1m'·a uz av n vi "She

goes across the fields whose name he took forever"; 4 Xto ne

§lu~yy u bahatyria. to ne zna·e hor·a ''1-1hoever has not served at

a rich man's does not know misery"; 5)Oficeriv. kotri zna!Jlvsj§

y stavci, sold~910kly va vulyc iu "The soldiers dragged the officers who happened to be in headquarters out to the street", (Kotri is purely bookish and has a "distributive" meaning according to standard gr~~ars of Ukrainian.) (6)V ~as, koly vin myrno spav, svoje dyt.ynstvo ia zhadav I1At the time when he WaS quietly sleeping, I recollected my childhood"; (7)Z toho ~asu. 1M ~e~, a niko ne ~ vs· "Since the time when I got married, I have never hurried1l; 8)De boro~no, tam i poro~no I'l-lhere there is flour, there is also dust",

Of course, the general relative ~~o, if functioning as an "oblique" part of the sentence, is supplemented by corresponding oblique forms of the personal pronoun, e.g. (9)~dkoyyroy

~ utI ti idr dni re~enn· a ald roz a ·utl z I:enn .

·men vid ovi lea 11110 ra~e sudok holovnoho

re§ennla "Those clauses which explicate the meaning of the pronoun ( correlate), by means of which the predicate of the main clause is expressed, are considered predicativel• (In the last sentence, we have tWo relative clauses jaki , •• and ~~o nym .tl , which represent the two most common types of relative clauses modifying nouns expressed in the governing clause.)

POLISH

The set of relative pronouns is sL~ilar to that of Russian and Ukrainian, thus: ktQry, =.11., ~ (most general) , jill, ::i!, ~ (adjectival), leto (personal, in the Case when the governing noun is replaced by a pronoun or deleted completely), QQ (impersonal, used in the situations defined for ~ and as a general indeclinable; in the last case, the oblique functions of £Q are marked by the addition of the oblique forms of the personal pronoun), ~, ::.a, :.!l. (replaces the possessive genitive of letcry), ggy (adv, only relative)"" kied,y (adv, relative and interrogative), gdzie (adv.), .1.!JJ!; (adv.), ile (adv.), etc. "Ie omit other rare and complex relatives.

Examples:

(1) Zobaczyh claopa. let6ry od ~wi tu niezmordowanie szecQ bruz<Yi 'She saw a peasant who from the very dawn had been walking tirelessly along the furrow'; (2)Jakie ziarno siej~. till pIon b~~ zbiera.li '\'/hatever kind of seed they sow, such crops will they harvest'; (3)Kto nosi. nie pro§i 'He who carries does not beg';

(4) to t co ~asne niazdo leal 'Evil is the bird that pol-

lutes its own nest'; 5)M~zczyzna. cosmy go wczoraj spotkali na ulicy, iest moim s~sladem 'The man we met yesterday in the street

36

is my neighbor'; (6)llczen. czyJe zuelanie 'i!;a6nie czytrunv, ,jest nallepszy w klasie "rhe pupil vhoce homework we are reaeling jus·t now is the best in the class'. (This use of g;d is rather colloquial.) (7)V czasie gdy(ki~gy przygotowywa~e~ si~ do egzaminu, pracOWaJ;,em do p6zna ~, noc I At the time when I vas pr-epar-Ing for

my exam, I worked late into the nir,htl; (3)W mieiscll. gdzie niegdys stea nasz dam. tera~ jest pusty plac 'On the spot where our house once stood, there is now an empty lot'; (9)Zr6b to w t~ci spos6b, jak ci powiedzia;l.em 'Do it the way I told you'; (10)Kupi~em ksi~~ek. 11e mogaem 'I bought as many books as I could'. (:tIe and.i.1lli are more common when preceded or "announced" by their correlates tyle and ~.)

From among the above declinable relatives, the most common

is kt6rv, =.l!, ~ (ct', Russian kotoryj etc.): it may refer both to the "substance" of the governing noun and to its "accidents", although in the latter case, in a careful style, Polish prefers the purely "adjectival" i~d, -a, =.@. (which, as in Ukrainian, continues the Common Slavic relative iako). ~ etc. is, of course, obligatory if its correlate talci etc. appears in the governing clause. But we can find cases, even in literary Polish, where ~ etc. is used instead of kt6ry etc. without any clear semantic justification, e.g. (11)Siwe oczy poleci~ po bruzdach, jakie wygniot!Y J?3ozy 'The grey eyes glanced along the furrows which had been made b,y the runners'. The only justification for the use of ~ instead of kt6re in the above example is the intention of

the author to emphasize the quality of the furrows rather than the the simple fact that they were left by the sleigh runners. There are, however, cases when even such a pSlchological justification would be difficult to imagine, e.g. (12} ••• ale takie ze zmian w wgrunkach *vcia gospodarczego. na Jakie natrafia;l.y te plemiona •• ~ ' ••• but also from the changes in economic conditions which those0 tribes experienced ".' (T. Lehr-S~awirl'ski~. 1954:29). The unjustified substitution of jaki for ktory is a phenomenon of colloquial Polish and should be investigated. I will remind the reader that in standard Ukrainian, which is c.locer to folk dialects than standard Russian, .1.B..W eliminated ~ as the unmarked relative. The use of QQ + oblique cases of the personal pronoun l= is a colloquial feature, but admissible in literary Polish. CZECH

The set of relative pronouns shows some characteristic archaisms in comparison with Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian, namely:

i!iirC(i ~ f. & n. (bO.OkiSh, especially in Nom. and A?~.}~ ell, ::AUL -~n), .ill.ki, ::.a, -e, l!{ (all genders) t ~

o ,M;.rl.1l., }_{de, m (the last three are adverbial), etc. l'he use of jenZ and of the relative particle -~ with other pronouns is archaic. In addition, we have the same historicn! Slavic phenomenon: the neutralization of the opposition relative/interrogative in pronouns.

Examples: /

(1)Mam rada lidi. kte~{ d~laj! z naprost:fm zaujet~m svou v~c 'I like people who do their thing with complete involvement'; (2)Jsoq

37

Wci, 0 nic~e nemluv{ 'There are things about which one does

not talk'; D)f.otla'tl1la prvn:! nevoli. lakou vzbud! ne~elcany host 'She suppressed the initial dislike wldch an unexo~cted guest usually evokes'; (4)N~s d~de~ek byl Z t~ch. kdo ~!fiii osv~tu a socialismus ne. 'l!esk~m venkovi 'Our grandfather was of those who spread education and socialism in the Czech countryside'; (5)otevfe~ n~kter6 Z t~ch oken. co vedou rut zahradu 'He opened some of those windows that face the garden'; (6)Vybrali si chv!li. kdy odpo~!val 'They chose the moment when he was resting'; (7)Chodil k bunkru

kde se sJq:iyali partyzm 'He walked to the bunker where the p~ tisans where hidden'; f3)Mll hn~v 0 adl tak cble ·ak e vze .

'My anger calmed down as fast as it arose'. This type of re1ative.clause introduced by the relative adverb ~ -- in other

Slav~c languages kak(o) -- is usually considered "compar-at.Lvs u

but I think that transformationally it can be treated as relative

-- strictly, relative-adverbial.)

In colloquial Czech, as in Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian (?~ the general indeclinable £Q + oblique forms of the personal pronoun are used instead of the liter~r Czech je~ or kteri, e.g. (9)To je ten 1$10v1Hc, co isem ti 0 nl!m mluvil 'This is the man I've told you about'. The general relative ~ is used in the same positio~ in folk dialects, e.g. (10)To je ten chlapec. jalc isem ti 0 n~m hkal (same meaning as the preceding example).

6. After having reviewed relative clauses in the main Horth Slavic languages -- South Slavic will be presented separate~y because of some characteristic differences -- let us consider the question of the logical typology of relative clauses in the languages just reviewed. As is known, in traditional gr!ll!ll11ar, at least tW? logical varieties of relative clallses are distinguished: restrict1ve and nonrestrictive. The problem is whether Slavic languages provide any formal (morpho-syntactic) means for such a distinction.

The standard handbooks of Slavic languages which I ha.ve consulted a.re, for the most part, silent on this subject. Russian linguists, however, point out the difference between clauses of the followin~ types: J vstreti1 Zo·u, kotoraja vernulas' , •• 'I met Zoya, who cnmo back ••• ' J vstre il GU Zo·u !cotora a vernul s'

'I met the Zoya who crune back ... 1, the former being nonrestrictive the latter restrictive. But the above distinction is a simple re- ' suIt of the modification of the governing noun by the demonstrative pronoun tot etc., which is the consequence of the semantics of any demonstrative pronoun determining a noun. The formal structure of the relative clause, however, re~ains the s~e in both Cases. The only grammatically relevant distinction between nonrestrictive (unmarked) relative clauses and restrictive (marked) relative clauses in Slavic should be expressed by corresponding distinct relative pronouns. Among the langnnges I have checked, such a distinction seems to exist, only in literary Czech and Ukrainian. In CZech, it

is expresned by the opposition between jen¥ (nonrestrictive) and kt¢ (restrictive), cf', Kope~ny 1953:60, remar!~ 2. In Ukrainian, this distinction seems to be conveyed by the op,)osi tion .i!!£i:j/~

38

(or. the previouo nXI!Vnplon). Dltt ainC(l tho uunm-kod mombnr- of !l. serua.ntio oppoBiUon can olwnya bo used instant! of tho mnrkcd, wharevor the oontoxb convoys oufficient infol'1lll1tion, it is obvaous that the 10gloo-semll.ntic distinotion between tho two relative pronouns will be resorted to rarely.

From an historical standpoint, it may be interesting to check the competition botweon j~le and kob.toryjl. in Old Polish and Old ~Bslan (the i'ourioanth and fifteenth centuries), because there is no doubt that ko/,torYile had primnrily n. restrictive meaning (etymologically it menns 'which of two', cf. Sanskrit k~tra:-, Greek TrOPEPo(', Latin uter, Gothic hJa~ar, Lithuanian katr s •

Another variety of relative clause is represented by the type introduced obligatorily by the general relative I!oto (Russian 1:!to, Ukrainian~, Polish £2, Czech co~), declined if necessary, and referring not to a noun in the governing clause but to the whole clause itself, e. g. Polish Ojciec by~ zm¥czony 00 ca...-l:.ym d11iu pr~,c:(, co bylo zrozumitie or ~ nie nalezaio si" dzhric 'Father WaS tired after a whole day of work, much WaS understande.ble' or 'by which one should not be surprised'.

The last type of relative clause, forma~y unspecified, i.e. using virtua.l1y all relative pronouns (cf. Vinoeradov (ed.) 1':)60: 2:16, § 1422, whose remarks are valid for all Slavic languages) does not express the actual logical "subordination" of the content of a given relative clause to the content of its governing noun (no modification, in a strict logical sense, bakes place here). But 8'.lch a relative clause is only a surface phenomenon, a stylistic device of syntactic connection. In the classical school gra~ars of Latin and Greek, this type of reiative clause was called simply connectio relativa. Some examples will clarify the proble~:

Russian: •• , obratilsja on k junkeru, kotorzj tot~as ~e oxotno PObe*al za trubkoj I ••• he turned to the cadet who instantly ran off eagerly for the pipel• The clause kotoryj '" actu~y hao the saille meaning as i junker tot~as lie f f •. I and the cadet instantl.y ••• ' P_ollsh: The translation of the above ,·rill be form~y identical I... rnYci;l, sil( do kadeta. ktory natychmiast pobieg~ ch~i;gi.!U2Q.

~'

Czecn: P~edseda vlady p~ilal dol'lGnci, s Ictorol!_oetrvnJ. v dlollh~m

srde~n6m rozhovoru 'The prime miniotcr received the dolor,ation with which he engaged in a long and cordial conver-snt i.on! , The phrase s kterou setrval 'with which he engagedl can be replaced by a setrval s nl 'and engaged with itl•

As the foregoing examples show, the relative pronoun in the type of clause under discussion can be replaced by a corresponding anaphoric pronoun preceded by a copulative conjunction. Logically (and on the so-called deep underlying level), we are dealing here with coordination, not subordination. This last type of relative clause may be called "pseudo-relative".

7. The last problem I intend to discuss in connection ,{i th relative clauses in Slavic is the relationship between the general (indeclinable) relative pronoun and the general subordinating conjunction of "adverbal." c Lauses (English that). The observation of

39

the synchronic 13ituation as well as ·the dia.chronic development of relative pronouns in North Slavic seems to confirm the hypothesis that the main pool from which genersJ. subordinating conjunctions

are usually drawn consists of relative pronouns; namely, the general relative serves as a general subordinating conjunction. This is the situation in Russian (~Q), Ukrainian (~), dialectal Polish (co), and dialectal Czech (£Q,~): in all these languages we have homonymy between impersonal interrogative pronouns{ general relative pronouns, and general subordinating conjunctions notice a similar situation in the Romance languages). The tendency to use a relative adverb of manner (i.e. an indeclinable relative pronoun)

in the function of a general subordinating conjunction is already realized in oes, where ~ = Ithat' (cf. glagolj~. jako Ill~ pride = Greek f .. g~L (flH .... <,){),~)v""f, '".that Elijah camel). The West Slavic (Polish and Czech) general subordinating conjunction ~ which the standard languages oppose to the general relative Q2 (actUally interrogative-relative), etymologically continues the primary relative ite (i!!.h), cf. Old Polish irze, ~, ~e~e IWichl (relative) and H(e), ~ (<.*w~;e) I that' conjunction.

The above facts, presented in a sksbchy manner, should be investigated separatel.y. In any case, they clearly point out a direction of research concerning the origin, development, and typology of subordfnatd.ng conjunctions in relation to relative pronouns. Tentatively, we maY venture a hypothesis that in the languages with relative pronouns, these are syntactically the most expansive morphemes,

Notes 1Sometlmes Nom. sing. masc. ~ (sicl). ~Including here adjectives and adverbS.

4Nom. pl. masc. of ~. ( )

Also when tot is deleted, e.g, kto govorit eto. vr~t. 'whoever ••• t sicl •

References

Diels P. 1963. Altkirchenslavische Gramrnatik. Heidelberg. Havr~ek,B. Jedlicka,A. 1963. -eesk~ mluvnice. Prague. Klemensiewicz,Z. 1957. Zarys skladni polskiej. Warsaw. Kope~nY,F. 1958. Zaklndy ~esk6 sklndby. Prague. LehI'-Splawinski,T. Kural'zkiewicz,W. Slawsik,F. 1954. Przeg4d i

charakterystyka j~zyk6'w slowiansJdch. Vlarsaw.

Lehr-Splawinski,T. Bartula,Cz. 1959. Zarys gramatyki j~zyka starocerkiewno-slowia!1sldego. Uroclaw-Cracow.

Lunt H. 1'159. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. The Hague. 'Sere~h,Ju. 1951. Narys su~asnoji ukrajins' koji literaturnoji movy, Hunl.ch,

Vaillant, fL. 1953. Gramrnaire comparee des langues slaves. Vol. II: 110roholgie; part 2: Flexion nronominale. Lyon-Paris.

Vino~r~dov,V.V. (ed.) 1960. Grammatika russkogo jazyka. Vol. II:

Sintaksis; part 2. Hoscow. .

Vondr!ili: 1,1. 1912. Altkirchenslavische Gra.mmatik. Berlin.

, 1923. Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik. Vol. II.

-""G::-~-:t"'t"'i-ngen.

40

Part II: South Slaviso. Victor A. Friedman

South Slavic displays a high degree of internal variation, as \lell as marked differences from North Slavic, in the treatment of relative clauses. As in the preceding part, the problem of relative clauses \li11 be dealt with primarily in terms of the typology of relative pronouns. Hhile there is no given set of features characterizing all of the South Slavic languages in opposition to all of the North Slavic, there exist certain facts whieh are true for most South Slavic as opposed to most North Slavic:

a)There are no relative pronouns descended from the Indo-Eurooean

. *10- in South Slavic. •

b)SP;Cial morphemes are employed to differentiate relatives from interrogatives (except in Serbo-Croatian).

c)The reflexes of ~~ are used while those of *kiterbih are not (except in Slovenian).

d)"Where" takes on the meaninGs of "that" (except in Slovenian). e)The distinction restrictive/nonrestrictive can be reflected in the choice of relative pronoun (except in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian) •

The words which introduce relative clauses in S011th Slavic .rill be considered in the four classes defined by Z. Go*~b: A)declinable, B)indeclinable, C)possessive, and D)adverbial. The account which follows will, of necessity, be brief and touch only on the most important points concerning relative pronouns and their clauses. Only the principle pronouns of the modern 11 terar.v hnguafies will be considered, i.e. compounds and many adverbials, archaisms, and dialectisms will not usual~y be mentioned. A language by language description of the distribution and usage of relatiVlJ oronouns in the 5011th Slavic languages will follow the comparatbe table given below:

DECLINABLE SLOVENIAH SERBO-CROATIAlI MACE.DONIAl-!
BUIGARIAN
whO/What kdor/k~r ( t)ko/~to
which
such (as) lcrtt6ri kojI koj (~to) kojto
BO much (as) ka\cr~en kruc'1v kakov (tlto) kn.l<-tMo
k61ilcr'!len kalik kollcnv k~lkoto
IlIDECLINABLE
\lhich, that Id. Sto
1\to ~to( to)
POSSESSIVE gd( j)e (g)deto
whose clsar 15tjI
Hj(~to) /H.jto
ADVERBI~ Gen. :caMri
where k,i6r r;d( j)~
when kade ('iJto) (k.@)/(g)dcto
such as kadar kada koga ('tJto) ~cogato
kakor kako/1cao ~to
so mach as kolikor kako (~to) '~akto
koliko ko.Lku (~to) k61kota 41

SLO'JEHIAN

In Slovenian, all relative pronouns nre formed by suffixing or infixing ::I. to the form of the interrogative, except for ~catcri 'which' and ki 'that' which do not bear this marker,1 The relatJ.ve marker

is descended from the Common Slavic *-lIe via rhotacism, and Slovenian

is the only Slavic language to preserve this old relative mar-ker- ~s a relati ve in common speech. Slovenian is also the only SO'.1th SlavJ.c Language to preserve reflexes of *b.ter.jb, the others using onJ,y

*~. In Slovenian, *~ gives the declinable interrog~tive ~ 'what?' whose relative form is kar 'that which', and it gl.ves the indeclinable relative;ei. The pronouns which best display the peculiari ties of the Slovenian system are ~igar 'whose', kateri, lQ" and k£.

~i"ar:t.is indeclinable and only used with a personal masculine sin~~ntecedent; with ru1Y other antecedent either the genitive

of kateri or ki with the appropriate possessive pronominal adjective is used e. g. -r1) ](met ~irtar hHo vidi~ v dolini . e nall sosed 'The peasant'who~e house you see in the valley is 0lU' neighbo::'; 2)Kmetje, katerih hi~e vidi~ r •• or (3)Kmetje. ki njihove hille vidJ.~ ••• 'The peasants whose houses you see ••• ' or 'The peasants, whose houses

you see ••• '.,

Kateri and 'ei have much the same mearii.ng, ~1hen ki must serve an oblique function in its relative clause, it is f0:U0W?d by a personal pronoun mar:dnr; the appropriate case and agreca.ng an gender and number with the antecedent, e.g. (6) through (10) below. There are some contexts in which kateri is said to be preferable to }g.. Three of these contexts are clear: a) aftf)r a preposition, e.g. (4) Tovar-Ls , s katerim se pozna.lJI iz !lole, ie zbolel 'My friend, whom I know from school, has fallen ill'; b) when the relative clause precedes its antecedent or the main clause, e.g. (5)Kateri se smeie zadnii. se sme.ie naisla'Se '~iho lauzhs last, Laughs best' as opposed to (6)Tisti, ki se smeie .. , IHe who laughs ••• 1; c) when lei would be ambd.guoua, e.g. (7) Sre~al ie ~lovelca, lei mu ie posodil denar 'He met the man who lent him money' or 'He met the man to vhom he lent money' -- for the first menning kateri should replace ~, for the second kateI.:Q!.!l!! should replace ki mu.

There is a fourth set of contexts in which ki and ~ are

not supposed to be equnJ.ly acceptable, but these contexts are not eaSY to distinguish formally. Since Slovenian sets off all relative clauses with co~~as, there is no orthographic distinction restrictive/nonrestrictive, nor do Slovenian grammarians give this l~e to any distinction. They write that ti is used to refer to definite ?erso~s or things thought of by themselves, while kateri refers to indefinite persons or things, which it makes definite, or to persons or things thought of as part of a group. Thus it appears that kateri is preferred for restrictive relative elauses while }g. is nonrestrictive, but these terms do not seem to have the same meaning for Slovenian as for EngLi.sh, e.g. (8)lla~i bratje v SrbiH, lei se jih bomo yedna lepo sDominjnJ.i, so nas ••• gostoljubno sDreiemali 'Our brothers in Serbia, whom we shall alw~vs fondly remember, received us hospitably'; (9)PolcliH ~loveka, lei sem ti ga poprej imenovaJ. 'Call

42

the man ~lhom I mentioned to you ear'Li.e r! , Here, (3) is nonrestrictive while (9) is restrictive, bub both use xi. other examples

are the following: (10)P~enica, ki jo zdaj kllpuje~, ~e snetjava 'The wheat, ~lhich you are now buyi.ng , is blightedl; 11)Vsaka R'lSenica. katero kup'.ljem, je snetja~ '.11.11 the wheat that I buy is blighted'. The difficulty in finding a clearly nonrestrictive use of kateri may indicate that it is marked for restrictiveness while ki is unmarked. This problem requires further investigation.

It is interesting to note that kar can be used as an ordinary adverb, and it is the only relative pronoun which can be so used, e.g. (12}Film ie bil kar dober 'The film was pretty good'.

SERBO-CROATIAN 3

Vhile Slovenian is closer to North Slavic in its use of katerb Serbo-Croatian has the typically North Slavic feature of not formally distinguishing relatives from interrogatives.

The relative pronoun ~iii 'whose' is adjectival and agrees only with the word it modifies in the relative clause; this is also true of the Hacedonian and Bulgarian possessive relatives. According to some older gramTIarians, e.g. Hareti6, the Serbo-Croatian ~ is restricted in much the same manner as the Slovenian ~igar, i.e. it occurs only with masculine singular antecedents, while the genitive of koji is used elsewhere. This is not true of the modern language, e.g. (13) ••• u Bursi, ~iji su beli zidovi •• , ' ••• in Bursa, whose white walls are ••• '

The two main relatives in Serbo-Croatian are koji 'which' and ~ 'that'. "/hen ~to serves any oblique function except the accusative, it must take the appropriate personal pronoun, like the Slovenian ~ e.g. (14)~ovek ~to se sa njim uooznao nedavno 'the man with whom he recently became acquainted' .4 1-/hen ~to functions as an accusative, it usually takes the enclitic personal pronoun if the antecedent in ontologically animate, and does not if the antecedent is inanimate. Both of these rllles have exceptions, ho~ ever, especially for the purpose of emphasizing an inanimate antecedent or de-empha~izing an animate one, e.g. (15)To ic najlcf~i grad ~tosam video 'It's the most beautiful city I've seen'; 16)To

rad ~to s a osetio ro~le odine 'That is the city which I

visited last year'; 17)To e kon' to s a ku io roMle odine

'That's the horse which I bought last year'; 18)To ie naibolii

konj ~to sam video 'That's the best horse I've seenl. The form ~, Which is only supposed to be used for an accusative function if the antecedent is animate, is becoming widespread as a general accusative, although this is not considered to be the literary norm, e.g. (19}Zajedno smo napravili plan za napad koiega sam izlo~io 'rogether we made a plan for the attack which I proposed'.

The differences between koji and ~to are mainly stylistic:

koji is more literary, ~to is more colloquial and dialectal; koii

is preferred for animate antecedents, ~to for inanimate; rOji is said to have a "more intense semantic function" than ~to Pavlovi6 1964: 169) • l.Jhile Serbo-Croatian distinguishes restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses by punctuation in much the same way as

43

English, the difference is not expressed in the choice of pronouns. Hhere ambiguity might result from the use of ~to, however, koU is preferred, e.g. (20)~ovek ~to mu je dao novac 'the man who gave him moneyl (~to = koji) or 'the man to whom he gave money' (~t~ ~ =

( j imu) • If the antecedent is a pronoun referring to a thl.ng

__ I somebht.ng! , 2YQ I this', tQ. 'that/this', 2!!.Q. I that/that there', sve 'everything') or the predicate of the governing clause, the declinable ~to must be used, e.g.(21)On zaboravlja ono 0 ~emu smo e;,ovorili IH;forgot that about which we were speakingl; (22)~ gospodinu fi~ka1u ~iroko raskretati usta kada govori. ~to ga opet

ne malo truda staje 'It is nece3sary for Hr. la~er to spread his lips widely when he speaks, which again costs him no small eff?rt'. ~to can also occur idiomatically in the function of such relatl.ves is"koliko, e.g. (23)Podvilmu jako ~to mu grlo da"va tHe shouted as loudly as his throat would allow' •

The use of ~ 'where' as a general relative (and subordinating conjunction) is a Balkanis~ which has penetrated Serbo-Croatian to some degree. But in Serbo-Croatian, ~ al~ys retains a sense of locativity, e.g. (24}~ju pse gde oko torina laju 'I hear the dogs that bark around the sheep pens' and II hear the dogs where they bark around the sheep pens'. Similarly, some ~ses of the.paratactic conjunction k I and SOl, the modal hypobactd.c con~unctl.on

£a 'that, to, so that, etc. I , and the conjuncb.i.on kalco 'll.ke, how' are considered to be relative by some grammarians (Stevanovid, 1969), e.g. (25)~ije je ono plete te gad!le4am 'vThose is that shoulderblade which I see'; (26)Ima narOda u kojima nema 150veka cia ne zna ~itati i oisati 'There are peoples among whom there is not a person who does not know how to read and write'; (27)Zanimljivo je ~uti Ri§.ce ••• kako Hne za taj nedostatak prekore kritici 'It is interesting to hear writers ••• who reproach critics for that failing'. The use of £a. implies resultativeness or modality: ~

zna could be transformed into koji ne bi znao 'who wouldn't know'. re-imolies consecutiveness due to its prL~ary meaning, and ~ wri~s an overtone of manner. 5 In these functions, ~, ~ ~

and kako talee oblique forms of the personal pronouns like ~. -The theoretical problems regarding the relations between relative clauses, other hypotactic constructions, and paratactic constructions which ari raised by these usages are wort~y of further consideration.

I1flCEDONIAN

The problem of the relative clause in Hacedonl.an \1aS the subject, of much disCllssion not long after the official establishment of the literary language in 1944. In 1'151, certain norms were suggested for the literary language, and they have become generally accepted. Further normative rules were suggested only recently, and it remains to be seen whether they will be followed. The entire matter concerns the usage of kQi, ~, and koj~to 'which, that'.

In folk dialects, §to is the most widely used interrogative and relative, and can even replace the interrogative kQi, e.g. (2S)Sto je toj <'foveklfor 'Hho is that man2'. Whenever it is not

44

the subject of the relative clause, ~to requires the addition of an oblique personal pronoun agreeing with the antecedent in gender and number, e.g. (29)Kako se vika ~ovekot ~to se ~eta~e so nego y~er~ 'What's the name of the man he ~ked with yesterday'. This example is quite colloquial.

The rules for the literary language are the following: a) Use !Q1 with a preposition. Hence, (29) should be

(30) ••• lSovekot so kogo('~to) se 'tleta'lle v'6era. ' .•• the man with 'Whom he walked yesterday'

b) Use ~to elsewhere, e.g. (31)Deteto ~to go sretavme ••• 'The

child 'Whom we met "" '.

c) Use koj~to in Place. of either ~ or ~to to break stylistic me-nobony and avoid ambiguity, e.g. U2)Nladinata llto masovo ulSestvuva~e na konferencijata. Mto svedo~i na ne~zinata visoka svest, napregnato ia slede~e diskusijata. ~to be e mnogu va~na 'The young people who participated inm~sses in the conferenc~, 'Which testifies to their high conscience, tensely followed the dl.scussion, which was very Lmnor-barrt ! , The first ~to and the last It,g, should both bit kojallto; the first for the sake of appearance, the last in order to refer clearly to the discussion and not to the act of following.

Macedonian, like Serbe--Croatian, distinguishes restrictive

and nonrestrictive relative clauses by punctuation rules similar

to those of English. It has been suggested by Blagoja Korubin (1969), hovever, that the distinction can also be indicated by pronominal usage. Since koj(~to) is anaphoric while ~to is conjunctive, and since restrictive relative clauses are more closely connected with their antecedents tllan nonrestrictive, Korubin suggests that ~ be used for the former and koj(~tol for the lat.ter, where the weakened connection increases the need for anaphora, e.g. (33)Tie ~to te rodile ne se megu ~ivite 'They who bore you are

not. among the living'; (34)N ovo' sobir lCe risustvuv • Ar -

fat. koi dopatuva sinola od Al ir 'Arafat, who arrived last night from Algiers, will attend this meeting'.

It is intereotine to note thl1.t clfluncn which I1.re conjoincd in folk speech are relativized in the llter!U'y ll1llr~uage, e.g. (35}Si

i e 'l c r1 teli i 81 ~i veele od braJE oveliko' There were two friends, and th~y were closer than brothers' 36) ••• prijateli, ~to 81 !1veele ••• ' ••• friends, who vere ••• '. The paratactic nature of certain nonrestrictive relative clauses is especially evident when they modify the predicate of the main clause, in Vhich case they can be introduced only by ~to or the neuter kgeO~tQ), e.g. (37)Direktorot proneveril povelCe iljadi rubH, J20radi '6to e predaden nil. nadle~eniot sud 'The director embezzled more thousands of rubles, due to which he Was turned over to the official court'.

Like any other South Slavic language, Macedonian can use the relative pronouns for 'who' and 'what' without any antecedent, to mean tbe who' and 'that which', e.g. {J8)Koj vino pijat. bez nevesta spilat 'He who drinks wine sleeps without a bride' (39) Sto

45

te u~i pOD. s~~aj; ~to pravi toi ne praj 'That which the priest

teaches you, do; what he does -- don't do'. Like Bulgarian, and unlike the rest of the Slavic langua~es, Macedonian does not have an opposition of the type ~ho/which' (~koji; kdor/kateri) but uses 1s2.i. for both. Hacedonie.n stands between Serbo-Croatian, which has no special relative marker, and Slovenian and Bulgarian wl1ich obligatorily mark relative pronouns with special morphemes. Macedonian may add a facultative enclitic ~to to its interrogatives

to form relati ve pronouns (except for & itself and kol!cav 'so much as').

With regard to other relative pronouns, one might comment

that ~ij(~to) is uncommon in folk speech. It is also interesting to note that when a relative clause of quality modifies an antecedent conceived of as one· of many, the relative pronominal adjective may be in the plural, referring to the unmentioned group of which the antecedent is a member, e.g. (40)Vidov .,. edna takva kulfa. Y..akvi ~to ne se srelcavaat. vo toj kraj 'I saw ... a house such as are not met with in that region'. This same phenomenon occurs in Bulgarian.

BUlDi\RIlUl

Bulgarian relatives are formed by adding the enclitic -to to any interrogative except ~to and a few adverbs (~toto does ;C;ur in dialects and as an archaism). In Bulgarian1 as in Hacedonian, koito (Hac. koj{~to)) can have oblique forms lkor;oto and a rare dative k~ .{hich is usually replaced by nil. kogoto - Mac, lsogo) but o~y for a personal masculine singular antecedent whoserelative pronoun serves an oblique function, e.g. (41)Kogoto dir~ e tUka 'He whom you seek is here'.

When referring to the entire main clause, the neuter ~ or kaJcvoto or the indeclinable de to or ~ is used, e.g. (42)Toj xodel malko preg@rben, koeto go pravelo o~te po-star 'He waJJced a little humpbacked, which made him seem even older'. There is little discussion regl'lrdinr; the opposition kolto/!t,Q or dato. [olto is connidered more litornryj ~ and dato I1.re more colloquial. [oito is especin.lJ;r preferred for I1.ttimllte nntecedents, but sentences such as tho following ar€! not uncommon, albeit very colloquial: (43)Tova 11 .!Lll~l21at~o ie, mnogo xva.le~e 'Is this the bride that y~ praising so much! , Both synchroni.cs.Llv and diachronically, deto (or gdeto or k©deto) is a relative meaning~here'. Its function as a general hypotactic conjunction meaning 'that' is a calque from

the Gr-ee k r!.Q!!. The Hacedon.l an deka 'that', which is cognate with deto and whose meaning is also ca.Iqued from Greek, is never used as a relative conjunction but only in verbal constructions whereas the Bulgarian and Greek forms are very common relatives'in their respp.cti ve spoken .Ianguarte s ,

~ijto is not very common in spoken Bulgarian; nil. kojto is more common, and ~ also occurs in this function, e.g. (44)covek:@t ~ieto ~ito ~itoto na(lcogoto komuto s@diill.ta utre ~te sekvestire. (Zi i;,.Qig 's 'the man whose grain~ the grain of whom\ the judge ~ll sequester tomorrow'. As in Slovenian, interrogati~ pronouns

46

are used in Bulgarian for indirect'questions, e.g. (45)Ne znala koj me t@rsi 'I do not know who is looking for me'. Bulgarian does not appear to distinguish restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses in any way.

Accordi~ to Bulgarian grammarians, the subordinating conjunctions !lA and ~ 'that', which normally occur in modal and completive verbal constructions, respectively, can be used to introduce relative clauses, e.g. (46)Nlfll!!a ~ovek da ne e ~r. t~'!L.novinn. 'There isn't a man who hasn't heard that news'; 47 Mis@lta, ~~

1ma V@atanl vB l'!erkva mu ov@r vsUkite sili 'The

thought that there was an uprising in Bjala erkva returned all

hi~ ••• powers'. However, these clauses appear to be essentially ~erbal modifiers, e,g. (47) could be transformed to Negovo mislenie tt......... tHis thinking that ••• '. lli!. clauses in:lply nonindicative modality.

The Bulgarian participles were mentioned in Z. Go~b's paper.

It need only be added that they rarely OCcur in spoken Bulgarian and are not encouraged in literary Bulgarian; relative clauses are preferred.

Notes 1A form kir does occur oCCP sion~y.

2Cigar ha-e-a variant eigaver derived from the interrogative ~igav. 31 wish to thank E. Hayles Browne for helpful suggestions concern-

ing this section

4rn Vuk's language, the pronoun can be omitted when ~to serves a non-comitative instrumental function, e.g. lopata~o se *ito vile 'the shovel with which the grain is winnOWed'.

gThe use of teo here is especially characteristic of Montenegro.

The four conjunctions equated with ~ might be seen simp).y as subordinating conjunctions Whose translation would be a participial construction, e.g. Ja sam ga gledao kako/gde/4a igra tenis 'I watched him playing tennis'.

References

Bajec,A. ll..M. 1968. Slovenska slovnica. Ljubljana,

Diskusijata za relativnite zamenki. 1951. l1akedonski jazik 2.121-22- Gricka.t/.I. 1967. Relativno koli i ~to. Nall jezik.16.33-48. Juran~i~,J. 1965. Slovena~ki jezik, Ljublj ana.

Koneski,B. 1964. I storij ate. na makedonskiot jazik. Skopje.

1967. Gramatika na makedonskiot llteraturen jazik. Skopje.

Korubin,B. 1969. Za osnovite strukturne-smislovni tipovi na relativna re~enica vo makedonskiot literaturen jazik. Malcedonski

j azik 20.7-34.

Lunt,H. 1952. Gr~~ar of the Macedonian Language. Skopje. Mareti6, T. 13)). Gramatika i stilslca hrvatskoga iIi srpslcoga knji~evnog jezika. Zagreb.

i-faslov,Ju. 1956. O~erk bolgarskoj grammatiki, Noscow. Pavlovi6,H. 1964. Fonction et valeur sEi"mantique des relatifs ~to

et koji en Serbe-Croate. Revue des etudes slaves 40,167-170.

Popov,K. 1963. S@vremenen b@lGarsld. ezik: Sintaksis. Sofia. Stevanovi6,H, 1964,1969. Savremeni srpskohrvatsld. jezik,l &2. Belgrade. Toporo!H~,J. 1966. Slovenski knjHni jezik, vo.L, 2. Haribor.

47

concerning Standard German relative clauses Some problems

Andreas Loetscher University of Chicago

clause formation essentially works the same way in

~~!~!!~~ Ger~a~ a\i~sE~~l!~~~t ~~~ma/~~::s:P~~~~~~~dt~: :~8~~at

:~ic~oc:~~:~n: :n~NP referantally identical t~ thfe h~adf ~~!s NP

1 tive pronoun and moved ~n ron 0

is changed into a re a s almost all nominal elements,are

whole clauset G:~~:~yp:~~~~~s~~r grammatical categories as gender

much mor~ ex en we have solved the proble~ of th~ assignment

and case, but once l.t is solved for relatlve pronouns

of such features in genera , 1 )

as well For an illustration, take 1) and 2 :

l)a) De; Apfelstrudeli (Frau Knollrausch, ein~n Ap~elstrudelj,[masc,

~ f" Lch gebacken hat) war h Lrnm l i.ach ,

acc,s!;!l ur nu, foo l ch

b) Der Apfelstrudel, den [masc ,acc ,sg] Frau Knollrausch ur mi

gebacken hat, war himmlisch. T

2)a) Die besen Tierei(bose TierE!f.(nom,pl] mich letzte, Nach~/mk raum verfolgten) hatten sechs Beine und einen feUrl?en lC.

b) Die b bs an Tiere, die (nom,p11 mich letzte NaC:ht l;/r:um verfolgten, hatten sechs Beine und einen feurlgen lC,

It is worth mentioning thatbtlhe mO~~hp~~~;il~fb!::u~:l:;i~en~~~;r

nouns isn't without its pro ems, , t

h d'fferent pronouns can be used ln he same

of instances were 1

place. ~in dem) ich als Kind gelebt habe.

3) Das ist das Haus,) .

4) Der Kuchen,{von dem) ~~ e~n StUck abbiss, war verg~ftet. ( wovon )

) to choose between an analytical form with a pre-

In 3 , we have 1 t· e pronoun In 4), the choice is between Posi~ion"Bnd; oca ~va so-call~d prepositional adverb. Normally

an a na Ly t i ca I orm an , t r h J only the ana-

·t 's said that for pronouns referrlng o~ umJan f

~ 1 f 'to be used whereas fnr ~human both orms are

lytical orm 18, t b true the

I 'ble The first statement seems 0 e ,

equal y POSSl • 'fications. E.g. 5) and 6) both

second one needs many more specl

are cases where only one form seems acceptable.

5) Die TU~ (an die) er klopfte, blieb verschlossen.

(*woran)

6) b 'r ein Pfund mehl und zwanzig Erdbeeren,

Sie ga ml

ich hatte eine Torte backen sollen.

(*mit, denen) ( womlt )

. rther into this question, mainly for the reason

I'm not gOlng fu . I . for relative pronouns, but for that these problems not on y arlsef all kl'nds of problems in the

11 and moreover or )

pronouns genera y, t' d e to morphological gaps. There-

( ·th a few excep r ons u

same way Wl h xplained the morphology of pro-

f 't seems that when we ave e t'

ore, ]. t t· 11y have explained it for rela lve

nouns generally, we au oms lca