Documentation

Linglib.Fragments.Yoruba.Relativization

Yoruba Relativization Fragment #

@cite{awobuluyi-1978} @cite{keenan-comrie-1979} @cite{ajiboye-2005}

Yoruba forms relative clauses with the introducer (high tone — distinct from the toneless preverbal anteriority particle ti and the locative-source preposition ti). Strategy varies by Accessibility-Hierarchy position: subject and genitive use pronoun retention, direct object and most obliques use gap.

@cite{awobuluyi-1978} §6.18-6.24 is the descriptive primary source (also the work WALS F122A cites for Yoruba's .pronounRetention value). @cite{keenan-comrie-1979} pp. 349-350 provides the K&C 1977 Table 1 codification in exemplified form, with an analytical argument that the SU-position pronoun ó is verb agreement rather than a true resumptive (a position the descriptive Fragment doesn't commit to). K&C 1977 Table 1 p. 79 codes Yoruba as two strategies: postnom -case (SU+DO) and postnom +case (GEN); IO/OBL/OComp coded as * (does-not-exist-as-such, recast as DO via serial verb).

@cite{awobuluyi-1978} §6.24 explicitly rejects the traditional relative-pronoun analysis of , treating it as an "introducer" (≈ complementizer in modern terms). @cite{ajiboye-2005} §1.2.2 reaffirms a C-head analysis (in his case for the M-tone ti found within genitive DPs, analyzed as a reduced relative).

@cite{awobuluyi-1978} §3.15 additionally shows that genitive-meaning constructions without overt (e.g. owó Dàda "Dada's money") are derived from relative-clause sources (owó tí Dàda ní "the money that Dada has"), so the genitive relativization channel is widely available.

Data from @cite{awobuluyi-1978} §6.18–6.24, §3.15 + @cite{keenan-comrie-1979} ex. 125–128.

§6.19: Subject relativization. The relativized subject is replaced by the high-tone third-person singular pronoun ó. E.g. Ọkùnrin tí ó pè mí 'the man who called me'. bearsCaseMarking := false per @cite{keenan-comrie-1979}'s analysis of ó as verb agreement (K&C 1977 Table 1 p. 79 codes Yoruba's SU-strategy as -case).

Equations
  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For

    §6.20: Direct object relativization. The relativized object is dropped completely (gap strategy). E.g. Ọkùnrin tí mo rí 'the man I saw'.

    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      §6.21–6.22: Oblique relativization. Awobuluyi splits this into two sub-cases: the prepositions fi, ti, , fún, drop their object completely (gap, §6.21); the preposition triggers complex restructuring (drop + repositioning, with insertion for place nouns and exceptions for /gbé, §6.22). The single-cell RelClauseMarker.npRel cannot encode the split, so we record the dominant pattern (gap) and document the case in notes. E.g. Ọbẹ tí mo fi gé e 'the knife I cut it with'.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        §6.23: Genitive relativization. The relativized genitive qualifier is replaced by rẹ̀ (singular) or wọn (plural) — pronoun retention. E.g. Ọmọ tí olè jí ìwé rẹ̀ 'the child whose books were stolen'; Àwọn tí olè jí ìwé wọn 'those whose books were stolen'. bearsCaseMarking := true per K&C 1977 Table 1 p. 79 (Strategy 2: postnom, +case, GEN=+). The genitive-form pronouns rẹ̀/wọn are morphologically distinct from subject ó and object i/un/ó, so per Awobuluyi §2.21's polymorphic-noun classification they encode their case role lexically.

        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          All Yoruba relative clause markers, anchored to @cite{awobuluyi-1978} §6.19–6.23 + @cite{keenan-comrie-1979} ex. 125–128. All four share the introducer (high tone, §6.18).

          Equations
          Instances For

            Yoruba relativization profile (typological summary).

            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For