LogFAQs > #899135490

@SushiSquid

The main thing I was wanting to clarify to you is the syntax. The structure you referenced would not apply to a relative clause.

Clause ----> relative clause.
The second clause needs a pronoun in place of what it is referencing in the first clause.
For Latin, (I assume you understand cases because you referenced nominatives) nominative relative pronouns in the relative clause would be something like qui/quae/quod (depending on gender of the original noun.) This goes on all the way down the cases to even include things like dative case (for indirect objects) and you would use a relative pronoun for an indirect object (e.g. For whom etc.) What I was told, though, is that for this case the relative pronoun has to be "that" for what I am communicating and it can still remain a relative clause. She did confirm (the professor) that "who" in the second clause would function as a nominative (like I think you were saying) but "that" would not, which still would keep it a relative clause. Why some languages are better than English, in these aspects, is that you have to inflect very specifically.
---

"Oh, you think lag is your ally. You merely adopted lag. I was born in it, molded by it. I didnt have cable until I was already a man."