| |
| | DeLancey (1986), Relativization as Nominalization in Tibetan and Newari |
 | | Dependent and appositive relatives An obvious problem in the Lhasa data, with clear relevance to the general problem we are interested in here, is the difference in gen- itive marking between sa and pa, which require genitive marking, mkhan, which cannot have it, and yag which is apparently something of a transitional case. |
 | | Thus it is encouraging to return to Lahu and discover that there is an apparently very similar distinction between ve -ful and ve -less genitive constructions in Lahu (Matisoff 1973:148-9), so that it may well be possible to identify a more specific function for ve than pure dependent marking. |
 | | Additional data from other TB languages, such as those discussed here, add to Matisoff's evidence that the syncretic marking of these three functions (2) is not accidental, but reflects a structural and/or functional relationship among these functions, at least in languages of this type. |
| darkwing.uoregon.edu /~delancey/papers/relnom.html |
|