Relative clauses 371
The nominalizations in (149) and (150) are result nominals (see Chapter 4 sec-
tion 1.2.2). Thus, the result nominal is a kind of appositive, simply identifying
again the item of interest. Without the apparent head noun, the clauses are still
entirely grammatical, simply lacking specification of precisely what it is that
Siti sent and Auntie cooked.
(152) Kerem-an-na Siti e-bukka' bi' Nobun.
send-NOM-DEF Siti OV-open by Nobun
‘What Siti sent was opened by Nobun.’
(153) Na'-kana' ngakan massa'-an-na Bibbi'.
RED-child AV.eat cook-NOM-DEF aunt
‘The children ate what Auntie cooked.’
The restriction of the nominalizations in the nominalized clauses to result no-
minals accounts for the restriction of targets to direct objects: the direct object is
precisely that element identified in a result nominal. Attempts to modify other
NPs in this manner fail. Thus, the goal of kerem ‘send’ is ineligible.
(154) *Oreng kerem-an-na Siti (dha') bungkosan e-kennal-e bi' Nobun.
person send-NOM-DEF Siti to package OV-known-LOC by Nobun
(The person Siti sent the package is known by Nobun.)
(154) is ungrammatical because it is not the goal (oreng ‘person’) which is the
entity denoted by the result nominal keremanna, but the theme (bungkosan
‘package’). Additionally, direct objects that are affected by the predicate but are
not the result of the predicate cannot be modified in this way. The result nomin-
al associated with the verb pokol ‘hit’ in (156) is the punches.
(155) Pokol-an-na Ali kaja.
hit-NOM-DEF Ali strong
‘Hasan’s punches are strong.’
Thus, the object of pokol in (156), reng lake' juwa ‘that man’, is affected by the
action but is not the result.
(156) Ali mokol reng lake' juwa.
Ali AV.hit man that
‘Ali hit that man.’
Because of this, reng lake' cannot be modified by the result nominal (157a), but
must be modified by a standard relative clause (157b).