Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am working on relative clauses in Kyrgyz. Kyrgyz and some other Turkic languages show agreement of subject with object in relative clauses, instead of the verb. It is an SVO language.

Menin okugan        kitabim
I-Gen read-rel.suf. book-1st persn

"The book that I read"

Are there other languages that show an agreement of subject with object, but not with verb in relative clauses? What can be the cause of it?

share|improve this question
Can you also explain how possession works in this language, give a few more relative clause examples, and indicate morpheme breaks in the Kyrgyz examples? – jlovegren Jan 15 '13 at 3:43
some interesting examples on pp.79--80 in Comrie 1998 from another Turkic language. I am wanting more data because I am assuming from the start that the example means "my book that I read" – jlovegren Jan 21 '13 at 17:18
I don't know why you call this "agreement". The question that I think @jlovegren is asking is whether the -im on the book is required for this construction, or whether it is additional information about the book? i.e., would menin okugan kitab be grammatical (cf mehmetfa's examples from Turkish). – Colin Fine Jul 20 '15 at 13:06
I don't know Kyrgyz but doesn't the example merely mean "my I-read book-my"? I wonder if the same grammar (with "my") can be applied to something which cannot be possessed (a book can be possessed) – carsten Aug 19 '15 at 21:13
Is the point about Kyrgyz here that the ‘relative suffix’ on the verb is not inflected for person to agree with the subject? As far as I can tell from mehmetfa’s answer, the Turkish counterparts have a verbal form that is inflected to agree with the subject, but that may not be the case with Kyrgyz, which then marks the subject of a transitive relative clause instead as the possessor of the object? That's an interesting pattern. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 20 '15 at 11:06

You can not create relative clauses without a phrase/Objekt/Noun etc. Because you need an object to describe it again.Actually relative clauses are side clauses(supporting clauses) that you describe the subject in main clause. So lets 's split your sample sentence into two parts:

Bu bir kitap.(This is book.) - Ben bu kitabi okudum.(I've read this book)

With relative:

Bu benim okuduğum kitap.(This is the book that I've read.)

As you can see you build relative clauses to make main clauses more explicit,more comprehensible.

In "Bu bir Kitap" as you suppose Kitap is not subject or object, however it's a noun predicate.

But in "Ben bu kitabi okudum." the word Kitap is an accusative object.

In short there is already no subject - object agreement in your example sentence. Because you don't re-describe I(ben), you describe just Kitap(book).

I've answered your question as a native Turkish speaker from Turkey.

share|improve this answer
Do you think you've addressed the original question? Would you care to re-read it? – Ivan Kapitonov Dec 21 '15 at 1:00
@Ivan Kapitonov, some suffix of Kyrgyz and Turkish are different but I could understand original sentence: Menin okugan kitabim.(TR:Benim okuduğum kitap.) – user1474062 Dec 21 '15 at 9:25
Sure. I'm talking about the title of the question though. This sentence: Which languages have Subject-object agreement in relative clauses? – Ivan Kapitonov Dec 21 '15 at 12:52
@Ivan Kapitonov, as is stands OP doesn't care his own question title at all.So everything here is in vain,i mean no need to argue – user1474062 Dec 21 '15 at 15:24

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.