Slovene: differences between "ki" subject and "kdor, kar"

[billyboh]

Hi, everyone!

I'm having some difficulties with relative pronouns.
I don't understand the differences between "kdor, kar" and "ki" as subjects of a relative clause.
I'll write a couple of sentences, to show my problem:

- Moj prijatelj, ki stanuje v Mariboru, ne mara planin.
- Kupil sem hiŝo, ki ima velik vrt.

I wonder if it's possible to change them in:

- Moj prijatelj, kdor stanuje v Mariboru, ne mara planin.
- Kupil sem hiŝo, kar ima velik vrt.

Thank you very much!

 

[francisgranada]

I dont know the answer, but the word ki surprises me, as in the Slavic languages (in general) we have some variant of kto (=who, which could correspond to the Slovene kdor, in my humble opinion). So I have a question: is ki a loanword from Italian (< chi) or Hungarian (< ki) or a special Slavic form?

(As to kar, I'd interprete it as which/quale, but I may be wrong.)

 

[Irbis]

> - Moj prijatelj, kdor stanuje v Mariboru, ne mara planin.
> - Kupil sem hiŝo, kar ima velik vrt.

No, this is not possible.
You can use kdor/kar in this role only after some pronouns:
Vse, kar sem naredil, je uspelo.
But I would still say
Vsi, ki stanujejo v Mariboru, ne marajo planini.
I would never use "kdor" here.
I can't find an example where I would use "kdor" in this role.

> I dont know the answer, but the word ki surprises me, as in the Slavic languages (in general) we have some variant of kto (=who, which could correspond to the Slovene kdor, in my humble opinion). So I have a question: is ki a loanword from Italian (< chi) or Hungarian (< ki) or a special Slavic form?

Here is the entry from the ethimological dictionary, it is considered to be derived from slavic root.
Fran

"ki" is considered to be short version of kateri/katera/katero...
You could say:
- Moj prijatelj, kateri stanuje v Mariboru, ne mara planin.
- Kupil sem hiŝo, katera ima velik vrt.

You can find such use in texts, especially when people try to write in more formal way. But this is considered to be bad style in Slovenian, "ki" is prefered in all cases, where "kateri" can be replaced.

 

[francisgranada]

... Here is the entry from the ethimological dictionary, it is considered to be derived from slavic root. Fran ...

Thank you.

 

[Panceltic]

"ki" is the normal relative pronoun, equivalent to "which"

"kdor" and "kar" are formed out of "kdo" and "kaj" by adding -r (which is, due to the rhotacism, the Slovenian equivalent of -ž(e) in other Slavic languages - this is why we say "morem" where other Slavic languages use "možem" etc.)

Note that "kdor" and "kar" are just the nominative case, you can add -r on the whole paradigm:

kdor - kar
kogar - česar
komur - čemur
kogar - kar
komer - čemer
komer - čimer

It can also be added to other pronouns: kje > kjer, kdaj > kadar, kako > kakor ....

Now for the rules when to use this -r forms: They are always used on its own, without the preceding noun, because the antecedent is already included in its meaning.

Kdor ne dela, naj ne je. = He who doesn't work should not eat.
Človek, ki ne dela, naj ne je. = A man who doesn't work should not eat.

I hope it's a bit clearer now!

 

[francisgranada]

... "kdor" and "kar" are formed out of "kdo" and "kaj" by adding -r (which is, due to the rhotacism, the Slovenian equivalent of -ž(e) in other Slavic languages - this is why we say "morem" where other Slavic languages use "možem" etc.)

This is interesting (at least for me, as I didn't know about this phenomenon). Does it mean that instead of e.g. nož (knife), muž (man), už (already) you have nor, mur, ur? (I know, that this question is a bit OT ...)

 

[Panceltic]

This is interesting (at least for me, as I didn't know about this phenomenon). Does it mean that instead of e.g. nož (knife), muž (man), už (already) you have nor, mur, ur? (I know, that this question is a bit OT ...)

No no, rhotacism isn't so widespread. I think it only worked in the single case of -ože- > -ore- but maybe someone will correct me on that.

We say nož, mož, že for the words you mentioned. The instrumental case is "z nožem", not " z *norem" though, probably such an irregularity would have quickly been regularised within the paradigm