>>213587353 (OP)
Spanish has a lot of words descended from Latin directly, and then another word borrowed from Latin directly. Some examples are delgado and delicado, erguir and erigir, inflar and hinchar, dehesa and defensa, and causa and cosa.
Japanese relative clauses don't mark the case of the thing being relativized.
In European languages, you generally have a relative pronoun that refers to the thing (and inflects for case if the language has it), and prepositions that would attach to the thing in a normal sentence are attached to the relative clause.
Examples:
"I was born in the year 1903." becomes "1903 is the year in which I was born."
In English, you can keep the preposition where it was.
For instance, "I went with him." becomes "He's who I went with."
In Japanese, there is no relative pronoun; the role is implied. Some romaji examples:
Ano hito wa mizu o nomimashita.
(The "o" marks "miruku" as the direct object, and "wa" marks the topic.)
"That person drank water."
Mizu o nonda hito wa ano hito desu.
"The person that drank water is that person."
(This is probably unnatural Japanese.)
It's implied that "hito" would be the subject, but this isn't said anywhere. It's just obvious.
Idk if this is that interesting, but it seems simple and elegant to just not have a relative pronoun, because it's obvious anyway the vast majority of the time what the relativized noun's role is.
I've read it's a particularly unique Indo-European thing to have relative pronouns that are the same as interogative pronouns, anyway (for instance, that the who in "Who are you?" is the same as the who in "That's who did it.")