Re: Possessible and non-possessible nouns

Gustavo wrote:

>On: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:39:55 +0100
>Kristian Jensen wrote:
-----<snip>-----
>>
>> Gustavo, which is it?
>
>        Possessability!
>        In Tupi, you can own a canoe (nde ygara -- your canoe), and
>it's the same type of possession if you keep the canoe to you all
>your life, or if you give it to someone. But you definitely cannot
>own the sky (ybaka -- sky).
That is what I thought. I have heard of this phenomenon being
widespread among Amerindians. I also heard that when Europeans first
came to the Americas with the concept of farming on land which they
"own", many Indians failed to grasp what owning land meant.

>        Only there are exceptions. The book says: "Certain
>non-possessable nouns may become possessable if the beings they
>designate get to make part of the everyday life or if they're
>culturally appropriate."
>        I wonder what that means. E.g. if a simple stone becomes an
>amulet, or if an animal becomes a pet animal, or something like
>this. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, I think that is what "culturally appropriate" essentially
means. Another theoretical situation; if in the Tupi language, trees
are non-possessable, but in Tupi culture it is possible for a shaman
to own a sacred tree, then the sacred tree is possessable only to
the shaman and not to others.

Regards,
-Kristian- 8-)