Re: Possessible and non-possessible nouns
| From: | Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, January 27, 1999, 18:19 |
|---|
Brad Coon wrote:
>Gustavo Eulalio wrote:
>>
>> Are there other languages that have this feature? Any
conlang?
>Many natlangs, especially in the Americas. I think all Uto-Aztecan
>languages have it, at least, I can't think of an example without it
>off the top of my head. Oddly enough, I once supposed that Tupian
>might be related to UA (OK, I was young and foolish!)
>I think Dirk Elzinga's Tepa has it but I haven't looked at his for
>a while. My faux Amerind lg will have it if I ever find more time
>to work on it.
I have also heard that many West African, Austronesian, and
Amerindian languages have a feature of inherently possessed vs.
optionally possessed which is quite similar to possessability. In
these languages, some nouns are such that they must obligatorily be
possessed by something. These include body parts, kinship terms, and
personal adornment. So it'd be incorrect to just say "hand" in these
languages. One must specify whose "hand" e.g., "my hand".
My conlang, Boreanesian, is like this. Below are examples
demonstrating this;
INHERENTLY POSSESSED
xepihkih "my head"
xepihtuh "his head" lit. <head of that (person/thing)>
xepih (no meaning)
OPTIONALLY POSSESSED
setinghkih "my animal"
setinghtuh "his animal" lit. <animal of that (person/thing)>
setingh "animal"
Regards,
-Kristian- 8-)