Re: Possessible and non-possessible nouns

On: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:39:55 +0100
Kristian Jensen wrote:
=---------=---------=---------=---------=
> Lars Henrik Mathiesen skrev:
>
> >The distinction is not unusual in natlangs. But I have more often
> >seen it called inalienable possesion (my hand --- it will always be
> >mine) and alienable possesion (my bike --- I can sell it). Also the
> >case where single important objects of alienable types can be used
> >with inalienable possesion.
>
> The way I understand it, in/alienable possession is not quite the
> same as possessability. In a language that distinguishes
> possessability, there are certain classes of nouns that simply
> _cannot_ be possessed. In Polynesian languages that have
> in/alienable possession, all nouns can be possessed. There are just
> two kinds of possession.
>
> I have to agree with Lars Henrik though. The way Gustavo has defined
> and exemplified the two different types of nouns in Tupi resembles a
> lot more like the distinction between alienable vs. inalienable
> rather than possessable vs. non-possessable (as I understand it).
>
> 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).
        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.

--
-------- Gustavo Eulalio --------- guga@cgnet.com.br --------
----- "Ima^go estas pli grava ol scio." Albert Einstein -----

/"\
\ /  CAMPANHA DA FITA ASCII - CONTRA MAIL HTML
 X   ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \