Re: Questions on Inalienable Possession Prefixes

> Scheme A: Use the current reduced personal pronouns as prefixes
> replacing ja-:
> So instead of ja-kú 'hand', we could have le-kú, ri-kú, and a small
> problem. It should be ma-kú for 3p. However, that would conflict with
> the animate prefix. So, it could instead be ja-kú or from a more
> obscure 3p pronoun sa-kú.
I think that I prefer this scheme to the other one, with either of the
three alternatives. One, it isn't impossible that some forms in the
language are identical with some others, leading to ambiguity. Ambiguity
is common in all languages. Second, I like the form sa-kú, and having the
possessive prefix be related to an "obscure" 3sg pronoun is completely
naturalistic.

However, I think that you need to go with ja-kú as some form, because
otherwise you're violating the whole idea of inalienable possession. The
point of inalienable possession is that a certain class of words
*requires* a possessive affix, so if ja-kú is to be a word at all it has
to be somewhere in the possessive paradigm. Since 3p is (I believe)
generally the reference form in such systems, that wouuld logically be the
form that is morphologically least marked.

In Hiksilipsi I've done something similar, although there is a generic
possessed form that functions as the reference form.

> Scheme B: Use 1st & 2nd person prefixes cognate with the
> demonstratives Tó (here by me) and xó (there by you):
> Ta-kú, xa-kú, and ???, probably ja-kú, which would fit in with the
> fact that the generic demonstrative is jáo, and is obviously related
> to the inanimate prefix ja- and the 3rd person inanimate pronoun ja.
> There is a third deictic demonstrative áke (there by him/her/them),
> which could become a'-, as in ak-kú, but that doesn't seem right to
> me, though the reduplicated consonant bit shows up in other places in
> Kélen.
This scheme works just as well, but I find it less aesthetic.

Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Reply