Re: Term for Possessive Structure (was: Types of Possession)
|From:||ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 14, 2008, 21:29|
>I have decided to use a construct state to indicate possession by an
>animate agent. Now I'm looking for a grammatical term to describe
>this specific kind of possession.
>"Alienable vs. inalienable" doesn't apply because one can say `angar
>venkos,' the courier's message, as well as `angar kaflos,' the
>courier's head. `Angar' would be the construct form of `angarus.' The
>construct form is the root of the word.
>In keeping with its use with animate agents, one would also
>say, `vaas kaflos,' the vulture's head (vaas < vaases), and `dor
>vaalos,' the tree's leaf (dor < doris).
>Likewise with certain natural phenomena which are viewed as animate,
>e.g., `suul lheras,' the sun's heat (suul < suules).
>Possession by an inanimate object would continue to be expressed by
>the genitive case, e.g., eensosyo acos,' the sword's point.
>Any suggestions as to what I could call this type of possession?
This is quite similar to possession in Kash, except there, it's the other
way around-- animate possessors (including some natural phenomena) use the
genitive, inanimates use a different construction, with a little ambiguity
involving "intrinsic" parts of things--
palace duke-gen 'the duke's palace'
heat of the sun
rooms of the palace
top table-gen 'top of the (specific) table' OR
top-its table (or maybe this means 'top of a table (generic)'-- hmm, hadn't
occurred to me!! OTOH nihiÃ±i laca yu [+def] could also mean 'top of the
(spec.) table'-- as they say, all grammars leak :-))))
But I have no technical term for this distinction; just "animate vs.
inanimate possession" on the theory that inanimate things cannot truly