Re: THEORY: genitive vs. construct case/izafe

Hallo!

Henrik Theiling wrote:

> Hi!
>
> "Julia \"Schnecki\" Simon" <helicula@...> writes:
> > Hello!
> >
> > While designing a case system for my (still unnamed) conlang project,
> > I started wondering about some terminology. You see, I'd really like
> > to have izafe (construct case/construct case constructions/whatever),
> > but I'm not sure about the difference between genitive case and
> > construct case.
>
> Quite easy: the opposite noun is marked.  Genitive marks the modifier
> and the modified is marked for case of the whole phrase, while a
> construct case marks the modified and the modifier carries the case of
> the whole phrase.  Assume the whole phrase is in case X, then you get:
>
>     Modifier-GEN Modified-X  ==  Modifier-X Modified-CONSTR
>
> (Of course, order is insignificant in the example here and depends on
> language.)
Exactly.  But more precisely, it is the construct _state_, because
the modified noun can be, in languages with case systems such as
Classical Arabic, of any case.  So, it is "Modifier Modified-CONSTR-X"
with "X" being the case of the NP.  Classical Arabic also has a
genitive case, so it is "Modified-CONSTR-X Modifier-GEN" (Arabic
puts modifiers after the head).

> > (Should I write "izafe" or "idafe"/"idafa"? The latter feels sort of
> > silly to me, since without Unicode I can't spell it properly. And the
> > ArabTeX transliteration "i.dAfaT" doesn't look like a good alternative
> > in this otherwise TeX-free mail, either... so I tend towards the
> > Turkish spelling, for which plain ASCII is sufficient.)
>
> I don't know I've never read that and only know 'construct case'. I
> assume that's Semitic terminology?
AFAIK, _izafe_ is the Arabic word for "construct state", or something
like that.  After all, the Arabs wrote grammars of their own language,
so they have a name for it.  But I might be wrong.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Replies