Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: genitive vs. construct case/izafe

From:Julia "Schnecki" Simon <helicula@...>
Date:Monday, July 25, 2005, 13:17

On 7/23/05, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:07:27 -0400, Julia "Schnecki" Simon > <helicula@...> wrote: > > > Should I write "izafe" or "idafe"/"idafa"? > > Trask has |izafet| as the correct name for the phenomenon of marking > possessed nouns, apparently from Persian. I trust Trask more than I'd > trust any other source, personally.
That's the spelling I've found in a Turkish grammar (Hengirmen's "Türkçe dilbilgisi") during the weekend as well. I guess I forgot the final <t> because I confused the Arabic word (where the <t> is not pronounced, at least not in all dialects, and it's often not transcribed either) with the Turkish (and, apparently, also Persian) word... (As far as I can tell, Hengirmen never uses the term "izafet" in the actual text. I found it in the Ottoman-to-Turkish glossary at the end of the book; there _izafet terkibi_ is translated as _ad tamlamasI_. Not a big surprise that Ottoman Turkish would use an Arabic term for something that's called by a Turkish name nowadays... but of course this doesn't mean that the Turkish construction is "the same" as the one called _idafa_ in Arabic. ;-) In the Turkish-to-something-else glossaries in the same book, _ad tamlamasI_ is explained as _possessive construction_, _Genitivkonstruktion_, and _complément du nom_, respectively. And I may be wrong about this -- my knowledge of Turkish really isn't anything to brag about --, but as far as I can tell, _ad tamlamasI_ may mean something as simple as _noun phrase_. Go figure.) Regards, Julia (who learned some interesting new Turkish words over the weekend as well ;) -- Julia Simon (Schnecki) -- Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst _@" schnecki AT iki DOT fi / helicula AT gmail DOT com "@_ si hortum in bybliotheca habes, deerit nihil (M. Tullius Cicero)