Re: THEORY: genitive vs. construct case/izafe

Hello!

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)