Re: THEORY: genitive vs. construct case/izafe

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.)

> (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?

> But what about other (i.e. non-Semitic) languages that mark the
> possessed either instead of or in addition to the possessor? For
> example,
>
>    Turkish _ev_ "house", _kapI_ "door", _ev kapIsI_ "front door"
>    (generic term; a specific front door, i.e. the front door of a
>    specific house, is _evin kapIsI_ with _ev_ in genitive case;
>    _-(s)I_ is the 3sg possessive marker, so _ev(in) kapIsI_
>    literally means "(of-)house its-door")
>
>    Hungarian _fiú_ "boy", _könyv_ "book", _a fiú könyve_ "the boy's
>    book" (with _könyv_ bearing the 3sg possessive marker _-e_, so a
>    literal translation would be "the boy his-book") (Note that there
>    is no genitive case in Hungarian AFAIK.)
>
> Could these constructions be called izafe? If not, what should I call
> them?
Hmm, unfortunately, I do not know about the construction in these
langs.  I'd say it's a genitive case construction, since the modified
will be marked for the phrase's case.  In colloquial German, there is
a similar construction -- so the 3rd persion possessive pronouns seems
common in conjunction with genitive (only Germans colloquial
construction uses dative case):

   the house   = das Haus
   his house   = sein Haus (NOM)

   the father  = der Vater (NOM)
                 des Vaters (GEN)
                 dem Vater (DAT)
                 ...

Either:
   das Haus des Vaters
   NOM      GEN

and colloquially:
   dem Vater sein Haus
   DAT       NOM

The modified is still in case of the whole construction (here:
nominative), so it's a genitive construction.  If you change the case
of the whole phrase, 'the house' changes.  In construct constructions,
the father should change, but here:

   in dem Vater seinem Haus  = in the father's house
      DAT       DAT

> And what about languages where the possessor-possessed relationship is
> expressed simply by juxtaposing two nouns, or a noun and a pronoun,
> without any case markings ("of-Peter book"), possessor affixes ("Peter
> his-book"), connecting particles (like Mandarin _de_), or similar?
> What do we call that kind of construction?
If you don't have cases, it's difficult to say, of course, and maybe
irrelevant.  Still: the difference is what part is marked for the
modification and which one is marked for the whole phrase.  Since 'the
book of' is not a phase while 'of Peter' is, this is a 'genitive'
construction to me.  And in Mandarin, you can say: 'Zhe shi wo de' =
It is *mine*, so also, 'de' is part of the modifier, so this is also
more a 'genitive' construction.

**Henrik

Replies