Re: Alienability in Possession

Rob Haden wrote:

> >Question: if a language differentiates between alienable and inalienable
> >possession, which type is more likely to be marked with possessive
> >suffixes?  I think it'd be inalienable, but I could be wrong.
In the group of languages I know a bit about (Moluccan langs. of Indonesia),
that is indeed the system:

inalienable: ama 'father' -n(V) '3poss.' (ai 3sg.):  ai ama/n 'his father'
alienable: kuda 'horse' ni- 'marker for alien.poss.': ama ni/n kuda
'father's horse' (ai aman nin kuda 'my father's horse')

IIRC the same system applies in Fijian: suffix for alienable, markers+suffix
for ordinary/edible/drinkable possession.

Malay/Indo. would have bapak/nya 'his father', kuda/nya 'his horse', kuda
bapaknya 'his father's horse'
>
> Are there any languages where 1) a distinction is made between these two
> types, and 2) one's living relatives use inalienable but one's dead
> relatives use alienable?
For Indo. languages that's hard to say, since "dead relatives" are by nature
unknown, unattested. I'm not at all sure that alien/inalien. is
reconstructed for the proto-language; it seems rather to be an innovation of
the Central (Moluccan) and Eastern (Oceanic) languages, possibly due to
contact with non-AN ("Papuan") langs.

I can't say how possession works in _all_ the non-Central/Oceanic languages,
but the ones I know of lack the alienable/inalien. distinction, and like
Malay/Indo. usually indicate possession with the suffixes (which are cognate
everywhere, and interestingly, related to the subj.pronoun prefixes used in
conjugation. E.g. in Buginese

bola/ku, bola/mu, bola/na 'my/your/his house'

u/itai 'I see him'
mu/itai 'you see him'
na/itai 'he sees him'

cf. mu/ita/ka? 'you see me'
   na/ita/ko 'he sees you'