Types of Possession -- Tesäfköm: A Constructed Language (S11)

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:20:46 -0500, Thomas Hart Chappell
> <tomhchappell@...> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:46:53 -0500, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>
>> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:19:11 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
>>> <jeffwilson63@...> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>> [snip]
> [snip]
>
>... three ideas I remember from T.E. Payne's "Describing Morphosyntax";
>
>1) Many languages divide nouns into two types; possessible and non-
>possessible.  ...
> [snip]
>
>2) Many languages divide nouns into two types; those on the one hand that,
>inherently, must be possessed, and those on the other hand that need not,
>inherently, be possessed.  ...
> [snip]
>
>3) Many languages ... divide types of possession into alienable ...
> versus inalienable ...
>
>4) Many languages use a combination of two of the above three ideas.  It is
> logically possible, and I think there may exist some natlangs attesting,
> all three at once -- I don't know, does anyone else?
>
> [snip]
Henrik Theiling's conlang Tesäfköm (S11) does embody all three of these
ideas.

Since he uses "construct-state" instead of "genitive-case", it turns out to
be much easier to do.

Since Tesafkom is a head-marking language, in the possessor-possessum pair
of nouns, it will be the possessum which gets marked, rather than the
possessor.

1) A noun which has no "construct states" will be non-possessible.

2) A noun which never has any non-"construct" states -- must be possessed.

3) Henrik gives S11 two construct-states; the alienable one and the
inalienable one.

-----

I've just timed out.  'Bye.

Tom H.C. in MI

Reply