Types of Possession -- Tesäfköm: A Constructed Language (S11)
|From:||Thomas Hart Chappell <tomhchappell@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 28, 2005, 21:41|
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@...>
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:19:11 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
>>> <jeffwilson63@...> wrote:
>... three ideas I remember from T.E. Payne's "Describing Morphosyntax";
>1) Many languages divide nouns into two types; possessible and non-
>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. ...
>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?
Henrik Theiling's conlang Tesäfköm (S11) does embody all three of these
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
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
I've just timed out. 'Bye.
Tom H.C. in MI