Amerindian Possessives Re: Amerindian [was: Re: Workshops Re view #7]

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Rob Nierse
| Subject: Re: Amerindia [was: Re: Workshops Review #7]
|
| Daniel wrote:
| >Possessives, btw, are formed with the formula
|
| I have exactly the same thing! I stole it from Chinook
| Rob

        Hi,
        I have a question for the Gatherers of Extremely Enlightening
Knowledge (or GEEKs, for short ;-) ).
        On the subject of possessives, for continental North American
languages, how common is the distinction between alienable and inalienable
possession? I know Hawai'ian and the other Polynesian languages have
different possessive markers for alienable and inalienable possessions, and
this is the structure I'm referring to. (I'm not asking about inherently
possessed items, such as in many Southwest languages.)
        In my conlang, Tekwari, there are two markers, genitive for
inalienable possessions, and construct case (possessed marker) for alienable
possessions.
        For inalienable possessions, there is a genitive suffix on the
possessor, followed by the possession. This is also done for people. While
relations are inalienable, it's also used for friends, acquaintances,
hunting-partner, etc.
        For alienable possessions, there is a construct case prefix. (*1)
The word order is "owner prefix-owned". This is used for almost all objects.
        The two can be mixed. If you use both for an alienable possession,
the result is stressed ownership, something like, "That's MY bow. Not yours.
Not his. Mine and only mine." Needless to say, it can seem a bit arrogant or
aggressive if used lightly, and is generally not used in polite speech or
when addressing elders. It's also acceptable if someone asks, "Who's is
this?" "Me-genitive." In other words, if you just say "mine", there's no
possessed item to put the construct case marker on.
        With people, it's considered rather degrading to attach the
construct case marker to their name, especially if one also drops the
genitive marker. It essentially says, "He's my relative now, but I view him
as an object, and that relation can be broken easily." Very insulting.

(*1) The genitive marker probably started as a prefix on the possessed
object or a stand alone morpheme. It is likely it moved off the possessed
and onto the possessor as a matter of respect. (Treating the relative less
like an owned object, and referring to the inherent personal nature of the
relation.)

        So, anyway, I was wondering. Do any Amerind languages have
alienable/inalienable possession that works anything like this? Or have I
made something that is more Polynesian than Amerind?

        Thanks,

                Mike
______________________________________
Mike Karapcik   *       Tampa, FL
Network Analyst *       USF campus
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Research Center
ConlangCode: v1.1 CIT !h+ !u cG:M:R:S:G a+ y n30:3
B+++/R:Wic A+ E+ N1 Is/d K ia-:+ p-- s- m o P S----


######################################################################
This transmission may be confidential or protected from disclosure and
is only for review and use by the intended recipient. Access by
anyone else is unauthorized. Any unauthorized reader is hereby
notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of
this information, or any act or omission taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this transmission in
error, please notify the sender immediately.  Thank you.

######################################################################

Reply