Re: Thalassan possessive and object suffixes
| From: | Rob Haden <magwich78@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 15:19 |
|---|
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:56:24 +0100, =?iso-8859-15?Q?J=F6rg_Rhiemeier?=
<joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>> Now I need to figure out whether to have an alienable/inalienable
>> distinction for possession... :)
>
>You could derive the suffixes from different cases, or use suffixes for one
>and prefixes for the other. In Old Albic, alienable possession is
>expressed by the genitive case, inalienable possession by either locative
>case or (more commonly) compounding, with the possessor coming first.
>Example:
>
>_mbar mas_ 'my house' (alienable)
>_caph mamal_ 'my head' (inalienable)
>_macaph_ 'my head' (inalienable)
>
>You are invited to borrow this into Thalassan. After all, your language is
>related to mine, and it could be a feature inherited from Proto-Old
>European.
Thanks! I think I will use the dative case for inalienable possession.
Its ending, I've decided, is _-ai_:
_mijai kapha_ 'my head' (inalienable)
_sjai kapha_ 'his head' (" ")
_qaunai kapha_ 'the dog's head' (" ")
_vikhamis_ 'my house' (alienable)
_mijas vikha_ '*my* house' (emphatic alienable)
_saris vikha_ 'the woman's house' (alienable)
Wait a minute... I've read that oftentimes the possessor is not marked if
the possessum has a possessive suffix. So maybe the last example above
should be _sari vikhasjas_ instead of _saris vikha_?
>Thank you, Rob, for sharing these bits of Thalassan with us!
You're most welcome! :)
- Rob
Reply