Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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


Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>