Thalassan possessive and object suffixes
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 12:56|
Rob Haden wrote:
> Hey guys,
> So I've been mulling over whether or not to put possessive suffixes in my
> language, Thalassan. I think it's a really nice feature to have, given my
> preferences for agglutination and inflection. :) The problem was, how do I
> make the forms (relatively) unambiguous? Well, I think I've found a
> solution: simply treat the possessive suffixes as coming from encliticized
> genitives. Without further ado, here are the new Thalassan possessive
> 1sg -mis < *mi-s
> 2sg -this < *thi-s
> 3sg -sjas < *sja-s
> 1pl -ntas < *mit-as
> 2pl -tthas < *thit-as
> 3pl -stas < *sjat-as
> Since the possessive suffixes are formally enclitic in nature, they follow
> both number and case. For example, _qavanmis_ ['qa.vam.mis] means 'my dog
> (nom.)', while _qaununmis_ ['qau.num.mis] means 'my dog (acc.)', and
> _qaunatunmis_ ['qau.na.tum.mis] means 'my dogs (acc.)'. (Notice the
> homorganic nasal assimilation.)
Makes sense. One would expect them to eventually "sink" into the word,
ending up before the number and case endings, but that would be for
any later further evolution. And as far as I remember, possessive suffixes
follow number and case in Finnish as well.
> 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.
_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.
Rob Haden wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I just posted a message about Thalassan's new possessive suffixes. Well
> guess what? It now has suffixes for object pronouns too! Yet another nice
> feature for a heavily inflecting and agglutinating tongue. :)
> Again, the suffixes are formally enclitic, derived from the accusative
> forms of the independent pronouns:
> 1sg -min < *mim ~ *mijam (latter preferred in "classical" usage)
> 2sg -thin < *thim ~ *thijam (" ")
> 3sg -sjan < *sjam
> 1pl -ntun < *mitum
> 2pl -tthun < *thitum
> 3pl -stun < *sjatum
> In this case, we have a bit of a syntactic issue. Regarding 3rd-person
> direct objects, the object suffixes are only used in an anaphoric sense --
> that is, after the direct object has already been explicitly introduced:
> Hanrun qaununqin vit'an. Hanar t'ukhassjan.
> man.sg.acc dog.sg.acc.AND see.ACTIND.1sg. man.sg.nom lead.ACTIND.3sg.3sgO.
> "I saw a man and a dog. The man was walking [lit. 'leading'] it."
This makes perfect sense.
Thank you, Rob, for sharing these bits of Thalassan with us!
XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club!
Jetzt gratis testen! http://freemail.web.de/home/landingpad/?mc=021130