Re: Possession (was: Re: Ergative)

Sally Caves wrote:
> A book is with me, in Welsh.  I've toyed for a long time with making this
> a part of Teonaht.
Watya'iya`isa uses the dative with salauni' (sa- = dative-applicative,
launi' = be (loc.)), thus: ta^lnaz pisani salauni'l = to-me house it-is
= I have a/the house.  However, the possessor can be made into the
absolutive thru the general dative-object rule (dative can become
absolutive; former absolutive is made perlative).  Thus, pisaniyi
salauni'u = house-perl. dat.appl.-be-1Sabs.  Dative-object construction
is required for transitive verbs when the recipient is a 1st or 2nd
person pronoun, and very common with 3rd person animate pronouns,
moderately common with 3rd person inanimate pronouns, and fairly rare
with animate nouns, and non-existent with inanimate nouns.  Anyways,
with intransitive verbs (like salauni'), it's also quite common for 1st
and 2nd person pronouns.  In fact, I suspect that salauni' would evolve
into a simple transitive verb "to have" in some of the descendants.
Perhaps the dative might remain in some archaic constructions,
equivalent to our "methinks".

> Presently, there is a distinction, of course, between possession that
> is agentive and possession that isn't:  Somebody has blue eyes through no
> willful act of his own, but someone has a house because he's bought it.
> _aned_ and _harem_.  I think the gods, though, should be exempt from all
> unagentive acts:  The gods HAVE (harem, not aned as I have written it)
> retractible claws because they are gods and have planned everything.
Cool!  I never even thought about that.  Perhaps *that* will determine
when the dative-object construction is used in salauni' ... Something to
think about.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Conlang/W.html
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor