Subject: Re: Re: Telek Nouns

>A similar problem:  Say I went to the store and bought some
>liver.  "Liver" is an inalienable noun, but saying "my liver" would imply
>the one in my body.  How would I then distinguish the liver I bought from
>the liver my neighbor bought?  Perhaps a relative clause, but I haven't
>thought about this much.
>
      Just a quick thought on this, based on 2 Austronesian langs.:  Atoni
of Timor has ate-k/ate-n etc. 'my/his liver' (the vital organ) vs. ate-f
'liver' in genl.  And Fijian has a 4-way classification:  inalienable
(noun+-poss.suffix, e.g. yate-na 'his liver'), general (no+-poss.sfx. noun),
edible (ke+-poss. noun, so kena yate 'his liver (to eat)', and drinkable
(me+-suffix noun).

>> offspring).   However, a mother can also exist on her own to the same
extent
>> that any other organism can.
>
>The person specified by "mother" can, but the concept of "mother" cannot
>exist independently.  A mother without a child is a woman, not a "mother".
        Could Telek say, "_A mother_should not strike her child" without
getting involved with the alienability of the mother?

These minor problems are one of the reasons I opted not to have
alien./inalien. distinction in Kash, though I'm sure some of its relatives
will have it, when I get around to working on them.

By and large, Telek gender seems quite similar to Kash-- animate vs.
inanimate, even to the extent of heavenly bodies and some weather phenomena
classed as animate.