Subject: Re: Re: Telek Nouns
|From:||Roger Mills <romilly@...>|
|Date:||Monday, May 1, 2000, 4:09|
>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
>> offspring). However, a mother can also exist on her own to the sameextent
>> 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.