Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 (me+-suffix noun).
>> offspring). However, a mother can also exist on her own to the same
>> 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.