Re: Circumfixes?

DP> In a message dated 6/6/01 2:56:43 AM, dawier@YAHOO.COM writes:

DP> << Anybody else use circumfixes or circumpositions in their conlang, or a

DP> dual-morpheme case marking system? >>

DP>     I have one surviving circumfix in my first language which serves as the
DP> opposite of a genetive (there must be a term for this), where instead of "the
DP> father of a child" with the "of" being linked to the "a child" part, you'd
DP> say, in Megdevi, /devIs ?AdevIpuT/, where /devIs/ is "child", /devIp/ is
DP> "father", and the circumfix "?A- -uT" means "an x of" (/?A/ is not an
DP> indefinite article; there is none), and turns that word into a postposition.
DP> It seems, though, that yours aren't circumfixes, just a suffix and a
DP> prefix...  It's only a circumfix if the parts of it can't be added
DP> separately.  But if you can't add the "at" separately...  Hmm...  Can
DP> somebody help?
DP>     I also have another language that uses circumpositions, but they're rare.
DP>  It's an isolating language, and the markers are used to make, say, nouns out
DP> of verbs, adjectives out of nouns, etc.  They're not used often because it's
DP> mainly understood if you just put whatever word into whatever position.

DP> -David



well the genitive drifted away from an expression for possesion
toward  universal relation word.
im the child *of* my father and my dad is the father *of* me.
in the meaning: of="some relation".
and i think further that too much different relation are mingled
together with the genitive, couldnt it be interesting to
split those up again ? when we say e.g.

1.this is "kleine-nachtmusik" of bill gates
<- of="a posession/property of"

2.this is "kleine-nachtmusik" by mozart
<- by="a creation of"

3.this is mozart [..] "kleine-nachtmusik"
<- [..]="the origin/creator of"

4.he is the father of him
<- of="a relation of"

5.he is a member of his family
<- of="a part(specific contents) of the
pool(summarization,subsumption)"

6.the family consists of him, his brother, his father..
<- consists of="a pool(summarization,subsumption) of the
parts(specific content)"

(treating part/pool as a dualism.)


this are just 6 different  relations i can scratch out of my mind,
i guess there are even more.
do we need to distinguish them more crearly ?
in german we dont know the english "by" and i can say IT IS sometimes
irritating.

regards,
c.s.