Re: Telek Nouns
|From:||SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <smithma@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, April 30, 2000, 23:51|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Matt Pearson wrote:
> Nice! I like your use of a 'conjunct' suffix "-(y)m" on alienably
> possessed nouns. Is that a feature you've borrowed from Chickasaw?
No, actually, though now that you mention it, it does look like
Chickasaw's dative suffix. I actually took the idea from Menominee. The
-(y)m suffix is not related to Telek's goal/benefactive applicative. I
think of it as a historical relic -- it originally served some other
purpose, but when the alienable/inalienable distinction arose in the
language, the suffix was reanalysed as a means of showing which class the
word belonged to. It is unnecessary now, but has stuck around.
> I suppose you'll get around to telling us about the case markers "-of",
> "-ol", and "-od" in your next post.
When I discuss sentential syntax, you'll get more info. In a nut shell,
the vowel is reduplicated from the final vowel of the stem (syllable
boundary between the vowels). Since the postpositions is monosyllabic,
and words cannot have their peak on the initial syllable, they have no
"accent" and cliticize onto the preceding word.
> Incidentally, Tokana is like Telek in that it uses nouns to denote
> adpositional-type relations. Your "under the blanket" would be
> "itè lome pamul" (literally "the-DAT underside-DAT blanket",
> or "at the blanket's underside"), while "under it" would be
> "itè lomei" (literally "the-DAT underside-DAT-it", or "at its
It seems that the article ite modifies the locational noun. Is that
right? If so, then how would you specify the difference between "under
the blanket" and "under a blanket"? Is that distinction even possible?