Print

Print


+AD4-A similar problem:  Say I went to the store and bought some
+AD4-liver.  +ACI-Liver+ACI- is an inalienable noun, but saying +ACI-my liver+ACI- would imply
+AD4-the one in my body.  How would I then distinguish the liver I bought from
+AD4-the liver my neighbor bought?  Perhaps a relative clause, but I haven't
+AD4-thought about this much.
+AD4-
      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).

+AD4APg- offspring).   However, a mother can also exist on her own to the same
extent
+AD4APg- that any other organism can.
+AD4-
+AD4-The person specified by +ACI-mother+ACI- can, but the concept of +ACI-mother+ACI- cannot
+AD4-exist independently.  A mother without a child is a woman, not a +ACI-mother+ACI-.
        Could Telek say, +ACIAXw-A mother+AF8-should not strike her child+ACI- 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.