+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.