Remi Villatel wrote:

> I understood it this way but I have no con-native terms yet. I have
> postpositions that differentiate the two kinds of possession and the
> possessive adjectives (my, thy, your...) also reflect this difference.

Does your language have a way to distinguish inalienable from general? i.e.
"my liver" vs. "we're having liver for dinner"

> Any way, I dived into my dictionary and I emerged with a new synonym of
> "inalienable possession" that suits well the shaquean culture: "property".
> Not "property" like in "Get out of my property!" but like in "The various
> properties of this material" i.e. the inherent qualities.
_Proprietary_ if your looking for an English equiv.; "belonging to a
proprietor...; owned or held as property; held in private ownership" (first
def. of several in Shorter OED); it might be extended to include "intrinsic"
~inherent qualities.

Other ways of calling it: "Personal/private" vs. "general" possession, with
both terms covering fairly wide areas, as you wish. (Many languages as you
know, differ as to what they consider inalienable).

Perhaps an N-way distinction: (1) personal/inseparable (body parts, family
members etc.), (2) personal/separable (clothing, tools, etc. that one owns;
friends? an animal's fur/hide?); (3) inanimate/intrinsic (color of..., taste
of..., parts of a house, pages of a book, darkness [of night], depth [of
sea, river]?); (4) inanimate/general (subject/truth of..., end of...--
except your language may have other ways of expressing these concepts).

(Kash distinguishes 1,2 (genitive case) vs. 3,4 (a different construction)
with some possibility of the genitive in 3.)

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with using a "partitive" case-- you can
assign several functions to it.