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.