Patrick Littell wrote on 14 Aug 2005 21:09:

 > The specific pattern "construct state" is mostly the
 > preserve of the Afroasiatic languages.  I'm going to go
 > along with Henrik and say that unless there's a
 > morphological distinction in the noun, it isn't state.
 > (I suppose we could say that there is so such thing as
 > state even when it's not morphologically marked, like we
 > sometimes talk of "nominative case" in an analytic
 > language that uses word order rather than case marking
 > ... but that would be a very unusual usage.  How would
 > you prove it was there?)

I can't, and you've won: The noun is not even in the
genitive or something, there's just a genitive pronoun in
front, modifying a noun that seems to be in the nominative
case. So I suppose there's no morphological distiction
between a noun in the nominative and a noun in that position.
Sorry for the false claim. I wasn't aware of the definition
being longer than just "possession marked on the possessee".


"Miranayam cepauarą naranoaris."
(Calvin nay Hobbes)

Edatamanon le matahanarą benenoea eibenem ena Bahis Pinena,
15-A8-58-7-5-2-16 ena Curan Tertanyan.