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". Carsten -- "Miranayam cepauarą naranoaris." (Calvin nay Hobbes) Edatamanon le matahanarą benenoea eibenem ena Bahis Pinena, 15-A8-58-7-5-2-16 ena Curan Tertanyan.