>>caeruleancentaur writes:

>> "Alienable vs. inalienable" doesn't apply because one can say 
>>`angar venkos,' the courier's message, as well as `angar kaflos,' 
>>the courier's head. `Angar' would be the construct form of 
>>`angarus.' The construct form is the root of the word.

>Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:

>I am a bit confused: construct state (in Semitic languages) signifies
>a level of definiteness (or whatever the correct term is), so it is a
>category of the modified, not the modifier.  However in your 
>examples, the modifier is changed, so I'd call it 'genitive case' in 
>your examples.

The only reason that you are confused is because I was confusing 
about what I wrote!  I had the words backwards.

The above expressions should be 'kafl angarus' and 'venk angarus.'  
What is possessed is in the construct state, not the possessor.  
However, I don't like that result.  I'm going to have to rethink the 
whole thing.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.