Matthew Boutilier wrote: > and, few semitic languages have construct states that undergo changes as > drastic as in hebrew (cf. dā*b*ār / d’*b*ar = "word" / "word of"). in > arabic, when you aren't pedantically speaking with the tanwīn > case-markings, there's rarely an actual "construct"-marking at all. > > kalb > dog > "dog" > > kalb al-rajul > dog the-man > "the man's dog" > > > so, in my opinion at least, to call this "possessee marking" seems hardly > appropriate. what you notated as "-CONS" does serve that purpose, but the > /u/ is truly nothing more than the nominative definite ending, which itself > is not obligatory. I was under the impression that the case marker always fused with the article, so you would have _kalburrajul_, _kalbarrajul_, _kalbirrajul_. Or is that just in the written form? (If so, then under what circumstances does the case marker merge with the article in spoken forms?) And I think the /t/ added to the feminine -a nouns in the construct is the true construct marker. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Patrick Dunn wrote: > BTW, in Hebrew, the construct state also joins the two nouns into a single > syntactical unit. They become, in essence, one word: you cannot attach a > ha- (the) to one part and not another, and you cannot insert an adjective > between them, AFAIK. > > Keeping in mind it's been years since I've cracked a Hebrew grammar. Actually, you can only attach the definite article to the *second* part, i.e. the possessor; that imparts the semantics of something like "the car of the man". With a noun + adjective, OTOH, the definite article has to go on both words, if it's there at all.