Print

Print


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Matthew Boutilier
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>
> ok, i think i get it, so -a is just the construct marker for ge'ez?
> akkadian sometimes uses -i like that.
>

Yes, it is.


> would ge'ez still have the afro-asiatic golden rule that the
> construct-state possessee always always always *directly* precedes the
> possessor?  unfortunately ethiopic is still on my to-do....the reason i ask
> is because, in arabic, hebrew, akkadian, and the egyptian languages, this
> is a requirement that can never be violated and may be of relevance.
>

I'm sorry, I'm not far enough along in my studies to answer that with any
confidence. I haven't encountered situations where they could be separated,
and the textbook does introduce the construct state as specifically
occurring in noun-noun sequences, so I suspect the answer is "yes".

-Leland




>
> matt
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Regardless of what is going on in the Arabic example, which looks like it
> > may, indeed, be something other than preciely what I had in mind (though
> > aslo quite interesting); in the Hebrew and Ge'ez examples it is quite
> clear
> > that the -t (in Hebrew) and the -a (in Ge'ez) are marking exactly what I
> > was thinking about.  And word order isn't really relevant to what I
> wanted
> > to explore (at least I didn't intend it to be).  the only relevent bit is
> > that the relationship possessor-possessed is marked, not on the
> possessor,
> > but on the possessed.
> >
> > So, using the Ge-ez morphology:
> >
> > car-a the man
> > and
> > the man car-a
> >
> > both meet my criterion.
> >
> > Adam who is enjoying the info flow
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Boutilier
> > <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Nope -- analyse as follows:
> > > >
> > > > sayyārat-u (a)l-rajuli
> > > > Car-CONS man
> > > >
> > > > The construct state marks possessee, ie reverse genitive as Adam
> asked
> > > > for.
> > > >
> > >
> > > yes, true. but the word-order is still backwards with respect to his
> > > example.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > matt
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 24 Feb 2012, at 16:52, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Matthew Boutilier
> > > > > <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> This kind of possessee marking is common in Afro-Asiatic
> languages.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> it is?? following is the construct state example in arabic:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> sayyāratu (a)l-rajuli
> > > > >> car-NOM the-man-GEN
> > > > >>
> > > > >> which seems to be the syntactical reverse of what adam is looking
> > for.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> matt
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed.  This is completely opposite of what I meant.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope -- analyse as follows:
> > > >
> > > > sayyārat-u (a)l-rajuli
> > > > Car-CONS man
> > > >
> > > > The construct state marks possessee, ie reverse genitive as Adam
> asked
> > > > for.
> > >
> >
>