Hello, all. I'm wondering: 1. If it's attested for languages with construct state (e.g. Semitic languages) to allow a noun phrase to appear *in* the construct state but *without* an overt possessor (either an NP or possessive affix); and 2. What the semantics of that sort of construction might be. The only language I'm familiar with for which #1 is true, *possibly*, is Ainu: some Ainu nouns have suffixes that indicate that they are inalienably possessed. There are personal affixes for 1st and 2nd persons singular and plural (as well as an impersonal "person" which is often used for 1st plural and, in mythology, singular). But Ainu has no 3rd-person affixes, and nouns with this "possessed" suffix with no personal affix are interpreted as being "his"/"her"/"their" whatever. I'm just not sure if this type of noun is exactly the construct state, as it is understood in other languages. For #2, I would hypothesize the existence of 3rd-person interpretations, as in Ainu, but I have wondered too if a noun in construct state without overt possessor marking might be construed in some languages some other way, e.g. as being simply definite, or possessed by the 1st or 2nd person. In one of my conlangs in progress, it's occurred to me to have the usual non-overtly-possessed construct NP be interpreted as 3rd-person-possessed, e.g. father-CONS "his/her/their father", but in the vocative have it be 1st-person, e.g. father-CONS-VOC "O my father". Thoughts?