Print

Print


That's rather the point I'm trying to make: I want it that way, and I'm trying to find some realistic linguistic motivation.

PS do you know your reply-to settings cause replies to be sent to you alone, by default?

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Feb 2014, at 18:58, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> In:  ihta    m-oz-e-ni 
>      rage.       ART 1SP "my rage"
> 
> why does the article follow the noun? Why would it not be "oz-e-ni ihta" ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:30 AM, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Suppose I have a language in which there is an article (which is indifferent to definiteness), which normally appears before a noun:
> 
> oz     ihta
> ART  rage      "rage"
> 
> However, this language also has possessive suffixes, and alienable and inalienable nouns. Possessive suffixes attach directly to nouns, which in this case don't take an article:
> 
> patko-ni
> arm    1SP    "my arm"
> 
> However, inalienable nouns MUST take an article, and the possessive suffixes attach not to the noun, but to the article. 
> 
> My question is, could there be any motivation for mandating that in this situation, the article must appear after the noun, e.g.:
> 
> ihta    m-oz-e-ni
> rage.       ART 1SP "my rage"
> 
> (here m- and -e- are epenthetic).
> 
> TIA!
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Sent from my iPad