Print

Print


OK!  Hixkaryana. It figures.


On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> From Aikhenvald & Dixon _Possession and Ownership_ (2013) Section 2.4.3:
> "Inalienably possessed nouns cannot occur on their own. They are, in a
> sense, 'obligatorily' possessed and can be considered 'bound'. A
> number of languages have a special way of creating free nouns out of
> such bound forms."
>
> The section then goes on to discuss Hixkaryana, Koyukon, and many
> Arawak languages.
>
> This book is in the LCS Library and available for checkout by LCS members.
> -S
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I am now curious whether that are any natlangs whose grammar has
> > "obligatory dispossession of inalienably possessed nouns". The only
> natlang
> > I know which marks alienability, Hawaiian, does not "dispossess" the
> nouns.
> > Even if you sell your house (marked as inalienable on the possessive
> > particle, because in traditional Hawaiian culture, houses/homesteads
> could
> > not be sold; they passed from father to son/heir; but today one can
> indeed
> > sell a house), there is no change in the marking. A house is
> syntactically
> > inalienable always, even though it may be semantically alienable. It
> seems
> > that the dispossession of an inalienably possessed object would be a
> rather
> > rare occurrence (how many times can you lose your head?). That is why I
> am
> > curious if any natlangs do this.
> > Jeffrey
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14 March 2016 at 02:41, David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > That second example is ambiguous. All it says is that one is lacking a
> >> > dispossessed head: it doesn't say WHOSE dispossessed head one is
> lacking.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> In my new language Haotyétpi, which also has obligatory possessed nouns
> (I
> >> call them "inalienably possessed nouns"), one cannot make such a noun
> >> dispossessed. The closest one can do (and indeed does) is to mark the
> >> possessor as third person indefinite ("something's/someone's"), to
> indicate
> >> that the possessor is irrelevant/unknown.
> >>
> >> So "a pile of heads" in Haotyétpi would probably be translated as _ossén
> >> coré_: "a great many heads" (without the indefinite possessive suffix
> >> _-(s)e_, the phrase would become _ossén cór_: "a great many of their
> >> heads", implying possessors that have already been mentioned or are
> known
> >> by context). One could also say _yussú coré_: "many heads", but using
> >> _yussú_ implies that one can still easily count how many heads there
> are,
> >> which, to me at least, is not quite what one means when they say "a
> pile of
> >> heads". _Ossén_ implies that something that is normally countable might
> as
> >> well be uncountable, due to sheer number (_yussú kár_ is just "many
> >> people". _Ossén kár_ is "a sea of people, a large crowd).
> >>
> >> As for "headless" or "lacking a head", there are various ways to handle
> >> that. _Coré saprú_ means "without someone's head", from the verb _sáp_:
> "to
> >> lack" together with the adverbial suffix _-ru_: "while ...+ing". It
> >> implies, naturally, that the person is normally walking around with some
> >> head hanging from their belt, and they're missing it. If they were
> missing
> >> their own head, _cór saprú_: "without his/her/their head" would do it,
> >> although it would be ambiguous between whether one is missing their own
> >> head or somebody else's head, who's known from context or has been
> >> mentioned before (as in English basically). If you really want to say
> >> "headless, without one's own head", the easiest way would be to use the
> >> verb _corsáp_: "to be headless, to lack one's head", formed by noun
> >> incorporation.
> >>
> >> And yes, talking about piles of heads and headless beings is quite
> >> important indeed :P.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> > > On Mar 13, 2016, at 6:17 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I am working on a grammar for a new language (looks a bit like the
> >> > > previous one) and I just found myself writing: "Obligatorily
> possessed
> >> > > nouns can become dispossessed by appending =yo to the noun, as in
> >> > > pe=lene sono=yo (COLL=pile head=dispossessed) ‘a pile of heads’. An
> >> > > obligatorily possessed noun must first be dispossessed before it can
> >> > > be lacking: sono=yo=tepe (head=dispossessed=lacking) ‘without a
> >> > > head’." because it is so very important to be able to talk about
> >> > > headless beings and piles of heads. :-)
> >> > >
> >> > > -S
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Sylvia Sotomayor
> >> > >
> >> > > The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> >> President of the Language Creation Society (http://conlang.org/)
> >>
> >> Personal Website: http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> >> Personal Tumblr: http://christophoronomicon.tumblr.com/
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Sylvia Sotomayor
>
> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
>