Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On 17/03/2018 16:34, Jeffrey Brown wrote:

> There is a big gap between the range of the genitive (syntactic) and the
> possessive (semantic). [terms differentiated for this particular message]

Indeed there is.

> Many types of possession are represented similarly by the genitive in
> various languages. As in:
> The book of the man
> The pig of the farmer
> The daughter of the woman
> The female cross-cousin of the man
> The left foot of the man
> The bravery of the knight
> The wisdom of the rabbi
> The swiftness of the hawk
> The essence of goodness
> All you can really say, in those cases, is that the genitive indicates some
> type of association between the possessor and possessed, and it is not
> always ownership. Alienable vs inalienable is simply the coarsest cut in
> differentiating the various types of possession. You might say that
> "swiftness" is not an object, but rather an attribute of "the hawk", and so
> it is not really possession at all, but then you have entered the swampy
> realms of ontology.   [Hmm, what else does ontology own besides swampy
> realms?]

Old Albic would use the genitive in the first two of your examples, and
another case, the partitive, in the rest.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1