On 19 March 2018 at 15:20, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. Interesting. Celimine also has two different "genitive" cases, but makes the split differently. There's a "possessive" case for literal possession, as defined by social conventions of ownership, and parts of wholes (e.g., body parts), and a separate associative case for origin, family relations (except in reference to foreign societies in which, e.g., fathers are considered to literally own their children, etc.), and more abstract stuff. So, Celimine would express 1 & 2 with possessive, 3 & 4 with associative, and the rest with possessive. -l.