Small clarification

[Doris Payne]

On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Dan Everett wrote:

> My last question, namely, on what would prevent objecthood from
> transfering to the possessor could arise with regard to possessive
> reflexives, for example. One might imagine that transfering
> object/subjecthood to one part of the inalienable possession structure,
> something like transfer of topichood, might not be implausible in a
> structure like "John saw his own foot". What would prevent a structure
> like "John's own foot saw"? Is there a way to prevent something like this
> at the same time allowing possessor-possessed topic-subject structures to 
> arise? 
> 
> Again, since I haven't even posted any real data, I cannot expect
> anyone to say what an actual analysis would be here. I am simply
> trying to figure out how in principle one could allow the possessor
> to be the topic and the possessed the subject without allowing for
> other possibilities like the one just mentioned. 
> 
> -- Dan

In Maasai "external possessor" constructions (what some would call 
Possessor raising/ascension), the Possessor IS expressed as the 
grammatical object.  In one dialect the Possessed item can be any 
intransitive subject, transitive subject, or transitive (erstwhile?) 
object.  In another dialect, the Possessed item can be the (erstwhile?) 
transitive object or unaccusative subject.  In yet another dialect, the 
Possessed item can only be the (erstwhile?) object and only a body part.  
In all cases, though, the possessor is expressed as the grammatical 
object, marked by verb prefixes.

Doris Payne