10.680, Disc: Possession

LINGUIST Network linguist at linguistlist.org
Thu May 6 14:43:23 UTC 1999

LINGUIST List:  Vol-10-680. Thu May 6 1999. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 10.680, Disc: Possession

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Scott Fults <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Chris Brown <chris at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>


Date:  Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:24:51 +0200
From:  Maik Gibson <mg at gnet.tn>
Subject:  Possession

Date:  Thu, 06 May 1999 17:13:58 +0900
From:  John Mackin <jmackin at flm.se.fujitsu.co.jp>
Subject:  Possession

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:24:51 +0200
From:  Maik Gibson <mg at gnet.tn>
Subject:  Possession

Much of the discussion of the type of construction used for "Have" has
stated that prepositional constructions are used in Semitic languages.
However, I have noticed some evidence of drift towards a verb in Tunisian
Arabic, which seems to have progressed further in Maltese (on which I am no
Tunisian Arabic, like many other modern Arabic varieties, uses '@and +
pronominal suffix' for 'have', where '@and' means something like 'to'.  As
in some other varieties of Arabic, its negation pattern is the use of the
verbal circumfix 'ma...sh', so that 'I do not have' is 'm at andi:sh'. Other
prepositional phrases (with one exception to my knowledge, 'fi balu', lit.
'In his mind' = 'He knows/is aware') cannot take the verbal negation
pattern, so 'prepositional have' has some verbal characteristics.

Furthermore, in order to say 'I had', the verb 'to be' in the past is
introduced, so that 'He had' is 'ka:n @andu.' But 'I had' shows variation:
we can either have 'ka:n @andi', with the verb 'to be' in the 3rd person,
but many speakers frequently use 'kunt @andi', with 'to be' in the 1st
person, showing the agreement which is present when 'to be' acts as an
auxiliary. In the first case it would seem that @andi is being treated as a
prepositional phrase, in the second as a verb. So there seems to be some
evidence of this meaning drifting towards analysis as a (very irregular)

In Maltese the facts are essentially the same in the present, but in the
past 'he had' is 'kellu', from older Arabic 'ka:n lu' 'there was to him.'
But as far as I know 'lu' etc. is not used to indicate possession in
Maltese (it is used as indirect object): this is performed by ghandu in the
present. It would seem that 'kell' should not be analysed into its original
component parts: Maltese speakers will have  to confirm or deny this. Also,
I could not find out how this word negates, but I suspect it also will take
the verbal circumfix ma...x. However, these facts seem to show some drift
towards a verbal status for this meaning in some varieties of Semitic.

-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 06 May 1999 17:13:58 +0900
From:  John Mackin <jmackin at flm.se.fujitsu.co.jp>
Subject:  Possession

Following up on Joseph Foster's comment on Japanese(10.632):

Japanese has three structures indicating "possession" in its various senses.

One is a transitive form with possessor as transitive subject and
<non-living> transitive object as the possessed thing.  This follows the
English "have" syntax but refers only to objects that a person has "in hand"
literally or figuratively; i.e., closest to English "hold."  The figurative
sense usually applies to certification of some kind: do you "hold" a
driver's licence = have you passed the driver's test, not do you have your
driver's licence on your person. It also refers to "holding" stock in a
company and "having" bank accounts (but not usually to the amounts contained
therein) and to other financial assets such as a house or car. These last
examples seem to be an "ownership" statement.  The "kanji" ideograph used in
the verb has the symbol for "hand" as the "class" or genre of the ideograph.

[Omittable subject<holder/owner> HA <=topic particle>] <held/owned> WO
<=direct object particle> MOTxxx <v.tr, xxx=tense/politeness suffixes>

The other two forms refer to existential relationships: do you have (some
spare) time; do you have enough money (for the meal); do you have
money/cigarettes/matches/pencil on your person or close about you; do you
have a wife/children/relative/dog/cat; do you have a house/apartment (you're
not homeless, are you?).

These forms do not use the transitive object particle "WO". The verbs are
the existential "is" (not linking "is," which is a different verb).  The
verb chosen depends on whether the "object" of the existential relation is
animate (IRxxx) or inanimate (ARxxx).  The "object" of the existential
relation takes one of the "subject" particles (HA or GA), depending on the

Since Japanese has both forms, it can arbitrarily be put into either a
"have" or "have not" <grin> category, but by percentage of form usage, it
probably should be put into the "have not" category.

- John Mackin

*  John Mackin, Fujitsu Learning Media, Limited   *
*  <CALS, Technical Communication, Translation>   *
*         jmackin at flm.se.fujitsu.co.jp            *
*  TEL:+81-3-5762-8086  FAX:+81-3-5762-8074       *

LINGUIST List: Vol-10-680

More information about the Linguist mailing list