[Lingtyp] Differential inalienable marking

Hartmut Haberland hartmut at ruc.dk
Wed Oct 9 20:08:01 UTC 2019

Dear Laura
Maybe you know
Bronisław Malinowski 1923. “The psychology of sex and the foundations of kinship in primitive societies”. Psyche 4: 98-128 with some interesting remarks about inalienability in Kilivila (Trobriand Island), including one on page 104 on difference of (grammatical) alienability of menstrual vs. other blood.
See also Gunter Senft 1986. Kilivila. The language of the Trobriand islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, chapters 4.2.2 and 4.3.2.
Also my 1984 paper (published before Senft’s book, hence without reference to it) available from https://www.academia.edu/698330/A_field_manual_for_readers_of_The_problem_of_meaning_in_primitive_languages_by_Bronislaw_Malinowski (section 4, esp. p. 34-35).
Best regards,
Hartmut Haberland
Professor emeritus

Roskilde University
Department of Communication and Arts
Universitetsvej 1
DK-4000 Roskilde
Telephone: +45 46742841

Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> På vegne af ARNOLD Laura
Sendt: 9. oktober 2019 20:34
Til: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Emne: [Lingtyp] Differential inalienable marking

Dear colleagues,

I’m investigating a feature that I’m calling ‘differential inalienable marking’. Differential inalienable marking is found in some languages with a morphosyntactic alienability distinction in adnominal possessive constructions. In ‘inalienable’ constructions (i.e., those constructions that are more closely associated with expressing inalienable relationships between the possessor and possessee, such as body parts and kin terms), these languages make a further morphological or morphosyntactic distinction – for example, with two distinct paradigms marking the person and number of the possessor.

This distinction may be semantically conditioned – for example, kin terms may be marked with one paradigm, body parts another. Below is an example from Ambai (Austronesian), in which a 3sg possessor is predictably marked on kin terms with the suffix -na, and on body parts with -n.

(1) Ambai (Silzer 1983: 88-9)
(a) ina-na
     ‘his/her mother’

(b) awe-n
      ‘his/her foot’

Alternatively, the distinction may be lexically specified. In Kula (Timor-Alor-Pantar), the possessor is marked on most body parts and kin terms with one paradigm; however, there is a subset of body parts which are unpredictably marked with a different paradigm. This is exemplified in (2): a 1st person exclusive possessor is marked on the body part nikwa ‘eye’ with the prefix ng-, but on the body part kárik ‘finger’ with nge-.

(2) Kula (Williams 2017: 226)
(a) ng-nikwa
      ‘my/our eye’

(b) nge-kárik
      ‘my/our finger’

Note that I am not counting either phonologically predictable allomorphy or free variation as differential inalienable marking.

This feature is attested in several languages spoken in east Indonesia. Has anyone come across differential inalienable marking elsewhere in the world? (As you can see from the examples, the distinction may be very subtle…)

With best wishes from Edinburgh,

Laura Arnold
British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow

Room 1.13, Dugald Stewart Building
School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences
University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20191009/e0fe1615/attachment.htm>

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list