[Lingtyp] Differential inalienable marking
haspelmath at shh.mpg.de
Wed Oct 9 20:18:03 UTC 2019
For Amele, a Papuan language of Papua New Guinea, Roberts (1987:
170-175) describes 31 different classes of inalienable possessive
aide-ni/aide-n 'my/your wife'
hohu-ni/hohu-nin 'my/your tail'
ai-mi/ai-m 'my/your tooth'
cot-i/cot-in 'my/your brother'
This rich variety of lexically conditioned adpossessive inflection
classes seems definitely unusual.
On 09.10.19 22:02, Heath Jeffrey wrote:
> For an un-subtle divergence within "inalienable" you might consider
> Nunggubuyu aka Wubuy (Australia) and its relatives. Kinship has a
> special pronominal affix paradigm that is totally unlike alienable
> possession. Partonyms (especially for nonhuman things) express
> "possession" by derivational noun-class harmony with the noun denoting
> the whole; both of them can then be marked by outer (inflectional)
> noun-class markers.
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf
> of ARNOLD Laura <Laura.Arnold at ed.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2019 2:33 PM
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* [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.
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
Institut fuer Anglistik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp