[Lingtyp] Differential inalienable marking

[Bohnemeyer, Juergen]

Dear Laura — Yucatec Maya subdivides both alienable and inalienable adnominal possession into several morphologically distinct semantic classes. Cf.

Lehmann, Christian. (1998). Possession in Yucatec Maya. Unterschleissheim: Lincom Europa.

There’s a revised edition downloadable from Lehmann’s website:

https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/ASSidUE10.pdf

Best — Juergen


> On Oct 9, 2019, at 2:33 PM, ARNOLD Laura <Laura.Arnold at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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
>       mother-3sg
>      ‘his/her mother’
> 
> (b) awe-n
>       foot-3sg
>       ‘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
>       1excl-eye  
>       ‘my/our eye’
> 
> (b) nge-kárik 
>       1excl-finger
>       ‘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
> 
> ~~~ 
> 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
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

Juergen Bohnemeyer, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies 
Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science 
University at Buffalo 

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 
Phone: (716) 645 0127 
Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/ 

Office hours M 12:30 – 1:30pm / W 1:00 – 1:50 / F 12:30 – 1:50pm


There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In (Leonard Cohen)