Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items :

  • "Phrasal Possession" x
Clear All

Chapter 13 Possession and possessive constructions 13.1 Introduction Possessive constructions in Tukang Besi refer to a difference between alienable and inalienable possessed items, as is commonly found in many languages. Unlike the common situation of a morphological difference emerging between the two categories when they are phrasally possessed, Tukang Besi only distinguishes them in clausal possession, and leaves phrasal possession as one unified category. There is, however, an inalienable/plural marker, m(e)ai, that can be used in conjunction with the normal

preposition mina i 329 12.11.3 Endpoint allative prepositon apa 329 12.11.4 Non-local prepositon: Instrumental preposition ke,kene 331 12.12 Complex prepositions 332 12.13 Not-quite prepositions: ako, pake and kene 333 13. Possession and possessive constructions 337 13.1 Introduction 337 13.2 Phrasal possession 337 13.2.1 Pronominal possession 337 13.2.2 Genitive article nu 338 13.2.3 Internal structure of a genitive phrase 341 13.2.4 Embedded genitive phrases 345 13.2.5 Possession without an overt article 346 13.2.6 The 'inalienable' / plural marker mai 346 13.2.7 Other

productive + Conversion N > Adj, Adj > N few without derivation + Inalienability cline possession markers in all constructions possession markers in alienable constructions + + Function of possessive markers possessive and attributive possessive + The grammaticalization of the AS su construction suggests that in both Quechua and Spanish, attributive or phrasal possession associations are expressed as a conceptual category that comprises both morphosemantic and morphosyntactic properties, un- derlying the grammatical parallels. This case of apparent metonymy seems to under

pattern. Fourth, bound nouns -- Pattern 1 — appear to exist only where there is head-marked possession. These observations find striking corroboration in the behavior of clausal possessive patterns. As mentioned, languages of the Caddoan and Iroquoian families systematically deprive kin terms of the possibility of displaying an alienability opposition, in that those nouns obligatorily take clausal rather than phrasal possession: one says, roughly, 'she is mother to me' rather than 'my mother'. Since the verb is head of the clause and hence dominates mother