Possession (linguistics): Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Reverted references removed Visual edit |
No edit summary Tags: Reverted section blanking Visual edit |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{More footnotes needed|date=March 2020}} |
{{More footnotes needed|date=March 2020}} |
||
{{Grammatical categories}} |
{{Grammatical categories}} |
||
heROS |
|||
==Alienable and inalienable== |
|||
{{main article|Inalienable possession}} |
|||
There are many types of possession, but a common distinction is [[alienable and inalienable possession]].<ref>https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Haspelmath_Possessives.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=January 2022}}</ref> Alienability refers to the ability to dissociate something from its parent; in this case, a quality from its owner. |
|||
When something is inalienably possessed, it is usually an attribute. For example, John's big nose is inalienably possessed because it cannot (without surgery) be removed from John; it is simply a quality that he has. In contrast, 'John's briefcase' is alienably possessed because it can be separated from John. |
|||
Many languages make the distinction as part of their grammar, typically by using different affixes for alienable and inalienable possession. For example, in [[Mikasuki language|Mikasuki]] (a [[Muskogean languages|Muskogean]] language of [[Florida]]), ''ac-akni'' (inalienable) means 'my body', but ''am-akni'' (alienable) means 'my meat'.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Languages of Native North America|url=https://archive.org/details/languagesnativen00mith|url-access=limited|last=Mithun|first=Marianne|publisher=CUP|year=1999|isbn=0-521-29875-X|page=[https://archive.org/details/languagesnativen00mith/page/n247 465]}}</ref> English does not have any way of making such distinctions (the example from Mikasuki is clear to English-speakers only because there happen to be two different words in English that translate ''-akni'' in the two senses: both Mikasuki words could be translated as 'my flesh', and the distinction would then disappear in English). |
|||
Possessive pronouns in [[Polynesian languages]] such as [[Hawaiian language|Hawaiian]] and [[Māori language|Māori]] are associated with nouns distinguishing between [[Polynesian languages#a and o possession|''o''-class, ''a''-class and neutral pronouns]], according to the relationship of possessor and possessed. The ''o''-class possessive pronouns are used if the possessive relationship cannot be begun or ended by the possessor.<ref>{{cite book|title=Teach Yourself Mãori|last=Harawira|first=K.T.|others=Timoti Kãretu|year=1994|publisher=Reed|isbn=0-7900-0325-2}}, p. 28.</ref> |
|||
===Obligatory possession=== |
===Obligatory possession=== |
||
Revision as of 19:06, 28 January 2023
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (March 2020) |
| Grammatical features |
|---|
Obligatory possession
Obligatory possession is sometimes called inalienable possession. The latter, however, is a semantic notion that largely depends on how a culture structures the world, while obligatory possession is a property of morphemes.[1] In general, nouns with the property of requiring obligatory possession are notionally inalienably possessed, but the fit is rarely, if ever, perfect.
Inherent and non-inherent
Another distinction, similar to that between alienable and inalienable possession, is made between inherent and non-inherent possession. In languages that mark the distinction, inherently-possessed nouns, such as parts of wholes, cannot be mentioned without indicating their dependent status.
Yagem of Papua New Guinea, for instance, distinguishes alienable from inalienable possession when the possessor is human, but it distinguishes inherent from non-inherent possession when the possessor is not human. Inherently-possessed nouns are marked with the prefix ŋa-, as in (ka) ŋalaka '(tree) branch', (lôm) ŋatau '(men's house) owner' and (talec) ŋalatu '(hen's) chick'. Adjectives that are derived from nouns (as inherent attributes of other entities) are also so marked, as in ŋadani 'thick, dense' (from dani 'thicket') or ŋalemoŋ 'muddy, soft' (from lemoŋ 'mud').
Possessable and unpossessable
Many languages, such as Maasai, distinguish between the possessable and the unpossessable. Possessable things include farm animals, tools, houses, family members and money, but wild animals, landscape features and weather phenomena are examples of what cannot be possessed. That means basically that in such languages, saying my sister is grammatically correct but not my land. Instead, one would have to use a circumlocution such as the land that I own.
Greater and lesser possession (in quantity)
![[icon]](/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2021) |
Greater and lesser possession (in quantity) is used in Modern Mansi.[2]
Locative possession
| This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2021) |
Locative possessive is used in some Uralic languages.[2]
Clauses denoting possession
Possession verbs
Many languages have verbs that can be used to form clauses denoting possession. For example, English uses the verb have for that purpose, French uses avoir etc. There are often alternative ways of expressing such relationships (for example, the verbs possess and belong and others can be used in English in appropriate contexts: see also have got).
In some languages, different possession verbs are used, depending on whether the object is animate or inanimate, as can be seen in two examples from Georgian:
- Kompiuteri makvs ("I have a computer")
- Dzaghli mqavs ("I have a dog")
Since a dog is animate and a computer is not, different verbs are used. However some nouns in Georgian, such as car, are treated as animate even though they appear to refer to an inanimate object.
Possession indicated by existential clauses
In some languages, possession relationships are indicated by existential clauses. For example, in Russian, "I have a friend" can be expressed by the sentence у меня есть друг u menya yest drug, which literally means "at me there is a friend".
Latvian, Irish, Turkish and Uralic languages (such as Hungarian and Finnish) use an existential clause to assess a possession since the verb to have does not have that function in those languages. Japanese has the verb motsu meaning "to have" or "to hold", but in most circumstances, the existential verbs iru and aru are used instead (with the possessed as the verb's subject and the possessor as the sentence's topic: uchi wa imōto ga iru, "I have a younger sister", or more literally "as for my house, there is a younger sister").
For more examples, see Existential clause § Indicating possession.
See also
References
- ^ "WALS Online - Chapter Possessive Classification". wals.info.
- ^ a b Miestamo, Matti; Tamm, Anne; Wagner-Nagy, Beáta (24 June 2015). Negation in Uralic Languages. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 9789027268648 – via Google Books.
Sources
- Heine, Bernd (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-02413-6