a man1 should teach his1 son a trade.However, in English, intonation can differentiate the two, and addition of 'own' also serves to disambiguate. However, some languages have separate words:
John1 bought his2 car yesterday.
John1 bought his1 car yesterday.
En man borde lära sin son ett yrke.However, in Swedish, sin is restricted to non-subjects. You cannot say
John köpte hans bil igår.
John köpte sin bil igår.
Erik och sin fru for iväg till Amerika igår.And scope prevents you from saying something like
Erik and rflx's wife went away to America yesterday.
Erik and his wife left for America yesterday.
*Hilma hoppas att sitt hus ska stiga i värde.Instead, the regular possessive is used:
Hilma hopes that rflx's house shall rise in value.
Hilma hopes that her house shall rise in value.
Hilma hoppas att hennes hus ska stiga i värde. Erik och hans fru for iväg till Amerika igår.An idea that struck me is that maybe certain nouns in a language with restrictions such as those in Swedish still might have some laxity permitted for some noun-pairs? Husband and wife, parent and child, friend and friend, and various other social pairs, especially? Maybe such noun pairs even transcend the subclause boundary showcased above?
Or maybe there is a hierarchy, where some nouns even can possess from subordinate positions in the clause - i.e. if parents were higher than children in this hierarchy:
rflx's children honour the fatherThis would be highly bizarre in Swedish, but could be cool in a conlang.
his1 children honour the father1
No comments:
Post a Comment