Personal pronouns:
Like in your average Indo-European language, possession is not generally expressed by genitive forms of pronouns.
I sg II sg IIIsg masc IIIsg fem IIIsg neut I pl II pl IIIpl anim IIIpl inanim nom ver xot ker si je, te int xin sera
jaacc vena xota kn/kna s/su je, te ina xita setar ja dat vevit xovit kar sir in init xivit serit jivit gen vedin xodin kenat sura iŋa indin xidin serin jivit loc-instr veder xoder keŋa suvat iŋa inder xider serar (j)iŋa
Possession, instead, is formed by these pronouns - which are inflected for case and number congruence with the possessed noun:
The plural forms may seem rather far removed from the personal pronouns. They are in fact closer related to personal past tense suffixes, which are closely related to former ergative forms that have been lost. For the plural nouns, the ergative forms had a separate oblique stem. The neuter forms are not declined for congruence with their heads.
I II IIImasc IIIfem IIIneut singular vev- xov- kev- suv- jo plural ade- bev- arv- sarv- (siŋ)
As for the genitive, there is one peculiarity of some interest. Normally in Dairwueh, a definite subject of a transitive verb is in the genitive, whereas all other subjects are nominative. Pronouns are obviously always definite; however, a split has occurred in the third person.
Both "ker/si" and as "kenat/sura" can stand as subjects of transitive as well as intransitive verbs. The difference is that kenat/sura refers to a more prominent referent, and ker/si to a less prominent one. However, in all other positions, they generally refer to the more prominent referent in general. A dropped subject is generally interpreted as referring to the more prominent referent as well.
With possession, kenat/sura are parsed as reflexive possession, i.e. as referring back to the subject. Kev-/suv- are parsed as referring to some non-subject possessor.
No comments:
Post a Comment