Detail #317: Indirect Object Marking and Possessive Suffixes

Many languages have possessive suffixes. There's some kind of semantic similarity between being a recipient or indirect object and being a possessor. These could easily be marked in similar ways on an NP - i.e. the recipient could be marked on the object, the possessor on any NP.

The grammaticalization path here might be pretty obvious: indirect object pronouns get fused to the direct object noun, and turn into affixes. Trivial, no? 

An obvious result could be identical markers, so

I gave (away?) your car = I gave you the car

The other possibility of course distinguishes the two, although we can of course limit the amount of distinctions made - maybe indirect object markers cannot be reflexive, and the second person plural conflates indirect object and possessor, or whatever.

Now we can start doing fun things - if our markers are distinct, they're also case markers – their presence indicates that an NP is a direct object. Now, we could imagine a double marking here, where both possessive and IO markers can appear simultaneously on a noun, turning

I gave away your car ≠ I gave you the car

Now, this could be sort of different from case marking, though, when interacting with passivization! For passive verbs, maybe this marking remains whenever the direct object is made subject, but disappears when the indirect object is made subject.

Possession in Tatediem

Pronominal possession has already been covered. More general nominal possession is based on this, and therefore, reading about pronominal possession before reading this is recommended.

Generally speaking, when possession is marked on the possessum, the possessum is always marked for definiteness. The possessor is placed to the right of the possessum, and the object prefix corresponding to the possessor's gender and number is inserted between the definite gender prefix and the noun root in the possessum. The possessor is unmarked.

There is no mandatory distinction between reflexive possession and other third person pronominal possession. Tatediem, however, has reflexive object and reflexive indirect object prefixes for the verb, and sometimes the presence of the reflexive indirect object marker serves to mark that the object is reflexively possessed, in order to disambiguate. However, additional ambiguities are created that way.

The dialects that use -páhí or -gìan do not generally differentiate reflexive possession from regular third person possession. 

As for predicative possession, -páhí and cognates are used in almost all dialects to express 'X has Y'. However, some dialects permit two ways of expressing it: subj-obj-páhí and subj-dative-páhí - in the latter, the subject is the possessed thing, in the previous it is the object (mainly, dialects permit subj-obj-páhí). The verb -gìan that is present in most dialects only permits a construction with possessor as (indirect, if possible) object, and the possessum as subject.

In dialects that have both, -páhí is more likely to be used to express "x has y", whereas -gìan is used to express "y is x's". However, both verbs can be used for both meanings, and dialects that only have one of them naturally uses that one for both meanings. Word order adjustment - such as fronting one of the nouns -, and prosody serve to distinguish the two uses.

Possession in Bryatesle

Unlike Ćwarmin (and Dairwueh), Bryatesle primarily has possessive head marking. Still, the possessor also tends to be in some non-nominative case (however, the more animate and definite the possessor is, the more likely it is to appear in the nominative). There are a variety of strategies used in Bryatesle that might be worth looking at.

1) Intransitive verbs turn pseudo-transitive, possessor into pseudo-subject
The possessor turns into a pseudo-subject with which the verb agrees, the possessum retains subject marking (but does not trigger congruence on the verb). The possessum is head-marked for possession. There's a slight probability for explicit object marking on such possessums, despite their essentially being intransitive subjects. The possessor may be marked with the secondary subject marking.

2) Possessor to the left of the possessum
The possessum has the possessum-marking, the case marking on the possessor is somewhat arbitrary. Proper nouns tend to be nominative, some nouns have a preferrence for some case, but this 'preferrence' goes both ways - both the possessor and possessee nouns may affect which case will be used. Some amount of displacement for the possessor is also possible - the fewer the arguments in the clause, the more likely such a displacement is. Such displacement is generally at most a word or two in some direction - or to sentence-initial position. The possessor should not interact syntactically with anything else, such as adpositions or anything.

3) Possessum carries possessum-marking, no obvious possessor
In a sentence with multiple arguments, there is a hierarchy:

subject > indirect object > instrumental = direct object > locatives > other obliques

If a noun that is instrumental in the sentence has possessum marking, it can be owned by an indirect object or a subject (even a pro-dropped subject is eligible). Likewise, locations can be owned by the direct object, the instrumental etc. A subject can be owned by a direct object, however, or by a subject or object of the previous clause. The subject, and direct and indirect objects of a matrix clause are the only constituents that can be owners of any argument of a subordinate clause. Naturally, the likelihood that the owner is high up in the hierarchy is also rather large - and gendered pronouns may be added to help disambiguate. These generally are in the dative case. The presence of such a pronoun generally removes the chance that the possessor is the subject as well. Definiteness (and demonstrative adjectives) increases the likelihood that a noun is the possessor. Secondary subjectness and reciprocal objectness may also affect the likelihood that some noun is the possessor (i.e. 2nd subjectness increases the likelihood for a non-subject to be the owenr, reciprocal object marking increases the likelihood that a noun that syntactically is in the same position is the owner, i.e. a noun that is also coordinated with its possessum.)

Thus, reflexive possession - although with a slight ambiguity as to which "higher up" noun is the possessor - is the default assumption in Bryatesle. Non-reflexive possession generally is obtained by extra pronouns.

4) First and Second Person Pronouns
The first and second person have possessive forms of their pronouns.

1 sg nere
2 sg tere
1 pl vele
2 pl xene

The -e part marks congruence for nominative masculine singular marker, and is replaced with the adjectival congruence markers for the relevant case. The possessive pronoun goes after its head noun. Third person forms masc: mezer, fem: ezer, neut: syn appear in some dialects a few centuries after the form of Bryatesle that I have primarily described. These do not trigger the presence of head marking. However, use of them is quite infrequent, as other strategies are preferred, especially whenever a first or second person subject is involved.

Possession in Ćwarmin

Since I've recently been thinking a it about reflexive possession, I figured I might as well present a survey of the way my main conlangs deal with it. This will also be a short overview of possession strategies in general in these languages. The series of posts will end with a post that compares and contrasts their constructions. First out is Ćwarmin.

Ćwarmin

Ćwarmin possession is generally marked by use of the genitive on the possessor. The possessum can appear in any degree of definiteness (depending, of course, on the available degrees of definiteness for the case in which the possessum stands):

indef:

źaŋk	-ututa	girśim
fisherman	-GEN.DEF	net
the fisherman	's	net

A(ny) net of the fisherman's

def:

źaŋk	-ututa	girś	-iti
fisherman	-GEN.DEF	net	-SG.NOM.DEF
the fisherman	's	net

The fisherman's net, that net of the fisherman's

spec:

źaŋk	-ututa	girś	-itək
fisherman	-GEN.DEF	net	-NOM.SG.SPEC
the fisherman	's	net

A specific net of the fisherman's

For plural forms, definite tends to be 'exhaustive' - all the X of Y; specific tends to signal exhaustive with regards to some limited set - i.e. 'all the X:s that belong to Y among these X:s'.

Indefinites as possessors are possible, but there is no distinct genitive form for them. There is some variation to what case an indefinite possessor goes in - nominative, accusative and dative all are fairly common, general ablative a bit less common but common enough to be understood by most speakers.

As for pronominal possession, most languages related to Ćwarmin have a set of possessive suffixes. However, these have been lost in Ćwarmin, and only survive in these few nouns:

sidestigə - 'my child' (a vocative phrase uttered by clergymen)
niźilgə - 'my love'

sarbatuŋra - our obligation (a phrase uttered in many liturgies)
midreviŋrə - our praise (again, uttered in many liturgies)

Of these, only nigilgə and sarbatuŋra are attested in other cases than nominative - nigilgə as nigilgəmcə (nom.compl) and sarbatuŋra as sarbatuŋrawuc (acc), sabratuŋrutćo (acc. compl), sarbatuŋrumca (nom. compl).

The pronouns have genitive forms, which are used to express possession. However, with direct and indirect objects that are possessed by the subject, the reflexive object case is used. Historically, it originated as a third person possessive suffix that was later reinterpreted, and now has nothing with person to do - only with reflexive possession. However, there are a few exceptions.

Across the conjunctions 'i', 'e', 'u' (and), it generally binds to the noun to the left of the conjunction unless it too is marked with the reflexive possession case, thus:

Egen e kamu-sunEgen and wife-rflxposs
Egen and his wife (Egen is a fairly common name)

This construction is possible regardless of the case of the leftmost noun (except of course reflexive possession), but it is most usual with the nominative, accusative and dative. Another construction that also occurs differs by its lack of a conjunction - Egen kamu-sun - with subjects and sometimes objects. Then it marks a more comitative-like meaning: Egen, with his wife|accompanied by his wife|...

In a few dialects - all of which retain the possessive suffixes - the reflexive possessive also can be used as subject of embedded clauses; in those, however, it often also is more clearly a possessive suffix and does combine to some extent with actual cases, although it combines with fewer case markers than other possessive suffixes.

As it happens, the third person genitive pronouns do not differentiate whether the referent is definite or specific (unlike how the pronouns do in several other cases), which means that for arguments that are not subject, object or indirect object, there is very little in ways of distinguishing different third-person possessors.

Tatediem: Pronominal Possession, Indirect Objects

Tatediem marks indirect objects - these can only be humans, btw - by a specific set of prefixes (that in part are 'subsumed' in the object slot, generally prefixing themselves to the object prefix with some level of assimilation).

	1		2		3
	masc	fem	masc	fem	masc	fem
sg	-heŋ-	-heŋ-	-win-	-wir-	-ŋme-	-har-
dual	-hami-	-himi-	-sin-	-tir-	-ŋra-	-ŋar-
pl	-hew-	-hig-	-cin-	-cin-	-ŋim-	-lar-

Which, by the way, reminds me that I have not yet given the personal pronouns! Here, feminines to the right, masculines to the left:

	1		2
	subj	obj	subj	obj
sg	-ke-, -ke-	-her-, -hec-	-gi-, -gi-	-wir-, -ŋwiŋ-
dl	-am-, -im-	-kiim-, -kaam-	-di-, -tin-	-sir-, -sin-
pl	-eg-, -ic-	-xec-, -ki-	-gi-, -gi-	-cir-, -cir-

As for expressing possession, the object prefixes can be affixed between the gender prefix and the root of a noun. However, many dialects have opted for marking an empty verb-like particle in the vicinity with the gender of the possessed noun (as subject), and the dative prefix (or the object prefix for dative-less nouns) as the object. The verb is -gìan-, a verb that in some dialects also can serve as copula. It lacks all other markings except subject and object. 

Conversely, some dialects use -páhí-, 'possess', and have a somewhat different structure - the possessor as possessor, and the possessee as subject. If the possessor has a dative marker, the possessee is marked with that prefix in the subject slot, whereas if the possessor is of some other gender, the possessor has a subject-like marking and the possessum has an object marking.

Thus

ye-ŋəbs = the dog
ye-her-ŋəbs = my dog
ye-kiim-ŋəbs = the dog belonging to the two of us
ye-ŋim-ŋəbs - their dog
(assimilation often hits: yeki:ŋebs/yeki:mbs, yeŋiŋəbs/yeŋ:ibs) 

But also:

 (ye-)ŋəbs ye-heŋ-(g)ìan = a/the dog that belongs to me (assimilated as yeŋəbs yeŋ:ì:n)
(ye-)ŋebs heŋ-ye-páhí = a/the dog that I own (assimilates to yeŋəbs heypáí)
(ye-)ŋebs ku-l-páhí = the dog that belongs to neut1 noun 

Sometimes, the prefix relating to the possessum is omitted from -(g)ìan or páhí, if it is definite:

yeŋəbs heŋian
yeŋəbs kepáhí

Barxaw: Possessive Constructions

The possessive constructions of Barxa tend to be rather varied in what other functions the different expressions overlap with. In this post, both predicative possession and attributive possession is described.

For nominal constructions, the overlaps mainly are in how the possessor or the possessee is marked:
One of the primary overlaps is the recipient or beneficiary:

aðál ðo Kpèma - Kpèma's horse (horse for Kpéma)

il istà kuì ðo Kpèma éŋxa  - that house belongs to Kpèma (by inheritance)

wík'an çùmut òrt^ho ðo Janwàp - three gifts (are/were) presented to Janwàp

saxk'ùlhimá ðo Inàm ðo Epáλ do Risíx - Nénsiqu òrt^ho ðo - harshword (~criticism) to Inàm, Epáɟ and Risíx was given by Nénsiqu. 

Q^huì ðo Kpèma - Kpèma's possession(s), alternatively also the VP 'belongs to Kpèma'. 

Another overlap is causative constructions, where causers and possessors can be marked the same for normally intransitive, stative verbs. The causee takes a preposition, as does the possessee. 

ɛ̀ŋðà kur jà Uq^hir zémp'u t'rol - Eŋðà makes Uq^hir carry burden

Rəɟə` kur t'aníp jà Epàλ - Rəɟə` cause scare to Epàλ 

C'aʝ kur lùjun  jà istà - C'aʝ's house is big, C'aʝ has a big house.

The fourth construction is a double comitative - with x with y, where y is the possessed noun. Often, this has animate nouns as possessees or culturally significant nouns, but some nouns we would normally consider inanimate are considered animate in Barxaw:

k'e kopì k'e dəsé - with thunder with rain - thunder brings rain, thunder has rain

k'e Inàm k'e aðál ðo Kpèma - Inam has/brings a horse for Kpèma.

k'e Inàm k'e tanaλ, k'e dìnaλ - Inàm has brothers and sisters.

k'e Epàλ k'e losàm - Epàλ has the respect of the community

k'e C'aʝ k'e níxq^hà ðo il-Pəzézð - C'aʝ has judicial authority in Pəzézð village.

Further possession-related things

A thing monoglot conlangers tend not to realize is that possession often is used somewhat differently in different languages.

Consider sentences like

I talked to my mom earlier today. 

I need to wash my hands.

My legs hurt.I have it in my pocket. 

Put it in your wallet. 

My brother is an engineer. 

His brother is an engineer.

Oftentimes, which wallet, whose head, whose pockets, whose mother or brother etc is obvious from the context, and in say Swedish, you'd usually say these along the lines of

I talked to (the) mom earlier today (mamma, morsan; the latter being a diminutive form of moder) 

I need to wash the hands 

The legs hurt 

I have it in the pocket 

Put it in the wallet 

My brother is an engineer (or even the brother, but in that case generally in the diminutive form brorsan) 

The brother is an engineer (generally not using the diminutive, but rather along the lines of brodern; hans bror is also an option, and can be used as well.)

In Finnish, it's not even unusual that definiteness would be ignored in contexts like these, given that Finnish does not usually mark definiteness at all. It does, of course, have possessive suffixes and can thereby mark things like "my brother" as veljeni, but in contexts where whose brother is being spoken of is relatively obvious, it is not unusual to omit this.

There is a lot of possibilities here:

• lexical distinctions along the lines of the use of diminutives or non-diminutives to distinguish owner
• derivative suffixes developing towards being possessive suffixes? (Is that possible?)
• reflexively possessed object marking developing through some odd grammaticalization of the situation described in Swedish?
• extending how often things will be marked for first or second (or even third person) possession - you do not usually say "it's in my street" when something's in the street by which you live, "this time of my day, I usually take my nap", "I am heading out to get my bottle of milk"... this could be very common in another language.