Re[2]: [tied] -osyo 4 (was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 32188
Date: 2004-04-22

At 11:39:28 AM on Thursday, April 22, 2004, Jens Elmegaard
Rasmussen wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 enlil@... wrote:

>> Richard:

>>> The only hope for a version of Glen's analysis is that
>>> our common sense is warped by the rarity, as opposed to
>>> non-existence of, of relative clauses expressing
>>> genitive relationships in which the possessum, not the
>>> possessor, is marked.

>> This is ONLY if you analyse the phrase one way. There's
>> also a possibility based on normal IE word order if we
>> can tell at all that a theoretical preform */wlkW&s ya
>> hWa:kWs/ meant "wolf('s) with his eye" where *ya actually
>> did refer to "at his/hers/its/one's/someone's" and
>> modified the possessum like in the Hungarian example.

> What Hungarian example? I don't think we ever saw it.

From Richard's post
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/32010>:

> Hungarian has a sort of anti-genitive; the construct is

> possessor[-GEN] + possession-HIS

> HIS = 3rd person possessive suffix.
> GEN = 'genitive' ( = 'dative') marker

> Note the optionality of the marking.

Brian