Zompist Bboard Again

What's the term for a genitive that clarifies another noun as opposed to possessing or representing part of?

In many languages, genitives are used to clarify, define or further explain an accompanying noun. This is referred to as explicative or definitive genitive in Latinate grammars. An example would be "the city of New York", "a friend of mine" or "the department of health". I've sometimes seen this referred to as "close apposition".

Wondering if you are aware of alternate ways of achieving this kind of "close apposition" other than a genitive construction?

vegfarandi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:22 pm What's the term for a genitive that clarifies another noun as opposed to possessing or representing part of?

In many languages, genitives are used to clarify, define or further explain an accompanying noun. This is referred to as explicative or definitive genitive in Latinate grammars. An example would be "the city of New York", "a friend of mine" or "the department of health". I've sometimes seen this referred to as "close apposition".

I would call that an "appositive genitive". (Apparently, "appositive oblique" is used for languages like English where the construction is not technically genitive.)

vegfarandi wrote:Wondering if you are aware of alternate ways of achieving this kind of "close apposition" other than a genitive construction?

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a language with a dedicated particle or affix for this, but I can't think of one offhand.

Would Persian ezāfe count?

ketab-e- man 'my book'
xanom-e Javadi Ms. Javadi

Its meaning is extremely broad, but we could say the same of "of".

I think I've seen such things called associative markers or associative particles. "Linker" is probably safe, too.

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:49 pmI think I've seen such things called associative markers or associative particles. "Linker" is probably safe, too.

Would French "de" count as an example?


JAL

I'd guess so, yeah---broad enough in use that it's not just a genitive, but not so broad as you can think of it as a general attributiviser or relative clause marker.

Like English "of" (and Mandarin "de 的", for that matter), but unlike ezāfe, it forms a constituent with the modifier, not with the head. Which is an interesting difference, though maybe not relevant to the initial question.

(Edit: but the use of Mandarin "de 的" is so broad that you'd think of it as a general attributiviser rather than an associative particle, I take it.)

I don't think the examples are the same thing.

"A friend of mine" is just an ordinary genitive, surely? It says whose friend it is, and is synonymous with "my friend". [the fact that "mine" has lost its /n/ when it precedes its head due to analogised sandhi is not a deep grammatical fact].

I also don't think "Department of Health" is the same thing. The department may not "belong" to health in a strict possessive sense, but it's still a genitive in a broader sense - it's a department "relating to" or "concerning" health, and so is similar to the portrait of a man, the description of a monkey, the start of a film, and so on.

"City of New York" is something else. Underlyingly it's an appositive, because "The City" and "New York" refer to the same object (whereas I and my friend are different from one another, and the department is not the same thing as health itself).

Other languages often have bare appositives, and so in most circumstances does English: "John, Duke of Buckingham", "the Prime Minister, Theresa May" and so on.

I think the, as it were, geographical appositive in English originated as a plain genitive due to mediaeval laws on jurisdictions. That is, originally "the city" and the city's name did not refer to the same thing, as the latter was broader than the former (leading to expressions like "the City and County of..." and so forth) - the city was then only part of the place (whereas, while there's both a City and State of New York, they aren't the same place per se).

----

Some languages have special case use for appositives. The genitive can certainly be used, and iirc some languages use an ergative for appositives, and there are probably other options too.

-----

However, if you have a small particle in some way linking two nouns, a common word to describe this is "ligature". In Austronesian, "ligatures" can, among other things, join number and nouns, occur inside numbers to join single-digit numerals with sets of ten, be affixed to numeral classifiers, join adjectives to nouns, introduce relative clauses, act as copulas, join a generic locative to a noun, join a noun to a verb to create a compoun (Cebuano, apparently the equivalent of "dog [ligature] yield" translates as "become a slave to an overpowering emotion"), join an auxiliary to a main verb, join a negation to an adjective or pronoun, join a question particle to a noun, etc etc.

jal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:55 am

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:49 pmI think I've seen such things called associative markers or associative particles. "Linker" is probably safe, too.

Would French "de" count as an example?


JAL

Yes, and so would Spanish "de".

le pays de Canada / el país de Canadá 'the country of Canada'
la province du Québec / la provincia de Quebec 'the province of Quebec'

le bâtard de mon mari / el bastardo de mi marido 'that bastard I've got for a husband'
la pute de ta mère / la puta de tu madre 'that whore you call your mom'

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:10 pm...iirc some languages use an ergative for appositives, and there are probably other options too.

I would hazard a guess that those languages would be ones where the ergative had its origin in the genitive case.

An example occured to me of another genuine appositive with 'of' in English, aside from the placenames: Jack o' lantern. Because this jack is not just associated with lanterns, the jack IS the lantern...

EDIT: similarly, Will o'the wisp - Will IS a wisp.

Both these examples, however, originate in ordinary genitives, followed by reconceptualisation and semantic drift, with the expression remaining fossilised.

Both are names for the imaginary or supernatural person carrying a torch through marshlands, hypothesised to explain the effects of marsh gas. In Will's case, the word "wisp", meaning "bundle of sticks" pretty much disappeared outside of this name, while "wisp" meaning something insubstantial and airy came into popularity - so, although Will simply held a (burning) wisp in the earlier meaning, Will IS a wisp in the later meaning.

In Jack's case, the name for the ignis fatuus came to be transferred to eviscerated mangelwurzels designed to mimic ignis fatuus. Since the vegetable was causing the light formerly said to be caused by Jack, they came to be known by Jack's name and to be carved in his likeness, so that the lantern and the lanternbearer have been conflated. Apparently this may originate in the use of mangelzurzels and the like as lanterns by the poor, so that a lighted mangelwurzel would indeed have been the sort of lantern Jack would have carried.