Knowledge base · source

Chudá 2025

Chudá, Klára フダー・クラーラ (2025). 主観性から見たアイヌ語の所有表現の考察[Ainu possessive expressions from the perspective of subjectivity]. 研究論集 24, 241–260.

prior-analysis hokkaido text held locally OCR pdftotext-pieces: 14 leaves, 0 with a printed page

Chapters citing this source

Examples cited from this source

Sentences of the first edition citing this source

1. Huber's subjectivity analysis applies Ikegami's HAVE/BE-language typology and finds that Ainu patterns with English (a HAVE-type language where the possessor is foregrounded as subject) rather than Japanese (a BE-type language where the possessed entity is topicalised) . 254–257 The Alienable/Inalienable Split and Possessive Classification
2. Huber proposes treating inalienability as a subjectivity index and the possession-schema inventory as a gradient scale rather than a binary; this proposal is explicitly framed as preliminary in her paper ‹speculative›. 257 The Alienable/Inalienable Split and Possessive Classification
3. The kor construction differs in placing the possessor index on the intervening verb rather than on the possessed noun head, a configuration that Huber (2025) places in a separate appositive-verbal column within her four-way attributive typology (head-marking / dependent-marking / zero-marking / double-marking) . 248 Adnominal Possession: Double Marking and the Appositive Construction
4. Kinship affiliatives combine with the existential verbs and to form predicative-possession clauses of the BE-type, restricted to body-part and kin nouns . 247, 251 Kinship and Honorific Possession
5. The BE-type is unavailable for alienable nouns; its restriction to the inalienable domain is argued in . 251–253 Kinship and Honorific Possession
6. Several kin-related meanings are expressed not by the full possession construction but through lexicalised incorporated-noun + kor compounds functioning as intransitive predicates denoting change-of-state or relational events rather than stative possession : 251–252 Kinship and Honorific Possession
7. These compounds belong to a productive incorporation pattern; the reciprocal derivatives ukokor 'share (children)' and kopokor 'have a child with X' extend the set . 252 Kinship and Honorific Possession
8. The existential an (sg) / okay (pl) and the negative isam also appear in a BE-type predicative possession construction, restricted to affiliative-form inalienable nouns (body-part and kinship terms in their possessed morphology): a=yupi an 'I have an elder brother' (literally 'my-elder-brother exists'), a=po-ho ka an 'I even have a son' . 251–253 Existential and Locational Clauses (an / oka)
9. Huber's corpus study finds that over 80% of predicative possession clauses employ the HAVE-type construction . 254 Predicative Possession: kor, Existential Possession, and isam
10. This pattern is consistent with the cross-linguistic HAVE(animate)/BE(existential) split documented by and with Huber's finding that inanimate-possession contexts shift toward the existential strategy ‹contested›. no page Predicative Possession: kor, Existential Possession, and isam
11. The predicate is then the intransitive existential verb (singular) or (plural), making the literal structure 'one's X exists' : 251–253 Predicative Possession: kor, Existential Possession, and isam
12. Inalienable possession, where the possessed entity (body part or kinship relation) is inherently indexed to a possessor through the affiliative morphology, admits the BE-type construction in addition to kor ; . 251–254 Predicative Possession: kor, Existential Possession, and isam
13. The current dominance of kor (>80% of predicative possession in Huber's data ) would then represent the outcome of that grammaticalization trajectory, though the textual evidence is thin and the comparison of registers is uncontrolled. 254 Predicative Possession: kor, Existential Possession, and isam