[Spellyans] Possessive construction of verbal nouns
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Nov 14 07:26:35 GMT 2012
On Nov 12, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Nicky Rowe wrote:
> I wonder if anyone can shed some light: Some argue that you have to refer back to a noun if you use it with an auxiliary in a relative sentence:
> hemm yw an aval a yll'ta y dhebry
> This is presumably to keep the possessive construction "its eating" intact (whi a yll y dhebry). But then why is splitting the possessive construction fine in sentences such as "debry a yll'ta an aval", as well as "debry a wrav vy an aval"? Or is the possessive construction not as sacroscant as it's being made out to be?
Nothing is ever as sacrosanct as it's made out to be…. that's a good rule ;-)
Soem use ‹dhe› instead to replace the possessive adjective. There's the ‹pandra vyn'ta dhe eva?›-group that cries MISTAKE when you say ‹pandra vyn'ta eva?› but low and behold such sentences occur in the corpus, too.
> I've found some examples in the texts where the possessive rule is also broken:
> RD317 hep ygery na fos terry (terry fos, the breaking of a wall)
> RD489 yw saw ol the wolyow a wylys vy the squerdye a wruk an gu ha'n kentrow the kyc precius dafole (dafole the kyc, the defiling of your flesh)
> RD1324 pan wruk an bara terry (terry an bara, [when he did] the breaking of the bread)
> BK3588 Maria gonys a raff (gonys Maria, the serving of Maria)
> BK3789 an flogh then ymach dyson my a vyn don eredy ha mos quik bys in eglos (don an flogh, the bringing of the child)
> BK3795 Maria dyso mur grays ov map dym dry pan vynsys (dry ov map dym, the bringing of my son to me)
> There are others. The words were put in a different order for stylistic purposes, but surely if doing so had any bearing on the meaning than it wouldn't have been done?
I should agree with your assessment…
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans