Sometimes people call the possessive form of English personal
pronouns a "genitive".

Hmm.

Some languages, such as German or Russian, distinguish between
(1) a personal pronoun in the genitive case, and
(2) a possessive, which is usually used as a determiner, but
can also stand alone, functioning as a pronoun. As a determiner,
it agrees in gender/number/case with the possessed.

From that point of view, the possessive forms of English pronouns
look more like, well, possessives than actual genitive pronouns;
the latter would appear after some prepositions or as genitive
objects after certain verbs.

However, Indo-European originally only had possessives for the first
and second person as well as a reflexive possessive. There was no
third-person possessive and (presumably) the genitive of personal
pronouns filled this role. That's still the state in modern Russian.
Old English was similar, except that the reflexive was missing.

(So etymologically speaking, "my, thy, our, your" are possessives,
"his, her" are genitives. I'd have to look up "their", which is
borrowed anyway, and "its" is a relatively new formation.)

So what's required for a form to be called a "genitive"?

I used English as an example, but the question could also be extended
to Dutch and Scandinavian, I think, and beyond.

There's also the related question whether you call English "'s" a
genitive or a possessive clitic.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 7/12/2023 om 19:13 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

Sometimes people call the possessive form of English personal
pronouns a "genitive".

Hmm.

Some languages, such as German or Russian, distinguish between
(1) a personal pronoun in the genitive case, and
(2) a possessive, which is usually used as a determiner, but
can also stand alone, functioning as a pronoun. As a determiner,
it agrees in gender/number/case with the possessed.

From that point of view, the possessive forms of English pronouns
look more like, well, possessives than actual genitive pronouns;
the latter would appear after some prepositions or as genitive
objects after certain verbs.

However, Indo-European originally only had possessives for the first
and second person as well as a reflexive possessive. There was no third-person possessive and (presumably) the genitive of personal
pronouns filled this role. That's still the state in modern Russian.
Old English was similar, except that the reflexive was missing.

(So etymologically speaking, "my, thy, our, your" are possessives,
"his, her" are genitives. I'd have to look up "their", which is
borrowed anyway, and "its" is a relatively new formation.)

moeders naam, >

So what's required for a form to be called a "genitive"?

I used English as an example, but the question could also be extended
to Dutch and Scandinavian, I think, and beyond.

There's also the related question whether you call English "'s" a
genitive or a possessive clitic.

And what's your take on that?

Originally it seems certainly a genitive ending. At least in German, and
Dutch:
Vaders naam, father's name,
can be seen as derived from a genitive construction like
In de naam des Vaders. Now: ... van de vader.
Earlier on it would still have been
's vaders naam.
Fossilised expressions still in use are, eg
's morgens, 's avonds, 's middags, 's maandags
(in the morning, evening, noon, on Mondays).

But since then we've got also
Moeders naam, mother's name,
and that one can't be derived from
De naam der moeder. Now: ... van de moeder.

"New" genitives?
There's also in Dutch the frequent use of inserted -s- in compound words (besides -e-, -en-, -n-, -er-, or nothing).

Een moederskindje, a mother's child. But
een moederhart, a mother's heart.
Een vrouwspersoon, a female person, but
Vrouwenkleding, women's clothing.
De staatskas, the state('s) treasury...

--
guido wugi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thu, 7 Dec 2023 22:47:45 +0100: wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> scribeva:

Op 7/12/2023 om 19:13 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

Sometimes people call the possessive form of English personal
pronouns a "genitive".

Hmm.

Some languages, such as German or Russian, distinguish between
(1) a personal pronoun in the genitive case, and
(2) a possessive, which is usually used as a determiner, but
can also stand alone, functioning as a pronoun. As a determiner,
it agrees in gender/number/case with the possessed.

From that point of view, the possessive forms of English pronouns
look more like, well, possessives than actual genitive pronouns;
the latter would appear after some prepositions or as genitive
objects after certain verbs.

However, Indo-European originally only had possessives for the first
and second person as well as a reflexive possessive. There was no
third-person possessive and (presumably) the genitive of personal
pronouns filled this role. That's still the state in modern Russian.
Old English was similar, except that the reflexive was missing.

(So etymologically speaking, "my, thy, our, your" are possessives,
"his, her" are genitives. I'd have to look up "their", which is
borrowed anyway, and "its" is a relatively new formation.)

moeders naam, >

So what's required for a form to be called a "genitive"?

I used English as an example, but the question could also be extended
to Dutch and Scandinavian, I think, and beyond.

There's also the related question whether you call English "'s" a
genitive or a possessive clitic.

And what's your take on that?

Originally it seems certainly a genitive ending. At least in German, and >Dutch:
Vaders naam, father's name,
can be seen as derived from a genitive construction like
In de naam des Vaders. Now: ... van de vader.
Earlier on it would still have been
's vaders naam.
Fossilised expressions still in use are, eg
's morgens, 's avonds, 's middags, 's maandags
(in the morning, evening, noon, on Mondays).

But since then we've got also
Moeders naam, mother's name,
and that one can't be derived from
De naam der moeder. Now: ... van de moeder.

"New" genitives?
There's also in Dutch the frequent use of inserted -s- in compound words >(besides -e-, -en-, -n-, -er-, or nothing).

Een moederskindje, a mother's child. But
een moederhart, a mother's heart.
Een vrouwspersoon, a female person, but
Vrouwenkleding, women's clothing.
De staatskas, the state('s) treasury...

That latter kind of of -s-, strangely, tends to occur mostly with
inherently female nouns, that end in -heid, -ing, etc. Also in German
(which as you know is less permississive about gender than Dutch),
-ung, -keit, etc. So where does this -s- come from? Was is really some
sort of genitive in the past, or something completely different?
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:14:07 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:02:39 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Thu, 7 Dec 2023 22:47:45 +0100: wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> scribeva:

Op 7/12/2023 om 19:13 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

Sometimes people call the possessive form of English personal
pronouns a "genitive".

[...]

Een moederskindje, a mother's child. But
een moederhart, a mother's heart.
Een vrouwspersoon, a female person, but
Vrouwenkleding, women's clothing.
De staatskas, the state('s) treasury...

That latter kind of of -s-, strangely, tends to occur mostly with >>inherently female nouns, that end in -heid, -ing, etc. Also in German >>(which as you know is less permississive about gender than Dutch),
-ung, -keit, etc. So where does this -s- come from? Was is really some
sort of genitive in the past, or something completely different?

https://www.ernieramaker.nl/schrijfsels.php?tekst=henhun
(By former nl.taal contributor Ernie Ramaker, in Dutch, but perhaps
readible also to Christian, with or wihout the help of AI.)
==
De bezits-s die bij eigennamen gebruikt kan worden (Peters fiets),
wordt vaak genitief-s genoemd, maar dat is onterecht. Het is een
partikel.
[...]
Het Nederlandse gebruik van de bezits-s ligt veel dichter bij het
Deense gebruik dan het IJslandse.
==

(Jan Peter (double first name) Balkenende (surname) is a former Dutch >prime-minister.)

The English "Peter’s bike" seems similar, so there too, ’s might be >called a particle rather than a case ending. Cf.
Theresa May’s government
vs.
*Theresa’s May’s government.

[de] Karl des Fünften
[nl] Karel de Vijfdes ..., van Karel de Vijfde, van Karel V
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:02:39 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Thu, 7 Dec 2023 22:47:45 +0100: wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> scribeva:

Op 7/12/2023 om 19:13 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

Sometimes people call the possessive form of English personal
pronouns a "genitive".

[...]

Een moederskindje, a mother's child. But
een moederhart, a mother's heart.
Een vrouwspersoon, a female person, but
Vrouwenkleding, women's clothing.
De staatskas, the state('s) treasury...

That latter kind of of -s-, strangely, tends to occur mostly with
inherently female nouns, that end in -heid, -ing, etc. Also in German
(which as you know is less permississive about gender than Dutch),
-ung, -keit, etc. So where does this -s- come from? Was is really some
sort of genitive in the past, or something completely different?

https://www.ernieramaker.nl/schrijfsels.php?tekst=henhun
(By former nl.taal contributor Ernie Ramaker, in Dutch, but perhaps
readible also to Christian, with or wihout the help of AI.)
==
De bezits-s die bij eigennamen gebruikt kan worden (Peters fiets),
wordt vaak genitief-s genoemd, maar dat is onterecht. Het is een
partikel.
[...]
Het Nederlandse gebruik van de bezits-s ligt veel dichter bij het
Deense gebruik dan het IJslandse.
==

(Jan Peter (double first name) Balkenende (surname) is a former Dutch prime-minister.)

The English "Peter’s bike" seems similar, so there too, ’s might be
called a particle rather than a case ending. Cf.
Theresa May’s government
vs.
*Theresa’s May’s government.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:16:29 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

https://www.ernieramaker.nl/schrijfsels.php?tekst=henhun

Quote:
"Elk element van de naamwoordgroep [Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson] krijgt
hier een genitiefuitgang."

English: Here every element of the name group [Ólafur Ragnar
Grímsson] gets a genetive suffix.

That may be an argument why the 15 or 18 "cases" of Hungarian aren't
really cases either: in a group "adjective substantive", the case
suffix is attached only once, to the last element which here is the substantive.

In Hungarian names, in the order Surmane Givenname, the Givenname gets
the suffix: Orbán Viktort is the accusative of Orbán Viktor.

But in an unaltered non-Hungarian name, the suffix is after the
Surname, then being the last element: Manfred Webert is the accusative
of Manfred Weber.

Also, Orbánt is the accusative of Orbán.

This was the summary of my perhaps not so easy to read article in
interlingua about this strange but noteworthy phenomenon: https://rudhar.com/lingtics/smpultia.htm

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-12-08, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

There's also in Dutch the frequent use of inserted -s- in compound words
(besides -e-, -en-, -n-, -er-, or nothing).

"Fugenlaute" in German.

Or "Fugenelemente".

PS:
The best treatment of the topic I've found so far is this paper by Nübling/Szczepaniak:

Linking elements in German: Origin, Change, Functionalization https://www.germanistik.uni-mainz.de/files/2015/03/Nuebling_Szczepaniak_2013_lin
king_elements_grammaticalization.pdf

I assume it will mostly apply to Dutch as well.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-12-07, wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

There's also the related question whether you call English "'s" a
genitive or a possessive clitic.

And what's your take on that?

My take is that it's a definitional issue, which is why I'm asking.
What does it take for linguists to label something a genitive when
they encounter it in, say, a non-IE language?

The remaining Modern English reflexes of the Old English genitive,
i.e. some possessive pronoun forms and the 's thing, are only used
in possessive function. They are notably not used in the other
functions of the IE genitive I can think of:
* as a genitive object of a verb,
* after certain prepositions,
* in partitive phrases.

Also, the 's thing can attach to phrases, "the King of Norway's
daughther", which is unlike noun inflection. So, yeah, I'll call
it a possessive clitic.

Interestingly, Standard German is ever so slowly moving in a similar
direction:
* Genitive objects are disappearing, either because the verbs
fall out of use or the objects are shifting to accusative/dative.
* The genitive after prepositions already has to be replaced in
some constructions, and there is a great deal of confusion between
dative and genitive after prepositions.
* Partitives are expressed with appositions ("ein Glas Wein"), the
genitive is obsolete there (*"ein Glas Weines").
* The masculine -(e)s genitive has spread to all feminine personal
names and a few hypocoristic nouns (Mutters, Muttis, Omas) for
the possessive function, which shows no sign of going away.

There's also in Dutch the frequent use of inserted -s- in compound words (besides -e-, -en-, -n-, -er-, or nothing).

"Fugenlaute" in German. There's even a subtractive one, e.g.:
"Krone" + "Prinz" > "Kronprinz"

Very vexing, because on the one hand nobody has managed to formulate
a set of rules governing their use, but on the other hand native
speakers have some intuitions about using them. Some of these
composition elements certainly started out as genitives, but as can
be easily shown (e.g. again with -s- after feminine nouns), they
can no longer be analyzed as such. They now seem to have some morphophonological role in optimizing the shape of compounds.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-12-08, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:

https://www.ernieramaker.nl/schrijfsels.php?tekst=henhun
(By former nl.taal contributor Ernie Ramaker, in Dutch, but perhaps
readible also to Christian, with or wihout the help of AI.)

(I ran it through Google Translate, which helps with the bulk of
the text, and where that descends into gibberish I can figure out
the original.)

So Dutch personal pronouns have subject, object, and possessive
forms, used very much like their English counterparts, and for nouns
there is an -s suffix or clitic that is used for possessive function.

I'm not entirely convinced by his particular argument that -s is a
clitic ("particle"):

(1) Jan Peter Balkenendes regering
(2) *Jans Peters Balkenendes regering

Because in German it's also

(1) Jan Peter Balkenendes Regierung
(2) *Jans Peters Balkenendes Regierung

and there is general agreement that Standard German does have a
real genitive case with word-level inflection.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Fri, 8 Dec 2023 16:06:08 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

On 2023-12-08, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

There's also in Dutch the frequent use of inserted -s- in compound words >>> (besides -e-, -en-, -n-, -er-, or nothing).

"Fugenlaute" in German.

Or "Fugenelemente".

PS:
The best treatment of the topic I've found so far is this paper by >Nübling/Szczepaniak:

Linking elements in German: Origin, Change, Functionalization >https://www.germanistik.uni-mainz.de/files/2015/03/Nuebling_Szczepaniak_2013_lin
king_elements_grammaticalization.pdf

I assume it will mostly apply to Dutch as well.

Heldendaad, kindergezicht, also in Dutch.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 9/12/2023 om 16:18 schreef Ruud Harmsen:

Fri, 8 Dec 2023 16:06:08 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

On 2023-12-08, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

There's also in Dutch the frequent use of inserted -s- in compound words >>>> (besides -e-, -en-, -n-, -er-, or nothing).

"Fugenlaute" in German.

Or "Fugenelemente".

PS:
The best treatment of the topic I've found so far is this paper by
Nübling/Szczepaniak:

Linking elements in German: Origin, Change, Functionalization
https://www.germanistik.uni-mainz.de/files/2015/03/Nuebling_Szczepaniak_2013_lin
king_elements_grammaticalization.pdf

I assume it will mostly apply to Dutch as well.

Heldendaad, kindergezicht, also in Dutch.

And the relative unpredictability, I think he meant:
eiwit en eigeel, eierdop
kalverliefde, kalfsgebraad
moederliefde, moederskind
kindvrouwtje, kindsdeel, kindertijd
volke[re]nbond; volkenkunde; volkskunde, volkswagen ;)
troonrede, troonsafstand
staatkunde, staatsman
vrouwmens, vrouwspersoon, vrouwenzaken

A recent issue is the mess of using (or refusing to do so) the
prescribed tussen-n, which moreover is hardly ever pronounced:
ruggengraat (back-bone; only 1 back, but seemingly plural; before:
ruggegraat)
with the necessary exceptions of course:
zonnecrème (only 1 Sun)
maneschijn (only 1 Moon)

The previous "rule" did let it depend on the idea of "singular" or
"plural" reference, eg:
bessensap, bessepit: 'berries' juice, 'berry' stone
A bit crazy sometimes, and doubts in dictionaries. But it allowed me to distinguish between
mijn hartedief, my beloved one, and
een hartendief, a heartbreaker.

The new rule lets it depend upon the 'possible plural forms' of the
first word in the compound:
If -en and -es are allowed, or if only -es, then no tussen-n:
aspergesoep, because asperges
secretaressedag, because secretaressen and -esses possible. (Caution:
pre-woke examples:)
If only -en, then tussen-n applies:
ruggengraat, because only ruggen
Except when the first element refers to only one specimen, see as before: Zonnecrème and maneschijn, despite only zonnen and manen.

The -n-rule doesn't 'want to' imply plural meaning, but it does look and
feel like it does (and at times awkwardly, see "backs-bone" example),
and its outcome depends upon plural forms. The -n- itself is hardly ever pronounced anyway.
Conclusion: It's a crazy rule!

(Anyway, there's worse things going on in contemporary Dutch, such as
the mess amongst gender and number of nouns and corresponding pronouns
and verbs; the hypercorrections of assimilation in pronunciation; ...).

--
guido wugi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09.12.2023 18:45, wugi wrote:

And the relative unpredictability, I think he meant:
eiwit en eigeel, eierdop
kalverliefde, kalfsgebraad

Germ. Kalbsbraten; Kalbsbrät; Kalbsbries

moederliefde, moederskind
kindvrouwtje, kindsdeel, kindertijd

Germ. Kindskopf; kinderkopfgroß; kindergerecht;
kinderlieb; kinderfreundlich; kinderfeindlich

volke[re]nbond; volkenkunde; volkskunde, volkswagen ;)

volkskundlich; völkerkundlich; Volkskunde; Völkerkunde
(actually, no synonyms)

troonrede, troonsafstand

In German Thron- only, i.e. without -s- or -en-

staatkunde, staatsman
vrouwmens, vrouwspersoon, vrouwenzaken

BTW in German:

Schweinsbraten in Southern German (inkl. Austria and Switzerland).
And Schweinebraten in Standard Hochdeutsch. Also these con-
coctions, with the "Fugen-S", and not based on plural "Schweine":

Schweinsbratwurst; Schweinsfilet; Schweinsfuß (Schweinsfuss);
Schweinsgalopp; Schweinshaxe (and Schweinshax'n in Southern
German); Schweinskarree (esp. Austrian); Schweinskeule;
Schweinsknochen

But: Schweinegeld; Schweinebacke

Another pair: Sonntagabend vs. Sontagsarbeit.

And the most notorious: Schadenersatz (general usage) and
Schadensersatz (in the language/jargon of law; lawyers and
judges).

So neither in German -s- and the alternance with -e(n)-
have been established for good.

A recent issue is the mess of using (or refusing to do so) the
prescribed tussen-n, which moreover is hardly ever pronounced:
ruggengraat (back-bone; only 1 back, but seemingly plural; before: >ruggegraat)

Hehe, this is another problem: whenever with or void of
the "Füllsel" -en-. This is also very alive and kicking
both in standard German and in various dialects.

e.g. Sonntag, Sonnabend vs. Sonnenbad, Sonnenanbeter/in,
Sonnenallergie; more complicated are due to historic reasons
such Southern German forms as the toponyms Sontheim, Sonthofen,
where the "distorted" sont-, a derivation of sunda-/sunþa- "South",
which in turn is etymologically linked / akin to sunna, sunne,
sonne "sun".

In Souther German esp. of Austria and Switzerland also
Sonnseite and sonnseitig ("sunny side").

with the necessary exceptions of course:
zonnecrème (only 1 Sun)
maneschijn (only 1 Moon)

In German Sonnencreme and Mondschein (+ Mondscheintarif and
Mondscheinsonate).

ruggengraat, because only ruggen

In German Rückgrat although Rücken + some composita (e.g.
Rückenausschnitt). Never *Rückengrat (at least in the common
High German).

Conclusion: It's a crazy rule!

Yeah: especially for the ... foreigners who study these languages
with too many "exceptions" concerning these -s-, -en- (of which
only few ones contain the possessive and the genitive idea).

(Anyway, there's worse things going on in contemporary Dutch, such as
the mess amongst gender and number of nouns and corresponding pronouns
and verbs; the hypercorrections of assimilation in pronunciation; ...).

Oh je! :-)

Tim

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)