(1) (a) Hu s^avar leYoram et haregel. [EXTERNAL POSSESSOR]
he broke to-Yoram D.O. the-leg
`He broke Yoram's leg'
(b) Hu s^avar et haregel s^el Yoram. [OVERT POSSESSOR]
he broke D.O. the-leg of Yoram
`He broke Yoram's leg'
(2) (a) Nafla li s^en. [EXTERNAL POSSESSOR]
fell to-me tooth
`My tooth fell out.'
(b) Has^en s^eli nafla [OVERT POSSESSOR]
the-tooth of-me fell.
`My tooth fell out.'
The use of the external possessor in the examples (1)(a) and (2)(a) above is the normal, unmarked mode of expression, but is not by any means exclusive. If the overt possessive pronoun in (1)(b) is used, it would mean that the speaker is somehow more interested in Yoram's leg and its fate, than in Yoram as a person. By the same token, the possessive pronoun (2)(b) would imply that there was some significance to the tooth, that the hearer knows which particular tooth fell out and that the identity of the tooth is more important than the fact of the speaker's loss.
The sentient or nonsentient status of the externally possessed nominal in some measure determines markedness. Example 3(a) with its overt possessive suffix is the normal, impartial way of announcing the death of the son of acquaintances. The use of EP in 3(b) indicates that the speaker is focusing on the the suffering of the parents, rather than on the death of the son. As an epiphenomenon of this markedness effect, 3(b) also has a strong adversative connotation.
(3) (a) Bnam met. [OVERT POSSESSOR]
son-of-them died
`Their son died.'
(b) Met lahem haben. [EXTERNAL POSSESSOR]
died to-them the-son
`Their son died (on them).'
Nouns capable of external possession are not limited to body parts, or
kinship terms, although those are the most common. The semantics of the
preposition l- is that of affectedness, and lesser degrees of connection
between the possessor and the possessed are possible.
(4)
Hargu lanu et ros^ hamems^ala.
. killed(3rdpl) to-us D.O. head-the-government
`They killed our prime minister.'
(`Our prime minister was killed.')
(5)
Sagru lahem et harxov.
closed(3dpl) to them D.O. the street.
`Their street was closed off.'
In all of the examples of EP so far, there has been a strong adversative
effect, and this is a common feature of sentences involving external
possessors, but there is no requirement that loss be involved. Beneficial
services performed may be described using an external possessor, as in (6).
(6)
Hi tsixtsexa li et has^inayim.
She brushed to-me D.O. the-teeth.
`She brushed my teeth.'
The semantics of external possession are not an isolated and unusual
aspect of the Modern Hebrew grammar. The meaning of affectedness is coded into
the preposition l- in every instance of its use. The normal
dative/benefactive usage with verbs signalling `giving' comes more from the
semantics of the benefactive verb than from that of the preposition.
(7) (a) Natati lo banana.
gave(1stsg) to-him banana.
`I gave him a banana.'
(b) Laqaxti lo banana.
took(1stsg) to-him banana
`I took a banana away from him.'
(c) Laqaxti mimenu banana.
took(1stsg) from-him banana
`I took a banana from him.'
(d) Laqaxti lo et habanana.
took(1stsg) to-him D.O. the-banana
`I took his banana.'
Thus in (7), sentence (a) indicates a beneficial recipient status to
the participant marked with le-, while in (b) an adversative loss effect
is achieved, because the verb indicates `taking' rather than `giving'. The
default assumption about the effect of `giving' is that the outcome is good.
The default assumption with `taking' is that the outcome is bad. In order to
overcome the default negative assumption about taking, another preposition
has to be used. Thus is in 7(c), the consent of the owner is implied by the
use of min, a preposition indicating source or origin. By focusing on the
possessor as the source rather than the one affected, we imply that he
suffered no ill effect from the taking. Lastly, if we mark the possessed as
definite, yet have not mentioned it in discourse, then the assumption is that
the possessed belongs to the one affected.
If no other reason in the discourse has caused us to focus on that particular banana before, then the only possible reason for the definiteness would be that it belonged to the the person affected. In turn, this would also explain why he is affected by the taking. When these two implicatures reinforce each other, there arises an unmistakable interpretation that the banana is the property of the affected party.
The above analysis is consonant with all usages of the preposition l-, including those with the existential copula. Hebrew does not have a verb `to have'. Something belongs to the one who is most affected by its existence.
Instead of being an isolated and unusual phenomenon, external possession in Hebrew is a normal part of the notion of indirect impact. Many of the most basic expressions of ownership or possession are coded by specifying who is affected by what happens to the possessed nominal. (Even the independent possessive pronouns were historically derived from the indirect object marker l-). Possession in Hebrew is a natural outgrowth of indirect affectedness. Expressions of external possession are basic to the semantics of indirect impact as coded throughout the language.
© Aya Katz