| In sum, whereas the contrast has to be explicitly
stated in the case of non-alienable possession, it may
only be implied in the case of alienable possession for
the generation of the emphatic sense of apna. Further,
whereas in the case of inalienable possession, the use
of apna is stylistic in the sense that absence
of the same would not affect either the grammaticality
of the sentence or the nature of possession of the relevant
object, in the case of alienable possession, the use of
apna expresses the exclusiveness of possession. |
| |
| In support of the above consider: |
| (81) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| (82) |
|
 |
|
| |
| Notice that the object of "possession"
in (81) is an experience and in (82), a means of public
transport. An experience is an inalienable possession
in some sense, therefore, (81) is ungrammatical. But since
a means of public transport is not an inalienable possession,
one would wonder why (82) is ungrammatical. We offer the
following account: Since, obviously, it makes no sense
to talk about possession of public property by an individual
the possession here can only be understood in terms of
what we might very loosely and unsatisfactorily, and tentatively
call "psychological possession". Possibly, "psychological
possession" in this sense behaves like inalienable
possession in the relevant context. |
| |
| (79), (81) and (82) become grammatical when
an explicit contrast is provided as shown below: |
| |
| (83) |
|
 |
| |
|
apni
pitai ho gayi
own beating be+PAST
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
