Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:44:46 -0800

From: David Robertson net091[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RISCY.SFCC.CTC.EDU

Subject: Re: why the male member is not referred to as Gertrude



On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Ronald Butters wrote:



On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Donald Larmouth wrote



. . . I never thought of body parts as "possessions" but

as extensions of myself.



I believe that there is a technical term for this: "inalienable

possession." Some languages mirror the difference, e.g., in French one

says (as I recall) "Je vais a' laver mes chats" but "Je vais a' me laver les

mains."



Note that many languages overtly code the difference between alienable

and inalienable possession. Going even further with this is Dakota,

which according to I believe Stephen Return Riggs' grammar distinguishes

not only the above 2 categories, but also a third category marking only

body parts! FYI



Dave