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