Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

sentences in which they occur, but rather that the particular means of coding an
inalienable possessor in West Greenlandic Inuit is through the use of the ergative case.
The importance of the analogy is not simply that the resultant possessive relation in
the transfer of possession in BNBV inal predicates is coded by the ergative case-marking
on the ultimate possessor, it also makes sense of the fact that the ergative case-marked
nominal in BNBV inal constructions is an experiencer, whereas the ergative case-marked
nominal in other BNBV constructions that do not involve an inalienable noun are causers,
prototypical agents. The primary function, therefore, of the ergative case-marking in
BNBV inal constructions is to indicate the possessive relationship between the inalienable
noun and its possessor rather than to mark the nominal argument which brings about the
event in question: there are consequently two raised possessors in BNBV inal constructions
and the bare noun is transferred from the possession of one to the possession of the other
without the intervention of an agent of any kind.
Source Goal
Locative-terminative Ergative inalienable possessor
Note, however, that even though both possessors occur in raised possessor constructions,
the resultant possessive relationship is coded by an element of the nominal syntax,
whereas the initial possessive relationship is coded through the use of a clause-level
raised possessor construction such as “there is a DP possessed at (the location of) DP possessor” or
“DP possessed belongs to DP possessor.” At the same time, both of the raised possessor
88