Marking of genitive, adjectival, and relative-clause functions (Synja Khanty)

AttrReldiff: Genitive constructions and attributive phrases are formed using similar strategies, while relative clauses rely on a distinct strategy.

Attrdiff: The three functions are expressed using three distinct morphosyntactic strategies. This is known as complete differentiation.

(1a) jalǝp xɔ̄t

new house

‘new house’ (Onina 2009: 29)

(1b) urti jɔ̄rnas

red dress

‘red dress’ (S. O.)

(2a) ivan xɔ̄t

Ivan house

’Ivan’s house’ (S. O.)

(2b) ivan xɔ̄t-l

Ivan house-3sg

’Ivan’s house’ (S. O.)

(2c) āmp-em

I dog-1sg

‘my dog’ (S. O.)

(3a) xorǝt-ti āp

bark-prs.ptc dog

‘barking dog’ (S. O.)

(3b) tam āp, mati xorǝt-l

that dog which bark-prs.sg3

‘the dog which is barking’ (S. O.)

In Synja Khanty, the noun phrase modifiers precede their heads. If the construction specifies a quality of the noun, the modifier is an adjective (1), (2), but the modifier can be a noun (2a), (2b) or a personal pronoun (2c) in possessive constructions. In both constructions, the modifier is in the nominative case, which means that both constructions can be expressed by the bare juxtaposition of nominative case-marked words. However, if the linguistic element denoting the possessor is a noun, the possessed entity may get a personal suffix, but it is compulsory if the possessor is specified by a pronoun. In this case, all three constructions are morphologically distinct. In subordinate constructions, the modifier may take a special suffix (which indicates the participle function of the element) (3a) or it can be expressed by a separate subordinate clause (3b). Thus the three construction types are marked differently in Synja Khanty (Onina 2009: 29, Honti 1984: 90–91).


Nikolett F. Gulyás