k1234567890y wrote: ↑04 Aug 2018 10:32uncertain, maybe unlikely? I guess either they still exist on possession verbs or such verbs have become highly irregular...or maybe you can have this as the semantic development to have a "no-mark possessive verb"? demonstrative > "to be(copula)" > "to be(locational and existential), to have", but uncertain
btw I tend to use the existential verbs for possession verbs too, as it is not uncommon for natlangs not to have a specific verb for the meaning "to have"
Thanks Ky. I really want to try a language like that, where you don't have a verb for possession! Are there any good example languages to look at for that?
I guess in my case, I may just keep the marking on the verbs, irregular though they are. My possession verbs are QUITE irregular too. haha.