There’s an earlier discussion of this here: Use of 'i'w'
I think this is another example where the obvious English translation is a bit ambiguous out of context. The thread suggests one way to be clear is to translate “i’w” as “to be” (“enough to be eaten”). Or I guess “enough to have it’s eating”, i.e. the thing coming before the “i” is the thing being eaten, in a similar way to the use of the possessive in other passive constructions.
I hope that’s a reasonable summary, Deborah? Trying to check this out suggests that people don’t always get this strictly right… Thanks for the encouragement to figure this out!
3 Likes