Re: Case

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 15/07/99 07:06:07  , Ray a =E9crit :
----------
Seems to me the absolute minimum is one.  But as that means no case
distinction, does that count as zero?

If you discount the one/zero case languages, then two are most surely the
absolute minimum.
-----------
i would count one because verb+noun
without case looks rather an applicative
(a compound verb?) to me. i think
applied noun is not a argument to,
but part of, the predicate.

> However, what has been overlooked is that as a prefix 'per-' conveys the
>  meaning of "through to the end", "thorough" ('thorough' & 'through' were
>  once the same word in English), i.e. it denotes _completion_ of an action
>  (cf. per-fect).   The Latin verb - perfero, perferre, pertuli, perlatum -
>  means to convey or carry something/ someone through to their destination.
> =20
>  "perlative" should mean 'pertaining to conveyance through to its
>  destination' (i.e. conveyance that actually gets there - like the 'Poney
>  Express' IIRC   :)
> =20
 =20
trans-
      ________
     |              |
---------------------------->
     |________|
ACC area      || ABL area
   =20
per-
      ________
      |----------->|
      |_______ |
ACC  area    || ABL area


notional translative exists in english and japanese too :
"i cut it into two parts"
"by=F4ki ni naru (to become "into" ill)"
english translative is usually ACC or applied inside the verb :
i get sick / i redden
but Pottier writes of "transformative" transitive voice
and "final" cases (pointing at goal or result).
translative goes in, through and out
whereas english "into" or japanese "ni" are rather perlative
"it's cut into once for all", "i get sick and may remain so" or
maybe notional adessive ("got there") or
inessive ("got into there") or simply ACC or...
wow ! didn't know english had so many cases ;-)

how do english grammars deal with this ?

mathias