Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: inalienable possession

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Wednesday, November 18, 1998, 20:48
At 20:08 18/11/98 -0000, you wrote:
>Didier wrote : >> I thought that "case endings" were very ancient features in >> (real) languages, and that the evolution I adopted would look >> quite natural. Perhaps that's not the case? >> >I dunno. I just know for sure that ancient Japanese had none of its 'cases'
(enclitics) which derive from interjections still used as such in end of sentence (yo, wa, no, ga, wo, etc). Ainu did not systematically enclitics so that S and O have no enclitics (the bear eats the rabbit =3D *bear rabbit eat*). Chinese derived PREpositions from *verbs* like *to give* as Nik recalls and POSTpositions from *nouns* like *upper part* (shang). Khmer like Indonesian don't make any difference between prepositions, adverbs and verbs. But I've never read of pre-casual Sumerian or IE. How is that ? What I read is that PIE case endings came from postpositions. At least it's the most accepted hypothesis.
>Mathias > > >----- >See the original message at=
> >
Christophe Grandsire |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G. "R=E9sister ou servir" homepage: