Re: Cases, again

Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:
>
>
>>On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 06:30 AM, David Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mad Martin wrote (I mean no disrespect--I think it's a cool accident
>>>based on your e-mail!):
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've got another question regarding noun cases. In a situation where a
>>>>language has Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genitive, but no other
>>>>cases,
>>
>>Like Modern German or, if we disregard the vocative, like ancient Greek or
>>like Volapük (which enjoyed a spectacular tho brief success as an IAL
>>before being eclipsed by the two-case Esperanto). I'm certain there are
>>other examples.
>
>
> I think Common Germanic had NADG? Icelandic has at any rate, and the other
> North Germanic languages used to. Old English and Gothic too, IIRC.
>
>
>
>>>>Or should there be a
>>>>separate fifth case that is used in these situations, a sort of
>>>>catch-all, miscellaneous case?
>>
>>If the 5th case is a catch-all to be used without adpositions in all
>>situations where the other fours cases are not deemed appropriate, it will
>>be too ambiguous.
>
>
> Trebor's example of a one-adposition language nonewithstanding, a language
> simply has to be able to distinguish between things like "he sat in the house"
> and "he sat outside the house". If not by adpositions and/or case, you'll have
> to come up with something pretty clever.
Japanese uses nouns for more specific directions than just "to" and
"from". The Japanese equivalent of "into the box" translates more
literally as "to the inside of the box".