Re: a case-free language?

From:    Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...>
> So... if something merges morphological with another word it can't be an
> adposition even if it satisfies your criteria? Then there are two
> criteria at least:
>
> (i) Not repeated for each NP in coordinate phrases
> (ii) Does not merge morphologically with another word
The first of these is the criterion that actually distinguishes cases
from postpositions; the second is only a practical concern not actually
related to case-marking as such, but to boundedness in morphology. Indeed,
while most case systems do involve bound morphemes, some good arguments
have been put forward that free forms, such as in Chamorro or other
related languages of the Pacific, can be cases rather than postpositions.
So, there is still only one crucial criterion.  The second is quite
orthogonal.

> Anyway.... *hums* I know you said its disfunctional and doesn't happen
> in natural languages, but I might make the equivalent of adpositions
> infixes that can have scope over more than one NP in my next language...
> I don't care if no speakers anywhere would actually do it.
Okay; do as you see fit.  But conlangers that seek linguistic naturalness
are advised to avoid such phenomena.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier	       "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637

Reply