Re: a case-free language?

Chris Bates wrote:
> I find this answer quite interesting, because its something obvious I
> overlooked when I read the original post. :) From this point of view
> then something which merges with the noun its attached to can still be
> an adposition if it has scope over more than one NP (and isn't repeated)
> in coordinated structures? For instance, if I had
>
> -a- neutral
> -i- subject
> -u- object
>
> and these were inserted inside the word then -i- and -u- would still be
> adpositions if they follow your criteria (non-repetition)? Example:
>
> t-n = man
> f-r = woman
> sa = and
>
> tan sa fir (man and woman - subject)
> tan sa fur (man and woman - object)
> tin (man - subject)
> tun (man - object)
>
> This system satisfies the criteria you suggested for -i- and -u- to be
> adpositions, but they're not what I would think of as adpositions, since
> they're completely merged with the noun and can't be separated.
If it's phonologically merged with the word but governs a phrase,
wouldn't it be a clitic?

Reply