Re: a case-free language?

Garth Wallace wrote:

> 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?
>
Possibly... *shrugs* But the adposition not being merged with one of the
words of the phrase wasn't one of the stated conditions... so if these
don't classify as adpositions (you could define adpositions and clitics
so there's some overlap I suppose), then it would seem there are at
least two conditions for something to be an adposition:

(i) Does not phonologically merge with any word of the phrase
(ii) In coordinate clauses, one instance governs all the noun phrases
rather than being repeated for each noun phrase.