Re: a case-free language?

From:    Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...>
> 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
> [...]
> 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.
It does indeed satisfy that criterion, and that is the most important
one.  Nonetheless, the system you describe is rather dysfunctional.
Ablauting systems, which is basically what you are describing here, are
universally* affixal rather than clitic; there are few, if any,
known examples of clitics existing inside affixal or root material.
(See the works of Arnold Zwicky for more about this.) Thus, your example
amounts to saying that something is both a clitic and a bound affix at the
same time, which is a contradiction in terms.

* I am usually very wary of making strong claims like this, but in
this case, clitic ablaut runs against linguists' understanding of
affixation entirely, so it is to be accepted only with strong and
clear evidence to that end.

 =========================================================================
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