In the end I came up with a list of 21 cases:
- Nominative
- Accusative
- Dative
- Genitive
- Vocative
- Partitive
- Inessive
- Illative
- Elative
- Superessive
- Subessive
- Adessive
- Ablative
- Allative
- Translative
- Essive
- Excessive
- Instrumental
- Comitative
- Abessive
- Prolative
There can be elegance in simplicity, but there's also some in having more concise ways of expressing ideas (as with cases, as opposed to periphrastic constructions); of course, there's always mixing the two together, as Indo-European languages seem often to have done in the past, and some still do.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 3:49 pm I recently reduced the number of cases in my main conlang Old Albic from 10 to 4. Makes the whole thing much more elegant, I think.
I think it’s worth noting here that Finnic languages (and also Hungarian to some extent) have a fairly unique case system, where endings are arranged into triples of in/at/out cases: illative/inessive/elative, allative/adessive/ablative, and translative/essive/exessive (sometimes; the exessive is rare). Nakh–Daghestanian languages have a similar but less fusional system in their locatives. Given these examples, it may be useful to consider how your cases are arranged, especially since most of your cases are locatives.
Elegant, sure, but concise? Most of these cases are just replacing prepositions. Is "cheese-with" any more concise than "with cheese?"Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 6:31 pm There can be elegance in simplicity, but there's also some in having more concise ways of expressing ideas (as with cases, as opposed to periphrastic constructions)
The big reason you cannot call Finnic locative cases postpositions is that Finnic adjectives agree with their nouns with regard to case, which rules out calling them postpositions.bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 7:55 pmI think it’s worth noting here that Finnic languages (and also Hungarian to some extent) have a fairly unique case system, where endings are arranged into triples of in/at/out cases: illative/inessive/elative, allative/adessive/ablative, and translative/essive/exessive (sometimes; the exessive is rare). Nakh–Daghestanian languages have a similar but less fusional system in their locatives. Given these examples, it may be useful to consider how your cases are arranged, especially since most of your cases are locatives.
I also recall an interesting paper concluding that most Hungarian ‘cases’ are better analysed as fused postpositions. I can try finding it when I have time.
Whyever would this be an adposition? It’s obviously a case marker. At the very least, it still forms a grammatical word with the following noun. You put spaces between them, but that doesn’t change anything — it’s just orthographical trickery. (Something which is unfortunately all too common in this area.)Moose-tache wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:38 pm Now, you probably wouldn't say that option b) is an example of case rather than adposition simply because it works on the word layer and not the phrase layer. It's still adposition.
I’d say (1) is obviously an adposition, and (2) and (4) are obviously case. (3) is ambiguous, and will depend on the precise positioning of the element. e.g. if this language places articles after the noun:"blue mountains on" - obviously not case, but is it because of word formation or syntactic rank?
"blue on mountains on" - if this is case, then word formation doesn't matter
"blue mountains-on" - if this is case, then syntactic rank doesn't matter
"blue-on mountains-on" - obviously case, but is it because of word formation or syntactic rank?
I think you misunderstood me. Option B was the one where an independent word marks every content word in a phrase, like this: "on every on mountain there is a peak" or "with my with several with friends I went on a trip." In other words, the preposition appears with every word in the phrase, rather than being the head of the phrase.
Yes, I understood this just fine. What you describe is obviously a case-marker. There is literally no reason to analyse it otherwise. How, exactly, is your example different from something like “onevery onmountain there is a peak”, which everyone would agree is a case-marker? There is no difference, apart from the orthography, which is an unreliable guide at the best of times.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:23 amI think you misunderstood me. Option B was the one where an independent word marks every content word in a phrase, like this: "on every on mountain there is a peak" or "with my with several with friends I went on a trip." In other words, the preposition appears with every word in the phrase, rather than being the head of the phrase.
In English, no, but if your word for "cheese", and its comitative case construction, were both disyllables (say kaisu, kaise), but your word for "with" was also a disyllable (perhaps medo), and you could use the dative (say kaisa) + the preposition, kaise would be more concise than medo kaisa, or something to that effect. Even if the language looses a bunch of final syllables, vowel gradation (kjoüs, kjēs, kās) could still carry much weight of meaning, such that kjēs is still more concise than mød kās.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 8:38 pm Elegant, sure, but concise? Most of these cases are just replacing prepositions. Is "cheese-with" any more concise than "with cheese?"
This is also what I believe, but I would have never guessed in a million years that you were agreeing with this.bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:38 amYes, I understood this just fine. What you describe is obviously a case-marker. There is literally no reason to analyse it otherwise. How, exactly, is your example different from something like “onevery onmountain there is a peak”, which everyone would agree is a case-marker? There is no difference, apart from the orthography, which is an unreliable guide at the best of times.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:23 amI think you misunderstood me. Option B was the one where an independent word marks every content word in a phrase, like this: "on every on mountain there is a peak" or "with my with several with friends I went on a trip." In other words, the preposition appears with every word in the phrase, rather than being the head of the phrase.
Ah, I see. Apologies for misinterpreting you.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:58 am This is also what I believe, but I would have never guessed in a million years that you were agreeing with this.
I wouldn’t quite say ‘need’ here — rather, they may want to group cases. Plenty of languages get along just fine with no coherent organisation to their cases (although then again most languages don’t have 21 of them!). Still, it’s a useful thing to think about, as I mentioned earlier.
Yeah, "need" is a bit strong, but I'd advise it for sure :).bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 6:45 amI wouldn’t quite say ‘need’ here — rather, they may want to group cases. Plenty of languages get along just fine with no coherent organisation to their cases (although then again most languages don’t have 21 of them!). Still, it’s a useful thing to think about, as I mentioned earlier.
Is it this one? Afraid system won't let me attach a pdf.