Section Added for Dative Case

I’ve added a new dedicated page for the dative case. Dedicated pages for all of the cases are to come in the future, eventually. 🙂 You can reach it as a sub-menu nested under Noun Case at the top of the screen. Alternatively, if you click on that same Noun Case button which will take you to the main Noun Case page which contains all the case tables, the dative case’s entry in its respective table is now also a link which can be clicked on to reach the page dedicated to that case. This will also be true eventually of all the other cases on all the tables on that page.

Some Thoughts on Cases VS Adpositions

Cases do not strictly have to cause declension or agreement in other parts of the sentence. Though that is extremely common, of course. They are not prepositions because they are not free morphs. They must attach to the word they modify, whereas prepositions might be able to move around the sentence. They are a completely different POS (part of speech), despite the fact that they do serve very similar purposes. They go about those purposes in different ways; they behave differently.

Because of the fact that they are bound morphs, that means that they are subject to assimilation at morpheme boundaries. That means that to the untrained eye, the case might seem to disappear entirely. Example: puällä+jat = puällåät (argument+ADVERBIAL = argumentatively). They can also cause the root to which they attach to change as well. Example: tei+hõl = tõhõl (you+DATIVE = for you). Prepositions will never do either of these things because…

If I’m not mistaken, prepositions are particles (or at the very least, they’re very particle-like) which essentially means that they cannot be inflected (again untrue of Duojjin’s cases, which themselves can become cased, and further derived into verbs). It means other stuff too, but that’s a major enough point to discredit the idea that they’re really postpositions (which, of course, play by the same rules as other adpositions).

Furthermore, languages that use case will generally require that more or less every noun must be marked for case in some way or another. You will never find (ANADEW me if I’m wrong, please) a language that demands that every noun be obligatorily paired with an adposition. That would be silly.

And the main reason for that silliness would be because case generally covers more purposes than adpositions, which means that case is going to be needed in more places than prepositions. The most obvious being the core cases like nominative, accusative, and dative. You’ll never find a preposition that marks for these things because there is no “position” here. Well, you will for dative, I guess. 😛 Is the argument denoted by the dative case even a core argument? Whatever. That’s not important now.

Because of all this, there’s a pretty good test to determine whether a case is a case. After you’ve applied it to a word… is it still in need of a case before it can be a legal word? If the answer is “yes”, then it’s not a case; it’s some other kind of morphological thing. Perhaps even a postposition! :O But if the answer is “no”, then you’ve obviously met the obligation of having at least one case applied to the word, indicating that it is, in fact, a case.

Another (perhaps lesser) point of interest is that prepositions tend to (as far as I’m aware) have far more different purposes per item. Like, any one preposition is likely to serve many more different functions within its language than any one case is likely to serve within its.

I recall that roughly (quite roughly) half of the world’s languages use case, and that also roughly half of the world’s languages don’t have grammatical agreement. There’s pretty much statistically bound to be overlap to be found between those two details.

I’m sure there are more differences that one could come up with between case and adpositions, but I think that these will do for now. 😛

Verbal Derivation Revision Pending…

I have realized that at least 36 of my derivational verb suffixes which derive stative verbs are obsolete and do not need to exist. The reason that they’re obsolete (or 24 of them, at least) is because the same thing can be said with an active verb that’s being derived from an essive, exessive, or translative noun. The other 12 are obsolete because I’ve realized that they’re not really distinctive forms, but rather just a modification of already existing forms. Technically, I already knew that it was a modification of already existing forms, but it was only able to modify one set (the plain set), so I still counted it. But I’ve now realized/decided that the same change (which creates a protractive aspect) can be done to every set, so they no longer deserve their own place on the chart.

I don’t have this derivational paradigm published to this website yet, so if you try to find it here, you won’t. 😛 At least not at the time of this writing. I will make another post when I do get around to publishing it, but I think I need to think about this for a while, because I will need to rebalance the rest of the paradigm after the loss of these 36 suffixes.

Noun Case section added

After nearly two weeks of working on it, I have finally added a section for noun case. It doesn’t have any links on it yet, but it does have a bunch of nifty tables. Each individual case will eventually have its own daughter page that goes into more detail, eventually.

New Section: Typology

A new Typology section has been added to the menu at the top of the page. This section contains information on morphosyntactic alignment. For the moment, I don’t know what else to say on it besides what I’ve said, but I’m pretty sure that I’ll re-read it at some point in the future, and realize through doing so what else I might want to say about it. So I predict that it will be edited in the future, but it’s off to a pretty good start, I think.

Oh, also, I’ve added a hopefully-nifty little subscribe/follow feature. I can’t imagine very many people actually using it, but hey, that’s a thing that’s there. 🙂